Specific Problems On Fair (And Farms If You Want)

[mercyngrace]

MercynGrace,

I appreciate you posting what you have. However, it occurs to me that some of it may be straining at gnats (I know it's not all from you, you are a messenger on some).

Matthew,

I just want to correct your misunderstanding. None of the posts listing complaints about FAIR are from me. From the point at which I told Cal I would post the complaints, I have been cutting and pasting. If I have/had any complaints about FAIR, I wouldn't post them here. I would just send Cal a PM. She's a friend and I trust her to shoot straight with me.

Thanks,

MnG

Edited May 12, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Trevor]

There was no "cyber-stalking" going on. The quotes were taken from a discussion between me and John Dehlin. I was one of John's "friends" by his request. And the quotes were not deleted, they were just moved to a more appropriate page. I was not the person that originally added them to the wiki, but since they are publicly available to anyone from John's Facebook page, I'd hardly call it "cyber-stalking."

However, now that I've posted this, someone who can't seem to read well enough to understand what I said about not adding the quotes to the wiki has now threatened to start doing something that does sound a lot like cyber-stalking...

[Cushan Rishathaim]

My impression is (and I could be wrong), but I believe that often when people voice concerns over the mean spirited nature manifested in LDS apologetics, that for the most part, they're referring to the online antics of Mormon apologists rather than the published work of FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.

FAIR and FARMS are often then guilted by association; and to be fair, sometimes those who have published or presented via these venues have been the guilty parties, in terms of bad online behavior.

That's a separate issue, however, than whether or not these venues provide good scholarship or helpful answers to difficult questions. The answer to this question is clearly subjective. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "you can please some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

[Wiki Wonka]

My impression is (and I could be wrong), but I believe that often when people voice concerns over the mean spirited nature manifested in LDS apologetics, that for the most part, they're referring to the online antics of Mormon apologists rather than the published work of FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.

I believe that you are correct in this. The waters are muddied a bit further because FAIR once had a message board. In retrospect, I think that FAIR sponsoring a message board was never a good idea. Message boards tend to bring out an emotional response in people that is unfiltered when they translate their thoughts into words, as opposed to the refinement and filtering of ideas that goes into a published essay.

My involvement in apologetics since 2008 began after FAIR had divested themselves of the message board, so to me FAIR consists primarily of "Ask the Apologist" responses and work on the FAIR Wiki. I don't consider message board interactions to be effective apologetics at all.

WW

[Log]

The fact that the FAIR Wiki could have an article about LDS teachings about the flood and not include those quotes (but instead focus entirely on marginalizing Church leader teachings and Church published statements on the subject) is the problem.

What, exactly, again, is the problem? Do you dispute that the Church has no official position on the issue?

[Wiki Wonka]

The fact that the FAIR Wiki could have an article about LDS teachings about the flood and not include those quotes (but instead focus entirely on marginalizing Church leader teachings and Church published statements on the subject) is the problem.

Didn't you see the sub-article containing statements from General Authorities on the subject? According the article history, it was created on 19 September 2009 - about two and a half years ago. It is linked from the Flood article at the end of this section (and I'm glad you called my attention to it, because it contained a typo which I have now corrected):

Basic teachings and beliefs regarding the Flood

There are a number of basic teachings which we all accept regardless of the global or local scope of the Flood:

• There existed a prophet named Noah.
  
• Noah was commanded by the Lord to construct an ark.
  
• Noah warned the people of the impending deluge.
  
• The Flood was a literal event which did indeed occur.
  
• Noah, his family and the animals he collected were saved from the deluge.
  
• The Lord made a covenant with Noah and his descendants.
  

See also: Statements from Church leaders regarding the Flood of Noah

Statements by General Authorities on the subject of the scope of the Flood

http://en.fairmormon...lood/Statements

2007

David E. Sorensen

Is not today much like Noah’s day, when the population of the earth was wiped out in the Flood and but eight souls were saved? (see Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:20).

— David E. Sorensen, “Priesthood, Agency, and Black Powder,” Ensign, Sep 2007, 56–59. off-site

2005

Gordon B. Hinckley

Those of us who read and believe the scriptures are aware of the warnings of prophets concerning catastrophes that have come to pass and are yet to come to pass. There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only “eight souls were saved” (1 Pet. 3:20).

—Gordon B. Hinckley, “If Ye Are Prepared Ye Shall Not Fear,” Ensign, Nov 2005, 60 off-site

• Scope: "waters covered the earth"
  
• His point: Prophets warn us of coming catastrophes, and we should be prepared.
  

1998

Joseph B. Romney

Thus, modern revelation teaches that God indeed suffered great sorrow over the Flood, which served as the baptism of the earth.

—Joseph B. Romney, “Noah, The Great Preacher of Righteousness,” Ensign, Feb 1998, 22 off-site

• Scope: Baptism of the earth
  

1992

Encyclopedia of Mormonism (quoting John A. Widtsoe)

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].

—Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Earth" off-site

1986

Kent P. Jackson

These people were so wicked that they were no longer allowed to pollute the earth by their presence on it or to bring innocent spirits into its decadent environment. The Lord decreed that all living things would be destroyed by flood, with the exception of a faithful few who would be spared so that God could begin anew his creative work and reestablish his covenant among men.

—Kent P. Jackson, “An Age of Contrasts: From Adam to Abraham,” Ensign, Feb 1986, 28. off-site

1980

F. Kent Nielsen

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years...the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth’s baptism.

—F. Kent Nielsen, “The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be,” Ensign, Sep 1980, 67. off-site

• Scope: "worldwide flood"
  
• His reference: Brigham Young's 1860 statement regarding the earth's "baptism" (Brigham Young, (June 12, 1860) Journal of Discourses 8:83.)
  

1981

Mark E. Petersen

Is not today much like Noah’s day when the population of the earth was wiped out in the flood and but eight righteous souls were spared? Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their willful stubbornness they would not listen.

—Mark E. Petersen, “Follow the Prophets,” Ensign, Nov 1981, 64. off-site

• Scope: "population of the earth was wiped out."
  
• His point: That a Flood occurred, that the prophet Noah existed, and that we need to listen to the prophet.
  

Hartman Rector, Jr.

The Lord further indicated that all flesh was corrupt in those days, and so he brought forth the flood and destroyed all flesh except Noah and his family. Therefore, we are all descendants of righteous Noah. But the family concept is under very serious attack today all over the world.

—Hartman Rector Jr., “Turning the Hearts,” Ensign, May 1981, 73. off-site

• Scope: "destroyed all flesh except Noah and his family" and "we are all descendants of righteous Noah.
  
• His point: That the family concept is under attack.
  

1976

Jeffery R. Holland

Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” (Moses 7:33) that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water. Thus, the “everlasting decree” (Ether 2:10) was first taught that he who will not obey the Lord in righteousness will be swept from his sacred land. The lesson would be tragically retaught in dispensations yet to come.

—Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Promised Land,” Ensign, Jun 1976, 23 off-site

• Scope: "cleansed the entire earth with water."
  
• His point: That the unrighteous will be swept away.
  

1975

William H. Bennett

From the scriptures we can identify some of these chosen individuals, starting with Michael who was referred to as the Archangel, one of high rank in the spirit world. He was chosen to be Adam, the first man, to stand forever under the Father and the Son at the head of the human family. Others of the chosen were Seth, the most faithful of Adam’s sons after the death of the righteous Abel, and Enoch, through whose lineage the Lord promised would come Noah and the Messiah, and that his posterity should remain while the earth should stand. Another one was Noah, who was chosen to be the second father of the human race here on earth, after the flood. Another was Shem, the chosen son of Noah; and also Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

—William H. Bennett, “Covenants and Blessings,” Ensign, Nov 1975, 45 off-site

• Scope: "Noah...the second father of the human race on earth, after the flood."
  
• His point: There are chosen individuals.
  

Lane Johnson

The history of the peopling of the earth is really a history of the scattering of the descendants of Noah, who is sometimes referred to as the “second father of mankind.” This general scattering began soon after the Flood when the sons of Noah and their children began to spread forth “in their lands, … after their nations” (see Gen. 10:5, 20, 31)

—Lane Johnson, “Who and Where Are the Lamanites?,” Ensign, Dec 1975, 15 off-site

• Scope: "peopling of the earth," "second father of mankind."
  

1884

John Taylor

Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the question is—How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells us that "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.

—John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 26:74-75..

• Scope: Baptism of the earth
  
• His point: That the Flood was an immersion, rather than a tidal wave.
  

1880

Orson Pratt

Another great change happened nearly two thousand years after the earth was made. It was baptized by water. A great flow of water come, the great deep was broken up, the windows of heaven were opened from on high, and the waters prevailed upon the face of the earth, sweeping away all wickedness and transgression-a similitude of baptism for the remission of sins. God requires the children of men to be baptized. What for? For the remission of sins. So he required our globe to be baptized by a flow of waters, and all of its sins were washed away, not one sin remaining.

—Orson Pratt, (August 1, 1880) Journal of Discourses 21:323.

• Scope: Baptism of the earth
  
• His point: That the earth needed its sins washed away in the same manner as men do.
  

1874

John Taylor

By and by we find the people departing from the principles of truth, from the laws of the Gospel, repudiating the fear of God, grieving his Holy Spirit and incurring his displeasure. Then a flood came and the inhabitants of the world, with the exception of a very few, were swept from it, after the Gospel had been preached to all who then lived and all had had an opportunity to believe in and obey it.

—John Taylor, "DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED BY THE FLOOD, etc.," Journal of Discourses 17:205.

• Scope: "the inhabitants of the world...all who had then lived."
  
• His point: The wicked were destroyed because they had repudiated God.
  

1860

Brigham Young

This earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon.

—Brigham Young, (June 12, 1860) Journal of Discourses 8:83.

• Scope: The earth was "baptized."
  
• His point: The earth needed to be cleansed of the wicked.
  

Edited to fix messed up formatting.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Mariner]

Wiki Wonka,

http://en.fairmormon...lood/Statements

At the above FAIR entry has the following lead in statement.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Approaching Mormon Doctrine (May 4, 2007)

This is followed by a long list of statements claiming that there was actually a catastrophic flood as described in the OT, which several claim covered the whole Earth and which some say left only 8 humans alive. The below quoted statement from 2007 is especially telling.

2007



David E. Sorensen "
Is not today much like Noah’s day, when the population of the earth was wiped out in the Flood and but eight souls were saved?" (see Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:20).
— David E. Sorensen, “Priesthood, Agency, and Black Powder,” Ensign, Sep 2007, 56–59.

Does FAIR or the LDS Church really expect any educated person to believe this in 2007, or in 2012?

There is so much physical evidence to the contrary that I am surprised this statement (or any of the others claiming that the human population was reduced to eight living people within the last 10,000 years) would be held up as an inspired pronouncement, especially in the 21st century.

Every scintilla of relevant physical, biological, genetic, and geological evidence shows that this event, or anything like unto it, never happened on Earth, especially not in the time frame claimed.

Does FAIR really believe that reading something like this would give one confidence that the quoted Church leaders are inspired, or in some cases even educated to a reasonable level?

Finally, how does one come up with the following basic teachings, given the relevant statements of Church leaders as listed by FAIR?

Basic teachings and beliefs regarding the Flood

There are a number of basic teachings which we all accept regardless of the global or local scope of the Flood:

• There existed a prophet named Noah.
  
• Noah was commanded by the Lord to construct an ark.
  
• Noah warned the people of the impending deluge.
  
• The Flood was a literal event which did indeed occur.
  
• Noah, his family and the animals he collected were saved from the deluge.
  

The Lord made a covenant with Noah and his descendants.

As cinepro indicated, I am sure you can see the problem here.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Mariner

[cinepro]

Didn't you see the sub-article containing statements from General Authorities on the subject?

The fact that the list of quotes from Church leaders is a "sub-article" and not the entire main article pretty much makes my point.

If that doesn't seem weird to you, then I admit I am probably wrong, FAIR and other apologists are doing everything right, and I encourage them to stay the course and keep fighting the good fight.

[Log]

Every scintilla of relevant physical, biological, genetic, and geological evidence shows that this event, or anything like unto it, never happened on Earth, especially not in the time frame claimed.

Which statement cannot be proven without using the word "if" in a great many instances - that claim is nothing more than a deduction from certain hypotheticals which themselves are proven only by assumption.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[Xander]

The title of this thread and Pahoran's participation therein, is enough of a red flag to ask if this is some kind of joke?

I was banned from the FAIR e-list 10 years ago, shortly after making something of a mission statement regarding your (then "our") treatment of former members. The knee-jerk responses to this thread by Tandy, wade and Pahoran, is the kind of thing that really makes this subject too sensitive to discuss. They're already mocking the sincerity of potential respondents before anyone can respond. This tells me they don't really want to know the answer to the question, or that they know, but want to keep it on the down low.

I'm currently enjoying my ten year anniversary in Las Vegas but when I return home I'd be glad to post some examples of FAIR taking wrong turns. Though there are numerous examples listed on another forum by participants who do not post their concerns here (either by choice or because they've been banned).

[Xander]

I would like to also point out that, whatever their problems may or may not be, neither Will Schryver, Allen Wyatt nor Mike Parker can possibly be compared unfavourably to any of their critics.

The problem with this kind of nonsense isn't just that it is perfect nonsense, but rather, that it is impossible to discuss on this forum. We can't debate it so why pretend we can? If we present the evidence that refutes your ridiculous claim, the thread gets shut down and the messengers banned for getting "personal."

If you were so confident in your claim, then you'd be willing to go back to the forum you fled, unveil your IRL identity and stand by your claim as the evidence unfolds before your eyes. But you fled that forum for a reason. You're not protected there, And neither is DCP or Schryver or a number of LDS posters who have posted thousands of times. You know, as much as Dan and you like to call it the anti forum, the fact is there are a number of faithful LDS people there who enjoy the forum. Here is just a list of folks that came to mind and the number of times they have posted since the forum was created just five years ago.

Some of the most active posters are faithful LDS.

bcspace - 11,000

nehor - 10,000

Moksha - 10,000

Loran Blood - 9,000

Dan Peterson - 7,100

simon belmont 7000

Whyme - 6,000

Asbestosman - 6000

Gazelem - 5600

stemelbow - 5000 since 2011

Wade Englund - 4600

lifeonaplate - 2700

charity - 2300

maklelan - 2100

William Schryver - 2000

Bob Crockett - 1600

jskains - 1600

mfbukowski - 1200 since 2010

nevo - 900

pahoran - 800

joseph antley - 800

david bokovoy - 700

don bradley - 1000

nomad - 500

ben mcguire - 500

obiwan - 300

zakuska 200

brant gardner - 200

Mash - 100

scott lloyd - 100

Edited May 13, 2012 by Xander

[Pahoran]

The title of this thread and Pahoran's participation therein, is enough of a red flag to ask if this is some kind of joke?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: no-one does cheap shots like you.

Xander, if you wish to respond to something I've written, then do so. However, absent such a response, I would ask you to try to restrain your compulsion to obsessively drop my name in random posts as if it were some kind of shibboleth for your fellow-haters.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The problem with this kind of nonsense isn't just that it is perfect nonsense, but rather, that it is impossible to discuss on this forum. We can't debate it so why pretend we can? If we present the evidence that refutes your ridiculous claim, the thread gets shut down and the messengers banned for getting "personal."

Translation from Grahamese into English: since you can't actually refute my point, bluster a lot and claim victory.

As you of course know, there's nothing ridiculous about my claim. Will Schryver is a better man than you are. On any day of any week.

If you were so confident in your claim, then you'd be willing to go back to the forum you fled, unveil your IRL identity and stand by your claim as the evidence unfolds before your eyes. But you fled that forum for a reason.

Mr Graham, not only do you make assertions you cannot plausibly claim to have any good faith basis to believe, you occasionally make assertions you cannot plausibly claim to not know for a fact to be false. As you perfectly well know, I did not "flee" your sty. As you perfectly well know, and as I have proved time and time again, I am not the least bit intimidated by you or any other of your fellow haters. I left the Mos Eisley of the Internet because of the stench, not because I was afraid of anyone.

You're not protected there, And neither is DCP or Schryver or a number of LDS posters who have posted thousands of times.

And both of them have been subjected to spiteful personal vendettas that leave those who participate in them utterly unqualified to complain about FAIR/FARMS/MI engaging in "ad hominem" even if that charge were meaningfully true.

Which, of course, it is not.

You know, as much as Dan and you like to call it the anti forum, the fact is there are a number of faithful LDS people there who enjoy the forum. Here is just a list of folks that came to mind and the number of times they have posted since the forum was created just five years ago.

Some of the most active posters are faithful LDS.

bcspace - 11,000

nehor - 10,000

Moksha - 10,000

Loran Blood - 9,000

Dan Peterson - 7,100

simon belmont 7000

Whyme - 6,000

Asbestosman - 6000

Gazelem - 5600

stemelbow - 5000 since 2011

Wade Englund - 4600

lifeonaplate - 2700

charity - 2300

maklelan - 2100

William Schryver - 2000

Bob Crockett - 1600

jskains - 1600

mfbukowski - 1200 since 2010

nevo - 900

pahoran - 800

joseph antley - 800

david bokovoy - 700

don bradley - 1000

nomad - 500

ben mcguire - 500

obiwan - 300

zakuska 200

brant gardner - 200

Mash - 100

scott lloyd - 100

Notice the bold and underlined one? The actual number is 832.

So, as you perfectly well know, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've been there and done that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Unless specific examples are posted as requested above and the off topic personal sparring is stopped, I will close the thread due to it being derailed.

Thank you.

Edited May 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Wiki Wonka]

The fact that the list of quotes from Church leaders is a "sub-article" and not the entire main article pretty much makes my point.

The quotes are in a sub-article because the FAIR Wiki is hierarchically structured. You begin at the top level with a summary article, and if you want more detail you drill down to the sub-articles. To do otherwise creates excessive bloat and you end up with articles which are basically massive quote farms. That's the way the old Wiki used to be - massive walls of text with bunches of quotes. The link to the GA quotes is right there at the top of the Supporting Data section of the main article. Did you notice them and simply didn't mention that you knew they were there?

If that doesn't seem weird to you,

It doesn't feel weird to me because I structured it that way on purpose. You should recognize the quotes - I got most of the references from your blog back in 2009 right after you complained about this last time.

then I admit I am probably wrong, FAIR and other apologists are doing everything right, and I encourage them to stay the course and keep fighting the good fight.

I've always been straight up with you - why are you being sarcastic with me? I have never said that "FAIR and other apologists are doing everything right." I'm the guy that keeps saying that I want to improve things if we have made mistakes. You know this.

WW

[Bond...James Bond]

Some of the most active posters are faithful LDS.

bcspace - 11,000

nehor - 10,000

Moksha - 10,000

Loran Blood - 9,000

Dan Peterson - 7,100

simon belmont 7000

Whyme - 6,000

Asbestosman - 6000

Gazelem - 5600

stemelbow - 5000 since 2011

Wade Englund - 4600

lifeonaplate - 2700

charity - 2300

maklelan - 2100

William Schryver - 2000

Bob Crockett - 1600

jskains - 1600

mfbukowski - 1200 since 2010

nevo - 900

pahoran - 800

joseph antley - 800

david bokovoy - 700

don bradley - 1000

nomad - 500

ben mcguire - 500

obiwan - 300

zakuska 200

brant gardner - 200

Mash - 100

scott lloyd - 100

not to mention other moderates in the "top ten(ish)":

harmony 16,000 (moderator)

liz 12000 (moderator)

Jason Bourne 8000+

Edited May 13, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Wiki Wonka]

Wiki Wonka,

http://en.fairmormon...lood/Statements

At the above FAIR entry has the following lead in statement.

This is followed by a long list of statements claiming that there was actually a catastrophic flood as described in the OT, which several claim covered the whole Earth and which some say left only 8 humans alive. The below quoted statement from 2007 is especially telling.

Does FAIR or the LDS Church really expect any educated person to believe this in 2007, or in 2012?

Yes, there are plenty of educated people that do...and there are plenty of educated people that don't. I believe that Noah existed, that he was a prophet, that there was a catastrophic flood and that he and his family were saved by following the commandments of God. I do not believe that the Flood covered the entire planet, however, I believe that it covered the entire world as perceived by the person who wrote the account.

There is so much physical evidence to the contrary that I am surprised this statement (or any of the others claiming that the human population was reduced to eight living people within the last 10,000 years) would be held up as an inspired pronouncement, especially in the 21st century.

That's why the Church, in the statement that you quoted at the beginning, said that not every statement that comes from a Church leader is an inspired pronouncement.

Every scintilla of relevant physical, biological, genetic, and geological evidence shows that this event, or anything like unto it, never happened on Earth, especially not in the time frame claimed.

Does FAIR really believe that reading something like this would give one confidence that the quoted Church leaders are inspired, or in some cases even educated to a reasonable level?

The fact that many Church leaders have been "educated to a reasonable level" is a fact, yet many believe in a global flood. Your argument that they could not be "educated to a reasonable level" is simply not valid. The Church leaders statements exist - to not include them in the article would not be correct. The scientific facts exist - to not include them in the article would not be correct. We include everything that we know. I believe that Church leaders are inspired, and I am also educated, but I am educated enough to know that not everything that falls from their lips is a direct quotation from God. The Church realizes this as well, hence the Church statement that you included at the beginning.

Finally, how does one come up with the following basic teachings, given the relevant statements of Church leaders as listed by FAIR?

Basic teachings and beliefs regarding the Flood

There are a number of basic teachings which we all accept regardless of the global or local scope of the Flood:

• There existed a prophet named Noah.
  
• Noah was commanded by the Lord to construct an ark.
  
• Noah warned the people of the impending deluge.
  
• The Flood was a literal event which did indeed occur.
  
• Noah, his family and the animals he collected were saved from the deluge.
  

The Lord made a covenant with Noah and his descendants.

Those are the things that Church leaders teach. That is what the quotes say. Your premise that these things contradict the quotes is invalid. The one thing not on this list is the belief that the flood covered the entire globe.

WW

[Calm]

I am going to lock this thread for Mother's Day so neither the mods nor I have to worry about it being derailed. Save your comments for Monday, please.

I am not much into Mother's Day myself for some reason, but my family is insisting on giving me a great dinner so I want to be able to fully concentrate on it and not have my mind wandering off wondering if anything of interest has been posted. Yes, I admit to be fully addicted to this board.

[Calm]

Just got woken up by granddaughter, she makes the best alarm clock, play date with grandpa....now I am going back to sleep as it was way too late before I got to sleep last night so behave all and see you in the afternoon.

Thanks....

[cinepro]

The problem with this kind of nonsense isn't just that it is perfect nonsense, but rather, that it is impossible to discuss on this forum. We can't debate it so why pretend we can? If we present the evidence that refutes your ridiculous claim, the thread gets shut down and the messengers banned for getting "personal."

If you were so confident in your claim, then you'd be willing to go back to the forum you fled, unveil your IRL identity and stand by your claim as the evidence unfolds before your eyes. But you fled that forum for a reason. You're not protected there, And neither is DCP or Schryver or a number of LDS posters who have posted thousands of times. You know, as much as Dan and you like to call it the anti forum, the fact is there are a number of faithful LDS people there who enjoy the forum. Here is just a list of folks that came to mind and the number of times they have posted since the forum was created just five years ago.

Some of the most active posters are faithful LDS.

bcspace - 11,000

nehor - 10,000

Moksha - 10,000

Loran Blood - 9,000

Dan Peterson - 7,100

simon belmont 7000

Whyme - 6,000

Asbestosman - 6000

Gazelem - 5600

stemelbow - 5000 since 2011

Wade Englund - 4600

lifeonaplate - 2700

charity - 2300

maklelan - 2100

William Schryver - 2000

Bob Crockett - 1600

jskains - 1600

mfbukowski - 1200 since 2010

nevo - 900

pahoran - 800

joseph antley - 800

david bokovoy - 700

don bradley - 1000

nomad - 500

ben mcguire - 500

obiwan - 300

zakuska 200

brant gardner - 200

Mash - 100

scott lloyd - 100

You forgot someone.

[KevinG]

I think critics can't wrap their heads around basic unity of belief and agency in figuring out the details co-existing.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan Peterson - 7,100

A couple of observations about that number:

1) It's quite large. It demonstrates beyond reasonable dispute that the place didn't scare me off or intimidate me, and that I know your board and its major voices quite well.

2) It hasn't grown by so much as a single digit for well nigh unto a year now. I left the place, stopped posting on your board, when I decided that further attempts at conversation there were futile and a colossal waste of limited time. (For related reasons, I've also severely ratcheted down my participation on this board, though this place is nowhere near as toxic as the other.) Life is very, very good away from your board.

Why am I not interested in interacting with you, in particular? Because your take-no-prisoners, over-the-top style of total-war polemics grew wearisome, with me at least, many years ago (even while you were still a Mormon of some sort). People who persist in disagreeing with you almost invariably end up being denounced as stupid, incompetent, dishonest, evil, or ignorant. If others want to play with you, that's their prerogative.

.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[cinepro]

I think critics can't wrap their heads around basic unity of belief and agency in figuring out the details co-existing.

I'd settle for clearly written posts.

[KevinG]

I think critics can't wrap their heads around basic unity of belief and agency in figuring out the details co-existing.

I'd settle for clearly written posts.

I think critics can't wrap their heads around the co-existence of "basic unity of belief" and "agency in figuring out the details".

(grammar Nazi)

[Mariner]

The fact that many Church leaders have been "educated to a reasonable level" is a fact, yet many believe in a global flood. Your argument that they could not be "educated to a reasonable level" is simply not valid. The Church leaders statements exist - to not include them in the article would not be correct. The scientific facts exist - to not include them in the article would not be correct. We include everything that we know. I believe that Church leaders are inspired, and I am also educated, but I am educated enough to know that not everything that falls from their lips is a direct quotation from God. The Church realizes this as well, hence the Church statement that you included at the beginning.

Those are the things that Church leaders teach. That is what the quotes say. Your premise that these things contradict the quotes is invalid. The one thing not on this list is the belief that the flood covered the entire globe.

WW

Wiki Wonka,

The main issue that I have with statements such as the one below published in the Ensign comes down to simple credibility.

2007



David E. Sorensen "
Is not today much like Noah’s day, when the population of the earth was wiped out in the Flood and but eight souls were saved?" (see Genesis 7; 1 Peter 3:20).
— David E. Sorensen, “Priesthood, Agency, and Black Powder,” Ensign, Sep 2007, 56–59.

Anyone who believes that the population of the Earth was reduced only eight humans within the last 10,000 years (or 100,000 years for that matter) believes something that is simply and demonstrably not true. The evidence that this is not true is iron clad and comes from any number of lines of research, including genetics and archeology. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the "eight people on the Earth after Noah" assertion.

If this individual ignores or is unaware of these facts, then what other important facts is he unaware of or has chosen to ignore?

Why should one who knows for a certainty that this (the eight human assertion) is not true (and knows why) willingly follow the leadership and counsel of someone who has it so very wrong on such issues?

Why should one lend any credibility to the statements of apologists when they make these kinds of statements, or defend these kinds of statements by others?

Should the bold unqualified statement of assertions that are demonstrably not true not give one cause for pause as to the credibility of the individual making the statements and the organization they represent?

If the Flood of Noah and the eight person hypothesis were the only such issue, it could be overlooked. The problem for apologists is that these kinds of demonstrably false and anti-science assertions abound in Church publications and in the words spoken in public by Church leaders.

This becomes the basic the problem in apologetics. Apologists are often obliged to defend the indefensible when it comes to any number of falsifiable (and falsified) claims, and to do so often use fallacious arguments and ad hominem attacks in doing so, especially in the message board environment.

Back to the subject of the OP; FAIR apologists become skilled at obfuscation, straw man arguments, and the like. Their main objective seems to be to create some wiggle room, some possibility, anything that the believer can hang on to to continue in unfounded belief when considering statements such as those of Elder Sorensen.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Mariner