Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[Guest]

I only quoted him because you were quoting a seminary manual.

You have yet to provide his actual quote and link/post the source

I only quoted the disclaimer because you were quoting an non-doctrinal source to make your case.

I also quoted Prophets, Official Church publications and Scripture (which the Church Dictionary links to). A plethora of official Church sources that all say the same thing - the flood literally happened, literally covered the whole earth and literally happened less than 6,000 years ago.

I notice that you have yet to provide anything from an "official Church source" to support your claim.
Come on Nelson, you've had plenty of time.

Support your claim

[_nc47]

Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....

Please be mature about this and do not suspend your God-given ability to abstractize. Thank you.

http://biology.BYU.edu/DepartmentInfo/E ... ofMan.aspx

[_nc47]

You have yet to provide his actual quote and link/post the source

I don't have a link. He said it in class. Wilfred Griggs said the same thing. It's no secret. You can just go listen to one of Terryl Givens's talks.

[_SteelHead]

If a literal global flood does not rise to the threshold of official doctrine, them nothing does.

[_Bazooka]

Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....

Please be mature about this and do not suspend your God-given ability to abstractize. Thank you.

http://biology.BYU.edu/DepartmentInfo/E ... ofMan.aspx

Thanks for this link, I'm having a think about it (even though it's about the origin of man and NOT the flood ).

I also noticed this paragraph (from the First Presidency at the time) within the link:

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so that undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

And compared it to this from the newsroom:

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?
Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.uk/articl ... basics#C13

[_nc47]

If a literal global flood does not rise to the threshold of official doctrine, them nothing does.

You're smoking crack, dude.

[Guest]

This thread is originally about proper names in the Book of Mormon (and Grant Palmer is dead wrong on some of them). Apparently Bob had too many things fired at him at once. Somehow we're at facsimile 3.

Bob knows the question and others were asked of him many times in the thread. There is no doubt he choose to ignore these questions, and he had more then enough time to make posts about nothing, so I don't think he was to busy to answer simple questions that really are the heart of the matter as to why many change their beliefs regarding the LDS church.

Anyway, I don't think the Egyptology interpretations are wrong. Prior to 1871 the heading to the Book of Abraham said that the book was "purportedly written by Abraham." It's a pseudepigraphic text just like the Apocryphon of Abraham. I pretty much adopt David Bokovoy's position. Enthronement in ancient Israel is connected to Deification, so Abraham sitting on the throne means he is becoming divine, like Osiris.

This is an interesting recent article you may already be aware of from David.

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-2/

I am not entirely sure what his position is, but he seems to be suggesting more a catalyst theory, in that the papyri does not contain any story of Abraham written either by Abraham or someone else. Would that be fair to say that you also believe the papyri does not contain any story of Abraham?

[_Themis]

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_context

It's also not cherry picking since one cannot show the church teaching other psoitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

One 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?

[_nc47]

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.

That article was written by a BYU Old Testament professor, not anyone in authority. Thus far I have seen no official statement saying that it's literal. We do have a statement from the First Presidency making it clear that whatever geology demonstrates that is not relevant to salvation, we embrace with joy.

One 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.

I don't doubt that the church's early (and perhaps current) leaders believed the flood is literal. But there have not been any official statements. The literalness of the flood is secondary to the eternal principles embodied in the myth anyway, so this is really a non-issue.

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.

Depends who you ask.

I know he has many quotes on the subject. Is their one that best fits with your definition?

Faith sits squarely on top of reason. It adds revelation.

[_nc47]

Back to the OP: Where does this guy Mittens get his information? Grant Palmer does not have a PhD. His assertion about Rameumpton, Irreantum, and Rabbanah are completely wrong.

I read in Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford, 2009) that Palmer said that the Book of Mormon is fictional by virtue of that no one would spend time copying over big portions of Isaiah over. Hardy's book destroyed this assertion.