LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

I...don't believe in the atonement.

Then you are at odds with the third article of faith.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

What are you under compulsion as an LDS to believe?

by the way, Sockpuppet, I should clarify...I don't personally feel a compulsion or absolute imperative to believe those things I listed a couple of posts ago, although I believe these things are the "go to" list for orthodox belief from the POV of the "church". I believe in the possibilities/plausibilities in connection with these LDS beliefs. I don't write them off. I look at them as being, as I said, POSSIBLE. Plausible? Question mark.

Probable? Conditionally, yes. As I've said before in this forum, in the marketplace of ideas I really haven't seen anything else in my life experience and study that would supercede the possibilities and plausibilities of the teachings/doctrines/theology of the CofJCofLDS. As we read in the New Testament:

John 6:68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

I've concluded that if the CofJCofLDS isn't "the truth"...then it's some flavor of agnosticism/deism/atheism for me. And there are a number of reasons for this that I'd just as well not flesh out right now...

So I go with the possibilities/probabilities/plausibilities. And for me, it's the CofJCofLDS unless I come across the proverbial "smoking gun" which honestly, I haven't yet...although there are a bunch of issues, etc., that are unresolved. At this point I'm willing to live with a certain degree/amount of ambiguity...the stakes are high.

Regards,
MG

[_Tobin]

MG,

I...don't believe in the atonement.

Then you are at odds with the third article of faith.

Regards,
MG

Yes, but they are guidelines as well. Joseph Smith was a primitive man and articulated his beliefs as best he could. Nothing is set in stone around such things and when we seek understanding, we can see the limitation of such things.


However, the idea that the son of God has to be slaughtered by us so we could get forgiveness is primitive and disgusting. Think about that for a moment. The atonement is about blood magic and the barbaric slaughter of a human being so we all can feel better about ourselves. It is complete nonsense.

[_Spektical]

MG, apparently you still don't really appreciate the inconsistency in accepting Jesus and the atonement without reservation while shrugging your shoulders at a global flood. The relative plausibility of either of these two alleged events is not really the point.

The point is that you derive most, if not all, of what you believe about Jesus and the atonement from Joseph Smith and his successors ("Modern Prophets"). The Modern Prophets purport to be experts in spiritual matters. The story of Noah and a global flood is, as taught by the Modern Prophets, a significant and decidedly spiritual event. It supposedly represents the baptism of the earth which corresponds with each human's individual baptism, and ultimately ties in with end time predictions of the earth being baptized in fire. The literalness of the global flood is also expressly reiterated in the Book of Mormon and PofGP. The Modern Prophets, spiritual experts, believed and taught of a global flood, just as they believed in and taught of Jesus and the atonement. They did not witness either event so their source of belief in each is more than likely the same. If they were completely wrong on the global flood issue, then how do you know they weren't wrong about the atonement, too? How do you know they weren't wrong about the Holy Ghost and the Book of Mormon's prescribed method for figuring out truth? How do you know they weren't wrong about a slew of other things?

This is the logical disconnect I'm seeing here. I see it every time someone casually dismisses some issue as "not necessary for my salvation." Of course not--nothing is necessary for your salvation. The unavoidable implication arising from that "non-salvatory" issue is that of the unreliability of the Modern Prophets, the men who have defined what is and is not necessary for your salvation. If they cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information on spiritual matters or events, then how can you know what is necessary for your salvation at all? How can you know whether any of their spiritual proclamations and directives are correct?

[_Bazooka]

Do you see [the essays] as stating the official position of the Church on the given subjects?

Well, first of all, we don't know who wrote the essays. It was probably a group effort with group consensus. Now was God or Jesus in that group(s)? I doubt it. He/they were probably off doing something else and letting the correlation/curriculum folks handle the project. So while bits and pieces...or large chunks...of the essays may be connected/attached directly to some established church doctrines either directly or indirectly through associated content, even though they may not be explicitly doctrinal in every instance either in scope or depth, the essays themselves most likely give a consensus opinion by a group of people put in charge of writing the essays. I don't think God sat down and wrote them, and I doubt that the Q12 sat down and wrote them even though they as single individuals (probably not as a whole group) may agree with more or less with what the essays are teaching/saying. So official position? Probably not.

There's too much space/distance between what we see in print and the man upstairs who knows it all. There is still room for further light and knowledge to come forth in regards to each subject written about in each essay.

Regards,
MG

Wow, that's pretty convoluted reasoning. If something produced by the Church and posted within its 'Gospel Topics' section isn't meant to be reflective of the Church's official position, then how do you really know what the Church's official position is on anything?

Does the following make the stances taken within the essays more official?

A memo dated Sept. 9 from the church’s "Priesthood Department" to "General Authorities; Area Seventies; Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents" explains the purpose of — and audience for — the controversial articles.
"The purpose of the Gospel Topics section is to provide accurate and transparent information on church history and doctrine within the framework of faith," the memo said. "When church members have questions regarding [LDS] history and doctrine,
possibly arising when detractors spread misinformation and doubt, you may want to direct their attention to these resources."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaith ... e.html.csp

[_Bazooka]

And the distinction is a meaningless one because, as others have repeatedly pointed out, the LDS standard works are clear in their depiction of a global flood. And you have yet to point to a single "official" publication controverting that.

But the stamp of "official doctrine" is not applied unilaterally to everything in the standard works. It all depends on how the texts are interpreted, emphasized, and enforced. The "standard works" are an evolving entity, not a static list of concepts.

Surely you mean that it is the interpretation of the standard works that is evolving, rather than the standard works themselves?

[_Bazooka]

Who interprets them?

The accepted interpretations are most commonly the result of negotiation between leadership, the wider community, and socio-religious expediency.

I was taught the accepted interpretations were the result of the President of the Church communicating with God.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[_Tator]

I've concluded that if the CofJCofLDS isn't "the truth"...then it's some flavor of agnosticism/deism/atheism for me. And there are a number of reasons for this that I'd just as well not flesh out right now...

So I go with the possibilities/probabilities/plausibilities. And for me, it's the CofJCofLDS unless I come across the proverbial "smoking gun" which honestly, I haven't yet...although there are a bunch of issues, etc., that are unresolved. At this point I'm willing to live with a certain degree/amount of ambiguity...the stakes are high.

Regards,
MG

MG my conclusion from the post above it that you are so close to apostasy that it scares you to death. My advice for you if you want to stay a "Mormon" is to leave this board immediately, don't read anything more about the church and I mean pro or con. Go hide your eyes from the world by immersing yourself into 10 to 20 callings and for your testimony's sake quit thinking. Don't rock the boat you are almost drowning.

[_maklelan]

I was taught the accepted interpretations were the result of the President of the Church communicating with God.
Thanks for clearing that up.

You were taught a lot of things that were folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations.

[_Bazooka]

I was taught the accepted interpretations were the result of the President of the Church communicating with God.
Thanks for clearing that up.

You were taught a lot of things that were folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations.

You really don't see how damning that statement is do you?
That the doctrines of yesteryear can be so easily dismissed as "folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations" should give one pause to consider the grounding of today's doctrine.....and by the way, Universal Flood is still the doctrine being taught today...check the manuals.