Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[Physics Guy]

I thought that Widstoe's idea about rain was that it could technically "immerse" the whole globe, by getting all of it wet simultaneously, without having to flood all the continents. I thought his point was to make the global Flood unfalsifiable, by making it into a brief weather coincidence that would not have left any geological traces. Getting it to rain in Antarctica would be hard, though, unless snow and ice can also count for immersion.

I guess the whole Earth could maybe have had rain at some point in some ice-free warm period of prehistory, but there were no humans around then.

[I Have Questions]

MG,

Seriously, could you be any more dishonest in your research? You could have just been honest and told me you couldn’t find any sources showing church leaders denying a global flood.

Let’s actually look at what Elder John Widstoe said in his article. Elder Widstoe left no doubt that he believed in a literal global flood that covered the entire world:

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described ii, Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

https://bhroberts.org/records/0BXNou-0j ... m_of_earth

The great flood of Noah that killed all the inhabitants of the earth except for those few in the Ark is now just the earth getting a bit damp.

The bigger problem with not accepting the story of the great flood that wiped out planet earth is that it renders the Noah story, and the doctrinal implications that come from it, less than credible. For instance, LDS doctrine holds that the tribes of Israel stem from Noah's sons. But with a localised flood, or as Widstoe would have people believe, a slight dampness across most of the planet, then the people of the earth today descend from far more than just the sons of Noah.

[Morley]

I thought that Widstoe's idea about rain was that it could technically "immerse" the whole globe, by getting all of it wet simultaneously, without having to flood all the continents. I thought his point was to make the global Flood unfalsifiable, by making it into a brief weather coincidence that would not have left any geological traces. Getting it to rain in Antarctica would be hard, though, unless snow and ice can also count for immersion.

I guess the whole Earth could maybe have had rain at some point in some ice-free warm period of prehistory, but there were no humans around then.

Perhaps it wasn't actually rain, but just humidity. The water in the air acted as a kind of global 'flood.'

[Fence Sitter]

The global flood covered the entire earth in the same way Mormonism is covering it.