Joseph Antley's Apostasy from the Church

[_Runtu]

Disagree. To use Christianity as the focal point for intellectuals leaving the LDS church misses the real issues, which are issues specific to Mormonism.

I have no idea what you mean here. I'm not talking about focal points; Joseph was talking about the degree of heterodoxy allowed within the church. I gave the Flood as an example of a doctrine one can disagree on and not get in trouble with the LDS church. Not sure what you mean about missing the "real issues."

Joseph, you know a lot about seer stones and money digging. While we disagree regarding the occult aspect of money diggers, most LDS don't have any idea that the Book of Mormon was translated with seer stones placed in Joseph Smith's stove-pipe hat, or the source of where those seer stones came from. When you reference critical thought as the reason intellectuals leave the LDS faith, it would have been honest to write about the real issues, like the incorrect translation of the Book of Abraham, polygamy, white and delightsome doctrine, etc.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said in my response. You're quite correct that most Mormons don't know about such issues, and in my experience, bringing any of them up, especially in a church setting, tends not to go too well. The bottom line for me is that, if you disagree with the church on core issues, you are expected to keep your mouth shut. I suspect you would agree with me on that.

[_RockSlider]

The bottom line for me is that, if you disagree with the church on core issues, you are expected to keep your mouth shut. I suspect you would agree with me on that.

It was not that far back that lack of silence was a sure path to disciplinary action. It does seem this has softened.

[_Runtu]

It was not that far back that lack of silence was a sure path to disciplinary action. It does seem this has softened.

One would hope so.

[_thews]

Disagree. To use Christianity as the focal point for intellectuals leaving the LDS church misses the real issues, which are issues specific to Mormonism.

I have no idea what you mean here. I'm not talking about focal points; Joseph was talking about the degree of heterodoxy allowed within the church. I gave the Flood as an example of a doctrine one can disagree on and not get in trouble with the LDS church. Not sure what you mean about missing the "real issues."

I'm not offering my opinions on what you posted and what you meant, but rather what Joseph wrote and you commented on. To use Noah's flood as an example of why intellectuals leave the LDS faith is missing the point in my opinion. The LDS faith is rooted in specific LDS doctrine which has obvious holes that one must ignore to continue to believe, and the LDS church hides this information from them (head-in-hat with seer stones). What I find interesting is how much is hidden from most LDS, which is why I commented on the lack of the most troubling issues with Mormon doctrine in Joseph's article.

Joseph, you know a lot about seer stones and money digging. While we disagree regarding the occult aspect of money diggers, most LDS don't have any idea that the Book of Mormon was translated with seer stones placed in Joseph Smith's stove-pipe hat, or the source of where those seer stones came from. When you reference critical thought as the reason intellectuals leave the LDS faith, it would have been honest to write about the real issues, like the incorrect translation of the Book of Abraham, polygamy, white and delightsome doctrine, etc.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said in my response. You're quite correct that most Mormons don't know about such issues, and in my experience, bringing any of them up, especially in a church setting, tends not to go too well. The bottom line for me is that, if you disagree with the church on core issues, you are expected to keep your mouth shut. I suspect you would agree with me on that.

I do agree, but it's not the point I was attempting to make. To argue issues that include Christian beliefs is ignoring the real issues with the LDS faith... they are not the same. To your point that Noah's flood is a "good example" of why intellectuals leave the LDS faith is different than what one does about issues they disagree with. Seer stones in hat along with an incorrectly translated pagan papyrus are better examples of troubling LDS issues, as they can be argued with factual data specific to the LDS faith.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think it'd be interesting if Mr. Antley would list the Mormon doctrines he doesn't believe... Say, the top 25. Then list the top 25 doctrines with which he agrees. That might be helpful in order to understand his brand of skepticism.

[_Runtu]

I'm not offering my opinions on what you posted and what you meant, but rather what Joseph wrote and you commented on. To use Noah's flood as an example of why intellectuals leave the LDS faith is missing the point in my opinion. The LDS faith is rooted in specific LDS doctrine which has obvious holes that one must ignore to continue to believe, and the LDS church hides this information from them (head-in-hat with seer stones). What I find interesting is how much is hidden from most LDS, which is why I commented on the lack of the most troubling issues with Mormon doctrine in Joseph's article.

I suspect that a lot of people recognize that there are a lot of troubling issues, and they probably recognize just how problematic they are, but they soldier on anyway. I know I couldn't keep up the shelf long-term, but other people can. Are things "hidden"? Most definitely some stuff is (I wrote, for example, a blog post on how the church officially explains the suspension of the Relief Society, which completely obscures the real reasons), which is why so many people are shocked when they find out the unsanitized truth. I take Joseph at his word that he finds the real history to be uplifting, but most people do not.

I do agree, but it's not the point I was attempting to make. To argue issues that include Christian beliefs is ignoring the real issues with the LDS faith... they are not the same. To your point that Noah's flood is a "good example" of why intellectuals leave the LDS faith is different than what one does about issues they disagree with. Seer stones in hat along with an incorrectly translated pagan papyrus are better examples of troubling LDS issues, as they can be argued with factual data specific to the LDS faith.

I didn't say it was a good example of why people leave the church. I said it was a good example of an issue that believers can and do discount without consequence. Joseph's question was about the limits of heterodoxy within the church. The Flood is a Mormon doctrine and Christian doctrine. Seer stones, not so much.

[_thews]

I didn't say it was a good example of why people leave the church. I said it was a good example of an issue that believers can and do discount without consequence. Joseph's question was about the limits of heterodoxy within the church. The Flood is a Mormon doctrine and Christian doctrine. Seer stones, not so much.

A good example of people openly rejecting Mormon doctrine is D&C 132. While women typically have an issue with plural marriage, Stem was one male LDS member who openly rejected it. It's not an easy issue to tap dance around, as it specifically states rejecting this covenant will result in being damned. Liz and harmony both reject this covenant, so belief that they are not damned for doing so must be juggled with what they supposedly do believe regarding the doctrine of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. LDS.org does what most Mormon sites do, which is to avoid what the covenant actually encompasses, which is polygamy in Mormon heaven.

http://LDS.org/scriptures/gs/new-and-ev ... t?lang=eng

[_Gadianton]

My knowledge of history and science, my rational mind, the teachings of the prophets, and the inspiration from the Spirit seem to be the perfect combination for deducing personal truth while reading the scriptures.

No matter what science uncovers, no matter the prophets teach, and no matter what Jiminy Cricket whispers, there is one constant in the universe: Joseph Antley will always be right. Personal truth can't exactly be wrong. An intellectual life without any risk.

[_Willy Law]

Hey Joseph,
So you do not believe the flood was literal, what about the Tower of Babel? You have to believe that was a literal event right?

[_LDSToronto]

Joe, come on. You've taken no intellectual risk in this blog post. The flood? Jonah and the whale? Those are your examples of skepticism? Those are your examples of opposing the brethren with intellectual rigour?

Sigh.

You fail to realize that these are "meh" issues. Disagreeing with these stories is no more risky than drinking Diet Coke at the ward picnic.

Want to test your mettle? Take on a real issue - women and the priesthood, same-sex marriage in the church, masonic origins of the temple rites - anything that will challenge commonly held beliefs amongst the leadership hierarchy of the church.

Oh, and this line is priceless - "But if the Church is true (which I believe it is), then there should be no danger in examining it critically. In fact we should expect only positive outcomes from such an examination."

Joe, this might impress the edgy co-eds at BYU, but if you're going to be taken seriously, your next article better not be about Balaam's talking donkey.

H.