Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Was his name Adam, or was he a "man" (adam) named something else?  Was he a familiar archangel?  And what of you and me?  When we participate in such ordinances in the temple, what names do we go by?  After all, we are real people, just as those archetypal figures were real, and each of us is an archetypal figure also.  The Brethren emphasize the figurative nature of it, including the figurative "rib" from which "woman" is formed, and the figurative "fruit" that she eats.  All the action is liturgical and representational.

I hope you understand and accept the normal nature of the emblems taken in our Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  The bread represents the torn and broken body of Jesus, while the water (or wine) represents his blood shed for us.  If you can understand that they are not His actual body and blood, then it should be easy to understand the temple.

Oh I agree that "Adam" is a title (archetype if you prefer), not a proper name.  And it's one we assume in the temple.
And yes, I recognize the figurative nature of certain ordinance elements.   However, I don't consider every element as symbolic, I consider much of the temple to be quite literal and I think the current assumption of many that it is all representative/symbolic is false.

As Brigham taught "Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood"
That's a literal act, not a symbolic one, passing of angels and entering into the Father's presence.  If we were to remove those elements we would not be permitted to enter into the Father's presence.

Take Baptism.  We are not literally dying, buried, and reborn as a new man.  However, there is literally a new being created after baptism, literally reborn as an innocent.  That is not symbolic.
The temple is no different.

But the individual we call Adam is an actual person, even if the word Adam isn't his name alone.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I like your response and I agree that our knowledge is limited especially of events lost to history.  But some of our lack of knowledge of these  supposed historical claims lost to history can be either supported or dismissed as fiction by accessing other information that is available.  For example the Biblical claim of a first human being named Adam and his wife Eve.  The Bible claims this as a reality and a historical event and being that the Bible claims that only these two and their posterity would have any first hand knowledge of them requires that we accept the Biblical record as authoritative.  But do other areas of expertise support this notion of a first human?  The simple answer is no it does not.  In fact nothing in the historical record nor the biological record support the truth claim of a created man in fact just the opposite, we are evolved beings coming into existence over millions of years of evolution.  Because all of the provable and testable evidence supports evolution we can without any doubt declare that the Adam and Eve story, at least as it is presented in the Bible, is a myth.

I don't accept the premise that the Bible presents a claim of Adam and Eve as the first humans as a historical event. In looking at the text itself, this is one possible conclusion, but certainly not the only conclusion.  In fact, I find it highly doubtful that this is even a likely or probable conclusion based on the nature of the text itself.

Again, I find no incompatibility in my effort to reconcile the current scientific and historical evidence with Adam and Eve being literal individuals.

However, I would agree with your last sentence if you made the following edit:

"Because all of the provable and testable evidence supports evolution we can without any doubt declare that the Adam and Eve story, at least as it is presented in [popular Christian/LDS culture], is a myth."     

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your biggest problem, Fair Dinkum, is your unfamiliarity with Scripture, and with scholarship on the subject.  You are not alone in this, but it plays havoc with your attempts to bring clarity to the issues.

Another example of Robert speaking down to someone who disagrees with him  Anyone who does must be unfamiliar with scriptura and so on. How tiresome this is.

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Which explains why God so often changes His mind or at least why his prophets seem to

Look up the Hebrew behind "repent".

Quote

 

regret, repent, feel remorse, change one's mind

Changing our minds is an inescapable part of repentence.   Indeed, how could it be otherwise?   And of course, refusing to repent often involves refusing to change one's mind.  Joseph Campbell, in The Power of Myth, tells about how the Buddha was tempted by Maya, God of Illusion, in terms of Fear and Desire. Also he talks about how ancient temple entrances were often flanked by two guardians representing Fear (What we think is so) and Desire (What we want to be so).  We have to be willing to discard our Fear and Desire to enter the Real.  Resistance to the Real always takes the form of "It's not what I think," or "It's not what I want."  For instance, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?"  (John 7:47) or “There is yet one man, Micaiah... by whom we may inquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil,” (1 Kings 22:8).  Or, "This is an hard saying. Who can hear it?" (John 6:60).  Consequently, in 3 Nephi, Jesus first asks for the sacrifice of a broken heart (that is, our current desire) and a contrite spirit (that is, a willingness to change our current thinking) in order to come to him.   God knows more and thinks differently than we do, coming to him inescapably requires us to learn more and change our minds.  So, yes.  Repenting. 

 It does something to our minds, to our desires and preconceptions.

Quote

And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.  [that is, CHANGE!]

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay;

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At the superficial level, yes, most evangelicals and Mormons might take those quotations at face value.  Yet the quotations themselves negate that silly understanding.  This is part of the solipsistic and childish notion of sola scriptura, which is infinitely regressive and unproductive.  Once one gets into that fever swamp (as you have), he can never get out.

Great Straw man BTW but I've never suggested that LDS theology is solely dependent on scripture alone, it is equally also dependent on the pronouncements of its prophets, seers and revelators, but then not exactly on them either since so many of their pronouncements have been found wanting that even those can be over turned by subsequent generations of prophets.  Seems you can't rely on anything anymore. Even pronouncements confirmed by the spirit are subject to change or disavowment.

Quote

You are objectifying an English translation of Scripture which is centuries old, and you have no idea what underlies it, while at the same time making human reports on God infallible.  

To take merely one example, the Hebrew phrase translated "all the Earth," can also be translated "all the land."  Same words in Hebrew.  They are translated by context, so that ancient Egypt or Canaan might be termed "all the land," while planet Earth "all the Earth."  The difference is crucial, and yet it goes right past you.  To you the Flood is over "all the Earth," while for me it is a local/regional "all the land."

You're on a straw man roll Robert.  Yet again you've constructed an argument I never advanced just so you could knock it down and do a victory dance. 🕺💃

Quote

I was well aware of that when I replied.  What you are unaware of is that one of those prophets of God has suggested that merely being rained on may have baptized the highest mountains, and not surprisingly he was a scientist (John Widtsoe).  Again, as I have said repeatedly, if you were aware of the full range of statements made by the various Brethren on such subjects, you would be far more humble and perhaps even contrite about the outlandish nonsense you have been purveying.

Remind me again where the Buck Stops?

Quote

 

If you were reasonably familiar, I would not have to quote anything to you.  Why do you ignore important exceptions to your silly claims?  By the way, Bruce R. McConkie took the same ignorant approach to Scripture.  Scriptorians are not scholars.

BOOM!!! Glad you said it so I wouldn't have to.  Then why should we hold anything any of them declares as being true or authoritative?  Seems they often over state and miss the mark and often make truth claims that cough cough end up being, well not true.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Tweed1944]

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Why do the descendants of Adam have ape dna

"No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Why do the descendants of Adam have ape dna

You mean besides the fact that we descended from a common ancestor?

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Was his name Adam, or was he a "man" (adam) named something else?  Was he a familiar archangel?  And what of you and me?  When we participate in such ordinances in the temple, what names do we go by?  After all, we are real people, just as those archetypal figures were real, and each of us is an archetypal figure also.  The Brethren emphasize the figurative nature of it, including the figurative "rib" from which "woman" is formed, and the figurative "fruit" that she eats.  All the action is liturgical and representational.

I hope you understand and accept the normal nature of the emblems taken in our Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  The bread represents the torn and broken body of Jesus, while the water (or wine) represents his blood shed for us.  If you can understand that they are not His actual body and blood, then it should be easy to understand the temple.

It's a slippery slope between reality and fiction, a sliding scale if you like, but how far can one slide the scale along the bar before a truth claim become a comforting fiction?

[Fair Dinkum]

Even within this august group of MD&D posters agreement can't be found with respect to the very nature of the claimed Biblical flood.  Was it universal or regional  or merely a metaphor used to teach an important lesson.  Seems no one can agree.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Why do the descendants of Adam have ape dna

 You really want to know?

Also

Edited June 23, 2021 by JLHPROF

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Even within this august group of MD&D posters agreement can't be found with respect to the very nature of the claimed Biblical flood.  Was it universal or regional  or merely a metaphor used to teach an important lesson.  Seems no one can agree.

Why would you be expecting agreement?  Your asking questions of a very diverse group of people who've traveled many different paths in life and who hold wildly divergent beliefs.  Agreement by everyone who posts here on a subject, especially one so far removed from present day life, would be unexpected.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Even within this august group of MD&D posters agreement can't be found with respect to the very nature of the claimed Biblical flood.  Was it universal or regional  or merely a metaphor used to teach an important lesson.  Seems no one can agree.

Finally, something I agree with you on.
There isn't agreement.  There is an ongoing trend in the Church to dismiss anything appearing supernatural (I know some members here will disagree).
We as a body of membership seem to be moving more away from miracles and more towards science.  If it violates our scientific understanding it gets labeled as figurative.
To some that's progress I guess.

[ksfisher]

52 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Why do the descendants of Adam have ape dna

Why wouldn't they?  There is nothing that says that God can't put His spirit children into bodies that were developed by evolution.

And calling homo sapien DNA ape DNA seems like an oversimplification.  Humans also share 60% of our DNA with bananas (which seems to explain a lot of human behavior).

https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-other-animals/

The bible says that Adam was created from the dust of the earth.  It seems that all life on earth has at least some common building blocks.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

No the flood was never presented as a parable.  See this is the problem with LDS apologists. The goal posts are constantly being moved.  And again based on this any story can teach anything. Does not really matter now does it. 

No, that is the nature of text itself, it is ambiguous.

And the imaginary person with a time machine to go back and verify "reality" and then infallibility" present" it AS a parable or "real" never existed.

And why should you believe anyone who actually did "present" it one way or another? How could they possibly know anything more than you do, if you are looking for "evidence"?

It's an oddly contradictory position, where you believe anything negative about the church, in a pretty naive way. If it's negative, it must be true, but if positive it can't be true

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe the flood isn't mythical?

Myths are not always fiction, but many use the term that way leading to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Myths may take historical people or events and place them within a narrative that has a greater purpose than simple factual analysis of “what happened”.  The how, what, and why questions myths are supposed to answer are different than the how, what, and why questions the study of history is supposed to answer and therefore myth narratives attached to the historical events can end up being very different even if a myth’s foundation is a historical event (and confusion is added because history is not the only source for myths, a myth may have multiple sources including history).  As an example, think of all the myths that have been attached to the founding of the United States…or likely any country. 
 

Added:  I left out my point…the flood could be both mythical and historical, it is important not to confuse myth**** and history, but that can be hard to do when there is a lot of overlap. 
 

***autocorrect wanted to change “myth” to “truth” for some reason, made me laugh. Rather a profound and timely error. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Myths are not always fiction, but many use the term that way leading to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Myths may take historical people or events and place them within a narrative that has a greater purpose than simple factual analysis of “what happened”.  The how, what, and why questions myths are supposed to answer are different than the how, what, and why questions the study of history is supposed to answer and therefore myth narratives attached to the historical events can end up being very different even if a myth’s foundation are a historical event (and confusion is added because history is not the only source for myths).  As an example, think of all the myths that have been attached to the founding of the United States…or likely any country. 
 

Added:  I left out my point…the flood could be both mythical and historical, it is important not to confuse myth**** and history, but that can be hard to do when there is a lot of overlap. 
 

***autocorrect wanted to change “myth” to “truth” for some reason, made me laugh. Rather a profound and timely error. 

Good point.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No, that is the nature of text itself, it is ambiguous.

And the imaginary person with a time machine to go back and verify "reality" and then infallibility" present" it AS a parable or "real" never existed.

And why should you believe anyone who actually did "present" it one way or another? How could they possibly know anything more than you do, if you are looking for "evidence"?

It's an oddly contradictory position, where you believe anything negative about the church, in a pretty naive way. If it's negative, it must be true, but if positive it can't be true

 

No that is not my position. I don't just accept what is negative and reject the positive.  But exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. And in most cases the evidence seems lacking.  I am trying but I still cannot get my head around the approach you find validating. Keep in mind for years I argued for the Church. But I reached the point where I found the arguments hollow and personally could not continue to use the apologetic defenses and argument with integrity.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

However, I don't consider every element as symbolic,

Being symbolic does not rule out also being literal. A table can be a table and also used symbolically to represent tables as a category (think catalog pictures which are symbols).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 You really want to know?

Also

That meme really misses the point of what a common ancestor is.  If I were you, I would put it in the file of never to be used again. There are arguments to be made if you want, but don’t use bad ones please. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Great Straw man BTW but I've never suggested that LDS theology is solely dependent on scripture alone,

Much of what is now viewed as scripture would have been the “pronouncements of its prophets, seers and revelators”.

What are today’s “pronouncements of its prophets, seers and revelators” just haven’t been labeled scripture by everyone yet. Many do view them as scripture though, even the contradictions. Canonized scripture has plenty of contradictions in it, so not that troubling for many that modern sources that will later be given the label of scripture have contradictions as well. 
 

My point being maybe Robert was thinking about the paradigm that leads to sola scripture rather than the limited usage of a set of books that is typically used by Christians as a definition of scripture….but then only really part of them. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

  Then why should we hold anything any of them declares as being true or authoritative? 

Because the Spirit confirms it. If the Spirit doesn’t, don’t. 
 

And I oh so get while simple to say, often not at all simple to do and for some may be impossible in mortality. But the Lord accepts what we give him in the context of what we have to give, not what we don’t. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Being symbolic does not rule out also being literal. A table can be a table and also used symbolically to represent tables as a category (think catalog pictures which are symbols).

Like the sacramental table representing the literal slab Christ's body was placed on.

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

That meme really misses the point of what a common ancestor is.  If I were you, I would put it in the file of never to be used again. There are arguments to be made if you want, but don’t use bad ones please. 

It was meant to be funny.  My meme ability must not be at Nehor level yet.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It was meant to be funny.  My meme ability must not be at Nehor level yet.

I haven’t tracked your position on evolution (meaning somethings my brain remembers and others not for most posters), so missed the humor nuance. I have run into too many who actually use stuff like that as an argument. My apologies for thinking you were being lazy for once and taking the easy route. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I haven’t tracked your position on evolution (meaning somethings my brain remembers and others not for most posters), so missed the humor nuance. I have run into too many who actually use stuff like that as an argument. My apologies for thinking you were being lazy for once and taking the easy route. 

I don't have a position on evolution for creation.  However I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve.