Answers from Reason & From Emotion

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think I'll ever get used to this. When I was a missionary we were always talking about the "stone cut without hands" to refer to exponential growth of the church. 

Maybe the Nephi prophecy was added to the BoM after your mission? 

 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe the Nephi prophecy was added to the BoM after your mission? 

 

No one needed to reach for that one because everyone knew the church was growing faster and faster  

When there is a prophesy for every possible outcome, we should begin to understand that no one can really predict the future.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

This plays out a lot like how FairMormon handles the Adam God issue and how the church hanles the BOA issue in the essay.  You give out more than one possibility in spite of all possibilities having flaws.  Whenever someone rasiies a question about 'A'  you simply point them to 'B' as a solution.  When 'B' fails you point them to 'C' then 'D' and then eventually back to 'A'.  the trouble is when the Church is growing like crazy we pull  out the Stone cut without hands and the "It is only a little handfull of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.’"  When it is not growing or shrinking we speak as if we never should have expected as much and use scriptures to show it.  

I should say that I can see how both sets of scripture can be true at the same time.  The trouble is the way they have been used.  They are used to compel belief in the prophetic as if we were supposed to be the "fastest growing church"  or  "A Church of so very few".  The Church can always play whichever card it wants and it can be a win win.

I have to give you credit for that last paragraph, but that is true of everything in life.  It's all interpretation- there are no facts independent of how we interpret them

What most don't see is that THIS THREAD and all the dozens like it on this board RIGHT NOW ARE exactly the reason we can still be the "stone cut without hands.

Most now think this way.

We are on the road.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

No one needed to reach for that one because everyone knew the church was growing faster and faster  

When there is a prophesy for every possible outcome, we should begin to understand that no one can really predict the future.

Perhaps you can provide a prophecy that contradicts Nephi's? He says the church will fill the earth, but it's numbers will be small. This is precisely what is happening.

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

This plays out a lot like how FairMormon handles the Adam God issue and how the church hanles the BOA issue in the essay.  You give out more than one possibility in spite of all possibilities having flaws.  Whenever someone rasiies a question about 'A'  you simply point them to 'B' as a solution.  When 'B' fails you point them to 'C' then 'D' and then eventually back to 'A'.  the trouble is when the Church is growing like crazy we pull  out the Stone cut without hands and the "It is only a little handfull of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.’"  When it is not growing or shrinking we speak as if we never should have expected as much and use scriptures to show it.  

I should say that I can see how both sets of scripture can be true at the same time.  The trouble is the way they have been used.  They are used to compel belief in the prophetic as if we were supposed to be the "fastest growing church"  or  "A Church of so very few".  The Church can always play whichever card it wants and it can be a win win.

Here's the card I prefer to play. It sums up the situation quite well. 

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/13/2016 at 1:31 PM, DBMormon said:

 -  I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets.  And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. 

If there is one thing to which all LDS prophets and scriptures stand shoulder to shoulder it is their persistent and unambiguous testimony of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the past and future resurrection of all mankind. It is the "qualifier" for the calling of an LDS apostle/prophet. Do you find them not up to this task? 

If I understand your premise correctly - that anything which is not empirically provable must be rejected and that all such things that distinguish Mormonism must be eliminated to prevent further embarrassment - then why do you hope for resurrection? I understand it would be hard to make a clean break and let that foundational item go, but it clearly falls into the category of mandatory expendables. Are you calling on the apostles and prophets to renounce their testimonies of the resurrection?

If not, this seems inconsistent with your life's work to debunk and secularize Mormonism. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps you can provide a prophecy that contradicts Nephi's? He says the church will fill the earth, but it's numbers will be small. This is precisely what is happening.

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

Prophesy can be interpreted any way you like (for instance, the "whore" referenced in this prophesy was once understood to refer to the Catholic church, but is now interpreted differently). But the Daniel prophesy was interpreted to mean that the church (aka the kingdom of God) would grow and grow and grow until it filled the earth. It wasn't that long ago - I think given the average age on this board most of us probably remember that, right?

Heck, this interpretation and others like it were given only five years ago in GC:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-time-shall-come?lang=eng

 

Quote

Daniel was a Hebrew slave in Babylon. He was given the opportunity to interpret King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Daniel asked God to reveal to him the dream and its interpretation, and his prayer was answered. He told Nebuchadnezzar, “There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. … The visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these.” Daniel said the king had seen a frightening image with a head, torso, arms, legs, and feet. A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands and rolled forth, gradually growing in size. That stone collided with the image, breaking it into pieces, “and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.”

Daniel explained that the image represented future political kingdoms and that “in the days of [those future] kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: … but it shall break” these kingdoms into pieces and consume them. “And it shall stand for ever.”1

 

Quote

In 1898, President Wilford Woodruff recounted an experience he had as a new member in 1834 at a priesthood meeting in Kirtland. He related: “The Prophet called on all who held the Priesthood to gather into the little log school house they had there. It was a small house, perhaps 14 feet [4.3 m] square. … When we got together the Prophet called upon the Elders of Israel … to bear testimony of this work. … When they got through the Prophet said, ‘Brethren I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it. … It is only a little handfull of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.’”4

 

 

 

Quote

A verse in the Book of Mormon provides a key to the miraculous growth of the Church today: “And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”7

 

Quote

There are 23 stakes of Zion in Buenos Aires today, with dozens of stakes and tens of thousands of Church members in cities and towns across Argentina. Now there are well over 600 stakes and several million Church members throughout South America. While we watch, the kingdom of God is filling the continent, and the name of Joseph Smith is being published both by us and by his detractors in countries he may never even have heard of during his lifetime.

There are nearly 3,000 stakes in the worldwide Church today, from Boston to Bangkok and from Mexico City to Moscow. We are approaching 29,000 wards and branches. In many countries there are mature stakes, with members whose ancestors were converts. In others, small groups of new members meet as tiny Church branches in rented houses. Every year the Church spreads farther and farther across the globe.

These prophecies about filling the world and being known world over: Preposterous? Perhaps. Unlikely? Undoubtedly. Impossible? Emphatically no. It is happening before our eyes.

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Prophesy can be interpreted any way you like (for instance, the "whore" referenced in this prophesy was once understood to refer to the Catholic church, but is now interpreted differently). But the Daniel prophesy was interpreted to mean that the church (aka the kingdom of God) would grow and grow and grow until it filled the earth. It wasn't that long ago - I think given the average age on this board most of us probably remember that, right?

Heck, this interpretation and others like it were given only five years ago in GC:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-time-shall-come?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember the quotes and statements and such that you've spoken about, but I never believed nor felt led to interpret it to mean that we would have a lot of members.  More just that the knowledge of the church would fill the earth and that the opportunity to be a member and gain the blessings would fill the earth.  We would certainly gain members while that was happening but in relation to other belief systems, i don't remember being taught or teaching that ours would eventually take over.

I served my mission in 98-99 so i'm not sure how my timeline matches up with yours though.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I remember the quotes and statements and such that you've spoken about, but I never believed nor felt led to interpret it to mean that we would have a lot of members.  More just that the knowledge of the church would fill the earth and that the opportunity to be a member and gain the blessings would fill the earth.  We would certainly gain members while that was happening but in relation to other belief systems, i don't remember being taught or teaching that ours would eventually take over.

I served my mission in 98-99 so i'm not sure how my timeline matches up with yours though.

I served starting in 2002. I definitely got the impression that we were supposed to become a major force on the religious stage. As far as individual denominations go, I suppose we're pretty big, but as far as a religious category, we're pretty tiny. 

You know, I think the newer narrative is probably better anyway. Jesus talked about his followers as being the "leaven" (bits of yeasty dough) that would raise the whole "lump". I think he definitely saw his movement as a small part of the whole. 

[DBMormon]

Since I am quite unaware of philosophy and knowing such a field would fix everything.... I have begun an intro course into philosophy and will see what happens after that (I guess the un-examined life isn't worth living).  That said I still feel compelled to hold the ground I am holding as I don't see philosophy solving my conundrum.  let me explain.

Surely God if he is real and he is the Christian God as the scriptures and our faith describe him, then he is capable of miracles.  So I am not arguing that a global flood is out of the possibility for such a God.  The issue for me is it is so unreasonable and absurd as to not be believable to me.   When I take several issues all pointing to "truth" in something say for instance If the Book of Mormon is historical, then when I see all roads leading to Rome (leading to the conclusion that it is not historical) then I personally feel compelled to not hold ground I see as deeply problematic and unreasonable. Let me list why.  So lets just work with the Flood.  People above are building straw men in terms of what I am arguing or what I am unaware of in terms of ways to reconcile such.

#1 miracles of supernatural type seem only to occur before there was verifiable history (video footage, reporters at the scene who are unconnected to perpetuating the event and other forms of media and evidence.   God talking to his prophet and raining down fire, sending she bears to eat his critics, striking another dumb or deaf, healing paraplegics and giving them their limbs back - these simply do not occur as verifiable miracles.  Again you may argue this all you want but this simply doesn't happen in ways the world could verify so we are left with a different kind of miracles (for the believer these are suffcient, for the doubter he is unable to reconcile this as he sees examples of miracles today as not miracles at all in the supernatural sense)  

#2 the logistical problems of the Flood - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html   - This link explains way better than I could but the miracle of a global flood is far bigger than having water cover the earth.  

#3 once you engage "higher criticism" of the bible (not my words but what the field is labeled), you come realize most biblical scholars and most "experts" share the view that these are just fictional myths with perhaps some crumb of truth but so embellished and exaggerated as to be unreconizeable from the truth.  And at worst completely made up.

#4 geologists and other scientists are almost completely agreed that a global flood is contrary to the evidence - earth's crust, fossil record, etc....

When you add these up a global flood is so improbable that one would (in my mind) either have to have blind faith (believe in spite of evidence), ignorant faith (unaware of the evidence), or believe differently (local flood or believe it is a fictional myth but reconcile that as to allow belief in the restoration).

For those who take the last option, a local flood also has its deep theological problems (in my mind) (cinepro has named these before in another thread). one of which is that Jesus himself in 3rd Nephi mentions the flood (3rd Nephi 22:9).

So in my mind, I have little choice but to believe the global flood is a fictional myth.  That a local flood does not solve the problem.  And connecting this with a handful of other issues (tower of babel and others I mentioned) am left to hold the Book of Mormon as scripture but not as historical.  

So for mfbukowski and others please rather than leveraging a philosophical answer that never addresses the question (Which I honor may solve the issue for you) would you please answer the following.

1.) Do you believe in a literal global flood? if yes than stop here as that is enough for me to know where you stand.... though if you wish you can tell me why you find the evidence against as lacking and what evidence you see in favor of a global flood. (I will say the reasoning of God said so holds little weight with me as I just don't see scripture as the literal words of God though it does contain the word of God... aka: Christ)

2.) If No then Do you believe in a local Flood perhaps of the greatest local flood size ever seen.  That is fine and lets me know where you stand.  Speaking for myself this simply doesn't work for me.

3.) If some other way... figurative or another paradigm and perhaps you have some philosophical answer for this, could you write it out in Layman's terms how you make this work.  Act like I am your friend and you want to kindly walk me through how you make this work.

Thank You.  I am trying here to be kind and respectful myself.  We can argue that I am wrong.  That is fine.  I am not saying I am right, only that this is the only way at present my mind can process this and other issues.  I welcome a dialogue where folks walk me through how their reconciliation is more reasonable or if they believe in-spite of contradictory evidence being stronger, or saying the evidence against is stronger but their spiritual experience trumps such secular evidence.

thanks

Bill


 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

No one needed to reach for that one because everyone knew the church was growing faster and faster  

When there is a prophesy for every possible outcome, we should begin to understand that no one can really predict the future.

It's not as if the prophecy of Nephi is hidden away in obscurity. Nephi's panoramic vision of the birth and mortal ministry of the Savior and of the latter days is a highly important part of the Book of Mormon. As is made clear in the account of the vision, he saw the same things that John the Revelator saw, but it was left to John to write the account of much of the vision. The account of Nephi's vision and the Book of Revelation thus go hand in hand. In fact, next to the account of the visit by the resurrected Christ to the Nephites, I personally would count this panoramic vision of Nephi as the most important part of the Book of Mormon, because it has such timely application to us and what we're doing in our day. I see it being fulfilled each and every day of my life, just by observing current affairs in the world.

And the notion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will reach numerical dominance in the world at any time prior to the millennial reign of Christ conflicts sharply with the wording in the account of Nephi's vision, that the church of the Lamb of God would have a global presence but that its numbers would be (relatively) few by reason of the influence of Satan and his followers.

From my reading and study of the scriptures and Church doctrine and history, I have long since concluded that the prophecy of Daniel pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar's dream will not have its perfect fulfillment until after Christ comes to reign in glory, the wicked have been destroyed and Satan has been bound. The task before the Church right now is to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ by establishing a global presence in the world, albeit not one that we can expect will amount to numerical dominance. It's more along the lines of established stakes of Zion, temples and temple ordinances, missionary work and the gospel message being accessible to anyone in the world who will receive them or who desires to feel after them. That is the aspect of Daniel's vision -- and Nephi's vision -- that is being fulfilled right now.

Just because one misunderstands or misinterprets the scriptures, that is no justification for the cynical conclusion that "there is a prophecy for every possible outcome."

Edited October 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Prophesy can be interpreted any way you like (for instance, the "whore" referenced in this prophesy was once understood to refer to the Catholic church, but is now interpreted differently). But the Daniel prophesy was interpreted to mean that the church (aka the kingdom of God) would grow and grow and grow until it filled the earth. It wasn't that long ago - I think given the average age on this board most of us probably remember that, right?

Heck, this interpretation and others like it were given only five years ago in GC:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-time-shall-come?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing in any of the quotes you have provided here states or sustains the notion the Church of the devil in Nephi's vision is to be regarded as the Catholic Church. I don't know if that's what you meant to imply, but if it isn't, you ought to clarify your intent.

 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not as if the prophecy of Nephi is hidden away in obscurity. Nephi's panoramic vision of the birth and mortal ministry of the Savior and of the latter days is a highly important part of the Book of Mormon. As is made clear in the account of the vision, he saw the same things that John the Revelator saw, but it was left to John to write the account of much of the vision. The account of Nephi's vision and the Book of Revelation thus go hand in hand.

And the notion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will reach numerical dominance in the world at any time prior to the millennial reign of Christ conflicts sharply with the wording in the account of Nephi's vision, that the church of the Lamb of God would have a global presence but that its numbers would be (relatively) few by reason of the influence of Satan and his followers.

From my reading and study of the scriptures and Churcbh doctrine and history, I have long since concluded that the prophecy of Daniel pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar's will not have its perfect fulfillment until after Christ comes to reign in glory, the wicked have been destroyed and Satan has been bound.

Not hidden away, but perhaps not interpreted the way it's being interpreted now. But prophesy is a bit of a Rorschach test - everyone comes away seeing something different.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-time-shall-come?lang=eng

 

 

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just because one misunderstands or misinterprets the scriptures for a time, that is no justification for the cynical conclusion that "there is a prophecy for every possible outcome."

What outcome do you think couldn't be supported by prophesy? 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nothing in any of the quotes you have provided here states or sustains the notion the Church of the devil in Nephi's vision is to be regarded as the Catholic Church.

I like B.H. Roberts's comment on reading the Catholic Church into the Book of Mormon's church of the devil: (paraphrased) If this church of the devil is and only is the Catholic church, this leaves us with a host of other churches that we can't categorize.  

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nothing in any of the quotes you have provided here states or sustains the notion the Church of the devil in Nephi's vision is to be regarded as the Catholic Church. I don't know if that's what you meant to imply, but if it isn't, you ought to clarify your intent.

 

Yes, that's what I meant. That's the meaning I drew as a seminary kid, which was bolstered by Elder McConkie's interpretation. Obviously that interpretation has since been disavowed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's what I meant. That's the meaning I drew as a seminary kid, which was bolstered by Elder McConkie's interpretation. Obviously that interpretation has since been disavowed. 

Well, the quotes you provided don't say that. Did you mean to imply that they do?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not hidden away, but perhaps not interpreted the way it's being interpreted now. But prophesy is a bit of a Rorschach test - everyone comes away seeing something different.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-time-shall-come?lang=eng

 

 

 

It seems very clearly worded to me: the church would be over all the face of the earth but its numbers would be few -- pretty much how things stand today. I don't understand why you think that is so prone to misinterpretation.

 

Quote

What outcome do you think couldn't be supported by prophesy? 

First of all, I've been tolerant up to now, but the word you are trying to use here is spelled with a c, not an s. Prophecy, not prophesy. They are two separate words that differ in pronunciation and meaning as well as spelling. One is a noun; the other is a verb.

Now then, I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you really mean to imply that anything could be supported by prophecy?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I served starting in 2002. I definitely got the impression that we were supposed to become a major force on the religious stage. As far as individual denominations go, I suppose we're pretty big, but as far as a religious category, we're pretty tiny. 

You know, I think the newer narrative is probably better anyway. Jesus talked about his followers as being the "leaven" (bits of yeasty dough) that would raise the whole "lump". I think he definitely saw his movement as a small part of the whole. 

If I remember correctly, 2002 was during or not long after a period of sensationalism over the predictions of non-Mormon sociologist Rodney Stark that Mormonism would become the next major world faith. He projected, based on numbers then current, that the Church would achieve then-undreamed-of growth in membership -- about 265 million by the year 2080.

I think some, perhaps many, folks got caught up in irrational exuberance from Stark's predictions (he's not even a Church member, let alone a prophet) and failed to carefully consider what the scriptures do and do not say.

Furthermore, when Church leaders talk about the growth and progress of the Kingdom of God, I think it should be borne in mind that the work includes what is to happen during Christ's millennial reign as well as before it.

The Council of Fifty, established in the Nauvoo era of Church history, was meant, among other things, to be a prototype of the political government that would exist during Christ's millennial reign, indicating Joseph Smith's belief that there is a lot to happen after Christ's Second Coming.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, the quotes you provided don't say that. Did you mean to imply that they do?

 

No, the quotes were not meant to support the idea that the church of the devil is the Catholic church. They were meant to support the idea of rapid church growth as prophesied by ancient prophets. 

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

I like B.H. Roberts's comment on reading the Catholic Church into the Book of Mormon's church of the devil: (paraphrased) If this church of the devil is and only is the Catholic church, this leaves us with a host of other churches that we can't categorize.  

Perhaps this is what you are referring to:

 

Quote

 

Excerpts from    
    B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints,  Vol.1, pp. 26-34

    “Among the things important for the Saints of God to understand, among the things important for the world to understand respecting the Latter-day Saints, is the relationship that we sustain to the religious world; and I do not know that there is anything to which I could devote the few minutes at my disposal to better advantage than in pointing out that relationship, if I can obtain, through your faith and mine, the liberty that comes from the possession of the Spirit of the Lord.
    . . . This descriptive phrase, "the church of the devil," is also  used in the Book of Mormon; and while in attendance at a conference in one of the border stakes of Zion, a question was propounded to me in relation to its meaning. The passage occurs in the writings of the first Nephi. An angel of the Lord is represented as saying to Nephi, "Behold, there are save two churches only: the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil." The question submitted to me was, "Is the Catholic church the church here referred to--the church of the devil ? .... Well," said I, in answer, "I would not like to take that position, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not then be able to classify." So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue in the Roman Catholic church as there is in Protestant Christendom; and I am sure there is more strength.
    . . . I would not like; therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context--with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the. Chapter in which the expression is found--then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term "the Kingdom of Evil" as Constituting the church of the devil, in proof of which I submit the following passage from the Book of Mormon---covering both the text and the context on the subject: [cites references]
    . . . I understand the injunction to Oliver Cowdery to "contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil," to mean that he should contend against evil, against untruth, against all combinations of wicked men. They constitute the  church of the devil, the kingdom of evil, a federation of unrighteousness; and the servants of God have a right to contend against that which is evil, let it appear where it will, in Catholic or in Protestant Christendom, among the philosophical societies of deists and atheists, and even within the Church of Christ, if, unhappily, it should make its appearance there. But, let it be understood, we are not brought necessarily into antagonism with the various sects of Christianity as such. So far as they have retained fragments of Christian truth--and each of them has some measure of truth--that far they are acceptable unto the Lord; and it would be poor policy for us to contend against them without discrimination. Wherever we find truth, whether it exists in complete form or only in fragments, we recognize that truth as part of that sacred whole of which the Church of Jesus Christ is the custodian; and I repeat that our relationship to the religious world is not one that calls for the denunciation of sectarian churches as composing the church of the devil. All that makes for untruth, for unrighteousness constitutes the kingdom of evil--the church of the devil. All that makes for truth, for righteousness, is of God; it constitutes the kingdom of righteousness--the empire of Jehovah; and, in a certain sense at least, constitutes the Church of Christ. With the latter--the kingdom of righteousness--we have no warfare. On the contrary both the spirit of the Lord's commandments to his servants and the dictates of right reason would suggest that we seek to enlarge this kingdom of righteousness both by recognizing such truths as it possesses and seeking the friendship and co-operation of the righteous men and women who constitute its membership.

 

 

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems very clearly worded to me: the church would be over all the face of the earth but its numbers would be few -- pretty much how things stand today. I don't understand why you think that is so prone to misinterpretation.

That's not how it was interpreted in the talk I linked to, though. They were talking about actual growth in numbers, not just geographic dispersion. 

 

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

First of all, I've been tolerant up to now, but the word you are trying to use here is spelled with a c, not an s. Prophecy, not prophesy. They are two separate words that differ in pronunciation and meaning as well as spelling. One is a noun; the other is a verb.

Thanks, I know the difference. I was just typing and submitting too quickly. 

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Now then, I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you really mean to imply that anything could be supported by prophecy?

Yes, because any prophesy can be interpreted a number of different ways. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's not how it was interpreted in the talk I linked to, though. They were talking about actual growth in numbers, not just geographic dispersion. 

  

But what if the time frame in which these things are to occur is understood to mean not just up to the beginning of the millennium but on through to the end of Christ's thousand-year reign?

Does that make a difference in how we are to understand the speaker?

Quote

Yes, because any prophesy can be interpreted a number of different ways.

Suppose I were to assert flatly that the devil will triumph over Christ in the end and that all humankind will end up subject to the devil and that there is nothing anybody or anything can do about it. I think one would be hard-pressed to find a prophecy of the scriptures that could even be reasonably spun to suggest such a thing.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Since I am quite unaware of philosophy and knowing such a field would fix everything.... I have begun an intro course into philosophy and will see what happens after that (I guess the un-examined life isn't worth living).  That said I still feel compelled to hold the ground I am holding as I don't see philosophy solving my conundrum.  let me explain.

Surely God if he is real and he is the Christian God as the scriptures and our faith describe him, then he is capable of miracles.  So I am not arguing that a global flood is out of the possibility for such a God.  The issue for me is it is so unreasonable and absurd as to not be believable to me.   When I take several issues all pointing to "truth" in something say for instance If the Book of Mormon is historical, then when I see all roads leading to Rome (leading to the conclusion that it is not historical) then I personally feel compelled to not hold ground I see as deeply problematic and unreasonable. Let me list why.  So lets just work with the Flood.  People above are building straw men in terms of what I am arguing or what I am unaware of in terms of ways to reconcile such.

#1 miracles of supernatural type seem only to occur before there was verifiable history (video footage, reporters at the scene who are unconnected to perpetuating the event and other forms of media and evidence.   God talking to his prophet and raining down fire, sending she bears to eat his critics, striking another dumb or deaf, healing paraplegics and giving them their limbs back - these simply do not occur as verifiable miracles.  Again you may argue this all you want but this simply doesn't happen in ways the world could verify so we are left with a different kind of miracles (for the believer these are suffcient, for the doubter he is unable to reconcile this as he sees examples of miracles today as not miracles at all in the supernatural sense)  

#2 the logistical problems of the Flood - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html   - This link explains way better than I could but the miracle of a global flood is far bigger than having water cover the earth.  

#3 once you engage "higher criticism" of the bible (not my words but what the field is labeled), you come realize most biblical scholars and most "experts" share the view that these are just fictional myths with perhaps some crumb of truth but so embellished and exaggerated as to be unreconizeable from the truth.  And at worst completely made up.

#4 geologists and other scientists are almost completely agreed that a global flood is contrary to the evidence - earth's crust, fossil record, etc....

When you add these up a global flood is so improbable that one would (in my mind) either have to have blind faith (believe in spite of evidence), ignorant faith (unaware of the evidence), or believe differently (local flood or believe it is a fictional myth but reconcile that as to allow belief in the restoration).

For those who take the last option, a local flood also has its deep theological problems (in my mind) (cinepro has named these before in another thread). one of which is that Jesus himself in 3rd Nephi mentions the flood (3rd Nephi 22:9).

So in my mind, I have little choice but to believe the global flood is a fictional myth.  That a local flood does not solve the problem.  And connecting this with a handful of other issues (tower of babel and others I mentioned) am left to hold the Book of Mormon as scripture but not as historical.  

So for mfbukowski and others please rather than leveraging a philosophical answer that never addresses the question (Which I honor may solve the issue for you) would you please answer the following.

1.) Do you believe in a literal global flood? if yes than stop here as that is enough for me to know where you stand.... though if you wish you can tell me why you find the evidence against as lacking and what evidence you see in favor of a global flood. (I will say the reasoning of God said so holds little weight with me as I just don't see scripture as the literal words of God though it does contain the word of God... aka: Christ)

2.) If No then Do you believe in a local Flood perhaps of the greatest local flood size ever seen.  That is fine and lets me know where you stand.  Speaking for myself this simply doesn't work for me.

3.) If some other way... figurative or another paradigm and perhaps you have some philosophical answer for this, could you write it out in Layman's terms how you make this work.  Act like I am your friend and you want to kindly walk me through how you make this work.

Thank You.  I am trying here to be kind and respectful myself.  We can argue that I am wrong.  That is fine.  I am not saying I am right, only that this is the only way at present my mind can process this and other issues.  I welcome a dialogue where folks walk me through how their reconciliation is more reasonable or if they believe in-spite of contradictory evidence being stronger, or saying the evidence against is stronger but their spiritual experience trumps such secular evidence.

thanks

Bill


 

 

 

I personally think that it is likely the flood was a local phenomenon.

When whoever first wrote the account, I don't think that when they said "earth", they were referring to a planet, or that they had an idea about lands they did not see or did not trade with.

I think Nibley makes sense. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=997&index=1

he points out that Noah couldn't have seen the whole earth, because why would he have need to send the birds out if he could already see everything?

The story of the flood takes a few paragraphs in the scriptures.   There is no way such an event could be completely described in so few words.  I know that there has to be more to the story. I also know that I am not likely to get the whole story in this life.  I am OK with this.  The exact nature of the events described in Genisis do not seem to me to be important.  I can see the hand of God in a global or a local flood.  I have seen the hand of God in much smaller events.  It isn't really the size of the event that makes a "miracle".

For me personally, it doesn't really matter if it was Global or Local. I see it is Local, because that is the way the story, as written, makes the most sense to me.  If I get more knowledge, I may change my mind.  

 

I can see why you think a global flood is beyond your experience but why don't you believe in a local flood?   They happen all of the time (around where I live). There is plenty of evidence of very large floods in the not too distant past as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I see Daniel's prophecy of the stone cut out of the mountain without hands as having two phases of fulfillment.

The first phase lasts up to the Second Coming of Christ. We are in that phase right now. During this phase, the stage is being set with the establishment of a global presence for the Church of Jesus Christ, in accordance with what Nephi saw in vision, with growth of the Church being hindered by the devil and his followers.

The second phase will come after the Second Coming, when the wicked will have been destroyed, Satan will have been bound and Christ will have come to reign personally on the earth. It is then that we will see rapid and exponential growth in the church of the Lamb of God, with the Kingdom of God breaking down and consuming all earthly kingdoms, in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel.

It is all a grand sequence of events. We err when we assume a too-narrow or too-early end of the timeline for that sequence.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

On 10/16/2016 at 3:55 PM, Bob Crockett said:

Part of your problem in communication is that you resort frequently to jargon.  Perhaps it could be said instead that a belief in the Divinity of Jesus and in a resurrection requires faith that can't be learned from excommunicants with podcasts.   Whereas I respect what they have to say, in the end, it comes down to a metaphysical relationship with the Holy Spirit.

are you referring to John Dehlin or are you assuming I have been excommunicated?  Which I have not by the way.  So far no local leader or GA has asked me to be silent.  I keep my Bishop and Stake president aware of what I do with the podcast ( they each have listened to my work) and I have been in contact with seventies and apostles regarding my thoughts and approach as well.  I am not saying they are comfortable or approve though they haven't said they uncomfortable or disapprove.  Just that no one with stewardship has told me I am wrong and inaccurate or that I need to cease for some other reason.  And other than one leader higher than me, they haven't high fived me or told me good job either.  They are aware and have stayed essentially out of it one way or another. nothing has been said....  zilch.  And last I checked folks here who are critical are big on respecting those who hold stewardship and have the mantle of authority for that which they have been given keys.

Edited October 17, 2016 by DBMormon