Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??

[_Pokatator]

But I'm really curious: Can you write a post that isn't an attack on me? Seriously. Can you?

Get over yourself Danny boy, read some other threads please.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Get over yourself Danny boy, read some other threads please.

Well, you keep attacking me for the alleged lack of substance in my posts, but all I ever see from you -- despite repeated invitations for you to demonstrate substantial posting -- are insults and attacks directed at me. (As, once again, above: "Get over yourself Danny boy.")

[_Dr. Shades]

Shade's wonderful dichotomy attempts to rip the Church asunder along imaginary lines and pit us against each other. I have never seen this rift once in almost 30 years of attending Church.

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of the earth? Y/N

How do the apologists answer? ________.

How do the prophets answer? ________.

That's just one of the reasons I find the Shades dichotomy silly.

The question of whether or not the prophets can be trusted to teach the truth is hardly "silly" when it comes to evaluating the validity (or lack thereof) of Mormonism.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your simplistic, agenda-driven dichotomy is silly, Shades.

Not even the folks at Sunstone received it well.

[_Dr. Shades]

Your simplistic, agenda-driven dichotomy is silly, Shades.

Not even the folks at Sunstone received it well.

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of the earth? Y/N

Your answer: ________.

The prophets' answer: ________.

[_harmony]

See... now Shades is being the prick, goading the ox (that would be Daniel). And it's not at all sexual!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Shades, get over it.

That there are various spectra of knowledge, commitment, literality, sophistication, etc., among the Latter-day Saints is so completely obvious and to be expected that mentioning it is superfluous.

Still, Richard Poll's Liahona/Iron Rod distinction was pretty profound.

Your simple-minded dichotomy, by contrast, adds no insight to the discussion. At most, it's a stupid little weapon with which to pound some apologists over the head. (Though I can report on the basis of very solid authority that at least one apologist thinks of it, when he thinks of it, more as a gnat than as a baseball bat.)

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades, get over it.

That there are various spectra of knowledge, commitment, literality, sophistication, etc., among the Latter-day Saints is so completely obvious and to be expected that mentioning it is superfluous.

Still, Richard Poll's Liahona/Iron Rod distinction was pretty profound.

Your simple-minded dichotomy, by contrast, adds no insight to the discussion. At most, it's a stupid little weapon with which to pound some apologists over the head. (Though I can report on the basis of very solid authority that at least one apologist thinks of it, when he thinks of it, more as a gnat than as a baseball bat.)

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of the earth? Y/N

Your answer: ________.

The prophets' answer: ________.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of the earth? Y/N

Your answer: ________.

The prophets' answer: ________.

You really do imagine that this little hobbyhorse of yours is some superpowerful countermopologetic N-bomb. Amazing.

Well, here are my answers: "Very possibly," and "Among recent prophets, I really couldn't say. Some would say Yes, some probably would answer the way I did. In earlier generations, more would have said Yes without hesitation."

Do I think it matters? Not much. And there's not that much distance between my position and that of the "Yes without hesitation" respondents, anyway.

[_Dr. Shades]

You really do imagine that this little hobbyhorse of yours is some superpowerful countermopologetic N-bomb. Amazing.

It strikes at the heart of something very, very important: Can the Lord's mouthpieces be trusted?

You're right about one thing, and that's the importance of whether Noah's flood really did cover every square inch of the earth or not. It quite literally doesn't make a lick of difference to any of our daily lives.

But this was never about Noah's flood. It's about whether the Lord's mouthpieces teach truth or whether they teach falsehood. If Mopologists themselves believe that the Lord's mouthpieces are deluded, wrong, or mistaken, then where does that leave the rank and file? If the Lord's mouthpieces can be so utterly and completely wrong about something as easy as whether a global flood occurred--as they were in the 1998 Ensign piece--then how can they be trusted to be right when it comes to the difficult things, like what happens outside of mortality and the way(s) to navigate it?

Do I think it matters? Not much. And there's not that much distance between my position and that of the "Yes without hesitation" respondents, anyway.

The fact that there is any distance between your position and the position of the Lord's mouthpieces is what's noteworthy, not the amount of said distance.