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

[california boy]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

For the flood, how about the fact that fossils of sea creatures have been found on top of mountains? Or that nearly every ancient culture has a great flood story?

For the origin of people, how about the fact that cultural development is very similar or even identical for ancient people who lived on different continents and the islands of the sea? And that these similar cultural developments happened in the same time period as each other? 

You do realize this completely disproves your proof of a world wide flood.  If every civilization except the family of Noah was wiped out in a global flood, how could other civilizations have a history of a world wide flood.  Who in those civilizations could write about the flood if none were left?

And how do 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?

Quote

For the Book of Mormon, how about the ancient ruins of buildings in the Americas? How about ancient gold, ore, and copper mines in Peru? How about the ancient highway system in Peru? How about the sunken city at the bottom of Lake Titicaca? 

Are you now claiming that the Mayan and Aztec civilizations were Nephites or Lamonites?  You do realize there is no Middle Eastern DNA from those civilizations.  

The God you have made up is incredibly deceitful, planting evidence to lead people away from Him.  Sorry.  I believe in a God of truth, not deceit. You are welcome to your beliefs, but for me, I can not believe in such a God.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by california boy

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

With all do respect, I consider Catholicism to be a corrupt and apostate form of Christianity, so I honestly don't care if the Catholic church embraces macro evolution and the big bang theory these days. These bogus theories are completely contrary to the scriptures. 

Having said that, I do have a lot of love and respect for individual Catholics who faithfully live their religion and strive to serve God and their fellow man to the best of their ability.

Of course you consider Catholicism apostate  My point was to counter your slippery slope argument that if someone doubts a global flood then they will end up doubting the historicity of Christ. Catholicism is a counter-example to your claim. We don't have to believe in the global flood but we most definitely believe in Christ and will continue to do so.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

No, no, no, you're not correctly understanding what Alma meant.  To have faith is to be sure about something, but not necessarily 100% sure, because when you are 100% sure you can say you actually know something.

Think about a sliding scale, from 1 to 10 for example.  First you get an idea and then if you don't totally discard the idea as a true idea you can begin to hold out for the possibility that the idea might be true.  That's when hope enters the picture.

And then while you are holding on to some hope that the idea might be true, if the idea still seems like it might be a good idea, you can then feel kind of sure that maybe the idea could actually be a good idea.  Going from just hoping to feeling kind of sure.

And then over more time if you still hold on to the hope and are still feeling kind of sure, that level of surety might grow from kind of sure to pretty sure and then maybe even really sure until at last maybe you are really pretty dog gone sure it is true.

And then you might even say you know it is good, because of all of the good feelings you have about that idea and how good it feels to you.

Knowledge is basically all about what you feel really really sure about, and until you get to that level you're either just hoping or feeling a lesser level of sureness about it.

I am not going to get entangled in your semantic mess over this again.  What I said is scriptural.  I never used the word "sure".

Here is what I said:

Quote

I am preaching Alma 32.  Before [perfect] knowledge, comes hope and faith.  

Quote

If you have faith, you don't have perfect knowledge of that thing. 

Compare that with:

Quote

Alma 32:21 - And now as I said concerning faith—^afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye ^bhope for things which are ^cnot seen, which are true.

I also said:

Quote

Perfect knowledge cannot coexist with faith

Compare that with:

Quote

Alma 32:34 And now, behold, is your ^aknowledge ^bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your ^cfaith is dormant;

Please don't introduce your semantics to tell me what I understand and what I don't.  

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

No it is not. It is a barrier to finding truth for intelligent beings.

For me, faith is simply a hope which leads to personal action which eventually bears edifying and delicious fruit. I don't know how one can succeed or accomplish anything in life without it.  We can thank faith for the invention of the light bulb (light bulb moment!), and all other major inventions/advancements.  Faith is not the adversary to truth that you make it out to be.    

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If every civilization except the family of Noah was wiped out in a global flood, how could other civilizations have a history of a world wide flood.  Who in those civilizations could write about the flood if none were left?

Easy, they all these civilizations originated from Noah as the scriptures say. 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

And how do 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?

 Source please?

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you now claiming that the Mayan and Aztec civilizations were Nephites or Lamonites?  You do realize there is no Middle Eastern DNA from those civilizations.  

The DNA issue doesn't bother me one bit. First, our understanding of DNA is in its infancy. Secondly, we don't have verifiable DNA from an Israelite from 600 BC to compare the DNA of a 600 BC Lehite. Thirdly, God changed the skin color of the Lamanites, which would have changed their DNA. 

 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

The God you have made up is incredibly deceitful, planting evidence to lead people away from Him.

No, he isn't.

Satan is deceitful and convinces people to put their trust in the arm of flesh instead of in God, thereby carefully leading them down to hell.

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Yup sure did. What I was taught in science class is incompatible with what the word of God in the scriptures says. I ignored that for a long time, but eventually I came to a point were I decided to get to the bottom of what the truth of the matter is. 

For a number of reasons I choose the word of God over the theories of secular science. 

I believe in creationism and a young earth as taught in the scriptures and original teachings of Mormonism and I'm firmly convinced that true science supports a young earth and creationism. 

No, science doesn't really support a young Earth concept unless your concept of young is millions and millions of years old.  But there is no good reason to assume the Earth is young anyway since God did not create it from nothing for Adam and Eve.

Think about this:  This planet was "void" before God created it for Adam and Eve and before that we don't know how long it was "void".  It may have even been as old then as scientists think it was then, minus about 6,000 years for Adam and Eve.

And then God transformed it from a "void" condition into what it was like when Adam and Eve came down here.  God separated the land from the waters and added plants and animals while setting up the view of the sky with the sun and moon and stars.

Who knows, before this planet was void, and before God created/organized it for Adam and Eve, there may have been other kinds of living creatures on this planet.  Like dinosaurs and maybe even some cave men, maybe.

But before God created/organized this planet for Adam and Eve this planet existed.  It was floating around in space somewhere, maybe even in this same spot in this particular solar system.  But it was here and void, with void I think referring to the idea that there was no living thing on it at that particular time.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not going to get entangled in your semantic mess over this again.  What I said is scriptural.  I never used the word "sure".

Here is what I said:

Compare that with:

I also said:

Compare that with:

Please don't introduce your semantics to tell me what I understand and what I don't.  

Regarding this statement: 

Alma 32:34 And now, behold, is your ^aknowledge ^bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your ^cfaith is dormant;

Have you ever asked someone if they "believe" something and heard them respond by saying something like:  No I don't believe it, I know it

Same kind of thing here.  When people reach the point that they know something they don't abandon their faith in that thing.  Dormant doesn't mean non-existent or totally gone.

Using words is all about trying to share concepts and it is important to try to understand the concepts that person was trying to share.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Regarding this statement: 

Alma 32:34 And now, behold, is your ^aknowledge ^bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your ^cfaith is dormant;

Have you ever asked someone if they "believe" something and heard them respond by saying something like:  No I don't believe it, I know it

Same kind of thing here.  When people reach the point that they know something they don't abandon their faith in that thing.  Dormant doesn't mean non-existent or totally gone.

Using words is all about trying to share concepts and it is important to try to understand the concepts that person was trying to share.

Dormant means inactive.  If faith exists after perfect knowledge, it is dead for all practical purposes.  It is not active or in operation.  It is therefore useless.  If you want to hang onto this useless, inactive, and dormant faith for some mysterious reason, that is fine with me.  But it is not important or useful because it is not an active faith.  Perfect knowledge is useful and replaces active faith.    Hope in the existence of that thing is dead as perfect knowledge of its existence is acquired. Without hope, there can be no active faith.  Faith is therefore not existent for all practical purpose where perfect knowledge is acquired. Why is it important for you to be contrarian with this idea?  What good is an inactive faith?  Why do you feel it is important to call me out claiming that I "don't understand".  What practical purpose does it serve to demand that faith still exists but is dormant?  Are you just being nitpicky or is there some practical reason why you are objecting to my saying that faith and perfect knowledge can't coexist?  Would it make you more happy if I clarified and said "active faith"?  If that makes you happy Ahab, I will say "active faith and perfect knowledge can't coexist" in that thing. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Ever heard of the scientific method?

Science begins with a question. Then a hypothesis is made. Then experiments are performed to test the hypothesis. The results of the experiment are then observed.

Have scientists ever observed life forming in a pool of water, in which there was no life previously? How about in dirt?

Have scientists observed creatures today who have a half formed eye? What about ocean dwelling creatures which are about to crawl out of the ocean? How about clear transitional species?

They haven't observed any of these things yet they claim them to be fact.

Macro evolution is a pseudoscience. It's a religion that requires faith by it's adherents. It's a travesty that this bogus theory is presented as fact by the scientific community and that our children are brainwashed with it in school.

CFR on anywhere I said anything about macro evolution on this thread.  And of course it appears you have no comprehension of what I am talking about.

A CFR, by board rules, says produce the evidence OR retract your statement.  That means you need to quote what I said here about macro evolution.  Those are board rules.

You are a very nice guy I think, but you should not comment on things you do not understand.

 

 

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Dormant means inactive.  If faith exists after perfect knowledge, it is dead for all practical purposes.  It is not active or in operation.  It is therefore useless.  If you want to hang onto this useless, inactive, and dormant faith for some mysterious reason, that is fine with me.  But it is not important or useful because it is not an active faith.  Perfect knowledge is useful and replaces active faith.    Hope in the existence of that thing is dead as perfect knowledge of its existence is acquired. Without hope, there can be no active faith.  Faith is therefore not existent for all practical purpose where perfect knowledge is acquired. Why is it important for you to be contrarian with this idea?  What good is an inactive faith?  Why do you feel it is important to call me out claiming that I "don't understand".  What practical purpose does it serve to demand that faith still exists but is dormant?  Are you just being nitpicky or is there some practical reason why you are objecting to my saying that faith and perfect knowledge can't coexist?  Would it make you more happy if I clarified and said "active faith"?  If that makes you happy Ahab, I will say "active faith and perfect knowledge can't coexist" in that thing. 

It is important for me to try to share my understanding of true concepts with other people because I believe my Lord and Savior wants me to try to do this, to try to help other people know and understand what I know and understand, to the extent that I can, rather than NOT try to help someone learn what I know.

I don't want to try to keep drilling this stuff into your head if you are really not interested in knowing and understanding what I know and understand, though.  I will back off if you want me to back off.

And just in case you might be interested in knowing and understanding what I know and understand I will take one more crack at this now.

To have faith is to have an assurance, or a mindset of being sure about something, so if you were to have a dead assurance what you would then essentially have is no assurance about something even if you claimed to know it.

So you tell me now, or just answer internally if you don't want to tell me:

Are you sure about what you claim to know or are you not sure about your knowledge of what you know?  I will tell you that if you are sure about what you know then you have both faith and knowledge.  And if you're not sure, then you really don't know.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is important for me to try to share my understanding of true concepts with other people because I believe my Lord and Savior wants me to try to do this, to try to help other people know and understand what I know and understand, to the extent that I can, rather than NOT try to help someone learn what I know.

That's all fine and dandy, but when I say this...

Quote

 "active faith and perfect knowledge can't coexist" in that thing.

…and the scripture says this:

Quote

Alma 32:34 And now, behold, is your ^aknowledge ^bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your ^cfaith is dormant;

...it seems hyper-captious to suggest that I am wrong and that I don't understand.

My statement is in accord with the passage, and I still stand by it. 

You seem to have ignored my response however and instead introduce words and arguments which have nothing to do with anything that I have said.  I choose not to engage you with those straw man arguments as I am not "sure" what you even mean by those words.  I will not get sucked into your semantic nightmare.  If you want to address the actual words that I used and why you think they are contrary to the scripture I quoted, have at it, otherwise I'm not interested. 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's all fine and dandy, but when I say this...

…and the scripture says this:

...it seems hyper-captious to suggest that I am wrong and that I don't understand.

Yes, because what you said doesn't mean the same thing as what Alma said.

You said "active faith and perfect knowledge can't coexist" on the same issue and Alma said when you know something your faith in that thing is dormant. 

AND DORMANT DOES NOT MEANT TO NOT EXIST.

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

My statement is in accord with the passage, and I still stand by it. 

No what you said is not in accord with that passage so you are standing by something that Alma did not say.

Do you even notice that your words are different than his?  What makes you think what you said means what he said or meant?

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

You seem to have ignored my response however and instead introduce words and arguments which have nothing to do with anything that I have said.  I choose not to engage you with those straw man arguments as I am not "sure" what you even mean by those words.  I will not get sucked into your semantic nightmare.  If you want to address the actual words that I used and why you think they are contrary to the scripture I quoted, have at it, otherwise I'm not interested. 

 

I'm done trying with you now.  Go on believing whatever you want to believe.

 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, because what you said doesn't mean the same thing as what Alma said.

You said "active faith and perfect knowledge can't coexist" on the same issue and Alma said when you know something your faith in that thing is dormant. 

AND DORMANT DOES NOT MEANT TO NOT EXIST.

No what you said is not in accord with that passage so you are standing by something that Alma did not say.

Do you even notice that your words are different than his?  What makes you think what you said means what he said or meant?

I'm done trying with you now.  Go on believing whatever you want to believe.

Again, you are playing semantics.   

By the way, you did not use the same words that Alma used either.  Nor are the words you use ("sure") the same as the words I use.  He did not say "when you know something...".  And I never said "sure".  For being so nitpicky about words, you give yourself lots of leeway but keep others on a pretty tight leash. 

And yes, dormant faith DOES MEAN that active faith does not exist.  I said "active faith".  If there is faith, it is not active - such a thing could not exist in a dormant faith.  What I said is in accord with the passage, and you really shouldn't try to tell me what I mean. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, you are playing semantics.   

By the way, you did not use the same words that Alma used either.  Nor are the words you use ("sure") the same as the words I use.  He did not say "when you know something...".  And I never said "sure".  For being so nitpicky about words, you give yourself lots of leeway but keep others on a pretty tight leash. 

And yes, dormant faith DOES MEAN that active faith does not exist.  I said "active faith".  If there is faith, it is not active - such a thing could not exist in a dormant faith.  What I said is in accord with the passage, and you really shouldn't try to tell me what I mean. 

For kicks and giggles I'm going to use your reasoning the next time I go 4-wheeling with my wife or even just talk about 4-wheeling with my truck with someone else.

If someone asks me:  Does this thing have 4-wheel drive and if it does would you please turn it on...

I will say:  Yes it does but it is dormant so it does not exist

[LDS Watchman]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

17 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Creationism is not pseudoscience at all. Nothing ever gets made unless some intelligent being made it. That's science. 

No, that's begging the question.

Here's the reference you asked for. 

Btw can you CFL where I said you mentioned macro evolution?

Edited December 18, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

For kicks and giggles I'm going to use your reasoning the next time I go 4-wheeling with my wife or even just talk about 4-wheeling with my truck with someone else.

If someone asks me:  Does this thing have 4-wheel drive and if it does would you please turn it on...

I will say:  Yes it does but it is dormant so it does not exist

 

Active 4 wheel drive does not exist until it becomes active.  You left out the functional word here - "active".   That would be a weird way to say it in this context, but ok.   Faith is a principle.  4 wheel drive isn't.  What exactly does a dormant principle in a person look like?  How does it exist exactly?  Where is it residing? You seem to think it is some tangible physical object that exists in nature.  Principles of the gospel only exist in us when we are actively employing them.  For example, humility doesn't exist when we are being prideful.  Faith doesn't exist in a thing when we are doubting it.  Kindness doesn't exist when we are being unkind.  The only thing that there is is the present moment.   "Your faith has become dormant" is another way of saying you don't currently have faith.  You don't have to like my interpretation.  As faith requires hope and action to exist, if hope and action don't exist, neither does faith.  Hope in the existence of a thing doesn't exist in perfect knowledge of that thing, and faith is therefore just as non existent as hope.  You don't hope that Christ exists when you have perfect knowledge that he does.  In the same way, because faith is dependent upon hope - you don't have faith that Christ exists when you have perfect knowledge that he does.  Faith is not just about spiritual assurance.  There is more to faith than that.  Without hope and action in that hope - there is no faith.  Period.  IT is no longer faith, it is something else (perfect knowledge). 

What exactly does dormant chastity look like (if you want to compare apples to apples)?  "No, no Bishop, you are wrong!  Active chastity still existed in me as I cheated on my wife, it was just dormant at the moment." 

In the same way, it would be foolish to suggest that active faith exists in dormant faith.

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

Active 4 wheel drive does not exist until it becomes active.  You left out the functional word here - "active".   That would be a weird way to say it in this context, but ok.   Faith is a principle.  4 wheel drive isn't.  What exactly does a dormant principle in a person look like? 

What does it EVER look like before that person's faith becomes knowledge?  I tried to explain to you how it works earlier but if you've got an even better explanation then feel free to share it.

Quote

How does it exist exactly? 

How DOES it exist when some says they have faith, or when they show by their actions that they do? It's as good a question for you to answer as for you to ask me to answer it.

Quote

Where is it residing?

You tell me now.  Where is it?

Quote

You seem to think it is some tangible physical object that exists in nature.  Principles of the gospel only exist in us when we are actively employing them.  For example, humility doesn't exist when we are being prideful.  Faith doesn't exist in a thing when we are doubting it.  Kindness doesn't exist when we are being unkind.  The only thing that there is is the present moment.   "Your faith has become dormant" is another way of saying you don't currently have faith. 

No, because when your faith is dormant you still have it.  It doesn't cease to exist by becoming dormant.  Does my truck have 4-wheel drive or not?  Well, yes, it does when I activate it, when otherwise we might say it is dormant, but is that the way people usually talk when they say whether or not their vehicle has 4-wheel drive?  No, they say it has it even when it is not active, just because their vehicle is equipped with 4-wheel drive.  It is a feature that a vehicle can be equipped with whether or not they choose to use it.  LIKEWISE, a person who has faith which has grown/progressed to full knowledge still has faith in whatever they know.  Alma was just talking like a man who would say he didn't have faith because he considered his level of knowledge to be much more than someone who would say he was sure something was true.  The type of man who would say to someone:  No I am not just sure that is true, I know it is true!  When in reality he would be both sure while also knowing it was true.

Some people just talk weird.  Including Alma.  And I not only believe that is true but I am also sure AND I know that is true.

Quote

You don't have to like my interpretation.  As faith requires hope and action to exist, if hope and action don't exist, neither does faith.  Hope in the existence of a thing doesn't exist in perfect knowledge of that thing, and faith is therefore just as non existent as hope. 

But a person can have hope AND faith AND knowledge about the very same thing and all at the very same time.  One doesn't rule out the other, even if one of those is stronger than the other.

Quote

You don't hope that Christ exists when you have perfect knowledge that he does.  In the same way, because faith is dependent upon hope - you don't have faith that Christ exists when you have perfect knowledge that he does. 

Hope in its greatest form is expectation.  You not only think something is possible, but you also EXPECT to see evidence of it.   And the greatest form of faith is knowledge.  You are not only sure something is true but you also KNOW it is.

Quote

Faith is not just about spiritual assurance.  There is more to faith than that.  Without hope and action in that hope - there is no faith.  Period.  IT is no longer faith, it is something else (perfect knowledge). 

Faith is an immature knowledge, so to speak, when what you have faith in is true.  Faith will grow to become full-fledged 100% knowledge when it is based on truth and isn't replaced by doubt.

Quote

What exactly does dormant chastity look like (if you want to compare apples to apples)?  "No, no Bishop, you are wrong!  Active chastity still existed in me as I cheated on my wife, it was just dormant at the moment." 

In the same way, it would be foolish to suggest that active faith exists in dormant faith.

You're making a silly comparison, because dormant is essentially another word for inactive.  Of course inactive and active faith in the same thing cannot exist at the same time.  But faith and knowledge can.

Think of faith as anything less than 100% full-fledged knowledge and knowledge as 100% full-fledged knowledge.  Does the less than 100% knowledge disappear when it grows/matures to 100% knowledge?  No, the lesser amount is included in the full portion.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Ahab

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What does it EVER look like before that person's faith becomes knowledge?  I tried to explain to you how it works earlier but if you've got an even better explanation then feel free to share it.

How DOES it exist when some says they have faith, or when they show by their actions that they do? It's as good a question for you to answer as for you to ask me to answer it.

You tell me now.  Where is it?

No, because when your faith is dormant you still have it.  It doesn't cease to exist by becoming dormant.  Does my truck have 4-wheel drive or not?  Well, yes, it does when I activate it, when otherwise we might say it is dormant, but is that the way people usually talk when they say whether or not their vehicle has 4-wheel drive?  No, they say it has it even when it is not active, just because their vehicle is equipped with 4-wheel drive.  It is a feature that a vehicle can be equipped with whether or not they choose to use it.  LIKEWISE, a person who has faith which has grown/progressed to full knowledge still has faith in whatever they know.  Alma was just talking like a man who would say he didn't have faith because he considered his level of knowledge to be much more than someone who would say he was sure something was true.  The type of man who would say to someone:  No I am not just sure that is true, I know it is true!  When in reality he would be both sure while also knowing it was true.

Some people just talk weird.  Including Alma.  And I not only believe that is true but I am also sure AND I know that is true.

But a person can have hope AND faith AND knowledge about the very same thing and all at the very same time.  One doesn't rule out the other, even if one of those is stronger than the other.

Hope in its greatest form is expectation.  You not only think something is possible, but you also EXPECT to see evidence of it.   And the greatest form of faith is knowledge.  You are not only sure something is true but you also KNOW it is.

Faith is an immature knowledge, so to speak, when what you have faith in is true.  Faith will grow to become full-fledged 100% knowledge when it is based on truth and isn't replaced by doubt.

You're making a silly comparison, because dormant is essentially another word for inactive.  Of course inactive and active faith in the same thing cannot exist at the same time.  But faith and knowledge can.

Think of faith as anything less than 100% full-fledged knowledge and knowledge as 100% full-fledged knowledge.  Does the less than 100% knowledge disappear when it grows/matures to 100% knowledge?  No, the lesser amount is included in the full portion.

I specifically clarified because you were being so nitpicky that "ACTIVE" faith cannot coexist with perfect knowledge. That is a true statement because faith is DORMANT with perfect knowledge, not active.  Unless you think that ACTIVE faith and DORMANT faith can coexist in regards to a specific thing, you have no argument, and no reason to come after me, or attack my choice of words, or be condescending in suggesting I don’t understand Alma 32.  You come off as a tedious word Nazi, and I resign from interacting with you further on this.  This is just semantical nonsense...as is usual with you. 
Active faith cannot logically exist with perfect knowledge, when faith is dormant. Period. What I said was true.

Edited December 19, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I specifically clarified because you were being so nitpicky that "ACTIVE" faith cannot coexist with perfect knowledge. That is a true statement because faith is DORMANT with perfect knowledge, not active.  Unless you think that ACTIVE faith and DORMANT faith can coexist in regards to a specific thing, you have no argument, and no reason to come after me, or attack my choice of words, or be condescending in suggesting I don’t understand Alma 32.  You come off as a tedious word Nazi, and I resign from interacting with you further on this.  This is just semantical nonsense...as is usual with you. 
Active faith cannot logically exist with perfect knowledge, when faith is dormant. Period. What I said was true.

Godwin's law.  Sheesh.  Yes the discussion is over now and you ended it.  Over and out.

[LDS Watchman]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

No, science doesn't really support a young Earth concept unless your concept of young is millions and millions of years old.  But there is no good reason to assume the Earth is young anyway since God did not create it from nothing for Adam and Eve.

Think about this:  This planet was "void" before God created it for Adam and Eve and before that we don't know how long it was "void".  It may have even been as old then as scientists think it was then, minus about 6,000 years for Adam and Eve.

And then God transformed it from a "void" condition into what it was like when Adam and Eve came down here.  God separated the land from the waters and added plants and animals while setting up the view of the sky with the sun and moon and stars.

Who knows, before this planet was void, and before God created/organized it for Adam and Eve, there may have been other kinds of living creatures on this planet.  Like dinosaurs and maybe even some cave men, maybe.

But before God created/organized this planet for Adam and Eve this planet existed.  It was floating around in space somewhere, maybe even in this same spot in this particular solar system.  But it was here and void, with void I think referring to the idea that there was no living thing on it at that particular time.

Good points. I think we're essentially in agreement, just differing in terminology. 

I should probably clarify what I mean by "creationism" and a "young earth."

Those terms don't mean the same thing to me as they do to Protestant Christians, like the folks over at ICR.

Protestant Creationists generally believe that God made the earth out of nothing, where as I believe what Joseph Smith and the early leaders of the church taught about God organizing the earth from existing matter. 

So the matter upon the earth is ancient, eternal actually. 

Protestant Creationists also typically believe that the earth was created either in 6 days or more frequently 6,000 years. I don't believe this either. The Pearl of Great Price makes it clear that the 6 days of creation are of the spiritual creation, not the physical one. While the physical creation of the earth is very briefly described, we aren't given a time frame. 

So when I say "young earth" I'm not saying that the earth itself is young. What I'm saying is that physical life has only been upon this earth for several thousand years, not millions. I'm also saying that the continents were divided and that mountains and other physical features were formed only a few thousand years ago, not millions. 

According to the scriptures and the original teachings of Mormonism, all human and animal life was created about 6,000 years ago.

Since human and animal life existed during the ice ages, the ice ages would have had to of occurred after the flood. 

In the bible it speaks of the earth (continents) being divided in the days of Peleg after the flood, less than 4,000 years ago.

The Book of Mormon speaks of the whole face of the land being changed 2,000 years ago, including mountains rising up "whose height is great."

Therefore, there must be a serious problem with the old earth dating system, because according to their dating system these things all happened millions of years ago, not thousands. 

The scriptures and the current dating system used by scientists are incompatible. So there's obviously a huge problem.

And while I disagree with Protestant Creationists on the points I mentioned above and acknowledge that there are definitely flaws in their conclusions and claims, I really respect that they labor very hard to put the word of God before the word of man. I really appreciate their work in poking holes in the old earth model. I believe they make many solid points, like their explanation for why radio carbon dating is not as reliable as generally believed and so on.

In my humble opinion their work shows that there's no reason for believers to doubt the scriptures, because there is a lot of evidence to support what the scriptures say about the creation, the flood, and the division of the continents of the earth. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[LDS Watchman]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

My point was to counter your slippery slope argument that if someone doubts a global flood then they will end up doubting the historicity of Christ. Catholicism is a counter-example to your claim. We don't have to believe in the global flood but we most definitely believe in Christ and will continue to do so.

Actually it was the apostle Peter who referred to scoffers in the last days who deny Christ, the flood, and the Second Coming. 

I simply said that doubting that the miraculous stories in the scriptures, such as the flood, actually happened can lead to a loss of faith. Once one begins to question the authenticity and truthfulness of the scriptures in regards to miracles because of a supposed lack of proof that these things happened, a natural next step is to begin questioning other claims in the scriptures, and then another, until it all unravels. 

As for Catholics, there are a wide spectrum of beliefs. Many don't even really believe in Christ. Perhaps they express lip service to him, but their actions show that they are not devoted to him. Many Catholics are Christians in name only. 

Same goes for many other branches of Christianity, including Mormonism. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[LDS Watchman]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Earlier in this thread you were saying that "the leaders of the church who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have taught that the flood literally happened" and warned us against "doubt{ing} the truthfulness of the words of the prophets in regards to the flood."  Yet here you are, apparently "doubt{ing}" Elder Widtsoe.  

In regards to what Elder Widtsoe said about the flood, etc., I believe that the quote by Joseph Smith about a "prophet only being a prophet when he is acting as such," applies. 

I believe that what Joseph Fielding Smith said was correct when he said,

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine." 

 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

In regards to what Elder Widtsoe said about the flood, etc., I believe that the quote by Joseph Smith about a "prophet only being a prophet when he is acting as such," applies. 

I believe that what Joseph Fielding Smith said was correct when he said,

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine." 

I agree with the quote from President Smith above.  The disagreement, however, has to do with the interpretation of scripture, not the revelations themselves.  Nothing that Elder Widtsoe said was ever in conflict with what the Lord has revealed.  It may be in conflict with your personal interpretation of scripture, but not with scripture and the revelation itself.  Note also in your quote above that Joseph Fielding Smith put himself into the same box.  The question has always been, do we interpret scripture from a rigid 19th century fundamentalist Protestant tradition viewpoint, or do we consider all truth that the Lord has revealed and will yet reveal to us? 

Joseph Smith made it clear that we are to put away traditional thinking in order to embrace the things of God:

Quote

The gospel of Jesus Christ embraces all truth; the faithful accept the truths God has revealed and put aside false traditions.

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …

“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”5

In January 1843, Joseph Smith had a conversation with some people who were not members of the Church: “I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”6

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ [Job 38:11]; which I cannot subscribe to.”7

“I say to all those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty, You will come short of the glory of God. To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.”8

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith – Chapter 22 - see source for footnote references).

Elsewhere he said (in this well known quote):

Quote

“There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger [a piece of corn bread] for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle [a wooden mallet]. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen [see D&C 121:40].”7

(Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith - Chapter 45, see also History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

There is clear evidence that Joseph Fielding Smith was using some traditional fundamentalist Protestant methodology in his scriptural interpretation, particularly in his views on creation.  The historical study by Ben Spackman that I linked to you previously demonstrated Joseph Fielding Smith's reliance on the works of George McCready Price. "A Seventh-day Adventist— and the father of modern young-earth creationism".  Price did not actually have any formal training in geology, but Joseph Fielding Smith used some of his arguments about creation to try to counter some of the views he encountered from James Talmage and others.   Quoting from Ben Spackman's article:

Quote

[Joseph Fielding] Smith read Price’s books, pushed them on fellow Apostles and lay LDS in personal letters. He also exchanged several letters with Price himself, trying to get geological ammunition against Talmage, who was, after all, a trained geologist. Apparently pleased with their exchange, Price later recommended Smith for membership in his Society for the Study of Deluge Geology, reserved for believers in a “literal six day creation” and seeking to prove that “the Deluge should be studied as the cause of the main geological changes since Creation.”

Smith’s only hesitation in joining Price’s group was that while he considered himself to “believe in a literal six day week,” they were six of “the Lord’s days as explained by Peter (1 Pet. 3:8)” i.e. 1000 years each. Since “the earth is passing now through a six day week of existence since the day of Adam, as outlined in the Book of Revelation,” that gives us Smith’s view of the age of the earth as roughly 6000 years of creation+ another few thousand since Adam.

Since then, some Latter-day Saints —including BYU professors, S&I employees, and Curriculum writers— have continued to cite the arguments of Price as made by his intellectual descendants: Seventh-day Adventists and fundamentalist Christians. The 1980 Old Testament Institute Manual (still current!) quotes roughly 2000 words from a Seventh-day Adventist creationism pamphlet (See the quote from Harold Coffin, here); that lengthy quotation cleared review and Correlation without any problems at all, either for length or content.

There is irony in the fact that Joseph Fielding Smith, who served on the first version of Correlation, a watchdog committee against “any worldly creep or philosophies brought in to the teachings of the church,” was the one to import and legitimize SDA fundamentalism into LDS thought.

I personally consider the arguments put forth in that Seventh-day Adventist publication to be some of the "traditions" that Joseph Smith was trying to get our minds to overcome.  And it is unfortunate that some of our church study material was influenced by these traditions.

Edited December 19, 2020 by InCognitus

[pogi]

On 12/17/2020 at 6:29 PM, Ahab said:

No, no, no...

 

 

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Godwin's law.  Sheesh. 

Not really.  Apparently someone is not a Seinfeld fan.  It was a reference to a Seinfeld character, not an actual Nazi.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Here's the reference you asked for. 

Btw can you CFL where I said you mentioned macro evolution?

You were defending against what I said by talking about macro evolution of eyes etc- those are well known alleged "evidences" made by creationists against macro evolution, which supposedly prove that creation must be "true".   It's a highly tenuous argument.

But I never mentioned macro evolution.  That was the whole point!  Your reply was against macro evolution but I never said anything about macro evolution so I asked for a CFR about where I had mentioned it.   You were not responding against my point. 

So your defense was either about macro evolution being science - which I never said- AND you were not rebutting my position.

Do you understand now?   

Nevermind

 I retract the CFR.  It's not worth the energy and brain damage. 

I wish you well

Edited December 19, 2020 by mfbukowski