Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The reasons for the flood


Recommended Posts

That's very helpful Mark. We were definitely talking past one an other. 

In the current debate between apologetics and Neo-apologetics the old apologetics is more FARMS and that's how I was using it. Neo-apologetisc is more the current Maxwell Institute. That's not exact and there's some blurring. Exactly how to deal with that blurring is what seems debatable, which is why I brought up Kevin Christiansen, Alan Goff and others since they don't fit neatly into the proposed categories. (To be clear Neo-apologetic isn't my term and I have some problems with it although a get the familial difference between a focus on facts and a focus on meaning)

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There were some top evolutionists at BYU. As I recall one of the first examples of evolutionary gain, loss and re-evolution of wings was discovered at BYU. That symposium I'd mentioned on issues in science and religion science majors had to take was partially taught by Paul Cox, one of the top evolutionary scholars in the world. He became a dean there and then was hired by an university in Sweden as I recall. I used to climb with someone from Berkeley who came for graduate work at BYU just because of him. Although she wasn't exactly taken with the local culture. (She wasn't Mormon and had a very hard time with Sundays in Utah) Again I've not really kept up with things recently - perils of become old I guess.

(She wasn't Mormon and had a very hard time with Sundays in Utah).

Off topic but this much ignorance from an educated person is plain unforgivable (granted she is not a geologist)....Most of the worlds natural marvels stand in Southern Utah.....

Link to comment

I think those manuals are incorrect. Finding errors in manuals isn't terribly hard. Heck - want to see a lot? Let me point you to the D&C Institute manual. And of course errors regularly pop up in the church magazines. We don't have infallibility of prophets. We most certainly don't have infallibility of magazines.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment

I find the argument between Creationism and Evolution quite moot because they are both provably WRONG. Yeah, that is what I said, neither creationism nor evolution are correct in any way- how devicive of Satan in getting us to vigorously argue between two false doctrines as though they are the only two possible choices.

 

The truth is that there are/were no form of life on this planet that was not previously on another. And there will never be any form of life on any future planet that did not already exist on a prevous planet. All forms of life on this planet were brought from another planet - INCLUDING HUMAN. This is part of the knowledge Joseph Smith was called to restore.

Edited by co-eternal
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I find the argument between Creationism and Evolution quite moot because they are both provably WRONG. Yeah, that is what I said, neither creationism nor evolution are correct in any way- how devicive of Satan in getting us to vigorously argue between two false doctrines as though they are the only two possible choices.

 

The truth is that there are/were no form of life on this planet that was not previously on another. And there will never be any form of life on any future planet that did not already exist on a prevous planet. All forms of life on this planet were brought from another planet - INCLUDING HUMAN. This is part of the knowledge Joseph Smith was called to restore.

So are you suggesting that the church dump its manuals and re-tool to teach this?

Link to comment
On 8/9/2018 at 3:02 PM, clarkgoble said:

I think those manuals are incorrect. Finding errors in manuals isn't terribly hard. Heck - want to see a lot? Let me point you to the D&C Institute manual. And of course errors regularly pop up in the church magazines. We don't have infallibility of prophets. We most certainly don't have infallibility of magazines.

Fortunately the correlation committee is kept to a higher standard than "I think".  But if you have a problem with what is being taught, I suppose you could write a letter or go see your SP.  Don't think it would do any good though.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Fortunately the correlation committee is kept to a higher standard than "I think".  But if you have a problem with what is being taught, I suppose you could write a letter or go see your SP.  Don't think it would do any good though.

That is not going to work....What works so well is Faculty teaches "Standard Science" on weekdays and go on and apply the strength of "Cognitive Dissonance" on Sundays while attending church. This is not unique to LDS only of course.... Most educated believer/churchgoer face the same challenge when they listen "Flood" type stories from their teachers/pastors.......

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Fortunately the correlation committee is kept to a higher standard than "I think".  But if you have a problem with what is being taught, I suppose you could write a letter or go see your SP.  Don't think it would do any good though.

Not sure what you're saying here. I think the manuals are "good enough" but they could definitely be improved. It seems undeniable they have errors in though - are you denying that?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That is not going to work....What works so well is Faculty teaches "Standard Science" on weekdays and go on and apply the strength of "Cognitive Dissonance" on Sundays while attending church. This is not unique to LDS only of course.... Most educated believer/churchgoer face the same challenge when they listen "Flood" type stories from their teachers/pastors.......

I don't think cognitive dissonance is as common as is suggested by critics.  Both Mormonism and the philosophies of science have enough wiggle room to allow for a myriad of possible explanations.  I think each member reconciles things differently in their own head as they have different understandings of science and religion.  But I think very few actually practice cognitive dissonance.  Also, one is not required to accept everything as literal in Mormonism.   

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That is not going to work....What works so well is Faculty teaches "Standard Science" on weekdays and go on and apply the strength of "Cognitive Dissonance" on Sundays while attending church. This is not unique to LDS only of course.... Most educated believer/churchgoer face the same challenge when they listen "Flood" type stories from their teachers/pastors.......

You do know that BYU is accredited... and have to teach certain things.  I hope you also know that their science faculty don’t write church manuals or determination doctrine.   

Link to comment
9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you're saying here. I think the manuals are "good enough" but they could definitely be improved. It seems undeniable they have errors in though - are you denying that?

So anything we do t agree with doctrinally we can wave off as being... “but  there are undeniable errors.”   That’s a dangerous road.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Sevenbak said:

So anything we do t agree with doctrinally we can wave off as being... “but  there are undeniable errors.”   That’s a dangerous road.

No. Where did you get that idea? I think there's a burden of proof to meet.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
23 hours ago, co-eternal said:

I find the argument between Creationism and Evolution quite moot because they are both provably WRONG. Yeah, that is what I said, neither creationism nor evolution are correct in any way- how devicive of Satan in getting us to vigorously argue between two false doctrines as though they are the only two possible choices.

Agree.

23 hours ago, co-eternal said:

The truth is that there are/were no form of life on this planet that was not previously on another. And there will never be any form of life on any future planet that did not already exist on a prevous planet. All forms of life on this planet were brought from another planet - INCLUDING HUMAN. This is part of the knowledge Joseph Smith was called to restore.

Adam and Eve were immortals (in a Terrestrial state, Paradisiacal Glory) when they were placed in the Garden of Eden.  They partook of the Forbidden Fruit and their nature fell (as well as the whole earth and everything in it).  They became corruptible and subject to death.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No. Where did you get that idea? I think there's a burden of proof to meet.

Where did I get that idea?  From your post... 

theplains asked:

Is the LDS Church deceiving people by teaching them that the flood was worldwide?

Sources:
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/children/resources/topics/animals/Noah-and-the-Flood-2002-10-friend.pdf
https://www.lds.org/friend/2002/10/for-little-friends/noah-and-the-flood?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/flood-at-noahs-time?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-6?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/friend/2010/03/jehovah-keeps-his-promises?lang=eng

You said:  "I think those manuals are incorrect."

So if you really think that one can dismiss the teachings of the church based on the fallibility of man, then there is no truth, nor can there ever be.  I repeat, that's a dangerous road.

Edited by Sevenbak
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

Where did I get that idea?  From your post... 

[..]

So if you really think that one can dismiss the teachings of the church based on the fallibility of man, then there is no truth, nor can there ever be.  I repeat, that's a dangerous road.

Some day you ought talk to someone who's worked on the manuals. You might have a different opinion. We're all people and we're all fallible. The manual authors are more than aware of this. The only infallible one is God and he chooses to use humans to express his will rather than directly. But if you need the Church to be infallible, more power to you. Hope it works out. I suspect you'll have a faith crisis before long. To me you've created an idol in place of the Church and ignored the humility of the prophets in places like Ether 12.

As I said, I think there's a high burden one has to meet. However there's also a standard way to determine what is doctrine, and just appearing in a manual or a conference talk isn't enough for a major doctrine. That said unless that burden can be met one should be cautious. However the evidence in science for things like no universal flood is so overwhelming its staggering. Maybe you're not aware of all that evidence or maybe you've decided to avoid it as it's a test of faith. Whatever the case, consider the possibility that people really aren't being flippant here.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

You do know that BYU is accredited... and have to teach certain things.  I hope you also know that their science faculty don’t write church manuals or determination doctrine.   

Don't disagree with you....But the fact is The Prophet Nelson does not believe in Evolution, he made it clear in numerous occasions....So, when the faculty go to church they would rather listen than teach or express their own contradictory opinions. Which is OK to me, I do my own contradictions perhaps...who knows.

Link to comment
On 8/16/2018 at 11:29 AM, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you're saying here. I think the manuals are "good enough" but they could definitely be improved. It seems undeniable they have errors in though - are you denying that?

So you still believe the church manuals or magazines are good enough when the teach about the global flood?  Or do you
think they can be improved by removing those false teachings that I referenced in a previous post?

Jim

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, theplains said:

So you still believe the church manuals or magazines are good enough when the teach about the global flood?  Or do you
think they can be improved by removing those false teachings that I referenced in a previous post?

I think it'd be wiser if they bracketed that issue. From just a practical standpoint you have kids going to school and learning about geology and so forth. If they feel like the Bible is at odds with the science they're learning in school it can turn them against the faith. Since it's not a formally accepted doctrine I think that's not something we should be burning a bridge with in a lesson manual. Even if you think it's correct and reject the science, realize what emphasizing it will do to people staying in the faith. This is anything but a key doctrine of the restoration.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

My definition "A far milder version of bipolarism, where individual acts very natural in circumstances he/she doesn't feel  like he/she belongs to" . 

Wikipedia:

Quote

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.

It has nothing to do with how someone acts.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...