Joseph Antley's Apostasy from the Church

[_Dr. Shades]

This is a very dangerous road you've begun traveling, young Antley.

You've already admitted that the Flood was a temporal baptism of the earth by sprinkling and not by immersion, contra the prophets. Please tell us: Which other of the Lord's teachings, through his mouthpieces the prophets, are in fact false?

[_sock puppet]

This is a very dangerous road you've begun traveling, young Antley.

You've already admitted that the Flood was a temporal baptism of the earth by sprinkling and not by immersion, contra the prophets. Please tell us: Which other of the Lord's teachings, through his mouthpieces the prophets, are in fact false?

Those that are falsifiable?

[_sock puppet]

Joseph, perhaps if you had titled this thread:

"Joseph Antley's Road to Apostasy from the Church"

it would not be a joke.

[_Joseph Antley]

Joseph, do you have any earrings in either of your ears?

Unfortunately we can't all be as cool as Mike Reed.

[_Joseph Antley]

A very humanistic approach you have.

I think that I would've admired Erasmus a great deal had I been part of those circles.

[_Joseph Antley]

Joseph, is 'unorthodoxy' your way of announcing that you have become a NOM? Or that you now consider yourself to be a Mormon apologist? The two are very close in spirit.

I've never found much positive use, especially for one's self, in choosing to place someone in a "camp" like that.

[_sock puppet]

Joseph, is 'unorthodoxy' your way of announcing that you have become a NOM? Or that you now consider yourself to be a Mormon apologist? The two are very close in spirit.

I've never found much positive use, especially for one's self, in choosing to place someone in a "camp" like that.

What then is the use of being in the Mormon 'camp', even if you are near the perimeter?

[_Joseph Antley]

What then is the use of being in the Mormon 'camp', even if you are near the perimeter?

Identifying oneself as part of a religion is an entirely different animal than identifying oneself as part of an imaginary construct within a religion.

[_Darth J]

I think the Noah's ark example is a good one because it illustrates the kind of unorthodoxy that can be accepted. Whether or not there was a literal flood and Noah was on an ark with all the animals is not really a big issue with most people, so you can express disagreement with the literal flood and still be fine with the church. However, the same is not true with more important doctrines, such as the literal veracity of the Book of Mormon.

I fail to see the intellectual honesty in picking and choosing which doctrines do not stand up to evidentiary scrutiny solely on the basis of a self-serving list of what one "has" to believe. Somehow, special pleading within the doctrines of one's own church does not say "deep thinking" to me so much as it says "grasping at straws."

And anyway, rejecting the doctrine of a global flood---which is unequivocally officially taught by the Church---creates significant problems in accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet. For example:

If the global flood did not happen, then the Book of Abraham is not true. (Abraham 1:21-27)

If the global flood did not happen, then the Book of Moses is not true.

Moses 8

25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.

26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life.

27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence.

29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its away upon the earth.

30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.

[_Darth J]

What then is the use of being in the Mormon 'camp', even if you are near the perimeter?

Identifying oneself as part of a religion is an entirely different animal than identifying oneself as part of an imaginary construct within a religion.

For example, the imaginary construct of an LDS Church that teaches that the ontological value of a given doctrine depends on whether you will be excommunicated if you question it.