Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth?

[cinepro]

23 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.

One interesting mention of Noah in the BoM comes from Jesus himself, in 3 Nephi 22:

 

Quote

9 For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.

If the flood wasn't global, what, exactly, what Jesus promising would never happen again? There have been regional floods that killed people regularly for centuries. What's the actual covenant?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If the flood wasn't global, what, exactly, what Jesus promising would never happen again? There have been regional floods that killed people regularly for centuries. What's the actual covenant?

That there won't be one quite as bad.

That God won't cause any floods but if they happen on their own then them's the breaks.

They cut God's disclaimer: "Offer not valid in Houston or New Orleans."

Who knows?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/28/2021 at 3:49 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

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.

I am very sorry to have offended you, Fair Dinkum, and I promise not ever to comment on anything you say here or elsewhere.  I am also very sorry to have violated various board policies, whatever they may be.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

If the flood wasn't global, what, exactly, what Jesus promising would never happen again? There have been regional floods that killed people regularly for centuries. What's the actual covenant?

The regional floods you are suggesting are actually quite tame.  Humans have never seen floods more severe than those which occurred with the great Pluvial Rains at the end of the last Ice Age.  A flood does not have to cover Mt Everest in order to be severe.

[OGHoosier]

10 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

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.

Honestly, I view this passage as ambiguous. I know Joseph Smith didn't directly supervise the punctuation of the Book of Mormon, but it still seems to me that the semicolon ("from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded") indicates that there is a disjunction between the two clauses surrounding it. Which would mean that "the waters had receded" is not included in the set described by "from the beginning of man". It's an additional thing, an addendum to Ether's preaching, which makes me think that it refers to Genesis as opposed to the Noachian flood.

[JustAnAustralian]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  A flood does not have to cover Mt Everest in order to be severe.

Yep. Just need to look at the floods caused by cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes or the seasonal monsoons. And they are after only days of rain in coastal areas that should be able to drain to the sea.

[OGHoosier]

On 6/26/2021 at 3:12 PM, Teancum said:

 

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."

If you were to subject "physical experience" to the same test which you subject religious experience to, it would fail as well. You can't justify "physical experience" without arguing in a circle. You need physical experience to be valid in order to access any of the pieces of evidence you use to justify physical experience (consistency, external validation by your peers, apparent ubiquity). It's circular. Physical experience cannot be justified any more than religious experience can, it's just less controversial right now to subject religious experience to skepticism. Historical attitudes have not always been so sanguine towards physical experience. Some ancient Greek philosophers stressed that the senses were not to be trusted but should rather be subordinated to abstract rationality. Our consummate trust in the physical senses appears to be a cultural feature. 

And, for what it's worth, reason itself is quite long on people claiming conflicting "truths". Re: the entire political arena, the entire history of philosophy, literature, and aesthetics, frankly all of human civilization. The confidence which we have in sensory observations and science (and even science has this problem in certain cases, re: consciousness studies and disputes between certain interpretations of quantum phenomena) is exceptional, and it manifestly is not the standard for justified belief since all of our social-level beliefs are presumably less justified than scientific conclusions, and yet it is not merely permissible but necessary that we hold them. If reason can lead so many astray (as it clearly must given disagreement), then how can it as a faculty deserve such high and lofty respect? And if your argument depends on reason, but reason itself falls prey to the premises of your argument, then that makes your argument unsound. 

[InCognitus]

17 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

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?

I think this has already been explained well by OGHoosier above.  At the beginning of Ether 13, Moroni is explaining that Ether had told the people everything from the beginning, which I take it to mean that he included the creation.  So it's not a set sequence of events in that sentence.  He is saying that "this land" had been set aside as a choice land above all other lands since the creation, from the very moment it emerged from the waters of creation.  

17 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

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.

Doctrine and Covenants section 133 uses a lot of prophetic imagery in describing the gathering of Israel, and it draws upon several ancient prophecies.  For example, verse 22 says that the Lamb will speak and his voice will be as a "great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found".   Similar verses are found in Isaiah (40:4) and in other prophets, but elsewhere Isaiah also indicates that he's not talking about literal "mountains": 

"For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:  And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,  And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up" (Isaiah 2:12-14)

And the New Testament makes similar comparisons, like in Luke 1:52  "He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree."  So I am inclined to take a similar approach to interpreting the rest of the context of section 133. 

For example, verse 23 states that the "great deep.. shall be driven back into the north countries", but verses 26 and 27 say "they who are in the north countries shall come... And an highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep".   So it's obviously not as simple as saying the oceans are pushed aside and the land masses become one land again.  

As for verses 23-24, I do think it is making an allusion to Genesis chapter 10, but not the way you are thinking in a continental shifting kind of way.  It could be that the "islands" that become "one land" are the direct undoing of what happened in Genesis 10:5:  "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."   In Genesis 10 the people were all scattered and confused by their different languages and different goals, and went off into their own isolated areas (islands).  The antithesis of that (as described in D&C 133) is that we all become a Zion people, of one heart, one mind, one language, one people.  And the next verse, verse 25, seems to make this very point:  "And the Lord, even the Savior, shall stand in the midst of his people, and shall reign over all flesh". 

I do understand that there will be physical changes in the earth when it becomes terrestialized and celestialized, but I'm not sure that D&C 133 is describing that. 

Edited June 30, 2021 by InCognitus

[Fair Dinkum]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

He is saying that "this land" had been set aside as a choice land above all other lands since the creation, from the very moment it emerged from the waters of creation.  

While this may be a valid conclusion, the alternative conclusion regarding this being a reference to a universal floor event,has just as much support and perhaps more be cause of past prophetic utterances,  than your conclusion.  Just wanted this out there...personally I don't buy into either

[Fair Dinkum]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

One interesting mention of Noah in the BoM comes from Jesus himself, in 3 Nephi 22:

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that Jesus in fact is quoting Deutro-Isaiah in this situation: see Isaiah 54:9

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

One interesting mention of Noah in the BoM comes from Jesus himself, in 3 Nephi 22:

 

If the flood wasn't global, what, exactly, what Jesus promising would never happen again? There have been regional floods that killed people regularly for centuries. What's the actual covenant?

As to the actual covenant behind the promises, see Margaret Barker, The Everlasting Covenant.

https://www.ecocongregationireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-Everlasting-Covenant-Margaret-Barker-DD.pdf

One thing to remember in all of this is that scripture abounds with types and symbols, patterns and representation.  The creation in Genesis parallels the erection of the tabernacle, a portable temple which was a model of the cosmos, and was, in fact, a temple drama to be performed at the temple, not a history.  The Noah story, becomes, in effect, another creation story in which "Old things are done away," and "All things are become new."  Which is why 3 Nephi is also a  creation story, even though it does not describe a global catastrophe.  For those who experienced it, in their land and time, and survived, "Old things are done away, and all things are become new."

Incidentally, I talked about how Barker's views on the everlasting covenant are consistent with LDS scripture in Paradigms Regained.  

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/paradigms-regained-survey-margaret-barkers-scholarship-and-its-significance-mormon-studies

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Sevenbak]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think this has already been explained well by OGHoosier above.  At the beginning of Ether 13, Moroni is explaining that Ether had told the people everything from the beginning, which I take it to mean that he included the creation.  So it's not a set sequence of events in that sentence.  He is saying that "this land" had been set aside as a choice land above all other lands since the creation, from the very moment it emerged from the waters of creation.  

Doctrine and Covenants section 133 uses a lot of prophetic imagery in describing the gathering of Israel, and it draws upon several ancient prophecies.  For example, verse 22 says that the Lamb will speak and his voice will be as a "great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found".   Similar verses are found in Isaiah (40:4) and in other prophets, but elsewhere Isaiah also indicates that he's not talking about literal "mountains": 

"For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:  And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,  And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up" (Isaiah 2:12-14)

And the New Testament makes similar comparisons, like in Luke 1:52  "He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree."  So I am inclined to take a similar approach to interpreting the rest of the context of section 133. 

For example, verse 23 states that the "great deep.. shall be driven back into the north countries", but verses 26 and 27 say "they who are in the north countries shall come... And an highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep".   So it's obviously not as simple as saying the oceans are pushed aside and the land masses become one land again.  

As for verses 23-24, I do think it is making an allusion to Genesis chapter 10, but not the way you are thinking in a continental shifting kind of way.  It could be that the "islands" that become "one land" are the direct undoing of what happened in Genesis 10:5:  "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."   In Genesis 10 the people were all scattered and confused by their different languages and different goals, and went off into their own isolated areas (islands).  The antithesis of that (as described in D&C 133) is that we all become a Zion people, of one heart, one mind, one language, one people.  And the next verse, verse 25, seems to make this very point:  "And the Lord, even the Savior, shall stand in the midst of his people, and shall reign over all flesh". 

I do understand that there will be physical changes in the earth when it becomes terrestialized and celestialized, but I'm not sure that D&C 133 is describing that. 

While that is certainly a good alternative explanation, it is a new one, which I don't subscribe to.  Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and other prophets all taught specifically about the literal division of the earth shortly after the flood, and it's coming together again at the 2nd coming.  It is the unchanged correlated teaching in the institute manuals, and is not figurative.

 

Joseph Smith:  

". . . the Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!"

"...That it comes to open the way for Zion to rise and put on her beautiful garments and become the glory of the earth, that her land may be joined, or married (according to the known translation of Isaiah) to Jerusalem again, and they be one as they were in the days of Peleg."

 

John Taylor:

 

"How far the flood may have contributed, to produce the various changes, as to the division of the earth into broken fragments, islands and continents, mountains and valleys, we have not been informed; the change must have been considerable. But after the flood, in the days ofPeleg, the earth was divided.—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form; this, together with the earthquakes, revolutions, and commotions which have since taken place, have all contributed to reduce the face of the earth to its present state; while the great curses which have fallen upon different portions, because of the wickedness of men, will account for the stagnant swamps, the sunken lakes, the dead seas, and great deserts."

 

" . . . after the flood, in the days of Peleg, the earth was divided.—See Genesis 10:25,—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form . . .”

 

Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

"We read in Genesis that in the beginning all of the land surface was in one place as it was in the days of Peleg,²² that the earth was divided. Some Bible commentators have concluded that this division was one concerning the migrations of the inhabitants of the earth between them, but this is not the case. While this is but a very brief statement, yet it speaks of a most important event. The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants in the following words:

When the Lamb shall stand upon Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand, having his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

Wherefore, prepare ye for the coming of the Bridegroom; go ye, go ye out to meet him.

For behold, he shall stand upon the mount of Olivet, and upon the mighty ocean, even the great deep, and upon the islands of the sea, and upon the land of Zion."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Sevenbak

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

While that is certainly a good alternative explanation, it is a new one, which I don't subscribe to.  Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and other prophets all taught specifically about the literal division of the earth shortly after the flood, and it's coming together again at the 2nd coming.  It is the unchanged correlated teaching in the institute manuals, and is not figurative.

I understand that some church leaders have interpreted the passages as referring to continental land shifts (and I've read the quotes before), but I also know that some of them have acquired various interpretations from traditional or even Protestant sources (or Seventh Day Adventist sources in the case of Joseph Fielding Smith and his ideas on creationism - see the video I posted previously, and also this source, for example).  And as far as I can tell, none of them had any additional revelation to support their views, they were simply explaining the scriptures as they understood them at the time.  

1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

Joseph Smith:  

". . . the Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!"

"...That it comes to open the way for Zion to rise and put on her beautiful garments and become the glory of the earth, that her land may be joined, or married (according to the known translation of Isaiah) to Jerusalem again, and they be one as they were in the days of Peleg."

This quote from Joseph Smith isn't saying anything different than what it says in the verses, really.  What happened "in the days of Peleg" is the issue under interpretation.  If we understand that in the full context of Genesis 10, wherein the people were broken apart and went into their own isolated areas in the earth, it seems to me that Joseph is saying exactly the same thing I was trying to say above regarding the people of Zion, where the reverse of Genesis 10 takes place:  We all become a Zion people, of one heart, one mind, one language, one people. 

[Sevenbak]

19 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I understand that some church leaders have interpreted the passages as referring to continental land shifts (and I've read the quotes before), but I also know that some of them have acquired various interpretations from traditional or even Protestant sources (or Seventh Day Adventist sources in the case of Joseph Fielding Smith and his ideas on creationism - see the video I posted previously, and also this source, for example).  And as far as I can tell, none of them had any additional revelation to support their views, they were simply explaining the scriptures as they understood them at the time.  

This quote from Joseph Smith isn't saying anything different than what it says in the verses, really.  What happened "in the days of Peleg" is the issue under interpretation.  If we understand that in the full context of Genesis 10, wherein the people were broken apart and went into their own isolated areas in the earth, it seems to me that Joseph is saying exactly the same thing I was trying to say above regarding the people of Zion, where the reverse of Genesis 10 takes place:  We all become a Zion people, of one heart, one mind, one language, one people. 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I'll stick with the correlation committee and official teachings.

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I'll stick with the correlation committee and official teachings.

I respect that view and certainly understand it.  And I don't claim to know for certain how those passages should be interpreted, so I could be wrong.  I'm just trying to take a fresh approach to what the text is saying without reading preconceived views into the text.  

[Sevenbak]

16 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I respect that view and certainly understand it.  And I don't claim to know for certain how those passages should be interpreted, so I could be wrong.  I'm just trying to take a fresh approach to what the text is saying without reading preconceived views into the text.  

I appreciate that too.  This is one of the reasons I'm grateful for prophets and correlation.  I don't know of any that take a modern approach to the text.  

 

[Kevin Christensen]

I have, for several decades worked a technical writer, mostly for Computer Aided Engineering companies, that is, simulation, building things spiritually before physically.   A software developer commented that "hierarchy is a strategy for dealing with complexity."  It can be a very successful strategy.  Even human bodies apply that strategy.   However, Hugh Nibley once commented that

"The very helplessness of the public which makes it necessary for them to consult the experts also makes it impossible for them to judge how expert they are." ("It takes All Kinds:, July 1977, quoted in Of All Things, 2nd ed. 228.)

Chose the wrong authorities, and things can go south very quickly.  For instance, John 7:47. “Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?”

Notice that the appeal to authority and hierarchy turns out be subject to the weakness of diverting attention from the evidence at hand towards the conclusions desired.  Hierarchy becomes a rhetorical club, a logic shortcut.  And such uses cannot  involve wide experiments on different portions of the word, unexpected sprouting, roots, leaves and growth, not initially seen, but which lead to "your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand."  It is good because "it is discernable", as well as fruitful and delicious and promising.  Alma 32, which does not try to shut down further inquiry on other portions of the word, "Because I am Alma and I say so as the High Priest Who Therefore Always Knows and Cannot Be Questioned."

How much authority and expertise can I expect from LDS authorities?   I continually cite D&C 1 for the formal, authoritative statement on the topic:

Quote

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants,...

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

So, we are not to assume that LDS authorities, whether prophets or bureaucrats are infallible on every topic, and know everything from the start.  We do not have a Big Book of What to Think.  Revelation is ongoing and conditioned both on inquiry and expedience.  I've cited how carefully Alma, for instance, distinguished between information he got by revelation and by study, and yet declares that even those revelations did not settle everything, and he has also has places where he specifies his opinion.

Thomas Kuhn emphases that paradigm choice always involves decisions regarding "Which problems are more significant to have solved?"  Jesus restricts what is most important, his Gospel, to Faith, continual Repentence (which necessarly involves learning), baptism (covenant), receipt of the Holy Ghost (ongoing revelation for invidividuals and communities) and enduring to the end (notice that one of the meanings of "sustain" is "endure").  Going beyond that is building on sand, with obvious consequences.

So if it is most important to a person to have a hierarchy that settles everything, they will tend to not discuss the formal limitations on the authority of the Lords servants.  If Authority is the most problem to have solved, recognizing limits to authority is unsettling.  Also, since Aristotle said, "Give me a lever and a place to stand and I can move the world," there are also those who enjoy the leverage that comes from insinuating that a few LDS authorities ought to be infallible on all topics since they claim to be led by prophets, who as we all "know" (unless we pay attention to D&C 1, which spoils things) they ought to be infallible.   It becomes a pedastal valued chiefly for the ease with which those who stand on it can be toppled.  Afterall, since whenever we meet someone for a few moments, say, an airline pilot or a doctor, we are instantly and forever after qualified to fly 747s and perform heart surgery. Right?  Shouldn't Godlike knowledge be just as viral?  What's the point of "studying things out" in our minds (D&C 9), and "seeking out of the best books, words of wisdom" (D&C 88:118)?  If we have direct access to God, why the need to "search the prophecies of Isaiah"  Why ever leave his presence and go home to "ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask the Father in my name, that ye may understand and prepare your minds for the morrow..." (3 Nephi 17:3).  

This tendency to settling questions via hierarchy rather than comprehensive and coherent accounting for all of the evidence at hand (geology, for example as it impinges on the question of what is the best reading of the Noah and Peleg verses), the best interpretation that makes comprehensive and coherent sense of all of the information, clashes in my consideration of Joseph Smith's well founded observation that "The different teachers of religion understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" or by an appeal to whatever authority is convenient, such as "correlation".   Notice that the "authoritative" quotes selected ignore other LDS authorities of equal emminence that have not been quoted as often in correlated lesson manuals for reasons best known to those people who produced them, unless is happens, those people did not know who and what they were missing because "of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word" on a particular topic, and as a consequence, did not ask, and did not recieve further information (3 Nephi 15:17-23).  But the uncited authorities exist, for those like David Bailey who ask and look, rather than settling things by hierarchy (whose page I linked in a previous post) see that their acknowledgement can easily disturb the desired leverage equations, and move the discussion from a single wobbly pedestal into richer fields where growth is ongoing.  The tendency to use hierarchy to deal with complexity is a human trait, not distinctive to the LDS.  It demonstrates roots in both personality type and ethical and cognitive growth.

SJ Traditionalists Personality types, Sensing Judging types, around 40% of the population, and drawn to hierarchy, rules, and traditions, tend to want to settle things via authority.  For example, ESTJ 

http://www.typelogic.com/estj.html

Even so, even among conservative LDS, when Joseph Fielding Smith published Man, His Origin and Destiny, the very very conservative J. Ruben Clark, published an article on "WHEN ARE THE WRITINGS and Sermons of Church Leaders entitled to the claim of being scripture?" 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V12N02_70.pdf

And there are developmental issues.  The contrast between those at Position 2 in the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth and all positions above Position 2 involves the authority of authorities in the eye of the beholder.

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  
 

In my "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" essay in Interpreter a few years back, I showed that Joseph Smith, by precept and example, wants us to get to Position 9.  Not in one easy step, but eventually.

Quote

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 14, 2021 by Kevin Christensen
typos

[Teancum]

On 6/27/2021 at 9:11 PM, 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. 

Hey Fair.  My gently suggestion is to stop beating your head against the wall. Getting straight answers rather than spins from LDS apologists is impossible.  They down play the authority of the LDS GAs that they claim for themselves in order to not be pinned down. I used to do it as well. I just got to the point where I could no longer play that game and dance that dance and do it with integrity.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Hey Fair.  My gently suggestion is to stop beating your head against the wall. Getting straight answers rather than spins from LDS apologists is impossible.  They down play the authority of the LDS GAs that they claim for themselves in order to not be pinned down. I used to do it as well. I just got to the point where I could no longer play that game and dance that dance and do it with integrity.

Are you saying I am integrity compromised? That I am some sort of degenerate wastrel who will twist data to his own ends and sacrifice every moral principle in order to be right?

How dare you??????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that is what you are saying, fair play. Well said. No notes.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hey Fair.  My gently suggestion is to stop beating your head against the wall. Getting straight answers rather than spins from LDS apologists is impossible.  They down play the authority of the LDS GAs that they claim for themselves in order to not be pinned down. I used to do it as well. I just got to the point where I could no longer play that game and dance that dance and do it with integrity.

K.

[Craig Speechly]

8 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

While that is certainly a good alternative explanation, it is a new one, which I don't subscribe to.  Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and other prophets all taught specifically about the literal division of the earth shortly after the flood, and it's coming together again at the 2nd coming.  It is the unchanged correlated teaching in the institute manuals, and is not figurative.

 

Joseph Smith:  

". . . the Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!"

"...That it comes to open the way for Zion to rise and put on her beautiful garments and become the glory of the earth, that her land may be joined, or married (according to the known translation of Isaiah) to Jerusalem again, and they be one as they were in the days of Peleg."

 

John Taylor:

 

"How far the flood may have contributed, to produce the various changes, as to the division of the earth into broken fragments, islands and continents, mountains and valleys, we have not been informed; the change must have been considerable. But after the flood, in the days ofPeleg, the earth was divided.—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form; this, together with the earthquakes, revolutions, and commotions which have since taken place, have all contributed to reduce the face of the earth to its present state; while the great curses which have fallen upon different portions, because of the wickedness of men, will account for the stagnant swamps, the sunken lakes, the dead seas, and great deserts."

 

" . . . after the flood, in the days of Peleg, the earth was divided.—See Genesis 10:25,—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form . . .”

 

Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

"We read in Genesis that in the beginning all of the land surface was in one place as it was in the days of Peleg,²² that the earth was divided. Some Bible commentators have concluded that this division was one concerning the migrations of the inhabitants of the earth between them, but this is not the case. While this is but a very brief statement, yet it speaks of a most important event. The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants in the following words:

When the Lamb shall stand upon Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand, having his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

Wherefore, prepare ye for the coming of the Bridegroom; go ye, go ye out to meet him.

For behold, he shall stand upon the mount of Olivet, and upon the mighty ocean, even the great deep, and upon the islands of the sea, and upon the land of Zion."

 

 

 

 

 

This post fascinates me.  I too held this perspective well into my 4th decade of life.  It was only after I dug into this doctrine and started to actually study the overwhelming evidence against a universal flood that I finally accepted the flood as a myth, one that teaches a lesson, but still a myth.  

While I respect your beliefs, there s no way, knowing what I now know, I could ever maintain a belief in the universal flood.  And yes I understand what the implications of this is for past prophets teachings to the contrary. 

[The Nehor]

Interestingly the Book of Ether does contain some elements that make it less likely that there was a global flood that killed everyone but Noah and his children and their spouses. According to the text of Ether Jared and his brother were near the tower whose building is usually ascribed to Nimrod. Nimrod was the grandson of Ham and the great-grandson of Noah. When Jared and his family see the situation with the language confounding they pray first for themselves and their families. Then they pray for their friends. If you are likely four to six generations removed from someone who would be a literal ancestor of everyone alive would you have friends that would not be better referred to as family?

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are you saying I am integrity compromised? That I am some sort of degenerate wastrel who will twist data to his own ends and sacrifice every moral principle in order to be right?

How dare you??????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that is what you are saying, fair play. Well said. No notes.

Only you can answer about your own integrity.  But I can tell you as I read through Jim Bennett's book responding to the CES letter (Which I thought was pretty light weight and poorly written) I was reminded why I could no longer be an apologist for the LDS Church.  I liked  Bennett's interview with Dehlin but had I not heard him in that interview first my opinion of him would be much less than it currently is based on the read of his book.

[Esrom]

On 6/23/2021 at 11:12 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

Fair enough, but it kind of throws the entire Adamic timeline out of wack doesn't it. But then I don't buy into an actual Adam or that time line anyway.  The Adam and Eve Story is fiction pure and simpl

What would be the alternative explanation?  Sporadic groups evolving to homosapiens?  Star seeding?  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Esrom said:

Sporadic groups evolving to homosapiens? 

This is a very weird way to put it, but the evolution of humans from an ape ancestor is not controversial. It is in fact taught at church schools. The evidence when studied is pretty incontrovertible.