Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_SteelHead]

Mittens is a yec ev.

[_Themis]

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.

A professor writing an article for the church, in it's official magazine. As such he is acting in behalf of the church to explain it's position on the matter. Lets not pretend this somehow slipped past the church leaders. You have been shown multiple times the church and it's leaders teaching of a literal flood from many of it's official publications, and all you can come up with is a vague statement that does not deal with the issue. I find it odd that some who view it as a limited flood cannot accept their view is not in line with what the church teaches, even though most can. Most also realize it is not a core doctrine one has to accept.

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.

Secondary but certainly taught consistently.

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

I am not sure how this helps me understand how you define it. Not a big deal. I am still interested if your view of the Book of Abraham is in line with the catalyst theory where the papyri contains no story of Abraham.

[_nc47]

Mittens is a yec ev.

That makes sense.

[_nc47]

A professor writing an article for the church, in it's official magazine. As such he is acting in behalf of the church to explain it's position on the matter. Lets not pretend this somehow slipped past the church leaders. You have been shown multiple times the church and it's leaders teaching of a literal flood from many of it's official publications, and all you can come up with is a vague statement that does not deal with the issue. I find it odd that some who view it as a limited flood cannot accept their view is not in line with what the church teaches, even though most can. Most also realize it is not a core doctrine one has to accept.

The Friend is an official Church publication yet I hesitate to grant it doctrinal authority. The Church was birthed into a literalist environment and leaders were merely perpetuating the tradition. There have been no official statements on the matter. This is not large enough a matter to pester the Lord for revelation, I don't believe.

I am not sure how this helps me understand how you define it. Not a big deal. I am still interested if your view of the Book of Abraham is in line with the catalyst theory where the papyri contains no story of Abraham.

Yes, I accept the some form of catalyst theory. I also believed that Joseph Smith exercised his prophetic authority in interpreting the facsimiles and adapting the symbols for this generation.

[_Bazooka]

I also believed that Joseph Smith exercised his prophetic authority in interpreting the facsimiles and adapting the symbols for this generation.

What are you basing this specific belief on?

[_ludwigm]

Again and again and again and again and again and again ...
Isn't it enough?

Official or not?
Prophet or man?
Private opinion of a worldwide leader, or words of god interpreted, by the mouthpiece of he/she/it.
(OK, I should leave the joking ... and pictures disabled ...) [/off topic]

What is official doctrine?
What is core doctrine?
What is doctrine in unambiguous words ? (Please forget Prophet of Newsroom - that does not define anything!)

[_ludwigm]

I also believed that Joseph Smith exercised his prophetic authority in interpreting the facsimiles and adapting the symbols for this generation.

Sentence with no meaning.

Parts of the sentence:
"prophetic authority"
- there is no such thing, as the word "prophet" has no meaning for any non-believer

"interpreting the facsimiles"
"adapting the symbols"
- please explain (away) these expressions for us with simple words... as You know, I am a miserable non-english

[_Bazooka]

as You know, I am a miserable non-english

As far as I can tell, you're not a "non" anything.
You are a proud multi lingual Hungarian who occasionally posts cartoon nudity!

[_nc47]

Hi Ludwig, your English is good.

Sentence with no meaning.
Parts of the sentence:
"prophetic authority"

- there is no such thing, as the word "prophet" has no meaning for any non-believer

People like Isaiah and Amos in the Old Testament and the apostle Paul in the New often re-interpret scripture, add new meaning for their current time.

"interpreting the facsimiles"
"adapting the symbols"
- please explain (away) these expressions for us with simple words... as You know, I am a miserable non-english

Consider this picture. The man sitting is the god Osiris. Joseph Smith said that this is Abraham sitting on the Pharoah's throne. In ancient Israel, kings became gods, so we know that Abraham is becoming a god.

[_SteelHead]

Can I point to any picture of a king upon a throne and say that it represents the king becoming a god after the ancient israeli traditions, or just this particular one?

And Cfr on ancient Israelis believing their kings become gods.

Cfr on this being Abraham in the image you provided.

Abraham on pharaoh's throne becoming a god?