LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_malkie]

I had a colleague once who said that he had studied physics, and had then written a complete refutation of quantum theory (it's only a theory, right? )

Although I'm not an expert by any means I said that I would be interested in reading what he wrote, and hoped it wouldn't be too technical for me.

It comprised a series of assertions about the impossibility of this or that element of quantum theory, each assertion supported by quotations from the Quran and/or one of a long list of imams and other holy men.

Typical of some modern non-scholars, I discounted his "arguments" by using such terms as “implausible”, “unacceptable”, and “impossible”.

My colleague was quite disappointed in me that I could not see the self-evident truths in what he had written.

[_Mormon Think]

When the subject came up in my ward, it was clearly taught (and believed) that it was a universal flood. They kept comparing it to baptism with the whole earth being baptized by water.

Dan

[_bcspace]

How then can LDS apologists walk away from a LDS universal flood…where their own scriptures support it?

Neither if the verses you listed support a Global Flood. Genesis may support it depending on interpretation of the original Hebrew. It's not implausible that the ancients had a Flood myth based on a large, but not global, flood that eventually grew to global in the retelling. It's not unreasonable for the Church to adopt traditional Christian doctrine and chronology in light of few revealed details.

[_malkie]

How then can LDS apologists walk away from a LDS universal flood…where their own scriptures support it?

Neither if the verses you listed support a Global Flood. Genesis may support it depending on interpretation of the original Hebrew. It's not implausible that the ancients had a Flood myth based on a large, but not global, flood that eventually grew to global in the retelling. It's not unreasonable for the Church to adopt traditional Christian doctrine and chronology in light of few revealed details.

What you are saying sounds a lot like "It's not unreasonable for the Church to adopt mythology in light of few revealed details.".

[_SteelHead]

The big problem with a local flood for Mormons (outside of baptizing the earth) is how does Noah and family get from somewhere around Jackson County MO, to mesopotamia via a localized flood?

[_maklelan]

The official Church position remains....

An Ensign article written by Don Parry constitutes "The official Church position"?

[_SteelHead]

Is the Ensign not an official source?

[_bcspace]

What you are saying sounds a lot like "It's not unreasonable for the Church to adopt mythology in light of few revealed details.".

Mainly to atheists.

[_bcspace]

The big problem with a local flood for Mormons (outside of baptizing the earth) is how does Noah and family get from somewhere around Jackson County MO, to mesopotamia via a localized flood?

Who says they had to go from Jackson County to Mesopotamia?

[_bcspace]

An Ensign article written by Don Parry constitutes "The official Church position"?

Yes. The Ensign is published by the Church, hence it is official doctrine. I haven't read the article in question, so maybe there is some unquoted context you can use?