Joseph Antley's Apostasy from the Church

[_Joseph Antley]

All Mormons are cafeteria Mormons.

Some are just more self-aware of this fact than others.

I suppose that's true, but probably more inclusive to all Christians, not just us Mormons.

[_MrStakhanovite]

In my personal study, when I think that I can feel the Spirit, I do something very similar that.

But this doesn’t line up with your blog post.

If you want to say with confidence that you can be both a skeptic (method) and Mormon (position), I support you 100% on that, but there is a lot of hard work to be done to relieve the tension between the text of the standard work and the Orthodoxy that is espoused by the First Presidency.

You seem to feel comfortable in not affirming the global flood of Noah, but what about the historicity of the tower of Babel? Death before Adam’s transgression? The Exodus of Israel and conquest of Canaan? The historicity of the United Monarchy?

And that is just scratching the surface, we haven’t even touched the various and complex relationships between the multiple sources and redactors of the Hebrew canon, which introduce a gigantic crop of theological issues that simply are not addressed in the restoration.

[_zeezrom]

Ant:

Have you ever tried champagne? I tasted it for the first time ever tonight. Holy Cow! Celebration! I disco danced with my neighbor. Fun!

Happy New Year!

Will a Mormon who celebrates with champagne feel accepted in the church, Joseph?

Weeeeeeeeeeweewee!

[Guest]

In my personal study, when I think that I can feel the Spirit, I do something very similar that.

But this doesn’t line up with your blog post.

I think it lines up perfectly with my blog post. 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.

[_MsJack]

I suppose that's true, but probably more inclusive to all Christians, not just us Mormons.

I think this is true. But Christianity is such a broad and diverse movement, it's pretty much a given that individual Christians are picking and choosing their own piece of the pie to believe in, and I don't think very many Christians would disagree. I'm not a fan of the concept of the "cafeteria Mormon" because I think it sets Mormons up for a dichotomy that doesn't really exist.

[_MrStakhanovite]

All Mormons are cafeteria Mormons.

Some are just more self-aware of this fact than others.

I suppose that's true, but probably more inclusive to all Christians, not just us Mormons.

So it is Joe, but MsJack has by far a more easier task than you do.

Her final authority is scripture*. When it comes time to square her understanding of the text with authority, she has to square her understanding of the text with the text itself, not a Church hierarchy.


* I’m glossing on Sola Scriptura here, but MsJack isn’t one of those, “ It’s me, my Bible, under a tree” types.

[_Joseph Antley]

So it is Joe, but MsJack has by far a more easier task than you do.

Her final authority is scripture*. When it comes time to square her understanding of the text with authority, she has to square her understanding of the text with the text itself, not a Church hierarchy.


* I’m glossing on Sola Scriptura here, but MsJack isn’t one of those, “ It’s me, my Bible, under a tree” types.

I agree that, sola scriptura aside, it must be much easier for mainstream Christians.

[_MsJack]

I really wish Liz hadn't deleted her Cafeteria forum. I had a lengthy post there explaining why I reject the idea that there are "cafeteria Mormons" vs. "non-cafeteria Mormons."

Maybe I'll do my own thread on it tomorrow.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Joseph:

What do you make of Elder Packer's admonition that "some truths aren't very useful"? Is that false prophecy, in your view?

[_DrW]

Joseph,

Once one allows evidence, logic and reason to be involved the process of developing a religionists worldview, one runs into big problems, indeed. When developing a religionist worldview it is better to just leave aside logic, reason and most relevant evidence.

It is best to do what Steven J. Gould suggested and simply claim that science (built on evidence, logic and reason) and religion (built on unfounded belief, myth and superstition) are non-overlapping magisteria and let it go at that.

Otherwise, you are assuming an obligation to explain a lot of frankly very silly and embarrassing claims and teachings (even if only to yourself). One example of the myriad of problems one encounters in trying to defend revealed Mormon scriptures related to the Flood of Noah is embodied in Jeffrey Holland's article in the Ensign where he makes the following claims:

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.

To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

In other words, Holland is telling us, based on revealed Mormon scripture, that the continents of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres separated, and the Atlantic Ocean was formed, less than 10,000 years ago (when, in fact, the entire process was pretty much complete some 30 million years ago).

Are you really willing to defend this nonsense - even if just in your own mind?

If not, are you willing to admit that Jeffrey Holland and the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon are just plain wrong?

If you are willing to acknowledge these errors in scripture and teaching, are you ready to admit to the dozens (or hundreds) of other falsifiable and falsified claims of Mormonism (including many of the foundational claims)?

And if so, then as asked in earlier posts, how can you (or anyone in such a position) continue to profess to be a believing Mormon?

How can one claim a shred of self integrity if they claim to remain a believing Mormon knowing that the whole construct unravels when a couple of loose threads are pulled?