The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I find it of interest that here we have a classic case of cherry picking according to ones own opinion.I disagree. I find that incredibly boring.
Rivers Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Never.Now there are some teaching I would say one must accept to be a member in good standing. A good guide would be what the brethren are talking about. Do you hear a lot of them focused on a global flood? Neither do I.Others come int the recommend questions and other things of that nature. The church does teach the the flood story as a real event you are absolutely right that none of the bretheren make a big fuss about it. We teach the story and we talk about the lessons we can learn from it.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Never. Now there are some teaching I would say one must accept to be a member in good standing. A good guide would be what the brethren are talking about. Do you hear a lot of them focused on a global flood? Neither do I. Others come int the recommend questions and other things of that nature. Well, regardless of what your opinions are, the official position of the church regarding the nature of the flood is that it was indeed a global catastrophe that covered and destroyed the entire earth and all life that lived on the land.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Well, regardless of what your opinions are, the official position of the church regarding the nature of the flood is that it was indeed a global catastrophe that covered and destroyed the entire earth and all life that lived on the land.Nope.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Nope. Like I said- that "nope" is entirely your position. The official doctrine on the matter is that it was global- the scriptures state it, the guide to the scriptures state it, and numerous manuals all published by the church all state it.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Like I said- that "nope" is entirely your position. The official doctrine on the matter is that it was global- the scriptures state it, the guide to the scriptures state it, and numerous manuals all published by the church all state it.No.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 No. I guess the ol CFR comes into play then- show where I am wrong.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I guess the ol CFR comes into play then- show where I am wrong.Nah.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Nah. Figures. At least at this point stop saying its not church doctrine then or I will keep calling for a CFR
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Figures. At least at this point stop saying its not church doctrine then or I will keep calling for a CFRNo, I am going to keep saying that. 1
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 No, I am going to keep saying that. And I will always keep saying the global flood is church doctrine. i have all the words of the prophets, the scriptures and manuals and publications. I guess you have your opinion only.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 And I will always keep saying the global flood is church doctrine. i have all the words of the prophets, the scriptures and manuals and publications. I guess you have your opinion only. Nope. Wrong.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Figures. At least at this point stop saying its not church doctrine then or I will keep calling for a CFR Start at 18 seconds for my reaction to this threat:
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Start at 18 seconds for my reaction to this threat: Love that little willow
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 Like I said- that "nope" is entirely your position. The official doctrine on the matter is that it was global- the scriptures state it, the guide to the scriptures state it, and numerous manuals all published by the church all state it. Manuals are not perfect. Please cite an official church declaration
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Manuals are not perfect. Please cite an official church declaration I have cited scripture. Is that not good enough? I have cited the Guide to the scriptures, is that also not good enough? You guys are cherry picking.
frank_jessop Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Manuals are not perfect.Please cite an official church declarationPerhaps, The Nehor, should first respect a call for references, before another person gets sidetrack in presenting evidence you are extremely likely to reject. I believe it safe to assume, that given your comment, you would reject a "global flood" statement in any manual published and correlated by the Church. I get the impression you reject the essay which indicates a global flood. Now you wish for an official Church declaration...I am not sure there are more than 2 Official Declarations, those being OD 1 and OD 2; neither of which reference the flood. Edited May 12, 2014 by frank_jessop
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 I have cited scripture. Is that not good enough? I have cited the Guide to the scriptures, is that also not good enough? You guys are cherry picking.The scriptures are not clear, they do not tell us if the Flood was Global or Local. Elder John A. Widtsoe said, "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." [Widtsoe, p. 127]. "there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared."J. Reuben Clark, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” address given to seminary and institute teachers at BYU, 7 July 1954, published in Church News (31 July 1954): 9–10 Official church declaration please, like I explained in the Mormon Doctrine topic.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Perhaps, The Nehor, should first respect a call for references, before another person gets sidetrack in presenting evidence you are extremely likely to reject.Responding to a CFR is against my religion.
frank_jessop Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Elder John A. Widtsoe said, "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." [Widtsoe, p. 127].I think you might want to revisit your reliance on Widtsoe, his words do not support what you are suggesting.From the same article, which contains the same quote you use rely on from Widtsoe:"Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial.""So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time."It seems clear, then, Widtsoe, is a global flood proponent. Edited May 12, 2014 by frank_jessop
frank_jessop Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998 "Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: “Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling ‘the measure of its creation.’ They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water.” He writes that the removal of earth’s wicked inhabitants in the Flood represents that which occurs in our own baptism for the remission of sins. 13"
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) It seems clear, then, Widtsoe, is a global flood proponent. "Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial.""So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time." But he did not say that an ocean covered the entire planet, so "the fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known."That is the topic here. The theory the a Great Flood that created an ocean that covered the Earth, and created mountains contradicts everything that is known in modern science. So a Local Flood theory and a worldwide rain (not an ocean) theory don't contradict everything in science. "get the impression you reject the essay which indicates a global flood" I don't, it is not talking about the Global and Local flood debate. It was not written by a scholar, it's not one of the new essays. I already proved that "entire world" in the Book of Mormon means "land" "region" Edited May 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
frank_jessop Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) "Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial.""So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time."But he did not say that an ocean covered the entire planet,...Now you are just being absurd. "Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.Widtsoe said the WHOLE EARTH was immersed. Widtsoe also said "the depth was immaterial"; "the essential" part of the ENTIRE GLOBE/PLANET was "completely immersed". I am quoting, what could be regarding as the most primary source.You are relying, at best, on a out of context quote found in the unofficial hobby essays of "encyclopedia of mormonism", OR in, an even less official but moreso hobby essay of Fairmormon. Edited May 12, 2014 by frank_jessop 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) I am quoting, what could be regarding as the most primary source.You are relying, at best, on a out of context quote found in the unofficial hobby essays of "encyclopedia of mormonism", OR in, an even less official but moreso hobby essay of Fairmormon. I don't easily accept theories that contradict everything known in science, there are a lot of evidences against a great global flood. "Widtsoe said the WHOLE EARTH was immersed" the word immerse means - "to put (something) in a liquid so that all parts are completely covered" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immerseSo who grabbed the Earth and put it in a giant baptismal font? You need two people for the ordinance. Elder Widtsoe said, "it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth"Look at that mountain, it's completely covered by water. It doesn't just have some tiny drops of water, the mountain is completely covered by water. So even if the flood was a baptism, there was no need for a great ocean. But I am not convinced that the Flood was a baptism. The Noah article says that the Flood was a symbol of baptismWhat is the symbolism of Noah and the flood?God uses symbols to teach gospel truths. In the New Testament, Peter explained that the flood was a “like figure” or symbol of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21). Just as the earth was immersed in water, so we must be baptized by water and by the Spirit before we can enter the celestial kingdom. Also, Noah himself was a symbol of Christ. It was necessary for any living creature who wished to be saved to come “unto Noah into the ark” (Genesis 7:9, 15). https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng Was Noah the Christ? No, he was a symbol. Same thing for the Flood. BTW, "In the New Testament, Paul speaks of the children of Israel being baptized by Moses “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1–4)." Edited May 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Men on moon and sun.Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized.Brigham Younghttp://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/4872 Men not on moon or in space.In early 1961, Joseph Fielding Smith preached to a stake conference congregation in Hawaii:We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen. http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htmAnother aspect of the matter needs to be considered. At the present time, man has no scientific or revealed knowledge of whether or not there are inhabitants on the earth's moon. The fact that a handful of astronauts didn't see any inhabitants in the tiny area they viewed when they landed on the moon decades ago certainly gives no definitive information, any more than visitors to earth who might land in barren Death Valley would have any idea of the billions of inhabitants elsewhere. We need to be very careful when we make claims about the natural universe based on what someone believes. Edited May 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint 1
Recommended Posts