Post-Flood Return To Normalcy

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

The Definition of myth.

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:

It need not be false.

A "myth" is a story that is not what really happened. It is therefore "false" according to literal history. General George Washington and his role in the war for independence is not American mythology. Paul Revere and his infamous ride is also not American mythology. The bombing of the twin towers by terrorists is not American mythology. Even Columbus sailing the seas is not mythology. Jesus Christ is not mythology.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

How about this: Man has become so closed minded that he won't accept anything his precious religious book can't agree with.

Equal footing? Standoff? No, one can use observation, reason and experiment to sort things out........or on the other hand, just accept the religious book with the most literal reading possible no matter what (but why do that??).

The fact of the matter is that science, properly approached, works against closed mindedness. There is nothing like a good two slit experiment to shake humans out of a dogmatic slumber. Nature will speak if you let her.

Like I explained before- if we use the modern suppositions and theories of science as our basic guide, then all of mormonism is a fraud. It also means there was no intelligent Creator, we have no real divine purpose, we are mere animals, etc. etc etc.

A proper balance of belief in prophets, ancient and modern, coupled with a proper understanding of science, leads one to the truth. The two are not exclusive.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[Zakuska]

Like gravity and the way it works and functions, and how that prevents someone from believing in a hollow earth with an interior sun that can't even be made to function as a sun at a size smaller than the earth to begin with?

There are other means of providing light besides a Nuclear reaction.

[Rob Osborn]

I just completed a search on www.LDS.org and from what I have found in my limited search is that no LDS prophet, apostle, or writer defines any part of LDS doctrine as "myth/ mythology. LDS doctrine may be defined by non-lds as some kind of "mythology" but the reality of it is that what we believe to be true, we call "historical" and "doctrine" and not mythology. Mythology is defined in modern times as a story that has been embelished, or contain some certain aspects of it that defy laws of nature and physics. LDS understanding is that even God works within the laws of nature and physics. LDS doctrine, including the historical flood account is thus not defined as "mythology" by official LDS doctrine.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[Cobalt-70]

I just completed a search on www.LDS.org and from what I have found in my limited search is that no LDS prophet, apostle, or writer defines any part of LDS doctrine as "myth/ mythology. LDS doctrine may be defined by non-lds as some kind of "mythology" but the reality of it is that what we believe to be true, we call "historical" and "doctrine" and not mythology. Mythology is defined in modern times as a story that has been embelished, or contain some certain aspects of it that defy laws of nature and physics. LDS understanding is that even God works within the laws of nature and physics. LDS doctrine, including the historical flood account is thus not defined as "mythology" by official LDS doctrine.

With good reason. Because you are not the only person who gets the wrong idea whenever the term "mythology" is used in academic contexts. Just because we can't find the term in the writings of general authorities doesn't mean you should never use the terminology in academic fora. When you approach Mormonism from an academic perspective (as Mormon apologists, by definition, do), you have to use the language of academia, not the language of the pulpit.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Ok then, you seem so sure of yourself- explain to me what evidence one would find if a global flood were to occur? I highly doubt you can provide any informative and useful information.

This was not directed to me, but I think I can answer that. If there were a world-wide flood, we would see a characteristic layer of ocean silt all over the world at the same recent geological stratum, with fossils of land animals buried underneath. You would also see fossil evidence of a mass extinction of plant life, and a severe loss of genetic diversity among animal life. You would see signs of catastrophic and instantaneous erosion throughout the world, which looks different from the slow erosion you find, for example, in the Grand Canyon.

You would see some reservoir of water that dwarfs the water currently in the oceans: if this water is hypothesized to be tied up in rocks, you would see some evidence of large-scale crystallization and evidence of a period of extreme geological heat near the earth's surface caused by such crystallization, plus you would see an extreme amount of water-bound minerals near the earth's surface, and volcanoes would be spewing vast amounts of steam. If this reservoir were in liquid form underneath the earth, you would be able to measure variations in the earth's rotation caused by the sloshing-around, and this pool would be detected by seismographers. You would also see fossil evidence of a severe greenhouse effect prior to the flood, assuming that prior to the flood, all this water was in the atmosphere. (I'm ignoring the fact that if all this water were within the atmosphere, all life would be crushed to death by the massive pressure.) If you assume, alternatively, that all this pre-flood water was tied up in rocks, then you would see evidence prior to the flood of a massive global temperature surge in the earth's crust, which would be required to release the hypothetical water from the rocks.

[jo1952]

Yes, it is much more common for them to attack/question someone's spirituality.

Yet, ours is still only a warning----not an "attack"; which is a word you use to try to dramatize and make a warning into something it is not. It is your defensiveness to preserve your ego which causes you to resort to such tactics.

If we see someone headed for a cliff, shouldn't we try to warn them? A warning is made from the heart with love at its source. I think the way God sees it is that if the warning was not necessary, He still counts the warning as an act of righteousness because it was done out of love. There has been no harm or sin committed. Now, if you think it is an attack rather than a warning, then you have not received the message within the manner it was given. If the warning turns out to be false, then no one gets hurt. If the warning turns out to be true, but it was ignored, then the one who ignores the warning does get hurt.

OTOH, once someone has mocked another's intelligence in comparison with their own interpretation of worldly knowledge, then a sin has been committed, regardless of whether or not their interpretation of physical evidence is correct or incorrect. At the moment someone has done this, the perpetrator is not serving God's purposes and no love is being manifested.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

I am sorry if ones faith is shaken because they can't believe all the holy prophets regarding the literalness of the flood. That to me is a sign of spiritual weakness and a lack of faith & belief.

An assumption on your part and considering the individuals I've known a very faulty assumption.

[Rob Osborn]

With good reason. Because you are not the only person who gets the wrong idea whenever the term "mythology" is used in academic contexts. Just because we can't find the term in the writings of general authorities doesn't mean you should never use the terminology in academic fora. When you approach Mormonism from an academic perspective (as Mormon apologists, by definition, do), you have to use the language of academia, not the language of the pulpit.

Be my guest then- find an official, church representing LDS scholar who uses his beliefs in the context of "mythology". Mythology is mythology no matter how you cut it. A myth is defined as having at least one part of the story that is an unaccepted idealogy concerning actual historical writings. This means that a myth is defined as not being considered 100% historical. Thus, a myth is defined as an untruth or alternate storytelling to the actual truth, whatever it may be.. No matter how you cut it, a myth is a myth and when studying any kind of formal history in school, history is always defined as that- "history" and not mythology. If one were to take a mythology class however, they would not learn actual historically correct truths regarding the stories.

Big difference- academia or not, mythology is not considered true historical information!

Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[shalamabobbi]

There are other means of providing light besides a Nuclear reaction.

Don't stop there, please elaborate..

[Nathair/|\]

Be my guest then- find an official, church representing LDS scholar who uses his beliefs in the context of "mythology". Mythology is mythology no matter how you cut it. A myth is defined as having at least one part of the story that is an unaccepted idealogy concerning actual historical writings. This means that a myth is defined as not being considered 100% historical. Thus, a myth is defined as an untruth or alternate storytelling to the actual truth, whatever it may be.. No matter how you cut it, a myth is a myth and when studying any kind of formal history in school, history is always defined as that- "history" and not mythology. If one were to take a mythology class however, they would not learn actual historically correct truths regarding the stories.

Big difference- academia or not, mythology is not considered true historical information!

myth

noun \ˈmith\

Definition of MYTH

1

a

:

a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

b

:

parable

,

allegory

2

a

:

a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone;

especially

:

one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society<seduced by the American

myth

of individualism — Orde Coombs>

b

:

an unfounded or false notion

3

:

a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4

:

the whole body of

myths

As we can see, the definition does not require the subject to be imaginary.

[Zakuska]

Don't stop there, please elaborate..

For one Bioluminescence. Thats how deep sea creatures do it.

[shalamabobbi]

For one Bioluminescence. Thats how deep sea creatures do it.

Well that doesn't agree with Rob's model. He attributes the particles stuck in the magnetic field of the earth as originating from the sun within the earth..

[Rob Osborn]

myth

noun \ˈmith\

Definition of MYTH

1

a

:

a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

b

:

parable

,

allegory

2

a

:

a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone;

especially

:

one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society<seduced by the American

myth

of individualism — Orde Coombs>

b

:

an unfounded or false notion

3

:

a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4

:

the whole body of

myths

As we can see, the definition does not require the subject to be imaginary.

Historical information is never considered "myth". Even in our religion, the Joseph Smith story of how he founded our church and translated ancient records is not considered by any standards to be "mythical". Mythology, in order to be called that must have some element of untruth or a truth which is greatly embelished upon. By either standard, in the use of the english language, we understand "myths" to be beyond actual or truthful historical events. By that standard, the historical events that make up our belief system within our religion, we cannot justify in any way to call them myth. It is an improper use of the english language to do so and to state such beliefs as "mythology" is a diservice to our doctrine and especially a diservice to the prophest who recorded such events as truthful historical events.

[Ron Beron]

So, is the Jesus Christ story of his birth by the virgin Marry also myth? What is there to separate truth from myth? What is the criteria? As far as I know, there is no physical evidence that an immortal being made a mortal pregnant by miracle and from that came the Savior with power given to him of life over death. We might as well just chalk up all the stories from the scriptures as myth, especially the miraculous ones such as Christ turning water into wine or him walking on the water.

Truth is myth with the lipstick and makeup removed. Myth is truth obfuscated, but yet somehow real. It's main import is not to instruct in science or worldly events, but to tell stories that reflect on the morality of a given situation. Jesus' parables, while ostensibly based on fact were nonetheless probably made up to illustrate a point of theological truth.

BTW, Jesus was not immortal, but a very mortal man who put on immortality through his resurrection. If immortal he would not have been able to be crucified.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

George Washington was a real live human being. The mythology of him chopping down a cherry tree and telling his father that he could not tell a lie is false. His crossing the Delaware River in winter is a historical fact. The famous painting of that event is obviously false. Just as there was probably a real live King Arthur, but the mythology that has grown up around him does not reflect real events.

[Rob Osborn]

Truth is myth with the lipstick and makeup removed. Myth is truth obfuscated, but yet somehow real. It's main import is not to instruct in science or worldly events, but to tell stories that reflect on the morality of a given situation. Jesus' parables, while ostensibly based on fact were nonetheless probably made up to illustrate a point of theological truth.

BTW, Jesus was not immortal, but a very mortal man who put on immortality through his resurrection. If immortal he would not have been able to be crucified.

No, truth is "truth" and never is it "myth". For instance, a mythical creature might be a seven headed dog that can fly. But a normal dog is not ever considered a "mythical" creature. Myth is myth and truth is truth. Accepted historical events are considered historical and not mythology. That is just how it is.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

George Washington was a real live human being. The mythology of him chopping down a cherry tree and telling his father that he could not tell a lie is false. His crossing the Delaware River in winter is a historical fact. The famous painting of that event is obviously false. Just as there was probably a real live King Arthur, but the mythology that has grown up around him does not reflect real events.

But the point of importance here is that which we define as "myth" is always that which is an unaccepted truth. Does that make sense? Anything "mythical" can have it's roots in truth, but the story itself is untrue or an overly embelished story. By any account, something defined as mythological, is a sign of untruth.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Very few, except you, would accept that understanding of the word myth. I repeat George Washington was a real live person. He did real acts, and we have documentation of those acts. It is the telling in popular culture that makes the myth. I used the example of him crossing the Delaware River in winter. He really did cross that river in winter. As represented in the famous picture that boat would have been so overloaded as to sink.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Very few, except you, would accept that understanding of the word myth. I repeat George Washington was a real live person. He did real acts, and we have documentation of those acts. It is the telling in popular culture that makes the myth. I used the example of him crossing the Delaware River in winter. He really did cross that river in winter. As represented in the famous picture that boat would have been so overloaded as to sink.

I think it's the other way around. Very few aknowledge real historical events as "mythical" and that is because they do not understand the word and how it is used in modern day english. Let me ask you this- Do you consider Martin Luther King Jr's speech "I have a dream" history or mythology?

[shalamabobbi]

I am sorry if ones faith is shaken because they can't believe all the holy prophets regarding the literalness of the flood. That to me is a sign of spiritual weakness and a lack of faith & belief.

Instead of the error of infallibility of scripture you adopt the error of infallibility of the men who hold the keys of the kingdom.

So we didn't really land on the moon, it was all a back stage stunt, and we never went to the north pole in a submarine since the opening to the hollow earth would have been discovered..

http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm

http://library.osu.edu/sites/exhibits/nautilus/submarine.html

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nautilus-travels-under-north-pole

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_23/north.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559264/Russian-submarine-plants-flag-at-North-Pole.html

http://www.myptsmail.com/hotdog256/blog/?p=2017

Still waiting on the explanation for how your star in the center of the earth functions..

[Rob Osborn]

Instead of the error of infallibility of scripture you adopt the error of infallibility of the men who hold the keys of the kingdom.

So we didn't really land on the moon, it was all a back stage stunt, and we never went to the north pole in a submarine since the opening to the hollow earth would have been discovered..

http://www.athropoli.../submarines.htm

http://library.osu.e.../submarine.html

http://www.history.c...nder-north-pole

http://www.navy.mil/...ue_23/north.htm

http://www.telegraph...North-Pole.html

http://www.myptsmail...56/blog/?p=2017

Still waiting on the explanation for how your star in the center of the earth functions..

I tell you what, when the inner earthers come in their UFO's and land in my front yard to refuel on the hot chocolate I will ask them about how their inner sun works. Are you fine with that?

Edited September 22, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[jo1952]

An assumption on your part and considering the individuals I've known a very faulty assumption.

This is what you were responding to:

Rob Osborn, on 21 September 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

I am sorry if ones faith is shaken because they can't believe all the holy prophets regarding the literalness of the flood. That to me is a sign of spiritual weakness and a lack of faith & belief.

It seems that once a person changes and alters WHAT he will believe in scripture in accordance with his own personal interpretation of scientific "evidence", then that person's faith HAS altered. The entire scope of his beliefs has been effected; which also effects his faith (which is believing and hoping in something unseen). IOW, once someone has taken something seen (physical evidence), and interpretted it in such a way that it causes him to accept their own interpretation of something physical, it can cause them to disgard something previously accepted spiritually in faith. This manifests a weakness in their faith and previous beliefs; otherwise, WHAT they had faith in and WHAT they believed in would not have changed. Anyway, that is my take on what Rob was talking about. Rob can correct me if I am in error of his intent.

Our eyes can be deceived. I heard an interesting talk one time about how the adversary likes to use our sense of sight all the time to try to deceive us. OTOH, Jesus favors using our sense of hearing when teaching; for instance "he that has ears, let him hear". IOW, when Jesus teaches "he that has ears", He is speaking of our spiritual hearing. Thus He points to the power and witness of the Holy Ghost which is Spirit to spirit communication.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 22, 2011 by jo1952

[shalamabobbi]

post-flood return to normalcy

..and we're still waiting

It seems that once a person changes and alters WHAT he will believe in scripture in accordance with his own personal interpretation of scientific "evidence", then that person's faith HAS altered. The entire scope of his beliefs has been effected; which also effects his faith (which is believing and hoping in something unseen).

Which is a GOOD thing. It's called learning and growth. Line upon line, here a little, there a little. Or you can hang out with Rob on his front lawn and feed the aliens hot cocoa..

[jo1952]

post-flood return to normalcy

..and we're still waiting

Which is a GOOD thing. It's called learning and growth. Line upon line, here a little, there a little. Or you can hang out with Rob on his front lawn and feed the aliens hot cocoa..

I wouldn't consider it a good thing unless I had an undeniable witness from the Holy Ghost. Without that witness I wouldn't feel comfortable changing what was written in scripture in accordance with man's interpretations alone. Man doesn't have a very good record of holding to Truth which has been revealed through God's Prophets.

So far it has been my experience that the Holy Ghost has confirmed what the Prophets taught. I have yet to experience the Holy Ghost unconfirming what they taught.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 22, 2011 by jo1952