World Wide Flood Of Noah

[jo1952]

Jo:

I think Peter was an awesome, intelligent guy. But his symbolic use of a common scriptural story he was familiar with is simply not enough to convince me. I think it's cool to metaphorically connect it with baptism, but a line or two of text is simply not enough to throw out all the learning that has accumulated over the past 2000 years. The temporal world is, of course, definitionally temporary. But there's nothing temporary about physicality - all spirit is eternal matter, etc., which behaves according to law.

The thing is, it's not fair of you to say that people who look for physical evidence of the Flood are "inevitably closing their minds to the evidence which may already exist right in front of them" without actually providing any of that evidence.

Hi Jeremy!

Wow----I think you made up for any time that you did NOT spend posting (the lag in your response time).....

First of all, I appreciate all of your references to what Joseph Smith and others have said. I share in your joy!!!

With that said, I would like to respond to your words above. Here, in full context, is what I said in my paragraph. Maybe I just didn't say what I wanted to say very clearly; so I apologize for that. So I will try to re-state it since you took my words to mean something which was NOT my intent.

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.

IOW, I am speaking about pre-conceived notions about what a person "thinks" they should find as evidence, may not be what they actually "find". Thus, they may not recognize that they have actually found evidence, because it is not what they thought it would look like. If they already have an expected picture in their head of what a particular evidence is supposed to look like, they may miss evidence that has been found; they just don't KNOW yet that it IS evidence. Is this making sense?? It has been my experience in my life, that pre-conception blinds people. Additionally, all of us are blind to whatever we do not yet know or understand. If we knew everything and understood everything, then obviously, we would not still be blind to it. We hamper our ability to see things when they are finally revealed to us if we also add pre-conceptions to our minds.

Let me give you a for instance. On another board I was discussing a poster's conversion to Christ. He had admitted that after he became a believer, that he did not think the Bible taught the Trinity. However, his new Christian friends were all over him trying to convince him that the Trinity IS taught in the Bible, along with warnings that unless he accepted the Trinity, he had not actually "been saved". As a result, he allowed his friends to teach him their interpretation of what the Bible was teaching. He said that he finally realized that they were correct. Now all he sees when he studies the Bible, is how it supports his belief in the Trinity. With these ideas in his head, he cannot "see" any other possibility for a Godhead. Yet the very same passages where he sees a Trinity taught, the LDS see something completely different being taught.

When this is about something vital to our salvation, such as the Resurrection, the entire point of the Gospels is to testify that this seemingly impossible thing really was witnessed by sober record-keepers who knew it would not be explicable to the current science of the day.

I agree. I would also add that science cannot, nor ever was given the power or meant to evolve into something which would replace the witness of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, the Creation is sooooo awesome and powerful to see and study and learn from. I love what Altersteve shared (which you have also referenced in your post which I am currently responding to).

The Flood is a very different story - it appears, to me at least, to be a mere redaction of an earlier account of a historical event which was reinterpreted in many different ways by many different people. Why are we assuming the redactors paraphrased God's words accurately?

I did not see any difference in the JST version of the flood. I can look at this in at least three ways. 1) The flood did cover the entire earth, and Joseph, therefore, received no revelation about changing the wording; or 2) If the flood was local or symbolic, it simply is not relevant to believe one way or the other; or, 3) It really happened, but has purposely been made a stumbling block as a test of faith. In due time all types of acceptable evidence may appear; it could be that it is being veiled from us---just like our memories of our pre-earth existence with Father.

Scientific theories must remain and continue to be considered theories until they are either proven correct or incorrect. This does not mean that I do not study or delight in knowledge; however, I am wary and will not accept information as "true" just because someone tells me I should. Also, I will say again that just because I reject a scientific theory does not equate into my having neglected to study it and research it on my own. I prefer to use MY own reasoning powers rather than depending upon someone else's.

I have not used science to disprove God, so your objection on that front is unfounded. But you seem to be positing an unnecessary dichotomy between God's work and the "natural" world. How can there exist anything which is not "natural"? Everything is a part of nature, even God. We are all bound up in it. It is a Neoplatonic idea, not part of the Restoration, that God works in a separate, supernatural arena. If He understands how to fiddle with reality better than we can, that is still natural.

If I remember correctly, I said that agnostics and atheists will use science to try to disprove God's existence. Therefore, my comment would only include you as part of that group if you are an agnostic or an atheist.

I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your above paragraph. Perhaps we need to define some of the words we are using so that we don't wind up talking past each other.

And if He is a part of nature, there seems little reason that He would deliberately hide evidence of a literally world-wide flood, which is basically what your claims amount to. The scriptures say that the lands were divided at the time of Peleg, true - where is there evidence that this was referring to, of all things, continental movements, as you seem to be implying? It seems clear to me that it is referring to colonization movements. They're dividing up areas of land amongst themselves, not having continents formed for them.

My interpretation of scripture is that before the time of Peleg, the continents had not separated - that there was only one huge land mass surrounded by waters; though there were still rivers and fountains of water in the land. In the end times, as a result of all of the events the earth will experience, the continents will merge back together and once more become one huge mass of land surrounded by waters; though there will still be rivers and fountains of water in the land. All of this movement would have facilitated the dispersion of the peoples when language was confounded at the Tower of Babel. By the time of Peleg, they would have already chosen and moved to their new locations.

I believe the Garden of Eden will re-appear; that perhaps it has always been here but has been veiled from our ability to see it or recognize it. Also, I think that prior to the flood that there had been no rain on the earth.

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 18, 2011 by jo1952

[Franktalk]

Oh come on dude!

I mean I like you but what is this "holier than thou" stuff? It just comes off as pure pride and hypocrisy! I am not saying you ARE that way- but it sure sounds like it. Who are you to judge anybody?

You are right, I am not to judge. But the ideas that come out from man can be just a recording, a parroting back of other men's ideas. There are many who have embraced the world and pushed their own souls into a corner. I love the souls of those I meet I sometimes have conflicts with the world which beats them down.

When we first realize that we are actually a spirit housed in this body of flesh we start a war, an internal war in which the flesh and the world wish to pull us one way and our spirit wishes to go another. The Holy Ghost and scripture can help the spirit overcome the world so the world has little impact on the soul. When I speak of the love I have for my family it comes from my soul. When I speak of taxes it comes from the world. Most people can see this. But when we speak of the theories of man when dealing with the past, things get real confused. Some will take those ideas of men and put them with the world and will not give them power. Others will consider those ideas truth and will embrace them and will see the world through those ideas. They will even place those ideas as ultimate truth and will modify scripture around the ideas of men.

When Christ came to the earth He came to deliver the Good Word. In His day the Pharisees had added the ideas of man to scripture and Christ fought that the entire time He walked the earth. He did not bring peace but to cause man to decide between the spirit and the world. He described it well:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

When someone embraces the ideas of men and then they change the very Word of God they are placing man above God. You may not see this but I do. Can man say they love God yet love the world? They can say it but can it be true?

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

In today's world we have no Pharisees around us telling us the ideas of man. But we do have institutions of "higher" learning in which the very idea of a God is forbidden from the discussion of reality. These ideas have made a Godless universe and stripped God from the past. They deny the powers of God and look to nature to explain all current and past events. Can you not see this?

I started this thread to expose this very idea, the idea that man focuses on the ideas of man and not God. I do not care if someone believes in a world wide flood or not. But if they use the ideas of man based on a Godless universe to obtain that opinion then I will fight that idea. I do not judge the souls of man but I do judge the ideas of man. If you think that a man is the sum total of his earthly knowledge then you have missed the boat.

[Franktalk]

Noah's flood was local. LOL!I suppose the burning will be local, as well? (D&C 64:23; 31:4)

The earth was born of water Gen 1:2, yet baptized of water by local sprinkling? and will be baptized locally by a campfire, as well?

There was a reason for Noah's flood, and it wasn't to amuse scientists. Job 38:18

But apparently, it makes you to appear to be sophisticated to believe otherwise. LOL!

It seems to me that you have stepped back and looked at the big picture.

[mfbukowski]

You are right, I am not to judge. But the ideas that come out from man can be just a recording, a parroting back of other men's ideas. There are many who have embraced the world and pushed their own souls into a corner. I love the souls of those I meet I sometimes have conflicts with the world which beats them down.

When we first realize that we are actually a spirit housed in this body of flesh we start a war, an internal war in which the flesh and the world wish to pull us one way and our spirit wishes to go another. The Holy Ghost and scripture can help the spirit overcome the world so the world has little impact on the soul. When I speak of the love I have for my family it comes from my soul. When I speak of taxes it comes from the world. Most people can see this. But when we speak of the theories of man when dealing with the past, things get real confused. Some will take those ideas of men and put them with the world and will not give them power. Others will consider those ideas truth and will embrace them and will see the world through those ideas. They will even place those ideas as ultimate truth and will modify scripture around the ideas of men.

When Christ came to the earth He came to deliver the Good Word. In His day the Pharisees had added the ideas of man to scripture and Christ fought that the entire time He walked the earth. He did not bring peace but to cause man to decide between the spirit and the world. He described it well:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

When someone embraces the ideas of men and then they change the very Word of God they are placing man above God. You may not see this but I do. Can man say they love God yet love the world? They can say it but can it be true?

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

In today's world we have no Pharisees around us telling us the ideas of man. But we do have institutions of "higher" learning in which the very idea of a God is forbidden from the discussion of reality. These ideas have made a Godless universe and stripped God from the past. They deny the powers of God and look to nature to explain all current and past events. Can you not see this?

I started this thread to expose this very idea, the idea that man focuses on the ideas of man and not God. I do not care if someone believes in a world wide flood or not. But if they use the ideas of man based on a Godless universe to obtain that opinion then I will fight that idea. I do not judge the souls of man but I do judge the ideas of man. If you think that a man is the sum total of his earthly knowledge then you have missed the boat.

What I think you are missing is that we are all "coming" to truth from different "places".

What you see as plain in God's word, others will see completely differently from their vantage point. None of us have the exclusive rights to the "correct interpretation" of scripture. Yes we must absolutely be guided by the spirit, but God knows each of us well enough to teach us in our own ways.

If I saw things exactly the way you do, I would never have found the church, or if I did find it, I would have seen it as a load of bunk.

The way that God has decided to teach you is the way you needed to learn- the interpretations he gave you is what you needed to bring you to where you are now.

I have learned in a lot of intimate conversations as a leader in church positions that no one sees the gospel exactly the same way, and in order to minister to church members, unless they are really going "haywire" and preaching crazy false doctrine, we need to allow people to grow like little plants, in the way that God seeded them, and is teaching them each in their own way.

[volgadon]

Hmmm, I just read the sentences you were responding to. Here they are for your review:

But there is a wide gap of vision between you and I. Where you may look with your eyes I look by the spirit, I don't trust my eyes.

It appears your eyes have fooled you, as I do NOT see anywhere in those words where Franktalk said that he despised anything that God gave him.

No? Look a little harder. He repeatedly refuses to use them, as he considers them inferior.

I would have to agree with you. You don't see what Psalm 141:8 has to do with using our God-given brains and following promptings of the spirit.

Regards,

jo

Regards? A little unintentional irony, no? Anyway, before you pretend to agree with me in a doomed attempt to make me look foolish, perhaps you ought to read what I wrote. It wasn't "You don't see what Psalm 141:8 has to do with using our God-given brains and following promptings of the spirit."

I wrote that I don't see what that scripture has to do with Franktalk's false dichotomy between using our God-given brains and following promptings of the Spirit. He is the one splitting the two. I believe they go hand-in-hand, which, as it happens, was my point.

Edited August 18, 2011 by volgadon

[mfbukowski]

You are right, I am not to judge. But the ideas that come out from man can be just a recording, a parroting back of other men's ideas. There are many who have embraced the world and pushed their own souls into a corner. I love the souls of those I meet I sometimes have conflicts with the world which beats them down.

When we first realize that we are actually a spirit housed in this body of flesh we start a war, an internal war in which the flesh and the world wish to pull us one way and our spirit wishes to go another. The Holy Ghost and scripture can help the spirit overcome the world so the world has little impact on the soul. When I speak of the love I have for my family it comes from my soul. When I speak of taxes it comes from the world. Most people can see this. But when we speak of the theories of man when dealing with the past, things get real confused. Some will take those ideas of men and put them with the world and will not give them power. Others will consider those ideas truth and will embrace them and will see the world through those ideas. They will even place those ideas as ultimate truth and will modify scripture around the ideas of men.

When Christ came to the earth He came to deliver the Good Word. In His day the Pharisees had added the ideas of man to scripture and Christ fought that the entire time He walked the earth. He did not bring peace but to cause man to decide between the spirit and the world. He described it well:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

When someone embraces the ideas of men and then they change the very Word of God they are placing man above God. You may not see this but I do. Can man say they love God yet love the world? They can say it but can it be true?

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

In today's world we have no Pharisees around us telling us the ideas of man. But we do have institutions of "higher" learning in which the very idea of a God is forbidden from the discussion of reality. These ideas have made a Godless universe and stripped God from the past. They deny the powers of God and look to nature to explain all current and past events. Can you not see this?

I started this thread to expose this very idea, the idea that man focuses on the ideas of man and not God. I do not care if someone believes in a world wide flood or not. But if they use the ideas of man based on a Godless universe to obtain that opinion then I will fight that idea. I do not judge the souls of man but I do judge the ideas of man. If you think that a man is the sum total of his earthly knowledge then you have missed the boat.

Oh and just for the record, I know we are not supposed to bear our testimonies here, but I absolutely know without a shred of doubt that the church is true. And I understand and have thought through the implications of every word of that testimony for the last 30 years.

I don't know what "actually happened" - if the flood was local or global- and honestly I don't care. All I know is that one can believe either and have a firm testimony of the church and restoration.

The fact that some people see a conflict there is none of my business or my problem- it's their problem.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Sorry missed it.

Mods: Sorry I totally missed the picture. I'll try not to let it happen again.

[Nofear]

What I think you are missing is that we are all "coming" to truth from different "places".I have learned in a lot of intimate conversations as a leader in church positions that no one sees the gospel exactly the same way, and in order to minister to church members, unless they are really going "haywire" and preaching crazy false doctrine, we need to allow people to grow like little plants, in the way that God seeded them, and is teaching them each in their own way.

Oh and just for the record, I know we are not supposed to bear our testimonies here, but I absolutely know without a shred of doubt that the church is true. And I understand and have thought through the implications of every word of that testimony for the last 30 years.

I don't know what "actually happened" - if the flood was local or global- and honestly I don't care. All I know is that one can believe either and have a firm testimony of the church and restoration.

I concur, and so does Pres. Lee

All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."

I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer. (Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 445.)

Concerning the flood, the President of the Church has never declared the position with respect to a global or local flood. Contrary to some false teachings by some on this board, not everything published by the Church is doctrine or intended to be doctrine. A "straightforward" reading of the scriptures suggests a global flood. Many, many brethren have always interpreted the scriptures thus and offered some of their perspectives on the matter. It will likely be how the Church continues to teach the matter for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, this does not change the lack-of-doctrinal position about the flood.

From other apologists apostates who use their God-given brain on the matter: FAIR wiki: Global or Local Flood

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hi Jo:

I am speaking about pre-conceived notions about what a person "thinks" they should find as evidence, may not be what they actually "find". Thus, they may not recognize that they have actually found evidence, because it is not what they thought it would look like.

This is fine as a generalized admonition, but when we're talking specifics, unless actual evidence is provided that someone's preconceptions are blinding them, then this is again mere assertion, not an argument.

I did not see any difference in the JST version of the flood. I can look at this in at least three ways. 1) The flood did cover the entire earth, and Joseph, therefore, received no revelation about changing the wording; or 2) If the flood was local or symbolic, it simply is not relevant to believe one way or the other; or, 3) It really happened, but has purposely been made a stumbling block as a test of faith.

I don't think it has purposely been made a stumbling block. The Joseph Smith Translation seems concerned with tying the story back to Enoch, reiterating the promise that when the Children of Men keep all the commandments and embrace truth, then the people of Earth will be united with those of the Heavens. I don't think it's an argument for the literal historicity of the worldwide Flood; it's emphasizing covenants made with God.

My interpretation of scripture is that before the time of Peleg, the continents had not separated - that there was only one huge land mass surrounded by waters; though there were still rivers and fountains of water in the land. In the end times, as a result of all of the events the earth will experience, the continents will merge back together and once more become one huge mass of land surrounded by waters; though there will still be rivers and fountains of water in the land. All of this movement would have facilitated the dispersion of the peoples when language was confounded at the Tower of Babel. By the time of Peleg, they would have already chosen and moved to their new locations.

...

Also, I think that prior to the flood that there had been no rain on the earth.

These are all completely unscriptural interpretations which are directly contradicted by geological timescales.

[Franktalk]

Oh and just for the record, I know we are not supposed to bear our testimonies here, but I absolutely know without a shred of doubt that the church is true. And I understand and have thought through the implications of every word of that testimony for the last 30 years.

I don't know what "actually happened" - if the flood was local or global- and honestly I don't care. All I know is that one can believe either and have a firm testimony of the church and restoration.

The fact that some people see a conflict there is none of my business or my problem- it's their problem.

I do not know if a world wide flood occurred but I believe it did. To me it matches scripture the way I see it and fits with a type for Baptism. I do not believe any soul will be judged on how they feel about the flood. So why do I even bring up the subject? Because it gives us an opportunity to examine our beliefs and place them before us so we can shine the light of day on them. If in our discussion we find that we have used invalid reasons to form our conclusions then it makes sense to have the discussion. If we find that our reasons were and still are valid then that is fine also.

Normally when people argue about the flood it turns into a discussion of science and evidence. And I will list some observations on the earth that could be from a world wide flood. But what I present is not going to be proof of the flood. I have stated that I can't do that. The world is fashioned in such a way that proof of God does not exist unless you believe in God before you look at it. So as I see the world I see a created thing that God fashioned for us. The rules of nature are but rules that God set up so this place would have order. He is after all not a God of confusion. But one of His rules which He says over and over is that we are to learn faith, have faith, exercise faith, and use faith. So God does not provide a set of stepping stones that lead to Him like a set of evidence. A trail of physical things that we can find and follow. When we study nature it is to honor God not to find Him. If when we read scripture and read about a flood we should leave it there. Whatever that reading is, pray on it and take it as God's Word. If someone reads it as a local flood or so allegorical that there was no flood at all I have no problem with that, it would be a God focused analysis. But if we go out and seek evidence of the flood using godless methods then we lose our focus. There may indeed be traces of the flood but Godless methods will not find them. Those things will be explained away by the rules of a godless methodology.

This is why I have spent my posts dealing with views and methods. Dealing with how we read scripture and how we view the world. Because in the end these methods will either blind us or allow us to see. The blindness I speak of is blindness caused by the world and the seeing is seeing in the spirit. If in the spirit we come to different views of scripture I accept that. The Holy Ghost does not tell us things beyond a certain level. If that is the case then praise God and let us have a party. But if we use the world to determine our view then let us hold off on that party until we get our spirit straight.

Please take nothing I write as an attack on you. It is obvious that God is in you.

[Franktalk]

This is fine as a generalized admonition, but when we're talking specifics, unless actual evidence is provided that someone's preconceptions are blinding them, then this is again mere assertion, not an argument.

I don't think it has purposely been made a stumbling block. The Joseph Smith Translation seems concerned with tying the story back to Enoch, reiterating the promise that when the Children of Men keep all the commandments and embrace truth, then the people of Earth will be united with those of the Heavens. I don't think it's an argument for the literal historicity of the worldwide Flood; it's emphasizing covenants made with God.

These are all completely unscriptural interpretations which are directly contradicted by geological timescales.

You wrote this for jo but I will respond to the ideas.

I believe in Jesus even though I have no evidence that He ever walked the earth. I believe that God created the universe yet I have no evidence that He did. I believe that Jesus did rise from the grave on the third day, yet I have no evidence that He did.

It seems to me that when you are faced with no evidence you can believe. But when faced with some interpreted evidence you will go with the interpreted evidence. Have I stated this correctly?

[volgadon]

I was given the ability to sin, I will gladly cast it aside.

Actually, you were given the ability to choose between right and wrong.

Those things which lead us down the wrong path should be cast aside. I find it hard to understand your position. In fact Jesus does not agree with your position either:

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into h***.

And thos things don't happen to be discarding our ability to study and reason.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Frank:

"It seems to me that when you are faced with no evidence you can believe. But when faced with some interpreted evidence you will go with the interpreted evidence."

I'm afraid this is unclear to me - not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Any response to my enormous post last page?

Edited August 18, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[altersteve]

Good news altersteve! The flood is #4:

Mystery solved.

This chronology was proposed by James Ussher in the 17th century, and it is simply the timeline that the Church uses since it is the most widely accepted one in Christianity, but the Church doesn't take an official position on Bible chronology, as there are many disagreements even among the general authorities.

Edited August 18, 2011 by altersteve

[altersteve]

But if we go out and seek evidence of the flood using godless methods then we lose our focus. There may indeed be traces of the flood but Godless methods will not find them. Those things will be explained away by the rules of a godless methodology.

Are you saying that geology and other branches of science are "godless"? Why? When we study geology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry, physics, and so forth, are we not studying the works of God? As I said a few pages back, God has commanded us to learn about Him, and part of learning about Him is learning about what He has created. The prophets have taught it, it is in the scriptures, and it is one of the things that the Church itself emphasizes. We are commanded to use both faith and reason in our gospel (and secular) studies.

As Brigham Young said, God is a scientist Himself. He is the Scientist. Without Him, there would be no science for us to learn about.

[Senator]

This chronology was proposed by James Ussher in the 17th century, and it is simply the timeline that the Church uses since it is the most widely accepted one in Christianity, but the Church doesn't take an official position on Bible chronology, as there are many disagreements even among the general authorities.

Then perhaps the inclusion of a disclaimer with such published chronolgies is in order:

(Note: Readers are advised to take the above chronology with a grain of salt.)

[altersteve]

Then perhaps the inclusion of a disclaimer with such published chronolgies is in order:

(Note: Readers are advised to take the above chronology with a grain of salt.)

Not at all. The chronology given in Church publications is to be used as a guide for our own studies, but is not meant to be the final word of anything. This is a topic that has long been up for debate, even within the Church. And since this particular timeline is merely derived from Ussher's 17th-century reading of the Bible, I have no reason to believe it is a revelation. As Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking about items such as the JST items, chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps: "None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only" (Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289–290). I think the Bible timeline (which is found in the Bible Dictionary) falls under this category as well.

Edited August 18, 2011 by altersteve

[Senator]

Not at all. The chronology given in Church publications is to be used as a guide for our own studies, but is not meant to be the final word of anything. This is a topic that has long been up for debate, even within the Church. And since this particular timeline is merely derived from Ussher's 17th-century reading of the Bible, I have no reason to believe it is a revelation. As Bruce R. McConkie said, speaking about items such as the JST items, chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps: "None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only" (Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289–290). I think the Bible timeline falls under this category as well.

Actually your statement might be of interest to readers and serve as an informative disclaimer.

[cinepro]

From other apologists apostates who use their God-given brain on the matter: FAIR wiki: Global or Local Flood

I love that article. It talks about the LDS view on the scope of the flood, and out of 11 references, only one is from a currently-published LDS resource! It's almost enough to be a parody..."Here's an article on LDS teachings about the flood. Let's quote a Sunstone article four times!"

I guess I'm not as smart, because if I were writing an article about LDS teachings on the scope of the flood, I would probably focus on currently published teachings about... the scope of the flood?

In fact, I did.

So not only am I not creative enough to be an apologist, I'm probably not smart enough either.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

For some reason I keep hearing Galileo arguing with the Pope over if the earth rotated around the sun.

[jo1952]

No? Look a little harder. He repeatedly refuses to use them, as he considers them inferior.

I have to disagree with you. He does not think his eyes or his senses are "inferior". He knows that the world influences what his physical body perceives. It is my experience that being a spiritual being living in a physical body is very difficult since it is our desire to refrain from sin. It is actually impossible, because we are not perfect. So, the more that I have learned about the Kingdom of God, and still find myself unable to give up the world and totally, 100% really and truly give myself over to God on a 24/7 basis, I then try to at least minimize the effect that the world has on my spirit. I believe this is what Paul was teaching when he explained how he "died daily"; he had given his spirit self completely to God, but his physical self still sinned being very much effected by the physical world he lived in. At any rate, I think this is what Franktalk is trying to convey.

Absolutely, God has given us bodies which are meant to function with unbelievable abilities. He has given us the free agency to use our own reasoning and brains which are able to assimilate and dissimilate immeasurable amounts of information. He encourages us to always be building upon our knowledge both about the world and about His Kingdom. Why the world in addition to the Kingdom of God? So that first we can appreciate the Creation itself; to educate ourselves, to see God's hand in the Creation; but ALSO to learn the dangers and pitfalls that exist here because are living in bodies of flesh which are susceptible both Good AND evil influences. Afterall even though God created our world, Satan is now the god of the earth with his power and dominions of darkness. If we are going to educate ourselves in the fields of science, we still need to remember that satan and his followers are working 24/7 to mislead us and fool us. He will use science as readily as any other source to cause us to stray. Hence, as Franktalk said, he will not trust his eyes. He first studies things out, comparing information and testing it not only by methods known to man for testing, but also, and more importantly, testing information against what the Holy Ghost has already taught him, and is still teaching him. I agree with him that there is a danger in setting our faith in science without the guidance of the Holy Ghost, as man has been shown throughout history to not be the completely reliable vehicle for leading us to truth that he has claimed to be.

Now, inasmuch as he was using actual scripture to help convey his message, I do not see how anyone can think to be offended by scripture. It is the same message which Jesus was teaching. I would think that the only people who were offended to hear Jesus speak those same words would have been those who felt that Jesus was speaking to them specifically, rather than teaching the principle he was conveying. I think Franktalk is trying to re-iterate the message Jesus was teaching; I do not believe he is using scripture to try to judge anyone.

I wrote that I don't see what that scripture has to do with Franktalk's false dichotomy between using our God-given brains and following promptings of the Spirit. He is the one splitting the two. I believe they go hand-in-hand, which, as it happens, was my point.

You are the one who has made the judgment and personal call that Franktalk's presentation is a "false dichotomy". I disagree with you and used your own argument against you.

I see you are unwilling to admit that you added to what Franktalk actually said. You are still trying to convince me. It's not working. I can see what you did with the very eyes you used to claim that there was something in his words which were not there. So be it.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

What I think you are missing is that we are all "coming" to truth from different "places".

What you see as plain in God's word, others will see completely differently from their vantage point. None of us have the exclusive rights to the "correct interpretation" of scripture. Yes we must absolutely be guided by the spirit, but God knows each of us well enough to teach us in our own ways.

If I saw things exactly the way you do, I would never have found the church, or if I did find it, I would have seen it as a load of bunk.

The way that God has decided to teach you is the way you needed to learn- the interpretations he gave you is what you needed to bring you to where you are now.

I have learned in a lot of intimate conversations as a leader in church positions that no one sees the gospel exactly the same way, and in order to minister to church members, unless they are really going "haywire" and preaching crazy false doctrine, we need to allow people to grow like little plants, in the way that God seeded them, and is teaching them each in their own way.

I believe Franktalk DID come to the Gospel on a road that is not very common for people to reach it from.

I believe we are all at a different place in our personal journey as well. I just wanted you to know (again??) that I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. I've felt this way since I first starting reading your comments; but I can't remember if I've told you before.

Isn't the Gospel just awesome?? It is a living thing which seems to have no bounds. For each of us It has a life of its own. We are so truly blessed, I can hardly speak sometimes when I consider it.

Love,

jo

[jo1952]

From other apologists apostates who use their God-given brain on the matter: FAIR wiki: Global or Local Flood

Thank you for the link, Nofear.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I love that article. It talks about the LDS view on the scope of the flood, and out of 11 references, only one is from a currently-published LDS resource! It's almost enough to be a parody..."Here's an article on LDS teachings about the flood. Let's quote a Sunstone article four times!"

I guess I'm not as smart, because if I were writing an article about LDS teachings on the scope of the flood, I would probably focus on currently published teachings about... the scope of the flood?

In fact, I did.

So not only am I not creative enough to be an apologist, I'm probably not smart enough either.

And thank you, too, Cinepro, for your link!

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Are you saying that geology and other branches of science are "godless"? Why? When we study geology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry, physics, and so forth, are we not studying the works of God? As I said a few pages back, God has commanded us to learn about Him, and part of learning about Him is learning about what He has created. The prophets have taught it, it is in the scriptures, and it is one of the things that the Church itself emphasizes. We are commanded to use both faith and reason in our gospel (and secular) studies.

As Brigham Young said, God is a scientist Himself. He is the Scientist. Without Him, there would be no science for us to learn about.

Hi Altersteve!!

I don't want to put words into his mouth. If I am wrong, I am certain he will correct me.

I believe that when he is talking about "godless" methods, Franktalk means that the methods we are using were developed by man and not God. IOW, he was not dissing God or His Creation. Don't forget that he had just mentioned this:

When we study nature it is to honor God not to find Him.

Thus I would interpret this comment to mean that man's attempt to support a worldwide flood, as appears to be taught in the Bible, so far has only brought the Bible's account into question. Therefore, this "study" into searching for evidence of the flood has NOT honored God. In fact, I believe it has fueled the fires in favor of those who claim there is no God for the reason that agnostics and atheists point to the flood and ask for evidence of it. Just like anti-LDS point to the Book of Mormon and ask for evidence to support it.

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 18, 2011 by jo1952