The enemies of the Church are wrong again

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Noah is a good example of your point.  Noah's story can still teach us lessons and be meaningful in our lives even though we now know it can't be literally true.

Speak for yourself.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Speak for yourself.

Really?  You believe all the details are literally true?  Noah and his family built a ship that housed two of every creature for 40 days while the entire surface of the earth was covered in water?

[cinepro]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Really?  You believe all the details are literally true?  Noah and his family built a ship that housed two of every creature for 40 days while the entire surface of the earth was covered in water?

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the story of Noah was taught as being global and literally true, as it is every four years.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the story of Noah was taught as being global and literally true, as it is every four years.

How else did the Bible's storied peoples go from America where Adam had lived to that dusty land in the mid east?  

 

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the story of Noah was taught as being global and literally true, as it is every four years.

Wow.  Okay.  I didn't think that was still a thing... at least not outside of primary.

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In our Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, the story of Noah was taught as being global and literally true, as it is every four years.

Was there any discussion against a literal global flood and an ark carrying two (or was it seven?) pairs of every animal?

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

Uh, I think you might be overstating a bit.

It's fine to say you don't think the final battles happened in upper-state New York.  It's fine to say that you don't think the drumlin near Palmyra is the "Hill Cumorah" mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  But it's a little facile to pretend there was never any reason for anyone to suppose they were.

I'll just give one reason.  In the mid-1970s, a member of the First Presidency stood in General Conference and said the following:

You may suggest that the church members who listened to this declaration should have known he was totally mistaken about the location of these battles and the "hill Cumorah."  But having a member of the First Presidency declare as much (confirmed by his own "personal witness") in General Conference might be considered at least a sliver beyond "any reason" for many Church members to believe something.

I'll add that Romney's claim was also supported by countless other statements and curriculum over the decades, as well as a plain reading of the Book of Mormon itself.  The reasons for believing that the final battles took place in upper-state New York were numerous and commonly found, and taught without controversy, for generations of LDS.  

That is all certainly true, cinepro, and all of it done with the best of intentions.  Reminds me of the strong feelings engendered by the so-called "Garden Tomb" in Jerusalem -- the favorite of both Protestants and Mormons. Yet that beautiful, peaceful place is very unlikely to have been the burial place of Christ.  I know of several other geographical correlations which are mistaken in Mormon folklore.  One can have authentic spiritual experiences at such "wrong" locations, just as many of us have authentic spiritual experiences during an endowment session -- which is not conducted in the authentic spot of the original Garden of Eden. 

My point was simply that there is no real reason to consider that hill convenient to Manchester to be the famed Hill Cumorah.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert,  I don't see how the observations of a 18th century French explorer is evidence. Other explorers claimed to find Noah's ark, but Noah's ark is no longer on Earth. 

Those were his personal observations, and they comport with the elephantine practice of going to die at specific locations where there are many bones of others.  Then too, the stories of elephants told by Amerinds is very helpful.  Comes under the heading of ethnohistory.

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Very interesting Robert. 4,000 years is from the Jaradite period. Do you have a reference for surviving mammoths  in mesoamerica?

1953? I thought science was always changing and improving, so how can we know it is still true? Do the bones date to Jaradite times? If the bones date to Jaradite times I would love to see a reference.

The point is that elephantine beasts were still around in North America in Jaredite times, something always denied heretofore.  The bones in Loltun Cave are still around, but they only show that elephantine beasts could live in that semi-tropical area.  The upshot of all that evidence is that estimates on the final extinction of them has always been too early.  Way too early.

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

How do you know? There was a great flood in the Old World known as Noah's flood. How do you know there was not another great flood in Mesoamerica? How do you know the Book of Mormon cities are not underwater in the gulf of Mexico?

There is no geologic evidence for the flood you suggest.  That has nothing to do with Noah's Flood, which takes place long before the Jaredites leave the Great Tower.  You need to get your chronology straight.

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

If that is the case, then ignore the child. Don't go down to his level.

You might want to follow your own advice, Sam.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Really?  You believe all the details are literally true?  Noah and his family built a ship that housed two of every creature for 40 days while the entire surface of the earth was covered in water?

I believe in the historicity of Noah and the event, just as I believe in a historical Adam and Eve.
But just as with Adam and Eve I consider it likely that some allegory is part of the story, specifically where "two of every creature" is concerned.
But I also believe in a global flood despite what current scientific thought on the idea says.  Primarily because I believe in the symbolism of the flood as baptism, just as I anticipate the baptism of fire, death and resurrection that the earth will undergo (Revelation 21:1, D&C 130:9 etc).

 

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe in the historicity of Noah and the event, just as I believe in a historical Adam and Eve.
But just as with Adam and Eve I consider it likely that some allegory is part of the story, specifically where "two of every creature" is concerned.
But I also believe in a global flood despite what current scientific thought on the idea says.  Primarily because I believe in the symbolism of the flood as baptism, just as I anticipate the baptism of fire, death and resurrection that the earth will undergo (Revelation 21:1, D&C 130:9 etc).

 

Hey JLHPROF, i'm curious what is your take on Adam living in Amerca, then sometime afterward everyone in the biblical story ended up in the mid east?  Would you say another result of the flood?  Just curious as I weigh this out.  I do believe that is the theory most advocated within Church, or has been over the years.  

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

My point was simply that there is no real reason to consider that hill convenient to Manchester to be the famed Hill Cumorah.

My point is that you are seriously downplaying all the real reasons LDS consider that hill to be nothing less than the one-and-only Hill Cumorah.  And to be clear, in the LDS Church, a member of the First Presidency teaching something in General Conference is, in and of itself, a "real reason" to believe something.

But if all of the statements made by Prophets and Apostles based on their reading of the scriptures,  and the teachings of official Church publications through decades, are not "real reasons", then it would almost be a fair summary to simply say there is no real reason to believe anything the LDS Church teaches. 

Instead,  it would just be simpler to teach the members to just believe whatever they want and pretend that that's what the Church leaders teach (or would teach if they only knew as much as I do).  Honestly, that already appears to be how many LDS (myself included) maintain sanity in in the pews, so we should just be honest about what everyone is doing.

Edited February 26, 2018 by cinepro

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Was there any discussion against a literal global flood and an ark carrying two (or was it seven?) pairs of every animal?

No.  The teacher talked about how big the ark was, and about how Noah had to gather two of every animal on the planet to save them (and more of certain animals) and "how hard that must have been!"  Also, about how Noah and his family were the only people left on the planet after the flood, and how daunting that must have been to start over.

This is how the manual wants it to be taught, so it's no surprise.  The bigger surprise is that after all these years, the Church still sticks to the literal reading of the story, and that so many LDS apparently tell themselves that there is some other version (limited or allegorical) that correlates with the literal, global version.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Hey JLHPROF, i'm curious what is your take on Adam living in Amerca, then sometime afterward everyone in the biblical story ended up in the mid east?  Would you say another result of the flood?  Just curious as I weigh this out.  I do believe that is the theory most advocated within Church, or has been over the years.  

Either a result of the flood (Gen 9:19) or something to do with Peleg (Gen 10:25) or Babel (Gen 11:2, 8).

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Hey JLHPROF, i'm curious what is your take on Adam living in Amerca, then sometime afterward everyone in the biblical story ended up in the mid east?  Would you say another result of the flood?  Just curious as I weigh this out.  I do believe that is the theory most advocated within Church, or has been over the years.  

Oh duh...all these years I have never even thought of this...wow...this just doesn't work.

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Either a result of the flood (Gen 9:19) or something to do with Peleg (Gen 10:25) or Babel (Gen 11:2, 8).

 

Why?   Is there a house of Israel to gather...or should we just scatter them all from hell to breakfast...and find them again?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh duh...all these years I have never even thought of this...wow...this just doesn't work.

The idea is  I believe held by some that Noah starts on this continent, but with the Ark travels to the MidEast...either as a major local or global flood taking him out to the ocean by going down the Mississippi or off of North Carolina, pushing him over east or the continents are still connected until Peleg so not that much travel.

Probably works as well as anything more traditional.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Calm

[Sevenbak]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

How else did the Bible's storied peoples go from America where Adam had lived to that dusty land in the mid east?  

 

 

I find it impossible to discuss the LDS teachings of a global flood without also talking about the LDS view of Peleg, shortly after the flood.  Noah really didn't have to travel that far to the middle east before the continents were divided.   

The traditional LDS view:  https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/03/gondwanaland-what-it-means-to-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

 

“He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

“And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.” (D&C 133:21–24.)

 

Additional references to this from prophets.

"That it comes to open the way for Zion to rise and put on her beautiful garments and become the glory of the earth, that her land may be joined, or married (according to the known translation of Isaiah) to Jerusalem again, and they be one as they were in the days of Peleg."   - Joseph Smith

 

"But after the flood, in the days of Peleg, the earth was divided.—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form."  - John Taylor

 

There were not an Eastern and Western Hemisphere at the time of Adam. It is very strange, but nevertheless true, that some of the greatest events that have occurred on the face of the earth have been passed over in the Bible with the slightest mention; for example, in Genesis 10:25 , we read: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his day was the earth divided.” - Joseph Fielding Smith

 

"...The atheist said, Why, it is preposterous for you to say that you believe in a Bible that teaches about a creation when the land was together and the water was all together.” Then he read to the missionary from the Book of Genesis, and continued, Now look at the earth. Here it is divided into many parts and oceans between. How will you explain the inconsistency in this?”

Well, the missionary did not have the answer, but he bowed his head and silently prayed, Heavenly Father, give me your Spirit to tell me what to say.” Then he raised his tear-stained face, and up above the audience, at the back of the hall, he read these words: Genesis 10:25. In the days of Peleg the earth was divided.” Never in the world had he ever read this scripture. He did not know it was in the Bible, but he saw it there on the wall, and he was able to respond, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to the atheist’s question.   - Harold B. Lee

Edited February 26, 2018 by Sevenbak
Edit to add a few more references.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

My point is that you are seriously downplaying all the real reasons LDS consider that hill to be nothing less than the one-and-only Hill Cumorah.  And to be clear, in the LDS Church, a member of the First Presidency teaching something in General Conference is, in and of itself, a "real reason" to believe something.

But if all of the statements made by Prophets and Apostles based on their reading of the scriptures,  and the teachings of official Church publications through decades, are not "real reasons", then it would almost be a fair summary to simply say there is no real reason to believe anything the LDS Church teaches. 

That's the all or nothing fallacy.  The general authorities are not infallible, and fiat is not identical with truth.  All of us are obligated to use whatever knowledge we have to evaluate any sort of claims, using both spiritual and rational means.  That is the Mormon way, despite the tendency among all of us just to go along to get along, or to participate in group think.  All of us are fallible.  We need to be humble, but also not to go into paroxysms of denial anytime we hear what purports to be the straight scoop (pro or con).

Just like this board, our Church has from the outset been a place in which a variety of strong points of view have been expressed, being variously denied all the while by some members and anti-Mormons.  Even the general authorities have been unable to agree with one another.  Which POV is correct?  Each one must decide for himself, perhaps at the same time questioning his own capacity to make such a decision.

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Instead,  it would just be simpler to teach the members to just believe whatever they want and pretend that that's what the Church leaders teach (or would teach if they only knew as much as I do).  Honestly, that already appears to be how many LDS (myself included) maintain sanity in in the pews, so we should just be honest about what everyone is doing.

I think that you are wrong.  "Everyone" is not doing that.  Most members go along with whatever they are told, and do not have the knowledge requisite to make some complex decisions on their own.  I don't normally say anything about my specific opinions on some items, only because the members wouldn't understand what I am saying anyhow.  In fact, my views are not essential to their salvation, and harmless ignorance is bliss.  I try to be supportive of my fellow members, only rarely disagreeing with what is said in class.  If I can't say something nice, I try not to say anything at all.

Of course, debate on this board is a very different matter.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Do you realize you went from being offended by the critics of the Megalopolis findings to saying:

I  didn't say Megalopolis is a Book of Mormon city. I replied to rnp when he told me Megalopolis dates after the book of mormon. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no geologic evidence for the flood you suggest.  That has nothing to do with Noah's Flood, which takes place long before the Jaredites leave the Great Tower.  You need to get your chronology straight.

How do you know there was not another flood after the Book of Mormon? Just because there is no geological evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, the scientists say the same thing about flood of Noah.  

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The point is that elephantine beasts were still around in North America in Jaredite times, something always denied heretofore.

North America is a continent.  To impress the enemies of the church we need to prove mammoths existed in Mesoamerica during Jaradite times.
 

Edited February 27, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

 

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My money is actually now on autism which is why I am nicer to him than I would be anyone else posting like this.

Juliann made some similar points, but no one accused her of autism. Why only me?

Quote

This brings me back to the days when one of the proofs against the BOM was that there just weren't enough people for as many deaths as the BOM claimed. And one more anti-BOM defense bites the dust.   I find it interesting that the cries for proof still ascend but not once have I ever seen these critics acknowledge how many of their talking points have been quietly dropped, never to be admitted to again. I still remember the ZLMB days when they were insisting that their were no great civilizations when the Nephites arrived, it all happened later. Then the timeline changed.  I've said this for a long time, somebody should be keeping track of all of their oops! because their entire premise rests on their blind faith that the discovering has all been done. And they do not admit to what they used to insist was proof against the BOM.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70180-scientists-find-massive-society/

Edited February 27, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

I find it impossible to discuss the LDS teachings of a global flood without also talking about the LDS view of Peleg, shortly after the flood.  Noah really didn't have to travel that far to the middle east before the continents were divided.   

The traditional LDS view:  https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/03/gondwanaland-what-it-means-to-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

 

 

It should be noted that the history of the continents on the Earth is written in the millions of years.  The idea that the single land mass (Pangaea) broke apart to form the modern continents sometime in the last few thousand years is geologically absurd (and perhaps one of the most far-fetched interpretations of Earth's history being taught in Church publications).

Quote

As the surface continually reshaped itself over hundreds of millions of years, continents formed and broke apart. They migrated across the surface, occasionally combining to form a supercontinent. Roughly 750 million years ago, the earliest-known supercontinent Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600 to 540 million years ago, then finally Pangaea, which broke apart 200 million years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth

The "division" in the days of Peleg is more probably referring to political divisions.  Biblical writers wouldn't even have a frame of reference for a "division" of the continents.

[Sevenbak]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It should be noted that the history of the continents on the Earth is written in the millions of years.  The idea that the single land mass (Pangaea) broke apart to form the modern continents sometime in the last few thousand years is geologically absurd (and perhaps one of the most far-fetched interpretations of Earth's history being taught in Church publications).

The "division" in the days of Peleg is more probably referring to political divisions.  Biblical writers wouldn't even have a frame of reference for a "division" of the continents.

Orson Pratt answers this charge head on.  No one can say it better...

“Then let no person suppose that all the great events that will hereafter transpire upon the surface of land and sea, have got to take place by reason of some slow progressive changes, occupying hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years, according to the ideas of modern geologists. Can they show the way the Lord can govern and control these things, bringing about events, in the course of a very short time, that perhaps would take millions of years to accomplish by the mere progressive changes, such as are recognized by geologists?...

... Geologists say it would take some millions of years to effect any changes of the earth in regard to the location of its continents and islands, and a great number of intelligent readers are inclined to this belief. But there is a God who will disappoint them all, who will show forth his power, causing the earth to rock to and fro like a drunken man; a God whose power is able to cause the mountains to be cast down, and the valleys to come up.”  - Orson Pratt

(JD 18:314)

[Sevenbak]

I would add that a reading of these events in D&C 133 in no way sounds like continental drift.  From the sound alone it will produce, its sounds more like continental swift.  

22 And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found.
23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

[Rajah Manchou]

43 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It should be noted that the history of the continents on the Earth is written in the millions of years.  The idea that the single land mass (Pangaea) broke apart to form the modern continents sometime in the last few thousand years is geologically absurd (and perhaps one of the most far-fetched interpretations of Earth's history being taught in Church publications).

The "division" in the days of Peleg is more probably referring to political divisions.  Biblical writers wouldn't even have a frame of reference for a "division" of the continents.

Contemporaries of Joseph Smith did argue for a division of the continents in the days of Peleg. Rafinesque, in his own translation of Native American scriptures, said:



Just replace Snake Tribes with Jaredites and we're not too far off. Especially considering the account in Ether of a narrow neck of drought stricken "burnt land" being separated from the Promised Land by a narrow neck that was blocked off by snakes.