Chapel Mormonism

[Anonymous]

Even if I decide at some point to give up a temple recommend, I don’t see myself leaving the LDS Church – unless something happens that completely destroys my desire to attend. Mormons are my tribe, and I can do a lot of good for people in my area by continuing to attend. I haven’t attended for me in quite a while; I attend for others.

If I am being completely honest, I also see myself drifting off and completely wasting Sunday if I stop going to church – from a service standpoint. I know myself well enough to know I would sit around the house and be a hermit – and I don’t want that. I want to help other people in my tribe, and being involved in church is the best way to do that.

So, yes, I would be comfortable being a chapel Mormon, especially if my job continued to keep me from serving in a Sunday calling, as it does currently.

[Anonymous]

Surprised to hear that tithing requirement re: CoC. I had once been interested in them and visited a couple of meetings years ago (might’ve been in Independence, when I was also looking into the Restoration Branches too right about the time of some split.) Hadn’t learned or been told of anything like that. They might be willing to let go of many if not most relics of Mormonism and the early church, but I guess there are limits 🙂

Since it mentions net worth as the basis for the calculation, technically if you owe more in debt, such as a mortgage, than you have in assets you would have a net worth as zero (or less, an unsettling thought for most of us in that position)

I doubt if they actually check up on it though or make you show tax returns, etc. so someone could probably fudge it if necessary. I did that for a while, when involved with the LDS, but it doesn’t always work on a savvy bishop (maybe it would’ve helped if I hadn’t given him an exaggerated wink when I responded to the question)

[Anonymous]

felixfabulous wrote:

Thank you for all of the replies and for sharing your experience. I have a relative who left the Church about three years ago and went to his bishop recently and said he would like to come back and participate as a non-believing member and purely on a social level. The bishop basically, said no.

That is one of the worst things (I mean aside from abuse, etc.) I’ve ever heard of a bishop doing. What a jerk! And hey, since when did anybody ever need a bishop’s permission to attend LDS church meetings? Now I’ve heard it all.

[Anonymous]

Re-reading this thread, I’m not even sure I understand what “chapel Mormonism” is. Could somebody help me out?

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

Re-reading this thread, I’m not even sure I understand what “chapel Mormonism” is. Could somebody help me out?

I think it’s a good question and I bet we each have at least slightly different definitions.

My definition is something like chapel Mormons are people who aren’t necessarily all in, may have doubts or outright unbeliefs, may or may not really participate, and/or might be there purely for social reasons. That said, a fair number of us here probably qualify. But that’s just my definition. And FWIW, if you asked me 25 years ago my definition would probably have been different. I think many years ago I heard a definition that would have described the more active as chapel Mormons – people who were there all the time. I don’t think that definition applies to this thread.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Katzpur wrote:

Re-reading this thread, I’m not even sure I understand what “chapel Mormonism” is. Could somebody help me out?

I think it’s a good question and I bet we each have at least slightly different definitions.

My definition is something like chapel Mormons are people who aren’t necessarily all in, may have doubts or outright unbeliefs, may or may not really participate, and/or might be there purely for social reasons. That said, a fair number of us here probably qualify. But that’s just my definition. And FWIW, if you asked me 25 years ago my definition would probably have been different. I think many years ago I heard a definition that would have described the more active as chapel Mormons – people who were there all the time. I don’t think that definition applies to this thread.

Thanks. That’s interesting to me because a “chapel Mormon” is probably the last term I’d use to describe myself, and the last place on earth I’d go for “social reasons” is church. I still believe much of the doctrine (at least the basic stuff), but my desire to hang out with people who look at the world from such a narrow perspective as I often see in LDS congregations is practically nil. It’s all I can do to try to have a simple dialogue with a lot of these folks. I’m just not where they are right now. I have no plans whatsoever to leave the Church, and I have plenty of reasons for staying. It’s just that none of them include “social reasons” and it’s honestly kind of hard for me to really understand what people like those of us who post on stayLDS find to connect them socially to the average member of the Church.

[Anonymous]

Based on what has been said in this thread, I think it could be a synonym for cafeteria Mormon or cultural Mormon.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Based on what has been said in this thread, I think it could be a synonym for cafeteria Mormon or cultural Mormon.

To me, a cafeteria Mormon and a cultural Mormon are not the same at all. To me, a cafeteria Mormon simply rejects whatever Church doctrines don’t sit right with him, while retaining a fairly strong belief in other aspects of the faith. Plus, he is able to live with his conscience just fine. He doesn’t feel the need to believe everything. (That kind of describes me.) I see a cultural Mormon as the person who really couldn’t care less whether “the Church is true” or not. He just goes along for the ride because he enjoys the company of other Mormons. And then there’s the Jack Mormon. A lot of people see the Jack Mormon as an ex-Mormon who is somewhat antagonistic to the Church, but mostly just lives and lets live. To me, it’s a totally inactive Mormon who is actually pretty neutral in his feelings about the Church.

It’s funny, but I’ve never really thought about the specifics of what these terms mean. I kind of assumed we were all pretty much on the same page with regards to our definitions, but I guess not.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

That’s interesting to me because a “chapel Mormon” is probably the last term I’d use to describe myself, and the last place on earth I’d go for “social reasons” is church. I still believe much of the doctrine (at least the basic stuff), but my desire to hang out with people who look at the world from such a narrow perspective as I often see in LDS congregations is practically nil. It’s all I can do to try to have a simple dialogue with a lot of these folks. I’m just not where they are right now.

I understand what you’re saying. For the most part, I feel the same way. There are a number of people in my ward that I can talk to openly

about what I believe. Or, ask questions about their views about various subjects or topics. It has taken a while to develop these relationships,

but it has been well worth it to keep my sanity. If my only conversations at church were “simple dialogues” I would quickly be driven crazy.

In the long run, I would prefer to do something else on Sunday.

My only suggestion is to try and find one person in the coming year, that you can develop a dialogue with. You will be surprised who they are.

Some are in leadership positions. There are people like us in every ward, I believe. Happy hunting!

[Anonymous]

Katzpur,

Yes they are different and I agree with your definitions. I’m just saying that I’ve heard aspects of both described in the original post.

D’oh. Now that I went back to the original post I see a definition for chapel Mormonism there:

felixfabulous wrote:

My wife was discussing our approach with a friend who had resigned from the Church 5 years ago. She was not at all surprised and said that she thought this approach was the overall trend she was seeing with people she knew and their children who were choosing to stay in the Church. They were fine not having a temple recommend and lots of people didn’t wear garments and drank coffee. From Jana Reiss’ survey, this seems to be more common, at least the coffee part. I’ve heard this called chapel Mormonism (not super interested in the temple, but go to Church and are involved on Sundays). I’m curious what other people are seeing out there. Do you know many chapel Mormons? Are we flying under the radar? Is this group growing? How will the Church respond? Relaxing temple standards or doubling down and trying to make it harder to be a chapel Mormon?

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

Thanks. That’s interesting to me because a “chapel Mormon” is probably the last term I’d use to describe myself, and the last place on earth I’d go for “social reasons” is church. I still believe much of the doctrine (at least the basic stuff), but my desire to hang out with people who look at the world from such a narrow perspective as I often see in LDS congregations is practically nil. It’s all I can do to try to have a simple dialogue with a lot of these folks. I’m just not where they are right now. I have no plans whatsoever to leave the Church, and I have plenty of reasons for staying. It’s just that none of them include “social reasons” and it’s honestly kind of hard for me to really understand what people like those of us who post on stayLDS find to connect them socially to the average member of the Church.

I hear you regarding social reasons and church being the last place you’d go for social reasons – me too! BUT, I think a fair number of the people in my ward who are there every Sunday or most Sundays are really there just to socialize – if not, I don’t know why they are there because they clearly don’t have any kind of testimony of Jesus Christ, His atonement, grace, or even works. For that matter, it’s not clear they have a testimony of the BoM of “know this gospel is true.” The saddest thing about them from my point of view is they’re there for social reasons because they have no other socialization or friends. They were also some of the first ones back, vaccination or not. They need church mostly because it is their (pathetic 😈 ) social life.

I think there is another segment who fit a little bit different definition of social reasons, maybe more of a “social pressure” thing. Family, close friends, etc., who they don’t want to alienate or cause rifts with. For them church might not be their primary means of socialization but they are part of the tribe and want to keep that connection. And for them I think it’s likely they’re there for other reasons as well – maybe they do have a testimony of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper or they have a need/desire for a temple recommend to be able to participate in things that are meaningful to them (family weddings, missionary endowments, etc.).

But I’m with you Katzpur. I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek but it has an element of truth – I don”t really like most of the people there. It’s not that they’re not nice people or anything like that, but they’re not the type of people I would choose to socialize with. In all honesty they probably don’t like me, either, and I’m OK with that. And I don’t need the ward picnic or Christmas party where I have to play nice either – if I go to those it’s only to feel as though I’m getting some return on my tithing investment.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

But I’m with you Katzpur. I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek but it has an element of truth – I don”t really like most of the people there. It’s not that they’re not nice people or anything like that, but they’re not the type of people I would choose to socialize with. In all honesty they probably don’t like me, either, and I’m OK with that. And I don’t need the ward picnic or Christmas party where I have to play nice either – if I go to those it’s only to feel as though I’m getting some return on my tithing investment.

:thumbup: I would happily socialize with you, DarkJedi! Wish you lived in Utah.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

But I’m with you Katzpur. I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek but it has an element of truth – I don”t really like most of the people there. It’s not that they’re not nice people or anything like that, but they’re not the type of people I would choose to socialize with. In all honesty they probably don’t like me, either, and I’m OK with that. And I don’t need the ward picnic or Christmas party where I have to play nice either – if I go to those it’s only to feel as though I’m getting some return on my tithing investment.

:thumbup: I would happily socialize with you, DarkJedi! Wish you lived in Utah.

I’m glad I don’t live in Utah! 😆 I do visit though. If I did live there I’d likely socialize with you also but the same way I do with the few I socialize with here – outside church.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Katzpur wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

But I’m with you Katzpur. I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek but it has an element of truth – I don”t really like most of the people there. It’s not that they’re not nice people or anything like that, but they’re not the type of people I would choose to socialize with. In all honesty they probably don’t like me, either, and I’m OK with that. And I don’t need the ward picnic or Christmas party where I have to play nice either – if I go to those it’s only to feel as though I’m getting some return on my tithing investment.

:thumbup: I would happily socialize with you, DarkJedi! Wish you lived in Utah.

I’m glad I don’t live in Utah! 😆 I do visit though. If I did live there I’d likely socialize with you also but the same way I do with the few I socialize with here – outside church.

Well, the next time you’re planning to be here for a few days, let me know and we can grab a bite for lunch. I’ll bring my husband as a chaperone.

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me that the term “chapel Mormons” has different meanings to different people and thusly can be problematic to use in communication.

felixfabulous wrote:

I’ve heard this called chapel Mormonism (not super interested in the temple, but go to Church and are involved on Sundays).

I have heard of this description for chapel mormonism before. It is a distinguisher from “temple mormonism”. I have heard old-timer to describe this as “High Church” vs. “Low Church” to refer to the differences in the VERY scripted temple experience with a heavy emphasis on ritual vs. the more freeform and protestant like SM experience. This is part of the reason that sometimes people are so shocked and uncomfortable with the temple, it is just so different from everything that they had come to know about what Mormonism is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_church

In that context chapel Mormons could just be people that derive more of their LDS connections to attending the ward than by attending the temple.

felixfabulous wrote:

My wife was discussing our approach with a friend who had resigned from the Church 5 years ago. She was not at all surprised and said that she thought this approach was the overall trend she was seeing with people she knew and their children who were choosing to stay in the Church. They were fine not having a temple recommend and lots of people didn’t wear garments and drank coffee. From Jana Reiss’ survey, this seems to be more common, at least the coffee part. I’ve heard this called chapel Mormonism (not super interested in the temple, but go to Church and are involved on Sundays).

I think that the way that felix is using chapel mormonism is probably closer to how I understand cafeteria mormons or cultural mormons. Particularly the part about drinking coffee or not wearing garments. I suppose my personification of a “chapel mormon” would be someone that loves the day to day and week to week experience of being mormon but not really the temple parts. I would assume that this person could be just as regular about wearing garments (if they had been endowed) or not drinking coffee as the “temple Mormons.”

[Author]

Posts