The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[malkie]

What do you mean "It depends on the size and scope of the flood described in the Old Testament."? Do you have a choice in what to believe?

I’ve never thought otherwise.

Here’s a good place to start:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/article ... d-story-2/

And we have an apostle who gave us this:

Many of the scientific world having discovered that the earth is round and not flat as the people of the Old Testament evidently believed it to be have ungenerously . . . thrown the good book into the discard. . . . They point out with glowing satisfaction that the God of the Hebrews is a capricious, jealous, tribal God, fighting the battles of his favored people and reveling in the defeat of their enemies. And then in . . . triumph they point to the so-called miracles of the Bible: the standing still of the sun, the incarceration of Jonah in the belly of the fish . . . and tell you that all these accounts are manifestly untrue because they contravene the known laws of nature.

[So] what if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret [God] in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter even though he be inspired present his interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future, and circumstances of the ut- most novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers possessed[?].”

Stephen L. Richards

https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads ... -27-45.pdf

Yes, we have a choice of what to believe as active and believing members of the CofJCofLDS.

It’s interesting, at least to me, that the critics and disaffected don’t seem to understand this.

Regards,
MG

Interesting that you quote a Dialog article that quotes an Improvement Era article from 1933 to counter later quotes from the Ensign.

OK - perhaps things really have changed since I was an active, believing member.

But remind me which one of these is the official publication of the Church, in which, in 2005, the then-prophet says: "Those of us who read and believe the scriptures are aware of the warnings of prophets concerning catastrophes that have come to pass and are yet to come to pass. There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only “eight souls were saved” (1 Pet. 3:20)."

He didn't mean that, right?

Which one of these articles was actually a talk given in General Conference. Should Elder Peterson have not claimed that "by modern revelation we know that [Noah's flood] did take place"?

Were they unaware that they apparently should not treat Noah's flood as if it were a fact? Perhaps they should have made it clear that they were only stating their opinions on what may have happened, that it's OK to read and not believe the scriptures, and for active and believing members of the CofJCofLDS to have a choice of what they believe to be scripture and revelation.

I wonder if the prophet has ever made such a statement, and if conference speakers say, in effect, "you cannot depend on what we claim is revelation - we may be completely wrong".

Let's go a little further, shall we?

Now I'm also wondering about the Tower of Babel, and the Jaredites' sea voyage. Can active and believing members of the CofJCofLDS choose what to believe about these stories too.

How about Joseph Smith's writings in the D&C - are they up for dispute as well? Perhaps the First Vision didn't actually happen as recorded in the PoGP - or at all.

Perhaps we don't really believe the Articles of Faith, do we?

I should let my bishop know that he cannot hold it against me if I disagree with scriptures, or with GC talks - they can't be trusted to be accurate.

Where does this actually end?

[IHAQ]

When it comes to things like evolution/flood and other scientifically related areas the church generally has no stated doctrinal position although members and leaders have expressed their opinions.

You have been out for a while haven’t you? I find myself questioning whether you were ever fully ‘in’.

Regards,
MG

Utter nonsense, you won’t be able to provide one example from a official church magazine, manual or conference talk that allows for the flood being anything other than a global event that happened. It’s taught that way in every age group in Sunday school, it’s talked about that way by every General Authority when talking over the pulpit. Consistently. That’s doctrine. Of course, you can rebut me by providing that one example…

[IHAQ]

Objectively, however, killing innocents is JUST WRONG. By any objective standard.

At the point Laban was murdered he was innocent - he had not been convicted of any crime. Why didn’t Nephi pursue Laban through the proper judicial channels of the day, rather than taking things into his own hands? Are you suggesting that it’s okay for us to take matters into our own hands if we feel moved upon spiritually to do so?

[Morley]

Mg2, are you suggesting the leaders and followers of your small group don’t agree on beliefs?

When it comes to things like evolution/flood and other scientifically related areas the church generally has no stated doctrinal position although members and leaders have expressed their opinions.

You have been out for a while haven’t you? I find myself questioning whether you were ever fully ‘in’.

The global flood is church doctrine, MG. I'm surprised that you don't know. Why are you so snarky about this?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... l?lang=eng

Old Testament

The Flood and the Tower of Babel
By Donald W. Parry

Because of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Latter-day Saints have additional knowledge that confirms the reality of these world-changing historical events.

The Flood
Many of us have fond memories learning about Noah and his ark during our days at home and in Primary. Perhaps our parents and teachers held up a picture of Noah preaching to laughing and mocking people as he stood in front of the partially built ark, or perhaps they showed us a picture portraying the ark filled with animals standing on the deck as the great vessel rested in the water. Later, our Sunday School or seminary teachers added to our knowledge of this great man, his righteousness, his missionary work, and the revelations surrounding the building of the ark. As Latter-day Saints, we treasure this sacred, true account of one of God’s great prophets who lived so long ago.

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.”1 Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense,2 revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

[malkie]

When it comes to things like evolution/flood and other scientifically related areas the church generally has no stated doctrinal position although members and leaders have expressed their opinions.

You have been out for a while haven’t you? I find myself questioning whether you were ever fully ‘in’.

Regards,
MG

Utter nonsense, you won’t be able to provide one example from a official church magazine, manual or conference talk that allows for the flood being anything other than a global event that happened. It’s taught that way in every age group in Sunday school, it’s talked about that way by every General Authority when talking over the pulpit. Consistently. That’s doctrine. Of course, you can rebut me by providing that one example…

Jeff Lindsay seems to think it's not a problem, so what's the fuss if a few general authorities in various places and a various times say the flood was global, and that faithful LDS should believe the scriptures. That's just their opinion. They have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again.

Jeff, however, is worth following - he seems to support the views that some folks like better than the stated views of prophets, seers, and revelators both over the pulpit at GC and in the official magazine of the church.

Yay Jeff!!
https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... seful.html

He even references the same Sunstone article as MG!

Also

I am pointing to the obvious fact that there are non-literal interpretations to some passages of scripture. Since some LDS and other Christian leaders have naturally and understandably accepted a literal interpretation of some such passages, I am suggesting that their interpretation of those passages may have been in error.

So MG and Jeff simply need to tell these GAs that their interpretation of the scriptures they quote may have been in error. Probably the GAs have never come across the idea that their interpretation of scriptures is wrong, and that is why they keep making the same mistake, over and over again. I bet they would be grateful to a member who corrected them.

This is left as an exercise for the student. Please, MG, report back:

50, East North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT, United States 84150

[MG 2.0]

I’ve never thought otherwise.

Here’s a good place to start:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/article ... d-story-2/

And we have an apostle who gave us this:



Yes, we have a choice of what to believe as active and believing members of the CofJCofLDS.

It’s interesting, at least to me, that the critics and disaffected don’t seem to understand this.

Regards,
MG

Interesting that you quote a Dialog article that quotes an Improvement Era article from 1933 to counter later quotes from the Ensign.

OK - perhaps things really have changed since I was an active, believing member.

But remind me which one of these is the official publication of the Church, in which, in 2005, the then-prophet says: "Those of us who read and believe the scriptures are aware of the warnings of prophets concerning catastrophes that have come to pass and are yet to come to pass. There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only “eight souls were saved” (1 Pet. 3:20)."

He didn't mean that, right?

Which one of these articles was actually a talk given in General Conference. Should Elder Peterson have not claimed that "by modern revelation we know that [Noah's flood] did take place"?

Were they unaware that they apparently should not treat Noah's flood as if it were a fact? Perhaps they should have made it clear that they were only stating their opinions on what may have happened, that it's OK to read and not believe the scriptures, and for active and believing members of the CofJCofLDS to have a choice of what they believe to be scripture and revelation.

I wonder if the prophet has ever made such a statement, and if conference speakers say, in effect, "you cannot depend on what we claim is revelation - we may be completely wrong".

Let's go a little further, shall we?

Now I'm also wondering about the Tower of Babel, and the Jaredites' sea voyage. Can active and believing members of the CofJCofLDS choose what to believe about these stories too.

How about Joseph Smith's writings in the D&C - are they up for dispute as well? Perhaps the First Vision didn't actually happen as recorded in the PoGP - or at all.

Perhaps we don't really believe the Articles of Faith, do we?

I should let my bishop know that he cannot hold it against me if I disagree with scriptures, or with GC talks - they can't be trusted to be accurate.

Where does this actually end?

It’s a slippery slope, right?

Views in regards to the Great Flood and the Tower of Babel are unlikely to come up in conversations with the Bishops of the church. Same with evolutionary theory.

They may, on an individual level, have their own views.

On the other hand, the Articles of Faith aren’t going anywhere. Generally the GC talks deal with basic gospel principles, Jesus Christ, and following the commandments. Very few active members of the church are going to come out in opposition against the basic principles and tenets of the church.

Critics will find whatever they can to find fault, however.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Imagine pointing out lying, and the liar responds with accusations of fault finding.

-_-

[Morley]

Critic: The global flood.

MG: The flood isn’t doctrine. You obviously know nothing about the church.

Critic: Here’s the proof the flood is doctrine.

MG: Everyone knows it's doctrine. It’s just not doctrine that matters. You always find fault.

[doubtingthomas]

When it comes to things like evolution/flood and other scientifically related areas the church generally has no stated doctrinal position although members and leaders have expressed their opinions. rds,
MG

What is a doctrinal position? Is gambling a sin?

[Morley]

Critic: The global flood.

MG: The flood isn’t doctrine. You obviously know nothing about the church.

Critic: Here’s the proof the flood is doctrine.

MG: Everyone knows it's doctrine. It’s just not doctrine that matters. You always find fault.

Coming up next:

Critic: Here's how the doctrine of a global flood matters.

MG: You're a humanist and an atheist and clearly hate the Creator God.