Let's Talk Rainbows

[_SteelHead]

The brethren make numerous references to it (a global flood). They teach it as a literal event. I have also been taught numerous times that it served to "baptize" the Earth. And that the Earth will later be baptized with fire. Sub, if the Brethren teach it was global and you teach it was local...... would that make you an apostate?

It seems pivotal in how civilization moved from Missouri to the Mid-East.

Outside of the flood, the division of the land during the time of Peleg is also important as it is referenced in D&C 133.

18 When the Lamb shall stand upon Mount Zion, and with him a chundred and forty-four thousand, having his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

19 Wherefore, prepare ye for the acoming of the Bridegroom; go ye, go ye out to meet him.

20 For behold, he shall astand upon the mount of Olivet, and upon the mighty ocean, even the great deep, and upon the islands of the sea, and upon the land of Zion.

21 And he shall utter his voice out of Zion, and he shall speak from Jerusalem, and his voice shall be heard among all people;

22 And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found.

23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

I keep saying the flood is insignificant in the face of that type of cataclysm........ but hey...... not only was the land divided some 4000 or so years ago, a mass extinction did not accompany this event. Actually there is not one bit of evidence supporting this recent division, but the Bible and the modern prophets have taught it occurred and so it occurred. Saying that this is not LDS doctrine is not consistent with D&C 133, nor the teachings of the prophets.

[_Buffalo]

Official doctrine is that which is published by the Church. That's the church's own standard. If you wish to disown the church over this, be my guest.

In order to get rainbows, you need large amounts of liquid water on the earth, so that water can evaporate, form clouds, rain, and rainbows can appear. As you've quoted me in my sig, without those conditions, we wouldn't have any life on earth.

In any case, we've already proven from two sources that there were rainbows before the date of the flood, as given by inspired sources.

You seem to have a misunderstanding, not only on this topic, but what constitutes church doctrine. For example Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.
http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approac ... n-doctrine

For the flood, Official church doctrine is as follows:
Noah was a prophet
Noah built an ark that allowed survival
The flood occurred (either global or local is irrelevant to a member being held in good standing)

We have read and heard countless church authorities subscribe to notions of the Biblical timeline that deviated from what one might simply glean from the scriptures. example: David McKay who stated "...the millions of years that it took to prepare the physical world..."

From the outset, we note that at least some of the acrimony over the interpretation of the Genesis days arises from language differences. Turning biblical Hebrew into English prose and poetry presents some enormous difficulties. Whereas biblical Hebrew has a vocabulary of under 3,100 words (not including proper nouns), English words number over 4,000,000. The disparity is even greater for nouns. Therefore, we should not be surprised that Hebrew nouns have multiple literal definitions. The English word day most often refers either to the daylight hours or to a period of 24 hours. As in "the day of the Romans," it is also used for a longer time period. English speakers and writers, however, have many words for an extended period--age, era, epoch, and eon, just to name a few. The Hebrew word yom similarly refers to daylight hours, 24 hours, and a long (but finite) time period. Unlike English, however, biblical Hebrew has no word other than yom to denote a long timespan. The word yom appears repeatedly in the Hebrew Scriptures with reference to a period longer than 12 or 24 hours. The Hebrew terms yom (singular) and yamin (plural) often refer to an extended time frame. Perhaps the most familiar passages are those referring to God's "day of wrath." Before English translations were available, animosity over the length of the Genesis days did not exist, at least not as far as anyone can tell from the extant theological literature. Prior to the Nicene Council, the early Church fathers wrote two thousand pages of commentary on the Genesis creation days, yet did not devote a word to disparaging each other's viewpoints on the creation time scale. All these early scholars accepted that yom could mean "a long time period." The majority explicitly taught that the Genesis creation days were extended time periods (something like a thousand years per yom). Not one Ante-Nicene Father explicitly endorsed the 24-hour interpretation. Ambrose, who came the closest to doing so, apparently vacillated on the issue. We certainly cannot charge the Church fathers with "scientific bias" in their interpretations. They wrote long before astronomical, geological, and paleontological evidences for the antiquity of the universe, the earth, and life became available. Nor had biological evolution yet been proposed. Lamarck, Darwin, and Huxley came along some 1,400 years later." (Ross H.N. and Archer G.L., "The Day-Age View," in Hagopian D.G., ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, Crux Press: Mission Viejo CA, 2001, pp. 125-126, as cited by Jones)

If you can cite something that the church has published since then that contradicts the official timeline, that would be one thing. But you can't. Official church doctrine is that the flood happened a little more than 4000 years ago. That's the carefully correlated message. You can either fight the church on that or accept it. :)

And McKay's statements have nothing to do with the flood, as he's referring to the time before Adam.

You lose. :)

[_SteelHead]

I can also cite a dozen or so sources where the prophets teach that the flood was the baptism of the earth, executed by immersion. Precluding any discussion of a local flood.

[_ludwigm]

Official doctrine ...

You seem to have a misunderstanding, not only on this topic, but what constitutes church doctrine. For example Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.
http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/approac ... n-doctrine

You seem to have a misunderstanding, too. That approaching-mormon-doctrine doesn't say what constitutes church doctrine. It says what is not. So it doesn't say anything - or, better said - says nothing. I am sorry but this is the case.
The same as bcspace's main problem, if You know that member... We all like him...

For the flood, Official church doctrine is as follows:
Noah was a prophet
Noah built an ark that allowed survival

Noah is more than that. Noah is a Jolly-Joker.

From emp.byui.edu/MarrottR/301Folder/4-11MissingJFeSEliasNoah.pdf, You can learn:

Noah = Gabriel = Elias

Items missing from subsequent editions of the CES Institute
Old Testament: Genesis - 2Samuel (Religion 301) Student Manual
(c) 1980, 1981, p 54 (4-11)
Then we discover in the revelation given to the prophet of Joseph Smith in August 1830, that it was Elias who came to Zacharias and announced the birth of John the Baptist.
D&C 27:6-7 is then cited.

This is the same Elias who held the dispensation of Abraham and who came to the Prophet
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland Temple and restored the keys of Abraham's dispensation.
D&C 110:12; 128:20-21 are then cited.

From these scriptures we learn that Noah is Gabriel and that came to the Prophet Joseph
Smith in his calling as an Elias and restored the keys of the dispensation in which the Lord made covenant with Abraham and his prosperity after him to the latest generations.

The term Elias means forerunner. Noah, Elijah, John the Baptist and John the Revelator have been referred to as Elias in scripture, though the references to Elijah by this name are mistranslated.
Smith, teacihing of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p340, D&C 77:9,14

Summarizing the facts - Joseph Smith revealed that Gabriel was Noah; Luke declared that it was the angel Gabriel who appeared to Zacharias and Mary; and the Lord has declared that Elias appeared to Zacharias and Joseph Smith. Therefore, Elias is Noah.
Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:138-141.

Therefore, I am Julius Caesar.

[_subgenius]

The brethren make numerous references to it (a global flood). They teach it as a literal event. I have also been taught numerous times that it served to "baptize" the Earth. And that the Earth will later be baptized with fire. Sub, if the Brethren teach it was global and you teach it was local...... would that make you an apostate?

no it does make me an apostate, because there is absolutely no official church doctrine on the topic of global vs local flood. You can cite whomever you want but you will still fall short of actual doctrine from the church. Church leaders will likely always reference the flood as "global" in the context of a rather straightforward reading of the scriptures, but that is still NOT the doctrine from the church. I have already covered that position quite well, and i suggest you confirm via LDS.org and search for the term "global flood".
Again the inability for anyone to even recognize the cosmological view of that time period and the simple sources that contradict whatever "witch hunt" mentality permeates the bitter mind of the armchair intellectual bent on destroying that which has become apparently something they know little about.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-con ... -27-45.pdf

Furthermore, you are disingenuous when you say that they "teach" the flood is global, when the flood is mentioned in that context they are always teaching about something altogether different.
The myopic argument being tossed around by the milk-eaters around here is amusing.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=232

[_SteelHead]

So numerous, repeated and consistent teachings that the flood was global from Joseph Smith to Monson and a various cornucopia of apostles (sustained as prophets, seers and revelators) does not a doctrine make because it is not on LDS.org ? You are contradicting your previous post on what constitutes doctrine.

[_Melchett]

The brethren make numerous references to it (a global flood). They teach it as a literal event. I have also been taught numerous times that it served to "baptize" the Earth. And that the Earth will later be baptized with fire. Sub, if the Brethren teach it was global and you teach it was local...... would that make you an apostate?

no it does make me an apostate, because there is absolutely no official church doctrine on the topic of global vs local flood. You can cite whomever you want but you will still fall short of actual doctrine from the church. Church leaders will likely always reference the flood as "global" in the context of a rather straightforward reading of the scriptures, but that is still NOT the doctrine from the church. I have already covered that position quite well, and i suggest you confirm via LDS.org and search for the term "global flood".
Again the inability for anyone to even recognize the cosmological view of that time period and the simple sources that contradict whatever "witch hunt" mentality permeates the bitter mind of the armchair intellectual bent on destroying that which has become apparently something they know little about.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-con ... -27-45.pdf

Furthermore, you are disingenuous when you say that they "teach" the flood is global, when the flood is mentioned in that context they are always teaching about something altogether different.
The myopic argument being tossed around by the milk-eaters around here is amusing.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=232

I'll give it to you SG, but you are correct in this.

It is true that the Church does teach this, and although the Bible is pretty clear on the point, the apologists do point out...

Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures

Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....

When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.

But then again, Joseph Smith did have the option to correct this in restoring the Bible, but he didn't.

[Guest]

John Taylor

Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the questionis—How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells us that "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; andthe mountains were covered." That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism. —John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 26:74-75..

Orson Pratt

Another great change happened nearly two thousand years after the earth was made. It was baptized by water. A great flow of water come, the great deep was broken up, the windows of heaven were opened from on high, and the waters prevailed upon the face of the earth, sweeping away all wickedness and transgression-a similitude of baptism for the remission of sins. God requires the children of men to be baptized. What for? For the remission of sins. So he required our globe to be baptized by a flow of waters, and all of its sins were washed away, not one sin remaining. —Orson Pratt, (August 1, 1880) Journal of Discourses 21:323.

John Taylor

By and by we find the people departing from the principles of truth, from the laws of the Gospel, repudiating the fear of God, grieving his Holy Spiritand incurring his displeasure. Then a flood came and the inhabitants of the world, with the exception of a very few, were swept from it, after the Gospel had been preached to all who then lived and all had had an opportunity to believe in and obey it. —John Taylor, "DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED BY THE FLOOD, etc.," Journal of Discourses

Note the use of all in the above.

Brigham Young

This earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water,will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon. —Brigham Young, (June 12, 1860) Journal of Discourses 8:83.

The prophets are consistent on this. This is consistent with Joseph's teaching on the location of Eden.

Funny how you are so willing to disagree with your own leaders and agree with the apologists.

[Guest]

Jeffery R Holland

Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” (Moses 7:33) that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water.Thus, the “everlasting decree” (Ether 2:10) was first taught that he who will not obey the Lord in righteousness will be swept from his sacred land. The lesson would be tragically retaught in dispensations yet to come. —Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Promised Land,” Ensign, Jun 1976

[Guest]

Bruce R McConkie

"In the days of Noah the Lord sent a universal flood which completely immersed the whole earth and destroyed all flesh except that preserved on the ark. (Gen. 6; 7; 8; 9; Moses 7:38-45; 8; Ether 13.2.) "Noah was born to save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood." (Teachings, p. 12) This flood was the baptism of the earth; before it occurred the land was all in one place, a condition that will again prevail during the millennial era. (D&C 133:23-24)". (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, p. 289)

"The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the Old World by the Flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomenon." (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman" p. 19-20)

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.

FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320)

You aren't arguing with me, but the prophets instead.