Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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

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?  ..............

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. ....................

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:

..........................

Everything you say here is on point and correct, Kevin, and it is true that mainstream secular scholarship has long since accepted those norms.  But that will mean nothing to @Fair Dinkum simply because he will suppose that you are trying to sell him a bill of goods.  Since he himself is unaware of these scholarly fundamentals, they do not exist for him.  Not that this dilemma is not typical of the average LDS member.

[strappinglad]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All quite aside from the question whether the book of Jona is really a parable, and not actual history.

Side note in case you missed it . 

Lobster diver swallowed by humpback whale near Cape Cod (nypost.com)

Good thing it was a baleen type

[Fair Dinkum]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I've never claimed that LDS prophets are infallible, never, not once despite your continued claims to the contrary. 

Jona, a mythical Biblical character who lived in a fish for three days, was adapted by Christians as a the perfect metaphor to the Christ who also rose after three days, but unlike Christ, Jona was a very flawed messenger, thus giving hope to the rest of us that salvation is available through Christ.

As to Brigham Young, while I view him as immensely flawed, he certainly taught just the opposite when preaching saying:

Quote

Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and he may preserve us as we desire.^[1]

And because of the push back he clarified:

Quote

Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.^[2]

So yes BY taught that his discourses, copied and approved by himself, should be considered scripture. So here we have a flawed man who claims to speak scripture (once copied, edited and approved)

Again we get back to the old Speaking as a man vs speaking as a prophet and Thus Saith the Lord argument.  I view these flawed men as being in an impossible position. That is being, flawed men and at the same time having set themselves up as God spokesmen and being expected by the people to speak for God.  But when their godly pronouncements end up also being flawed they expose God to the same flaws that they themselves hold.  And seemingly the only test to these godly pronouncements is the test of time.  Think of all of the Godly scripture Brigham Young put forth, some of which was part of the Temple ceremony, that he copied, edited and approved as scripture that has now been disavowed or deemed as heresy.

So yes these men are flawed <--- it is their claims to the contrary of speaking authoritatively for God I take umbrage with. For we can take nearly any LDS prophet and given enough passage of time, find their prophetic utterances wanting and flawed despite being attributed to God.

But you sir seem to want your cake and have it too.  You want to be able to claim that these men are both flawed (which they are) and that their pronouncements should hold the same weight as if they were spoken by God himself too.

So Robert which is it?  When a ‘prophet’ speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost, is it scripture.”  or not?  I guess time will tell.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've never claimed that LDS prophets are infallible, never, not once despite your continued claims to the contrary. 

And yet, right here in this post you claim that infallibility and then condemn it.  As though you are unaware of the meaning of your own words, here and throughout this thread.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Jona, a mythical Biblical character who lived in a fish for three days, was adapted by Christians as a the perfect metaphor to the Christ who also rose after three days, but unlike Christ, Jona was a very flawed messenger, thus giving hope to the rest of us that salvation is available through Christ.

At least you are beginning to acknowledge some flaws, and his humanity does help encourage the rest of us.  At least you got that much right. 

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

As to Brigham Young, while I view him as immensely flawed, he certainly taught just the opposite when preaching saying:..................

By carefully selecting just those Brigham quotes which make your point (instead of those other quotes which attenuate the quotes you cite) you are doing the same cherry-picking which non-scholars do, with no sense of perspective or depth.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So yes BY taught that his discourses, copied and approved by himself, should be considered scripture. So here we have a flawed man who claims to speak scripture (once copied, edited and approved)

And yet they are not in fact considered Scripture and are not part of the LDS Canon of Scripture.  Indeed, some of his most vociferous claims were openly condemned by Bruce McConkie in 1978.  Moreover, it is precisely the views of Orson Pratt (who also condemned Brigham's views) on those matters which are now considered doctrinal -- not those of Brother Brigham.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Again we get back to the old Speaking as a man vs speaking as a prophet and Thus Saith the Lord argument. 

Neither of those tests is dispositive, and each amounts to children saying "Tis so, tis not."  A false prophet can easily say "thus saith the Lord."  There is a Deuteronomic test, but that comes after the fact (the test of time).  The only real and immediate test of a prophetic claim is affirmation via the Holy Spirit, and that is always individual.  Of course, when Brigham makes that claim, you studiously ignore him.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I view these flawed men as being in an impossible position. That is being, flawed men and at the same time having set themselves up as God spokesmen and being expected by the people to speak for God.  But when their godly pronouncements end up also being flawed they expose God to the same flaws that they themselves hold.  And seemingly the only test to these godly pronouncements is the test of time.  Think of all of the Godly scripture Brigham Young put forth, some of which was part of the Temple ceremony, that he copied, edited and approved as scripture that has now been disavowed or deemed as heresy.

So yes these men are flawed <--- it is their claims to the contrary of speaking authoritatively for God I take umbrage with. For we can take nearly any LDS prophet and given enough passage of time, find their prophetic utterances wanting and flawed despite being attributed to God.

But you sir seem to want your cake and have it too.  You want to be able to claim that these men are both flawed (which they are) and that their pronouncements should hold the same weight as if they were spoken by God himself too.

No, sir, it is you who make that false claim.  Those human prophets are always flawed, even when speaking on behalf of God.  You are the one claiming that they are both flawed and infallible, and thus that they give a bad name to God when they fail.  While it is true that many people throughout Judaism and Christianity cannot believe that God would allow evil in the world, they only take that view because their God is omnipotent and omnibeneficient.  The LDS God is not, and cannot be.  He is limited, just as His human children are, by nature.  He has no supernatural abilities, and is a humanistic God who must obey natural law.  And natural law is the law of the jungle.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So Robert which is it?  When a ‘prophet’ speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost, is it scripture.”  or not?  I guess time will tell.

We have many prophetic words in the LDS Canon of Scripture.  Yet even Brigham Young recognized that not everything in the Canon is true:

Quote

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible,  have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances.

The Bible contains the word of God, the word of Jesus, of angels, of good men, of those tolerably good, of wicked men, and the words of the devil, the enemy of all righteousness, the enemy of Jesus, and the enemy of this world, who is determined that he will possess the earth and its  inhabitants; and in the main it is true; and every item of doctrine taught by the Latter-day Saints is to be found in this book.  Journal of Discourses 13:175, 235.

Joseph Fielding Smith taught,

Quote

"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…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

You give so much authority to these men, when it suits your case, but ignore their words when it slams your case to the ground.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are angry that they are fallible, and that your only actual recourse is to obtain the witness of the Holy Spirit as to whether this or that claim is true?

Edited June 26, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Side note in case you missed it . 

Lobster diver swallowed by humpback whale near Cape Cod (nypost.com)

Good thing it was a baleen type

Yup.  I thought of Jona when I heard about that.  The Hebrew word in Jona is "fish," so we don't know what species supposedly swallowed him and held him for 3 days.  However, the point of a parable, a "Just So" story, or an Aesopian Fable is not to provide the proper biological taxonomy, but to make a fun point.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"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?

Interesting that you put the work hearing in quotes.

Being in love has evidence. I am real. The person I love is real. I have physical and emotional responses to a real person that I can see, touch and smell as well as talk to and be with in a physical place.  Not so with the experience or evidence you claim that is as valid as scientific evidence or exceptional. And as notes this method does not result in consistent results.  Otherwise you would not have as many people claiming to have confirmations of conflicting "truths."

As for purpose in life who is to say there is any concrete purpose. Purpose in life essentially is created by each and every individual.  Belief systems can impact ones perceived purpose but that does not make them real at all.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And yet, right here in this post you claim that infallibility and then condemn it.  As though you are unaware of the meaning of your own words, here and throughout this thread.

At least you are beginning to acknowledge some flaws, and his humanity does help encourage the rest of us.  At least you got that much right. 

By carefully selecting just those Brigham quotes which make your point (instead of those other quotes which attenuate the quotes you cite) you are doing the same cherry-picking which non-scholars do, with no sense of perspective or depth.

And yet they are not in fact considered Scripture and are not part of the LDS Canon of Scripture.  Indeed, some of his most vociferous claims were openly condemned by Bruce McConkie in 1978.  Moreover, it is precisely the views of Orson Pratt (who also condemned Brigham's views) on those matters which are now considered doctrinal -- not those of Brother Brigham.

Neither of those tests is dispositive, and each amounts to children saying "Tis so, tis not."  A false prophet can easily say "thus saith the Lord."  There is a Deuteronomic test, but that comes after the fact (the test of time).  The only real and immediate test of a prophetic claim is affirmation via the Holy Spirit, and that is always individual.  Of course, when Brigham makes that claim, you studiously ignore him.

No, sir, it is you who make that false claim.  Those human prophets are always flawed, even when speaking on behalf of God.  You are the one claiming that they are both flawed and infallible, and thus that they give a bad name to God when they fail.  While it is true that many people throughout Judaism and Christianity cannot believe that God would allow evil in the world, they only take that view because their God is omnipotent and omnibeneficient.  The LDS God is not, and cannot be.  He is limited, just as His human children are, by nature.  He has no supernatural abilities, and is a humanistic God who must obey natural law.  And natural law is the law of the jungle.

We have many prophetic words in the LDS Canon of Scripture.  Yet even Brigham Young recognized that not everything in the Canon is true:

Joseph Fielding Smith taught,

You give so much authority to these men, when it suits your case, but ignore their words when it slams your case to the ground.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are angry that they are fallible, and that your only actual recourse is to obtain the witness of the Holy Spirit as to whether this or that claim is true?

Basically what I am getting from this whole discussion is that when a person who calls himself a prophet says that he has received a revelation from God, that may or may not be true.  It is only a starting point to find out for ourselves if that is a real revelation or just him speaking as a flawed man who thinks he has received something from God.  I would also expand that notion to any prophet recorded in the scriptures as well.  They also were just as flawed as modern prophets and may or may not have received a revelation from God.  We must also find out for ourselves if whether scriptural prophets were in fact speaking for God.  

Really, the only religious relationship worth anything is our own relationship with God and how he speaks to each one of us.  Robert has demonstrated quite clearly that to only rely on what a prophet says is not a reliable source of truth or of the will of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Basically what I am getting from this whole discussion is that when a person who calls himself a prophet says that he has received a revelation from God, that may or may not be true.  It is only a starting point to find out for ourselves if that is a real revelation or just him speaking as a flawed man who thinks he has received something from God.  I would also expand that notion to any prophet recorded in the scriptures as well.  They also were just as flawed as modern prophets and may or may not have received a revelation from God.  We must also find out for ourselves if whether scriptural prophets were in fact speaking for God.  

Really, the only religious relationship worth anything is our own relationship with God and how he speaks to each one of us.  Robert has demonstrated quite clearly that to only rely on what a prophet says is not a reliable source of truth or of the will of God.

Yep.  Exactly, but said so much better than I.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Interesting that you put the work hearing in quotes.

Being in love has evidence. I am real. The person I love is real. I have physical and emotional responses to a real person that I can see, touch and smell as well as talk to and be with in a physical place.  Not so with the experience or evidence you claim that is as valid as scientific evidence or exceptional. And as notes this method does not result in consistent results.  Otherwise you would not have as many people claiming to have confirmations of conflicting "truths."

As for purpose in life who is to say there is any concrete purpose. Purpose in life essentially is created by each and every individual.  Belief systems can impact ones perceived purpose but that does not make them real at all.

No, you are EXPERIENCING what you call a "real person" and you are using your senses to come to that conclusion.

I also EXPERIENCE a real person to whom I speak and he "speaks" back- the reason for the quotes is to differentiate what comes through the senses vs what comes from the heart.

You are discounting as "evidence" experiences you have all day every day and upon which your most important decisions as a human being rest- again, what course to take in life- your ideal course in life does not "speak" in words to you either.

What course of study to follow does not speak to you in words either, but only in the "still small voice" in your heart.  What you see is only the literal object before you without grasping its significance.  It's like dying of thirst because you cannot you cannot lap up enough water instead of using a curved leaf as a cup to gather more water than your tongue can hold.  You are not seeing the OTHER FUNCTIONS of the leaf, as you do not understand the FUNCTION of religion in your life.   A leaf is a leaf, it is not a cup.  Religion is religion, it cannot give us science.   You need to see the possible function of religion as you are missing the possible function of the leaf.

Whether or not to attend church, where to live, whether or not to buy a new car, What college to pick, what occupation to pick, which politifcal party to join, --- NONE of these "speak" to you in a voice speaking English- and yet they- with quotes DO "speak" to your heart as well.

You know what is right and wrong- but you do not hear a voice telling you that- you know in your heart.

It is like the moth eating the paper of the book without knowing knowing there is a "bigger" purpose behind the book than the moth's being hungry- the message of the literature remains hidden to those who only see the paper as "lunch"

[Fair Dinkum]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And yet, right here in this post you claim that infallibility and then condemn it.  As though you are unaware of the meaning of your own words, here and throughout this thread.

At least you are beginning to acknowledge some flaws, and his humanity does help encourage the rest of us.  At least you got that much right. 

By carefully selecting just those Brigham quotes which make your point (instead of those other quotes which attenuate the quotes you cite) you are doing the same cherry-picking which non-scholars do, with no sense of perspective or depth.

And yet they are not in fact considered Scripture and are not part of the LDS Canon of Scripture.  Indeed, some of his most vociferous claims were openly condemned by Bruce McConkie in 1978.  Moreover, it is precisely the views of Orson Pratt (who also condemned Brigham's views) on those matters which are now considered doctrinal -- not those of Brother Brigham.

Neither of those tests is dispositive, and each amounts to children saying "Tis so, tis not."  A false prophet can easily say "thus saith the Lord."  There is a Deuteronomic test, but that comes after the fact (the test of time).  The only real and immediate test of a prophetic claim is affirmation via the Holy Spirit, and that is always individual.  Of course, when Brigham makes that claim, you studiously ignore him.

No, sir, it is you who make that false claim.  Those human prophets are always flawed, even when speaking on behalf of God.  You are the one claiming that they are both flawed and infallible, and thus that they give a bad name to God when they fail.  While it is true that many people throughout Judaism and Christianity cannot believe that God would allow evil in the world, they only take that view because their God is omnipotent and omnibeneficient.  The LDS God is not, and cannot be.  He is limited, just as His human children are, by nature.  He has no supernatural abilities, and is a humanistic God who must obey natural law.  And natural law is the law of the jungle.

We have many prophetic words in the LDS Canon of Scripture.  Yet even Brigham Young recognized that not everything in the Canon is true:

Joseph Fielding Smith taught,

You give so much authority to these men, when it suits your case, but ignore their words when it slams your case to the ground.  Why is that?  Could it be that you are angry that they are fallible, and that your only actual recourse is to obtain the witness of the Holy Spirit as to whether this or that claim is true?

Oh brother.  I’ve now made three or four attempts to set you straight and yet you persist in your attempt to define what it is I believe.  Why can’t you just accept that perhaps I’m a better authority on my personal beliefs than you Robert?

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Tweed1944]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cdOwgBJaECGEzol2pwYiAGoxgAFNBoVD-8ke5C5URF0/edit

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mqdEaGAFlFKPJpCS1VBEpMzzACsqiFfExGm5vnWCf0/edit

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Oh brother.  I’ve now made three or four attempts to set you straight and yet you persist in your attempt to define what it is I believe.  Why can’t you just accept that perhaps I’m a better authority on my personal beliefs than you Robert?

You speak out of both sides of your mouth, I point out each instance to you, and then you go into spasms of denial.  You yourself even admitted that you give more respect or credence to the statements of the Brethren than I do, and you have repeatedly claimed that when they define their own statements as revelatory or prophetic (which they claim should be taken as scripture), that this has substantive meaning.  Your own statements don't register with you, even when they are self-contradictory.  It would be very helpful for you to recognize your own flaws, but you will not be able to do that until you open up to criticism.

In much the same way, when I took two semesters of freshman English in college (it was required), I would have learned nothing at all if I had gone into denial whenever the teacher put red marks on my essays.  Instead, I took her marks seriously and thus improved my essays as the semesters went on.

[Fair Dinkum]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You speak out of both sides of your mouth, I point out each instance to you, and then you go into spasms of denial.  You yourself even admitted that you give more respect or credence to the statements of the Brethren than I do, and you have repeatedly claimed that when they define their own statements as revelatory or prophetic (which they claim should be taken as scripture), that this has substantive meaning.  Your own statements don't register with you, even when they are self-contradictory.  It would be very helpful for you to recognize your own flaws, but you will not be able to do that until you open up to criticism.

In much the same way, when I took two semesters of freshman English in college (it was required), I would have learned nothing at all if I had gone into denial whenever the teacher put red marks on my essays.  Instead, I took her marks seriously and thus improved my essays as the semesters went on.

I’ve been scratching my head trying to understand where your detachment is coming from. You continue to try to box me in and I refuse to be pigeon holed. So let me try to make my arguments on this particular subject as rudimentary as possible for you.

01.  LDS leaders are human and as a consequence are flawed.

and yet as self claimed prophets seers and revelators

02. They claim to speak for God, claim his authority, claim their words are scripture and that members should make life decisions on their words.  The only problem is that we also know that some of their words do not stand the test of time can be disavowed and rejected even considered heresy. Sometimes their words are reversed within years such as with the ban on children of married lgbtq parents.  

This entire discussion between us had been a futile effort to square these two conflicting realities.  You want your prophets to be flawed and authoritative, I’m merely pointing out that it’s silly to make important life decisions on such a shifting foundation that can change from one generation to the next. There’s nothing you can bank on. It’s all subject to change.  

You see them as authoritative, flawed, directed by god and above criticism, I just view them as flawed humans doing their best to live up to the impossible expectations they’ve set 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I’ve been scratching my head trying to understand where your detachment is coming from. You continue to try to box me in and I refuse to be pigeon holed. So let me try to make my arguments on this particular subject as rudimentary as possible for you.

01.  LDS leaders are human and as a consequence are flawed.

and yet as self claimed prophets seers and revelators

02. They claim to speak for God, claim his authority, claim their words are scripture and that members should make life decisions on their words.  The only problem is that we also know that some of their words do not stand the test of time can be disavowed and rejected even considered heresy. Sometimes their words are reversed within years such as with the ban on children of married lgbtq parents.  

This entire discussion between us had been a futile effort to square these two conflicting realities.  You want your prophets to be flawed and authoritative, I’m merely pointing out that it’s silly to make important life decisions on such a shifting foundation that can change from one generation to the next. There’s nothing you can bank on. It’s all subject to change.  

You see them as flawed and directed by god I just view them as flawed humans attributing their own human flaws on god.

You merely repeat what I have been saying all along, and it is as plain as the nose on your face:  You want the Brethren to be flawed (they are) and authoritative (they are not).  You engage in doublespeak, I do not.  You want to define them as both fallible and infallible, I do not.  They are always fallible.  They are always flawed.  You want to have your cake and eat it too, which is why you must be blind to your own flawed thinking here.  Humans are known for their capacity to think two opposing propositions at once, and you are a prime example.  You need to speak with one voice, not two.  Take a look at your own final sentence here:  "I just view them as flawed humans attributing their own human flaws on god."  There are no contradictions internal to that assertion.  Finally you state your acual position, while bearing false witness about mine in the immediately preceding phrase.  You need to think very carefully about what you are claiming -- it allows for no claim of infallibility for the Brethren, even though you constantly hark back in that direction.  Their self-claims should carry no water for you, unless the Holy Spirit affirms it (something you are unlikely to seek in any case).

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I’ve been scratching my head trying to understand where your detachment is coming from. You continue to try to box me in and I refuse to be pigeon holed. So let me try to make my arguments on this particular subject as rudimentary as possible for you.

01.  LDS leaders are human and as a consequence are flawed.

and yet as self claimed prophets seers and revelators

02. They claim to speak for God, claim his authority, claim their words are scripture and that members should make life decisions on their words.  The only problem is that we also know that some of their words do not stand the test of time can be disavowed and rejected even considered heresy. Sometimes their words are reversed within years such as with the ban on children of married lgbtq parents.  

This entire discussion between us had been a futile effort to square these two conflicting realities.  You want your prophets to be flawed and authoritative, I’m merely pointing out that it’s silly to make important life decisions on such a shifting foundation that can change from one generation to the next. There’s nothing you can bank on. It’s all subject to change.  

You see them as authoritative, flawed, directed by god and above criticism, I just view them as flawed humans doing their best to live up to the impossible expectations they’ve set 

 

Your summary of the LDS prophets, seers and revelators accurately outlines what they teach about themselves.  Robert's position is his and his alone and not authorative. And it is what LD Apologists do so they can wiggle out of all the inconvenient things the leaders say and have said. 

[Fair Dinkum]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You merely repeat what I have been saying all along, and it is as plain as the nose on your face:  You want the Brethren to be flawed (they are) and authoritative (they are not).  You engage in doublespeak, I do not.  You want to define them as both fallible and infallible, I do not.  They are always fallible.  They are always flawed.  You want to have your cake and eat it too, which is why you must be blind to your own flawed thinking here.  Humans are known for their capacity to think two opposing propositions at once, and you are a prime example.  You need to speak with one voice, not two.  Take a look at your own final sentence here:  "I just view them as flawed humans attributing their own human flaws on god."  There are no contradictions internal to that assertion.  Finally you state your acual position, while bearing false witness about mine in the immediately preceding phrase.  You need to think very carefully about what you are claiming -- it allows for no claim of infallibility for the Brethren, even though you constantly hark back in that direction.  Their self-claims should carry no water for you, unless the Holy Spirit affirms it (something you are unlikely to seek in any case).

Robert you keep putting words in my mouth. Please reread what I stated above, I have never said that LDS GAs are authoritative only that they claim to be such   It is they who assert authority,  I merely acknowledge that they assert it. And then I hold them accountable for their claims of such and have pointed out how weak their claims are. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/22/2021 at 8:52 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?

In 3 Nephi 22:9 we read of Jesus speaking to the surviving populations in the America's upon His appearance in America.  While most of his comments are merely a duplication of his ministry in the Holy Land one bizarre remark stands out in that it confirms the reality of the Universal Flood Myth.

Why does Jesus mislead His Nephite audience by propagating the flood myth? 

 

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Robert you keep putting words in my mouth. Please reread what I stated above, I have never said that LDS GAs are authoritative only that they claim to be such   It is they who assert authority,  I merely acknowledge that they assert it. And then I hold them accountable for their claims of such and have pointed out how weak their claims are. 

False.  You started this thread off by falsely claiming that Jesus had confirmed the universal flood myth, that he had confirmed its reality, and that he mislead his Nephite audience by propagating that myth.  All that while not understanding at all what Jesus was presumably doing in that passage (based on the best biblical scholarship).

You frankly stated of the Brethren:  "I view them as authoritative with respect to matters of the church "  Even though they disagree among themselves, and know nothing of theology, biblical languages, or ancient Near Eastern history and archeology.

In fact, you build the GAs up so you can knock them down.  You even acknowledge that you hold them in higher regard than I do.  How odd that you do not see the irony in that silly claim.

[Fair Dinkum]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

False.  You started this thread off by falsely claiming that Jesus had confirmed the universal flood myth, that he had confirmed its reality, and that he mislead his Nephite audience by propagating that myth.  All that while not understanding at all what Jesus was presumably doing in that passage (based on the best biblical scholarship).

Or perhaps I pointed out where Jesus had confirmed the flood myth which many members of the church including GA's teach as being Universal.  I also referenced Jesus words where in he quoted Isaiah as stating the the waters covered the earth.  We went back and forth over that and came to no consensus other than it could be interpreted either way.  Whether or not Jesus misled the Nephites is really immaterial. 

You did however enlighten me by sharing the fact that this particular verse was a quote from Isaiah something I was not aware of, so thank you for that.

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You frankly stated of the Brethren:  "I view them as authoritative with respect to matters of the church "  Even though they disagree among themselves, and know nothing of theology, biblical languages, or ancient Near Eastern history and archeology.

And still despite my continued effort to correct you, you still insist on taking my comments out of context.  I do view the brethren as authoritative only because that is what they themselves claim to be. Why do you refuse to accept what I have repeatedly said as being what I actually believe instead of continuing to insist on pushing your out of context interpretation of what I have stated.  I have made every effort to  correct you, re- state my views and yet you refuse to accept these and insist on knowing my own mind better than I know it myself.

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In fact, you build the GAs up so you can knock them down.  You even acknowledge that you hold them in higher regard than I do.  How odd that you do not see the irony in that silly claim.

I do not build up GA's to knock them down, they build themselves by claiming to speak for God and thus subject themselves to scrutiny because of their claims of Speaking for God.  I am merely attempting to square their multiple claims of speaking authoritatively for God with the realities of their obvious shot falls found in the historical record where their own pronouncements have fallen short of meeting the standard one would expect from God.  I choose to hold God to a higher standard and not throw Him under a bus.

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Or perhaps I pointed out where Jesus had confirmed the flood myth which many members of the church including GA's teach as being Universal.  I also referenced Jesus words where in he quoted Isaiah as stating the the waters covered the earth.  We went back and forth over that and came to no consensus other than it could be interpreted either way.  Whether or not Jesus misled the Nephites is really immaterial. 

You did however enlighten me by sharing the fact that this particular verse was a quote from Isaiah something I was not aware of, so thank you for that.

And still despite my continued effort to correct you, you still insist on taking my comments out of context.  I do view the brethren as authoritative only because that is what they themselves claim to be. Why do you refuse to accept what I have repeatedly said as being what I actually believe instead of continuing to insist on pushing your out of context interpretation of what I have stated.  I have made every effort to  correct you, re- state my views and yet you refuse to accept these and insist on knowing my own mind better than I know it myself.

I do not build up GA's to knock them down, they build themselves by claiming to speak for God and thus subject themselves to scrutiny because of their claims of Speaking for God.  I am merely attempting to square their multiple claims of speaking authoritatively for God with the realities of their obvious shot falls found in the historical record where their own pronouncements have fallen short of meeting the standard one would expect from God.  I choose to hold God to a higher standard and not throw Him under a bus.

 

I don't really understand, from your writing, where you stand.  You seem to be saying that you support and sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but at the same time take many opportunities to criticize.  While one can both support and be critical of a person, the tone  and consistency of your critique has lead at least myself to place you in the anti church leader camp.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

I'm not keeping score or anything like that.  This is just my general impression from what I've read of your posts.

Edited June 28, 2021 by ksfisher

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I don't really understand, from your writing, where you stand.  You seem to be saying that you support and sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but at the same time take many opportunities to criticize.  While one can both support and be critical of a person, the tone  and consistency of your critique has lead at least myself to place you in the anti church leader camp.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

I'm not keeping score or anything like that.  This is just my general impression from what I've read of your posts.

It's complicated: I do not view myself as anti-church or anti brethren. But my level of belief in the core claims of the church are in flex.  I have dedicated my life in service to both the church, its stated goals and its members.  However I find my faith in transition.  So it is fair to say that where I stand on many issues is all over the map.  I hold the brethren in high esteem and both love and respect the brethren and am really quite sympathetic to their plight. They are in a very difficult position.  I am greatly appreciative for their past council, which has positively impacted my life while at the same time I no longer view their council as holding authority over me any longer.  I now view them as flawed humans like the rest of us, just sodding along trying to get through life the best we can.  I do not believe they speak to a God any more than you or I do or can.   The only difference is their claimed communications carry the weight of their office.

I don't know if this answers your question or not but I certainly don't want to be viewed as anti anything.  I'm just trying to work through my faith transition.  I don't want to be misunderstood and may have to self edit and dial back some of my more transparent postings.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Sevenbak]

On 6/22/2021 at 8:52 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

In 3 Nephi 22:9 we read of Jesus speaking to the surviving populations in the America's upon His appearance in America.  While most of his comments are merely a duplication of his ministry in the Holy Land one bizarre remark stands out in that it confirms the reality of the Universal Flood Myth.

Why does Jesus mislead His Nephite audience by propagating the flood myth? 

Ether and/or Moroni sure taught the flood was global.

Ether 13:2

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had ^areceded from off the face of this ^bland it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should ^cserve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Edited June 28, 2021 by Sevenbak

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Or perhaps I pointed out where Jesus had confirmed the flood myth which many members of the church including GA's teach as being Universal.  I also referenced Jesus words where in he quoted Isaiah as stating the the waters covered the earth.  We went back and forth over that and came to no consensus other than it could be interpreted either way.  Whether or not Jesus misled the Nephites is really immaterial. 

Yet, even after being well informed of the great diversity of views among the Brethren (which you were not aware of), you persist in claiming the flood waters had to have covered the earth.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

............................

And still despite my continued effort to correct you, you still insist on taking my comments out of context.  I do view the brethren as authoritative only because that is what they themselves claim to be. Why do you refuse to accept what I have repeatedly said as being what I actually believe instead of continuing to insist on pushing your out of context interpretation of what I have stated.  I have made every effort to  correct you, re- state my views and yet you refuse to accept these and insist on knowing my own mind better than I know it myself.

I do not build up GA's to knock them down, they build themselves by claiming to speak for God and thus subject themselves to scrutiny because of their claims of Speaking for God.  I am merely attempting to square their multiple claims of speaking authoritatively for God with the realities of their obvious shot falls found in the historical record where their own pronouncements have fallen short of meeting the standard one would expect from God.  I choose to hold God to a higher standard and not throw Him under a bus.

I note the crocodile tears, Fair Dinkum, but I am not impressed that you are able to step back and calmly evaluate the status of prophets and their God.  You are clearly not a believer, so why the faux respect for God?  That somebody claims to speak for God should not carry much weight for you, and in fact you are contemptuous of the Brethren for making statements on behalf of that non-existent God.  Those prophets are flawed, and you even admit as much, and then turn right around and lambaste the prophets for not being perfect.  Your excuse is that they speak for God, and you simultaneously ignore the fact that they remain flawed even when speaking on behalf of God.  You yourself point out instances in which they are wrong, and I have added many more instances.  Yet you persist in the silly claim that they are always infallible or authoritative.  That is how you set them up for a fall.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

Ether and/or Moroni sure taught the flood was global.

Ether 13:2

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had ^areceded from off the face of this ^bland it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should ^cserve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Note the context, "from the beginning of man".  This is referring to Genesis 1:9 (and the topical guide footnote to Earth, Dividing of, includes this reference) : "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."  (Genesis 1:9)

So it's not talking about the flood of Noah.

Edited June 28, 2021 by InCognitus

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, even after being well informed of the great diversity of views among the Brethren (which you were not aware of), you persist in claiming the flood waters had to have covered the earth.

I note the crocodile tears, Fair Dinkum, but I am not impressed that you are able to step back and calmly evaluate the status of prophets and their God.  You are clearly not a believer, so why the faux respect for God?  That somebody claims to speak for God should not carry much weight for you, and in fact you are contemptuous of the Brethren for making statements on behalf of that non-existent God.  Those prophets are flawed, and you even admit as much, and then turn right around and lambaste the prophets for not being perfect.  Your excuse is that they speak for God, and you simultaneously ignore the fact that they remain flawed even when speaking on behalf of God.  You yourself point out instances in which they are wrong, and I have added many more instances.  Yet you persist in the silly claim that they are always infallible or authoritative.  That is how you set them up for a fall.

I note that you have within this thread violated several board policies but since this will come to naught, I'll move on.  Instead of attacking my intelligence, accusing me a childish tantrums or speaking down to me as your intellectual inferior why haven't you instead tried to understand my perspective.  I "get" that something in your worldview requires that I fit within the pigeon hole that you have constructed for me, you've made that abundantly clear but what I don't understand is why you have not made any attempt to understand my perspective? Surely my points are those of a simpleton, mere houseflies to your powerful intellectually superior fly swatter,  easily dismissed, ignored  or smashed in the grand scheme of things. While I never expected you to agree with me, I had hoped for understanding. And to be honest, something in your approach brings out the worst in my responses.

Robert you have appointed yourself as the sole judge and jury of those qualified to have a dialogue on Mormonism and you have judged my contributions lacking.  Fair enough, I give you permission to ignore any post I may chose to make in the future. Enjoy the rest of your life.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Sevenbak]

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Note the context, "from the beginning of man".  This is referring to Genesis 1:9 (and the topical guide footnote to Earth, Dividing of, includes this reference) : "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."  (Genesis 1:9)

So it's not talking about the flood of Noah.

I appreciate that, but I'm not following your line of thought.  "From the beginning of man" is obviously AFTER the waters were divided in the formation of the earth.  Man came after that period of time.  The reference made in Ether is exactly what it says, and that the waters receding came after the beginning of man.  "For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord. 

How does the creation period dividing of the waters happen after the beginning of man?

As to your reference in the topical guide of Earth, DIviding of, the very next reference of D&C 133:24 puts it into context. Note that the division cross reference is in the time of Peleg.   I've always appreciated the Church's correlated stance on that literal division of the continents shortly after the flood.  And that they will be gathered together again at the 2nd coming.