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

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

Not if there was a worldwide flood and then the Lord topped it off (meant to be taken literally) by turning the air into water for a nanosecond. The required baptismal immersion of the earth in water could be accomplished just that fast, and the omniscient and omnipotent God, who turned water into wine and miracuously multiplied the loaves and the fishes, could easily do this without leaving behind  a single trace of the action. Doing something like this would be exceedingly easy for the almighty God to do. And if one believes there actually is an omniscient and omnipotent God, then there should be no surprise that he could do such a thing. Question: If the Lord turned the atmosphere of the earth into water for a millionth of a second, would there be any evidence of such an action left behind?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Not if there was a worldwide flood and then the Lord topped it off (meant to be taken literally) by turning the air into water for a nanosecond. The required baptismal immersion of the earth in water could be accomplished just that fast, and the omniscient and omnipotent God, who turned water into wine and miracuously multiplied the loaves and the fishes, could easily do this without leaving a trace of the action behind. Doing something like this would be exceedingly easy for the almighty God to do. And if one believes there actually is an omniscient and omnipotent God, then there should be no surprise that he could do such a thing. Question: If the Lord turned the atmosphere of the earth into water for a millionth of a second, would there be any evidence of such an action left behind?

Accept that the Bible claims it took 40 days and 40 nights, then about a year to drain. 

BTW Anytime you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work, it isn't science, but it is religion.

[bcuzbcuz]

26 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Not if there was a worldwide flood and then the Lord topped it off (meant to be taken literally) by turning the air into water for a nanosecond. The required baptismal immersion of the earth in water could be accomplished just that fast, and the omniscient and omnipotent God, who turned water into wine and miracuously multiplied the loaves and the fishes, could easily do this without leaving behind  a single trace of the action. Doing something like this would be exceedingly easy for the almighty God to do. And if one believes there actually is an omniscient and omnipotent God, then there should be no surprise that he could do such a thing. Question: If the Lord turned the atmosphere of the earth into water for a millionth of a second, would there be any evidence of such an action left behind?

Are you saying that God performs miracles, then leaves someone to tell the story but erases all evidence of the occurrence?

By the same measure I could say that God transformed me into a lizard and then back again, before you could see it, but I'm here to tell you it really happened. You need to read "Lucky Luke Against the Daltons"

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Not if there was a worldwide flood and then the Lord topped it off (meant to be taken literally) by turning the air into water for a nanosecond. The required baptismal immersion of the earth in water could be accomplished just that fast, and the omniscient and omnipotent God, who turned water into wine and miracuously multiplied the loaves and the fishes, could easily do this without leaving behind  a single trace of the action. Doing something like this would be exceedingly easy for the almighty God to do. And if one believes there actually is an omniscient and omnipotent God, then there should be no surprise that he could do such a thing. Question: If the Lord turned the atmosphere of the earth into water for a millionth of a second, would there be any evidence of such an action left behind?

How would this wipe out land animals and humanity?

[BCSpace]

10 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Once again......no its not. 

Once again, it is.  See your Bishop or Stake President or take a teacher prep class, etc.  Even better, take what the LDS Church says about it's own doctrine at face value.

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Once again, it is.  See your Bishop or Stake President or take a teacher prep class, etc.  Even better, take what the LDS Church says about it's own doctrine at face value.

Bring on the Cockatrice

[bcuzbcuz]

17 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Once again, it is.  See your Bishop or Stake President or take a teacher prep class, etc.  Even better, take what the LDS Church says about it's own doctrine at face value.

This is just too good an opportunity to let pass. Your defintion of doctrine, please CFR

[thesometimesaint]

The latest addition of the Bible is Scripture/Doctrine. No Scripture, or published opinion of the Church, that I know of, repudiates the Cockatrice. Therefore not everything in the Scriptures is doctrine.

[BCSpace]

18 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

This is just too good an opportunity to let pass. Your defintion of doctrine, please CFR

Isn't it amazing how some, such as yourself, refuse to go to Church sources for the definition of the Church's doctrine?

I don't have a definition of my own.  I follow the Church's own definition summarized on the Church's official website linked to in my siggy below.  Already some in this thread have incompletely quoted it to justify their anti-LDS stance on doctrine.

Edited August 13, 2016 by BCSpace
Addendum

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

Isn't it amazing how some, such as yourself, refuse to go to Church sources for the definition of the Church's doctrine?

I don't have a definition of my own.  I follow the Church's own definition summarized on the Church's official website linked to in my siggy below.  Already some in this thread have incompletely quoted it to justify their anti-LDS stance on doctrine.

Your reference in your siggy doesn't work. I went to, and read the church site but you're going to need to define your point far more precisely than saying the point you're making is hidden somewhere in a page. Give specific quotes, articles sited, sentences detailed before you meet the qualifications of this CFR. So far your response is sloppy.

[Freedom]

On 8/10/2016 at 7:49 AM, cynth said:

Yes, and the difference is entirely generated by statements like the above and is fully contained in your insertion of the word 'only' in the last line, which no one in this thread was arguing, and which makes this really a non-argument.  No one is disagreeing with you that when words such as 'printed on acid-free paper' are found in a manual, it doesn't mean 'printed on acid-free paper' is considered doctrine.

 

 

The problem is, BC Space is arguing this. His position that everything printed in the manuals is doctrine. I am saying that the manuals do contain doctrine, and those doctrines are gleaned from the sources mentioned numerous times; the scriptures the proclamations ect. Any quote that cannot be verified from the doctrinal sources are interpretations but not doctrines. They may even represent the churches current position on the matter, but they are not doctrine. 

[Freedom]

On 8/10/2016 at 0:45 PM, cinepro said:

 

And if you're going to argue that they missed the mark in a specific instance, it would probably be good to have something better than "I don't agree with it" to back up such a suggestion.

Well, if you have been reading my posts you would know what my support is. If it is not backed up by the scriptures, official proclamations or declarations, then it is not doctrine and I can therefore disagree with it. 

[jkwilliams]

12 hours ago, Freedom said:

The problem is, BC Space is arguing this. His position that everything printed in the manuals is doctrine. I am saying that the manuals do contain doctrine, and those doctrines are gleaned from the sources mentioned numerous times; the scriptures the proclamations ect. Any quote that cannot be verified from the doctrinal sources are interpretations but not doctrines. They may even represent the churches current position on the matter, but they are not doctrine. 

The key phrase is "consistently proclaimed." When I worked for the church, it was emphasized that Correlation is designed to ensure that church publications are consistent with church doctrine. So, the publication isn't doctrine per se but doesn't conflict with established doctrine. Thus, "printed on acid-free paper" isn't doctrine but doesn't contradict it, either. 

[salgare]

If I understand the thinking of the upcoming Nuanced Mormonism, there is no such thing as Mormon Doctrine.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox

Under the "Full Definition":

"a :  conforming to established doctrine especially in religion"

Is my understanding a leap based on this (common among other dictionaries as well) definition, that orthodoxy equals doctrine?

It is a vehemently held believe by Nuanced Mormons that there is NO orthodoxy in the Church.

Is their objection perhaps based on the "Simple Definition"?

" accepted as true or correct by most people : supporting or believing what most people think is true"

i.e. the Objective aspect of including "most people"?

Or is their objection more subtle where if the first letter is capitalized it refers to Orthodox Christians or Orthodox Jews?

To simplify my question do Nuanced Mormons believe there is any Doctrine in the Mormon Church?

Edited August 14, 2016 by salgare

[thesometimesaint]

22 minutes ago, salgare said:

If I understand the thinking of the upcoming Nuanced Mormonism, there is no such thing as Mormon Doctrine.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox

Under the "Full Definition":

"a :  conforming to established doctrine especially in religion"

Is my understanding a leap based on this (common among other dictionaries as well) definition, that orthodoxy equals doctrine?

It is a vehemently held believe by Nuanced Mormons that there is NO orthodoxy in the Church.

Is their objection perhaps based on the "Simple Definition"?

" accepted as true or correct by most people : supporting or believing what most people think is true"

i.e. the Objective aspect of including "most people"?

Or is their objection more subtle where if the first letter is capitalized it refers to Orthodox Christians or Orthodox Jews?

To simplify my question do Nuanced Mormons believe there is any Doctrine in the Mormon Church?

We're not, nor have we ever been scriptural literalists. I know that drives our Evangelical friends nuts. They'll just have to get over it.

I prefer the term LDS doctrine.  

[theplains]

On 11/08/2016 at 9:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.  

Read carefully what I said.  It does not mean what you infer  :-)

Jim

[Bobbieaware]

On August 12, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Calm said:

How would this wipe out land animals and humanity?

If you will remember, I said the Lord had the power and ability to "top-off" an already cataclysmically destructive world-wide flood, and this that the earth might be fully baptized by immersion . But my main point is that the Lord God is omniscient and omnipotent and that the so-called learned men of the world are foolish to underestimate his almighty power. I happen to believe the Lord when he said that "with God ALL THINGS" are possible, including instantaneously raising billions of the dead from dust to immortal glory without having to use organic evolution to accomplish the feat.

[BCSpace]

22 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Your reference in your siggy doesn't work. I went to, and read the church site but you're going to need to define your point far more precisely than saying the point you're making is hidden somewhere in a page. Give specific quotes, articles sited, sentences detailed before you meet the qualifications of this CFR. So far your response is sloppy.

Don't know what to tell you if you can't get past the Church's own statement which summarizes a variety of other statements.

Ironically, I was actually in a teacher prep class this very day attended by about 20 people in the ward.  I held my peace all the way through as the Stake Sunday School President led the discussion (I've taught a few of these myself).  At the end, he held up a variety of publications; Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith by JET.  BRM's Mormon Doctrine, an Ensign, Gospel Principles, The Friend, JFS's Doctrines of Salvation, a variety of lesson manuals, a variety of books by Apostles not published by the Church, etc. and asked the group "Is this doctrine?" for each one and why or why not.

I wasn't surprised when the group correctly answered "Yes, published by the Church." or "No, not published by the Church" (a few had to have the SSSP open the to the title page to see for sure).

It is ONLY on this, and few other obscure boards and blogs, where you'll see ostensibly active members of the LDS Church deny it's own statements about what is and is not doctrine.  You won't see that in any type of official Church setting.

[rodheadlee]

On 8/12/2016 at 10:30 AM, Gray said:

 

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

Then why does every culture have a flood myth?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Then why does every culture have a flood myth?

It's a safe bet most cultures have experienced floods. 

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Then why does every culture have a flood myth?

I know there are a lot of flood myths out there, but I wonder if every culture has one.

I am also wondering if there is any culture out there who hasn't in their deep heritage where religious myths are generally found had a massive flood somewhere somewhen.

[Calm]

Here is a collection of them, though I haven't lokked at specifics to see how accurate he is (he may miss important nuances due to lack of familiarity with the local culture and knowledge of other myths may influence his interpreations).  I probably am not familiar enough with most of them to be a good judge:

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

[Johnnie Cake]

On August 12, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Bobbieaware said:

Not if there was a worldwide flood and then the Lord topped it off (meant to be taken literally) by turning the air into water for a nanosecond. The required baptismal immersion of the earth in water could be accomplished just that fast, and the omniscient and omnipotent God, who turned water into wine and miracuously multiplied the loaves and the fishes, could easily do this without leaving behind  a single trace of the action. Doing something like this would be exceedingly easy for the almighty God to do. And if one believes there actually is an omniscient and omnipotent God, then there should be no surprise that he could do such a thing. Question: If the Lord turned the atmosphere of the earth into water for a millionth of a second, would there be any evidence of such an action left behind?

I guess if you suspend the laws that govern nature, science and everything, then anything is possible. But wouldn't that standard make every religion's truth claims true? If we suspend every law than anything and everything is possible.  

[Steve Thompson]

Quote

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I know there are a lot of flood myths out there, but I wonder if every culture has one.

I am also wondering if there is any culture out there who hasn't in their deep heritage where religious myths are generally found had a massive flood somewhere somewhen.

The ancient Egyptians did not have a "flood myth" as it is understood here.  The Nile flooded every year, and the flood was necessary to Egypt. When the Egyptians offended the gods they sent searing heat to destroy mankind, not a flood.  

 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Then why does every culture have a flood myth?

As JK Williams points out, most cultures have experienced floods.