Jump to content

Global flood literalism rides again!


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

1) I think it says it more than implies it, based on word choice. "water covered the earth," "[only] eight souls were saved," etc.

2) I hadn't thought about it from this perspective (i.e., the Donald Parry Ensign article directly addressed and attempted to dispel the local flood theory, so if future articles aren't this direct, it signals a "noteworthy change." I think it's also possible that, like with many other things, the global flood might be such a given to the Brethren and the editorial staff that it wouldn't occur to them that there is even a need to address it, one way or another. That's certainly implied (as you say) by the choice of scriptures and choice of wording.

 

Why do you think the Church "seems to have moved away from that?" Simply because more Parry articles haven't been printed? As of now, there still has not been anything approaching a retreat. In fact, if you look at other editorial decisions (such as the infamous 2 Nephi one the first year, with "skin of blackness"), I would say that the editorial staff and supervision of the Brethren is definitely in the literalist camp. 

Because it used to teach it out right and now it doesn't teach it out right.  Now you have to read it between the lines.  That seems like a noteworthy change.  If the Brethren knew a few decades ago that the global flood wasn't a given among members, and they had articles and talks telling members explicitly that the flood was global, why would they think it was a given now in this day and age?

My experience has been the opposite.  Growing up, it was assumed by those around me that the flood was global but now I know many active members who don't believe it was or who are agnostic about it.  

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

All aspects of the conversation are literal.

"As big as a house"?

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No part of the conversation is a falsehood or a myth. 

  If this story was passed on from generation to generation that a Javelina that was literally as big as a house lived across the river, then it would become a myth.  Myths are often partly based on true events. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, rongo said:

The olive branch (or whatever plant it was) indicates that the regrowth of plants may have been more rapid than what we observe now. At the very least, God could have had angels physically plant seeds, and sped up the growth process. My family has experienced miracles that would make my kids not bat an eye at this sort of problem. 

Me too, actually.  But I've also learned that just because God can do something, doesn't mean He will.  Coming to terms with a God who can do miracles and also doesn't always do miracles is an important part of our spiritual growth (that I'm still working on).

From my perspective, the olive branch could be a sign of a local flood. It could also very easily be figurative/symbolic.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, rongo said:

It might have, but our current assumptions about what the geological footprint denotes might differ from what it actually denotes. 

But, the geologic record does indicate catastrophic floods, so we do know what they look like. It just doesn't have a global flood in the record...anywhere.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Faith in what?

Well in scripture for one.

Isn't there a growing movement to remove any historical belief in the Book of Mormon based on known scientific evidence?
That should come as no surprise since we've already done that with most of the Old Testament.  Book of Abraham has been under attack scientifically for years.
There are even those who deny the historical Jesus based on a lack of archaeological scientific evidence so the New Testament could be next.

Perhaps only due to its recent arrival the D&C is generally safe from scientific attack, with critics preferring to take a doctrinal attack instead.

If we begin to believe science over scripture every time there won't be much left to have faith in.  Too much of scripture is contradicted by science.
Or is it only geological science that's infallible?  Anthropological?  Archaeological?  Which science is always correct when it contradicts scripture?

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
22 hours ago, rongo said:

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

So there you go. The Church has official publications that confirm a belief in a literal global flood.  Who are you to dispute it?  It is official church doctrine.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, rongo said:

I couldn't help but notice as I read this month's magazine, that the Liahona neè Ensign continued the streak of never including any local flood "nuance" --- only global flood literalism.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/02/noahs-ark?lang=eng

It is interesting that everything published by the Church (so far) only supports literalist stances. When (if ever) do you think that the "breakthroughs" into non-literalist approaches will come? 

The entire Book of Mormon story bucks against Christian "literalist stances."

The Bible may report on a global flood but there are no witnesses to a global flood. We are limited in the Bible to its witnesses, and that is what God intended.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But we know that God didn't always do what He said He did.  I mean, look at the creation story.  He didn't actually take a rib from adam to make eve, for example, even though He specifically said that He did.  Elder McConkie says that we can't even know for sure whether the fruit actually existed, even though God said in those scriptures that it did.

At the risk of overly picking the nits, somebody alleged that God said he did those things.  

Link to comment
18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Or maybe God really did flood the entire earth and ignored science to do it.

You know, like when he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, let Jonah live in the belly of a whale, let 3 hebrews not be consumed by fire, healed the blind with mud and saliva, collapsed a city by marching around it then blowing trumpets...

When it comes to the flood, I really don't know why we feel the urge to make it match science.
What part of miracle requires science to agree with it?

And it is wonderful that hobbits, dwarves', elves, orcs and wizards exist in middle earth.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, ttribe said:

Because, unlike all the other things you listed, the 'miracle' of a global flood would leave behind a pretty significant geologic footprint and it just...doesn't.

God is just tricking us. It happened and now he is letting the evidence show it did not. Faith man!  Faith!😏

Link to comment

There are many ideations of Mormonism within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perhaps as many as 16 million different varieties within the same church.  While there is certainly many things of common shared belief, this board alone is evidence of the great disparity of beliefs within those that fall under the Mormon Umbrella.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well in scripture for one.

Isn't there a growing movement to remove any historical belief in the Book of Mormon based on known scientific evidence?
That should come as no surprise since we've already done that with most of the Old Testament.  Book of Abraham has been under attack scientifically for years.
There are even those who deny the historical Jesus based on a lack of archaeological scientific evidence so the New Testament could be next.

Perhaps only due to its recent arrival the D&C is generally safe from scientific attack, with critics preferring to take a doctrinal attack instead.

If we begin to believe science over scripture every time there won't be much left to have faith in.  Too much of scripture is contradicted by science.
Or is it only geological science that's infallible?  Anthropological?  Archaeological?  Which science is always correct when it contradicts scripture?

But we aren't asked to have faith in scriptures being literal, right?

We are asked to have faith in Christ.  As far as scripture can lead us closer to Him, faith in it is important, but scripture doesn't exist for itself.  It only exists to point us to Him, and in a lot of ways (not in every way), it can do that whether it's historical or not.  Christ's parables are a great example of that. 

We don't want to divorce faith from our reason, but neither do we want to divorce reason from our faith.  Especially since God has not asked us to do so.

I'm completely fine with the idea of a global flood (and in some ways, I think that would be pretty cool).  But I don't believe that it is likely, and I personally find my testimony in scripture grows as I embrace their sometimes flawed ancient perspective and am still able to find the gospel of Christ there. 

For me, that is the real miracle.  That God can take a very wrong ancient mesopotamian understanding of the creation of the earth, for example, and use it to teach them and us who we are and who He is and why we are here and how we can become like Him.  

Man, if He can do that with their flaws then I know my flawed understandings are not enough to separate me from Him either.  That's the kind of faith that I find is of the most use to me in my life and that's the kind of faith that I believe that God is helping me to grow.

On the other hand, I don't think that God cares if I have faith that the flood was global or not, as long as I'm not letting it become a stumbling block for me.

 

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

At the risk of overly picking the nits, somebody alleged that God said he did those things.  

Yes, I'm speaking from a believing perspective.  Hopefully everyone knows that.  :) 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, ttribe said:

Wow. So, as I recall from a previous discussion, God CANNOT violate some alleged eternal law which requires a blood sacrifice for redemption of sins, but the immutable laws of physics are no problem, whatsoever.  Do I have that right?

Come on! Don't use logic or reason with these issues.  😁

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

God is just tricking us. It happened and now he is letting the evidence show it did not. Faith man!  Faith!😏

If true, that's a pretty cruel god.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, ttribe said:

But, the geologic record does indicate catastrophic floods, so we do know what they look like. It just doesn't have a global flood in the record...anywhere.

There is unbroken Egyptian and Sumerian written history right through the supposed flood time. There is no support for a global flood and overwhelming evidence that it did not happen.  IMO the church would lose nothing by embracing the flood as a myth.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Who said the laws of physics are immutable?

Those same laws say you can't walk on water.

God said they are immutable, since God defined them and agreed to follow and self determine himself to follow them.

Like not eating chocolate cake on a diet. He makes his own rules that he follows voluntarily so he can Father his children and not be a transcendent amorphous cloud of goodness

But he' s got some fancy technology he hasn't revealed yet. :)

Miracles just follow rules we don't understand yet 

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...