Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[thesometimesaint]

That's readily apparent. I was curious if there were non-religious scientists that believe in a global flood.

 

None that I know of. But I guess it is possible.

[The Nehor]

I pray you all find the truth. I will continue to teach the young and imoressionabke Gods truths and hope for a day when they rise up in truth and defeat the lies of men.

I will do the same....except for declaring that I will pray that others will find the truth. I have no problem with doing it but saying you are praying for someone when they probably don't want it is the height of passive-aggressive behavior.

I have no problem with a global flood being taught in church. I believed it was global until in my late teens I was reading the story and it struck me as off. After a short investigation and talking with some smart adults I switched my conclusion. I learned more later and consider it even more likely now. I do have a problem with teaching bad science (calling creationism bad science is a backhanded compliment; it is more like deceptions and/or unsubstantiated musings) in church. Lies are almost always harmful. They are worse when they are used to support doctrine. If you are teaching creationist science and not just a global flood you may be doing great harm. I would be careful. There is talk of millstones and throwing yourself into the sea for that kind of thing.

[jkwilliams]

I will do the same....except for declaring that I will pray that others will find the truth. I have no problem with doing it but saying you are praying for someone when they probably don't want it is the height of passive-aggressive behavior.

I have no problem with a global flood being taught in church. I believed it was global until in my late teens I was reading the story and it struck me as off. After a short investigation and talking with some smart adults I switched my conclusion. I learned more later and consider it even more likely now. I do have a problem with teaching bad science (calling creationism bad science is a backhanded compliment; it is more like deceptions and/or unsubstantiated musings) in church. Lies are almost always harmful. They are worse when they are used to support doctrine. If you are teaching creationist science and not just a global flood you may be doing great harm. I would be careful. There is talk of millstones and throwing yourself into the sea for that kind of thing.

Well said, Nehor. When I was younger, I remember being warned about "gospel hobbyhorses," and this fixation on creationism/flood geology seems to be a prime example. I am quite surprised to see this kind of stuff among Latter-day Saints, though. I don't recall ever running into this kind of hyper-literalism in the church in my adult life.

[thesometimesaint]

Well said, Nehor. When I was younger, I remember being warned about "gospel hobbyhorses," and this fixation on creationism/flood geology seems to be a prime example. I am quite surprised to see this kind of stuff among Latter-day Saints, though. I don't recall ever running into this kind of hyper-literalism in the church in my adult life.

 

We've always had some like that. Thankfully they are a diminishing small minority.

[Rob Osborn]

I will do the same....except for declaring that I will pray that others will find the truth. I have no problem with doing it but saying you are praying for someone when they probably don't want it is the height of passive-aggressive behavior.

I have no problem with a global flood being taught in church. I believed it was global until in my late teens I was reading the story and it struck me as off. After a short investigation and talking with some smart adults I switched my conclusion. I learned more later and consider it even more likely now. I do have a problem with teaching bad science (calling creationism bad science is a backhanded compliment; it is more like deceptions and/or unsubstantiated musings) in church. Lies are almost always harmful. They are worse when they are used to support doctrine. If you are teaching creationist science and not just a global flood you may be doing great harm. I would be careful. There is talk of millstones and throwing yourself into the sea for that kind of thing.

You say you have no problem with a global flood being taught in church but then say you have a problem of teaching bad science in church. So then are you saying that the teaching of a global flood is good science?

 

BTW, its kinda hard to have a millstone hung around ones head when they go out into the world man has created and built up to try to tech them correct principles- the word of God as told in his holy scripture.

[Rob Osborn]

Well said, Nehor. When I was younger, I remember being warned about "gospel hobbyhorses," and this fixation on creationism/flood geology seems to be a prime example. I am quite surprised to see this kind of stuff among Latter-day Saints, though. I don't recall ever running into this kind of hyper-literalism in the church in my adult life.

The churches teachings must be as you say- "hyper-literalism" then because they do in fact teach and support the global flood. Take the issue up with Church headquarters not me.

[jkwilliams]

You say you have no problem with a global flood being taught in church but then say you have a problem of teaching bad science in church. So then are you saying that the teaching of a global flood is good science?

I wouldn't think there is a need to teach science in church, unless of course your faith rests on your understanding of science. Mine doesn't.

 

BTW, its kinda hard to have a millstone hung around ones head when they go out into the world man has created and built up to try to tech them correct principles- the word of God as told in his holy scripture.

To be blunt, a hyper-literal, fundamentalist approach to the scriptures is not a correct principle. It is the very thing Joseph Smith was trying to get away from.

[thesometimesaint]

You say you have no problem with a global flood being taught in church but then say you have a problem of teaching bad science in church. So then are you saying that the teaching of a global flood is good science?

 

BTW, its kinda hard to have a millstone hung around ones head when they go out into the world man has created and built up to try to tech them correct principles- the word of God as told in his holy scripture.

 

As far as they are translated correctly. Otherwise we get impossible creatures like the Cockatrice(a legendary serpent that is hatched by a reptile from a roosters egg).

 

Isaiah 11:8, "And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den."

Isaiah 14:29, "Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent."

Isaiah 59:5, "They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper."

Jer. 8:17, "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD."

Prov. 23:32, "At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder [same Hebrew word as all other verses translated as 'adder' here]."

Edited February 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[jkwilliams]

The churches teachings must be as you say- "hyper-literalism" then because they do in fact teach and support the global flood. Take the issue up with Church headquarters not me.

I don't see the church's position as being anywhere near as rigid as yours, but then I don't believe in the church, anyway. I would feel sorry for the church if it threw its lot in with the Inerrantists, as you seem to have done.

[jkwilliams]

As far as they are translated correctly. Otherwise we get impossible creatures like the Cockatrice(a legendary serpent that is hatched by a reptile from a roosters egg and that has a deadly glance).

Well, if dinosaurs were knocking about with man, why not the cockatrice? You can't prove it didn't exist.

[The Nehor]

You say you have no problem with a global flood being taught in church but then say you have a problem of teaching bad science in church. So then are you saying that the teaching of a global flood is good science?

 

No, I didn't say that. I teach the Resurrection and that is bad science. I would not teach with it nutzoid science about the process of reanimation and how it will be done because I would be talking nonsense. We know of no way it can be done. In the same way there is no scientific evidence for a global flood. So teach a global flood if you want but leave out any teaching about how geology supports it and how collected evidence backs it.

 

IT DOES NOT! If it did some brilliant scientist trying to win acclaim would have written up a brilliant paper rewriting geological history and go down in the history books with the likes of Galileo flipping everything on its head. He would not even have to tie it to the Christian story if he was embarrassed by that. He could talk about Sumerian, Babylonian, and other flood stories if he even mention it at all. Yet no one will back the flood except crackpots spewing nonsense? Know why? Because so far we haven't found anything.

 

I think my scientific backing for my understanding is better and I would not teach it in a church classroom environment. Last time I taught the flood I focused on the story itself and did not mention the extent of the flood. That avoids ambiguity or alienating a portion of the class on either side and let me teach principles. I talk about flood theories to friends who are interested in it and to people on the web. I don't teach it in Sunday School. I get annoyed when people bring in extraneous theories when I teach even if I agree with them. Sunday School and Priesthood are not the place for it.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't see the church's position as being anywhere near as rigid as yours, but then I don't believe in the church, anyway. I would feel sorry for the church if it threw its lot in with the Inerrantists, as you seem to have done.

Well, whats left to deabte then? If you don't believe the Church then of course you are not going to believe something I tell you they believe in either. Its a win win situation for you- you can just move the goalpost wherever you like.

[Rob Osborn]

No, I didn't say that. I teach the Resurrection and that is bad science. I would not teach with it nutzoid science about the process of reanimation and how it will be done because I would be talking nonsense. We know of no way it can be done. In the same way there is no scientific evidence for a global flood. So teach a global flood if you want but leave out any teaching about how geology supports it and how collected evidence backs it.

 

IT DOES NOT! If it did some brilliant scientist trying to win acclaim would have written up a brilliant paper rewriting geological history and go down in the history books with the likes of Galileo flipping everything on its head. He would not even have to tie it to the Christian story if he was embarrassed by that. He could talk about Sumerian, Babylonian, and other flood stories if he even mention it at all. Yet no one will back the flood except crackpots spewing nonsense? Know why? Because so far we haven't found anything.

 

I think my scientific backing for my understanding is better and I would not teach it in a church classroom environment. Last time I taught the flood I focused on the story itself and did not mention the extent of the flood. That avoids ambiguity or alienating a portion of the class on either side and let me teach principles. I talk about flood theories to friends who are interested in it and to people on the web. I don't teach it in Sunday School. I get annoyed when people bring in extraneous theories when I teach even if I agree with them. Sunday School and Priesthood are not the place for it.

Sorry you feel that way but to not take the flood as a global event completely destroys the doctrine as taugh in the entire book of Moses- you might as well just throw out Moses alltogether and claim it to be heresy. We as members of the church are here to teach the truthfulness of Gods word despite the theories and wisdom of man.

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry you feel that way but to not take the flood as a global event completely destroys the doctrine as taugh in the entire book of Moses- you might as well just throw out Moses alltogether and claim it to be heresy. We as members of the church are here to teach the truthfulness of Gods word despite the theories and wisdom of man.

 

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo the Theist.

[The Nehor]

Sorry you feel that way but to not take the flood as a global event completely destroys the doctrine as taugh in the entire book of Moses- you might as well just throw out Moses alltogether and claim it to be heresy. We as members of the church are here to teach the truthfulness of Gods word despite the theories and wisdom of man.

 

I completely disagree. I consider the Book of Moses to be quite possibly the most important book in our canon. Probably not more then the whole Book of Mormon but more important then any individual book in it (with the possible exception of 3 Nephi). I have probably read it more then any other book and I do not find its doctrinal meaning diminished at all.

[Rob Osborn]

I completely disagree. I consider the Book of Moses to be quite possibly the most important book in our canon. Probably not more then the whole Book of Mormon but more important then any individual book in it (with the possible exception of 3 Nephi). I have probably read it more then any other book and I do not find its doctrinal meaning diminished at all.

The book of Moeses clarifies amny points regarding the flood and especially the Covenant made to Enoch regarding the flood and the promises made to his posterity in light of the global flood.

[jkwilliams]

Well, whats left to deabte then? If you don't believe the Church then of course you are not going to believe something I tell you they believe in either. Its a win win situation for you- you can just move the goalpost wherever you like.

I'm just saying I think you're wrong in your belief that the church holds the same rigid position you do. I do know that the LDS church does not teach that the scriptures are inerrant or that members are required to interpret them in a rigidly literalist way. If you think the church teaches that, you're as much in apostasy as I am.

[thesometimesaint]

The book of Moeses clarifies amny points regarding the flood and especially the Covenant made to Enoch regarding the flood and the promises made to his posterity in light of the global flood.

 

See Cockatrice in Bible. At least three Prophets of God said they exist.

• Isaiah 11:8, "And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den."
• Isaiah 14:29, "Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent."
• Isaiah 59:5, "They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper."
• Jer. 8:17, "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD."
• Prov. 23:32, "At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder [same Hebrew word as all other verses translated as 'adder' here]."

[thesometimesaint]

I'm just saying I think you're wrong in your belief that the church holds the same rigid position you do. I do know that the LDS church does not teach that the scriptures are inerrant or that members are required to interpret them in a rigidly literalist way. If you think the church teaches that, you're as much in apostasy as I am.

 

He's more actually. He is publicly teaching his ideas as doctrine.

[The Nehor]

The book of Moeses clarifies amny points regarding the flood and especially the Covenant made to Enoch regarding the flood and the promises made to his posterity in light of the global flood.

 

I would disagree that these minor points are important elements of the Book of Moses even if I agreed with your interpretation of them. I am more in awe of the three theophanies in the book and what God said then. The nature of God revealed better then anywhere else in Moses experience, the revelation of the depth of emotion of God in Enoch's, and the marvelous unveiling of the gospel for the first time in mortality to Adam: "Behold I have forgiven your transgression in the Garden of Eden."

[jkwilliams]

Sorry you feel that way but to not take the flood as a global event completely destroys the doctrine as taugh in the entire book of Moses- you might as well just throw out Moses alltogether and claim it to be heresy. We as members of the church are here to teach the truthfulness of Gods word despite the theories and wisdom of man.

Why would it "destroy the doctrine"?

The Book of Mormon seems pretty clear that the Nephites arrived in an uninhabited New World. Prophets from the time of Joseph Smith taught that the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors" of Native American populations throughout the Americas, not to mention Polynesia. We now know that not to be the case, and the church has adjusted its teachings in response to the clear evidence. Does that adjustment "destroy the doctrine" about Christ in America or the promises of the House of Israel to the Lamanites? Obviously not.

It is really strange to me to see someone suggest that, unless we accept everything as literal, our faith must be destroyed. What kind of faith is that?

[jkwilliams]

He's more actually. He is publicly teaching his ideas as doctrine.

In my experience, most wards would call someone fixated on such a gospel hobby a bit of a nut, but not an apostate. In my home ward, there's a woman who lives with a large number of animals at an abandoned Nike missile base. To her, the most important parts of the gospel are that she believes the Word of Wisdom requires us to be vegetarians unless there's a famine, and she believes that animals have the potential to become like God just as humans can. Every testimony meeting, she is the first up and pontificates for about 15 minutes on those two subjects. She brings them up in every Sunday School class and Relief Society meeting. She is passionate in her beliefs and insists they reflect church doctrine.

Most people just think she's a little off.

[The Nehor]

In my experience, most wards would call someone fixated on such a gospel hobby a bit of a nut, but not an apostate. In my home ward, there's a woman who lives with a large number of animals at an abandoned Nike missile base. To her, the most important parts of the gospel are that she believes the Word of Wisdom requires us to be vegetarians unless there's a famine, and she believes that animals have the potential to become like God just as humans can. Every testimony meeting, she is the first up and pontificates for about 15 minutes on those two subjects. She brings them up in every Sunday School class and Relief Society meeting. She is passionate in her beliefs and insists they reflect church doctrine.

Most people just think she's a little off.

 

My ward has a lady like that. The Bishop finally felt he had to step in. Now she can only bear her testimony if she writes it in advance and the Bishop is allowed to make deletions to it.

 

Think this except different topics:

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by The Nehor

[thesometimesaint]

Why would it "destroy the doctrine"?

The Book of Mormon seems pretty clear that the Nephites arrived in an uninhabited New World. Prophets from the time of Joseph Smith taught that the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors" of Native American populations throughout the Americas, not to mention Polynesia. We now know that not to be the case, and the church has adjusted its teachings in response to the clear evidence. Does that adjustment "destroy the doctrine" about Christ in America or the promises of the House of Israel to the Lamanites? Obviously not.

It is really strange to me to see someone suggest that, unless we accept everything as literal, our faith must be destroyed. What kind of faith is that?

 

No; the Lehites just don't mention others until much later. Actually "principle ancestors" was added by Bruce R. McConkie, and has subsequently been removed.

That removal has never effected my belief that the Book of Mormon peoples actually existed, or that somehow the promises to the Lamanites won't be fulfilled. IE; We have an increasing number of Temples in Mexico.

[thesometimesaint]

In my experience, most wards would call someone fixated on such a gospel hobby a bit of a nut, but not an apostate. In my home ward, there's a woman who lives with a large number of animals at an abandoned Nike missile base. To her, the most important parts of the gospel are that she believes the Word of Wisdom requires us to be vegetarians unless there's a famine, and she believes that animals have the potential to become like God just as humans can. Every testimony meeting, she is the first up and pontificates for about 15 minutes on those two subjects. She brings them up in every Sunday School class and Relief Society meeting. She is passionate in her beliefs and insists they reflect church doctrine.

Most people just think she's a little off.

 

She sure has some "nutty" ideas, but I wouldn't call her an apostate. At least not within her hearing distance.