Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

Well, you run into a problem right there when you appeal to the nuances of Hebrew.

The problem being this article by BYU Professor Donald Parry.

Parry is relevant based on these qualifications:

So what does the good professor have to say about the scope and reality  of Noah's flood?

Quote

......those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

Now, obviously Parry doesn't speak for every single individual in the Church. But when a Professor of Hebrew publishes that in the Ensign, it takes away a bit of the latitude for what can be said about what the Church teaches, and what a clear reading of Hebrew implies.
 

Parry, who is certainly a fine Hebraist and biblical scholar, is not calling upon any of his understanding of the actual text of the Hebrew Bible in this comment.  He is speaking as a cultural literalist (very much like an evangelical Protestant literalist), and is far less restrained in his faith-promoting interpretation on that score than Apostle John Widtsoe (whom I quoted in this thread).  Dr David Bokovoy, who is also a highly qualified LDS Hebraist, has likewise published his views, but did so with specific analysis of the Hebrew text:  Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis-Deuteronomy (2014).  I highly recommend Bokovoy's text in order to understand how the Great Deluge story was crafted and placed in Genesis.  Another approach by LDS scholars to dating the Deluge (including the great Pluvial Rains at the end of the last Ice Age), can be found in Mike Rhodes & Ward Moody, "Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham," in Gee & Hauglid, eds., Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (FARMS/ISPART, 2005), 17-36.

You speak casually about "what the Church teaches," which partakes of the pathetic fallacy.  Churches don't teach, people do.  Some people, claim for example that Gen 1 can only be interpreted as a series of 24-hour days, which is just silly, but which suits the apriori assumption of a recent creation ex nihilo.  No reading of the Hebrew text indicates a need for that interpretation.  In fact, the best scholars read it quite differently, even apart from geology.

[Fair Dinkum]

On 6/23/2021 at 10:08 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Nihilism seems to be your only refuge, Fair Dinkum.  Actual logical discourse cannot possibly have meaning for you.

And you again carefully ignore McConkie announcing publicly in 1978 that he and the Brethren were so wrong on race and Black priesthood (whereas I knew he was wrong from the get go).  You could have frankly stated the remarkable nature of self-denunciation on that score.  I have repeated it here many times as an example of the Brethren realizing just how wrong they could be.  Brother Brigham even insisted that we not believe anything he says without getting confirmation on it from the Holy Spirit.  Of course, since you do not accept that proviso (rejecting both the existence of the Holy Spirit, and the possibility of getting an actual confirmation, etc.), and since you do not recognize harsh disagreements among the prophets (Paul versus Peter, and Brigham versus Orson Pratt), historical reality plays no part in your evaluation.

You demand infallibility so strongly, yet complain so loudly that it does not exist.  You are rejecting the human condition and human nature.  And, of course, anything I say just has to be a "straw man."  That way you need not confront your own confusion of fantasy and reality.

You seem to hold a much lower estimation of the Brethren than I do Robert.  Dose the church still adhere to the claims in Amos 3:7 or not?

Quote

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
 

If yes, and I'm pretty sure they still do, how do you square this claim with the image you are painting?

[longview]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Did he wipe all memory of the event from the minds of those who lived through it?  If not, do you not think it would have been passed on to their children and children’s children for centuries leading to numerous worldwide myths of catastrophic land movement just as happened I am guessing you believe with the stories of the Flood. There were a lot more witnesses left standing in Peleg’s time, after all. 

No. God would not wipe away anyone's memory.  He wanted them to remember Adam and Eve.  But they became perverse and apostatized.  He wanted the Egyptians to retain their gratitude for His servant Joseph for having saved the Middle East from a VERY severe 7-year drought.  But in 400 years, a new Pharaoh arose that knew not Joseph.  God sent Moses to demand that he allow the Hebrews to go free.  But they were too prideful and remained stubborn.  With all the amazing plagues that were unleashed on that nation, would you not expect the entire nation to keep a faithful record of what transpired?   Sadly they did not.  Thankfully we have the accounts in the OT and other scriptures.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

So let’s see some evidence people were talking about this miracle back in the same time periods they were talking about the flood.

No doubt some records were kept.  But how long were they preserved and faithfully transmitted?  Makes us wonder how Laban (circa 600 B.C.) obtained the Brass Plates?  Did the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh maintain this record?  Were they concerned about long term integrity of records?  Is that why they etched important histories onto metal sheets?

More evidences - - - https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html

"The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was suspected long before the 20th century; this notion was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa . . . by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]." Ortelius' idea surfaced again in the 19th century. However, it was not until 1912 that the idea of moving continents was seriously considered as a full-blown scientific theory -- called Continental Drift -- introduced in two articles published by a 32-year-old German meteorologist named Alfred Lothar Wegener. He contended that, around 200 million years ago, the supercontinent Pangaea began to split apart. Alexander Du Toit, Professor of Geology at Witwatersrand University and one of Wegener's staunchest supporters, proposed that Pangaea first broke into two large continental landmasses, Laurasia in the northern hemisphere and Gondwanaland in the southern hemisphere. Laurasia and Gondwanaland then continued to break apart into the various smaller continents that exist today."

[cinepro]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You speak casually about "what the Church teaches," which partakes of the pathetic fallacy.  Churches don't teach, people do. 

That's a very odd parsing of the situation. So, if someone asked you whether the CoJCoLdS teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or that sex before marriage is not okay, you would say "Churches don't teach, people do. So the 'Church' doesn't actually teach anything. All I can say is that many leaders in the LDS Church believe those things..."? And even if you believe that makes sense, I think most people would understand that if they go to a church or other group's official website and find something repeatedly and consistently taught throughout the site, it's fair to say that church or group "teaches" that. The only people who would disagree are probably the members of the group that really wish the group didn't actually teach that.

But to the point at hand, I would simply point out that every single Church leader, scholar, or other person that has taught about Noah's flood in any Church-published talk, manual or other curriculum or forum has taught a global flood for Noah to the exclusion of a mythological or regional interpretation. If you can find a single exception, do share.

So the "Church" might not teach it, but every time the Church publishes someone's teachings about the flood, that person does.

Flood at Noah's Time

LDS OT CES Manual

LDS Seminary Manual



 

Edited June 25, 2021 by cinepro

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, longview said:

The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was suspected long before the 20th century; this notion was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus.

Iow, the map led to the idea, not traditions or myths.  I asked for evidence the idea was out there before the maps showed up to give hints in that direction. 

We are not talking about miracles limited to one nation where it could be possible that a concerted effort to ensure an event that made the rulers embarrassed was forgotten could har been made.  We are talking about an event comparable only to the flood in the level of its world altering impact.

Why was the flood so easily remembered throughout the world and yet no myths on the land masses of the earth being broken apart?  More witnesses, massive upheaval, destructions more than likely…alliances shattered, possibly even families separated depending on how quickly it happened. 
 

Your argument that people forget miracles overtime would make a stronger impression if the worldwide myths of floods weren’t used as evidence of the biblical flood.

 

It makes much more sense to take that one verse in the context of the verses around it rather than pull it out as if an independent statement and interpret it based on knowledge learned in the last 500 years rather than anything written in the previous several thousands of years. 
 

The ultimate proof texting….

Edited June 25, 2021 by Calm

[Fair Dinkum]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's a very odd parsing of the situation. So, if someone asked you whether the CoJCoLdS teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or that sex before marriage is not okay, you would say "Churches don't teach, people do. So the 'Church' doesn't actually teach anything. All I can say is that many leaders in the LDS Church believe those things..."? And even if you believe that makes sense, I think most people would understand that if they go to a church or other group's official website and find something repeatedly and consistently taught throughout the site, it's fair to say that church or group "teaches" that. The only people who would disagree are probably the members of the group that really wish the group didn't actually teach that.

But to the point at hand, I would simply point out that every single Church leader, scholar, or other person that has taught about Noah's flood in any Church-published talk, manual or other curriculum or forum has taught a global flood for Noah to the exclusion of a mythological or regional interpretation. If you can find a single exception, do share.

So the "Church" might not teach it, but every time the Church publishes someone's teachings about the flood, that person does.

Flood at Noah's Time

LDS OT CES Manual

LDS Seminary Manual



 

[longview]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why was the flood so easily remembered throughout the world and yet no myths on the land masses of the earth being broken apart?  More witnesses, massive upheaval, destructions more than likely…alliances shattered, possibly even families separated depending on how quickly it happened.

I suppose it has to do with the drastic scale in which the entire world was killed off except for one family and selected creatures.  There were probably billions of people living before the flood.  The people building the Tower of Babel were very much concerned about the repetition of worldwide flood (despite their scriptures stating that God's assurance of the token of the rainbow promising to never again bring the floods).

The separation of land masses may have occurred over a period of decades or centuries.  Making it less likely for the proles to be overly concerned about it.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, longview said:

The separation of land masses may have occurred over a period of decades or centuries.  Making it less likely for the proles to be overly concerned about it.

Because losing major trade routes or changing from a land locked country surrounded by tribes on all sides to an island out in the middle of nowhere isn’t traumatic to one’s lifestyle. 
 

No actual myths or traditions then…

Edited June 25, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, longview said:

No. God would not wipe away anyone's memory.  He wanted them to remember Adam and Eve.  But they became perverse and apostatized.  He wanted the Egyptians to retain their gratitude for His servant Joseph for having saved the Middle East from a VERY severe 7-year drought.  But in 400 years, a new Pharaoh arose that knew not Joseph.  God sent Moses to demand that he allow the Hebrews to go free.  But they were too prideful and remained stubborn.  With all the amazing plagues that were unleashed on that nation, would you not expect the entire nation to keep a faithful record of what transpired?   Sadly they did not.  Thankfully we have the accounts in the OT and other scriptures.

No doubt some records were kept.  But how long were they preserved and faithfully transmitted?  Makes us wonder how Laban (circa 600 B.C.) obtained the Brass Plates?  Did the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh maintain this record?  Were they concerned about long term integrity of records?  Is that why they etched important histories onto metal sheets?

More evidences - - - https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html

"The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was suspected long before the 20th century; this notion was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa . . . by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]." Ortelius' idea surfaced again in the 19th century. However, it was not until 1912 that the idea of moving continents was seriously considered as a full-blown scientific theory -- called Continental Drift -- introduced in two articles published by a 32-year-old German meteorologist named Alfred Lothar Wegener. He contended that, around 200 million years ago, the supercontinent Pangaea began to split apart. Alexander Du Toit, Professor of Geology at Witwatersrand University and one of Wegener's staunchest supporters, proposed that Pangaea first broke into two large continental landmasses, Laurasia in the northern hemisphere and Gondwanaland in the southern hemisphere. Laurasia and Gondwanaland then continued to break apart into the various smaller continents that exist today."

My parents gave me a super dooper globe at age 9 or so.  The first thing I noticed was how the bulbous shape of western Africa appeared to be "cut out" of the gulf of Mexico, and then looking farther south at the western coastline of Africa compared to the eastern coast of South America, they appeared to nearly "fit together".

It was pretty obvious even to a 9 year old that something like continental drift was happening.

Anyone with a good map can plainly see it.

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's a very odd parsing of the situation. So, if someone asked you whether the CoJCoLdS teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or that sex before marriage is not okay, you would say "Churches don't teach, people do. So the 'Church' doesn't actually teach anything. All I can say is that many leaders in the LDS Church believe those things..."? And even if you believe that makes sense, I think most people would understand that if they go to a church or other group's official website and find something repeatedly and consistently taught throughout the site, it's fair to say that church or group "teaches" that. The only people who would disagree are probably the members of the group that really wish the group didn't actually teach that.

Fallible leaders may believe all sorts of things, and believe them very strongly.  That does not make them so.  Indeed, hiding behind the personification of the "Church" is a ploy frequently used by partisans to quash any divergent POV by falsely claiming the personified Church as the living Kingdom of God on Earth, i.e., to oppose the "Church" is to oppose God.  In an infallible Roman Catholic context that may carry some weight.  In an LDS context that is absurd.

Moreover, the most important doctrine of the LDS Church is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Petty disputes about what sort of flood the Great Deluge was seem remote and of little import in that larger context.

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But to the point at hand, I would simply point out that every single Church leader, scholar, or other person that has taught about Noah's flood in any Church-published talk, manual or other curriculum or forum has taught a global flood for Noah to the exclusion of a mythological or regional interpretation. If you can find a single exception, do share.

So the "Church" might not teach it, but every time the Church publishes someone's teachings about the flood, that person does.............................

All churches and synagogues publish manuals, and some have official, systematic theological statements (all of them usually written by experts).  Many have seminaries in which professors teach a standard theological POV.  Some do a better job of it than others -- either more professional on the one hand, or more faith promoting and pious on the other:  There are two choices there, and a particular religious organization may sponsor one to the detriment of the other.  Unlike most other religious organizations, the leaders of the LDS Church are normally very chary of approaching such issues academically.  That does have consequences.  It may also entail ignoring the opinion of someone like John Widtsoe.

As you know, the LDS Brethren and their assistants assign the writing of manuals to various CES personnel or other trusted LDS teachers, and the content of such manuals varies over time.  Hugh Nibley's official 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual is only one example of such variation.

One participant on this board, Dan McClellan, is a trusted PhD working for LDS Translation Services.  Last time he was on this board it was to announce a new LDS Church publication.  So when I maintain that churches don't write manuals, I'm not trying to be cute, but am stating the fact that actual people are assigned to such writing, and we can sometimes know exactly who is doing what and why.  Church doctrine can seem settled by manuals, but it really merely reflects an evanescent POV, which can change over time.  What is truly fundamental is the Scriptural Canon, and Joseph Smith thought it best to read it in the "original."  That requires formal training and careful exegesis.

Some LDS people used to tell me that Black people should not be ordained, or that they were cursed.  I knew they were wrong.  And I knew that it was not a "Church" teaching, but rather the mistaken policy position of various LDS leaders.  My academic training in biblical languages and ancient Near Eastern history helped me see things quite differently.  So did my own personal sense of right and wrong, and my reading of LDS history.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You seem to hold a much lower estimation of the Brethren than I do Robert.  Dose the church still adhere to the claims in Amos 3:7 or not?

Quote

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

If yes, and I'm pretty sure they still do, how do you square this claim with the image you are painting?

As I said, you clearly and desperately want the Brethren to be infallible, even though they cannot be.  You appear to want to build them up just so you can knock them down -- for the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  Right?

You have again failed to address the strong and harshly divergent opinions of the prophets (Brigham versus Orson Pratt, and Paul versus Peter), and you seem completely unaware of the prophet Jonah.  Do I have to go over each of those instances for you?  Do I really need to detail the reasons why each such instance fully negates your POV on infallibility? 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

No. God would not wipe away anyone's memory.  He wanted them to remember Adam and Eve.  But they became perverse and apostatized.  He wanted the Egyptians to retain their gratitude for His servant Joseph for having saved the Middle East from a VERY severe 7-year drought.  But in 400 years, a new Pharaoh arose that knew not Joseph.  God sent Moses to demand that he allow the Hebrews to go free.  But they were too prideful and remained stubborn.  With all the amazing plagues that were unleashed on that nation, would you not expect the entire nation to keep a faithful record of what transpired?   Sadly they did not.  Thankfully we have the accounts in the OT and other scriptures.

No doubt some records were kept.  But how long were they preserved and faithfully transmitted?  Makes us wonder how Laban (circa 600 B.C.) obtained the Brass Plates?  Did the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh maintain this record?  Were they concerned about long term integrity of records?  Is that why they etched important histories onto metal sheets?

Egypt most likely would have recorded it with something along the lines of: “Slave revolt, they left to go die in the desert. Good riddance. Had a run of bad luck in the last year. A lot of deaths. Sacrificed to gods. Better now.”

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

So the "Church" might not teach it, but every time the Church publishes someone's teachings about the flood, that person does.

Everyone has some preconceptions when they try to interpret an ancient text, and unfortunately most of our preconceptions have come to us through tradition.   The leaders of the church are no exception.  

Last year, Ben Spackman made a presentation that I found quite interesting on the Latter-day Saint tradition of interpreting the scriptures relative to science, and he researched how some of the ideas you bring up ended up getting into our teaching materials and publications.   I haven't actually watched this as a video, but I listened to it last year on my trip to Utah.  But you may also find it interesting, and it's relevant to this flood of Noah topic even though I don't recall the flood story specifically mentioned in his presentation.  It's published as one of the FAIR videos on Youtube:

Science Falsely so called: How Latter-day Saints came to Misread Scripture as Science

  

Edited June 25, 2021 by InCognitus

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Everyone has some preconceptions when they try to interpret an ancient text, and unfortunately most of our preconceptions have come to us through tradition.   The leaders of the church are no exception.  

Last year, Ben Spackman made a presentation that I found quite interesting on the Latter-day Saint tradition of interpreting the scriptures relative to science, and he researched how some of the ideas you bring up ended up getting into our teaching materials and publications.   I haven't actually watched this as a video, but I listened to it last year on my trip to Utah.  But you may also find it interesting, and it's relevant to this flood of Noah topic even though I don't recall the flood story specifically mentioned in his presentation.  It's published as one of the FAIR videos on Youtube:

Science Falsely so called: How Latter-day Saints came to Misread Scripture as Science

  

 

We had this book in my house growing up.  Not sure I ever read it.  I don't remember reading it.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Egypt most likely would have recorded it with something along the lines of: “Slave revolt, they left to go die in the desert. Good riddance. Had a run of bad luck in the last year. A lot of deaths. Sacrificed to gods. Better now.”

More likely: Slave revolt, Pharaoh [insert name] personally killed every single one of them with his toothbrush.  All foreign gods banished from Egypt.  Hail Hydra." 

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Egypt most likely would have recorded it with something along the lines of: “Slave revolt, they left to go die in the desert. Good riddance. Had a run of bad luck in the last year. A lot of deaths. Sacrificed to gods. Better now.”

 

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

More likely: Slave revolt, Pharaoh [insert name] personally killed every single one of them with his toothbrush.  All foreign gods banished from Egypt.  Hail Hydra." 

Don't know about Hydra but they had to overthrow the goa'uld....

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Don't know about Hydra but they had to overthrow the goa'uld....

Had to look that one up.  Never watched Stargate.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Had to look that one up.  Never watched Stargate.

The whole premise was the Egyptian Gods were parasitic aliens and the slaves overthrew them.

[carbon dioxide]

On 6/23/2021 at 8:31 PM, 2BizE said:

A few possible reasons for the flood myth being in the BoM:

1) Christ uses anachronisms in the BoM to test our faith.

2) Christ knew it was a myth, but liked it to share a story.

3) Joseph Smith, author and proprietor of the BoM, was not aware it was a myth when he wrote the 19th century work.

Perhaps it is not a myth but just a misunderstood account by modern people reading something into the story that was not intended.  If my son goes in the backyard and takes a pee on the lawn, he is peeing on the earth.  Does not mean your house will be flooded with his pee.

Edited June 25, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[strappinglad]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And plate tectonics, and subsidence, etc.

IIRC many scientists at the time vigorously fought against these  ideas. Similarly many denied the Scablands flooding for over 40 years. Paradigms are blinders. 

[Kevin Christensen]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 Dose the church still adhere to the claims in Amos 3:7 or not?

 

Regarding the claims in Amos 3:7, the cultural context in which a person reads, makes a difference.  

As William Hamblin and Daniel Peterson translate it for the Deseret News:

Quote

Amos 3:7 — a passage often quoted by Mormons — describes the Lord's "sod" as follows: "For my Lord doesn't do any thing/word without revealing his 'sod' to his servants the prophets."

So what does 'sod' mean?  Is 'secrets', that is whatever God knows must necessarily be shared with prophets, making them, in all matters of interpretation essentially infallible on all topics on which anyone of thems offers an opinion?  Hamblin and Peterson explain:

Quote

An intriguing feature of the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible, is the divine council, a body of celestial beings who meet with God in divine deliberations.

This idea is connected to the Hebrew term "sod," which means "a confidential discussion, a secret or plan, a circle of confidants, or council."

Nearly all scholars now agree that, when used in relationship to God, "sod" refers to the heavenly divine council, which human prophets may sometimes visit to learn divine secrets. The celestial members of this council are variously called the "host of heaven" (1 Kings 22:19), "gods" or "sons of God" (Psalm 82:1, 6), or "Holy Ones."

"Sod" can refer either to the divine council itself, or to the secret results of its deliberations — its secret plans — which a prophet is sometimes permitted to learn and reveal to mankind. Only those who participate in the divine "sod"/council know the "sod"/secret plan, and only those who are given explicit permission may reveal that "sod" to mankind. This concept is illustrated in several biblical passages.

https://www.deseret.com/2013/1/27/20447423/old-testament-divine-council-called-a-sod

So Amos is saying that God tells his prophets about the existence of the great council and what was decided there.   Which mean that Joseph Smith and his successors pass that test for 'sod' knowledge. 

Here is something from an FAIR essay I wrote citing important observations by Kevin Barney:

Quote

LDS scholar Kevin Barney wrote an essay that surveyed recent scholarship in comparison to “Six Concepts in Joseph Smith’s Understanding of Genesis 1:1.” In the essay Barney notes that “revelation often results after wrestling with ideas, and Joseph’s struggle with the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 seems to have yielded six key concepts, which he expressed either in the King Follet Discourse, or in a parallel discourse he gave on June 16, 1844. These six concepts may be summarized as follows. “

The creation was effected not “out of nothing,” but from pre-existing matter.
In the very beginning, there was plurality of Gods.
Among this plurality, there was a head God (or there were head Gods).
These Gods met in a grand council.
There Gods in council appointed one God over us.
The idea of a plurality of Gods, which is most easily seen “at the beginning,” is found throughout the Bible.
Barney’s essay notes that “when propounded in 1844, each of these six ideas was no doubt considered unusual or unorthodox by other religious traditions...Yet the first five are widely acknowledged by current Biblical scholars to be accurate expressions of religious beliefs among the Hebrews during the time of the patriarchs. The sixth concept, while still representing a minority view, has also received strong scholarly support in recent decades.”

After reviewing a wide array of Old Testament commentators on these six points, Barney observes that “this scholarship appears to have answered a long standing problem in New Testament Studies: How was it possible that Jewish-Christians in the early church were able to acknowledge Jesus as divine? If, as many believe, the Jews of that era held to an iron clad monotheism, such a result would have been very problematic. If, however, the pluralistic, dualistic elements of historic Hebrew theology had a continued vitality until and beyond the Christian era, then it becomes more understandable how the earliest Jewish-Christians were able to worship both the Father and the Son as readily as they did.”

Barney then makes a statement that shows the real implications of the Deut. 13 test for appreciating Joseph Smith:

It is one thing today for scholars to identify the persistence of ancient Hebrew pluralism and to write papers and books on the subject (each building on the work of earlier scholars). It is quite another thing for Joseph Smith to have made these claims, against his own earlier pietistic perceptions of monotheism and without any discernible support from the learned of the day, and to have committed the Church to this position as a principle of doctrine. That no scholar ever did... That Joseph should have articulated these ideas so well and so forcefully in the middle of the nineteenth century is, in my view, nothing short of remarkable.

The implication of the discoveries of recent scholarship is that if the test in Deuteronomy 13 calls for considering a true prophet against the understanding of God had by the ancient Israelites then it turns out that this particular test provides a profound endorsement of Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims. It shows Joseph Smith accomplishing something that “no other man did.” It also illustrates the process by which a prophets persecutors “shall stumble and shall not prevail” and how the word given by the prophets is strengthened. It shows how Joseph helps us understand scripture. Rather than decisively failing one test, this incident shows Joseph Smith fully passing that test, and at least three others.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Abuse_of_a_Bible_test

Joseph Smith demonstrated knowledge of the 'sod' and reported that God revealed that knowledge to him.

That shows that he was a prophet in exactly the Biblical sense required by the original Hebrew sense of Amos 3:7..  Prophethood, does not, as many scriptures and prophets have reported, a few of which I have quoted in recent posts, denote omniscience and infallibility on all topics.  Far less bureaucrats and manual writers are granted the status of being authoritatively, exclusively, and infallibly, "The Church."   Indeed, what sort of person forms the bureaucratic and adminstrative backbone of most organizations?  According to a great deal of research on Myers-Briggs Types and careers, ESTJ and ISTJ type preferences in conservative institutions are common enough that the SJ types are denoted "traditionalists".  They do have many strengths and virtues, but a weakness, amplified when you get a lot of them together, is a reliance on tradition and a reluctance to learn and try new things.  So citing various lesson manuals or teachings of "traditional" notions of the flood, to me is only demonstrating what happens in any institution where there is a concentration of SJ traditionalists behaving as SJs tend to behave.  Cinpro's selected evidence passes through that selective filter, which leaves out Nibley, and Talmage, BYU Geology and Biology departments, and things like this:

Quote

[Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, pg. 115-116, 14 May 1871]:
I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity.

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts--they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.

David Bailey put together many useful observations and quotes here.

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 25, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

On 6/23/2021 at 4:37 PM, Teancum said:

But exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

"Hearing" God tell you it is true is about as exceptional evidence as I can possibly imagine.

Again you are confusing science with religion.

Sigh.

What evidence do you need to know you are in love?  What kind of meter measures that? Where's your evidence for what career you want?

What is your purpose in life?

What evidence have you that you got that right?

[Fair Dinkum]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said, you clearly and desperately want the Brethren to be infallible, even though they cannot be.  You appear to want to build them up just so you can knock them down -- for the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  Right?

You have again failed to address the strong and harshly divergent opinions of the prophets (Brigham versus Orson Pratt, and Paul versus Peter), and you seem completely unaware of the prophet Jonah.  Do I have to go over each of those instances for you?  Do I really need to detail the reasons why each such instance fully negates your POV on infallibility? 

Robert you keep manufacturing these straw man arguments that I don’t make just so you can knock them down and claim victory.  Why not just address the points I actually make instead of inventing ones I haven’t.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Robert you keep manufacturing these straw man arguments that I don’t make just so you can knock them down and claim victory.  Why not just address the points I actually make instead of inventing ones I haven’t.

Back to your topic heading I think in the end the only salient point is this:

If Jesus actually stated that the global flood occurred he was either wrong or it actually did despite science. 

Which is more probable?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Robert you keep manufacturing these straw man arguments that I don’t make just so you can knock them down and claim victory.  Why not just address the points I actually make instead of inventing ones I haven’t.

So you don't think that the petulant prophet Jona is relevant?  Your infallible prophet Jona not only runs from his assignment, but even gets angry when Nineveh repents and his predicted destruction doesn't take place.  All quite aside from the question whether the book of Jona is really a parable, and not actual history.

Likewise, your infallible Brigham Young is found making many mistakes, which not only go against specific LDS doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, but for which he is confronted on those errors by none other than the redoubtable senior Apostle Orson Pratt.  Same thing which we see in the powerful confrontation between St Paul and St Peter over whether the Gospel is to be taken to the Gentiles, and over whether one may eat non-kosher foods.  For you these are not major issues?  They do not show the rank fallibility of the prophets?

You manufacture a false picture of LDS theology and then proceed to smash it.  How convenient, even if it is not new, and is the tried and true path of those who seek occasion against the LDS Church.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Robert F. Smith