Jump to content

The significance of the literal global flood in the days of Noah


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Tell me first other than anti evolution apologetic web sites what credible books have you read on this.  And I really have not seen your arguments to debate. Maybe I missed them.

I haven't read any books specifically dedicated to macro evolution, but I have read multiple scientific papers explaining and defending macro evolution by mainstream scientists.

I have also read multiple papers by mainstream scientists who attempt to rebuff the arguments of creationists.

Neither produce very convincing arguments in my opinion.

Here are a few points I have made against macro evolution:

1) There are no clear transitional species in the present, nor in the fossil record.

These would exist in abundance if macro evolution were true, yet they don't 

2) The creation of something complex without an intelligent being creating it has never been observed. 

To suggest that a human nervous system came together without a creator to design it is simply ludicrous.

3) Natural selection does not even remotely explain how or why a species would begin to grow an eyeball or a wing. There would be zero benefit to beginning to grow an eye that can't yet see or a wing that can't yet fly. 

 

Edited by LDS Watchman
Link to post
52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Alma 32.  James 1:5. Grant Von Harrison's book Drawing on the Powers of Heaven.

I'm not asking you to cite references that discuss faith. I'm asking you, who completely misrepresented faith, to explain to me how faith and personal revelation work, since you claim that you understand these concepts.

Link to post
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:
Quote

Joseph  Smith also gave us the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, in which it is clearly spelled out that Adam was literally the first flesh upon the earth (before the plants and animals).

Expand  

Well, no.

Well yes, did you read the verses in Moses I provided?

The creation acount in Abraham says the same thing.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Prooftexting and eisegesis doesn't really work here.

How is quoting from a revelation of God about the earth having a 7000 year temporal history "proof texting?"

 

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Joseph was also referring to other teachings / beliefs / traditions that the Saints inherited, but which were erroneous in some respects, perhaps including stuff like the creation consisting of six literally 24-hour days, the literal creation of Eve from Adam's rib, and . . . a worldwide flood.

I agree that Joseph would have considered the physical creation taking place in six 24 hour periods to be false tradition. The creation account in the Books of Moses and Abraham prove that this is not what happened. The 6 days of creation were of the spiritual creation and not the physical one, and were undoubtedly not six 24 periods according to our reckoning of time.

Based on my research, Adam-God as taught by Brigham Young originated with Joseph Smith, so Joseph Smith probably didn't believe that Eve was literally made from Adam's rib. 

There's no indication whatsoever that he considered the reality of the global flood in the days of Noah to be a false tradition, though.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

1) There are no clear transitional species in the present, nor in the fossil record.

These would exist in abundance if macro evolution were true, yet they don't 

An interesting assertion, that, I think, should be qualified with something to the effect -- "creationists reject currently alleged transition fossils." I note that Wikipedia (with all of the problems that come from referencing Wikipedia) has a fairly substantial list of alleged transition fossils. You don't need to agree that these represent transition fossils, but I don't think you can just assert that there are no transition fossils without the additional qualifier.

17 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

2) The creation of something complex without an intelligent being creating it has never been observed. 

To suggest that a human nervous system came together without a creator to design it is simply ludicrous.

I feel like this just ignores the existence of "theistic evolutionists". I don't claim to know if, how, where, or when God might have needed to tweak a mutation or manipulate a gene to prod the process along, but some of us believe in the possibility that God could guide evolution. It's not without its problems, but I don't know that it should just be ignored.

22 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

3) Natural selection does not even remotely explain how a species would begin to grow an eyeball or a wing. There were would be zero benefit to beginning to grow an eye that can't yet see or a wing that can't yet fly. 

Again, I think this assertion needs a qualification like -- "we don't believe the current explanations for how natural selection leads to the development of eyes or wings." Again, Wikipedia has an article that talks about the possibilities. Light sensitivity is a fairly primitive characteristic, and, once you have light sensitivity, it isn't really that difficult to hypothesize different ways that selective pressures can be applied to that trait to make it better. Again, it's okay to assert that natural selection cannot explain these things, but it needs to be qualified with some kind of rejection of current hypotheses and theories.

Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I know

On a couple of occasions now you have declared that you are no longer talking to me, but since you still are, why not clarify what you were getting at instead of just saying "I know?" 

Edited by LDS Watchman
Link to post
51 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I feel like this just ignores the existence of "theistic evolutionists".

I'm not ignoring the existence of anyone.

As for my opinion of the views of "theistic evolutionists," here's what I believe:

Evolution, as in micro evolution, is sound science and in accordance with scripture.

Macro evolution is neither sound science nor does it square with the scriptures. 

I don't feel the need to qualify my two other points. Of course macro evolutionists claim that there are transitional species in the fossil record, but none of their claims are conclusive. There are no fossils which unequivocally show  a transition from one species, or "kind," to another. 

Likewise, the theory of natural selection doesn't explain how or why a creature would begin to develop a nonfunctional eye or wing. A non functioning eye or wing does not give a creature any advantage to be able to survive and reproduce over the creatures of its kind who don't have non functing eyes or wings. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

FWIW, ancient Egypt had no tradition of a flood myth such as that found in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia. 

I found this through a quick search on google.

It's from Wikipedi, which I know is not 100% reliable. 

The flood myth in Egyptian mythology involves the god Ra and his daughter Sekhmet. Ra sent Sekhmet to destroy part of humanity for their disrespect and unfaithfulness which resulted in a great flood of blood. However, Re intervened by getting her drunk and causing her to pass out. This is commemorated in a wine drinking festival during the annual Nile flood.

I haven't had a chance to look through that book on Egyptian history you shared. That's a lot to wade through, but maybe I'll get around to it at some point.

In the meantime, let me ask you if the book alleges to have unequivocal proof of ancient Egypt writings from before the approximate date of Noah's flood?And by that I don't mean a later historical record which claims events happened before the flood, but an actual indisputable piece of Egyptian writing from before the alleged date of Noah's flood. 

If the book does claim this, can you please point me to the pages of the book where it says this?

Thanks in advance.

Edited by LDS Watchman
Link to post
5 hours ago, Teancum said:

The first part of your post is a different type of faith than the second part.  I am sure you know the difference.

There is a slight difference but it was not a fact that I would make it through all the schooling, I had to have faith that I could do it. 
Its not a fact that God exists and that there is an afterlife. I have to have faith that there is. 
If it makes me happy and full of Hope for the future I have nothing to lose.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Still not the same. Roger could run, test, try, experience, see evidence, etc. I understand that type of faith is useful. I cycle. Avidly. There was a time when I wondered if I could ever do a 100 mile bike ride.  But through faith in my own discipline to follow a training program, practicing what I learned, eating well and losing weight, etc I have now completed dozens of 100 mile plus bike rides and other cycling achievements as well.

 Let's bring it back to the simple premise of the original post on this thread. Was there world wide flood? Strong evidence suggests that there was not. Do you still believe it in spite of evidence because of faith in what is written in the Bible?  How about evolution, etc.

It’s exactly the same.  Hope in uncertainty -> action -> good fruit.

It works in every aspect of life. It is basically just pragmatism in action.  As Joseph said, “it is the principle of action in all intelligent beings.”

Whether the flood happened or not is irrelevant.  As I said previously, the fact that false faith exists is not to say that all faith is false.   

I also think too many people confuse general belief with faith.  Not the same.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I found this through a quick search on google.

It's from Wikipedi, which I know is not 100% reliable. 

The flood myth in Egyptian mythology involves the god Ra and his daughter Sekhmet. Ra sent Sekhmet to destroy part of humanity for their disrespect and unfaithfulness which resulted in a great flood of blood. However, Re intervened by getting her drunk and causing her to pass out. This is commemorated in a wine drinking festival during the annual Nile flood.

I haven't had a chance to look through that book on Egyptian history you shared. That's a lot to wade through, but maybe I'll get around to it at some point.

In the meantime, let me ask you if the book alleges to have unequivocal proof of ancient Egypt writings from before the approximate date of Noah's flood?And by that I don't mean a later historical record which claims events happened before the flood, but an actual indisputable piece of Egyptian writing from before the alleged date of Noah's flood. 

If the book does claim this, can you please point me to the pages of the book where it says this?

Thanks in advance.

There are contemporary Egyptian documents that span the time period during which the deluge would have occurred, based on biblical chronology.  These are inscriptions recorded in the tombs (mastabas) of officials whom we can date based on the kings they mention serving during their lifetimes.  There are also physical remains from ancient Egypt that span this time period as well.  The myth I was referring to, which is the one summarized in Wikipedia, is known as the Book of the Heavenly Cow.  You can read a translation in W.K. Simpson, Literature of Ancient Egypt, p. 290ff (reachable through this link:http://egyptologyresources.x10host.com/er/bibliography/bibliography_data.html; I wasn't allowed to link directly to this work, but look under S for Simpson and you will find a link).  The sun-god Re gets angry at mankind because they were plotting against him and he sends his eye in the form of the goddess Hathor/Sekhmet, representing the blazing heat of the sun.  After Hathor has slain "mankind in the desert," Re has a change of heart and inundates the fields with beer stained red to resemble blood.  When the goddess recommences her work of destruction the next morning she drinks the beer, apparently mistaking it for blood, and gets so drunk she cannot continue her work of destruction.  So the "flood" (of beer) saves mankind, not destroys them.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Cheers to that! 🍻

(Maybe y'all should rethink that word of wisdom business. It might just save mankind! ;) )

If Re is dumping beer everywhere, both of us have bigger problems to worry about ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Based on the teachings of Joseph, which William Law and other dissenters "flew apart like glass" over, Joseph Smith was referring to the Saints being unwilling to accept Celestial Plural Marriage, Adam-God, the plurality of the Gods, man's potential to become a God, and the endowment. 

All of these teachings flew in the face of the false traditions of apostate Christianity.

As smac97 has already pointed out, Joseph Smith was referring to other traditions.  Remember how hard it was for Brigham Young to accept Doctrine and Covenants section 76, the revelation on the three degrees of glory?   There is much more that Joseph Smith wanted to tell people but they couldn’t grasp the teachings because of their traditions.  What Joseph taught in the King Follet Discourse hinted at some of those things, especially when he spoke of God organizing the world out of chaotic matter.

Here is a question for you:   Do you not consider the things that were taught by George McCready Price, the Seventh-day Adventist and the father of modern young-earth creationism, to be based on traditions?  It was from his work that Joseph Fielding Smith quoted.  Do you support Mr. Price's views?

21 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Joseph  Smith also gave us the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, in which it is clearly spelled out that Adam was literally the first flesh upon the earth (before the plants and animals).

You are totally wresting the scriptures in your interpretation of Moses 3:4-7.  Those verses are talking about God creating all things, even “all the children of men” spiritually before they were created physically.  And in verse 7, where it says “man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth”, the verse is referring to fallen man, because all through the scriptures this has reference to fallen individuals.  I’m sure you are aware of this, because even Joseph Fielding Smith taught the following about Moses 3:7 and seems to disagree with your view:

Quote

MEANING OF "FIRST FLESH." But Adam was the first flesh on the earth and the first man also. By flesh is meant mortality. There are numerous passages in the scriptures in which mortality and flesh are used synonymously. Adam was placed on the earth after all other creatures were here. He came when the earth was prepared for him. The Lord speaks of his becoming the first "flesh," or mortal, because of his fall.   (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.92)

He goes on to say that since Adam was the “first man on the earth”, that this goes “contrary to the teachings of our evolutionists”.  But this is not a reasonable assumption given the definition of “first flesh” above.  If Adam is called the “first flesh” and “first man” because of the fall, then it is reasonable that any pre-Adamites who had not entered into covenants with God would not be classified in the same way. 

Note also that President Smith, in the quote above, clearly contradicts your assertion that “Adam was literally the first flesh upon the earth (before the plants and animals)”.  That may be your interpretation of the verse but it goes contrary to the context about the spiritual creation and several other things.

21 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Joseph Smith also received a revelation that the earth's temporal existance is 7 thousand years.

I’m not sure how Doctrine and Covenants Section 77:6 helps what you are trying to say here.  Note the answer to the question about the book:   That it contains “the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.”   This “temporal” existence obviously refers to the time since the fall of man.  Has anyone here questioned the time that has passed since Adam fell?   I don’t think that has ever been in question, but only how long the earth has been a work in progress before that point in time. 

Besides, I think you are reading too much into Doctrine and Covenants section 77.  Even though this was written in March 1832, Joseph Smith never included this text in the 1833 Book of Commandments or the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. It’s not until 1876 that Brigham Young put it in the Doctrine and Covenants.  And on April 8, 1843, Joseph spoke at length on the book of Revelation and never mentioned the things discussed in section 77 (see Discourse, 8 April 1843, as Reported by William Clayton, and History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843].) 

In Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, (by Hyrum M. Smith of the council of The Twelve Apostles and Janne M. Sjodahl), this text is described as a “key” to interpreting the book, and not a complete interpretation in and of itself:

Quote

But this Revelation is not a complete interpretation of the book. It is a key. A key is a very small part of the house. It unlocks the door through which an entrance may be gained, but after the key has been turned, the searcher for treasure must find it for himself. It is like entering a museum in which the students must find out for themselves what they desire to know. The sources of information are there.  (Smith and Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Sec. 77, p.478)

In my previous post I pointed out that disagreements occur over how to interpret the revelations given by God.  You are trying very hard to make us all accept your particular interpretations of scripture in order to promote the traditional idea of a young earth creation and a worldwide flood.  But as I hope you can see, your interpretations have several problems and I hope you can also see there are other ways of viewing the verses that you use as your proof texts.  Those who disagree with you aren’t abandoning the revelations, we simply don’t hold to your rigid traditional interpretation of the verses.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

There are contemporary Egyptian documents that span the time period during which the deluge would have occurred, based on biblical chronology.  These are inscriptions recorded in the tombs (mastabas) of officials whom we can date based on the kings they mention serving during their lifetimes. 

I understand that historians believe that the history of ancient Egypt dates to before the time when the flood was said to take place, but the reality is that historians and archaeologists really don't know know for sure that these engravings were made before the flood would have occurred. 

 

2 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

You can read a translation in W.K. Simpson, Literature of Ancient Egypt, p. 290ff

Thanks for the reference. I read a little more about this story today, but I'll check this out when I get a chance.

For me it comes down to believing in the scriptures over historians and scientists. The reality is that when it comes to the ancient past, historians and scientists have far more questions than they do answers.

Don't get me wrong, I find the work of historians and scientists to be extremely valuable, but when their conclusions go against the word of God in the scriptures, I choose the word of God every time.

I believe what the scriptures teach about the history of the earth. According to the Book of Abraham, Egypt was first discovered after the flood and the first Pharaoh was a descendant of Noah's son Ham. That's good enough for me. 

Link to post
11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

As smac97 has already pointed out, Joseph Smith was referring to other traditions. 

He speculated that Joseph Smith was referring to other traditions. 

There's no indication from anything Joseph Smith taught that there were pre-Adamites or that macro evolution over millions of years is how life was created on this planet.

There's also no indication from anything Joseph Smith taught that Noah's flood was not a literal global flood.

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

There is much more that Joseph Smith wanted to tell people but they couldn’t grasp the teachings because of their traditions.  What Joseph taught in the King Follet Discourse hinted at some of those things, especially when he spoke of God organizing the world out of chaotic matter.

There's no indication from the King Follett discourse that Joseph was hinting that there were pre-Adamites on this earth who evolved from pond scum over millions of years.

He was hinting at Adam-God however.

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Do you not consider the things that were taught by George McCready Price, the Seventh-day Adventist and the father of modern young-earth creationism, to be based on traditions?  It was from his work that Joseph Fielding Smith quoted.  Do you support Mr. Price's views?

I haven't read Price's views, so I can't comment on that. 

I have no problem with Joseph Fielding Smith quoting his words, if the words he quoted are consistent with the scriptures.

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You are totally wresting the scriptures in your interpretation of Moses 3:4-7. 

I'm not wresting this scripture at all. Let's break it down.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

God is not defining "flesh" the way you are. He's defining flesh as physical life. 

Up to this point there was no physical life upon the earth. Not even plants, because there was no rain. There was no physical life on dry land, in the water, or in the air. 

Beginning in verse 6, we are given a brief account of the physical creation of the earth.

The order of creation is as follows:

1) Adam the first man

2) Plant life

3) Animal life

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

The physical creation begins with God causing a mist to water the whole earth. 

Then the first physical life, or flesh, he created was Adam, who also happened to be the first man. 

Next plant life is created. Notice how God refers to plants as "living souls." This relates back to there having been no flesh upon the earth previously. 

8 And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.
9 And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it; for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it, yea, even all things which I prepared for the use of man; and man saw that it was good for food. And I, the Lord God, planted the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and also the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Next comes the physical creation of animal life, in which Adam is involved. The animals are also referred to as living souls, which relates back to there being no flesh upon the earth before the creation of Adam. They are given the "breath of life."

19 And out of the ground I, the Lord God, formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and commanded that they should come unto Adam, to see what he would call them; and they were also living souls; for I, God, breathed into them the breath of life, and commanded that whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that should be the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, there was not found an help meet for him.

Now go read the only other account of the physical creation in the Book of Abraham. The order of events is identical. First man, then plants, then animals.

Now to address your other points. It doesn't matter what Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in Doctrines of Salvation. If what he wrote doesn't square with the scriptures he told us to toss it out. 

Your fall argument doesn't make any sense. The fall brought death into the world, both physical and spiritual. According to macro evolutionists death had been upon the earth for millions of years. 

Your attempts at explaining away D&C 77 fall flat. It is you who are trying to wrest the scriptures, not me.

 

 

 

 

Edited by LDS Watchman
Link to post
On 12/19/2020 at 7:08 AM, LDS Watchman said:

This is not what I was asking for. 

You had claimed that "we have a continuous written history of a civilization like the Egyptian civilization that starts before the time you are claiming the flood happened to well after that flood was suppose to take place."

This chart doesn't show a "continuous written history" from before the flood.

Looks like Steve Thompson already answered your question.   And frankly, there are so many holes in your thinking that this is the least of them.  I get that you want to believe what you want to believe, but all tangible evidence that can actually be examined tells a different truth.  I think that has been pointed out to you enough that it has become clear, you are willing to discard any tangible evidence to hang on to your belief of a literal flood.  So hey, go ahead and believe what you want.  It is not the strangest religious belief out there.

Edited by california boy
Link to post
12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Looks like Steve Thompson already answered your question.

I'm still waiting to hear back from Steve. What he shared didn't prove a "continuous written history" of the Egyptian civilization from before the date of the flood.

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I think that has been pointed out to you enough that it has become clear, you are willing to discard any tangible evidence to hang on to your belief of a literal flood.  

What tangible evidence have I disgrarded?

There is plenty of tangible evidence for the flood. There are hundreds of ancient flood stories, as well as substantial geological evidence for massive flooding all of the earth.

You were unable to back up any of your claims and no one so far has even attempted to provide a counter argument for my points against macro evolution.

But I do realize that my position requires faith in the word of God and the rejection of the conclusions of academics, when their conclusions contradict the word of God. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm still waiting to hear back from Steve. What he shared didn't prove a "continuous written history" of the Egyptian civilization from before the date of the flood.

What tangible evidence have I disgrarded?

There is plenty of tangible evidence for the flood. There are hundreds of ancient flood stories, as well as substantial geological evidence for massive flooding all of the earth.

You were unable to back up any of your claims and no one so far has even attempted to provide a counter argument for my points against macro evolution.

But I do realize that my position requires faith in the word of God and the rejection of the conclusions of academics, when their conclusions contradict the word of God. 

If you are interested in how the ancient Egyptians viewed their history I recommend Pharaonic King-Lists Annals and Day-Books, A Contribution to the Egyptian Sense of History by Donald Redford.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Steve Thompson said:

If you are interested in how the ancient Egyptians viewed their history I recommend Pharaonic King-Lists Annals and Day-Books, A Contribution to the Egyptian Sense of History by Donald Redford.  

Thanks for the recommendation.

I also appreciate you phrasing this as "how the ancient Egyptians viewed their history."

That's an important point for people to understand. The Egyptians viewed their history one way, the Sumerians another, and the Hebrews another. 

They all overlap each other in some areas and contradict each other in others. It's clear as mud. Historians do their best to sort it all out, but at the end of the day when it comes to ancient history there are way more questions than there are answers.

For me this means that there's no reason to toss the stories in the scriptures aside as myths or allegories. 

 

 

Link to post
On 12/19/2020 at 10:34 AM, Teancum said:

Yes this is what the true believer says to disparage the former believer.  It keeps you safe to say I never knew  how faith works or I never had a testimony or yada yada.  It is a discussion stopper as well as a barrier for you personally to learn and grow. But I would dare guess that for most of my life as an active true believing Mormon I understand the ideas of faith in action, prayer, pondering, witness of the spirit and so on as well as you or anyone else on this board.

Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion.

This is just a variant of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I expect that, up until the point at which a member became aware that you no longer believed, they would have described you as an exemplary member, strong and faithful, to be admired, etc.

It's only after knowing that you don't believe any more that the current believer needs to retrofit an addendum to your description. And that likely includes priesthood leaders who knew you and never had cause to doubt you - an example of discernment gone MIA.

I (may I be forgiven) have said this of others, and later had others (I forgive them) say the same of me.

Link to post

This misses so many points. 

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

I expect that, up until the point at which a member became aware that you no longer believed, they would have described you as an exemplary member, strong and faithful, to be admired, etc.

It's only after knowing that you don't believe any more that the current believer needs to retrofit an addendum to your description. And that likely includes priesthood leaders who knew you and never had cause to doubt you - an example of discernment gone MIA.

Aside from the blatant condescension exhibited to believing members, none of this characterization is at all relevant. When we make judgements about how "exemplary", "strong and faithful", "admirable" others are, we do so based on characteristics which are visible and accessible to us. These are most often things like dedication, enthusiasm, kindness, serviceability, etc., as well as elements of orthopraxy like obedience to the commandments. Personal understanding of theology and doctrine are usually not among those unless the person we're referring to is being judged specifically based on their commentary on the gospel. Being viewed as exemplary and faithful is no guarantee that one has a proper understanding of doctrine in and of itself. Being trusted by your leaders isn't one either. And having once been viewed as exemplary and faithful (let alone viewing YOURSELF as having once been exemplary and faithful) is no guarantee either.

And that's where the problem comes in. @Teancum made an argument regarding the concept of faith as taught by the Latter-day Saints. Others objected to his definition of faith, arguing that he was using a definition which did not apply. Teancum responded by asserting that he had been a faithful member of the Church and thus knew what faith meant. Well, being a faithful member of the Church does not entail an automatic knowledge of the minutiae of theology. Nor is such a dubious  "argument from authority" a satisfactory response when one gets questioned on their definition of terms. Frankly, I don't care about "former faithful member" credentials. You can't just strawman somebody's argument, impute to them beliefs they do not have, demand they defend them, and beg a personal grievance when you get CFRed. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
25 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

This misses so many points. 

Aside from the blatant condescension exhibited to believing members, none of this characterization is at all relevant. When we make judgements about how "exemplary", "strong and faithful", "admirable" others are, we do so based on characteristics which are visible and accessible to us. These are most often things like dedication, enthusiasm, kindness, serviceability, etc., as well as elements of orthopraxy like obedience to the commandments. Personal understanding of theology and doctrine are usually not among those unless the person we're referring to is being judged specifically based on their commentary on the gospel. Being viewed as exemplary and faithful is no guarantee that one has a proper understanding of doctrine in and of itself. Being trusted by your leaders isn't one either. And having once been viewed as exemplary and faithful (let alone viewing YOURSELF as having once been exemplary and faithful) is no guarantee either.

And that's where the problem comes in. @Teancum made an argument regarding the concept of faith as taught by the Latter-day Saints. Others objected to his definition of faith, arguing that he was using a definition which did not apply. Teancum responded by asserting that he had been a faithful member of the Church and thus knew what faith meant. Well, being a faithful member of the Church does not entail an automatic knowledge of the minutiae of theology. Nor is such a dubious  "argument from authority" a satisfactory response when one gets questioned on their definition of terms. Frankly, I don't care about "former faithful member" credentials. You can't just strawman somebody's argument, impute to them beliefs they do not have, demand they defend them, and beg a personal grievance when you get CFRed. 

 

FWIW, I was responding to what I quoted of Teancum's post, and not to any earlier discussion.

In spite of what you say, some members who consider themselves faithful seem to feel that it's their right to judge the no-longer-believing member's former state of faith or belief. Do you agree that they are within their rights to do so?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Malc said:

FWIW, I was responding to what I quoted of Teancum's post, and not to any earlier discussion.

In spite of what you say, some members who consider themselves faithful seem to feel that it's their right to judge the no-longer-believing member's former state of faith or belief. Do you agree that they are within their rights to do so?

Within their rights? Yeah. My general philosophy is that people are within their rights to make whatever judgements they may on any given topic. Given that judgements are essentially opinions, the assertion that people might not have the right to hold certain opinions doesn't sit well with me. I do maintain a distinction between the right to do something and the goodness or badness of doing that thing. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...