Nelson Chung wrote:It is not the Church's official position that the flood must be literal. Steelhead has some quotes from early leaders, an Ensign article by Donald Parry, Mormon Doctrine, JoD, manuals, blah blah blah. I don't have the patience to keep responding to those people who keep quotemining.
I would say that one can believe what they want about the flood story and still be considered a member in good standing. I rejected it long ago as a believing member. I think it is safe to say it has been, and is currently, the doctrine of the LDS church. It's not part of core doctrine, so I doubt many would put up much of a fuss is they ever decide to change it. Many have already shown many quotes in the scriptures and other official church publications that it is considered as literal. You even allude to one article in the ensign, a magazine which does represent the church's position, that is specifically written to address whether the church considered the flood global.
by the way here is a good definition of quote mining. I don't think they are guilty of such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_contextIt's also not cherry picking since one cannot show the church teaching other psoitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29One of the major problems I have with a limited flood is that is destroys the core elements of the story. The need for a boat and taking in the animals is to save God's creation. A limited flood will not destroy man or the animals, and a person given so much advanced warning could easily remove their family to a safe location. There's more problems but I hope you get the point. I do think the Noah myth like many myths has a particle of truth in that there may have been a local flood in the past that spawned many stories including the later Noah story. I guess the problem is that this does not fit well with some of the core truth claims of the LDS church.
You have to make circular assumptions about all scriptures being literal in order to conclude that the flood myth is literal. Even if portions of the scriptures are indeed literal, that does not mean myth cannot be joined with history. I believe George Washington existed even though I don't believe the cherry tree story.
I don't think it was literal, or that Noah was a real person. The story is taught as literal by the church, and the authors of the biblical story certainly present it as literal.
I use CS Lewis's definition.
I know he has many quotes on the subject. Is their one that best fits with your definition?