LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_Tobin]

If a global flood isn't an official doctrine of the church, then the obvious follow-up question would be, what would an example of an official doctrine of the church look like?

It seems to me that once you knock off everything in the same category of the "global flood doctrine" you might be looking at a pretty small remainder.

The official doctrine comes from God. The point of the gospel is to lead you to him so you can learn it from the source.

[_Themis]

I'm not avoiding anything. I openly acknowledge that the Church has long advocated for a global flood. That does not make it official doctrine.

I would love to see this list the church has for official doctrine. Even if they came up with one, it would still be just doctrine. I realize doctrine can be hard to pin down, but even you agree that it is what the church has taught, and still teaches. Doctrine is what a church teaches, so the global flood is the current doctrine of the church.

We wouldn't need an Ensign article trying to convince us the flood was global if it were already enshrined doctrine.

It was written to tell those who didn't believe in it that they should, and that it is the doctrine of the church. I suspect it probably didn't convince those who already rejected it. maybe they didn't understand why.

The fact that the issue hasn't really been directly engaged much since then is indicative of the Church's reticence to put a firm foot down.

I don't think they have ever put a firm foot down on this issue. It's not central to what the church believes one must believe and practice to get eternal rewards.

You don't really think it's going to back off on all Native Americans as Lamanites and still stomp on the gas on a wordwide flood, do you?

I suspect they won't be writing another article in the ensign about it, but who knows. Given that 15 men run the church there is always a competition of ideas. All you need is new replacements who take a more literal view to turn things in another direction. The church hasn't really adapted the position that people were here when Lehi's group was supposed to have arrived. They are just allowing for the idea.

The real problem is even if they reject a global flood there are a lot of other things that have to be rejected in order to be consistent, but then for religion, including LDS, it hasn't been a strong suit. If they did that you would see a very different religion, which I think would be great. I don't think it will happen very fast but I am hopeful it will happen by what I see from the church as well as religion in general.

[_Bazooka]

If a global flood isn't an official doctrine of the church, then the obvious follow-up question would be, what would an example of an official doctrine of the church look like?

It seems to me that once you knock off everything in the same category of the "global flood doctrine" you might be looking at a pretty small remainder.

The official doctrine comes from God. The point of the gospel is to lead you to him so you can learn it from the source.

At last....a voice of reason.

[_fetchface]

Well, the only attempt at clarifying what is or what isn't official doctrine is the statement issued by the Mormon Newsroom referenced earlier in this thread. On the basis of that statement a Literal, Global Flood is indeed official doctrine. If that statement isn't accepted by some, then there really isn't anything that a member can turn to in order to decipher what the Church really believes, officially.

And that statement can be rejected outright since we can't determine if it is doctrine either...

maklelan seems to have a high bar for something to be official doctrine, much higher than when I was a believer. I'm wondering if he would care to clarify exacly where that bar lies and what is able to meet it.

[_suniluni2]

I openly acknowledge that the Church has long advocated for a global flood. That does not make it official doctrine. We wouldn't need an Ensign article trying to convince us the flood was global if it were already enshrined doctrine. The fact that the issue hasn't really been directly engaged much since then is indicative of the Church's reticence to put a firm foot down. You don't really think it's going to back off on all Native Americans as Lamanites and still stomp on the gas on a wordwide flood, do you?

I know the question wasn't for me, but Yes. Do you think they'll change the Bible's narrative of the flood to say it was local?

[_suniluni2]

Those in positions of authority may have, in some/many cases, believed this to be TRUE, but that doesn't make it so.

Regards,
MG

You're making some real progress. Congrats.

[_cognitiveharmony]

A global flood is so entwined with LDS doctrine that extricating it would prove quite difficult. Much more difficult than Mak is letting on. An allegory of a global flood to teach the importance of baptism wouldn't be very persuasive if the flood was only in fact local. It would also undermine the doctrine of baptism by immersion for obvious reasons. Of course, this teaching is also closely tied to other prophesies that have yet to happen to the earth such as the destruction of the earth by fire and it's celestial renewal. I doubt the church will be backing away from these teachings any time soon because they inherently can't be PROVEN false such as a global flood can. It seems that the only teachings/doctrine that the church backs away from are the ones that they're forced to by outside pressures and influence.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

That comment was in reference to Bazooka's recollection of his upbringing within the Church, which was mediated by local leadership, family members, or other people who help digest and make sense of the scriptures and the comments from central Church leadership.

Bazooka's recollection of his experience with local leaders, family members, and others is mirrored all throughout the church. His leaders/family/others weren't going rogue. They were teaching the party line. Would you say that everyone who teaches the global flood does so because of folk doctrine and ad hoc rationalizations, and has a sophomoric naïve perception of the Church?

There are numerous. The different notions about the reasons for the priesthood ban are folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations that have been advocated as recently as a couple years ago.

For a church claiming to be led by living prophets and apostles, isn't it a big problem when even they cannot distinguish between folk doctrine and true doctrine?

It never ends. No human society or community will ever arrive at a point at which their worldview is permanently static and absolute.

What I hear you saying is that everything currently embraced as church doctrine today may be declared folk doctrine at some future point. Is that how you see it?

[_canpakes]

If a global flood isn't an official doctrine of the church, then the obvious follow-up question would be, what would an example of an official doctrine of the church look like?

It seems to me that once you knock off everything in the same category of the "global flood doctrine" you might be looking at a pretty small remainder.

The official doctrine comes from God. The point of the gospel is to lead you to him so you can learn it from the source.

...From the fellow who just told us that asking God about the truthfulness of the Gospel is wrong.

viewtopic.php?p=845874#p845874

[_Gunnar]

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.

Tobin has often been disparaged and ridiculed for his views (including by me at times) but on this point, I absolutely agree with him!