World Wide Flood Of Noah

[shalamabobbi]

We are just going around and around here on the very same point. There are scientists who have come to different interpretations of the very same evidence you are using. You are just going to have to accept that they don't all agree with you.

No we're not. We've just gotten to the crux of the matter.

Any references to these particular *scientists*? If you are referring to ICR, all their stuff has been debunked for quite a while now.

When did it become a bad thing to use the prescriptions supplied in scripture to help us to determine what is true in the knowledge man acquires?

We're not talking about some deep mysterious area of science here, just the simple counting of layers.. it's a straightforward fact.

I would be interested in seeing the material used in the Church's Institute program concerning Jacob and the rods.

It was many years ago. But I hope you are not suggesting that because this event is recorded in the scriptures that the gendered offspring of cattle can be affected by rods placed in the water trough?? I can see God doing it to bless Jacob with the rods having NO effect on the cattle one way or the other..

[shalamabobbi]

As man's ideas about the universe increase are we becoming a people more or less devoted to God? With the rise of naturalism in the 1700's man adopted the idea that to understand nature could result in us controlling nature. Man was no longer held to beliefs that some all powerful God was responsible for events in the world. Man developed a cause and effect picture of nature and God was squeezed out. Wave after wave of spiritual pressure was placed on man because of his acquired knowledge. It was man who did not see knowledge as knowledge but used that knowledge to now examine God. Man placed the Bible under a microscope and started to find cracks in the verses. God placed those cracks in there as a stumbling block thousands of years ago so man would have to decide whether to believe and walk in the spirit or walk in the earth. Many say they can do both. To them I think Peter described them well.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Step back and see what is used against the Church.

Where is the evidence of the cites and People?

JS was no prophet and to believe otherwise is foolish.

Scripture is our witness we can't trust any spirits to lead us.

Much of the Bible is false because science says so.

God of the gaps, if that is what you are referring to is indeed a phenomenon of the history of discovery in science. It was the habit of scientists to explain what could be explained by natural laws and then when they hit a wall to speculate that at last they found the point at which God must of necessity be invoked. Some like Newton desired to prove the necessity of God in the picture. But it has eluded all who have tried and remains an area of faith as ever before.

That some have ridiculed faith has always been the case. You are not proposing any solution at all to this situation. Blaming it on science doesn't accomplish or prove anything. What would you like to do? Gather together a posse of fundamentalist Christians and attack the scientific establishment??

Would you like to dispense with everything that has been learned in order to retard the human race back to a previous state where acts of nature were falsely attributed to the action of God??

Let those who will, approach God in prayer and they will find Him as ever before. Science is a blessing apart from faith for all irrespective of personal worthiness. Like the sun, He maketh it to shine upon the wicked and the righteous..

[Ron Beron]

My experience has been that it is not only the Creation which comes into question. The non-believers I have had experience with also then look at the Flood and the parting of the Red Sea. They see that believers don't believe those events. Then many of the discussions have gone on to many other interpretations in the Bible which believers have also changed from literal to allegorical "only" - it becomes a dominoes effect. The non-believer winds up thinking that the Bible is one huge fairy-tale and that there couldn't possibly be a God, let alone a Christ.

Regards,

jo

To look at the events rather than the message behind the events is the tantamount mistake here. The stories of the OT are to illustrate the power and nature of God. The ancient Jews understood this. They understood that in most cases the stories of the Bible were meant to convey a deeper message. Apparently, in our sophistication we have been so myopic in seeing the events we have forgotten the message.

[Ron Beron]

'jo1952' writes...

I fear you are not giving Satan enough credit for his powers. He is the father of lies. When is it possible for man to be subject to lies? He is subject moment to moment! Jesus had just finished telling Peter that it was the Spirit of God who had revealed Jesus' true identity to him. Just a few verses later Jesus turned to Peter and said "Get thee behind me Satan". How do you suppose the Apostasy was able to take place? Do you not think the ECF were not seeking truth? Yet they strayed.

People need little help from satan. They seem to deceive, maim, and connive with little help from it.

Part of the Light of Intelligence we have received is to use scripture as a guide for us to be able to tell if something is of God or if it is of Satan. Why would we be given these guidelines if they were not necessary for us to have? It is not the knowledge that is in question; it is HOW WE INTERPRET that knowledge where Satan uses his powers to lie to us.

The scriptures are for enlightenment not necessarily to determine which is of God or satan. In fact, the OT never even mentions satan as proper pronoun only as a title used by one of God's ministering angels as adversary. Only later during the NT does his malevolence seem evident.

Do you not believe that satan is now the god of the earth? Jesus is waiting in Heaven, standing at the right side of Father, until such time as He is allowed to return to the earth. The only member of the Godhead who stays on the earth is the Holy Ghost - and He is here to witness that Jesus is the Christ; and also to reveal to us whatever Father tells Him to reveal to us. The Holy Ghost does not even have dominion over Satan. WHEN Jesus returns to the earth, He will receive the deed to the earth (the scroll with the seven seals) and THEN will be recognized as King of Kings and Lord of Lords; Satan will be thrown into outer darkness. But right now, Satan has dominion and power and principalities of darkness over the earth. Do you recall these verses?

If satan is all that is worldly and corrupt, then yes, but the world itself is a beautiful place full of God's creations and therefore, the world and all that is in it is of God and are ruled by God. Only those who follow the worldliness and temptations that seem part of the world have allowed satan as their god.

Matthew 4:8-10

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Satan or satanos used here means adversary or temptation not necessarily a personage which later he does seem to represent as not only an adversary to man but also to God. In Job satan acted as an advocate of God who allowed his adversarial angel to tempt Job. Notice the term devil or diabolos is used which again means a creature not unlike the satyrs of Greek mythology. While we see these terms in modern ways the ancient meanings were quite different.

There are false teachers and false prophets on the earth today, just like there were when Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth. They were even IN the ancient church. I have no doubt they are also in the LDS Church as well as all over the earth. What do false teachers and false prophets do???? They teach things that are false!!! This includes false interpretation of knowledge!!!

Or perhaps there are those who teach fear and ignorance when we need more light and knowledge.

[stevenest]

Actually, it is not anything taught in the NT that drew my mind to believe that the earth was baptized by the flood - in which understanding the earth was completely submerged. This was an understanding that came to me through the Holy Ghost. The Bible is filled with layers of understanding; I do not need to wait for the Church Leaders to come out and give me interpretations of scripture. When they do offer an interpretation, if it is something I have not already come to understand (and thereby their offer is an affirmation of what I already believe), then I will study it out and pray about it.

With that said, I just now looked up 1 Peter 3 to see if I could find your reference; which indeed shows up in 1 Peter 3:20-21. I would agree that there is not much to go on there. However, Franktalk just pointed out additional passages to me in 2 Peter 3:6-7. Here they are:

2 Peter 3:6-7

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The above seems much more clear that the earth WAS baptized by the waters of the flood because it states the world which was before the flood has perished. It is easy to liken this to our own baptism by water; we emerge new -- the old us is no longer. Then see how immediately Peter says earth is being kept in store unto fire. To me this indicates the similitude of our own fire by baptism. Both our baptism by water and by fire must be complete----not just partial.

For me personally, walking by faith is NOT a codeword for naglecting to study things out in my mind. I don't know why "science types" automatically think that someone who rejects a theory generated from science assumes that it is being rejected without a person's thinking about it and studying it first.

Don't forget that this temporal, physical world, is only temporary. The Creation itself is evidence of God's existence. Believers see God in His Creation, even though we realize that God is NOT His Creation.

According to man's understanding of his physical world, one would think that the earth should yield plenty of evidence. For the agnostic and the atheist, the fact that the earth does not yield up the type of evidence that man is looking for, is enough to dissuade them from believing in and having faith in Christ. It is a stumbling block for them. God, in His own due time "allows" some evidences to be found. We know, for instance, that we do not yet have all of the records of God's dealings with mankind. So we must accept that they exist based on faith. God will reveal them when He wants to; He will know when that best time is in order to get the maximum use out of their being revealed for His own purposes. Meanwhile, I think that for man to determine what certain evidence SHOULD look like to them with a pre-conceived notion, that they are inevitably closing their minds to the evidence which may already exist right in front of them.

I have done some studying of my own, and I DO see evidence of a world-wide flood. It is science that rejects that same evidence and has theorized that what they are seeing is something entirely different than what I am seeing. Doesn't this sound familiar? It is just like people talking about what the Holy Ghost has revealed to them. The anti-LDS claim the Holy Ghost has told them that Joseph Smith was NOT a Prophet of God; the LDS claim it is the Holy Ghost who told them Joseph IS a Prophet of God.

Best regards,

jo

[stevenest]

I do not believe such stories because i do not have a sufficient knowledge about such flood deserters but only the thing which i believe that only God knows the better it. all natural deserters.

...........................................

The Book Of Mormon Tickets

Please do not use this board for sales. Remove the link.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Minos

[jo1952]

'jo1952' writes...

People need little help from satan. They seem to deceive, maim, and connive with little help from it.

The LDS believe that satan and a third of the hosts of Heaven who followed satan were cast out of the glory of Heaven where the Father resides. He and his followers are very real; they exist.

The scriptures are for enlightenment not necessarily to determine which is of God or satan. In fact, the OT never even mentions satan as proper pronoun only as a title used by one of God's ministering angels as adversary. Only later during the NT does his malevolence seem evident.

If satan is all that is worldly and corrupt, then yes, but the world itself is a beautiful place full of God's creations and therefore, the world and all that is in it is of God and are ruled by God. Only those who follow the worldliness and temptations that seem part of the world have allowed satan as their god.

Satan or satanos used here means adversary or temptation not necessarily a personage which later he does seem to represent as not only an adversary to man but also to God. In Job satan acted as an advocate of God who allowed his adversarial angel to tempt Job. Notice the term devil or diabolos is used which again means a creature not unlike the satyrs of Greek mythology. While we see these terms in modern ways the ancient meanings were quite different.

There is much that we seem to agree on here. Mostly, it appears our disagreement hinges on whether or not Satan and his followers really exist.

I would offer that if you do not believe that Satan and his followers are real, that you will not be able to recognize his influence in your life and everything this encompasses in your earthly journey.

You said:

but the world itself is a beautiful place full of God's creations and therefore, the world and all that is in it is of God and are ruled by God.

The Creation IS a beautiful place - it shows the very handiwork of God. The Creation is obedient to Christ who is now holding the earth in stasus and in readiness for the end times at which time it will necessarily be destroyed (baptized) with fire at which time it will be reborn and the old earth will be no more. It is taught in the NT by Paul:

Romans 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Only those who follow the worldliness and temptations that seem part of the world have allowed satan as their god.

In our bodies of flesh we cannot help but still sin; and we need to repent all the time for those sins. Hopefully, for most, it is not even our intent to sin, but we wind up doing so anyway. Our spirits may be strong, but the flesh is weak. From moment to moment we can change who it is we are serving. When we sin, we serve Satan; when we keep the commandments we do not sin, we are serving God.

Or perhaps there are those who teach fear and ignorance when we need more light and knowledge.

I am all for obtaining more and more knowledge - both temporally and spiritually. I use scripture, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost to temper knowledge acquired through secular means in order to determine which interpretation of those findings I will hold to. I use the same method of determining which interpretation of scripture and doctrine I will hold to. Just as in religion, there are different interepretations to be found in secular knowledge of all types in all walks of life. I use the same pattern to discover what is true in all of these; from spiritual to secular.

If I find that man is interpreting secular knowledge which appears to me to be in conflict with the prescriptions of how to determine what is true as taught in scripture, then I share my concerns. I don't do this for the purpose of gaining friends or to mock and scoff at others. I do it as a warning. However, I find that when I speak things that people don't want to hear, I find that I am mocked and scoffed at. This is fine with me; the scriptures even prophesy that this will happen. I would rather be a fool for Christ, then a fool for the adversary.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952

[jo1952]

To look at the events rather than the message behind the events is the tantamount mistake here. The stories of the OT are to illustrate the power and nature of God. The ancient Jews understood this. They understood that in most cases the stories of the Bible were meant to convey a deeper message. Apparently, in our sophistication we have been so myopic in seeing the events we have forgotten the message.

As I have already explained, I actually find layers and layers of understanding in the OT. They are not all learned at once, though. It takes the same methods of sincere study, prayer, secular learning, and seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost, to continue to learn line upon line, and precept upon precept. Whenever secular learning is involved I really slow down to read all sides of arguments and opinions and review of data findings and the various interpretations of that data. This is filtered trough the prescriptions we have been given in scripture to be able to determine what is true in those interpretations. Only after all of that, will I hang my hat on any particular interpretation. Somes things I haven't hung a hat on yet, because I don't feel I have enough information to claim to know one way or the other. I am not concerned about those things because I know that all things will be revealed when Jesus returns. Until that time, we can only make best-guess assumptions UNLESS it is concerning something specifically revealed to me personally by the Holy Ghost to be true. Even then it is a personal revelation which I cannot prove to someone else because it was revealed Spirit to spirit, and I cannot physically prove that I have received that revelation. It can only be discerned spiritually.

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

Satan or satanos used here means adversary or temptation not necessarily a personage which later he does seem to represent as not only an adversary to man but also to God. In Job satan acted as an advocate of God who allowed his adversarial angel to tempt Job. Notice the term devil or diabolos is used which again means a creature not unlike the satyrs of Greek mythology. While we see these terms in modern ways the ancient meanings were quite different.

Once you go down the road to calling scripture stories and the spirits just tools of the story the message in the scripture carries no weight. Since the message has no effect on real objects and real objects could not be found to carry the message then by logic the message becomes of little value or power. The message becomes something we may think about but since the message is contained in a fabricated setting the message is distant and not personal. This logic and view of scripture is common among people who wish to wrap them self with other ideas, ones of their own choosing that carry equal weight with scripture. Ideas like evolution in which man came from chimps and the story of Adam and Eve are but fictional because it was not God that made man but tiny accidents in some molecules. The scripture which tells of Job turns into a message of the conflict with our natural sense. The driving forces instead of being separate become internal and natural. So having a problem with drinking becomes a bad gene in which we are powerless to fix. We just lost the lottery of life and it is not our fault because choice had little to do with it. Our choice of violence is due to our childhood and environment. No longer are we viewed as responsible because we have pointed to internal natural mistakes that rule us or our external environments. Being free from choice we can care little about the value of life. As Darwin says we are a result of millions of years of natural processes and our desire to protect our self comes from that past. In fact the human idea of self is but a natural evolved construct and is meaningless except as a vehicle for self preservation. How can we be responsible when all of these other things like genes and environment rule us? Then our choice loses value just like we have devalued scripture to a story. Yes this is the road that many take. It is the natural road of naturalism. One can believe in nature or one can transcend the world and accept that we are a spirit. A spirit that is responsible for our actions and choices. Many live in the real world and give lip service to the world of spirits. God designed the world. He did it in a way that people could lose them self in it.

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

If the world loves you you are on the wrong path. If the world hates you then you are on the right path. I wonder what you think of this message that Jesus gave us? How do you see your self and how do you think the world deals with you?

[jo1952]

To look at the events rather than the message behind the events is the tantamount mistake here. The stories of the OT are to illustrate the power and nature of God. The ancient Jews understood this. They understood that in most cases the stories of the Bible were meant to convey a deeper message. Apparently, in our sophistication we have been so myopic in seeing the events we have forgotten the message.

As I have already explained, I actually find layers and layers of understanding in the OT. I believe the events are both literal and ALSO hold allegorical meaning at the same time. I think the same is true of the Book of Revelation; ie things will happen literally and also hold allegorical meaning at the same time. They understandings and layers are not all learned at once, though. It takes the same methods of sincere study, prayer, secular learning, and seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost, to continue to learn line upon line, and precept upon precept. Whenever secular learning is involved I really slow down to read all sides of arguments and opinions and review of data findings and the various interpretations of that data. This is filtered trough the prescriptions we have been given in scripture to be able to determine what is true in those interpretations. Only after all of that, will I hang my hat on any particular interpretation. Somes things I haven't hung a hat on yet, because I don't feel I have enough information to claim to know one way or the other. I am not concerned about those things because I know that all things will be revealed when Jesus returns. Until that time, we can only make best-guess assumptions UNLESS it is concerning something specifically revealed to me personally by the Holy Ghost to be true. Even then it is a personal revelation which I cannot prove to someone else because it was revealed Spirit to spirit, and I cannot physically prove that I have received that revelation. It can only be discerned spiritually.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

Once you go down the road to calling scripture stories and the spirits just tools of the story the message in the scripture carries no weight.

Others would differ with you.

Brigham Young:

Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child. But suppose Adam was made and fashioned the same as we make adobies; if he had never drunk of the bitter cup; the Lord might have talked to him to this day, and he would have continued as he was to all eternity, never advancing one particle in the school of intelligence. This idea opens up a field of light to the intelligent mind. How can you know truth but by its opposite, or light but by its opposite? The absence of light is darkness. How can sweetness be known but by its opposite, bitter? It is by this means that we obtain all intelligence.

• Journal of Discourse 2:6-7 (October 23, 1853)

It is my highest delight and pleasure to serve God and keep his commandments; there is great delight in the law of the Lord to me, for the simple reason—it is pure, holy, just, and true; and those principles which the Lord has revealed are the only correct principles that man possesses on the earth. We may imagine to ourselves that we possess a great deal of human wisdom independent of the Lord, but this is a mistake, for every truth that is in the possession of the children of men upon the earth came from God. The sciences understood by man came from God, and when we demonstrate a truth, we demonstrate a portion of the faith, law, or power by which all intelligent beings exist, whether in heaven or on earth, consequently when we have truth in our possession we have so much of the knowledge of God. I delight in this, because truth is calculated to sustain itself; it is based upon eternal facts and will endure, while all else will sooner or later perish.

It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth. We can now take a hymn book and read its contents; but if we had never learned our letters and knew nothing about type or paper or their uses, and should take up a book and look at it, it would be a great mystery; and still more so would it be to see a person read line after line, and give expression therefrom to the sentiments of himself or others. But this is no mystery to us now, because we have learned our letters, and then learned to place those letters into syllables, the syllables into words, and the words into sentences.

http://en.fairmormon...ses/14/16#115-6

James E. Talmage:

Let us not try to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to explain away what we can not explain. The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto, were never intended as a text-book of geology, archaeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy Scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation. . . .

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Franktalk]

Others would differ with you.

Brigham Young:

• Journal of Discourse 2:6-7 (October 23, 1853)

http://en.fairmormon...ses/14/16#115-6

He said he disagreed with other Christians on the substance of Adam. Adam is not wholly from the dust of the earth. Brigham Young is supporting scripture here. The life of Adam was placed there by God it did not come from the dust. The dust was fashioned in the creation but the life was a spirit which God drew from the spirits. Brigham Young was saying that the idea that Adam is but dust is false. I agree with him. He was saying that the Christians of the world knew not about the intelligences involved in Adam. This is true also and is easy to see in other Christian doctrine. I would say that Brigham Young and I agree with each other. You will have to expand on your thought that I somehow disagree with him. I don't see it.

[Calm]

I would say that Brigham Young and I agree with each other. You will have to expand on your thought that I somehow disagree with him. I don't see it.

You have no problem with Brigham Young calling Genesis "baby stories"? I thought you saw that as the 'beginning of the road' to giving the scriptures "no weight"?

[Calm]

One thing that has never really been explained to me is that if reading such scriptures as the flood covering all the earth as something other than worldwide, perhaps even figuratively is so potentially damaging to people's faith why such teachings or at least the implications of such teachings are allowed to occur at BYU considering the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are part of the Board of Regents and they must be concerned with providing a faith producing environment for the youth that attend there....any takers?

The mission of Brigham Young University--founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued....To succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God.

http://cpms.byu.edu/MP/index.html

Welcome to the BYU Museum of Paleontology! This museum showcases many fossils from the Jurassic Period, which spans a period from approximately 210-140 million years ago. The museum houses one of the top five collections from the Jurassic Period in the world and has been featured in magazines, newspapers, and on television throughout the world.

This page includes an interesting link at the bottom: http://cpms.byu.edu/MP/research.html

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Franktalk]

You have no problem with Brigham Young calling Genesis "baby stories"? I thought you saw that as the 'beginning of the road' to giving the scriptures "no weight"?

I think he was referring to milk as opposed to meat. Again I have no problem with what he said. From the start of the article he was hammering the spiritual aspect of life. Genesis concentrates on the physical therefore "baby stories". I think you must see something here I don't. Find an article that says Brigham Young said that man came from chimps instead of God. If you do then I will disagree with Brigham Young but until then I do agree with what he said.

[volgadon]

I recalled a word that I think defines the OP- obscurantist.

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

From Fairwiki; The Church has no official position on evolution, and each member is entitled to his or her own personal views on the subject. In the evolution debate, difficulties have arisen when readers assume that statements by certain leaders represent an official position beyond that expressed by the First Presidency as a body. As expressed by David H. Bailey, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and author of numerous articles on the relationship between Mormonism and science,

The LDS Church has a great scientific tradition, including notable, respected researchers in virtually event field of modern science. Indeed, our motto is “The glory of God is intelligence.” Why not just acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other

[jo1952]

One thing that has never really been explained to me is that if reading such scriptures as the flood covering all the earth as something other than worldwide, perhaps even figuratively is so potentially damaging to people's faith why such teachings or at least the implications of such teachings are allowed to occur at BYU considering the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are part of the Board of Regents and they must be concerned with providing a faith producing environment for the youth that attend there....any takers?

We can never know what may damage a person's faith. It is only the last few days that the direction of this thread has begun to discuss the persuasion of a NON-BELIEVER to not believe in Christ. This has been directly linked to the non-believers I have seen and heard who have decided to not believe ANYTHING in the Bible, to not believe in any God, and to not believe in Jesus. This is due to their observation that many Christians have taken many of the major events of the Bible and thrown them out claiming that the Bible is incorrect.

Someone who has firm faith and is living their lives in accordance with keeping the commandments, studying scripture, praying, etc., is not going to care what physical evidence may show up which puts scripture into question. Their faith is based on the unseen. IF evidence happens to show up which supports their belief, then this is viewed as an encouraging affirmation that scripture has been telling the truth all along. However, it should not be the standard by which anyone chooses to believe in God or not. Physical evidence is shakey ground; if that is what a person places the foundation of their faith, then they are not walking in faith. That person is then only allowing themselves to believe DUE to physical evidence which changes all of the time. I suppose that this is why we are taught to walk in "faith" and NOT in "proof". The Holy Ghost who leads us to all Truth is a spirit - and He will only reveal what Father wants an individual to know when He thinks that person is able to bear and understand that revelation. His communication with us is entirely Spirit to spirit - there is nothing physical about His communication.

I would suppose that inasmuch as WE DON'T KNOW HOW OLD THE EARTH IS, BYU presents secular "knowledge" connected with the age of the earth in accordance with ONLY what man has been able to provide. I do not know if BYU teaches both sides of the various interpretations concluded from those findings. If they don't, I think they should be so that every student has the "whole" story in order for that student to be able to come to their own personal decisions, if, for no other reason than WE DON'T KNOW HOW OLD THE EARTH IS. You and others have given plenty of examples of talks from our Church leaders which verify that this is what has been revealed to them: that not enough has been revealed to them for them to know the age of the earth.

IF BYU is teaching as an absolute truth a specific age of the earth, then they are out of sync with Church official doctrine, which is, I will repeat, that we don't know how old the earth is. This information has NOT been revealed.

Regards,

jo

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

There will always be those that have such a fragile testamony that ANYTHING will have them reject the Gospel. To use science as an excuse is just than an excuse.

Within the limits of science the earth is 4.55 Billions of years old. What it is not is 7-10,000 years old.

[jo1952]

Others would differ with you.

Brigham Young:

• Journal of Discourse 2:6-7 (October 23, 1853)

http://en.fairmormon...ses/14/16#115-6

James E. Talmage:

I noticed you added a lot to your original post; and I would like to focus on a couple of the quotations you presented. I have added emphasis where I thought it was appropriate to do so, especially since they support what I have been saying, yet you are the one who has provided me opportunity to point this out:

You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are;

also:

As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject.

and finally:

Let us not try to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to explain away what we can not explain. The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto, were never intended as a text-book of geology, archaeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy Scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation. . . .

So WHY does man not only wrest with scripture, they have gone so far as to justify taking entire events and disallowing them???

It seems to appear that you have actually presented quotations which entirely support what I have been saying since I started posting to this thread.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

I think he was referring to milk as opposed to meat. Again I have no problem with what he said. From the start of the article he was hammering the spiritual aspect of life. Genesis concentrates on the physical therefore "baby stories". I think you must see something here I don't. Find an article that says Brigham Young said that man came from chimps instead of God. If you do then I will disagree with Brigham Young but until then I do agree with what he said.

I'm not talking about man from chimps or whatever, I'm not the least bit interested in that side of the conversation. I'm talking about the scriptures being "stories"...symbolic or figurative to a certain degree in other words.

[Calm]

It seems to appear that you have actually presented quotations which entirely support what I have been saying since I started posting to this thread.

And my point is missed again. I think I will stop trying.

[Calm]

IF BYU is teaching as an absolute truth a specific age of the earth, then they are out of sync with Church official doctrine, which is, I will repeat, that we don't know how old the earth is. This information has NOT been revealed.

So you believe the First Presidency and the 12 who are on the Board of Trustees of BYU are allowing the Geology and other departments to teach something that is out of sync with "Church Official doctrine" because my experience was that science was taught in science classes and mainstream science at that...and alternate theories were not mentioned, at least not the kind you are talking about and I haven't heard anyone with a different experience, hopefully any here will speak up if they have.

To me, this makes no sense. If I were in the position of thinking something was official Church doctrine and yet I saw something else taught at BYU and other places (such as Institute and other manuals), I would seriously consider that I was wrong about what was official Church doctrine instead of the First Presidency and the 12 (seeing as how there must be enough oversight to notice what is being taught in science and anthropology and such classes at least in general, I'm not talking about nitpicking stuff, but worldview, paradigm level).

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

The Church takes no position. To give you a further example the Church takes no position on the Pathagorean Therum. Do that mean it isn't true, or that we can have any opinion on its validity we want? Of course not. It just means that within the context of the Church it is not a matter of our theology. IOW My standing in the Church is not affected in the slightest by that therum.

Futher the Saints don't believe in inerrancy for anything man has any part in, including Scripture. Your prooftexting of Scripture to argue against science, and those in the Church who use the scientific method in their work is neither appreciated nor warranted.

Edited August 30, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Ron Beron]

'jo1952' writes,

The LDS believe that satan and a third of the hosts of Heaven who followed satan were cast out of the glory of Heaven where the Father resides. He and his followers are very real; they exist.... There is much that we seem to agree on here. Mostly, it appears our disagreement hinges on whether or not Satan and his followers really exist.

Yes, we do. I have a problem with belief in anthropomorphic evil, but accept readily an element of chaotic evil that exists in time and space. Whether of not there is a single entity who reigns over evil is something that I have trouble accepting. The phenomenon of evil being known as Satan is a fairly modern concept born on the conflation of many different religious traditions and cultures.

I would offer that if you do not believe that Satan and his followers are real, that you will not be able to recognize his influence in your life and everything this encompasses in your earthly journey.

Or it could be said that one's spirit will help identify satanic influences of the world to which we should avoid.

In our bodies of flesh we cannot help but still sin; and we need to repent all the time for those sins. Hopefully, for most, it is not even our intent to sin, but we wind up doing so anyway. Our spirits may be strong, but the flesh is weak. From moment to moment we can change who it is we are serving. When we sin, we serve Satan; when we keep the commandments we do not sin, we are serving God.

I am not so sure if we are serving satan or building character. We do not grow unless we make mistakes. We learn more from our weaknesses than from our strengths.

I am all for obtaining more and more knowledge - both temporally and spiritually. I use scripture, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost to temper knowledge acquired through secular means in order to determine which interpretation of those findings I will hold to. I use the same method of determining which interpretation of scripture and doctrine I will hold to. Just as in religion, there are different interepretations to be found in secular knowledge of all types in all walks of life. I use the same pattern to discover what is true in all of these; from spiritual to secular.

Secular knowledge can be spiritual as well. Remember James Talmadge was a noted geologist who understood the formation of the world, Elder Oaks is a noted attorney, while other GA's are noted physicians, scholars, and academics. One can read and gain tremendous spiritual knowledge from reading secular material, but with all things we need to guided by the spirit. Otherwise, we can believe all kinds of superfluous nonsense.