LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_Spektical]

But you deleted the very next sentence: "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." That's where doctrine is constituted. The Ensign contains doctrine just like my refrigerator contains eggs, but the Ensign no more determines or constitutes doctrine than my refrigerator creates eggs. Good grief, this is not difficult.

While we're nitpicking and making meaningless distinctions, let's not forget that the LDS church did not "publish" the KJV Bible. It also did not "publish" the Book of Mormon. That was Joseph Smith, prior to the church being founded.

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.

[_maklelan]

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.

[_Spektical]

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.

Who interprets them? Where do those interpretations get published? How are you not back to square one, faced with the many statements shared by Tim and Steelhead earlier?

ETA: And if the standard works are constantly evolving subject to current interpretation, emphasis, and enforcement, then why were you so quick to limit "official" church doctrine to them in the first place?

[_maklelan]

Who interprets them?

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

Where do those interpretations get published? How are you not back to square one, faced with the many statements shared by Tim and Steelhead earlier?

If only it were that simplistic and binary. They usually don't get published, which is what makes official doctrine such a complex moving target. Sometimes the changing interpretations are published in the standard works themselves, though. The changes made to the Book of Mormon introductions about being the "principle ancestors" is an example. It was even further changed with the new English editions last year. The additions of the introductions to the official declarations enshrined a more progressive perspective on the origins of those declarations as well. The new intro to the Pearl of Great Price did the same. They're not actual scriptural text, but they represent the leadership's recognition of a shifted interpretation among the membership.

ETA: And if the standard works are constantly evolving subject to current interpretation, emphasis, and enforcement, then why were you so quick to limit "official" church doctrine to them in the first place?

Because that's what the limit is, and because I was responding to the absolutely asinine suggestion that anything at all published by the Church formalizes and constitutes official doctrine.

[_Spektical]

A moving target indeed. How convenient: if doctrine and scriptures can be so easily modified, you'll never get pinned down. I think Bro. Jake hit the nail on the head with this one.

If doctrine is so malleable in the face of "socio-religious expediency" (i.e. reality), then what is the point of having it at all? I find it hard to imagine that an omniscient being couldn't have figured out a better way of doing things.

[Guest]

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

[_maklelan]

A moving target indeed. How convenient: if doctrine and scriptures can be so easily modified, you'll never get pinned down. I think Bro. Jake hit the nail on the head with this one.

I think you should look into the fields of social memory and the psychology of religion and then come back and explain to me how it's supposed to be. Or just continue to post reductive assumptions based on anecdotes and pop psychology.

If doctrine is so malleable in the face of "socio-religious expediency" (i.e. reality), then what is the point of having it at all?

Because it's what makes a religious community possible. There is no such thing as a community built upon static and absolute values. Absolutely all communities must negotiate and renegotiate their values as time passes. Nobody is free from that. That's how human society functions.

I find it hard to imagine that an omniscient being couldn't have figured out a better way of doing things.

Yeah, everyone knows if a religious community were really based on inspiration from God then all the social dynamics would defy and transcend human nature.

[_Craig Paxton]

This thread is important because it illustrates how every claim, thought, assertion or doctrine within Mormonism is expendable with the one exception being "The Church is True". Every other claim can be or will be abandoned, nuanced, reinterpreted or rejected once clinging to it is no longer tenable. Universal flood, polygamy, priesthood ban, hemispheric Book of Mormon model, evolution, Zion gathering, united order and no death before the fall come to mind...I'm sure others can think of more examples where the church has changed or abandoned core foundational doctrines.

But like the passengers in a bus going over a cliff...they do so screaming, kicking and fighting it all the way...

[_maklelan]

This thread is important because it illustrates how every claim, thought, assertion or doctrine within Mormonism is expendable with the one exception being "The Church is True". Every other claim can be or will be abandoned, nuanced, reinterpreted or rejected once clinging to it is no longer tenable. Universal flood, polygamy, priesthood ban, hemispheric Book of Mormon model, evolution, Zion gathering, united order and no death before the fall come to mind...I'm sure others can think of more examples where the church has changed or abandoned core foundational doctrines.

But like the passengers in a bus going over a cliff...they do so screaming, kicking and fighting it all the way...

The Church isn't as fundamentalistic and dogmatic as you all have been insisting it is? And we're the ones kicking and fighting? What about all the blowhards spending all their time telling us plebs how the Church is, and then bitching and moaning after they're shown that they're wrong?

[Guest]

Maklelan, I actually do agree that this is the way religions have to be. At least, if they want a chance of remaining even slightly relevant. But I also recognize that this "way" is inconsistent with the notion of clear and open channels of communication with an omniscient being. It seems much more like a bunch of guys giving opinions that roughly reflect the attitudes and thoughts of contemporary culture. These so-called prophets, seers, and revelators would even be right more of the time if they weren't so tightly bound to the obviously erroneous teachings and beliefs of their predecessors. But if they were to drop the pretense of receiving revelation and just decide to fall in line with whatever the consensus is on any given topic, based on empirical evidence, then they might as well disband the church and call themselves secular humanists.

Yeah, everyone knows if a religious community were really based on inspiration from God then all the social dynamics would defy and transcend human nature.

This is a common straw man. I wouldn't necessarily expect "all" of such a religion's social dynamics to defy and transcend human nature (whatever that means). I would, however, expect such a religion to not undergo so many doctrinal shifts as the Mormon church has. I would also expect it to at least stay abreast or even ahead of the moral progression of society at large, rather than lagging noticeably behind.