The Internet has exposed many Latter-day Saints to anti-Mormon arguments and claims for the very first time. Consequently, LDS apologists have brought their defenses online in order to counteract or minimize the critics’ influence. Yet in the process of neutralizing such “attacks,” have the apologists inadvertently redefined the role and relevance of the prophets and, by extension, Mormonism itself? Does “Mormonism” as defined by the apologists and imbibed by faithful Web-surfing Mormons correspond to “Mormonism” as defined by the average member in the pews? What are the main points where “Internet Mormons” differ from “Chapel Mormons”? How are these differences playing out in LDS chapels, seminaries, and institutes today? How might things change even more as greater numbers of Latter-day Saints become aware of the criticisms and defenses (which often involve shifts in basic understandings or approaches to questions)?

Michael J. Stevens, Jason Gallentine, Scot Denhalter, Michael Ash, Kristine Haglund Harris