I don’t know about any ‘observable evidence’ or ‘sound reasoning’ in the matters they were ex-ed for–as I recall Margaret Tuscano advocated praying to Heavenly Mother instead of the Father, among other things. It was pure speculation on their part, which they went so far as to preach as doctrine at church venues, and say the leaders of the church were wrong to say otherwise. They refused to recant when given the opportunity, & put their criticism and complaints in the public forum. That is called apostasy by any standard. It is not that their ideas were reasonable, observable or dangerous, it was because they were patently false by LDS doctrinal standards. They are welcome to believe them and preach them if they want, but not to proclaim them as something they are not, or that they think they should be. So the church put them where they could do just that–on the outside.]]>
That’s a far cry from apostasy! In fact, the *ONLY* things that are church doctrine are the standard works and official statements by the First Presidency. Even most of the stuff that gets taught at General Conference is not official Church doctrine. That’s not to say that it’s not inspired, or that we’re not under an obligation to consider it the word of God. But official Church doctrine gets presented to the Church as such and there is an official motion to accept it as such.
So everyone is welcome to speculate to their heart’s content and publish it, as long as they mark it clearly as speculation, like Alma did while talking to Corianton about the first resurrection. And if the First Presidency tells you you’re wrong, then you’ve got a little more information than you did before.]]>
Click here for the talk.
Click here for a similar talk.]]>
I think the England incident had more to do with BRM’s ego than anything else.
I should add that Ballard did not call the article “apostasia” like we eventually did, in fact, he didn’t even say it was false per se, he just warned the missionaries that it did not represent the doctrine of the church. Apologies if I misrepresented that, which I think I probably did.]]>
As for the idea of independent intelligence particles, I sort of like some of his idea. I like the idea that “I” am which comes as a result of somehow being more than the sum of my parts (intelligence particles). I think it makes some sense. It also makes sense that like a snowball of intelligence “I” can become a completely new and more holy me by gathering more intelligence into the community of intelligence that is me.
Of course I am conflating the concept of intelligence particles (whatever that really means) and intelligence, as in knowledge, wisdom, truth light, etc. Obviously I don’t get it. But I like the implications so based on my current understanding of the subject.
If this basic model is workable it allows a model of eternity that I could start to understand. It also makes the idea of the “destruction of the soul” make a lot more sense. That might really mean the de-construction of the soul, or separating of (some or all) the particles that once made the whole of a person. That would be outer darkness indeed for that former soul; a recycling of sorts.
(Sorry – I’m thinking out loud here. Maybe I’ll post on this tonight)]]>
Of course I would guess that we might never know what goes on behind the scenes. That said, there seem to be contradictory ideas being given to the membership.]]>