LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_suniluni2]

I'm just waiting for makk to say that god, Jesus and the atonement are all folk doctrine and ad hoc rationalizations. It's gotta be coming soon. And actually, it would be a nice conclusion to his line of thinking.

[_ludwigm]

Doctrine, by the simple English-language definition, is what the church teaches; if the church teaches it, it's doctrine. That's what the word "doctrine" means to English-language speakers.

That there is somehow this nebulous concept of "official doctrine" that is distinguished from "doctrine taught by church leaders whose office and purview includes the teaching and expounding of church doctrine" is a wordplay attempt at misdirection by apologists who have recognized that this body of "official doctrine" cannot stand up to scrutiny. It is nothing more than a smokescreen, a linguistic legerdemain.

I am happy that this was said by a native English-speaker.

This is the same in Hungarian.
The translations of doctrine in H:
- doktrína (a simple transcript... doesn't explain anything)
- tan = something taught
- tan(tétel) and tantétel = an item of taught things
- dogma = a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true --- we are closer to the thing
- vallási dogma = religious dogma --- we reached it

Are articles printed in the Ensign, or talks delivered in General Conference, by apostles, members of the First Presidency, etc. done as part of the execution of these guys' duties? Are the manuals that these church officials produce, approve, publish, and use in instructing and teaching the church members in matters of doctrine produced as part of the execution of these men's duties? If so, they are official doctrine, plain and simple. This is not a trick question, people.

People who deliberately misunderstand the meaning the English word of theory when it is about evolution... people who put the Eden Garden to America... people who believe in flat Earth (OK, this was a foul blow)... people who believe that Adam hadn't belly button--- I don't continue.

by the way Adam had belly button...
[#img] http://www.kunstkopie.de/kunst/michelan ... -Adams.jpg[/img]
.
Michelangelo knew it. Maybe Michelangelo is NSFW.

[_bcspace]

MG, as far as credentials go, all you need is an elementary school education to figure out the global flood story is a myth. Stop kidding yourself that there is still some active controversy about whether it actually happened.

As for maklelan, I'm guessing it's a hot Mormon wife and a stable Mormon job that prevent him from admitting the church is nothing more than a man-made organization. He's clearly not a dummy, so there's got to be a considerable amount of motivated reasoning at play to counteract the amount of cognitive dissonance he must be feeling. Not an enviable position.

So your argument is based on....jealousy?

[_Spektical]

MG, as far as credentials go, all you need is an elementary school education to figure out the global flood story is a myth. Stop kidding yourself that there is still some active controversy about whether it actually happened.

As for maklelan, I'm guessing it's a hot Mormon wife and a stable Mormon job that prevent him from admitting the church is nothing more than a man-made organization. He's clearly not a dummy, so there's got to be a considerable amount of motivated reasoning at play to counteract the amount of cognitive dissonance he must be feeling. Not an enviable position.

So your argument is based on....jealousy?

Exactly. By describing his position as not enviable, I was actually saying that I envy him. Good work, bcspace.

[_Bazooka]

Did Maklelan disappear again?

Perhaps he will return once this thread drops out of view onto page two of the thread list....

[_Gunnar]

Did Maklelan disappear again?

Perhaps he will return once this thread drops out of view onto page two of the thread list....

Maklelan is undoubtedly one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable participants in this forum. That very intelligence is what enables him to keep finding or inventing rationales that enable him to avoid admitting to himself the over all untenability of his belief system. Yet, because he is so obviously intelligent, I can't help but suspect it is only a matter of time before even his "shelf" eventually breaks from the weight of cognitive dissonance heaped upon it.

[_EAllusion]

The concept of "cognitive dissonance" is badly misused in ex-Mormon discussions. For most people, I'd prefer they just make a conscious effort to stop using the term entirely.

BSCpace cynically uses the idea of "not doctrine!" in a way that is both self-serving to his own quirky beliefs self-consciously taunting to others in its incoherence. I suspect Mak is more internally consistent on this point, but it still bears mentioning that if your concept of what constitutes official doctrine is so narrow that the global flood does not count, then the list of things that could possibly count is very small indeed. This then steers the conversation towards why it matters to make that distinction in the first place. The implication always is that "official doctrine" lists the ideas one must agree with to be a fully believing member of the LDS Church. But the way distinctions are being made, that's a hard argument to sell.

[_Craig Paxton]

The implication always is that "official doctrine" lists the ideas one must agree with to be a fully believing member of the LDS Church. But the way distinctions are being made, that's a hard argument to sell.

"Mormon Doctrine" and "Offical Mormon Doctrine"



Hard to tell which is which

[_Craig Paxton]

Latter-day Saints believe that the prophet Noah existed, and that he was commanded to build an ark and save his family from a flood. A belief that this flood was global in nature is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally. The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood — one limited to the area in which Noah lived — is the best explanation of the available data. People of either view can be members in good standing.

With F.A.I.R. officially supporting this nuanced cafeteria model for Mormon belief where... believers can pick and choose which doctrines to believe or eschew….how is the church going to keep its other core doctrines from being similarly viewed.

There is just as much evidence to support a universal flood as there is to support the existence of the Nephite Nation. Both have support in LDS scripture…but nowhere else. Will F.A.I.R. be accommodating believers who feel compelled to abandon a traditional Book of Mormon view as well? Can Mormonism survive when its core believers view the Book of Mormon allegorically?

[_Bazooka]

Latter-day Saints believe that the prophet Noah existed, and that he was commanded to build an ark and save his family from a flood. A belief that this flood was global in nature is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally. The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood — one limited to the area in which Noah lived — is the best explanation of the available data. People of either view can be members in good standing.

With F.A.I.R. officially supporting this nuanced cafeteria model for Mormon belief where... believers can pick and choose which doctrines to believe or eschew….how is the church going to keep its other core doctrines from being similarly viewed.

There is just as much evidence to support a universal flood as there is to support the existence of the Nephite Nation. Both have support in LDS scripture…but nowhere else. Will F.A.I.R. be accommodating believers who feel compelled to abandon a traditional Book of Mormon view as well? Can Mormonism survive when its core believers view the Book of Mormon allegorically?

I think you hit on an interesting spin-off question. What doctrines within Mormonism are non negotiable as far as retaining membership in good standing is concerned?