The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Morley]

What was their [the church] response to the science saying there was no global flood?

The latest information. from the church that I’m aware of is Donald Parry’s article in the Ensign years ago. If that’s official. I’m not aware of anything since that time.

But you probably already knew that.

The church doesn’t have an official position on evolution even though individuals have expressed their own opinions…Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and other modern prophets and apostles.

I can only guess that this also holds true, at this point in time, in regards to certain ideas/teachings in relation to the flood at the time of Noah.

Regards,
MG

You mean this one, where he says, in part:

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.

as well as this:

Latter-day prophets teach that the Flood or the total immersion of the earth in water represents the earth’s required baptism. Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: “Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling ‘the measure of its creation.’ They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water.” He writes that the removal of earth’s wicked inhabitants in the Flood represents that which occurs in our own baptism for the remission of sins.13



It must be official, since the Church currently sponsors it on their website.

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


You were right that the Church does, indeed, react to some of the discoveries of science.

Thank you, MG.

[MG 2.0]

You were right that the Church does, indeed, react to some of the discoveries of science.

Or not react, as the case may be in relation to flood related issues. At least in the near recent past.

I remember when Parry’s article was published years ago it threw me for a loop.

But as I consider folks like Orson Pratt, Phelps, Snow, and others relying on their Protestant brethren as they developed their personal views on the Great Flood, I’m not surprised that there is still a conversation at play on these issues.

Things have been rather quiet as of late.

My point in this thread is that, just like evolution, there is room for folks to have wiggle room in whatever position or non position they choose to have. My concern is that folks with a black and white fundamentalist bent, which includes a number of critics in my opinion, are going to shatter like glass when they are not able to readily resolve issues such as this.

I hope I’ve satisfied your curiosity.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

My point in this thread is that, just like evolution, there is room for folks to have wiggle room in whatever position or non position they choose to have. My concern is that folks with a black and white fundamentalist bent, which includes a number of critics in my opinion, are going to shatter like glass when they are not able to readily resolve issues such as this.

I don't think you have to worry. If members were going to 'shatter like glass' over published Church doctrine, this piece that Sock Puppet earlier referred to would already have accomplished the task:


First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.


Don't you think?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

In MG’s world believing whatever they tell you at any given time is nuanced thinking as long as it leads to 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.

Don’t forget to cut them another check, Brother Gymnast! Wouldn’t want to miss out on those blessings the Lord likes to pour out upon the ‘select’. And by select I mean the $14,000,0000 man, not you.

-_-

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

My point in this thread is that, just like evolution, there is room for folks to have wiggle room in whatever position or non position they choose to have. My concern is that folks with a black and white fundamentalist bent, which includes a number of critics in my opinion, are going to shatter like glass when they are not able to readily resolve issues such as this.

I don't think you have to worry. If members were going to 'shatter like glass' over published Church doctrine, this piece that Sock Puppet earlier referred to would already have accomplished the task:


First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.


Don't you think?

This fits with what I’ve been saying. Phelps, Pratt, Snow, and then others, took the ball of ‘earth’s baptism’ associated with the Great Flood and ran with it. And we have the remnants of those views running right up to some folks living today. At least to those that spend any time thinking about it.

Donald Parry and those that are associated with and approved the publication of his article in the Ensign are expressing views that they hold/held. As did Pratt and others in the early history of the church. Why does it surprise anyone that views held by some of the early brethren based upon the speculation/theology of the Protestants of the time would seep into the views of some Latter-Day Saints today, including some leaders?

Views on race also have their origins in the times of those that lived concurrently with those views being taught/expressed. Some of those view were taught as truth by those LDS leaders that believed in and followed their religious brethren of other faiths. Come to find out, there were some problems with those remnants of racism as they traveled into the later 20th century and into our time.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

That is a HARD thing for some to understand and deal with. Some people actually leave the church because they have a heck of a time dealing with a God that works in this fashion.

Regards,
MG

[IHAQ]

In MG’s world believing whatever they tell you at any given time is nuanced thinking as long as it leads to 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.

Don’t forget to cut them another check, Brother Gymnast! Wouldn’t want to miss out on those blessings the Lord likes to pour out upon the ‘select’. And by select I mean the $14,000,0000 man, not you.

-_-

- Doc

Interestingly, if it’s okay to accept the global flood isn’t literal. It must be okay to believe the Book of Mormon isn’t a literal history of a literal people. Similarly you don’t need to believe in a literal Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden. The First Vision doesn’t really need to to have happened, no the resurrection when you follow the thinking and logic involved in reaching a position where the flood doesn’t really need to have been an actual global event. Jesus can have been just some bloke, no real miracles - no loaves and fishes, no walking on water etc. They don’t need to have actually happened, you don’t need to believe they actually happened. MG is basically saying it’s fine to believe the scriptures are all fiction.

But you’re right Doc, you don’t need to believe anything literally but you do have to hand over the cash to be considered in good standing.

[Morley]

I don't think you have to worry. If members were going to 'shatter like glass' over published Church doctrine, this piece that Sock Puppet earlier referred to would already have accomplished the task:


First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.


Don't you think?

This fits with what I’ve been saying. Phelps, Pratt, Snow, and then others, took the ball of ‘earth’s baptism’ associated with the Great Flood and ran with it. And we have the remnants of those views running right up to some folks living today. At least to those that spend any time thinking about it.

Donald Parry and those that are associated with and approved the publication of his article in the Ensign are expressing views that they hold/held. As did Pratt and others in the early history of the church. Why does it surprise anyone that views held by some of the early brethren based upon the speculation/theology of the Protestants of the time would seep into the views of some Latter-Day Saints today, including some leaders?

Views on race also have their origins in the times of those that lived concurrently with those views being taught/expressed. Some of those view were taught as truth by those LDS leaders that believed in and followed their religious brethren of other faiths. Come to find out, there were some problems with those remnants of racism as they traveled into the later 20th century and into our time.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

That is a HARD thing for some to understand and deal with. Some people actually leave the church because they have a heck of a time dealing with a God that works in this fashion.

Regards,
MG

Yeah, I know, it's ridiculous that anyone would take the prophet and his counselors at their words when they say things like "It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord," and then have [cough] "the Lord" [cough] go back on his word 30 years later. That is some serious lack of nuance, some real black and white thinking.

Really, members should just handle it like you and I do, and shrug their collective shoulders and order another Snapple. Can't they see everything isn't binary? There are literally billions of ways to think about this. As long as the end of that thinking leads to the conclusion that the Church is true, we're all right.

[Morley]

Interestingly, if it’s okay to accept the global flood isn’t literal. It must be okay to believe the Book of Mormon isn’t a literal history of a literal people. Similarly you don’t need to believe in a literal Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden. The First Vision doesn’t really need to to have happened, no the resurrection when you follow the thinking and logic involved in reaching a position where the flood doesn’t really need to have been an actual global event.

Hey, IHAQ, I think you've got the nuance flowing now! Feel it running through your bones? Good job!

[Morley]

This fits with what I’ve been saying. Phelps, Pratt, Snow, and then others, took the ball of ‘earth’s baptism’ associated with the Great Flood and ran with it. And we have the remnants of those views running right up to some folks living today. At least to those that spend any time thinking about it.

Donald Parry and those that are associated with and approved the publication of his article in the Ensign are expressing views that they hold/held. As did Pratt and others in the early history of the church. Why does it surprise anyone that views held by some of the early brethren based upon the speculation/theology of the Protestants of the time would seep into the views of some Latter-Day Saints today, including some leaders?

Views on race also have their origins in the times of those that lived concurrently with those views being taught/expressed. Some of those view were taught as truth by those LDS leaders that believed in and followed their religious brethren of other faiths. Come to find out, there were some problems with those remnants of racism as they traveled into the later 20th century and into our time.

Those damned protestants making us think those things.

[Morley]

That is a HARD thing for some to understand and deal with. Some people actually leave the church because they have a heck of a time dealing with a God that works in this fashion.

You're kidding me. I can't believe that.