geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)

[nickleus]

Just as an unreasonable demand for perfection is a "jail all apologists" warrant.

you just admitted the apologist "not perfect" claims are unreasonable. thanks.

i didnt issue a "jail all apologists warrant", you're putting words in my mouth. i didnt say they cant do it, i just said it doesnt help their situation, from an outside perspective.

there shouldnt be a requirement for a prophet to be *perfect* in order for god to communicate a message perfectly. you're confusing the requirement for perfection. leaving the responsibility on the spokesman to get it right is rather unreasonable though, since what comes out of the spokesman's mouth is binding on its believing listeners (backed by god's "eternal law of justice"), no matter if it was wrong, until it is proven right (read: "until it shall be made manifest"). it just makes a perfect god look incompetent. surely you believe that christians have an expectation that god is perfect? its the other half of the "nobody's perfect" card: "only jesus (read: god) was perfect"

[Rob Osborn]

Conservapedia is obviously not a credible source of information about anything.

I don't think, however, that Dawkins is a particularly knowledgeable critic of religion.

You see, I don't believe Dawkins to be a credible source for information either, be it religion, evolution or geology. So what then does it matter? I am fighting fire with fire here.

Specifically, as far as religion goes- he is an absolute idiot!

[volgadon]

If I am incorrectly representing their cosmology, please present the correct version. How hard is that?

With you, apparently extremely so. I'm not going to keep on repeating myself.

[semlogo]

With you, apparently extremely so. I'm not going to keep on repeating myself.

I agree that you are repeating yourself a lot, but in none of your posts have you posited an alternative to the Hebrew cosmology I have presented, which you claim is incorrect. Please present the forum with what you feel is the correct version.

[volgadon]

those who require evidence for a claim are much less likely to get scammed

No, not really. One can provide "evidence" that gets people to fall for a scam.

[volgadon]

I agree that you are repeating yourself a lot, but in none of your posts have you posited an alternative to the Hebrew cosmology I have presented, which you claim is incorrect. Please present the the forum with what you feel is the correct version.

Wow, and wow again. I HAVE PRESENTED IT AT LEAST TWICE IN THIS THREAD. Once was in a reply you saw, in letters that were rather large. You may disagree with me, but to claim I provided no alternative version is, frankly, dishonest of you.

[nickleus]

No, not really. One can provide "evidence" that gets people to fall for a scam.

i said "much less likely", that's the key.

persons X, Y and Z are going to try to scam hobby collector persons A and B by selling them an antique that is fake.

case 1:

person A asks to see some sort of certificate of authenticity (COA) from an independent appraiser. he doesnt have one. person A chooses not to buy it and doesnt get scammed. person B doesnt ask and buys it and gets scammed.

person A: 0 scam points

person B: 1 scam point

case 2:

person Y presents the artifact with a fake COA to person B and he buys it. person A has to ask for a COA, but it looks so real that he gets scammed too.

person A: 1 scam points

person B: 2 scam point

case 3:

person Y presents the artifact with a fake COA and person A then asks for the phone number to the independant appraiser so he can call and verify the COA.

person A doesnt buy: 1) person Z says he doesnt have it and person A doesnt buy. 2: person A calls the appraiser and the appraiser has never heard of person Z so person A doesnt buy

person B buys without asking for any evidence of the authenticity of the COA and gets scammed.

person A: 1 scam points

person B: 3 scam point

people of type B will ALWAYS end up getting scammed "more often" than people of type A and the more evidence you require for a claim the less likely you are to get scammed. its simple math.

[semlogo]

Wow, and wow again. I HAVE PRESENTED IT AT LEAST TWICE IN THIS THREAD. Once was in a reply you saw, in letters that were rather large. You may disagree with me, but to claim I provided no alternative version is, frankly, dishonest of you.

Really? Where?

[Kevin Christensen]

you just admitted the apologist "not perfect" claims are unreasonable. thanks.

Actually, no. But think what you want.

i didnt issue a "jail all apologists warrant", you're putting words in my mouth. i didnt say they cant do it, i just said it doesnt help their situation, from an outside perspective.

"Outside perspective as such it the key to the situation. Why privilege it? Which outside interpreters begin by carefully collecting 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets? Or do they begin by assuming that their own unexamined preconceptions of what a prophet should be or what God have nothing to with what they select about God, or for that matter, about Joseph Smith (or any LDS leader whose actions or words they decide matter more than other possible choice), from all possible evidence to select, and how they value what they have selected?

Jesus said something about checking one's own eyes for motes before going about to judge another. Some outside perspectives can be very helpful. Others less so. The presence and size of the motes makes a huge difference.

there shouldnt be a requirement for a prophet to be *perfect* in order for god to communicate a message perfectly.

Suppose I decide to read a New Testament parable with a critical eye. Say, the parable of the laborers. And while reading, I notice that the payment for each laborer is a penny. Ah... I have seen pennys. They are copper and have Lincoln's face on one side. And Lincoln was born in the 1800s, which makes the penny in the parable a telling anachronism, which means that the parable must have been written in the 18th century, and therefore, the New Testament is a 19th Century forgery.

Is that misreading Jesus's fault or mine?

Compare the word to a seed. And remember that Jesus said of the Parable of the Sower, "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"

The point of the parable is that the same seeds (words) can have extravagantly different yields depending on both the nature of the soul (outside perspectives, being a soil), and the care and nurturer by the listener.

God explains quite clearly that he views communication as an ongoing process, not a once and for all event. In Isaiah 55 he explains that his ways are higher than our ways (so we should not be so quick to presume we can understand them), and that his word will accomplish that which he intends (which not only be different that what we think, but can take all sorts of time to happen). In 3 Nephi, Jesus tells the people that that cannot understand it all at once, but that they need to go and prepare their minds for the morrow. Should he have prepared their minds in advance so that they need not have gone and prepared their minds? Or is he not only working within their limitations, and trying to show them some of the ways they should strive to overcome them?

I can take a seed, put it on an anvil, and mutter "Grow NOW Dammit! Be what I expect! Do what I think!" while pounding it with an hammer. Then as I toss aside the hammer and sadly consider the pulpy residue, I can say, "I knew it was a bad seed. I knew wasn't from God."

Eventually, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. That will be perfect communication. It will happen eventually. What we have at present are choices, whether we will offer up our preconceptions and pride and desires now, nurturing the seeds we have been given, going through an ongoing process, taking time and effort. That is really the easy way to find out. The hard way is waiting for God to communicate in ways that coerce our unwilling submission.

you're confusing the requirement for perfection. leaving the responsibility on the spokesman to get it right is rather unreasonable though, since what comes out of the spokesman's mouth is binding on its believing listeners (backed by god's "eternal law of justice"), no matter if it was wrong, until it is proven right (read: "until it shall be made manifest"). it just makes a perfect god look incompetent.

Here, as elsewhere, the logic depends on ideas of perfection that I do not accept, and for which I see no evidence in my life experience, or in my readings in scripture. Look at the debates between Jesus and skeptics in the New Testament. Think about how often communication breaks down. Look even at Jesus's attempts to educate his devoted apostles. I see a lot of communication break down. However frustrating, it is not necessarily futile as long as the participants do not give up on each other, each striving to reach the other, and the imperfect trying to learn, to prepare the soil of their minds and hearts, and nurture the seeds they have been given, hoping for a harvest over time.

You say, That sort of communication breakdown depicted in say, John 6 (the bread of life sermon), or John 9 should not happen. Yet it does. Personally, I expect it. And I see no reason not to expect it, given what I understand the process of communication. But despite the breakdowns, something gets communicated to some, and change happens, and understanding increases, and those who participate come to understand not only the meaning of the communication, but the essential importance of going through the process.

surely you believe that christians have an expectation that god is perfect? its the other half of the "nobody's perfect" card: "only jesus (read: god) was perfect"

I believe that God is perfect. I don't believe that we really understand what that means. Nor am attracted to the neoplatonic Philosopher's approach to the issue. But it is helpful to know that Hellenism offered different conceptions of perfection (abstract absolutes) than Hebrew temple tradition, and that Greek word telios behind the English "perfect" often appeared in the context of an initiate receiving covenants. (This from John Welch.)

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cinepro]

Early on in this thread, I linked to Duane Jeffery's interesting Sunstone article which discusses all sorts of things in LDS and Jewish and Christian traditions, along with some newly intriguing possibilities.

Jeffery's article, Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions," which has attracted so little notice in this thread, despite its profound relevance, quotes Apostle Stephen L. Richards in the Improvement Era in 1933:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/134-27-45.pdf

Why quote Hebraist Parry, but not Apostle Richards?

After reading the article in question, I have a better answer to give:

I don't quote Elder Richards because he wasn't referring to the scope of Noah's flood.

The focus of his letter is creation and evolution. He never mentions Noah. He never mentions the flood.

Certainly, his general point regarding the knowledge of the Biblical writers could be applied to the account of Noah's flood, but that wasn't his stated intent. Even after reading that article, we don't know what Elder Richards thought about this specific Church doctrine. It would be like using his statement to argue against the story of the manna from heaven, or the parting of the Red Sea, or the resurrection Jesus.

[LeSellers]

I thought that they have only identified about 1.4 million species. So, even if we state it at 2 million and that of that 2 million only 3% live on land this is only 90,000 animals. Scientists who have studied the ark dimensions have stated that fitting 40-60 thousand animals on board along with food and water with the average animal being the size of a sheep is no problem. Now certainly, we know that a large majority of land species are much smaller than the average sized sheep.

How 'bout if, after Noah had rounded them all up, from dust mites to elephants, god put them all in a state of suspended animation, and Noah and his three sons stacked them up like cord wood?

That's what I've always envisioned, John Huston's representation in The Bible, in the Beginning, notwithstanding. There was no need for food or water, nor for what must have been (in the common view) an interminable round of feeding, watering, milking, and caring for them by eight persons.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I thought that they have only identified about 1.4 million species. So, even if we state it at 2 million and that of that 2 million only 3% live on land this is only 90,000 animals. Scientists who have studied the ark dimensions have stated that fitting 40-60 thousand animals on board along with food and water with the average animal being the size of a sheep is no problem. Now certainly, we know that a large majority of land species are much smaller than the average sized sheep.

How 'bout if, after Noah had rounded them all up, from dust mites to elephants, God put them all in a state of suspended animation, and Noah and his three sons stacked them up like cord wood?

That's what I've always envisioned, John Huston's representation in The Bible, in the Beginning, notwithstanding. There was no need for food or water, nor for what must have been (in the common view) an interminable round of feeding, watering, milking, mucking up after them and generally caring for them by eight persons.

Lehi

[blackstrap]

Mind you there has to be something to do to keep from going stir crazy. Even poker gets old after a while.

Question is, why did Noah have to bring mosquitos and bed bugs?

[Robert F. Smith]

In none of your posts have you posited an alternative to the Hebrew cosmology I have presented, which you claim is incorrect. Please present the forum with what you feel is the correct version.

Let me help out here:

In his translation-commentary on Malachi for the Anchor Bible (Yale Univ. Press/ Doubleday, 1998), 314, Andrew Hill (professor at Wheaton College) says that

"the notion that the ancient Hebrews understood the 'firmament' (

raqi'a

) of the heavens as a solid vault or shell encasing the earth is an intrusion of Hellenistic thought in pre-Christian Egypt through the LXX (

stereroma

, Gen 1:6, 7, 8, etc.). The Hebrew

raqi'a

is better rendered 'expanse (of heaven,' so NIV), not 'dome (of heaven,' so NRSV). G. J. Wenham (1987:19-20) chides those who attempt to construct a

scientific

ancient Hebrew cosmology on texts employing

figurative

language."

Thus, Hill would seem to agree that Joseph Smith's translation of raqi'a at Book of Abraham facsimile 1:12, and 2:4 was right on target, while at the same time arguing that we ought to be cautious about taking figurative texts too literally. Does that help?

[Robert F. Smith]

"robert f. smith" claimed that scientists, if they researched lds religion, would see that it is reasonable and logical. i simply made a list of points they most likely wouldnt see as reasonable nor logical. it is not served to bash, but simply answer a claim and promote discussion. if you want to make a claim you need to be prepared that other people might see things differently. if you just want to read about how fine and dandy things are, then "dialogue between LDS and those of other religious groups" might not be the thing for you.

what is "some what" (sic) untrue? *CFR*

i'll repeat it again, since it seems you need it at least twice: *CFR*

Your post #224 was quite inappropriate to this thread, unless you're trying to derail it. One expects a modicum of good manners in a context in which large issues of Mormon cosmology are being discussed, i.e., the question of geological evidence for or against a global flood. We are supposedly talking science and logic (including fine points of theology), not a hate-the-Mormons laundry-list of false, polemical claims designed to engender ridicule rather than reflection. You might try the irenic ("peaceful'), professional approach of non-Mormon scholars like Jan Shipps or Thomas O'Dea, instead of presenting us with the sort of slime which we have come to expect from the Salt Lake City Messenger, or from the bearing of false witness by much of evangelical christianity. How "Christian" is that?!

Scientists are presumably interested in those larger issues, since they are far more amenable to logical discourse. For example, Mormonism avoids the anti-science nonsense of normative christian theology, such as creation from nothing, or abrogation of the universal laws of physics, etc.

Where do you stand?

[nickleus]

designed to engender ridicule rather than reflection.

it was not inappropriate to counter your claim that lds theology would appear logical and reasonable to scientists.

how is the *fact* that joseph smith has been sealed to at least 203 women, of which one of them was born 169 years before him and 1 was born 15 years after his death, "engendering ridicule"? it is simply a fact (like the rest of the examples) and a fact that would, i presume, most likely seem "unreasonable" and/or "illogical" to most people.

false, polemical claims

my rebuttal was not written in hostility, there is simply no need for it. false claims? CFR. (note: rob osborn hasnt responded to the CFR for his similar accusation).

[semlogo]

Let me help out here:

In his translation-commentary on Malachi for the Anchor Bible (Yale Univ. Press/ Doubleday, 1998), 314, Andrew Hill (professor at Wheaton College) says that

"the notion that the ancient Hebrews understood the 'firmament' (

raqi'a

) of the heavens as a solid vault or shell encasing the earth is an intrusion of Hellenistic thought in pre-Christian Egypt through the LXX (

stereroma

, Gen 1:6, 7, 8, etc.). The Hebrew

raqi'a

is better rendered 'expanse (of heaven,' so NIV), not 'dome (of heaven,' so NRSV). G. J. Wenham (1987:19-20) chides those who attempt to construct a

scientific

ancient Hebrew cosmology on texts employing

figurative

language."

Thus, Hill would seem to agree that Joseph Smith's translation of raqi'a at Book of Abraham facsimile 1:12, and 2:4 was right on target, while at the same time arguing that we ought to be cautious about taking figurative texts too literally. Does that help?

Thank you for providing an alternative version. How do you reconcile that claim the fact that the word raqia implies something solid and crafted, regardless of the specific materials?

Also:

Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Baruch

And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest. (3 Baruch 3:7-

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).

Also, according to the creation story, the firmament was to support the waters above it. How would it do that if it were not solid?

[Rob Osborn]

(note: rob osborn hasnt responded to the CFR for his similar accusation).

What reference are you asking for?

[Robert F. Smith]

it was not inappropriate to counter your claim that lds theology would appear logical and reasonable to scientists.

how is the *fact* that joseph smith has been sealed to at least 203 women, of which one of them was born 169 years before him and 1 was born 15 years after his death, "engendering ridicule"? it is simply a fact (like the rest of the examples) and a fact that would, i presume, most likely seem "unreasonable" and/or "illogical" to most people.

my rebuttal was not written in hostility, there is simply no need for it. false claims? CFR. (note: rob osborn hasnt responded to the CFR for his similar accusation).

This Discussion Board has a rule that requires participants to sincerely try to maintain focus on the topic of a particular thread. You have violated that rule and have shown atrocious manners.

You can certainly start a thread on this Discussion Board on any of the items in that long hate-the-Mormons laundry-list if you like, and you would probably have some willing participants. However, that is highly inappropriate here in this thread simply because you can't seem to stay on topic.

You say that you intended no hostility, but that sounds as hollow as the typical school-yard bully claiming innocence after he has slimed someone. You owe the participants here an apology (and repentance). What is truly sad, however, is that you don't realize it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thank you for providing an alternative version. How do you reconcile that claim the fact that the word raqia implies something solid and crafted, regardless of the specific materials?

Also:

Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

Also, according to the creation story, the firmament was to support the waters above it. How would it do that if it were not solid?

It is certainly helpful to compare the cosmological references in the books of Enoch and Baruch, and for that I recommend the excellent translation and notes in James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Doubleday, 1983).

However, we ought always to recognize the nature of the figurative language used there and in biblical sources. Robert Oden has an excellent article on "Cosmogony, Cosmology," in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols (Doubleday, 1992), I:1162-1171. On page 1167 Oden says,

"The variety in date, origin, and scope of the Hebrew Bible's cosmological materials means that achieving a single, uniform picture of the physical universe is hardly possible."

He continues on that same page with a generalization:

"The earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar 'firmament' (

raqia'

) . . , perhaps envisioned as a solid but very thin substance on the analogy of beaten and stretched metal."

He goes on to discuss the 4-storied and 3-storied conceptions of the universe, and on page 1168, he adds:

"The curving, solid structure which arches over the realm of humanity is sometimes called a 'disk' or 'vault' (

hug

; Isa 40:22; Prov 8:27)."

He adds on the same page in the same paragraph:

"In some texts, that which suspends the habitable earth above the underworld's waters (see I Sam 2:8 for another reference to these rivers) are pillars or some such foundational structures. These seem envisioned in Job 38:4-6; Pss 24:2; 104:5; Prov 8:29, and elsewhere."

Once again, we might want to take at look at Book of Abraham facsimile 1:11, which represents the pillars of heaven, and the cross-hatched lines in 1:12, which clearly represent the watery expanse or firmament over our heads.

[nickleus]

What reference are you asking for?

have biased your questions to the point of it being unrealistic and some what untrue

CFR on what is untrue.

[nickleus]

This Discussion Board has a rule that requires participants to sincerely try to maintain focus on the topic of a particular thread.

*you* made an off-topic claim and i answered your claim.

You say that you intended no hostility, but that sounds as hollow as the typical school-yard bully claiming innocence after he has slimed someone.

why are you accusing me of lying?

You owe the participants here an apology (and repentance). What is truly sad, however, is that you don't realize it.

calling me to repentence? seriously? no, what is truly sad is that you are so emotionally affected by any information that clashes with *your* view of things.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR. i would be interested to see a poll of random scientists answer logical/illogical or reasonable/unreasonable to the following issues:

* blessed is he who believe without seeing (good recipe for getting scammed). its more like "foolish is he who believe without seeing."

* adam and eve being transplanted here from outer space and being the first male and female on the earth

* pay us 10% of your income and you wont be burned at jesus' second coming, and dont ask us how we use the money, we're not going to tell you

* dont criticize church leaders even when the criticism is true (dallin oaks). excommunicating members who publicly express a difference of opinion with church "authorities".

* mark hofmann tricking the prophet, first presidency and apostles into buying false documents/artifacts. getting convicted of murder, then offered a plea bargain by utah state so as to not have to bring the church leaders to the stand to testify, so as to avoid embarrassment for being tricked

* joseph smith and polygamy and polyandry

* joseph smith being married/sealed to at least 203 women, one of which was born 169 years before him and 1 woman who was born 15 years after his death (these are only the most extreme cases, but there are many instances of this)

* the church's need for an apologist organization

* faith is necessary for god to perform "miracles" supported by the laws of science

* immaculate conception

* jeffrey holland saying he is holding hyrum's copy of the book of mormon in general conference when there is proof he wasnt

* joseph smith claiming to have done greater things even than jesus did (HOC)

* 170 years of "native americans are lamanites", but then the church changes the BOM intro in 2007 from "the principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors".

* baptism of 8 year olds, as if an 8 year old is in any position to make a life-binding decision

* whispering to small children what they should say they "know" when bearing a testimony in church (brainwashing)

* missionaries (young and old, even mission presidents) who already pay 10% of their income must also pay themselves to serve their church, full time, for 2 years (still 1.5 years for young women? 3 years for mission presidents?)

* great inconsistencies among church leaders regarding sexual practices within marriage. some say oral sex is forbidden, others say it isnt.

* the principle of faith: if there's too much evidence that the church is true, then faith would be destroyed (god has to keep some things hidden/unproven)

* no public testimonies of living apostles/prophets ("special witnesses") saying they have seen/personally met jesus christ

* members asked in the temple to give their own lives if necessary to build up the kingdom of god

* lds campaigning to be identified as christians, yet denying flds to be identified as mormons

* denying blacks the priesthood until 1978, (note: the Civil Rights Act was passed in the US in 1964, 14 years earlier)

* no church art of joseph smith with his head in a hat, "translating" the gold plates

* boyd packer telling the church educational system teachers "There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

* church prophets giving supposedly sacred handshakes to powerful political leaders who are members of other similar secret societies: monson+bush, hinckley+cheney. lay members would most likely be excommunicated for this and "bring upon themselves the judgements of god, for god will not be mocked"

* jesus christ's church suing people for copyright infringement who post church materials online

no apologetic responses required here because that would disprove the apparent logic/reasonableness of these points

You mean you want a CFR for the above? Are you serious? These are your own opinions mostly. You would first have to provide me a CFR on each one of these points first. You can't expect me to give a CFR when you never provided one in the first place. So, if you are willing to provide references to the above besides your own opinions then I would kindly be able to address each point.

As I see it, you drag this anti-mormon baggadge around with you and use it as your firepower of the whicj I can't understand how it has anything to do with the topic at hand (global flood evidence). Isn't this your post?

[nickleus]

You mean you want a CFR for the above? Are you serious? These are your own opinions mostly. You would first have to provide me a CFR on each one of these points first. You can't expect me to give a CFR when you never provided one in the first place. So, if you are willing to provide references to the above besides your own opinions then I would kindly be able to address each point.

As I see it, you drag this anti-mormon baggadge around with you and use it as your firepower of the whicj I can't understand how it has anything to do with the topic at hand (global flood evidence). Isn't this your post?

for 100th time, i only brought this up to answer an outlandish off-topic claim by someone else. then you claimed that what i wrote was untrue so i asked you to tell me *which point you claim is untrue* and then back it with a reference, not the whole list. most of what i wrote is well known, but for some of the points i thought might be less well known i DID cite a reference (hence the clickable link).

[Kevin Christensen]

And that reminds me, regarding the bogus claim about no apostles offering public testimonies of having seen Jesus.

David B. Haight, October Conference, 1989. Here is the reference for those inclined to embrace the sacred, reverently declared.

http://lds.org/ensign/1989/11/the-sacrament-and-the-sacrifice?lang=eng

Regarding the list as a whole, Brigham Young did say that give a man a chance to speak, and he will reveal his character. Yep. Very clearly.

Back to Cinepro, regarding the Jeffery essay on Flood traditions. I'm glad you got round to actually reading the Sunstone essay.

Regarding the Richard's quote addressing LDS students, I'm glad you noticed that "Certainly, his general point regarding the knowledge of the Biblical writers could be applied to the account of Noah's flood, but that wasn't his stated intent."

The point of making a general point is to that it can be broadly applied. And you do acknowledge that it is relevant and applicable. So the subsequent nit-picking is irrelevant.

One of my favorite general points that can and should be broadly applied by LDS thinkers who actually do think, who actually "prove contraries" in the expectation that "truth--a knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come, may be "made manifest" as an ongoing process, is this:

"I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist as they are made manifest from time to time." (History, 5:215)

Despite efforts to either circumscribe LDS thought from the inside of belief to enforce some opinion or interpretation as binding orthodoxy, or efforts by outsiders or disillusioned skeptics to enforce some opinion or interpretation as binding on LDS thought to a convenient easy target to topple in light of their own emancipated brilliance, the existence of divergent thought in the LDS community demonstrates that many LDS embrace this general principle.

Would that we all did. But the gospel net gathers all kinds. As does the opposition.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA