LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, there's plenty of latitude, but that's what makes it flexible and useful.

Oh sure Mak.

Why don't you ask the LDS leaders about this latitude.

Get real.

How disingenuous.

[_Jason Bourne]

He wouldn't say any such thing. But he might suggest that the Local Flood could have been the flooding of the Black Sea.

Hey BC tell Mak that if the Church publishes it they own it.

He thinks they don't.

Could you apologists please get your acts together?

[_Jason Bourne]

The Church itself published a statement in to that effect in 2007.

[It did no such thing.

Oh hey...

See even the defenders don't know what the hell they are saying.

[_malkie]

What the prophets say while in a official capacity is not binding on the membership? Do you say this stuff out loud before typing it?

It's not binding on membership that women have only one piercing per ear. It's not binding on membership that all dates be paired off, planned, and paid for. We could make a list a thousand miles long of the things that prophets have said while in an official capacity that are not binding on the membership. Shoot, even the Adam-God theory was something Brigham Young lamented he could not convince the membership to accept.

I wish that this could be made clear to the members - all of them - so that they need not feel guilty when they fall short of what the prophets say while in a official capacity, and so that they might not judge others for likewise falling short.

Why praise the young man who broke off his relationship with the girl who did not immediately go and remove her second pair of earrings?

How often are we told that the conference talks are the equivalent of scripture for our day?

And it's not just the prophets - how often are we told that we are expected to obey the words of our other leaders?

How about having church leaders actually tell us what is and what is not binding. Otherwise the church is a church of confusion, no?

[_mentalgymnast]

I wish that this could be made clear to the members - all of them - so that they need not feel guilty when they fall short of what the prophets say while in a official capacity, and so that they might not judge others for likewise falling short.

Why praise the young man who broke off his relationship with the girl who did not immediately go and remove her second pair of earrings?

How often are we told that the conference talks are the equivalent of scripture for our day?

And it's not just the prophets - how often are we told that we are expected to obey the words of our other leaders?

How about having church leaders actually tell us what is and what is not binding. Otherwise the church is a church of confusion, no?

I like to come back again and again to the injunction in scripture that says something the effect that he/she that needs to be commanded in all things is a slothful servant. We are free to act and to be acted upon. We hearken (give heed or attention) to the the words of the prophets and apostles. We then exercise agency.

Culturally, and maybe some of it has to do with WW's (one and two) and the Depression and whatever else came along the way, the church has been more prohibitive than permissive. Maybe because people wanted comfort/security/sureness so that they didn't have to deal with anxiety or whatever. Maybe they looked at God as being more or less a mean SOB. Nowadays, the culture is slowly changing in some respects although it seems as though some of the skeptics are the last ones to either see it or want to accept/condone it. When I say changing, I mean towards more diversity in thought and in action...not that anybody is going out and becoming a wicked hedonist or a Nazi sympathizer.

Gosh, at our local Costco they've been running an ad on Snapple Iced Tea. Best stuff in the world and I would wager a lot more healthy than stocking up on Mt. Dew or Coke. I'd guess that our brethren in Christ, the Baptists and the Lutherans, etc., have not been the only ones cutting a good deal on the best iced tea in the world. Now is it a sin? Some in the Mormon culture would say yes. Others would say, "who cares?" Better than overloading on MONSTER drinks ain't it? In other words's, if we have to be told what to do in all things we open ourselves up to looking at the world in a very restrictive black/white way.

Regards,
MG

[_malkie]

I wish that this could be made clear to the members - all of them - so that they need not feel guilty when they fall short of what the prophets say while in a official capacity, and so that they might not judge others for likewise falling short.

Why praise the young man who broke off his relationship with the girl who did not immediately go and remove her second pair of earrings?

How often are we told that the conference talks are the equivalent of scripture for our day?

And it's not just the prophets - how often are we told that we are expected to obey the words of our other leaders?

How about having church leaders actually tell us what is and what is not binding. Otherwise the church is a church of confusion, no?

I like to come back again and again to the injunction in scripture that says something the effect that he/she that needs to be commanded in all things is a slothful servant. We are free to act and to be acted upon. We hearken (give heed or attention) to the the words of the prophets and apostles. We then exercise agency.

Culturally, and maybe some of it has to do with WW's (one and two) and the Depression and whatever else came along the way, the church has been more prohibitive than permissive. Maybe because people wanted comfort/security/sureness so that they didn't have to deal with anxiety or whatever. Maybe they looked at God as being more or less a mean SOB. Nowadays, the culture is slowly changing in some respects although it seems as though some of the skeptics are the last ones to either see it or want to accept/condone it. When I say changing, I mean towards more diversity in thought and in action...not that anybody is going out and becoming a wicked hedonist or a Nazi sympathizer.

Gosh, at our local Costco they've been running an ad on Snapple Iced Tea. Best stuff in the world and I would wager a lot more healthy than stocking up on Mt. Dew or Coke. I'd guess that our brethren in Christ, the Baptists and the Lutherans, etc., have not been the only ones cutting a good deal on the best iced tea in the world. Now is it a sin? Some in the Mormon culture would say yes. Others would say, "who cares?" Better than overloading on MONSTER drinks ain't it? In other words's, if we have to be told what to do in all things we open ourselves up to looking at the world in a very restrictive black/white way.

Regards,
MG

I think that's a mighty convenient usage of the "slothful servant" scripture. Because I believe that the problem is not so much people wanting to be commanded as wanting to be allowed to ignore stuff that is just some old guy's opinion of what is good and right - and not being made to feel that they are sinning by doing so.

Here is another example of what that leads to:

"In church I learned that President Hinckley said that girls and women should wear only one earring in each ear. One day I noticed that Grandma was wearing two earrings in each ear! I told her what I had learned in Primary, and she said, 'Then I had better take one earring out of each ear.' It makes me feel good to know that Grandma follows the prophet."

[_mentalgymnast]

Here is another example of what that leads to:

"In church I learned that President Hinckley said that girls and women should wear only one earring in each ear. One day I noticed that Grandma was wearing two earrings in each ear! I told her what I had learned in Primary, and she said, 'Then I had better take one earring out of each ear.' It makes me feel good to know that Grandma follows the prophet."

Or grandma was conforming to the pressures/desires of her grand daughter and not wanting to rock the boat with her. Malone Jacoway is now a student at the UofU. I wonder how she now looks back on this story and whether she and her grandma have had some good laughs.

Regards,
MG

[_Bazooka]

What do you consider is the standing of the recent anonymous essays?

They're apparently incomplete in scope and depth, but a catalyst for further research/study for those that want to dive in deeper.

The church has never been one for FULL disclosure at any one time...line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little.

I think the essays, however, were more than JUST a little. There's stuff there that will get at least some people off their collective butts digging for even more. And that's good...for those that want to.

Regards,
MG

Do you see them as stating the official position of the Church on the given subjects?

[_Craig Paxton]

The Church itself published a statement in to that effect in 2007.

It did no such thing.

Grab some popcorn folks.. Maklelan and BC are in disagreement...this could get fun

[Guest]

The four fold mission of the church will not fall flat whether or not there was or wasn't a global flood. The four fold mission of the church will fall flat if God doesn't exist, Jesus is not Savior/Redeemer, or Joseph Smith did not experience a vision in which deity restored knowledge/keys that had been lost, etc.

Regards,
MG

How do you fail to appreciate the glaring negative implications of things like a global, universal flood? You and maklekan try to claim that members can take this doctrine or leave--it makes no difference. Well that's all well and good, but the more pressing issue here is that Joseph Smith and virtually all church leaders are unambiguously on record with the understanding that there really was a global, universal flood. Modern science with a small dose of common sense tells us such an event was impossible. It never happened. Yet these men, who purport to be experts in spiritual and religious matters, have gotten this one entirely wrong.

That they are wrong on such a huge and obvious issue (among many, many others) calls into question every other spiritual or religious claim they have ever made. It bears directly on their credibility and reliability. The tenets of Mormonism rise or fall on these guys' credibility (particularly that of Joseph Smith). Once you recognize that he and others were completely wrong on X, Y, and Z, how do you then blithely assume that they were nevertheless right about A, B, and C? Joseph is wrong about the flood, but he's right about seeing God and Jesus? Or any of the other doctrines, revelations, and commandments that supposedly are "necessary for your salvation"?