Elder Holland Declares GoE in Missouri, Noah's Flood Covered the Whole Planet, Pangea separated after Noah's flood, Jaredites first to Populate the New World

[jkwilliams]

Just now, cinepro said:

I have to apologize.  The talk under consideration wasn't given in General Conference. 

The overall point about then-Commissioner (now-Elder) Holland's teachings stand as they were printed in the Ensign, but I'm not sure where the talk was given.

But it wasn't General Conference.

Either way, they were reprinted in a Correlated official publication of the Church, which has to count for something.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Either way, they were reprinted in a Correlated official publication of the Church, which has to count for something.

As always, how much it "counts" probably depends on how much someone agrees with it.  The words of our leaders seem to have little power to change our minds regarding such things.

Edited August 11, 2016 by cinepro

[theplains]

On 09/08/2016 at 9:38 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree, but you are missing the point (just as cinepro does) that attributing statements to general authorities when they are not general authorities is dirty pool.  Does that make any sense to you?

This makes sense but referring it to dirty pool is inappropriate.  If an LDS person is an elder, an apostle, or a
stake president, etc and he makes a statement that is printed in an LDS publication or spoken of at a General
Conference, its open for discussion.

Thanks,
Jim

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, theplains said:

This makes sense but referring it to dirty pool is inappropriate.  If an LDS person is an elder, an apostle, or a
stake president, etc and he makes a statement that is printed in an LDS publication or spoken of at a General
Conference, its open for discussion.

Thanks,
Jim

It would be more relevant if the argument was "Elder Holland made those statements before he was an Apostle, and since becoming an Apostle has progressed in knowledge and no longer believes the continents divided in the last 7,000 years, or that Noah's flood was global."

But obviously there is no indication that he has left those views behind, and since they are supported and reinforced by the scriptures and words of other Prophets and Apostles (who were Prophets and Apostles at the time they made the comments), as well as the currently published CES curriculum, there is no reason to believe that he has or would need to.

Edited August 11, 2016 by cinepro

[theplains]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It would be more relevant if the argument was "Elder Holland made those statements before he was an Apostle, and since becoming an Apostle has progressed in knowledge and no longer believes the continents divided in the last 7,000 years, or that Noah's flood was global."

for more relevance, I would add "that he admitted he was wrong and sorry if people were deceived by it."

Jim

[Johnnie Cake]

Honestly?  Does anyone in the church know that its the year 2016?  That the idea of a universal flood being taught is so arguably and provably false...that doing so is a testimony destroyer for anyone with a brain or a questioning mind willing to test the teaching?  I just find it sad that the church can't/won't disavow such a doctrine when it flies in the face of reality and science and everything we know about the earth we live on.

This is just sad that in 2016 they are still teaching these falsehoods as truth.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly?  Does anyone in the church know that its the year 2016?  That the idea of a universal flood being taught is so arguably and provably false...that doing so is a testimony destroyer for anyone with a brain or a questioning mind willing to test the teaching?  I just find it sad that the church can't/won't disavow such a doctrine when it flies in the face of reality and science and everything we know about the earth we live on.

This is just sad that in 2016 they are still teaching these falsehoods as truth.

Prove that they are falsehoods. There must be something that happened since virtually every civilization that has a history has some kind of flood story in it's past. I have seen science be wrong before. So what makes it so that it couldn't possibly be wrong now?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

This makes sense but referring it to dirty pool is inappropriate.  If an LDS person is an elder, an apostle, or a
stake president, etc and he makes a statement that is printed in an LDS publication or spoken of at a General
Conference, its open for discussion.

Thanks,
Jim

So you want all persons who appear in LDS publications, including stake presidents, to be called "Elder"?  Does that extend to all general board members, male and female?  That has not been part of our tradition thus far, but perhaps you are urging a change . . .  C'mon, Jim.  Spit it out.  Lay it on us.  

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

Prove that they are falsehoods. There must be something that happened since virtually every civilization that has a history has some kind of flood story in it's past. I have seen science be wrong before. So what makes it so that it couldn't possibly be wrong now?

Did you read the link?  You do understand that the church is teaching in a lesson manual printed in 2016 that the flood was universal right?   And you want me to disprove this false claim? Really?

The evidence against the myth of a universal flood is overwhelming while there is not a scintilla of supporting evidence.  But bring it on

read this then convince me they're wrong https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V40N03_95.pdf

Edited August 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, waveslider said:

Prove that they are falsehoods. There must be something that happened since virtually every civilization that has a history has some kind of flood story in it's past. I have seen science be wrong before. So what makes it so that it couldn't possibly be wrong now?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Of course science can be disproven. It it can't it isn't science but it is religion.

A Global Flood is a physical impossibility without a Divine intervention, which makes it a religion.

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

 

 

[waveslider]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Did you read the link?  You do understand that the church is teaching in a lesson manual printed in 2016 that the flood was universal right?   And you want me to disprove this false claim? Really?

The evidence against the myth of a universal flood is overwhelming while there is not a scintilla of supporting evidence.  But bring it on

read this then convince me they're wrong https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V40N03_95.pdf

I just read your link, and although it shows that it is likely not feasible that there was a flood that covered the whole Earth, it doesn't actually prove it. I didn't say I would prove that they aren't falsehoods, but rather put the burden of proof onto you because your are the one who stated:

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly?  Does anyone in the church know that its the year 2016?  That the idea of a universal flood being taught is so arguably and provably false...that doing so is a testimony destroyer for anyone with a brain or a questioning mind willing to test the teaching?

If indeed it is, "provably false," I stand by what I have said:

10 hours ago, waveslider said:

Prove that they are falsehoods. There must be something that happened since virtually every civilization that has a history has some kind of flood story in it's past. I have seen science be wrong before. So what makes it so that it couldn't possibly be wrong now?

I have picked out the meat and potatoes from the viewpoint of your link, that it basis most of it's claims against, yet still admits that it isn't proof if these things can be shown to have happened:

"(water from outer space, shrinking animal size or acceleration of the pace of evolution, massive geological change in the space of weeks, miraculous transportation, special creations after Noah, and so forth)"

I know of studies that show strong evidence of two of these things. Go to this link and splurge the $3.99 for a month subscription: http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

Then click on, "Premium," then scroll down to, "More premium content," and click on, "Starwater," then get caught up on that stuff and you will see how our water actually does come from space, or more accurately from our Sun.

Then to see how massive geological change can happen, you can see the experiments that suggest that there is more to geological formation than what is commonly held as the current standard in mainstream science by clicking on, "Yelverton's Lab," again in the, "Premium," section.

Accelerated evolution has been evidenced in the Cambrian explosion, besides there is no observation of new genetic information being created like evolution says can happen by mutation, only corruption of genetic information. Without God manipulating things it just doesn't happen by chance so what's wrong with miraculous anything happening if God is doing the miracles.

That all said, I don't have any opinions on exactly what happened with the Noah story. Nor how much is symbolic or literal. Perhaps you are right, but then again perhaps you are wrong as well. I haven't ever been that concerned with it enough to study it and get an answer one way or another. I am too busy just trying to master my own personal weaknesses of the flesh and trying to get in line with the Savior's example, to put all the time and effort into proving or disproving something that doesn't even change if I will be able to get back into the presence of our Heavenly Father or not anyway.

I simply am saying it isn't going to be easy to prove or disprove it beyond any doubt based on man's limited knowledge, no matter how sophisticated it may seem to be in the year 2016. The fact is that science isn't perfect knowledge and is subject to change as it tries to explain more and more data, and newer understandings of older data as well. I don't believe God is limited to only being able to create things with extreme amounts of time, especially since He is the creator of the construct we know as time, in this dimension. To be omnipotent and omniscient means that He isn't limited like that, since He is Eternally always present.

So like I said, prove it, then maybe we should be wondering why the leaders don't just come out and admit any wrong beliefs. Perhaps, even as unlikely as it may seem, it isn't wrong after all.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by waveslider
fixed a double negative

[Gray]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

Prove that they are falsehoods. There must be something that happened since virtually every civilization that has a history has some kind of flood story in it's past. I have seen science be wrong before. So what makes it so that it couldn't possibly be wrong now?

Most of the great civilizations rose up near the water, and most would have experienced floods at several points in their history.

In the case of the global flood, it simply isn't possible. There are long-lasting civilizations that both pre and post date the flood. A flood of that magnitude would have left unmistakable evidence on the earth and its peoples.

[Bobbieaware]

10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Did you read the link?  You do understand that the church is teaching in a lesson manual printed in 2016 that the flood was universal right?   And you want me to disprove this false claim? Really?

The evidence against the myth of a universal flood is overwhelming while there is not a scintilla of supporting evidence.  But bring it on

read this then convince me they're wrong https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V40N03_95.pdf

The one all-important and indispensable factor faithless naturalists inevitably leave out of discussions like this one is that God is a God of mighty miracles. You're looking at these issues as if there isn't a God who can, without the use of an agonizingly slow evolutionary process, instantaneously raise billions of deceased human beings from mere dust into glorious immortality; or a God who can, without normal geological processes, rapidly transform this earth into a gigantic Urim and Thummim that will become the blazing eternal abode of the exalted family of God. A God who can effortlessly work such stupendously marvelous miracles as these would find it very easy indeed to immerse the entire earth in water, even if for only a brief moment. 

Questions:

1) Do you believe God will one-day instantaneously raise billions of deceased human beings from dust into glorious immortality?

2) Do you believe God will one-day change this earth into a glorious Urim and Thummim?

3) If you believe the above seemingly highly improbable (to the world) miracles will occur, why do you doubt God could work a similar miracle to produce the great flood?

4) If you don't believe the two aforementioned miracles will occur, why are you wasting your time debating with people who believe in miracles? Do you not see that those who believe in a God of miracles, and those who don't, do not have enough in common to have a meaningful and constructive dialogue?

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The one all-important and indispensable factor faithless naturalists inevitably leave out of discussions like this one is that God is a God of mighty miracles.

Naturalism is, simply described, the modus operandi of God. If you subscribe to the philosophy of Mormonism, you will inevitably be a naturalist. Apparently you don't subscribe to the philosophy of Mormonism. 

[Bobbieaware]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Naturalism is, simply described, the modus operandi of God. If you subscribe to the philosophy of Mormonism, you will inevitably be a naturalist. Apparently you don't subscribe to the philosophy of Mormonism. 

In case you missed it, I specifically refered to FAITHLESS naturalism. Does your preferred form of naturalism embrace the instantaneous miraculous resurrection of billions of the dead from dust to glorious immortality. If so, how does such an anti-naturalistic doctrine fit in to your preferred take on naturalism?

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In case you missed it, I specifically refered to FAITHLESS naturalism. Does your preferred form of naturalism embrace the instantaneous miraculous resurrection of billions of the dead from dust to glorious immortality. If so, how does such an anti-naturalistic doctrine fit in to your preferred take on naturalism?

So you describe yourself as a naturalist? 

I'm sure resurrection from the dead is a theoretically possible, given the right conditions. The flood, however, is not. 

[mnn727]

On 8/7/2016 at 8:43 PM, BCSpace said:

It's official doctrine if found in an official LDS publication 

Once again......no its not. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

So you describe yourself as a naturalist? 

I'm sure resurrection from the dead is a theoretically possible, given the right conditions. The flood, however, is not. 

A naturalist who makes room -- as do all the prophets -- for the God of mighty miracles. 

So you believe it's theoretically possible for God to instantaneously turn mere dust into billions of glorified and immortal human beings, but it isn't theoretically possible for him to momentarily change air molecules into water molecules? Since I would imagine that spontaneously creating billions of incredibly complex immortal human beings from dust is a much more difficult task to perform than it would be to turn molecules of air into molecules of water (as when the Lord turned water into wine), I'm wondering why a naturalist of your sort finds rearranging some air molecules into water is so unbelievable? Is it the volume of water that boggles your mind? Or is it that you believe it's easier for the Lord to resurrect human beings from dust into glorious immortality than it would be for him to temporarily turn air into water?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

In case you missed it, I specifically refered to FAITHLESS naturalism. Does your preferred form of naturalism embrace the instantaneous miraculous resurrection of billions of the dead from dust to glorious immortality. If so, how does such an anti-naturalistic doctrine fit in to your preferred take on naturalism?

In case you missed it Mormonism is a religion based on what God did/will do. Science by definition has to be Agnostic. Individual scientists can believe anything they want.

SEE

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 Galilei  

 

 

 

 

 

 

see

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

In case you missed it Mormonism is a religion based on what God did/will do. Science by definition has to be Agnostic. Individual scientists can believe anything they want.

SEE

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 Galilei  

 

 

 

 

 

 

see

I thought this was a discussion board where the LDS religion is discussed? The LDS religion repeatedly teaches and emphatically testifies that God can work mighty miracles. Am I not supposed to bring up the role of miracles in the LDS religion on an LDS discussion board because some scientifically-minded individuals have come to e religious discussion board to discuss science to the exclusion of religion? 

[thesometimesaint]

I've never said we shouldn't discuss it. That has been going on far longer than the Church has existed. That being said religion is not science. I fully believe that someday they will be fully reconciled, but that day isn't likely to be today. Right now doing such makes hash of both. Also the LDS have a better reconciliation than most.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science

[Gray]

58 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A naturalist who makes room -- as do all the prophets -- for the God of mighty miracles. 

So you believe it's theoretically possible for God to instantaneously turn mere dust into billions of glorified and immortal human beings, but it isn't theoretically possible for him to momentarily change air molecules into water molecules? Since I would imagine that spontaneously creating billions of incredibly complex immortal human beings from dust is a much more difficult task to perform than it would be to turn molecules of air into molecules of water (as when the Lord turned water into wine), I'm wondering why a naturalist of your sort finds rearranging some air molecules into water is so unbelievable? Is it the volume of water that boggles your mind? Or is it that you believe it's easier for the Lord to resurrect human beings from dust into glorious immortality than it would be for him to temporarily turn air into water?

It's might be possible to derive water from air (even simple condensation can do that). But given the physical state of the earth today and the development of human civilization, it's not possible in any meaningful sense of the word that there was a global flood any time in human history. The reason for that is the same reason why it's not possible that aliens cut the moon in half and took their half away to another galaxy. Simply put, if that had happened, we would have half a moon, and we don't. 

Similarly, the earth would look a lot different than it does today if we'd had a global flood. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Gray

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Naturalism is, simply described, the modus operandi of God. If you subscribe to the philosophy of Mormonism, you will inevitably be a naturalist. Apparently you don't subscribe to the philosophy of Mormonism. 

The modus operandi of God is, the He just speaks the words and it is done, period. This leaves the rest of us to try and figure out the actual mechanics of how things got set in order by Him, so we come up with hypothesis, and theory as we try to asses the limited amount of data we have, in a forensic type of way. This is at best an imperfect method for discerning the truth, and it is impossible to ever gain all truth from such a method, since there are things that just can't be tested scientifically. If we don't believe that God just speaks and things just obey His command, then we are only left to bash our heads against a wall in an, "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the turth," scenario.

How does naturalism explain the basket of fish and loaves of bread feeding so many people, or the raising of someone who has been dead for days on end. The healing of lame and blind people, etc.? There is a lot more natural things than science admits to, and because of missing data, and even wrong interpretations of data science is still blind to true naturalism thus far.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

costed 5 hours ago (edited) · Report post

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Did you read the link?  You do understand that the church is teaching in a lesson manual printed in 2016 that the flood was universal right?   And you want me to disprove this false claim? Really?

The evidence against the myth of a universal flood is overwhelming while there is not a scintilla of supporting evidence.  But bring it on

read this then convince me they're wrong https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V40N03_95.pdf

I just read your link, and although it shows that it is likely not feasible that there was a flood that covered the whole Earth, it doesn't actually prove it. I didn't say I would prove that they aren't falsehoods, but rather put the burden of proof onto you because your are the one who stated:

19 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly?  Does anyone in the church know that its the year 2016?  That the idea of a universal flood being taught is so arguably and provably false...that doing so is a testimony destroyer for anyone with a brain or a questioning mind willing to test the teaching?

If indeed it is, "provably false," I stand by what I have said:

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

Prove that they are falsehoods. There must be something that happened since virtually every civilization that has a history has some kind of flood story in it's past. I have seen science be wrong before. So what makes it so that it couldn't possibly be wrong now?

I have picked out the meat and potatoes from the viewpoint of your link, that it basis most of it's claims against, yet still admits that it isn't proof if these things can be shown to have happened:

"(water from outer space, shrinking animal size or acceleration of the pace of evolution, massive geological change in the space of weeks, miraculous transportation, special creations after Noah, and so forth)"

I know of studies that show strong evidence of two of these things. Go to this link and splurge the $3.99 for a month subscription: http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

Then click on, "Premium," then scroll down to, "More premium content," and click on, "Starwater," then get caught up on that stuff and you will see how our water actually does come from space, or more accurately from our Sun.

Then to see how massive geological change can happen, you can see the experiments that suggest that there is more to geological formation than what is commonly held as the current standard in mainstream science by clicking on, "Yelverton's Lab," again in the, "Premium," section.

Accelerated evolution has been evidenced in the Cambrian explosion, besides there is no observation of new genetic information being created like evolution says can happen by mutation, only corruption of genetic information. Without God manipulating things it just doesn't happen by chance so what's wrong with miraculous anything happening if God is doing the miracles.

That all said, I don't have any opinions on exactly what happened with the Noah story. Nor how much is symbolic or literal. Perhaps you are right, but then again perhaps you are wrong as well. I haven't ever been that concerned with it enough to study it and get an answer one way or another. I am too busy just trying to master my own personal weaknesses of the flesh and trying to get in line with the Savior's example, to put all the time and effort into proving or disproving something that doesn't even change if I will be able to get back into the presence of our Heavenly Father or not anyway.

I simply am saying it isn't going to be easy to prove or disprove it beyond any doubt based on man's limited knowledge, no matter how sophisticated it may seem to be in the year 2016. The fact is that science isn't perfect knowledge and is subject to change as it tries to explain more and more data, and newer understandings of older data as well. I don't believe God is limited to only being able to create things with extreme amounts of time, especially since He is the creator of the construct we know as time, in this dimension. To be omnipotent and omniscient means that He isn't limited like that, since He is Eternally always present.

So like I said, prove it, then maybe we should be wondering why the leaders don't just come out and admit any wrong beliefs. Perhaps, even as unlikely as it may seem, it isn't wrong after all.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by waveslider
fixed a double negative

Forgive my archaic formatting...I've been relegated to Purgatory and limited to I think 12 posts a day.  However your post deserved a reply so I'm going to shower YOU with a reply...(Feel Blessed) and if by chance I don't immediately respond it is because I've used up my limited allotment of daily posts.

Please give me a simple answer to this question.  Take the single genera Oncorhynchus mykiss, better know as a Rainbow Trout...it is a very common variety of fish that thrives in our Utah mountain lakes and steams.  But unlike its distant cousin the Salmon, if place in sea water, quickly perishes.  So my question is this, Magic aside....How exactly did this fresh water fish survive YOUR global flood and then reintroduce itself back in to the exact eco system in which it survives? Noting that even a small increase in saline within the fresh water will bring on death to these fish...how exactly did they survive?  Now times that by the MILLIONS of other unique animals each with their own unique eco systems from which if removed would perish and explain how exactly each of them survived your global flood.  Do this without the aid of magic...and you may have a new convert.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly?  Does anyone in the church know that its the year 2016?  That the idea of a universal flood being taught is so arguably and provably false...that doing so is a testimony destroyer for anyone with a brain or a questioning mind willing to test the teaching?  I just find it sad that the church can't/won't disavow such a doctrine when it flies in the face of reality and science and everything we know about the earth we live on.

This is just sad that in 2016 they are still teaching these falsehoods as truth.

Well the positive is any member can disagree with such things without repercussion.