Follow F.A.I.R, They Know the Way

[Fair Dinkum]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The prophets have taught that there is a literal Noah.  The flood must be literal too.  Since floods exist, this should not be a problem.  The only issue is the size or scale of the flood.  I think the truth may be somewhere between a local flood and a global flood.  Big enough that Noah and the family could not just walk away from but not so big that it wiped out all land life on the entire planet.  There is quite a lot of ground between the two positions.

The Bible and BoM speak to the size of the flood. For the waters to recede from America it had to be universal. See Ether.  And for the flood to exceed the height of the mountains and destroy “all flesh” it had to be universal. Yes LDS prophets have made Noah, a fictional character based off the Babylonian Gilgamesh flood myth, literal.  Geez the 5 Books of Moses weren’t even written until the Jews returned to Israel in 538 BCE. 
 

but you forget…the universal flood is essential for Noah, living near Adams Missouri Eden to leave the Americas for the Middle East…how else did his fictional ark get there from America?
 

you start picking at one truth claim and they all start falling apart.  The Noah myth is built on the Adam myth.  Both fictional but also essential for Mormonism to be what it claims.  And don’t forget the foundational need for there being no death prior to adams fall. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If nothing else Bro Lloyd with 2 L’s not one, you’re consistent 

Why do you find it remarkable that my surname, which is of Welsh derivation, is spelled with two Ls? 
 

Is this really the first time you’ve encountered the name Lloyd spelled that way? I find THAT remarkable!

[Fair Dinkum]

23 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Use your common sense.  There is obviously a lot about which we know nothing, ie pre Adamic life here on earth. Those facts are not pertinent to our salvation. The Church takes no position on evolution for example. 
 

Whenever the Flood, or Adam and Eve are referred to, it’s as an example of how to live our lives.  Some of the prophets refer to the flood, but give them credit for not parsing out what it really means. They only quote the Bible record for simplicity. Parsing would ruin the gospel points they are trying to make. 

I can accept a metaphorical Eden and flood.  But Mormonism drove a stake in that heart and requires both stories be literal

[Fair Dinkum]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

Have the prophets taught that one has to believe in a literal flood though?

Actually yes, some have…thanks for asking 

 

Quote

Bruce R. McConkie: "The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the Old World by the Flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomenon." (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman" p. 19-20)

So yes you have to accept a literal universal flood if you choose to follow the prophets and be Mormon. But I’m going to take a wild guess and assume that you’ll also choose FAIR over this prophet. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I actually follow both when their assertions are based in reality and I reject both when their pronouncements are in conflict with empirical evidence. 

That is probably not following. Sounds more like coincidentally agreeing with them.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I actually follow both when their assertions are based in reality and I reject both when their pronouncements are in conflict with empirical evidence. 

You follow Mickey Mouse given that usage.
 

Follow does not mean to most in the religious context “simply agree with”, but accepting someone as your leader or role model.  Do you accept the prophets as your leader?  Are you their follower/adherent/disciple?

Edited July 15, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The Bible and BoM speak to the size of the flood. For the waters to recede from America it had to be universal. See Ether.

Is this the interpretation you are settling on now?  When this topic was brought up by you in the past and it was explained in the thread (here and here) that Ether 13:2 is just as likely referring to the waters of creation (Ether 1:3) and not the flood of Noah , you responded by saying in a post (here) that while that may be a valid conclusion, you didn't buy into either of the interpretations.  So you're going with the universal flood interpretation now?  What changed your mind?

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

OP:

 

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Again please point out exactly where I have claimed your assertion that I have stated that fair does not promote a literal Adam,Eve or Noah.

With all do respect.  No where have I said that FAIR does not believe in a literal Adam, Eve or Noah.  What I did imply was that FAIR is aware that there is no scientific support for this LDS doctrine and has therefore created a safe harbor for doubters to maintain belief by stating that belief in a flood is not necessary.

[Fair Dinkum]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

I think everybody believes in TRUTH.  The question is, do you claim to know TRUTH with absolute certainty?  If not, then you are no different from the rest of us who walk in faith.

 

Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.

Thomas A. Edison

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.

Thomas A. Edison

And who is it that I can turn to who knows the TRUTH of the facts with absolute certainty?  Who knows the facts beyond the limits of their own human interpretation?  

What is a fact but an interpretation?    

I base my faith on what is useful and what works, rather than ones interpretation of what is factual.  As the parable of the blind men and the elephant teaches us, "facts" are nothing more than relative interpretations.  

Edited July 15, 2022 by pogi

[Fair Dinkum]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

Then why did you ask whether to follow FAIR or the prophets?

We're taught to "Follow the Prophet, He knows the way"  But clearly they often lead us in to falsehoods, myths and fiction and clearly do not always know the way.  The list is long where IF we had followed prophets we would have been lead to believe in falsehoods. On this subject clearly FAIR offers a more correct doctrine than our prophets.  If Prophets can teach falsehoods why put our faith in them...better to relay on empirical evidence , critical thinking, science and ultimately capital T TRUTH instead of the false teachings of well meaning but often incorrect human beings.

NOW please don't misinterpret my words.  The LDS prophets are good well meaning men, and I do follow them in areas where they do teach truth such as being loving our neighbor, (except, for example,  when they teach us not to love our neighbor, then I use my critical thinking and reject their council aka the LGBTQ community)

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

To attempt to get everybody riled up. Our religion-bashing bushranger appears about as successful as his IRL avatar was in the end ...

Religion Bashing?  PPLLEEAASSE.  If asking simple questions is bashing Mormonism then the church is in greater difficulty then I believe it already is.  I'm merely stating the obvious.  That Mormon prophets are often wrong when declaring doctrine and we would be better off...using our critical thinking and than accepting their incorrect pronouncements.

You have done exactly as I have suggested, and yet you fail to admit it.  You know the teaching of a 6,000 year old earth is false despite some of these past prophets declaring such as truth and so you have rejected their council because they are clearly wrong.

 

 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Actually yes, some have…thanks for asking 

 

So yes you have to accept a literal universal flood if you choose to follow the prophets and be Mormon. But I’m going to take a wild guess and assume that you’ll also choose FAIR over this prophet. 

I'm sorry if I was confusing but I meant authoritatively taught.  Not a personal opinion shared in a book that the First Presidency didn't like, by an apostle.

Has a prophet taught over the pulpit or in some other authoritative way that members must believe in a literal flood?

11 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We're taught to "Follow the Prophet, He knows the way"  But clearly they often lead us in to falsehoods, myths and fiction and clearly do not always know the way.  The list is long where IF we had followed prophets we would have been lead to believe in falsehoods. On this subject clearly FAIR offers a more correct doctrine than our prophets.  If Prophets can teach falsehoods why put our faith in them...better to relay on empirical evidence , critical thinking, science and ultimately capital T TRUTH instead of the false teachings of well meaning but often incorrect human beings.

NOW please don't misinterpret my words.  The LDS prophets are good well meaning men, and I do follow them in areas where they do teach truth such as being loving our neighbor, (except, for example,  when they teach us not to love our neighbor, then I use my critical thinking and reject their council aka the LGBTQ community)

That primary song notwithstanding, it sounds like the OP was not sincere.  

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, assuming they were wrong.

Joseph didn't teach there was a literal Adam or Noah.  He actually witnessed the literal Adam firsthand.  He had keys bestowed by Noah, a practice that generally involves the laying on of hands. That's firsthand witness, not scientific theory.

Correction.  He did teach a literal Adam and Noah and he only "CLAIMED" to have witnesses seeing them.  Making a claim does not make it so.

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  

Again, you seem to be imputing an expectation of perfection onto prophets and apostles.  You are imposing an unreasonable, impossible-to-attain standard of expectations and demands.  I suspect you are doing this because you want prophets and apostles to fail to meet these expectations.  You want reasons to reject them.

I have a brother-in-law who is a pediatrician.  He and I have occasionally exchanged thoughts on how his patients project expectations onto him, and how my clients project expectations onto me.  I also sometimes bring up expectations imposed by judges.  Most of my clients are, in their expectations, quite reasonable.  They recognize, for example, that I cannot be expected, at the outset of a case, to have a full and complete and utterly accurate grasp of the facts, the evidence, the law, and the eventual outcome.  There are often too many moving parts, unknowns, variables, etc. to allow for a precisely accurate assessment of the case.  So . . . they work with me.  They expect me to be very familiar with the law, but not every jot and tittle of it.  They expect me to provide reasoned surmises about how the judge or the opposing party will behave, but they also recognize that there is always some guesswork and uncertainty in such things.

My brother-in-law has said that some of his patients (he's a pediatrician, so usually it is his patients' parents) harbor unrealistic expectations about how medicine works.  Some of this comes from watching medical dramas on TV, from in-the-moment anxieties about the health of the patient, from simple inexperience, and so on.  Medicine is seldom a skill that can produce answers and results with mathematical precision and predictability.  Again, there are often too many moving parts, unknowns, variables, etc.

So . . . back to your expectations about prophets and apostles.  You expect . . . perfection from them.  I think particularly from the 19th-century ones, who were operating under centuries-old stories and presuppositions about those stories.  I think you have an expection here about how divine revelation works.  That it "should" have included corrections and clarifications to Joseph, Brigham, etc. as to the factual particulars of the Flood.  I don't think that is reasonable.  You want perfection, and - apart from the Savior - it ain't coming.  

I would not call someone to testify about an event to which he was not a percipient witness.

And I certainly would not call someone to testify about matters of religious faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're on a roll whipping up your straw men. Actually I do NOT expect perfection....but I would hope for some credibility and where they are clearly wrong, wouldn't it be nice if they were willing to admit that they were wrong and led the entire church down a false pathway? 

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We're taught to "Follow the Prophet, He knows the way"  But clearly they often lead us in to falsehoods, myths and fiction and clearly do not always know the way.  The list is long where IF we had followed prophets we would have been lead to believe in falsehoods. On this subject clearly FAIR offers a more correct doctrine than our prophets.  If Prophets can teach falsehoods why put our faith in them...better to relay on empirical evidence , critical thinking, science and ultimately capital T TRUTH instead of the false teachings of well meaning but often incorrect human beings.

NOW please don't misinterpret my words.  The LDS prophets are good well meaning men, and I do follow them in areas where they do teach truth such as being loving our neighbor, (except, for example,  when they teach us not to love our neighbor, then I use my critical thinking and reject their council aka the LGBTQ community)

Now you are canonizing a Primary song?  And your canonized interpretation is that prophets must be demonstrably Omniscient and infallible on all points or not prophets in any sense?  Seriously?  This demonstrates empirical evidence, critical thinking, science and Truth?   Your whole approach reminds me of this comment about Bacon, the Father of the scientific method:

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science was, quite consistently, an enemy of Copernicus.  Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest.  (Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defense of Science and Rationality, (London and New York, Routledge, 1994) 84-85.

We cannot accuse Bacon of being irrational or illogical, or not using critical thinking, or not being scientific.   What is painfully obvious is that Bacon on this issue, is not self-reflective, not critical of his own assumptions.  He did not check his own eye for beams (that is, to imagine, like Galileo and Kepler, what things would look like to an observer on an Earth that orbits a sun, and how much better that accounted for planetary motions), When I pointed out that your expectations of prophets have no scriptural basis, and no empirical evidence to support them, but rather rest entirely on an irrational craving for absolute certainty and authority that would put prophets and their followers beyond repentence (which includes repenting from mistaken ideas and interpretations), your careful, rational, critical response was to totally ignore my post (despite its 10 upvotes).

Consider where Jesus said we should build our foundations.

Quote

And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. 3 Nephi 11:40

The "this" that Jesus refers to is not, I think you would agree, your interpretation of the Flood as universal (as though "face of the whole earth" could admit no other interpretation, especially not in light of Exodus 10 and the locusts, and most especially not in light of Exodus 10:15)  and Garden and no death before the fall (unless one imagines that the Garden depicted in a Ritual Temple drama in which Adam (which is "many") consisted of the entire planet and Universe in which worlds without number have supposedly been both created and destroyed that creation and destruction and worlds without number must have occured without death because "no death before the fall" MUST logically, rationally, critically be taken as an ABSOLUTE through the Universe, rather than as relative to one specified, bounded location in that ritual dramatic text, in which Adam "which is many" must leave that bounded, distinct garden), to enter (in that ritual, symbolic drama) a different kind of mortal existence, a dreary mortal world in which Moses "beheld many lands; and each land was called earth," (Moses 1:29) all of which I have addressed before, at length referring to all sorts of scriptures and a wide range of LDS thinkers.

If you want to build your foundation there, while at the same time complaining how unsuitable and unstable it is for building, you can of course do so for the sheer destructive pleasure of being able to watch the building fall.  If at the same time, however, you claim to be demonstrating pure rationality and logic, forgive me for thinking this to be a sad spectacle.

The sound foundation is no more, and no less than faith in Christ, repentence (including ongoing repentence from ignorance, where we begin as children but must eventually put aside childish things and ideas), baptism, reception of the Holy Spirit (which includes receiving pure intelligence and inspiration and revelation in an ongoing process throughout our lives and beyond), and enduring to the end.   One of the things we should endure in the covenant community happens to be one another, people, who interpret the "same passages so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" and people who despite being prophets who have seen angels, and who can say in one place, on one topic, "And now, concerning this space of time, what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently of the Lord to know; and this is the thing of which I do know" (Alma 40:9) and in another place "but behold, I give it as my opinion" (Alma 40:20).

Some of the meanings of "sustain" are to "endure, to suffer, to allow, to permit, to nourish, to uphold" and finally, as one meaning of many, "to agree with."

We are all different, with different backgrounds, educations, personalities, and different stages of personal development.   Some are here:

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.  
 

Some are here:

Quote

POSITION 5  Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective.  It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices.  They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment.  They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY.  THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE.  IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP.  THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY. 

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING.  His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement.  He may reconsign agency to some possible event.  If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE.  He becomes apathetic.  His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life.  This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement.  He starts to rely on impulse.  THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION.  "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition.  In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance.  It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith.  In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)
 

And some, notably Joseph Smith, are here:

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. 

Looking for further light and knowledge is, by nature, more open-ended and humbling than striving for self-justification.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 15, 2022 by Kevin Christensen

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Thanks for getting back. I guess that means you reject the notion of God being a real entity then?

I'd like to back off my earlier statement.  I may have come off too harshly. It would have been better had I merely stated that I am a skeptic and I seriously doubt the truth claims of the church based mainly on the fact that its prophets have taught many provable falsehoods in the past and at least for me, have lost credibility. That said I would very much like the church to be everything it claims.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/13/2022 at 2:43 PM, Calm said:

We don’t claim that.

As far as I know the majority of FAIR members, if not all, believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and Noah. Many of us may not see them as identical to the traditional view, but some do. Myself, I see Adam and Eve as the first couple to establish a covenant with God in terms of the temple. Noah I believe likely a massive local flood, but haven’t settled in anything else. 

Just my two cents: it doesn't matter if the story happened or didn't- the PURPOSE of it being in the bible is to teach us that God loves and saves his children.

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you find it remarkable that my surname, which is of Welsh derivation, is spelled with two Ls? 
 

Is this really the first time you’ve encountered the name Lloyd spelled that way? I find THAT remarkable!

Brother Lloyd (spelled with 2 L's not one) I do not find the spelling of your name at all remarkable. As I am sure you are very much aware, the common first or last name of Lloyd can be spelled multiple ways.   It can be spelled as Lloyd, Lloyde, Loyd, Loid, Lloid or Loyde, perhaps there are even more derivatives that I am unaware of. 

Because I KNOW that you have a penchant for exactness and perfection in both grammar and spelling and have the annoying habit of correcting others mistakes, mainly posters who tend to be less faithful ( I could be wrong, perhaps you also correct believers grammar as well), I was merely returning the favor by stating the obvious, that I was in fact spelling your last name with 2 L's correctly to save you the trouble of correcting me on it's spelling. 

[latterdaytemplar]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:09 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

On 7/13/2022 at 3:17 PM, T-Shirt said:

On 7/13/2022 at 2:25 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

F.A.I.R however, understanding that science does not support either a literal Adam, Eve or Noah, teaches something quite different from LDS prophets & LDS scripture.  https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Are_Church_members_required_to_believe_in_a_global_flood%3F

 

So sincere question:  Whom do I follow, the prophets or F.A.I.R.?

Where does F.A.I.R. claim they do not support a literal Adam, Eve or Noah?

Where did I claim that they don’t?

To break down your claim here, FD:

• FAIR teaches something different from the prophets and scriptures of the Church.
  • This is based on your premise that FAIR has an understanding that science does not support a literal Adam, Eve, or Noah.

The fact that you present an otherwise false dichotomy here (whether to follow "the prophets or F.A.I.R.") lends even more to your premise that to accept one must require the rejection of the other; and, therefore, that FAIR must not support the literal Adam, Eve, or Noah that are taught by the prophets and scriptures of the Church.

I see only one logical conclusion that can be derived from your position here: namely, that FAIR's different teachings are A) consequential of the rejection of and B) tantamount to a replacement of the teachings from the prophets and scripture of the Church (and, thus, a rejection of the principle of a literal Adam, Eve, or Noah).

I personally disagree with your premise (as I subscribe to the Promethean Adam model) and find your question here to be nothing more than a false dichotomy; the leadership and guidance of the prophets and scriptures of the Church can go hand-in-hand with the findings that FAIR provides.

As far as doctrine is concerned, it is a basic tenet in the Church we do not believe that everything written in our scriptures must be exactly right. I direct your attention to the following passages of scripture:

Quote

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

—"Title Page of the Book of Mormon," The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. 2013. Print.

Quote

And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

—Moroni 9:33, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. 2013. Print.

Quote

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

—Article of Faith 1:8-9, The Pearl of Great Price. 2013. Print.

I see no reason against our understanding of the Flood to evolve, given that:

• Moses himself described a flat earth in the opening chapters of Genesis.
  • The understandings of God's faithful disciples have clearly evolved and improved since that time.
• We do not believe our prophets/scriptures to be infallible/inerrant.
  • Our prophets/scriptures can therefore improve over time and experience.

Thus, there is no reason why one must choose the prophets/scriptures of the Church over FAIR or vice-versa when one can simply choose to follow the prophets/scriptures while using FAIR as a supplementary resource therefor (which seems to be FAIR's purpose in a nutshell to begin with).

[Fair Dinkum]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just my two cents: it doesn't matter if the story happened or didn't- the PURPOSE of it being in the bible is to teach us that God loves and saves his children.

YES...exactly it is a metaphor to teach a lesson.  But Mormon prophets have also made it a literal, necessary historical event and that is the problem.  Mormonism is built on these false foundations.  Ignoring this reality doesn't make them disappear but it can reduce the cognitive dissonance one might have from thinking too deeply about its implications.

[Fair Dinkum]

44 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Now you are canonizing a Primary song?  And your canonized interpretation is that prophets must be demonstrably Omniscient and infallible on all points or not prophets in any sense?  Seriously?  This demonstrates empirical evidence, critical thinking, science and Truth?   Your whole approach reminds me of this comment about Bacon, the Father of the scientific method:

We cannot accuse Bacon of being irrational or illogical, or not using critical thinking, or not being scientific.   What is painfully obvious is that Bacon on this issue, is not self-reflective, not critical of his own assumptions.  He did not check his own eye for beams (that is, to imagine, like Galileo and Kepler, what things would look like to an observer on an Earth that orbits a sun, and how much better that accounted for planetary motions), When I pointed out that your expectations of prophets have no scriptural basis, and no empirical evidence to support them, but rather rest entirely on an irrational craving for absolute certainty and authority that would put prophets and their followers beyond repentence (which includes repenting from mistaken ideas and interpretations), your careful, rational, critical response was to totally ignore my post (despite its 10 upvotes).

Consider where Jesus said we should build our foundations.

The "this" that Jesus refers to is not, I think you would agree, your interpretation of the Flood as universal (as though "face of the whole earth" could admit no other interpretation, especially not in light of Exodus 10 and the locusts, and most especially not in light of Exodus 10:15)  and Garden and no death before the fall (unless one imagines that the Garden depicted in a Ritual Temple drama in which Adam (which is "many") consisted of the entire planet and Universe in which worlds without number have supposedly been both created and destroyed that creation and destruction and worlds without number must have occured without death because "no death before the fall" MUST logically, rationally, critically be taken as an ABSOLUTE through the Universe, rather than as relative to one specified, bounded location in that ritual dramatic text, in which Adam "which is many" must leave that bounded, distinct garden), to enter (in that ritual, symbolic drama) a different kind of mortal existance, a dreary mortal world in which Moses "beheld many lands; and each land was called earth," (Moses 1:29) all of which I have addressed before, at length referring to all sorts of scriptures and a wide range of LDS thinkers.

If you want to build your foundation there, while at the same time complaining how unsuitable and unstable it is for building, you can of course do so for the sheer destructive pleasure of being able to watch the building fall.  If at the same time, however, you claim to be demonstrating pure rationality and logic, forgive me for thinking this to be a sad spectacle.

The sound foundation no more, and no less than faith in Christ, repentence (including ongoing repentence from ignorance, where we begin as children but must eventually put aside childish things and ideas), baptism, reception of the Holy Spirit (which includes receiving pure intelligence and inspiration and revelation in an ongoing process throughout our lives and beyond), and enduring to the end.   One of the things we should endure in the covenant community happens to be one another, people, who interpret the "same passages so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" and people who despite being prophets who have seen angels, and who can say in one place, on one topic, "And now, concerning this space of time, what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently of the Lord to know; and this is the thing of which I do know" (Alma 40:9) and in another place "but behold, I give it as my opinion" (Alma 40:20).

Some of the meanings of "sustain" are to "endure, to suffer, to allow, to permit, to nourish, to uphold" and finally, as one meaning of many, "to agree with."

We are all different, with different backgrounds, educations, personalities, and different stages of personal development.   Some are here:

Some are here:

And some, notably Joseph Smith, are here:

Looking for further light and knowledge is, by nature, more open-ended and humbling than striving for self-justification.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin I have always enjoyed your thoughtful posts.

[Peacefully]

https://arkencounter.com/
 

It’s real:) 

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry if I was confusing but I meant authoritatively taught.  Not a personal opinion shared in a book that the First Presidency didn't like, by an apostle.

Has a prophet taught over the pulpit or in some other authoritative way that members must believe in a literal flood?

That primary song notwithstanding, it sounds like the OP was not sincere.  

Authoritatively taught Over the Pulpit, YES, does the church hold a gun to your head and say you must believe, No...but that doesn't quite get to the problem.  As members we are taught to follow the prophet.  We sing "We thank thee Oh God for a prophet". Ezra Benson taught that the prophet will never lead the church astray, and yet several have taught provable falsehoods as doctrine...is that not leading members astray?

Quote

Prophet Joseph F. Smith: “FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling.

Quote

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley: “There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only 'eight souls were saved'” (175th Semi-Annual General Priesthood Meeting)

 

Above I have provided two examples of prophets teaching false doctrine over the pulpit in general conference.  I'm sure you reject both of these prophetic pronouncements or at least I hope you reject them. So you do not follow the prophets when they teach falsehoods but so many others hold to a deeper trust in these men and many still believe in their false teachings to their detriment. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Correction.  He did teach a literal Adam and Noah and he only "CLAIMED" to have witnesses seeing them.  Making a claim does not make it so.

It's religion!

It's a matter of faith.  Believing Christ raised from the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine.  Science says no.  Faith says yes.
Why is the LDS faith the whipping boy for your scientific crusade?
I have faith, I believe Joseph.  I believe he saw Adam and Eve and Noah, and that he had physical contact with Noah in the form of laying on of hands.
I also believe God's son Jesus Christ was born, died, and rose the third day.  That he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, cast out devils etc.

This is a board for discussion of religion right?