Quick Question for BCSpace: Official Doctrine and the Flood

[_TrashcanMan79]

Hey BC, I'm betting someone has posed this to you before (and maybe even on this very board), but I was reading one of your posts on MAD when a question occurred to me. It was the 'Age of the Earth' thread and you quoted the Church published Old Testament manual to show that there was no official position on that subject. My first question is: per your siggy, is that manual a source of OFFICIAL DOCTRINE?

If it is, what do you make of that same manual's position on a global flood (something, If I recall correctly, that you do not accept)? (See especially section 4-15: How Could the Flood Cover the Entire Earth, Including Mountains? What Was the Significance of This Immersion?)

Thanks!

[_TrashcanMan79]

Some excerpts from the manual:

The Lord decreed that [the earth would be cleansed] by water, a worldwide deluge.

That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.

The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and all things sinful upon the face of the earth were washed away.

He [God] destroyed a whole world at one time save a few, whom he preserved for his own special purpose.

Because the daughters of Noah married the sons of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause that brought to pass the universal flood.

Also, if the Ensign is a source of official doctrine per your siggy, I would be interested in your take on this article.

Thanks!





Gosh, I hope I'm right in thinking you reject a global flood....

[_Hally McIlrath]

WHOA there, wait a second, hold everything.

Because the daughters of Noah married the sons of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause that brought to pass the universal flood.

Nuh-uh! That is NOT what happened. Please note, Gen. 6:2 -- That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The "Sons of God" married the "daughters of men," NOT the "daughters of Noah married the sons of men." In fact, Noah is not mentioned as having any daughters at all, only daughters-in-law. What gives?

[_truth dancer]

WHOA there, wait a second, hold everything.

Because the daughters of Noah married the sons of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause that brought to pass the universal flood.

Nuh-uh! That is NOT what happened. Please note, Gen. 6:2 -- That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The "Sons of God" married the "daughters of men," NOT the "daughters of Noah married the sons of men." In fact, Noah is not mentioned as having any daughters at all, only daughters-in-law. What gives?

Hi Hally,

You forgot about "further light and knowledge". :-) You forgot about "as far as it is translated correctly". And, you forgot that what the modern day leaders say Trump's past prophets, earlier scripture, and previous teachings.

;-)

~dancer~

by the way, welcome to the board! :-)

[_The Nehor]

WHOA there, wait a second, hold everything.

Because the daughters of Noah married the sons of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause that brought to pass the universal flood.

Nuh-uh! That is NOT what happened. Please note, Gen. 6:2 -- That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The "Sons of God" married the "daughters of men," NOT the "daughters of Noah married the sons of men." In fact, Noah is not mentioned as having any daughters at all, only daughters-in-law. What gives?

If I remember correctly Genesis also does not say Noah did not have daughters. I've read in old jewish texts that Noah's daughters married outside the faith (sons of men) and that many of his descendants rebelled against him.

[_Hally McIlrath]

You forgot about "further light and knowledge". :-) You forgot about "as far as it is translated correctly". And, you forgot that what the modern day leaders say Trump's past prophets, earlier scripture, and previous teachings.

Is this one of those times where I am supposed to smack my forehead and say, "OH, yeah...!"

by the way, welcome to the board! :-)

Thanks! I like your name.

If I remember correctly Genesis also does not say Noah did not have daughters.

Genesis also does not say that Noah liked to strap on his wife's high heels and dance the La Macarena, but I don't see you rushing to believe THAT! (Okay, okay, I was just messin' wi'chu, Mr. Nehor. Don't be mad at me!)

I've read in old jewish texts that Noah's daughters married outside the faith (sons of men) and that many of his descendants rebelled against him.

One ought to be very careful with any Midrashic texts as, I think you will agree, much of the body of what was written was after the world had fallen into "the Great Apostasy..."

[_bcspace]

Hey BC, I'm betting someone has posed this to you before (and maybe even on this very board), but I was reading one of your posts on MAD when a question occurred to me. It was the 'Age of the Earth' thread and you quoted the Church published Old Testament manual to show that there was no official position on that subject. My first question is: per your siggy, is that manual a source of OFFICIAL DOCTRINE?

If it is, what do you make of that same manual's position on a global flood (something, If I recall correctly, that you do not accept)? (See especially section 4-15: How Could the Flood Cover the Entire Earth, Including Mountains? What Was the Significance of This Immersion?)

Thanks!

I have always acknowledged that a global flood is LDS doctrine. You're right, I don't agree with it and a few other ticky tack doctrines (such as the location of the garden necessarily being in Missouri based on verses that don't say so and the same with the date of the birth of Christ). Of course that doesn't mean I can't change my mind with further evidence and/or revelation. However, I think in either this board's recent evolution thread or the one on the MADB, I have explained how I might not be in conflict afterall.

Thanks for asking!

[_bcspace]

Sorry. Having trouble getting back into my posts to edit......

My first question is: per your siggy, is that manual a source of OFFICIAL DOCTRINE?

Is it published by the Church? Yep. 'Ware the latest date caveat; the doctrinal continuing revelation principle (which doesn't affect the question of a global flood any further to my knowledge).

[_TrashcanMan79]

Thanks for asking!

Thanks for answering! I wasn't expecting that (I thought there might be a bit of a dust up). Appreciate your candor.

[_bcspace]

You're welcome! Thanks for providing a prime example of why everyone, pro or anti LDS, should get behind what the Church has said about what it and is not doctrine and make their stand there. Nothing but candor (for the most part) in that case.