Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[jkwilliams]

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.

Well, that was my point: what the church has taught about the population of the Americas in Book of Mormon times has changed over time and has been adjusted to increased knowledge.

FYI, yes, the headings to the scriptures were put in by a committee led by Bruce R. McConkie. The committee also did the Bible Dictionary, maps, Topical Guide, and other "study helps" in the 1979 and 1981 editions of the scriptures. However, it may be a little misleading to say it was McConkie and that the church apparently corrected it later. Despite the committee's membership, the work they did still went through a Correlation review, so until the recent change, the "principal ancestors" note was approved as being consistent with church doctrine. A minor point to be sure, but the change came not because McConkie needed to be corrected but because the statement was no longer justifiable based on current evidence.

[Rob Osborn]

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?

The doctrine is clear that God caused flood- a global flood to destroy all flesh from off the earth. Enoch is shown this all in vision leading up to the flood. The last few chapters of Moses is dedicated to the events surrounding the flood and the prophecies being fulfilled concerning the flood and Enochs posterity that through Noah should come all nations of the earth,

[jkwilliams]

The doctrine is clear that God caused flood- a global flood to destroy all flesh from off the earth. Enoch is shown this all in vision leading up to the flood. The last few chapters of Moses is dedicated to the events surrounding the flood and the prophecies being fulfilled concerning the flood and Enochs posterity that through Noah should come all nations of the earth,

 

I will never understand this kind of thinking. The people of the world obviously do not descend from a single family who lived some 4000 years ago. And there was no cataclysmic flood that destroyed all the civilizations around the world. Humans have lived continuously in all parts of the world without major interruption for tens of thousands of years and beyond. And yet fundamentalists paint themselves into an untenable corner simply because they can't handle allegory. It's a strange hill to die on.

[Alan]

The people of the world obviously do not descend from a single family who lived some 4000 years ago. And there was no cataclysmic flood that destroyed all the civilizations around the world. Humans have lived continuously in all parts of the world without major interruption for tens of thousands of years and beyond.

 

Actually, I don't think it is obvious at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If you are not an eye witness to the flood (or non-flood) how can you be so sure it didn't occur? Especially as most of those humans tribes scattered over the earth have legends and stories of a great cataclysmic flood.

I do find your statement rather arrogant to be honest.

[jkwilliams]

Actually, I don't think it is obvious at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If you are not an eye witness to the flood (or non-flood) how can you be so sure it didn't occur? Especially as most of those humans tribes scattered over the earth have legends and stories of a great cataclysmic flood.

I do find your statement rather arrogant to be honest.

 

By your logic, if you weren't an eyewitness, you can't be sure the flood occurred. The physical evidence, human genetic history, and the clear evidence of continuous habitation of peoples all over the world show pretty clearly that there was no global flood. Am I absolutely sure? No, I don't operate in certainties and proof, but the likelihood of such an event is pretty slim indeed.

 

I've been called worse than arrogant, so no problem there.

[Rob Osborn]

I will never understand this kind of thinking. The people of the world obviously do not descend from a single family who lived some 4000 years ago. And there was no cataclysmic flood that destroyed all the civilizations around the world. Humans have lived continuously in all parts of the world without major interruption for tens of thousands of years and beyond. And yet fundamentalists paint themselves into an untenable corner simply because they can't handle allegory. It's a strange hill to die on.

You say "obviously" as if it is just a given and I am curious why you believe such.

[jkwilliams]

You say "obviously" as if it is just a given and I am curious why you believe such.

 

It is pretty obvious. Multiple overlapping methods confirm the age of the earth and the ages of different archaeological evidence, indicating that the earth's temporal existence is much older than 6,000 years. All over the world, this same type of dating and evidence shows cultures and civilizations developing over tens of thousands of years, with no global interruptions, such as what we would see with a flood. The genetic timeline is also way too long to accommodate all humans being descended from a single family from the time of Noah.

 

This isn't difficult to understand.

[Gray]

It is pretty obvious. Multiple overlapping methods confirm the age of the earth and the ages of different archaeological evidence, indicating that the earth's temporal existence is much older than 6,000 years. All over the world, this same type of dating and evidence shows cultures and civilizations developing over tens of thousands of years, with no global interruptions, such as what we would see with a flood. The genetic timeline is also way too long to accommodate all humans being descended from a single family from the time of Noah.

 

This isn't difficult to understand.

 

 

I used to believe in a literal flood, but when I realized every line of evidence independently agreed that there was no global flood in human history, I had to abandon the idea. 

[jkwilliams]

I used to believe in a literal flood, but when I realized every line of evidence independently agreed that there was no global flood in human history, I had to abandon the idea. 

 

Same here. I don't think I've believed in a global flood since I was a teenager, and no evidence I've seen since then has done anything but reinforce that conclusion. What I find odd is this insistence that, unless we accept that there was a literal global flood, somehow we can't believe in God. I don't know where that attitude comes from.

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, I don't think it is obvious at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If you are not an eye witness to the flood (or non-flood) how can you be so sure it didn't occur? Especially as most of those humans tribes scattered over the earth have legends and stories of a great cataclysmic flood.

I do find your statement rather arrogant to be honest.

If the opposite is obvious (to the statement that peoples of the earth cannot have descended from a single family, some 4000 years ago) it befalls you to explain the mathematics of population numbers, genetics, races, not to mention how the various animals got to where they are, without leaving traces of their passage, with some explanation that makes sense and falls into the parameters of current knowledge.

Eye witnessing events isn't the only judge of validity. I got to see the birth of five of my six children. I missed the birth of my oldest daughter (because my boss wouldn't give me time off to go to her birth). But when I got to the hospital, my wife was flush faced and holding a little girl in her arms. Am I to question whether she really is my daughter, or whether the woman holding her was actually the real birth mother, simply because I didn't witness the birth? I didn't rush out and get a DNA test either for proof.

But some things actually happen and there is sufficient proof, if one takes the time and attention to ask reasonable questions, without the need to be an eye witness. If you are a believing member you must have already accepted things that happened before you were born and whixh it would be impossible to be an eye witness to. You believe, not because you can't accept stories you are told, but because you chose which stories to believe. You have chosen stories that have a single reference point outside of scientific and studied knowledge, which is of course, your privilege, but don't assume that others will follow lockstep into such explanations.

And I will need to hear from you which flood stories you accept and which you find fault with, before I can take your premise that "scattered tribes have legends about a cataclysmic flood". The Story of Gesh has, for example, many diversions from the story of Noah.

[Rob Osborn]

It is pretty obvious. Multiple overlapping methods confirm the age of the earth and the ages of different archaeological evidence, indicating that the earth's temporal existence is much older than 6,000 years. All over the world, this same type of dating and evidence shows cultures and civilizations developing over tens of thousands of years, with no global interruptions, such as what we would see with a flood. The genetic timeline is also way too long to accommodate all humans being descended from a single family from the time of Noah.

 

This isn't difficult to understand.

Let me see, written history besides scripture that we know of goes back to the pharoes of Egypt. Egypt ame into existence through Ham's bloodline who was the son of Noah. Dating methods mostly cant be correctly calibrated. So, your obvious is really just a guess.

[jkwilliams]

Let me see, written history besides scripture that we know of goes back to the pharoes of Egypt. Egypt ame into existence through Ham's bloodline who was the son of Noah. Dating methods mostly cant be correctly calibrated. So, your obvious is really just a guess.

 

Nope, not a guess, but based on a lot of overlapping evidence that all points in one direction. It's a bit odd to suggest that, unless there's a written record, one can only guess.

 

Just a couple of questions I have:

 

1. What can plate tectonics tell us about the age of the earth? What combinations of methods are used to date the rock in the plates?

 

2. How did the bristlecone pines survive the flood?

[Gray]

Let me see, written history besides scripture that we know of goes back to the pharoes of Egypt. Egypt ame into existence through Ham's bloodline who was the son of Noah. Dating methods mostly cant be correctly calibrated. So, your obvious is really just a guess.

 

Egypt did not come from Ham's bloodline. Dating methods are correct within a margin of error

[CA Steve]

Nope, not a guess, but based on a lot of overlapping evidence that all points in one direction. It's a bit odd to suggest that, unless there's a written record, one can only guess.

 

Just a couple of questions I have:

 

1. What can plate tectonics tell us about the age of the earth? What combinations of methods are used to date the rock in the plates?

 

2. How did the bristlecone pines survive the flood?

How about 100,000 years or more of ice layers?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

[jkwilliams]

How about 100,000 years or more of ice layers?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

 

The flood froze.

[JLHPROF]

Egypt did not come from Ham's bloodline.

 

Abraham 1:21-25.  Do you believe ANYTHING in the scriptures or does academia trump them every time?

 

So far we've had - no flood, no exodus, no Moses, now we have no Ham/Egyptus.

And all because modern science/historians provide doubts or other ideas...

Edited February 27, 2014 by JLHPROF

[jkwilliams]

Abraham 1:21-25.  Do you believe ANYTHING in the scriptures or does academia trump them every time?

 

Am I required to believe that the sun borrows its light from Kolob? How important is that to the Plan of Salvation? Does understanding that the story of Egypt told in the Book of Abraham may not be literally true take anything away from the gospel of Jesus Christ?

[ERayR]

Abraham 1:21-25.  Do you believe ANYTHING in the scriptures or does academia trump them every time?

 

There are several people, some even post on this board, who automatically accept theories from academia over scripture.

[jkwilliams]

There are several people, some even post on this board, who automatically accept theories from academia over scripture.

 

Again, why do you insist on this false dichotomy?

[Gray]

Abraham 1:21-25.  Do you believe ANYTHING in the scriptures or does academia trump them every time?

 

So far we've had - no flood, no exodus, no Moses, now we have no Ham/Egyptus.

And all because modern science/historians provide doubts or other ideas...

 

I believe the most important thing in the scriptures - the spiritual message. I'm not stuck on the vehicle for that message. If you think the point of the scriptures is to give a literal retelling of the history of Egypt, you're in for some disappointment. 

[Gray]

There are several people, some even post on this board, who automatically accept theories from academia over scripture.

 

Over certain interpretations of scripture, certainly. 

[JLHPROF]

Am I required to believe that the sun borrows its light from Kolob? How important is that to the Plan of Salvation? Does understanding that the story of Egypt told in the Book of Abraham may not be literally true take anything away from the gospel of Jesus Christ?

 

If a book of scripture that we hold as the Word of God says the sun borrows its light from Kolob (and it isn't clearly using metaphor) then I would say, yes you are required if you claim any faith in said book of scripture.

 

It is not the doubt cast on any one piece of scripture that concerns me.  I accept that Eve being made from Adam's rib and Adam being made of dust are metaphors and not literal.  But I don't doubt Adam & Eve existed because some geneticist/anthropologist/archaeologist or whatever scientist claims they didn't.  Some things are metaphor, some things are history.  But when we start denying things existed (Moses, Exodus, Flood, Adam/Eve, Christ etc) we have a problem that goes beyond our ability to prove something.

 

I believe the most important thing in the scriptures - the spiritual message. I'm not stuck on the vehicle for that message. If you think the point of the scriptures is to give a literal retelling of the history of Egypt, you're in for some disappointment. 

 

The problem with that philosophy is that if we believe the scriptures to be dishonest or merely symbolic in their accounts then we have absolutely no reason to trust their honesty in doctrine.

Perhaps there is no Celestial Kingdom, perhaps there is no Heavenly Father, perhaps there is no priesthood, perhaps there are no worlds without number, perhaps there is no actual atonement and it's only a comforting spiritual message...

 

We can't start doubting the veracity of scripture without doubting the veracity of our very religion.  Else where do we draw the line - who gets to say where scriptural symbolism ends and scriptural reality begins - I certainly don't trust the scientists and historians to do it.

Edited February 27, 2014 by JLHPROF

[jkwilliams]

If a book of scripture that we hold as the Word of God says the sun borrows its light from Kolob (and it isn't clearly using metaphor) then I would say, yes you are required if you claim any faith in said book of scripture.

How do you know it's not metaphorical? Why is your literal interpretation the right one?

 

It is not the doubt cast on any one piece of scripture that concerns me.  I accept that Eve being made from Adam's wrist and Adam being made of dust are metaphors and not literal.  But I don't doubt Adam & Eve existed because some geneticist/anthropologist/archaeologist or whatever scientist claims they didn't.  Some things are metaphor, some things are history.  But when we start denying things existed (Moses, Exodus, Flood, Adam/Eve, Christ etc) we have a problem that goes beyond our ability to prove something.

Again, why is it necessary to interpret everything as 100% literal? If the serpent is metaphorical (and last I checked, the LDS church doesn't believe a snake appeared to Eve), why can't other things also be so?

 

The problem with that philosophy is that if we believe the scriptures to be dishonest or merely symbolic in their accounts then we have absolutely no reason to trust their honesty in doctrine.

Why is that?

Perhaps there is no Celestial Kingdom, perhaps there is no Heavenly Father, perhaps there is no priesthood, perhaps there are no worlds without number, perhaps there is no actual atonement and it's only a comforting spiritual message...

That sounds almost like fear of the non-literal.

 

We can't start doubting the veracity of scripture without doubting the veracity of our very religion.  Else where do we draw the line - who gets to say where scriptural symbolism ends and scriptural reality begins - I certainly don't trust the scientists and historians to do it.

A faith that depends on scripture being absolutely literal doesn't seem to me to be on very firm foundations.

[Gray]

The problem with that philosophy is that if we believe the scriptures to be dishonest or merely symbolic in their accounts then we have absolutely no reason to trust their honesty in doctrine.

Perhaps there is no Celestial Kingdom, perhaps there is no Heavenly Father, perhaps there is no priesthood, perhaps there are no worlds without number, perhaps there is no actual atonement and it's only a comforting spiritual message...

 

We can't start doubting the veracity of scripture without doubting the veracity of our very religion.  Else where do we draw the line - who gets to say where scriptural symbolism ends and scriptural reality begins - I certainly don't trust the scientists and historians to do it.

 

I don't think the scriptures are dishonest. I just think that taking them as if they were intended to be literal history is presentism. They didn't have the same concepts of historicity as we do in the modern age.

 

I don't need to the scriptures to be authoritative - as if something was true just because it was printed on paper. For me what is important is finding the spiritual message - the unity, the good principles that seem self-evidence to me, without need to appeal to any particular authoritative text for them to ring true (but that is contained in many scriptural text)

 

Truth is truth, whether it is found in scripture or a thought or a movie or what have you.

 

I can't, however, bifurcate my mind and accept only that which validates my traditions. That's not how I have come to understand truth. 

[jkwilliams]

I can't, however, bifurcate my mind and accept only that which validates my traditions. That's not how I have come to understand truth.

Well said.