Jobim on the Flood

[J Green]

It's been fun watching Cinepro's One Note Samba for the last week or so--at least five or six threads and countless posts. I tried to introduce other notes in the scale but obviously failed. The following are a few of the points I raised in several of the threads that I believe never received a response:

1. Along with revealed doctrine and interpretation, the Church also incorporates a certain amount of general scholarship into its material. This material is updated as the Church feels appropriate. Cinepro disagreed and issued a CFR, which I answered by quoting from an introductory paragraph to the tools at the end of the LDS Bible. Ignored. I brought it up again. Ignored. A rational discussion would acknowledge this fact and possibly move onto some middle ground of determining how this might apply to interpretations of the flood story.

2. As an example of the above, I mentioned the recent change to the Bible maps to show that Ur could have been in either of two locations. I recalled how I had been taught in seminary about the traditional location and my experience with LDS service members with me in Iraq who strongly believed that they had visited the actual location of Ur and didn't know about the recent update. Tradition and interpretation can be long-standing and widespread yet still be updated at some point. Not acknowledged. (Wasn't the right note in the samba.)

3. I brought up BRM's comments about re-looking formerly-held interpretations of past scripture in the light of new revelation. I even quoted a portion and linked to the speech. Others also brought up these comments during the several threads as well. Obviously, some of us feel this is pertinent to looking at interpretation in the context of also believing in a Church directed by revelation and priesthood authority. How does interpretation and revelation work jointly in the light of BRM's comments? Or do they? I suppose we won't know because it was consistently ignored every time it was raised.

4. Several of us raised textual/translation issues in discussing this subject, in particular the several strands of redaction in the Genesis pericope. I later observed that (admittedly and consistently widespread) interpretations that were not "officially binding" (as per Cinepro's favorite statement from the Church) about the flood's global nature were based on reading literally the translation of a text that has redaction issues. I noticed that the scholarly consensus for these problems is perfectly consistent with the Church's actual literal and core doctrine that mentions editing problems in the Bible. I mentioned how Joseph emphasized Moroni quoting Malachi differently. In other words, core doctrine of redaction/editing that dovetails with fairly consistent scholarship on this particular text is being dropped from the discussion in favor of literal, non-core interpretations. I find it odd that fairly clear passages in the BOM and D&C about this editing can't get any air time with Cinepro. Ignored again. ("But each day when she walks to the sea, she looks straight ahead, not at me!)

5. I observed that most of scripture appears to tell the story of God's people struggling to interpret God's continuing revelation. In most cases, strong interpretations settled into the culture, some of which was corrected by God and some not. I offered several examples, from early interpretations about the Savior's mission, to when the end time would come, taking the gospel to the Gentiles, etc. The Lord corrected them--if and when he did--in his own time. The fact that he sometimes let generations pass without correcting an interpretation didn't mean that he wasn't God or that they weren't his people or that they weren't led by a prophet or priesthood. Again, no response.

6. Several of us brought up the point that history was a different concept for ancient Israel. While believing that the original story is telling a real, actual, historical event, the telling of it is often framed in the terms of metaphorical terminology and mythological paradigms. In particular, I brought up the beginning to Gen 6 and the traditional difficulties with this text about fallen angels procreating giants. This is a difficult text to understand, but it's the beginning of the flood story. How do we read them together coherently? Do you read one as complete metaphor and one as complete literal reality? Do you read both as real events that have some redaction issues? Other options? Is it germane to the discussion? I don't know, there was no response to this at all.

I had a few more in mind, but I think I've made my point. Like the addicting beat in Sing, Sing, Sing, Cinepro has found enjoyment in playing his one note over and over. And over. Without moving the discussion forward or exploring other points of view.

I continue to watch fascinated. Jobim would be proud.

[ebeddoulos]

It's been fun watching Cinepro's One Note Samba for the last week or so--at least five or six threads and countless posts. I tried to introduce other notes in the scale but obviously failed. The following are a few of the points I raised in several of the threads that I believe never received a response:

~~snip~~

I had a few more in mind, but I think I've made my point. Like the addicting beat in Sing, Sing, Sing, Cinepro has found enjoyment in playing his one note over and over. And over. Without moving the discussion forward or exploring other points of view.

I continue to watch fascinated. Jobim would be proud.

I believe you will find that this type of behavior is straight from the anti-Mormon playbook. I suspect that your arguments were well beyond his shallow depth of understanding. Remember, most anti-Mormons think research consists of rewording something they've plagiarised from some anti-Mormon website in order to pass it off as their own. When the anti-Mormon gets over his head he seems to follows a set pattern of plays in no particular order:

He tries the old obtuse misdirection in an effort to get you onto another .. any other ... subject than the one in which he is drowning in his own ignorance. The bogus CFR is a favorite.

Another one is the inane repetition play. Same silly argument just repeated over and over and over an ... well you get the idea. It doesn't matter if you have covered the ground before, they somehow think that if they repeat the same tired argument over and over again they will win the debate.

The other fall-back play is the compare the apple to the pineapple play. This can take a variety of forms:

• compare standards of yesteryear against today
  
• compare something they define as normal with something they define as abnormal. For the anti-Mormon the two need not be remotely related.
  
• state something totally of wall as if it were factual and contrast that with your reasoned argument which is supported by evidence and pretend that was all that was needed.
  
• etc. etc. ad infinitum
  

When this tactic does not work, the anti-Mormon will either just ignore you or rinse and repeat. It sounds like you are being playe but you knew that.

[Bill Hamblin]

I had a few more in mind, but I think I've made my point. Like the addicting beat in Sing, Sing, Sing, Cinepro has found enjoyment in playing his one note over and over. And over. Without moving the discussion forward or exploring other points of view.

I continue to watch fascinated. Jobim would be proud.

Apparently there is something about monomania that you don't understand.

[Nevo]

Cinepro's not an anti-Mormon. And he doesn't plagiarise from anti-Mormon websites. These charges are totally unfounded.

I have a lot of respect for J Green but I don't share his disdain for Cinepro's posts. I think Cinepro has actually raised the level of discussion on the board and I, for one, am glad he's around.

[Tchild2]

I believe you will find that this type of behavior is straight from the anti-Mormon playbook. I suspect that your arguments were well beyond his shallow depth of understanding. Remember, most anti-Mormons think research consists of rewording something they've plagiarised from some anti-Mormon website in order to pass it off as their own. When the anti-Mormon gets over his head he seems to follows a set pattern of plays in no particular order:

I second Nevo. Cinepro, while inquisitive beyond his years, is an active member. Maybe you can offer an example of the "rewording" or "plagiarised" material Cinepro has referenced? If you read his posts, you will see that he links LDS.org sources almost exclusively.

He tries the old obtuse misdirection in an effort to get you onto another .. any other ... subject than the one in which he is drowning in his own ignorance. The bogus CFR is a favorite.

referencing church talks, quotes and articles is misdirection? Do you have another specific example in mind?

Another one is the inane repetition play. Same silly argument just repeated over and over and over an ... well you get the idea. It doesn't matter if you have covered the ground before, they somehow think that if they repeat the same tired argument over and over again they will win the debate.

What is your explanation for why the church teaches a worldwide flood, but that science and many members and apologists disagree?

The other fall-back play is the compare the apple to the pineapple play. This can take a variety of forms:

• compare standards of yesteryear against today
  
• compare something they define as normal with something they define as abnormal. For the anti-Mormon the two need not be remotely related.
  
• state something totally of wall as if it were factual and contrast that with your reasoned argument which is supported by evidence and pretend that was all that was needed.
  
• etc. etc. ad infinitum
  

When this tactic does not work, the anti-Mormon will either just ignore you or rinse and repeat. It sounds like you are being playe but you knew that.

An example of any of the above if you can?

[Nevo]

It's been fun watching Cinepro's One Note Samba for the last week or so--at least five or six threads and countless posts. I tried to introduce other notes in the scale but obviously failed. The following are a few of the points I raised in several of the threads that I believe never received a response:

1. Along with revealed doctrine and interpretation, the Church also incorporates a certain amount of general scholarship into its material. This material is updated as the Church feels appropriate. Cinepro disagreed and issued a CFR, which I answered by quoting from an introductory paragraph to the tools at the end of the LDS Bible. Ignored. I brought it up again. Ignored. A rational discussion would acknowledge this fact and possibly move onto some middle ground of determining how this might apply to interpretations of the flood story.

2. As an example of the above, I mentioned the recent change to the Bible maps to show that Ur could have been in either of two locations. I recalled how I had been taught in seminary about the traditional location and my experience with LDS service members with me in Iraq who strongly believed that they has visited the actual location of Ur and didn't know about the recent update. Tradition and interpretation can be long-standing and widespread yet still be updated at some point. Not acknowledged. (Wasn't the right note in the samba.)

Hi J Green,

I won't presume to speak for Cinepro, but I wouldn't mind responding to your first two points.

Regarding point #1, I think Cinepro's CFR was justified. As he noted here, Church curriculum even at the college-level is largely devoid of modern critical biblical scholarship, and certainly of anything that might undermine a literalistic reading of the scriptures. I basically agreed with his assessment and provided evidence here. Now, it is true that there are a few vestiges of modern biblical scholarship in the current LDS Bible Dictionary (which I believe was adapted from an older Cambridge Bible dictionary) but anything remotely controversial has been suppressed. Thus, under "Pauline Epistles â?? Epistle to the Hebrews" we read "Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews . . ." â?? even though virtually no NT scholars currently believe this to be true (even the NIV Study Bible rules out Pauline authorship). As Philip Barlow rightly notes, the supplementary material is characterized by "strongly conservative views" (see Mormons and the Bible, 205).

Regarding point #2, you mention the two possible locations of Ur depicted in the maps section as an example of the Church incorporating recent scholarship into its teaching material. In an earlier post you wrote, "When recent tablets uncovered in Syria mentioned an Ur closer to Haran than the traditional Ur pinpointed by Cyrus Gordon, the Church updated its map and showed both locations, along with a question mark to demonstrate the uncertainty of either location."

I don't know what Syrian tablets you might be referring to, but I do know that virtually all scholars locate Ur in southern Iraq and that the northwest Syria location has been promoted by LDS scholars for some time, based largely on evidence from the Book of Abraham (see, e.g., Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?" in Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate, Jr. [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center/Brigham Young University, 1989], 119-131).

In fact, I don't know of any major Bible dictionary or commentary that opts for the Syrian location (which first appeared on LDS Bible maps in 1979). Both the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) and Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000) identify the biblical Ur with modern Tell al-Muqqayyar in southern Iraq and don't even mention other possible locations. As far as I can tell, LDS scholars are the only ones currently pushing the northwest Syria location. So I don't think this is really an example of the Chuch responding to current scholarship (although there may be other valid examples of this).

For the record, I share your skepticism of the global flood story in Genesis

Regards,

Nevo

[J Green]

Hi, Nevo

I always enjoy your posts. Let me take this in reverse:

I think it's fair to say that LDS scholars generally go for the northern site. (Google "Ur" at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute or read the proceedings of the "World of Abraham" conference). However, both locations are referenced in modern scholarship. Cf. Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary (Broadman and Holman, 2005) 100 and V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990) 364-65. For Gerhard Von Rad's textual analysis and doubts about the southern site, see Genesis (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1972) 157-158. While noting the consensus for the southern site, A.T. Clay's entry for "Ur" in the ISBE reflects a whole range of scholarly opinion on the subject (Vol 10, pp. 529-530). These are simply from my notes. I could probably expand on this if I needed to.

As for the first point, I would agree that the Church usually is slow to incorporate "modern critical biblical" scholarship into some of its materials. But I certainly think that it "incorporates a certain amount of general biblical scholarship," which is actually what I stated. Although at BYU I certainly was exposed to both. I can remember classes with Richard Lloyd Anderson and Kent Jackson that really engaged the latest critical scholarship.

And for the record, I enjoy Cinepro's participation on the board as well. I wouldn't engage him otherwise. But I would disagree that he has moved the discussion forward. Over 25 pages of posts later, he is still repeating the same mantra without seriously either considering or engaging the many points that have been brought up that would bring some texture and depth to the conversation. In reality, it's less of a discussion--where several points of view are considered and reasonably discussed--and more of a shrill bleating. It's why I stopped trying.

Regards

[J Green]

Apparently there is something about monomania that you don't understand.

What's not to understand about Mononucleosis? It's the same as Swine Flue, right?

[Nevo]

I think it's fair to say that LDS scholars generally go for the northern site. (Google "Ur" at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute or read the proceedings of the "World of Abraham" conference). However, both locations are referenced in modern scholarship. Cf. Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary (Broadman and Holman, 2005) 100 and V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990) 364-65. For Gerhard Von Rad's textual analysis and doubts about the southern site, see Genesis (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1972) 157-158. While noting the consensus for the southern site, A.T. Clay's entry for "Ur" in the ISBE reflects a whole range of scholarly opinion on the subject (Vol 10, pp. 529-530). These are simply from my notes. I could probably expand on this if I needed to.

Thanks for the correction. I have to admit I didn't dig very deeply. I used to own Hamilton's commentary (well, just the first volume actually) but I sold it a year or two ago to make more room on my shelves. I didn't even check Von Rad. But in any case I suspect the decision to include the northern site on LDS maps owed more to the strong support it enjoyed among LDS scholars than anything else. I haven't seen it included on any non-LDS Bible maps (but I've only looked at a half-dozen or so).

And for the record, I enjoy Cinepro's participation on the board as well. I wouldn't engage him otherwise. But I would disagree that he has moved the discussion forward. Over 25 pages of posts later, he is still repeating the same mantra without seriously either considering or engaging the many points that have been brought up that would bring some texture and depth to the conversation.

Maybe so. But I find that serious, good-faith discussions are the exception, not the rule, on this board. Most people seem to be more interested in debating and scoring rhetorical points. That just seems to be the way of Internet message boards, unfortunately. But I'm glad to see you holding others to your own high standard.

I enjoy your posts too, btw.

Regards,

Nevo

[ebeddoulos]

I second Nevo. Cinepro, while inquisitive beyond his years, is an active member.

I never said he was not a member of the church. Just because one attends church with a TBM spouse, has served a mission, etc., does not exempt one from being anti-Mormon. Nor did I state or imply that he should not be on this board. I didnâ??t even say that I did not like him or his posts. What I did say was that he used anti-Mormon tactics. With posts worded in a manner such as the one below, it was not too difficult for me to make that call.

Since the Church continues with the false teaching that the flood was both literal and worldwide, what needs to be done to correct this?

I am not confused by wolves in sheep's clothing.

Maybe you can offer an example of the "rewording" or "plagiarised" material Cinepro has referenced? If you read his posts, you will see that he links LDS.org sources almost exclusively.

Notice the similarity between Cineproâ??s post and this site and this site.

referencing church talks, quotes and articles is misdirection? Do you have another specific example in mind?

What an outstanding example of anti-Mormon misdirection. Thank you. You will notice that not once did I reference church talks, quotes or articles used or possibly misused by Cinepro. The relevant issue is Cinepro using a bogus CFR as a tactic. An example is the response Cinepro gave to why meâ??s statement on conclusive proof:

But then again, by finding something conclusive that would prove the book of mormon, the faith game would be over. The lds church would grow from 13 million to 130 million overnight. And god would be proven to exist. Now of course, the world would change. Many denominations would disappear and more chapels would be built. But...the faith game would be over. Likewise if we found something conclusive that christ was the christ. The faith game would be over.

Unfortunately, religion is not about proof. It is about faith and doubt. It is a circle of the two worlds. Thus we have our free agency.

Cinepro responded with a bogus CFR for historically accurate texts as if historically accurate equated with conclusive proof

CFR that people will convert to a religion if its religious texts are shown to be historically accurate.

Thank you for illustrating my â??misdirectionâ?? point so well. While Cineproâ??s use of it was good enough, that you would present one to deflect attention from the Bogus CFR goes to the heart of the issue. Misdirection is a standard anti-Mormon tactic.

â??What is your explanation for why the church teaches a worldwide flood, but that science and many members and apologists disagree?â?

This is yet another excellent example of misdirection. Thank you once again. Take note that your misdirection is totally irrelevant to my post. My post was about the inane repletion ploy. I think that the OP has that covered quite nicely. But thank you again for illustrating how anti-Mormons use misdirection.

• compare standards of yesteryear against today
  
• compare something they define as normal with something they define as abnormal. For the anti-Mormon the two need not be remotely related.
  
• state something totally of wall as if it were factual and contrast that with your reasoned argument which is supported by evidence and pretend that was all that was needed.
  

An example of any of the above if you can?

Sure, all in one thread actually. The first bullet deals with presentism. Here is an example:

While I'm never one to assume or insist on the infallibility of Church leaders, wouldn't it have been awesome if, at the very end of D&C 111, instead of just advising them to "be ye as wise as serpents", the Lord also added:

12 "But behold, it is not pleasing unto me that ye should work to the establishment of a house of banking. For tho everyone else may doeth it, in that way lies misfortune and the loss of many souls from the kingdom, even unto circumspect mentioning of it as a lesson to the Elders many generations from now regarding thy folly."

That this was a perfect example of presentism was pointed in the thread:

Presentism is rearing its head again.

Controls are in place today that didn't exist in the 1830s. Hence, the Auditor's Report that is read once a year at general conference.

For an example of the third bullet, Cinepro responded to Scott Lloyds reasoned argument with the following â??off the wallâ? statement as if that settled the matter.

Sounds a little too arm-of-the-flesh to me. Until "God" is the control in place, it would probably be prudent anyways, even if unnecessary.

For an example of the second bullet, let me preface it with this: most people who have had even a basic high school bookkeeping course know that you are supposed to follow standard accounting protocols. This has been the case since at least the fifteenth century, when Benedetto Cotrugli, the father of modern bookkeeping, invented the double-entry accounting system which is still the basis for contemporary accounting systems. When Cold Steel explained that Joseph and Sidney were following the guidelines of their day and locality, Cinepro redefined that practice as the â??everyone was doing itâ? defense.

Joseph and Sidney were not doing anything that other cities weren't doing at the time, plus it was not their fault that the Nauvoo Bank charter was denied. According to Truman Madsen, the bank records were subsequently found and were determined to be in order. In short, there was no intent to deceive or to cheat people out of their money.

Are you really using the "everyone was doing it" defense?

I believe that about covers it.