Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[Physics Guy]

I thought that Widstoe's idea about rain was that it could technically "immerse" the whole globe, by getting all of it wet simultaneously, without having to flood all the continents. I thought his point was to make the global Flood unfalsifiable, by making it into a brief weather coincidence that would not have left any geological traces. Getting it to rain in Antarctica would be hard, though, unless snow and ice can also count for immersion.

I guess the whole Earth could maybe have had rain at some point in some ice-free warm period of prehistory, but there were no humans around then.

[I Have Questions]

MG,

Seriously, could you be any more dishonest in your research? You could have just been honest and told me you couldn’t find any sources showing church leaders denying a global flood.

Let’s actually look at what Elder John Widstoe said in his article. Elder Widstoe left no doubt that he believed in a literal global flood that covered the entire world:

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described ii, Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

https://bhroberts.org/records/0BXNou-0j ... m_of_earth

The great flood of Noah that killed all the inhabitants of the earth except for those few in the Ark is now just the earth getting a bit damp.

The bigger problem with not accepting the story of the great flood that wiped out planet earth is that it renders the Noah story, and the doctrinal implications that come from it, less than credible. For instance, LDS doctrine holds that the tribes of Israel stem from Noah's sons. But with a localised flood, or as Widstoe would have people believe, a slight dampness across most of the planet, then the people of the earth today descend from far more than just the sons of Noah.

[Morley]

I thought that Widstoe's idea about rain was that it could technically "immerse" the whole globe, by getting all of it wet simultaneously, without having to flood all the continents. I thought his point was to make the global Flood unfalsifiable, by making it into a brief weather coincidence that would not have left any geological traces. Getting it to rain in Antarctica would be hard, though, unless snow and ice can also count for immersion.

I guess the whole Earth could maybe have had rain at some point in some ice-free warm period of prehistory, but there were no humans around then.

Perhaps it wasn't actually rain, but just humidity. The water in the air acted as a kind of global 'flood.'

[Fence Sitter]

The global flood covered the entire earth in the same way Mormonism is covering it.

[MG 2.0]

Yes, that is true in regards to what is put out in the world. They present a united front. The correlated teachings will be what is taught. But thought is another thing. Different folks, including G.A.'s I would expect, don't see the world in exactly the same way. They may think differently on various things.

They have their own thoughts.

At times, they may keep those thoughts to themselves, other times they may share. We all do that.

Regards,
MG

Really? You must have some great mind reading skills there MG. Do you have an example of any of the currently serving Apostles, voicing an opinion during their Apostleship on a doctrinal item that was different to the official Church position?

No. And you're right, I can't read minds. I'm surmising that humans being humans are going to have their own thoughts independent of other humans. Correlation, as I said, has pretty much put an end to public disagreement among the Brethren. And as I also said previously this may be due to the fact that the church has become international in scope and the Brethren may have decided that above all else they need to show a united front in order to 'keep the peace' and hinder unwanted friction among diverse groups.

Keeping the doctrine and practices/policies uniform, clean, and pure (as seen from the outside looking in) keeps the church on an even keel with less opportunity for general apostacy while at the same time knowing that there will be a trade off in apostacy and discontent among individual dissidents and critics that have views interdependent/associated with their own culture/society or intellectual leanings and pursuits.

Being 'One in Christ' is the primary objective. There are a number of scriptures that could be quoted that point to the overriding importance of being one.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Really? You must have some great mind reading skills there MG. Do you have an example of any of the currently serving Apostles, voicing an opinion during their Apostleship on a doctrinal item that was different to the official Church position?

No. And you're right, I can't read minds. I'm surmising that humans being humans are going to have their own thoughts independent of other humans. Correlation, as I said, has pretty much put an end to public disagreement among the Brethren. And as I also said previously this may be due to the fact that the church has become international in scope and the Brethren may have decided that above all else they need to show a united front in order to 'keep the peace' and hinder unwanted friction among diverse groups.

Keeping the doctrine and practices/policies uniform, clean, and pure (as seen from the outside looking in) keeps the church on an even keel with less opportunity for general apostacy while at the same time knowing that there will be a trade off in apostacy and discontent among individual dissidents and critics that have views interdependent/associated with their own culture/society or intellectual leanings and pursuits.

Being 'One in Christ' is the primary objective. There are a number of scriptures that could be quoted that point to the overriding importance of being one.

Regards,
MG

So no, you don’t have any examples of any of the currently serving Apostles, voicing an opinion during their Apostleship on a doctrinal item that was different to the official Church position.

And no, you have no evidence in support of your assertion that they have their own minds on doctrinal subjects that differ from the official Church position. You just “surmise”. Which is another way of saying you make things up.

[MG 2.0]

...you make things up.

I don't think that is a fair statement. To be clear, I have committed to turning the other cheek and doing a better job a following Christ's injunction to not 'feed contention'. A few days ago when some accused me of NOT turning the other cheek I asked them to define what that actually means. To the best of my recollection there was no response. They simply said, yep, that's what you're doing. Same thing here...you make a simple blanket statement that essentially has no real meaning.

And for the record, there have been not a few opportunities lately to turn the other cheek and I've found it somewhat liberating and also time saving to refuse the impulse to feed into any sort of contentious remarks and/or accusations meant to stir things up. When I don't respond to certain posts, that is what I'm doing...not feeding/encouraging those that would simply try to stir up emotions and create false narratives, etc.

The downside is that I have to let certain posters have their way. But in the long run, that's OK. I think that some folks can see it for what it is.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

...you make things up.

I don't think that is a fair statement.

It’s not the statement I made. Stop curtailing quotes to remove the context. You’ve been warned about doing that before.

[MG 2.0]

I don't think that is a fair statement.

It’s not the statement I made. Stop curtailing quotes to remove the context. You’ve been warned about doing that before.

It's because I don't believe that surmising something is the same thing as making stuff up. Your accusation had a negative connotation which I did not apprecitate.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

It’s not the statement I made. Stop curtailing quotes to remove the context. You’ve been warned about doing that before.

It's because I don't believe that surmising something is the same thing as making stuff up. Your accusation had a negative connotation which I did not apprecitate.

Regards,
MG

Here’s the full quote “And no, you have no evidence in support of your assertion that they have their own minds on doctrinal subjects that differ from the official Church position. You just “surmise”. Which is another way of saying you make things up.”

Surmising “sans” evidence is making things up. Here’s a definition for you

to guess something, without having much or any proof

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... e_vignette
Asserting something on the basis of a guess is making things up.