I think that a lot of Mormon Studies that removes the barnacles that have been added to Joseph Smith’s experience is good and worthy. More power to those who seek the truth. But I cannot go further. His own testimony of the provenance of The Book of Mormon, his subsequent revelations and the experience of the church are irrefutable and irreducible. I accept it part and parcel.

“If you can accept Christ, Joseph Smith is easy. ”

Speechless. But then again it speaks volumes. And illustrates why those intellectual apostates exist in the first place.

Mom: Elsewhere you have written about what you have called suspicion of intimate enemies. Calling you harmless is my way of saying that I don’t think that the path you have taken makes you an enemy, intimate or otherwise. Rather, I have in mind Paul’s counsel that the believers are to be subtle but harmless. It strikes me that unbelief (or alternative belief if you wish) can have the same virtue of subtle harmlessness. If it makes you feel better, I think of you as harmless in a very cool, hip, edgy kind of way ;->

For the record, I fully agree with J. Stapley’s statement that my mom is a fabulous woman. As for J. Stapley’s question, I fear that the answer is probably that I was a jerk, but not because of any special knowledge of Mormonism. I just have jerk-like tendencies, I am affraid.

So it isn’t your acceptance of the AG theory that puts you on the high road to apostasy, but rather the insistance of our leaders that you shouldn’t accept the AG theory, right?

Sorry, you were wide open for that Mark. ;>)

Actually, the adam-god theory isn’t a closed book for me either. I’m not saying that I know precisely how it ought to fit in our theology, but on the other hand I can’t dismiss it out-right because of some of the ways it does seem to fit–not to mention BY’s confidence in the theory which is not something to be taken lightly, IMO. That said, I think its only proper that we should tread very carefully with regard to such things. I think the brethren have very good reasons for keeping such “doctrines” at a distance from the church.

The A/G “doctrine” (as BY called it) is one of the things that keeps me in, too. Not because it’s interesting baggage, but because I have come to accept it (or, my understanding of it, which may not be the same as anyone else’s understanding of it) as true.

If there’s anything that comes close to driving me from the Church, it’s the seeming insistance by the leadership that any insinuation that some portion of A/G just might be correct doctrine (given how well it fits in with doctrines espoused by Joseph Smith and doctrines taught in the temple, IMO) is on the “high road to apostasy”.

In my experience “apostasy” (since that is the term Nate uses to describe my status) is much closer to belief than most of the discussion in this thread allows. I know that I see more continuity than discontinuity in my life. At some mysterious point along a path followed in good faith as a believer and a seeker, there was a sea change in the way my heart and soul and head put the world together. Some of my dearest friends on that same path with me experienced the same mysterious sea change. Others didn’t. I’ve always resisted anyone with easy answers to explain why one path and not the other.

I guess the thing that bothers some of us is the close and causal relationship you assert between “intellectual” and “doubter.”

http://www.theintellectualviewpoint.com/reading/thinkingasahobby-williamgolding.pdf

I’ve often meant to write a parallel essay in the LDS context. The problem is that I think I’d end up just like he did, making obvious fun of grades 1 and 2 and then finishing with a vague something or other about grade 3. The extent of Mormon Studies in my life (despite my better intentions to read the books many of you have and have even listed from time to time) is the bloggernacle. I think what I’m really on the lookout for, is grade 3 thinking, if it exists. However, the posts I enjoy the most are the grade 2 posts. Sometimes I think grade 2 thinkers stick around just for the fun of making collective fun of the grade 1 folks and to try and create “aha” moments.

I often wonder if any of the serious “intellectual” doubters of the Joseph Smith experience and calling have a testimony that Christ is the Son of God. If you can accept Christ, Joseph Smith is easy.

I sympathize a little with your feelings about “intellectuals”. But I can’t say that without acknowledging that most of the time I am out of my depth on these kinds of blogs. Be that as it may, I judge better things of you and agree with Jim in that this argument seems to be boiling down to word meanings. I recomend an essay by Elder Oaks called “Reason and Revelation” (perhaps you’ve read it already). It’s found in his book “The Lord’s Way”.

The main point I get from his essay is that the exercise of reason is critical in the revelatory process but must positioned correctly with respect to revelation.

E. Oaks suggests that reason ought to have the “first word” thereby serving as a threshold check against spurious revelation and unecessary procedures in the revelatory process. He goes on to say that revelation ought to have the “last word” thus maintaining loyalty to the primacy of revelation.

Perhaps I’m beating a dead horse. Sorry if I am–just some thoughts.

PS. shouldn’t your name by “texasfiddler”? Our is adding the word “violinist” to “texas” a manifestation of the intellectual within you? ;>)