I think it was reset for a relatively small group of people. A people who were called to be a 'covenant people' to live a higher law but chose to go another direction counter to that higher law. All the stuff about all the animals going along with them, the giraffe, the penguin, etc.,...umm...I don't think so.
Unfortunately, MG appears to be completely ignorant that the church teaches, and has always taught, that the Flood was literal and global.
John Taylor:
"But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells us that "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.” Journal of Discourses 26:74–75 (November 30, 1884).
Joseph F. Smith:
“The Flood was a baptism of the earth. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 320
Bruce R. McConkie:
"The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the Old World by the Flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomenon." Mormon Doctrine, chapter “Adam‑Ondi‑Ahman,” pp. 19–20
Harold B. Lee:
Furthermore, we are given to understand that all who live in mortality, if they would perfect their genealogical research, could trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve, our first earthly parents in the Garden of Eden, through Noah and his family, who were the only living persons on the earth after the flood." Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee
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.
Ensign, The Flood, Donald Parry, January 1998,
I remember reading Parry's message in the original Ensign back in 1998. He along with others, including ecclesiastical leaders, were adamant that the scriptural record be taken literally in regards to a worldwide flood. Others, including ecclesiastical leaders have taught/thought differently.
Again why do you say this is true as a matter of fact? I think there are many active and believing members, including those trained in the sciences, that would disagree.
That view certainly runs contrary to what the Church teaches about the flood (see Everybody Wang Chung’s post). It also runs contrary to the general narrative of building a boat to save a few people whilst the masses were drowned. If the flooding was localised, as you are suggesting, it fails to deliver its stated divine purpose.
Let me add this current reference It’s unequivocal.
That view also opens the door to believing that all the other stories in The Bible, including those about Jesus, are similar tall tales, like the flood. And where does that then leave the notion of a Great Apostasy and therefore a Restoration?
The idea of a local flood is a straw that breaks the camel’s break. The whole house of cards falls down. Accepting one story as figurative/myth/lengend, is accepting that they all could be.
If you support the notion of a localised flood, then that’s you supporting something contrary to accepted Church doctrine. Which should bar you from holding a temple recommend (at least honestly). Here’s the relevant question “Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” If you answer No to that, then you’re not telling the truth.
It’s seems true that members can believe anything they want, so long as they continue to pray, pay, and obey.
Remember the Tower of Babel (I don't mean that literally - I don't think you're that old )
A non-literal ToB story kind of damages the entire Jaredite narrative, and thereby undermines whole sections of the Book of Mormon.
I mean, I'm OK with that, but I doubt that church leaders would be.
I have a brother who is a top tier linguist with accolades under his belt. We've talked about this. No literal confusion of languages worldwide as a result of this one mythical event. Book of Mormon prophets may have believed it. Others have believed it. But it didn't happen.
All the stuff about all the animals going along with them, the giraffe, the penguin, etc.,...umm...I don't think so.
The Chinese dynasties were rolling right along. Yada, yada, yada.
Clocks can be reset for different games being played on different courts that are widely separated.
Regards,
MG
Good point. The penguins and giraffes on Earth Two could have been deposited in Florida, thus missing the treacherous Drake Passage near Antarctica completely.
With different clocks, Mormons could be known for their services starting right on time. Different clocks might also account for the platypus, curlom, and cumom.
So, what about missing the requirement to attain the Everlasting Covenant?
The game clock was reset. I mean, what was a God to do?
As always, thanks for your compliment.
Regards,
MG
MG said: "The game clock was reset. I mean, what was a God to do?"
Astonishing! So the Almighty really couldn't think of anything better or a way out that he simply had to murder everyone except a very small number of them because, forsooth, he either didn't have the power, or didn't have the will, or didn't have the resources to make something work perhaps through the Holy Ghost?! So he murders them all instead?! OMG MG this is simply the most laughable defense I have ever seen for an Almighty deity. Of course, to a literalist there is not many options other than yours to produce... I get that.
You have to keep in mind, this is a god who was so taken aback by human activity that he was sorry he made humans, and the whole thing grieved his heart. (Gen 6:6) This kind of god seems a whole lot more clueless than Q on Star Trek.
Identifying as African-American Lesbian who is identifying as a Gay Man and a Gay Journalist
Pronouns: what/me/worry
Rocker and a mocker and a midnight shocker
I remember reading Parry's message in the original Ensign back in 1998. He along with others, including ecclesiastical leaders, were adamant that the scriptural record be taken literally in regards to a worldwide flood. Others, including ecclesiastical leaders have taught/thought differently.
MG, I must have missed this. Who among the General Authorities has taught differently?
I remember reading Parry's message in the original Ensign back in 1998. He along with others, including ecclesiastical leaders, were adamant that the scriptural record be taken literally in regards to a worldwide flood. Others, including ecclesiastical leaders have taught/thought differently.
MG, I must have missed this. Who among the General Authorities has taught differently?
Prophets and Apostles often have different opinions, and interpret scripture differently based on their knowledge, experience, and training. We should not expect absolute unity of knowledge based merely on their office. https://benspackman.com/2021/08/james-e ... -kingdoms/
If this is true, would we find that this applies to all prophets, ancient and modern? You are correct in saying that leaders have not taught explicitly that there was not a worldwide flood. But they may very well have had their own thoughts in regards to the flood of Noah. Talmage went back and forth in regards to what he said or didn't say about progression between kingdoms of glory. What he taught changed as his situation changed and his thoughts evolved.
MG, I must have missed this. Who among the General Authorities has taught differently?
Prophets and Apostles often have different opinions, and interpret scripture differently based on their knowledge, experience, and training. We should not expect absolute unity of knowledge based merely on their office. https://benspackman.com/2021/08/james-e ... -kingdoms/
If this is true, would we find that this applies to all prophets, ancient and modern? You are correct in saying that leaders have not taught explicitly that there was not a worldwide flood. But they may very well have had their own thoughts in regards to the flood of Noah. Talmage went back and forth in regards to what he said or didn't say about progression between kingdoms of glory. What he taught changed as his situation changed and his thoughts evolved.
Regards,
MG
If we’re free to speculate that prophets are saying one thing but teaching another, then doctrine and theology are useless. I find myself agreeing with you.
Again why do you say this is true as a matter of fact? I think there are many active and believing members, including those trained in the sciences, that would disagree.
Humans ability to convince themselves despite the evidence is a well known phenomenon. There are still people who believe the earth is flat. A very well educated human being is definitely capable of letting their “sunk cost” influence their choice to remain involved in a Church that they know to be much less than what it claims to be, with doctrines that they know to be less than accurate, that has a leadership team capable of huge double standards and deceit and who have been shown time and time again to be unreliable leaders.
On balance are there more scientists that truly believe in Mormonism in the pews than scientists that don’t really believe in Mormonism but attend anyway for a number of other reasons? I know that’s an unanswerable question, but everyone knows the answer.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
MG, I must have missed this. Who among the General Authorities has taught differently?
Prophets and Apostles often have different opinions, and interpret scripture differently based on their knowledge, experience, and training. We should not expect absolute unity of knowledge based merely on their office. https://benspackman.com/2021/08/james-e ... -kingdoms/
If this is true, would we find that this applies to all prophets, ancient and modern? You are correct in saying that leaders have not taught explicitly that there was not a worldwide flood. But they may very well have had their own thoughts in regards to the flood of Noah. Talmage went back and forth in regards to what he said or didn't say about progression between kingdoms of glory. What he taught changed as his situation changed and his thoughts evolved.
Regards,
MG
So, to sum up your position:
Every statement by a General Authority made from the pulpit at General Conference, and every statement made in official church publications such as the Ensign, church manuals, and seminary manuals, proclaims as gospel truth that the flood was literal, worldwide, and only Noah and his family survived, but some old dead GAs *may* have had doubts about that, which they kept private and which church members only found about decades after the GAs died.
Oh, 'back'...OK. 
)
