Post-Flood Return To Normalcy

[toon]

Did I see someone write about the problem of genetics with there being only two of one species at one time?

Please, go back and read the story of Noah.

Which one?

[shalamabobbi]

Well the Oklo natural reactor takes us back 1.7 billion years and that's a fact, not dogma..

[Ron Beron]

With all due respect, we do not consider that which we believe to be "historical fact" as "myth". World War 2 was a historical fact not a mythological event. The word "legend" is used in somewhat different contexts depending on the semantics of how. For instance- we may state that George Washington was a "legendary" general. But that is completely different than saying that George Washington was "mythical being". The difference is night and day. The semantics of using legendary the way i used it can still fully be used in describing something 100% factual. But when i bring in the word "mythical", it always has some subset of untruth with it. That's the nature of the use of that word, it implys some element of untruth. I grew up with a english major in the house and was constantly reminded on the importance of the proper use of words. Whereas I am no great student of the english language like my older sister, I am always aware of how to use words in their proper context. That said-

In our LDS doctrine we do not refer to the events that founded our church as "mythical" but instead rather as "historical". We want to absolutely convey that we have truthful historical origins to our religion. If we were to instead use the word "mythical", it would thus convey something more on the lines of a pretend dungeon and dragon club type of religion where everything is make believe. There are places for the word "mythical" but we do not ever use them in the context of what we hold to be historically true.

When I here of others comment of the "creation myth" or the "flood myth", this automatically raises a flag to me that they do not believe those events to be held by them as historically accurate and holding some level of make believe. In light of prophets, ancient and modern, I don't believe we have the right to call their recordings as mythical. It is a subtle way that causes discontent and slowly erodes and undermines the accuracy and thus- the credibility of the word of God.

You make several points which need to be addressed independently. First,

In our LDS doctrine we do not refer to the events that founded our church as "mythical" but instead rather as "historical". We want to absolutely convey that we have truthful historical origins to our religion. If we were to instead use the word "mythical", it would thus convey something more on the lines of a pretend dungeon and dragon club type of religion where everything is make believe. There are places for the word "mythical" but we do not ever use them in the context of what we hold to be historically true.

While not specifically addressing LDS doctrine, which I accept as historical, I can easily find instances that are merely legendary, e.g. the Three Nephites, etc. Because of the relatively contemporary nature of the historical evidence and corroborating eyewitness recorded in situ to the time it is easy to discern the historical nature of the events. However, as I previously stated there are various instances of legendary elements which will no doubt lead to near mythological status in the future.

Secondly, you state,...

The word "legend" is used in somewhat different contexts depending on the semantics of how. For instance- we may state that George Washington was a "legendary" general.

But that is completely different than saying that George Washington was "mythical being". The difference is night and day. The semantics of using legendary the way i used it can still fully be used in describing something 100% factual. But when i bring in the word "mythical", it always has some subset of untruth with it. That's the nature of the use of that word, it implys some element of untruth. I grew up with a english major in the house and was constantly reminded on the importance of the proper use of words. Whereas I am no great student of the english language like my older sister, I am always aware of how to use words in their proper context.

While it is good that your family member was an English major I have taught English for the last 30 years and am very aware of the semantics of the word. Legendary, for example, argues a narrative between hearer and teller that takes place within history and contains elements of truth and possibility. Myth, on the other hand, is a

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. " dictionary.com

The ironic thing is that given the above definitions the story of flood should be considered mythical because 1. it violates natural science, and 2. it involves a de facto creation story.

While mythological it should not be necessarily considered false, but simply a means of conveying ideas and concepts that were beyond the reason and explanation of the initial teller. In their book, " When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth by Barber and Weyland state,

Quite simply, before writing, myths had to serve as transmission systems for information deemed important; but because we--now that we have writing--have forgotten how nonliterate people stored and transmitted information and why it was done that way, we have lost track of how to decode the information often densely compressed in these stories, and they appear to us as most gibberish. And so we often dismiss them as silly or try to interpret them with psychobabble. As folklorist Adrienne Mayor points out, classicists in particular “tend to read myths as fictional literature, not as natural history”--not least because humanist typically don’t study sciences like geology, palaeontology, and astronomy, and so don’t recognize the data.

Third, you state,

When I here of others comment of the "creation myth" or the "flood myth", this automatically raises a flag to me that they do not believe those events to be held by them as historically accurate and holding some level of make believe. In light of prophets, ancient and modern, I don't believe we have the right to call their recordings as mythical. It is a subtle way that causes discontent and slowly erodes and undermines the accuracy and thus- the credibility of the word of God.

I think my last point answers this. Mythological doesn't mean fiction only that it presents facts as being different than the way that moderns process cognitive information.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Franktalk]

I picked up a copy of "Wandering Continents and Spreading Sea Floors on an Expanding Earth" written by Lester King. A great book by the way. It was written in 1983. I will quote from the book.

"Few of the major mountain ranges of the Earth, indeed, were later than mid-Cenozoic in their orogenic (rock deforming) phase, and planation of the of the original mountains was achieved almost everywhere before the Pliocene period (p. 188).

Page 27

So let me get this straight. Most of the continents were eroded flat by planation. And just what is planation?

pla·na·tion

The process of erosion and deposition in which a nearly level surface is produced, as by streams, wind, or ocean currents.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

So we have evidence of massive water erosion on the continents. Go figure.

To see what I am talking about go here.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/DeccanUplift.html

Check out figure six and seven.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Franktalk

[Franktalk]

Well the Oklo natural reactor takes us back 1.7 billion years and that's a fact, not dogma..

I thought we all agreed not to talk about the time machine. Just because we have the ability to travel back in time does not justify the common man access to the past. Only us science types can work the knobs and wiggle the spark gaps.

[shalamabobbi]

I thought we all agreed not to talk about the time machine. Just because we have the ability to travel back in time does not justify the common man access to the past. Only us science types can work the knobs and wiggle the spark gaps.

We did??

Standard tactic - "it's complicated, I don't understand it (not because it is a difficult concept but because cognitive dissonance turns my brain off when presented with the facts), I can't fit it into my world view" - therefore I deny it.

There is no *other* interpretation of Oklo Frank. I showed why Uranium halos prove that decay rates haven't varied. If they could vary, the difference would be non-linear in how it would affect various radioactive elements, and there would not be the agreement between various radiological clocks that we see in actual reality.

The study of star light indicates that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe and past times as well.

[Franktalk]

We did??

Standard tactic - "it's complicated, I don't understand it (not because it is a difficult concept but because cognitive dissonance turns my brain off when presented with the facts), I can't fit it into my world view" - therefore I deny it.

There is no *other* interpretation of Oklo Frank. I showed why Uranium halos prove that decay rates haven't varied. If they could vary, the difference would be non-linear in how it would affect various radioactive elements, and there would not be the agreement between various radiological clocks that we see in actual reality.

The study of star light indicates that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe and past times as well.

So tell me does your study include supernatural events?

[shalamabobbi]

So tell me does your study include supernatural events?

You are appealing to supernatural events to offer a different interpretation of facts. So the operation of supernatural intervention affects the data with your model. We should see some indication of different laws in operation then as we study the cosmos but no such indications exist.

[jo1952]

You are appealing to supernatural events to offer a different interpretation of facts. So the operation of supernatural intervention affects the data with your model. We should see some indication of different laws in operation then as we study the cosmos but no such indications exist.

So, are you saying nothing supernatural took place in the Creation? Or are you saying that you just have not found anything supernatural to support the Creation? What happened to our belief that everything physical FIRST was created spiritually? What is your explanation of HOW the physical then BECAME physical without any supernatural intervention?

Regards,

jo

Edited September 24, 2011 by jo1952

[Cobalt-70]

I am rather ambivalent concerning the question of a worldwide flood. I don't care either way, in terms of whether or not it really happened, or is merely an ubiquitous human myth. That said, there are multiple hypotheses advanced in an effort to explain the field data observed in the Grand Canyon and the larger area of the Colorado Plateau, including one that is gaining traction of late: the sudden overflow of several ancient lake basins, including the breaching of ancient Lake Bidahochi: Lake Overflow: An Alternative Hypothesis for Grand Canyon Incision and Development of the Colorado River

As a resident of southern Utah, and a frequent visitor to the stunning scenic areas of the Colorado Plateau, I have personally observed many locations that appear to evince erosion incident to massive flows of water, rather than only incremental erosion over a period of millions of years.

I don't doubt that there were periods of heavy flooding down the Grand Canyon, and probably the breaching of natural dams upstream on the Colorado. Those occurrences are qualitatively different from a worldwide flood, though. Plus, there is no geographical reason why a world-wide flood would form a canyon in Arizona and not elsewhere. The scientific reason that the Grand Canyon formed in that location is that the land there was slow enough, as a result of millions of years of tectonic forces, that the Colorado river was able to slowly eat away at the rock and did not have to be diverted around the uprising in the crust to find a less impeded route to Baja California.

[Flyonthewall]

I wonder what everyone thinks of this article?

http://lds.org/ensig...eng&query=flood

...

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.”¹Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense,²revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

...

Edited September 24, 2011 by Flyonthewall

[Cobalt-70]

No river in any part of the world is depositing sediments in a thick uniform fashion over a vast area. I am sure that as the flood waters rose, there were areas where still living animals, scurrying to safety would have left a mark on freshly deposited soil.

I don't know if you have ever seen the actual sedimentary features of a river slowly depositing material but it is anything but parallel or uniform. Nice try though.

I think that sedimentary layers caused by rivers are a lot less common that sedimentary layers caused by lakes and seas. In the long run, rivers tend to erode, rather than deposit, although they can leave deposits too. If the sediments are deposited by a lake or sea, there will be uniform stripes over a large area. Sediment from catastrophic floods (like the breaking of natural dams) look different from normal sediment from lakes and seas, because the catastrophic floods are too short-lived to produce multiple layers.

[Cobalt-70]

I wonder what everyone thinks of this article?

http://lds.org/ensig...eng&query=flood

I think Mr. Perry was wrong. He has credentials to interpret Hebrew text, but he is neither a geologist, a historian, or a cleric.

[Flyonthewall]

I think Mr. Perry was wrong. He has credentials to interpret Hebrew text, but he is neither a geologist, a historian, or a cleric.

Interesting...

When he uses language like:

...

For Latter-day Saints, the Flood is a matter of faith and belief. We believe in many events that today we cannot scientifically explain.

...

Thus, although there are many in our day who consider the accounts of the Flood and tower of Babel to be fiction, Latter-day Saints affirm their reality. We rejoice in the many truths and lessons to be learned from these two accounts, as well as from all the stories of the Old Testament.

In a magazine that is published by the church...If the church did not agree with the summation, why would it allow that language to go through? Why wouldn't it be changed to a personal belief?

[shalamabobbi]

So, are you saying nothing supernatural took place in the Creation? Or are you saying that you just have not found anything supernatural to support the Creation? What happened to our belief that everything physical FIRST was created spiritually? What is your explanation of HOW the physical then BECAME physical without any supernatural intervention?

Regards,

jo

God operates based upon law. What laws are in operation beyond this mortal universe are not known to us here and now. We only accept their existence based upon faith to begin with resulting from our various experiences that result in what each of us calls our personal testimony of this work.

Why do you assume that the operation of those laws by which God creates need to be vastly distinct or different from the laws we are familiar with here in mortality? It's as though God had nothing to do with the creation of radioactivity or cosmic rays that create C14. Don't you think He understands these laws as well as the best scientists do? Don't you believe that the speed of light barrier for mortal existence is His doing? Who is at the helm of the universe if it isn't Him? Then evolution is God's law of evolution. The speed of light barrier is God's law. The uncertainty of the atomic realm belongs to Him. Or one may believe that these laws are self-existent apart from God and He operates and creates in harmony with them.

But appealing to the supernatural at every turn paints an image of a God that is working inharmoniously with nature, that must override some opposing force with every action that He takes.

I joined the church 40 years ago in California. I never met a Mormon who didn't believe in evolution until I moved to Utah. The stake president there referred to it as God's law of evolution from the pulpit during stake conference. Funny because at the time I didn't believe it due to reading McConkie and others like him. I didn't realize that there were leaders with differing viewpoints on all of this. Luckily I discovered that at the right time.

I had prayed about evolution off and on for decades but I never studied it. Never got an answer one way or the other. One day though I did receive an answer from that same spirit that gave and continues to give me a confirmation that this is the work of God. That answer was that the principal of evolution was indeed true and I received that witness moments before a close friend's son showed up at my door who had been taught his whole life from his fundamentalist parents that evolution was not true. But he had become a doctor and knew enough science to know his parents were wrong and his testimony of the church was wavering. I was able to help him because of my understanding of science in other areas and because of the help of the spirit on that occasion. Since then learning about evolution has been a breeze and fascinating. Wonders can happen once the cognitive dissonance is not in the way.

The ordinary every day laws in operation all about us are *supernatural* ..

[Nathair/|\]

So, are you saying nothing supernatural took place in the Creation? Or are you saying that you just have not found anything supernatural to support the Creation? What happened to our belief that everything physical FIRST was created spiritually? What is your explanation of HOW the physical then BECAME physical without any supernatural intervention?

Regards,

jo

As one who is learning to be a magician and a Latter-Day Saint, I believe that there is no such thing as the supernatural. I believe that all forces--especially the Priesthood--are a part of nature. I believe that those whose consciousness primarily experiences the spiritual, astral and ethereal planes are as much a part of nature as we are.

[Franktalk]

You are appealing to supernatural events to offer a different interpretation of facts. So the operation of supernatural intervention affects the data with your model. We should see some indication of different laws in operation then as we study the cosmos but no such indications exist.

I am pointing out that your assumption of fact excludes supernatural consideration. So while your conclusions seem logical to you they can in fact be wrong. Just as someone who excludes God in biogenesis or the expanding universe would also be wrong as well.

Your assumption that you are smart enough to unravel the past with no error is not a measure of smarts but of pride. When you look into the mirror of the world the world looks back at you. So when your rules exclude some processes then the remaining processes can be assembled into some cobbled story that you wear as fact. Yet you don't know for sure what happened in the past. But of course that does not stop you from declaring that you do. My assumption that supernatural events shaped the past is based on eyewitness accounts. Does your science have first hand observations of the past or are they indirect. If indeed they are second hand then I will have to accept the first hand witness and push your conclusions away.

[jo1952]

I wonder what everyone thinks of this article?

http://lds.org/ensig...eng&query=flood

I have read this article before; I think on this Board. Since I believe the flood was global and took place as described in the Bible, I am happy to see it. Since I have started posting to Mormon Dialogue, I have actually been surprised at the number of posters who are members of the Church who do not believe it.

Thank you for sharing.

Regards,

jo

[shalamabobbi]

I am pointing out that your assumption of fact excludes supernatural consideration.

To be clear in communication, I am discussing what can be discerned by studying starlight. If God has changed the fundamental laws of physics in the past for this earth by which decay rates are altered, etc, then presumably in the worlds without end that are His creations He did something similar there.

But yet there is nothing out of the ordinary to be seen in any of the light coming to us from across the galaxy or universe that would hint that those laws have been toyed with.

You are assuming that these very basic laws are changed on a whim for no necessary or apparent reason other than the fact that you don't like the conclusions that they point to.

Say God did flood the earth globally. Why on earth does He decide to change the decay rates of matter? What purpose does that serve? How does that have anything at all to do with a global flood? And then He covers it up and plants data that can only be interpreted to mean that decay rates haven't changed.

If this world is nothing more than an experience in the matrix why do we need to obtain bodies here since they aren't really real to begin with?

[Cobalt-70]

Interesting...

When he uses language like:

["For Latter-day Saints"; "Latter-day Saints affirm"]

In a magazine that is published by the church...If the church did not agree with the summation, why would it allow that language to go through? Why wouldn't it be changed to a personal belief?

Perry is stating his opinion as to what Latter-day Saints believe. He's probably correct as to the majority of Latter-day Saints, but to rebut the claim that something is true "For Latter-day Saints," all you need is one counter-example. I volunteer to be that counter-example.

[thesometimesaint]

Science is the study of the nature world/universe. To introduce the Supernatural is by definition not science.

Of course God could have flooded the entire earth 4-5 thousand years ago, or even last thursday. Then changed all the evidence to say otherwise, including erasing all of our memories of it. But what would be the point?

On a theological level; Does God try to deceive his children?

[jo1952]

God operates based upon law. What laws are in operation beyond this mortal universe are not known to us here and now. We only accept their existence based upon faith to begin with resulting from our various experiences that result in what each of us calls our personal testimony of this work.

I agree.

Why do you assume that the operation of those laws by which God creates need to be vastly distinct or different from the laws we are familiar with here in mortality? It's as though God had nothing to do with the creation of radioactivity or cosmic rays that create C14. Don't you think He understands these laws as well as the best scientists do? Don't you believe that the speed of light barrier for mortal existence is His doing? Who is at the helm of the universe if it isn't Him? Then evolution is God's law of evolution. The speed of light barrier is God's law. The uncertainty of the atomic realm belongs to Him. Or one may believe that these laws are self-existent apart from God and He operates and creates in harmony with them.

I don't assume this. However, I believe it takes God's power and authority to be able to govern or even create "physical" laws. Also, what is physical is only a shadow of what exists spiritually. Since everything exists spiritually FIRST, then it seems only reasonable to believe that EVERYTHING physical is at best a subset of what exists spiritually. Therefore, it is spiritual laws which are actually in use holding the physical together. In the physical realm we are taught that Jesus created everything that is created. Since our visible world is created, and it was Jesus repeating what He had seen His Father do, I see that it took the power and authority of God to create what IS physical. This translates into supernatural intervention for ANYTHING physical to even be available to use as building blocks. Behind those building blocks is still an invisible power controlling them. As such, God is most definitely at the helm!!

Man OTOH can only see and touch the physical - he cannot see or touch the spiritual which holds the physical together. Sure, man can observe and figure out how to use parts of the physical; they can even duplicate some things - but they must use what has already been physically created to do so. Man is not able to take anything spiritual and "make" it physical. Man cannot produce his own dust and use it as a building material; he must use the dust that is already here. Man is also fallible; how he perceives what he is observing is subject to his own interpretation. Must I repeat that not all scientists agree with your interpretations??!! Indeed, since God is the one who created the very physical laws you describe, I am in wonder that you think man understands these laws as well as God does.

But appealing to the supernatural at every turn paints an image of a God that is working inharmoniously with nature, that must override some opposing force with every action that He takes.

Uhhh, since God created the physical laws, I cannot see where God would then be working inharmoniously with nature. I would offer that it is your interpretations of what you are observing which cause conflict with the supernatural. From my POV, God is working harmoniously with His own creation. Therefore, I have no need to re-write scripture.

I joined the church 40 years ago in California. I never met a Mormon who didn't believe in evolution until I moved to Utah. The stake president there referred to it as God's law of evolution from the pulpit during stake conference. Funny because at the time I didn't believe it due to reading McConkie and others like him. I didn't realize that there were leaders with differing viewpoints on all of this. Luckily I discovered that at the right time.

I also joined the Church in California 37 years ago. We must have been hanging out with different crowds, as I don't remember meeting Mormons who DID believe in evolution until I got involved with apologetics a few years ago.

I had prayed about evolution off and on for decades but I never studied it. Never got an answer one way or the other. One day though I did receive an answer from that same spirit that gave and continues to give me a confirmation that this is the work of God. That answer was that the principal of evolution was indeed true and I received that witness moments before a close friend's son showed up at my door who had been taught his whole life from his fundamentalist parents that evolution was not true. But he had become a doctor and knew enough science to know his parents were wrong and his testimony of the church was wavering. I was able to help him because of my understanding of science in other areas and because of the help of the spirit on that occasion. Since then learning about evolution has been a breeze and fascinating. Wonders can happen once the cognitive dissonance is not in the way.

You will have to be more specific about how broadly you were viewing evolution when you prayed about it. Do you also include the evolution of man from a common ancestry with apes? Or is your view on evolution more limited???

The ordinary every day laws in operation all about us are *supernatural* ..

I believe the physical laws which operate all about us where created by God as a subset of what already exists spiritually. As such, I believe they are being controlled by the supernatural. I think that physical laws can then be interrupted and intervened with by their Creator for His own purposes. The physical is only temporary.

Regards,

jo

[thesometimesaint]

Jo1952:

I too joined 40 years ago. My experence has been its a mixed bag, some do and some don't.

Edited September 24, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[jo1952]

Science is the study of the nature world/universe. To introduce the Supernatural is by definition not science.

And this is exactly the problem!!!! Science has managed to remove God from His own Creation!!!!!

Of course God could have flooded the entire earth 4-5 thousand years ago, or even last thursday. Then changed all the evidence to say otherwise, including erasing all of our memories of it. But what would be the point?

On a theological level; Does God try to deceive his children?

It is only man's interpretation which then makes it appear that God is trying to deceive His children. And who is behind ANY influence man receives which introduces deceit??

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

As one who is learning to be a magician and a Latter-Day Saint, I believe that there is no such thing as the supernatural. I believe that all forces--especially the Priesthood--are a part of nature. I believe that those whose consciousness primarily experiences the spiritual, astral and ethereal planes are as much a part of nature as we are.

I see the physical world as being a subset of the spiritual. Inasmuch as the spiritual world is currently invisible to our human eyes, I can only share my experiencing of the spiritual in terms which cannot be understood by the physical. The Holy Ghost has been provided to us for the purpose of both witnessing Christ to us, and for the leading us to spiritual Truth. I think there is much we do not yet understand, nor are we capable of understanding in our mortal physical body. I think that the Priesthood allows us to interact with our physical world (and will still be used in the spiritual world when we leave this realm), for God's purposes. IOW, I believe the source of the Priesthood is spiritual, though it is a power which can be used in the physical realm.

Perhaps this is the aspect about the Priesthood and any experience with the spiritual world which appears to you to be a part of nature? I see "nature" as something created; whereas I see the Priesthood as being "spiritual".

Best regards,

jo