cinepro Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 I want to see a first presidency statement. At least quote 14 statements made directly by the apostles in lds.org general conference that say that a Global Flood destroyed all animal life and created mountains. Or simply just 14 statements that say a Global Flood happened. Just so I'm clear, what do you consider to be an official LDS doctrine? I mean, once you get past "Jesus is the Son of God and Joseph Smith was a true prophet", I'm not sure there are very many things that have been taught by an official first presidency statement and 14 apostles in General Conference. Keep in mind that First Presidency statements aren't traditionally used to voice established or well-known doctrines and teachings. They usually speak to contemporary issues, or new interpretations of doctrines as they apply to new questions. Like I said, there are worse things than admitting you just don't agree with something that is in the scriptures and Church leaders, publications and curriculum have taught consistently over the decades. As others have pointed out, you won't get booted from the Church because of it. But that doesn't mean it's not official.
thesometimesaint Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Were back again to- if it doesnt fit what you want it to mean it must be wrong. Incorrect. Doctrine is established by Common Consent. Individual, or small group, interpretations, whether by persons high or low, in the Church, do not meet that standard. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….Upon one thing we should all be able toagree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].
Rob Osborn Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Incorrect. Doctrine is established by Common Consent. Individual, or small group, interpretations, whether by persons high or low, in the Church, do not meet that standard. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931]. Were talking about the flood being global and the church believes it was global. The global flood is a church doctrine
thesometimesaint Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Were talking about the flood being global and the church believes it was global. The global flood is a church doctrine Again Common Consent precludes it as being Church doctrine however widely a Global Flood was believed.http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood
Rob Osborn Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Again Common Consent precludes it as being Church doctrine however widely a Global Flood was believed. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood Do you understand what makes something "church doctrine"? If it is taught by our leaders and is found in our manuals and other church publishings directed at teaching doctrine then that is precisely what is doctrine. Fairmormon is notorious for not representing what is or is not church doctrine. Thats why I do not respect them as an institution for defining church doctrine. They also have no endorsement from the church itself. Here is what they say in part regarding the position of the church on the flood- " Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures." They then go on to say that the church holds no offical position. But that is a lie and is heavily biased on cherry picking certain texts that apply to other matters and issues. The church official position is this- "During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing"
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 18, 2014 Author Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) Like I said, there are worse things than admitting you just don't agree with something that is in the scriptures and Church leaders, publications and curriculum have taught consistently over the decades. As others have pointed out, you won't get booted from the Church because of it. But that doesn't mean it's not official. At least quote 10 apostles that said in General Conference that the Flood was Global, destroyed all animal life, and created mountains. There are a lot of first presidency statements, one will be nice because everything known in science contradicts a Global Flood. Also because the scriptures are not clear about the nature of the flood. If all church publications were 100% perfect, a change in the Book of Mormon Introduction wouldn't be necessary. Edited May 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 At least quote 10 apostles that said in General Conference that the Flood was Global. There are a lot of first presidency statements, one will be nice because everything known in science contradicts a Global Flood. There are certain theories in science by certain scientists that contradict a global flood. Then there are also other scientific theories in science by certain scientsts that support a global flood. Its a good thing that mainstream science doesn't have the final say on what is or isnt truth. If that was the case us Mormons wouldn't have a religion.
thesometimesaint Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 There are certain non scientific theories, not in science, used by certain scientists that claim a global flood. Then there are also other scientific theories in science by virtually every scientist that do not support a global flood. Its a good thing that mainstream science doesn't have the final say on what is or isn't truth. If that was the case certain Mormons wouldn't have a religion. There fixed it for you.
Rob Osborn Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 There fixed it for you. Its rude to misuse quotations like that 1
Bikeemikey Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Its still official doctrine. On the nature of the flood the scriptures are very plain and clear. Its only when one is trying to shoehorn a local flood into the story that it becomes unclear.Yes it it can be official doctrine and still not have happened. Official doctrine can be wrong.
thesometimesaint Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Its rude to misuse quotations like that That it is. My apologies. 1
Bikeemikey Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Were talking about the flood being global and the church believes it was global. The global flood is a church doctrineWhich is fine... It is still the case that the church doctrine is wrong.
thesometimesaint Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Yes it it can be official doctrine and still not have happened. Official doctrine can be wrong. Agreed.
Calm Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Its rude to misuse quotations like thatAnd I think against the rules...you need to at least take it out of the actual quotation IIRC.
cinepro Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) At least quote 10 apostles that said in General Conference that the Flood was Global, destroyed all animal life, and created mountains. There are a lot of first presidency statements, one will be nice because everything known in science contradicts a Global Flood. Also because the scriptures are not clear about the nature of the flood. If all church publications were 100% perfect, a change in the Book of Mormon Introduction wouldn't be necessary. Wait, now we're down to 10? So between 3:59pm on May 16 and 11:59am on May 18, the number of apostles necessary to teach something in General Conference and have it be "doctrine" fell from 14 to 10. That's a pretty significant change. How the heck did that happen, and why wasn't the rest of the Church notified? Edited May 18, 2014 by cinepro
Rob Osborn Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) Yes it it can be official doctrine and still not have happened. Official doctrine can be wrong. I totally agree. Just because something is an "official position" in the church doesn't mean its true. But thats not what we are discussing. we are discussing what is the official position of the church in regards to the flood being localized or global. As such, the official position of the church is that it was global. Edited May 18, 2014 by Rob Osborn
cinepro Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) Elder Wistoe did believe in a Global Flood, but wrote that the Flood in some places "might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth" a "fraction of an inch in depth" is not a Great Flood. How many modern apostles in general conference said that a global flood destroyed all animal life on Earth and created mountains and continents? I agree that the Flood was worldwide, the world of Noah. Anyways, like I said, there are so many evidences against a Great Global Flood, that an official first presidency statement will be nice. Official first presidency statement please. You need to clarify what you are theorizing regarding the scope of the flood. Elder Widstoe was arguing for the global flood. In the first sentence, you cite him as if you agree with him. But then you say "the world of Noah" as if you are now arguing for a local flood, which goes against what Elder Widstoe (and all other Church published teachings on the subject) state. You then say that you want a statement from the First Presidency because "there are so many evidences against a Great Global Flood". But I can't find a single instance in which the First Presidency issued a statement about a consistently taught, scripturally based teaching just because some scientists didn't agree with it. The subject has been so clearly addressed in the Ensign and other Church publications that I suspect they would be mystified that anyone thinks the matter isn't clear. In fact, the only context I can imagine for which a letter would be appropriate would be if the Church were changing their position and wanted people to know that it was now possible that Noah's flood didn't cover the whole planet. That would be letter-worthy. Edited May 18, 2014 by cinepro
Bikeemikey Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 I totally agree. Just because something is an "official position" in the church doesn't mean its true. But thats not what we are discussing. we are discussing what is the official position of the church in regards to the flood being localized or global. As such, the official position of the church is that it was global.So why does it matter what the official position of the church is if it's wrong?
Rob Osborn Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) So why does it matter what the official position of the church is if it's wrong? You have to look at it the proper way- Its the most important thing to recognize where the church stands in its official doctrines so that we as LDS are in harmony in teaching and proclaiming church doctrine. If we have differing views it then is viewed in the correct light and we are not just spouting out half-truths or even lying. For instance- Fairmormon states to the world (as if it holds some special clout) that the official position of the church in regards to the flood is that it has no official position on if it was local or global. This is a lie. The church does have an official position on this matter but Fairmormon misrepresents the church in this regards. Is this how LDS members work? I am somewhat ashamed of my fellow brothers and sisters who choose to intentionally mislead others and some of our own just because they "choose" to be bias. It is my strong opinion that this is how splinter LDS groups form and end up leaving the church. Its not that we can have differing views, its that at some point, these groups or even individuals can feel like they have authority and the prophets do not and so because they think they are "learned" they fall to worldliness and leave the church. Edited May 19, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Bikeemikey Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) You have to look at it the proper way-Its the most important thing to recognize where the church stands in its official doctrines so that we as LDS are in harmony in teaching and proclaiming church doctrine. If we have differing views it then is viewed in the correct light and we are not just spouting out half-truths or even lying. For instance- Fairmormon states to the world (as if it holds some special clout) that the official position of the church in regards to the flood is that it has no official position on if it was local or global. This is a lie. The church does have an official position on this matter but Fairmormon misrepresents the church in this regards. Is this how LDS members work? I am somewhat ashamed of my fellow brothers and sisters who choose to intentionally mislead others and some of our own just because they "choose" to be bias.So, if I agreed with your assessment of the church's official position, I should say the official position of the church is the flood was global... However the this is not historically accurate and the flood was local... But the churches position is it was global? Edited May 19, 2014 by Bikeemikey
Rob Osborn Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 So, if I agreed with your assessment of the church's official position, I should say the official position of the church is the flood was global... However the this is not historically accurate and the flood was local... But the churches position is it was global? You should state that the official position of the church is that the flood was indeed global but that it is "your opinion" based on how you understand science and history that it was a localized flood and that it never covered the entire earth. In the end its important to state truthfully, without bias, what the church actually teaches and then state if you yourself agree or disagree. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't share my same beliefs about the flood. But I do have issues with others stating the offficial position of the church to be different than what it is just to align their views with the church. Thtas a misrepresentation.
Bikeemikey Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) You should state that the official position of the church is that the flood was indeed global but that it is "your opinion" based on how you understand science and history that it was a localized flood and that it never covered the entire earth. In the end its important to state truthfully, without bias, what the church actually teaches and then state if you yourself agree or disagree. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't share my same beliefs about the flood. But I do have issues with others stating the offficial position of the church to be different than what it is just to align their views with the church. Thtas a misrepresentation.You have no disagreement from me on that. I have no issues with the reality that my views on the global flood are different to the "church doctrine" on the matter and I am confident in my position. As it is not a matter that impacts my standing in the church or my salvation I'm confident the church doesn't care either. Edited May 19, 2014 by Bikeemikey
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 19, 2014 Author Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) How the heck did that happen, and why wasn't the rest of the Church notified? How about 7? Just making it easier for you guys You are dodging the question Edited May 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
cinepro Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) How about 7? Just making it easier for you guys You are dodging the question I'm still not clear on where this criteria comes from. I have already shown that Church leaders (including Apostles and Prophets) have taught a global flood consistently, clearly, recently, and repeatedly in official Church publications, and it is also taught in the scriptures (as interpreted by the same Apostles and Prophets). Church Statements on a Global Flood If we include statements made by Seventies, BYU Scholars and other authors that have been made in Church published curriculum and magazines, without correction or ammendation by the Apostles and Prophets whose names appear at the front of the magazine, then the situation becomes even more clear. If you are devising some alternate criteria to determine whether something is "official" or not, that's up to you. But if you are going to argue that there is some ambiguity in what the Church teaches about the scope of the flood, then the burden of proof is on you to show that something other than the global flood has ever been acknowledged as a possibility by a Church leader in a talk or publication published by the Church. But I'll save you the time. It hasn't. Edited May 19, 2014 by cinepro 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 I'm still not clear on where this criteria comes from. I have already shown that Church leaders (including Apostles and Prophets) have taught a global flood consistently, clearly, recently, and repeatedly in official Church publications, and it is also taught in the scriptures (as interpreted by the same Apostles and Prophets). Church Statements on a Global Flood If we include statements made by Seventies, BYU Scholars and other authors that have been made in Church published curriculum and magazines, without correction or ammendation by the Apostles and Prophets whose names appear at the front of the magazine, then the situation becomes even more clear. If you are devising some alternate criteria to determine whether something is "official" or not, that's up to you. But if you are going to argue that there is some ambiguity in what the Church teaches about the scope of the flood, then the burden of proof is on you to show that something other than the global flood has ever been acknowledged as a possibility by a Church leader in a talk or publication published by the Church. But I'll save you the time. It hasn't. Reducio absurdum. The Church takes no position on the value of Pi. There is no correction of Scripture that has it as anything but exactly 3.
Recommended Posts