Is NAMIRS/FAIR 'big enough' for Joseph Antley?

[_sock puppet]

A most interesting progression is beginning to unfold before us. It is the metamorphosis of Joseph Antley. But into what remains to be seen.

In his apologetic piece he's penned and posted on his blog, and here on MDB directed our attention, he takes on the literal flood teaching.

I worry that anti-intellectualism among common members of the Church sometimes pushes critical thinkers out of the Church or suppresses them into cultural Mormonism (where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church).

More telling than his comments about the flood though, is how he has begun to blame the common, non-intellectual Mormons for causing critical thinking Mormons to lose faith. The 'crime' of these common Mormons: believing Mormon orthodoxy, and not listening to and engaging in heresy.

This disdain for 'common' Mormons is a familiar step taken by budding mopologists that might be headed for the elitist rah-rah tent known as NAMIRS. But not all that take this step, who have developed this disdain for 'common' Mormons, continues in the direction leading to NAMIRS. Consider LoaP, for example. It seems he may have veered off, not kept his hand tightly gripping the rod that leads to NAMIRS.

Joseph Antley's days of attending Mormon services on Sundays, beaming in the glow of all those other freshly scrubbed faces and the rapture of genuine brotherhood are now gone and likely irretrievable. Now, he looks down the pews and what does he see? Whos in Whoville.

[_Joseph Antley]

A most interesting progression is beginning to unfold before us. It is the metamorphosis of Joseph Antley. But into what remains to be seen.

...

Joseph Antley's days of attending Mormon services on Sundays, beaming in the glow of all those other freshly scrubbed faces and the rapture of genuine brotherhood are now gone and likely irretrievable. Now, he looks down the pews and what does he see? Whos in Whoville

While we all know I revel in attention, it should be pointed out that the blog post in question was originally posted almost two years ago -- so these NMO elitist views of mine have been out there since most of my lifetime on this message board.

[_sock puppet]

So, no explanation. No claim that your statements have been taken out of context. No denials of your elitist attitudes towards other Mormons, those that believe what issues out from the Brethren/COB.

Just pointing out that it has been at least two years now that you've held your elitist views, and blame the 'common' members for critical thinking Mormons losing their belief. Nothing more, huh?

[_Drifting]

Joseph Antley said...

I worry that anti-intellectualism among common members of the Church sometimes pushes critical thinkers out of the Church or suppresses them into cultural Mormonism (where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church).

I think he is right to worry and I agree with his statement.

Critical thinkers (and critical questioners) are frowned upon in the Church.
Members see people like that as not part of the flock, rebellious, not righteously compliant etc.
In lessons, this type of critical questioner is not likely to be met with encouragement. Rather the opposite. His questions and challenges and debates will be reported to the Bishop and he will be 'encouraged' to pipe down and get his testimony in order.

A Stake President of mine told me very specifically that once I had been through the Temple I no longer had the right to question things. I was to be obedient and compliant wether I agreed with the statements etc or not.

Critical thinkers are indeed pushed out and supressed into cultural Mormons.
I know, because I am one.

[_sock puppet]

Joseph Antley said...

I worry that anti-intellectualism among common members of the Church sometimes pushes critical thinkers out of the Church or suppresses them into cultural Mormonism (where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church).

I think he is right to worry and I agree with his statement.

Critical thinkers (and critical questioners) are frowned upon in the Church.
Members see people like that as not part of the flock, rebellious, not righteously compliant etc.
In lessons, this type of critical questioner is not likely to be met with encouragement. Rather the opposite. His questions and challenges and debates will be reported to the Bishop and he will be 'encouraged' to pipe down and get his testimony in order.

A Stake President of mine told me very specifically that once I had been through the Temple I no longer had the right to question things. I was to be obedient and compliant wether I agreed with the statements etc or not.

Critical thinkers are indeed pushed out and supressed into cultural Mormons.
I know, because I am one.

Critical thinking is an anathema to obedience. The Church encourages obedience over any thinking. E.g., 'When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.'

While I have no doubt both you, Drifiting, and Joseph Antley have been shunned culturally by the Chapel Mormons, they are doing what they are because that is what the Brethren/COB want. It is not as if the scriptures, the correlated materials and the GC talks elevate thinking above or even put it on the same high plane of importance that obedience is harkened by them.

Quite frankly, the Chapel Mormons are the ones that are doing what the Brethren/COB want them. The critical thinkers are not.

What I find disingenuous about Antley's remark is that he tries to deflect blame away from the Brethren/COB and off onto those following the advice and counsel of the Brethren/COB for why critical thinking is not accepted in the Church. This is a top-down, not a bottom-up, problem.

[_Drifting]

Sock, I see what you are saying and certainly the leadership of the Church have culpability.
But that doesn't excuse local (better word than common) members, who are adults and capable of thinking and knowing better than to shun. For instance - an investigator asking the exact same questions would be embraced and encouraged. The Church leadership doesn't teach local members to treat investigators and critical thinking members differently. Local members come to that conclusion themselves. They could and should know better.

[_sock puppet]

Sock, I see what you are saying and certainly the leadership of the Church have culpability.
But that doesn't excuse local (better word than common) members, who are adults and capable of thinking and knowing better than to shun. For instance - an investigator asking the exact same questions would be embraced and encouraged. The Church leadership doesn't teach local members to treat investigators and critical thinking members differently. Local members come to that conclusion themselves. They could and should know better.

Should that local leader do what the Brethren/COB instruct and discourage dissent and dissenting views? Those local leaders are instructed to meet with and call to repentance anyone of their ward/stake members that the leaders learn are expressing views inconsistent with the Brethren/COB.

In fact, If I recall correctly, in September 1993, the Brethren/COB gave instruction to the local leaders of six individuals to excommunicate them for having the audacity to buck the Brethren/COB and expressed dissident views. Yes, the local leaders are thinking adults--that have been put in those local leadership positions because of their loyalty to the Brethren/COB and not expressing or suffering others to express those dissident views.

As for the different treatment of investigators and members, there are many instances. And this comes with sanction from the Missionary Department in SLC. The idea is that learning to be obedient takes time; members should already be there; investigators are just starting down that path and can be excused more than members will be.

[_Drifting]

Sock, I see what you are saying and certainly the leadership of the Church have culpability.
But that doesn't excuse local (better word than common) members, who are adults and capable of thinking and knowing better than to shun. For instance - an investigator asking the exact same questions would be embraced and encouraged. The Church leadership doesn't teach local members to treat investigators and critical thinking members differently. Local members come to that conclusion themselves. They could and should know better.

Should that local leader do what the Brethren/COB instruct and discourage dissent and dissenting views? Those local leaders are instructed to meet with and call to repentance anyone of their ward/stake members that the leaders learn are expressing views inconsistent with the Brethren/COB.

In fact, If I recall correctly, in September 1993, the Brethren/COB gave instruction to the local leaders of six individuals to excommunicate them for having the audacity to buck the Brethren/COB and expressed dissident views. Yes, the local leaders are thinking adults--that have been put in those local leadership positions because of their loyalty to the Brethren/COB and not expressing or suffering others to express those dissident views.

As for the different treatment of investigators and members, there are many instances. And this comes with sanction from the Missionary Department in Salt Lake City. The idea is that learning to be obedient takes time; members should already be there; investigators are just starting down that path and can be excused more than members will be.

Yes, I do get what you are saying and I do not disagree with you.
All I'm saying is that regardless of what senior and local leaders say - local members have a God given obligation and requirement to think and act for themselves.
I don't think the leaders should be excused culpability, nor do I think local members should be excused the same culpability.

[_sock puppet]

Sock, I see what you are saying and certainly the leadership of the Church have culpability.
But that doesn't excuse local (better word than common) members, who are adults and capable of thinking and knowing better than to shun. For instance - an investigator asking the exact same questions would be embraced and encouraged. The Church leadership doesn't teach local members to treat investigators and critical thinking members differently. Local members come to that conclusion themselves. They could and should know better.

Should that local leader do what the Brethren/COB instruct and discourage dissent and dissenting views? Those local leaders are instructed to meet with and call to repentance anyone of their ward/stake members that the leaders learn are expressing views inconsistent with the Brethren/COB.

In fact, If I recall correctly, in September 1993, the Brethren/COB gave instruction to the local leaders of six individuals to excommunicate them for having the audacity to buck the Brethren/COB and expressed dissident views. Yes, the local leaders are thinking adults--that have been put in those local leadership positions because of their loyalty to the Brethren/COB and not expressing or suffering others to express those dissident views.

As for the different treatment of investigators and members, there are many instances. And this comes with sanction from the Missionary Department in Salt Lake City. The idea is that learning to be obedient takes time; members should already be there; investigators are just starting down that path and can be excused more than members will be.

Yes, I do get what you are saying and I do not disagree with you.
All I'm saying is that regardless of what senior and local leaders say - local members have a God given obligation and requirement to think and act for themselves.
I don't think the leaders should be excused culpability, nor do I think local members should be excused the same culpability.

JSJr thought that each of us have a god-given right to receive revelations, but then when he saw where that was going, he had to make it hierarchical and insist that only he, the prophet, had the right of revelation for the church. What culture you and Antley are speaking of are ward and auxillary functions. The Brethren/COB want the correlated versions taught, not critical analysis. The local leaders are mere local functionaries of a church controlled by the Brethren/COB. When the local leaders are piping down dissent, they are merely doing the Brethren/COB's bidding for them.

[_Drifting]

JSJr thought that each of us have a god-given right to receive revelations, but then when he saw where that was going, he had to make it hierarchical and insist that only he, the prophet, had the right of revelation for the church. What culture you and Antley are speaking of are ward and auxillary functions. The Brethren/COB want the correlated versions taught, not critical analysis. The local leaders are mere local functionaries of a church controlled by the Brethren/COB. When the local leaders are piping down dissent, they are merely doing the Brethren/COB's bidding for them.

Agreed.