Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[Rob Osborn]

Why do we endlessly debate where the official doctrine of the church is on these matters? It is a fact that the church official doctrine is that there was no death on the entire earth before the fall. Why cant we all just agree with that fact and move on?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Why do we endlessly debate where the official doctrine of the church is on these matters? It is a fact that the church official doctrine is that there was no death on the entire earth before the fall. Why cant we all just agree with that fact and move on?

 

Where is that found in the scriptures or official church statements? 

[Rob Osborn]

Where is that found in the scriptures or official church statements?

Really?

[Rob Osborn]

I suppose we will probably debate next on what makes something "official". Ridiculous!

[mnn727]

 

Nevermind

Edited December 23, 2014 by mnn727

[Kevin Christensen]

"I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It dont prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine." Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183–84. Compare Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 8–13.

Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings ("all of them have some truth"), but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to (TPJS, 327). Joseph Smith also explained that "The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time" (HC 5:215).

Personally, I find the concept of, and reliance on, "official thought," a "Big Book of What to Think" to which everyone one must unthinkingly and uncritically submit, to run counter to the central genius and inspiration of Mormonism, which I see as inherently open-ended. A fountain, rather than a cistern.

And with respect to the notion of an existing, perfect, on-the-shelf authority within the LDS culture that debaters can call upon to settle any controversy with absolute finality, I'm fond of D&C 1, which spells out the authority of "my servants" as imperfect, subject to error, incomplete, non-exclusive with respect to truth, revelation and virtue, and open-ended with respect to revelation, and revelation that itself is both incomplete at present, and ongoing the present and future, and always conditioned upon our seeking. The law of the harvest concerning seeking and finding answers always confronts the obstructing notions of here and now tradition and orthodoxy. Further light and knowledge, by nature, comes into conflict with both tradition and orthodoxy. I recognize that both orthodoxy and tradition have a place and a value, but that place and value is not one of unquestioned infallibility.

Just a reminder for those who prefer to forget such things, and who try to build large structures on sandy foundations, and beyond that folly, try to convince skeptics to move into spacious penthouse apartments.

It is also worth noticing that at different positions of cognitive and ethical growth, different people tend to process this kind of information in different ways. In trying prove their points, people tend rather to demonstrate exactly where they operate in terms of the Perry Scheme.

Merry Christmas to all

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 23, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[ERayR]

"I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It dont prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine." Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183–84. Compare Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 8–13.

Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings ("all of them have some truth"), but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to (TPJS, 327). Joseph Smith also explained that "The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time" (HC 5:215).

Personally, I find the concept of, and reliance on, "official thought," a "Big Book of What to Think" to which everyone one must unthinkingly and uncritically submit, to run counter to the central genius and inspiration of Mormonism, which I see as inherently open-ended. A fountain, rather than a cistern.

And with respect to the notion of an existing, perfect, on-the-shelf authority within the LDS culture that debaters can call upon to settle any controversy with absolute finality, I'm fond of D&C 1, which spells out the authority of "my servants" as imperfect, subject to error, incomplete, non-exclusive with respect to truth, revelation and virtue, and open-ended with respect to revelation, and revelation that itself is both incomplete at present, and ongoing the present and future, and always conditioned upon our seeking. The law of the harvest concerning seeking and finding answers always confronts the obstructing notions of here and now tradition and orthodoxy. Further light and knowledge, by nature, comes into conflict with both tradition and orthodoxy. I recognize that both orthoxy and tradition have a place and a value, but that place and value is not one of unquestioned infallibility.

Just a reminder for those who prefer to forget such things, and who try to build large structures on sandy foundations, and beyond that folly, try to convince skeptics to move into spacious penthouse apartments.

It is also worth noticing that at different positions of cognitive and ethical growth, different people tend to process this kind of information in different ways. In trying prove their points, people tend rather to demonstrate extactly where they operate in terms of the Perry Scheme.

Merry Christmas to all

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Amen!!!

[thesometimesaint]

I suppose we will probably debate next on what makes something "official". Ridiculous!

 

It is what is found in our Scriptures. Unfortunately therein lies the problem. We don't believe in the inerrancy of any product of mortal hands. The Church is still true regardless of how imperfect its members are.

Edited December 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

I suppose we will probably debate next on what makes something "official". Ridiculous!

 

There is one eternal truth in the Church.  People argue for openness, liberal interpretations and "fallible leaders" when they disagree with something that the Church teaches, and orthodoxy and obedience when the Church teaches something they do agree with. 

 

I think the struggle for Church leaders is convincing the former group to become more like the latter.

 

It's not a question of some LDS being "Cafeteria Mormons" and some not.  We're all "Cafeteria Mormons".  The question is how much do we have on our plates?  For some, the answer would seem to be "as little as possible, and only what is absolutely necessary."

Edited December 23, 2014 by cinepro

[mnn727]

 

 

It's not a question of some LDS being "Cafeteria Mormons" and some not.  We're all "Cafeteria Mormons".  The question is how much do we have on our plates?  For some, the answer would seem to be "as little as possible, and only what is absolutely necessary."

There is certainly nothing that doesn't actually exist on my plate.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Really?

 

Please answer my questions

 

Where is the "no blood" before the Fall found in the scriptures or official church statements?

Where is "no death" for all creatures before the Fall found in the scriptures or official church statements? 

[pogi]

"I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It dont prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine." Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183–84. Compare Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:2, 8–13.

Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings ("all of them have some truth"), but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to (TPJS, 327). Joseph Smith also explained that "The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time" (HC 5:215).

Personally, I find the concept of, and reliance on, "official thought," a "Big Book of What to Think" to which everyone one must unthinkingly and uncritically submit, to run counter to the central genius and inspiration of Mormonism, which I see as inherently open-ended. A fountain, rather than a cistern.

And with respect to the notion of an existing, perfect, on-the-shelf authority within the LDS culture that debaters can call upon to settle any controversy with absolute finality, I'm fond of D&C 1, which spells out the authority of "my servants" as imperfect, subject to error, incomplete, non-exclusive with respect to truth, revelation and virtue, and open-ended with respect to revelation, and revelation that itself is both incomplete at present, and ongoing the present and future, and always conditioned upon our seeking. The law of the harvest concerning seeking and finding answers always confronts the obstructing notions of here and now tradition and orthodoxy. Further light and knowledge, by nature, comes into conflict with both tradition and orthodoxy. I recognize that both orthodoxy and tradition have a place and a value, but that place and value is not one of unquestioned infallibility.

Just a reminder for those who prefer to forget such things, and who try to build large structures on sandy foundations, and beyond that folly, try to convince skeptics to move into spacious penthouse apartments.

It is also worth noticing that at different positions of cognitive and ethical growth, different people tend to process this kind of information in different ways. In trying prove their points, people tend rather to demonstrate exactly where they operate in terms of the Perry Scheme.

Merry Christmas to all

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

I agree full-heartedly, but don't quite know how to answer to those who point out the articles of faith.  How can you argue that Mormonism is not creedal in light of the articles of faith?

[ERayR]

I agree full-heartedly, but don't quite know how to answer to those who point out the articles of faith.  How can you argue that Mormonism is not creedal in light of the articles of faith?

 

If it is creedal it is certainly an open ended one. 

[Rob Osborn]

Please answer my questions

 

Where is the "no blood" before the Fall found in the scriptures or official church statements?

Where is "no death" for all creatures before the Fall found in the scriptures or official church statements?

Read Genesis, Moses, and the Book of Mormon and D&C

[MormonFreeThinker]

Read Genesis, Moses, and the Book of Mormon and D&C

 

I have, I know the scriptures, please be more specific. 

[Rob Osborn]

I have, I know the scriptures, please be more specific.

Read Genesis chapters one and two to start with

[Teancum]

From that same source it also says-Although the majority of geologists, astronomers, and other scientists believe that even this long period is not adequate to explain the physical evidence found in the earth, there are a small number of reputable scholars who disagree. These claim that the geologic clocks are misinterpreted and that tremendous catastrophes in the earth’s history speeded up the processes that normally may take thousands of years. They cite evidence supporting the idea that thirteen thousand years is not an unrealistic time period. Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals have occurred in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity. These books are Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval. Two Latter-day Saint scientists, Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, have also advocated this theory in their book Science and Mormonism. A short summary of the Cooks’ approach can be found in Paul Cracroft’s article “How Old Is the Earth?” (Improvement Era, Oct. 1964, pp. 827–30, 852).Also, on your tree dating methods- it has been proven that tree ring dating is not always accurate. There are some years where several growth rings will appear.

I don't think any reputable scientist buys into Velikovsky's theories. My father gave me two of his books. I should read them.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Read Genesis chapters one and two to start with

 

Yes, be more specific please, where does it say that all creatures were immortal? 

Edited December 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cinepro]

Yes, be more specific please, where does it say that all creatures were immortal? 

 

Well, obviously the scriptures don't say anything you don't want them to say.

 

But that being said, there are certainly things taught in the scriptures that have indicated to the Prophets and Apostles that the entire planet, and all creations, were created in an immortal state, and stayed that way until Adam fell.  This passage from the Book of Moses certainly seems to indicate as much:

 

1 Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

 2 And on the seventh day I, God, ended my work, and all things which I had made; and I rested on the seventh day from all my work, and all things which I had made were finished, and I, God, saw that they were good;

 

 3 And I, God, blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it I had rested from all my work which I, God, had created and made.

 

 4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

 

 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

 

Verse 5 certainly seems to indicate that there were plants and animals on the planet at this point (the Seventh Day), but it tells us "there was not yet flesh upon the earth."  Certainly, the information we are given about the plants and animals and their "living souls" would seem to contradict the theory that the world was created in a mortal state with birth, life, death and evolution being used to "create" plants and animals and bodies for Adam and Eve, and only then did a limited garden become "immortal".  It's a great idea, but not very scriptural.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Well, obviously the scriptures don't say anything you don't want them to say.

 

I am open minded, clear passages will change my mind, not ambiguous passages. 

Well, obviously the scriptures say anything you want them to say.

 

Verse 5 certainly seems to indicate that there were plants and animals on the planet at this point (the Seventh Day), but it tells us "there was not yet flesh upon the earth."

 

Adam is the first flesh because 

"Adam, “the first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45; D&C 84:16), was the first to receive a physical body"

 

It is clear that plants and animals were  physically created first, I don't see how Moses 3 contradicts Evolution or "death before the Fall" theory. 

Edited December 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

I am open minded, clear passages will change my mind, not ambiguous passages. 

Well, obviously the scriptures say anything you want them to say.

 

 

Adam is the first flesh because 

"Adam, “the first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45; D&C 84:16), was the first to receive a physical body"

 

It is clear that plants and animals were  physically created first, I don't see how Moses 3 contradicts Evolution or "death before the Fall" theory. 

Actually, plants came first, then Adam, then animals according to Moses ch. 3

[MormonFreeThinker]

Actually, plants came first, then Adam, then animals according to Moses ch. 3

 

President Joseph Fielding Smith said, 

"Adam did not come to this earth until it was prepared for him. The animals were here. Plants were here. The Lord did not bring him here to a desolate world, and then bring other creatures. It was all prepared for him, just according to the order that is written in our scriptures, and when it was all ready for Adam he was placed upon the earth"

[cinepro]

Adam is the first flesh because 

"Adam, “the first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45; D&C 84:16), was the first to receive a physical body"

 

It is clear that plants and animals were  physically created first, I don't see how Moses 3 contradicts Evolution or "death before the Fall" theory. 

 

Your link does not say what you say it says.  It does not address the definition of "first flesh" anywhere.  You are making that claim, not the manual.

 

"First flesh" is, however, explained in the passage that you quote in the previous post!  So this is a little awkward because you actually quoted it, but I'm sure you don't agree with it. 

 

 

(2-16) Genesis 2:7. Adam Was the “First Flesh” upon the Earth

Moses 3:7 adds a significant phrase to Genesis 2:7: “And man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.” President Joseph Fielding Smith explained what was meant by the term flesh.

 

“So, Adam was the first man upon the earth, according to the Lord’s statement, and the first flesh also. That needs a little explanation.

 

“Adam did not come to this earth until it was prepared for him. The animals were here. Plants were here. The Lord did not bring him here to a desolate world, and then bring other creatures. It was all prepared for him, just according to the order that is written in our scriptures, and when it was all ready for Adam he was placed upon the earth.

 

“Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

Edited December 26, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Your link does not say what you say it says.  It does not address the definition of "first flesh" anywhere.  You are making that claim, not the manual.

 

"First flesh" is, however, explained in the passage that you quote in the previous post!  So this is a little awkward because you actually quoted it, but I'm sure you don't agree with it. 

 

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that creation occurred 6,000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[danielwoods]

I thought this was an interesting article. 
 
http://creation.com/noahs-flood-and-the-gilgamesh-epic
 
 
"‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all.’ (Luke 17:26–27)

In this passage, Jesus straightforwardly talks about Noah as a real person (who was His ancestor—Luke 3:36), the Ark as a real vessel, and the Flood as a real event. So those of a broadly conservative theological disposition will not deny the Flood completely, but will claim that it was merely a local event, usually in Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq).2 However, the liberals, who care nothing for Jesus’s words, go even further. A very common view is that the biblical story of Noah’s Flood was not historical at all, and was borrowed from flood legends in Mesopotamia."