Was Noah Really a "Preacher of Righteousness"?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You haven't yet responded to my posts, and you have made a number of false statements, all the while fallaciously personifying the LDS Church.  I asked you to cite your sources, and a few quotes wouldn't hurt.  You obviously haven't done your homework yet.  Can't have a real discussion if you are unprepared to engage the issues.

That seems in general to be his approach- hit and run.

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is much more complicated than that, stemelbow.  There are multiple Flood Stories in the ancient world, most of them earlier than the biblical one, and they all share many points in common.  It is impossible that they are not related to one another.  The biblical writers are not witnesses to such an ancient event, and have no idea whether any of the particulars are correct.  They are merely passing the story on in a form that is familiar to them.  The archetypal meaning which the story has is its main importance.  The facts are lost in the mists of time.  The same applies to the various Creation Stories, as well as to the variant stories of the Life of Christ:

We need to adopt much broader and more sophisticated views of ancient Scripture, none of which was composed by professional historians under the rules of modern historiography.  We need to understand such literature in proper context.

I think I largely agree, Robert, Thanks.  I didn't mean to suggest my brief summary couldn't be considered with more detail and complication.  I find myself a bit fascinated by the weaving of myth and scripture, even if I'm not completely up to snuff on the matter.  

[Marginal Gains]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are anthropomorphizing the Church, which is a fallacy.  The Church doesn't get things right or wrong.  People inside a Church might get things right or wrong, and we need to specify which items some Church members got right and which they got wrong.  When we name them, and cite out sources, we may make some marginal gains in understanding just what the facts are.  There is, for example, no official LDS position on when the Great Deluge occurred.  Indeed, the LDS "Bible Dictionary" published by the Church pooh poohs such a notion (see under "Chronology").

One thing that might help you in your appraisal is to take seriously the words I quoted from Book of Mormon Central about the variant stories of creation, the life of Christ, etc.  You need to engage the fact that ancient prophets have given us mutually irreconcilable parallel accounts of such events.  Sometimes it is helpful to sit in on local university courses on biblical literature (such courses are also available online).

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron?lang=eng

LDS Chronology placing the flood after 4000BCE but before 1,000BCE.

The only teaching I can find anywhere on lds.org about the flood is what I stated it was - literal, and global. Here’s an example...

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/09/the-gospel-and-the-scientific-view-how-earth-came-to-be?lang=eng

That teaching is used consistently across every education programme of the Church - seminary, institute etc. I don’t accept any appeal to Book of Mormon Central with regards to official Church positions because...

Quote

Book of Mormon Central is not an official part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/about

Now, can you point me in the direction of an official Church doctrinal source that specifically acknowledges the flood of Noah could have been something other than literal, global and wiping out all of humanity accept the people on the boat with Noah?

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Couldn't the fall, which also affected the earth, be a valid answer for why the earth would need baptism?

The fall affected innocent children, who, explicitly do not need baptism before the age of accountabilty.  That was another of McGuire's points.  When does the Earth become accountable? What covenants were broken and when?  Jeremiah observes that the earth and nature obeys, but Israel does not.  Lehi observes that there are beings that act, and things that are acted upon.  It is important to remember that we don't really need to argue for the complete immersion of the earth because while that thinking has a presence in Mormon culture, it did not originate in Mormon culture.  So we don't need to invest in it.  Nothing is at stake unless we choose to bet on it.  But we don't have to bet on it because the cards aren't from our deck, don't have a place in our hands, and we don't even need to sit that table with those who play that game.  It's only LDS who picked up cards from other people's decks, games, and tables who have a stake.   It's completely unnecessary.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Michael Sudworth]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are anthropomorphizing the Church, which is a fallacy. 

With all due respect to your monumental intellect and scholarly presence, I think the Lord disagrees.

"The Church", after all, is the only true and living Church on the face of the Earth.  To suggest that the Church is neither true nor false is postmodern nonsense. 

[Michael Sudworth]

16 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ben McGuire pointed out the baptism of the earth speculation was circulating in Protestant circles long before we showed up. And he asks 'When did the earth sin so that it requires baptism?'

When did Jesus sin so that he required Baptism? To suggest Baptism is *only* necessary to cleanse sin is completley non-scriptural.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Michael Sudworth

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

When did Jesus sin so that he required Baptism? To suggest Baptism is *only* necessary to cleanse sin is completley non-scriptural.

Children, for instance, are baptised into the Church at the point they reach the age of accountability and who are, therefore, sinless.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Kevin Christensen]

8 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

When did Jesus sin so that he required Baptism? To suggest Baptism is *only* necessary to cleanse sin is completley non-scriptural.

Jesus accepted his accountability.  That is, he is one who acts deliberately, aware of obligation and consequence. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen 

Canonsburg 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The fall affected innocent children, who, explicitly do not need baptism before the age of accountabilty.  That was another of McGuire's points.  When does the Earth become accountable? What covenants were broken and when?  Jeremiah observes that the earth and nature obeys, but Israel does not.  Lehi observes that there are beings that act, and things that are acted upon.  It is important to remember that we don't really need to argue for the complete immersion of the earth because while that thinking has a presence in Mormon culture, it did not originate in Mormon culture.  So we don't need to invest in it.  Nothing is at stake unless we choose to bet on it.  But we don't have to bet on it because the cards aren't from our deck, don't have a place in our hands, and we don't even need to sit that table with those who play that game.  It's only LDS who picked up cards from other people's decks, games, and tables who have a stake.   It's completely unnecessary.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I can see what McGuire is saying, but the reason that innocent children don't need baptism is because God has decreed that the Atonement will cover them automatically.  And, they do need baptism once they are 8, even though the difference in innocence/sinfulness between a 7 year old and an 8 year old (essentially the difference of a single day) is negligible or nonexistent. Given that, it the earth could become accountable at whatever point God declared it accountable, just like happens with innocent children, couldn't it?

And, there are other Mormon doctrines and teachings that did not originate in Mormon culture but which we still consider to be true.  Since that is the case, I'm not really sure why 'didn't originate in mormonism' is that convincing on it's own.  Also, do protestants believe that the earth is a living thing that needs to be baptized?  From my understanding, that is one reason LDS (in general) believe the earth must be baptized. 

(Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the doctrine of baptism of the earth must be true.  I'm just highlighting some questions I have with McGuire's conclusions).

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Jesus accepted his accountability.  That is, he is one who acts deliberately, aware of obligation and consequence. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen 

Canonsburg 

I also seems that Jesus was baptized because it was a commandment and therefore had to be followed whether He was sinless or not.

[Robert F. Smith]

53 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

With all due respect to your monumental intellect and scholarly presence, I think the Lord disagrees.

"The Church", after all, is the only true and living Church on the face of the Earth.  To suggest that the Church is neither true nor false is postmodern nonsense. 

So, just like the U.S. Supreme Court declaration that corporations are persons (Citizens United), you have religious organizations getting up on their hind legs and walking around and doing everything that individual persons do.  That is nonsense.  I realize that most people talk in that fashion, but that doesn't make it valid.  If you were to tell me that the Church of Christ is the Body of Christ, I would have no objection.  Why?  Because the "Church" in that instance is the full congregation of the faithful believers.  That does not make it an individual person, and the Body of Christ is not therefore infallible, and does not have infallible opinions -- nor opinions of any kind.  Even when the Church is divided among those members who are truly faithful, and those who are not (the City of God versus the City of Man, all in one single City), it is clearly not an infallible Church.  The long tradition of the Congregation of Israel has always been one of obedience at times and disobedience at other times.  Only God can pass judgement on those failures and those successes, which you seem to conveniently overlook.

If you are saying that a particular person heads a particular church organization, and you claim that such a person is the authentic High Priest of God, and that he is God's chief Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, I am with you on that, but it does not make that Church organization a person that walks and talks.  The fallacy still obtains. If that HP is also the called and sustained President of the High Priesthood of such a religious organization, and is associated with a number of other high priests and prophets, that makes perfect sense to me.  In each case we can name the persons who fill those offices, and we can quote their stated views. If they promulgate official Church policies, we can read about those as well.

Thus, whether we are speaking of Moses, Samuel, or Joseph Smith, the assertion is that such a divinely chosen prophetic figure heads the Church organization is not a problem, but certainly does not make the chosen people of God in aggregate a single person who walks and talks.  Of course, we sometimes speak of this or that religious organization as being the "true Church."  The Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem, for example, will declare what they have always maintained, that the full Congregation of Israel (all Jews worldwide) is the chosen people of God.  If a goy (gentile) wants to convert to Judaism, they will accommodate him (I have had friends do so in Jerusalem).  So too, the Roman Catholic Church asserts that it is the only true and living Church on the Earth, and that the Pope is the Deputy of God on Earth.  I respect those opinions.  For me, however, the only true and living Church is the LDS Church and I sustain its leadership and fully accept the LDS Canon of Scripture.

What we do on this board, Mike, is to discuss what that means, and we all presumably learn something in the process.  I know that I have, and am grateful for the opportunity.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron?lang=eng

LDS Chronology placing the flood after 4000BCE but before 1,000BCE.

False.  You need to go back and look at it again.  It has the Flood sometime before 4000BC, but does not say when.

You also conveniently overlook the words introducing the chronology chart:

Quote

For the earliest parts of Old Testament history we rely entirely on the scripture itself; but the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint or Greek translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch do not agree together, so that many dates cannot be fixed with certainty. From the time of David onwards we get much assistance from secular history, such as inscriptions on monuments and other state records. Much work has still to be done in this direction. The dates found at the top of many printed English Bibles are due to Archbishop Ussher (1581–1656). Some of them have been shown to be incorrect.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

The only teaching I can find anywhere on lds.org about the flood is what I stated it was - literal, and global. Here’s an example...

You can certainly ignore the statements of knowledgeable general authorities, if you wish,  such as Apostle John Widtsoe.  You can also ignore all the scriptural citations which I provided, instead of engaging in a discussion of them, but that is a fundamentally dishonest approach to the question.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

..........................................................That teaching is used consistently across every education programme of the Church - seminary, institute etc. I don’t accept any appeal to Book of Mormon Central with regards to official Church positions because...

You can also ignore all the scriptural citations provided to you by Book of Mormon Central if you wish.  It is your choice to put your head in the sand instead of addressing those issues.  You can't even make marginal gains with such a policy.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

...............................................Now, can you point me in the direction of an official Church doctrinal source that specifically acknowledges the flood of Noah could have been something other than literal, global and wiping out all of humanity accept the people on the boat with Noah?

You really ought to consider the LDS Canon of Scripture as normative in this discussion.  You seem to reject it out of hand, rather than have your fairy faith called into question.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Can you show me where the Church, not humans expressing personal opinions, allows for the flood of Noah to be anything other than literal, global, wiping out all but eight of the entire human race that populated the planet when it happened?

The church does not have a mouth nor can it type.   I know that is an odd idea for you.  If the church office building had a moving mouth, it could cause serious damage to the building not to mention the people inside.

God has to rely on fallible humans for stuff like speaking and writing.    Worst of all, those fallible humans use fallible human language to express truths which are non-linguistic.

It's a definite problem, but that's the way God designed it.  Gosh I wonder why?   Like maybe so that we get to take it on faith and prove it in our own hearts, as if that was part of His plan?

Nah, that would be too logical.

 

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, just like the U.S. Supreme Court declaration that corporations are persons (Citizens United), you have religious organizations getting up on their hind legs and walking around and doing everything that individual persons do.  That is nonsense.  I realize that most people talk in that fashion, but that doesn't make it valid.  If you were to tell me that the Church of Christ is the Body of Christ, I would have no objection.  Why?  Because the "Church" in that instance is the full congregation of the faithful believers.  That does not make it an individual person, and the Body of Christ is not therefore infallible, and does not have infallible opinions -- nor opinions of any kind.  Even when the Church is divided among those members who are truly faithful, and those who are not (the City of God versus the City of Man, all in one single City), it is clearly not an infallible Church.  The long tradition of the Congregation of Israel has always been one of obedience at times and disobedience at other times.  Only God can pass judgement on those failures and those successes, which you seem to conveniently overlook.

If you are saying that a particular person heads a particular church organization, and you claim that such a person is the authentic High Priest of God, and that he is God's chief Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, I am with you on that, but it does not make that Church organization a person that walks and talks.  The fallacy still obtains. If that HP is also the called and sustained President of the High Priesthood of such a religious organization, and is associated with a number of other high priests and prophets, that makes perfect sense to me.  In each case we can name the persons who fill those offices, and we can quote their stated views. If they promulgate official Church policies, we can read about those as well.

Thus, whether we are speaking of Moses, Samuel, or Joseph Smith, the assertion is that such a divinely chosen prophetic figure heads the Church organization is not a problem, but certainly does not make the chosen people of God in aggregate a single person who walks and talks.  Of course, we sometimes speak of this or that religious organization as being the "true Church."  The Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem, for example, will declare what they have always maintained, that the full Congregation of Israel (all Jews worldwide) is the chosen people of God.  If a goy (gentile) wants to convert to Judaism, they will accommodate him (I have had friends do so in Jerusalem).  So too, the Roman Catholic Church asserts that it is the only true and living Church on the Earth, and that the Pope is the Deputy of God on Earth.  I respect those opinions.  For me, however, the only true and living Church is the LDS Church and I sustain its leadership and fully accept the LDS Canon of Scripture.

What we do on this board, Mike, is to discuss what that means, and we all presumably learn something in the process.  I know that I have, and am grateful for the opportunity.

Another instance of a church talking without people moving their mouths.

There seems to be a lot of that line of thought around here of late.

What is odd is that the same view is coming from "faithful members" who are fundamentalists and critics who are actually non-believers. 

It appears both Mike and Marginal Gains are of the same opinion believing in infallible prophets.

 So it appears we have conclusive evidence that fundamentalism on either side leads to false understanding.

Right here, within a few comments of each other.

As Mr. Spock would say, with one eyebrow lifted, " Fascinating!"

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

With all due respect to your monumental intellect and scholarly presence, I think the Lord disagrees.

"The Church", after all, is the only true and living Church on the face of the Earth.  To suggest that the Church is neither true nor false is postmodern nonsense. 

Postmodern?  Maybe.  But it is pretty clear that the nonsense is not the result of postmodernism, but fundamentalism.

If "the church" could speak independently of fallible humans you may have a point but unfortunately there is no evidence possible for that.  All words and all ideas are ambiguous- I can even cite the Tower of Babel if you want scriptural evidence for that.

If you are in denial about that, there is not much I can prescribe to cure that ailment.  It's in the heart, not in the words, or we could program a Mormon robot with a "testimony" who says all the right words.

Maybe we already have.  I see a lot of evidence for that here.

Edited April 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

When did Jesus sin so that he required Baptism? To suggest Baptism is *only* necessary to cleanse sin is completley non-scriptural.

My understanding has always been that baptism is a choice made by a person who has agency. 

Is the earth endowed with the ability to choose and agency?  I really don't see that.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

My understanding has always been that baptism is a choice made by a person who has agency. 

Is the earth endowed with the ability to choose and agency?  I really don't see that.

My understanding and belief is that all things are activated by intelligences, but that man's intelligences are the only ones able to choose against God's commands. So, the earth has intelligence and spirit, and exercises its agency, but is not unlimited in that exercise like man is. Man is the only entity that doesn't have to obey God. Lower intelligences always obey God, and the earth is no different. 

I see the earth's baptism by water and fire as fulfilling all righteousness (like Christ's), not for the remission of sins. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

My understanding and belief is that all things are activated by intelligences

I'm afraid I'm a real doubting Thomas on the idea of rocks having any sort of intelligence.  Same with mud.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm afraid I'm a real doubting Thomas on the idea of rocks having any sort of intelligence.  Same with mud.

Then why do they obey when commanded by proper authority? Why does a mountain move when commanded in accordance with God's will? Etc. 

Do you see Enoch's vision more symbolic or allegorical than representing the earth having will?

Edited April 25, 2018 by rongo

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, just like the U.S. Supreme Court declaration that corporations are persons (Citizens United), you have religious organizations getting up on their hind legs and walking around and doing everything that individual persons do.  That is nonsense.  I realize that most people talk in that fashion, but that doesn't make it valid.  If you were to tell me that the Church of Christ is the Body of Christ, I would have no objection.  Why?  Because the "Church" in that instance is the full congregation of the faithful believers.  That does not make it an individual person, and the Body of Christ is not therefore infallible, and does not have infallible opinions -- nor opinions of any kind.  Even when the Church is divided among those members who are truly faithful, and those who are not (the City of God versus the City of Man, all in one single City), it is clearly not an infallible Church.  The long tradition of the Congregation of Israel has always been one of obedience at times and disobedience at other times.  Only God can pass judgement on those failures and those successes, which you seem to conveniently overlook.

If you are saying that a particular person heads a particular church organization, and you claim that such a person is the authentic High Priest of God, and that he is God's chief Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, I am with you on that, but it does not make that Church organization a person that walks and talks.  The fallacy still obtains. If that HP is also the called and sustained President of the High Priesthood of such a religious organization, and is associated with a number of other high priests and prophets, that makes perfect sense to me.  In each case we can name the persons who fill those offices, and we can quote their stated views. If they promulgate official Church policies, we can read about those as well.

Thus, whether we are speaking of Moses, Samuel, or Joseph Smith, the assertion is that such a divinely chosen prophetic figure heads the Church organization is not a problem, but certainly does not make the chosen people of God in aggregate a single person who walks and talks.  Of course, we sometimes speak of this or that religious organization as being the "true Church."  The Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem, for example, will declare what they have always maintained, that the full Congregation of Israel (all Jews worldwide) is the chosen people of God.  If a goy (gentile) wants to convert to Judaism, they will accommodate him (I have had friends do so in Jerusalem).  So too, the Roman Catholic Church asserts that it is the only true and living Church on the Earth, and that the Pope is the Deputy of God on Earth.  I respect those opinions.  For me, however, the only true and living Church is the LDS Church and I sustain its leadership and fully accept the LDS Canon of Scripture.

What we do on this board, Mike, is to discuss what that means, and we all presumably learn something in the process.  I know that I have, and am grateful for the opportunity.

One more comment on this and Mike's problem with "postmodernism"-

It is fascinating to me that literalism/fundamentalism is the point of contention here between both critics and literalistic chuch members.

Both are coming from the same point of view, ironically and hence the argument which amounts to "yes it is" vs "no it's not" and on it goes forever.

This is profound evidence to me that a postmodern approach to language is the ONLY path the church can take to resolve all this, and thank God it appears to be the direction it is taking by emphasizing more and more the role of personal revelation in classes, in "ministry", the fallibility of prophets etc.

Soon they even may embrace "philosophy" if it is actually shown to be a help.

Time to get busy.  It's the only option left.

[Michael Sudworth]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, just like the U.S. Supreme Court declaration that corporations are persons (Citizens United), you have religious organizations getting up on their hind legs and walking around and doing everything that individual persons do. 

I'll assume you are not being intentionally misleading and that simply don't understand Citizens United.

Legal organizations (not just corporations) enjoy the same first amendment rights that people do. So unless you want to ban any and all organizations from donating to political campaigns, or advocating for political causes, you had best get used to the idea that organizations of people enjoy 1st amendment protections just like individual people do.

[Michael Sudworth]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If "the church" could speak independently of fallible humans you may have a point but unfortunately there is no evidence possible for that.

D&C my brother.  The Lord speaks of the Church collectively and not individually.  Sorry that the Lord doesn't conform to your preferred philosophy.

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you are in denial about that, there is not much I can prescribe to cure that ailment.

You know how it sounds when you say stuff like this, right?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

D&C my brother.  The Lord speaks of the Church collectively and not individually.  Sorry that the Lord doesn't conform to your preferred philosophy.

You know how it sounds when you say stuff like this, right?

1. D&C, like all scripture, was written by human hands, and in human language, because if nothing else God is a human and so is Joseph.

2. Yes. It sounds like Wittgenstein.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I'll assume you are not being intentionally misleading and that simply don't understand Citizens United.

Legal organizations (not just corporations) enjoy the same first amendment rights that people do. So unless you want to ban any and all organizations from donating to political campaigns, or advocating for political causes, you had best get used to the idea that organizations of people enjoy 1st amendment protections just like individual people do.

Yes, you can certainly believe that corporations are people too, and ignore the legitimate arguments which call that fallacy into serious question.  And you can certainly relegate anyone who finds that absurd and evil to ignorance or malevolence.  The polarization on such questions is pretty extreme.

When that same fallacy is applied to a religious organization, it permits one to foolishly speak of the organization as a person, instead of citing particular claims by individuals inside such organizations.  And that is very convenient for those who want to ignore reality.

[Marginal Gains]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  You need to go back and look at it again.  It has the Flood sometime before 4000BC, but does not say when.

You also conveniently overlook the words introducing the chronology chart:

You can certainly ignore the statements of knowledgeable general authorities, if you wish,  such as Apostle John Widtsoe.  You can also ignore all the scriptural citations which I provided, instead of engaging in a discussion of them, but that is a fundamentally dishonest approach to the question.

You can also ignore all the scriptural citations provided to you by Book of Mormon Central if you wish.  It is your choice to put your head in the sand instead of addressing those issues.  You can't even make marginal gains with such a policy.

You really ought to consider the LDS Canon of Scripture as normative in this discussion.  You seem to reject it out of hand, rather than have your fairy faith called into question.

Regardless of hobbyist opinions and random general authority utterings...

Do the correlated materials and resources of the official Church education programmes - seminary, institute, Primary, Adult Gospel doctrine lessons etc teach anything other than a literal, global flood that wiped out all of humanity except the eight people and animals on the boat?

Yes or no?

Edited April 26, 2018 by Marginal Gains