DiscussMormonism.com

and the Tower of Babel. I didn't listen to very much of Conference this time around. It's been long enough since my apostasy that my wife no longer tries to push me into paying attention to it. Instead, I spent most of my time reading "Anathem", by Neal Stephenson. Still, when Apostle Todd Christofferson was speaking, I recall hearing him refer to the Flood as an actual, historical event, and referred to the Tower of Babel as a historical event, having to do with the same city from which the Babylonians came.

So, apparently this newly minted Prophet, Seer, and Revelator is still willing to go on record as believing in the historicity of what are demonstrably mythological stories.

I'm just waiting for the apologists to come and go khafodocles* on me with quibbles about how he referred to the Flood, but he could actually have been talking about just the local event of, say, a river overflowing its banks, or even more dramatic (think Black Sea or whatever), without the whole Noah's Ark story. Uhuh. Whatever. Think whatever you need to think to help you sleep better.

*to anyone who would understand this term, I recommend "Anathem"

Huh, I didn't even realize it was conference time again. Some Christofferson quotes about the flood and the tower would be helpful to generate further comments.... But really, the Book of Mormon makes the most sense if you believe the Flood was literal/global and Babel was a historical event that spawned the Jaredites. So it shouldn't be a surprise that a Mormon apostle endorses it.

From FAIRMormon:

Are Church members required to believe in a global flood?

The early prophets and apostles taught their beliefs regarding a global flood using the scriptures. Modern scientific knowledge was unavailable to them, and they taught concepts which were in accordance with the popular belief. In modern times a belief in a global flood event, while still widely-held within the Church, does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology....

Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints hold different views on the issue of whether Noah's flood was local or global. Members of any given LDS congregation may have of a variety of points of view, and many have no firm opinion one way or the other.

A belief in either a global or local flood is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally. The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood — one limited to the area in which Noah lived — is the best explanation of the available data. People of either view, or neither, can be members in good standing.

And for those who have the patience, Agreeing to Disagree: Henry Eyring and Joseph Fielding Smith

JFS:

There is one place, however, where I feel that men are infallible. That is when they, as prophets, reveal to us the word of the Lord. We have four published works which have been accepted by the members of the Church as standard in doctrine, revelation and government. These are: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. We accept [p.144] of course the Bible, as far as correctly translated. It is a well established fact that the copies coming to us based on translations, more or less semi-modern, contain many errors but when the Bible is in full accord with the other records, we accept what is written, whether the things written harmonize with the teachings of science or not.

Henry Eyring:

I am convinced that if the Lord required that His children understand His works before they could be saved that no one would be saved. It seems to me that to struggle for agreement on scientific matters in view of the disparity in background which the members of the Church have is to put emphasis in the wrong place. In my judgments there is room in the Church for people who think that the periods of creation were (a) 24 hours, (b) 1000 years, or (c) millions of years. I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert the other to what he thinks is right, but in matters where apparently equally reliable authorities disagree, I prefer to make haste slowly.

Since we agree on so many things, I trust we can amicably disagree on a few. I have never liked, for example, the idea that many of the horizontally lying layers with their fossils are wreckage from earlier worlds. In any case, the Lord created the world and my faith does not hinge on the detailed procedures.

The last bishop, in New Hampshire, who was my bishop before I lost my testimony and accepted that the church wasn't true, once lent me "Confessions of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring. It helped me for a short time, when I was still trying to rationalize keeping a testimony of the fundamental truth of the church while accepting that the church was dead wrong on so many issues where modern science had proven otherwise. My favorite takeaway from that book was a statement along the lines of "You're not required to believe anything that isn't true."

Therefor, it doesn't matter who says what, if that what isn't true, we (as Mormons) are not obligated to believe it. That seems to be at least a strong part of the sentiment that informs modern-day Internet Mormons.

Now, looking back, I can see that that book, and the help I'd received from it, were just baby steps. It was no insignificant thing to finally feel "free" from the requirement to rationalize the teachings of the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators when I knew (in the light of modern science) that they were simply wrong. But I was still bound by that little caveat: "but, not withstanding all they've gotten wrong, the church is still true." It's like I was given permission by Henry Eyring to give away nearly the entire candy store, as long as I continued believing in the Prime Directive, which is that the LDS church is true.

From there it's only "one small step for man, one giant leap for that man's mind" to bridge the gap between "they were still prophets of God, though their doctrines seem mostly to have been influenced by the prevailing mythologies of the day" and "their doctrines seem to have been mostly influenced by the prevailing doctrines of the day, with a few of their own innovations, because the they were making it up as they went along."

Back to the OP, I think it's pretty obvious, to anyone who's really paying attention and taking it seriously, that Apostle and Special Witness of Jesus Christ, and Prophet, Seer, and Revelator D. Todd Christofferson has no more insight into any of this than anyone else. His mind is clouded by ancient religious mythologies long past the time when they have been convincingly demolished, and he has shown himself ready and willing to work hard maintaining that cloud over the minds of several million of his co-religionists. He and that job were made for each other.

This whole local flood thing is so horrifically stupid I am amazed every time I see it printed.

Why the hell would Noah build an Ark if all he had to do was move everyone to the next valley over?

I mean seriously, this is a very stupid theory.

Gazelam wrote:Why the hell would Noah build an Ark if all he had to do was move everyone to the next valley over?

I dunno. Why did Nephi have to chop off Laban's head when God could have killed Laban? Why did Nephi have to get the Brass plates when God could have, and in fact did, reveal scripture to them directly and have them write it down themselves? God's ways are not man's ways (although I can hear Sethbag saying that God's ways are too much like man's ways).

Gazelam wrote:This whole local flood thing is so horrifically stupid I am amazed every time I see it printed.

Why the hell would Noah build an Ark if all he had to do was move everyone to the next valley over?

I mean seriously, this is a very stupid theory.

Actually Gaz, there was a PBS show about it and I thought it made for a highly plausible story. You see, the Babylonian man who came to be known as "Noah" was kind of a merchant who traveled the rivers, and there was a massive unseasonal storm that flooded all of Iraq, so this "Noah" fellow just put his family onto his floating store and they sailed down past Kuwait, down to Dubai or so, and that's where he ended up along with a bunch of goats and sheep he was carrying. Plus a patina of Hebrew trappings, that's where we get the story of Noah found in Genesis.

No, the stupid theory is the one in the Bible, where God tells a man to build a giant ship and save all the animals and plants that would be needed to repopulate planet Earth, because a hundred billion gallons of water were going to crash down from outer space for 40 days and nights, killing every living thing that didn't climb into a gigantic wooden boat. Noah built the ship using stone to bronze age technology (before the Tower of Babel) plus some heavenly wisdom, and if you believe the even more stupid Joseph Smith version of the story, Noah did all of this in Missouri (USA) and then floated around the globe to the Middle East where the good ship is traditionally believed to have landed . Somehow the millions of plant and animals species we know today were born from the biomass that Noah could cram onto the boat and maintain viably for what must have been several months, and they all landed in specific locales like Antartica (penguins), Africa (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, African Elephants, etc), Asia (Orangutans, Indian Elephants, etc), New Zeland (Moas, Kiwis), Australia (Koalas, Platapuses), etc. etc. In all, this stupid theory is supposed to replace belief in much of modern geography, geology, and biology and more.

I mean, this is a very stupid theory.

asbestosman wrote:

Gazelam wrote:Why the hell would Noah build an Ark if all he had to do was move everyone to the next valley over?

I dunno. Why did Nephi have to chop off Laban's head when God could have killed Laban? Why did Nephi have to get the Brass plates when God could have, and in fact did, reveal scripture to them directly and have them write it down themselves? God's ways are not man's ways (although I can hear Sethbag saying that God's ways are too much like man's ways).

The lost 116 pages is the icing on gods crap cake.

He did all of the wonderous things before like build worlds without number, move mountains, etc, yet when the supposedly vile bitch wife of Martin Harris swipes the first 116 pages, god is so lost he could barely find his ass with both hands and simply cannot tell Martin where the faack his wife put them.

Oh I hear it now from the idiots den at MI, it was just a test for Joe & Co. WTF? If I were Lehi and found out the history of my life was nothing more than an exercise for some skank wife to steal, I'd go ape s*** on god.

Still, when Apostle Todd Christofferson was speaking, I recall hearing him refer to the Flood as an actual, historical event, and referred to the Tower of Babel as a historical event, having to do with the same city from which the Babylonians came.

I believe them to be historical events. In fact, I don't think it's possible to be a believing LDS person without understanding them to be historical.

So, apparently this newly minted Prophet, Seer, and Revelator is still willing to go on record as believing in the historicity of what are demonstrably mythological stories.

Not demonstrated by you or any others certainly.

I'm just waiting for the apologists to come and go khafodocles* on me with quibbles about how he referred to the Flood, but he could actually have been talking about just the local event of, say, a river overflowing its banks, or even more dramatic (think Black Sea or whatever), without the whole Noah's Ark story. Uhuh. Whatever. Think whatever you need to think to help you sleep better.

How would such a thing make them not historical?