LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_maklelan]

You really don't see how damning that statement is do you?

Damning for your sophomoric and naïve perception of the Church? I couldn't really care less.

That the doctrines of yesteryear can be so easily dismissed as "folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations"

No, I'm referring to things that you were taught that were never really doctrines, but just folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations. You still seem to think your memory of your upbringing in the Church somehow constitutes an unfiltered and objective view of the central Church administration as it really was.

should give one pause to consider the grounding of today's doctrine.....and by the way, Universal Flood is still the doctrine being taught today...check the manuals.

Bazooka, you're one of the last people on here who's pretentious attempts to condescend to me are going to land.

[_maklelan]

Surely you mean that it is the interpretation of the standard works that is evolving, rather than the standard works themselves?

Both. Ours is an open canon, and things have been added and removed on multiple occasions in the past. Who knows what lies ahead. Certainly not you.

[_Bazooka]

That the doctrines of yesteryear can be so easily dismissed as "folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations"

No, I'm referring to things that you were taught that were never really doctrines, but just folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations. You still seem to think your memory of your upbringing in the Church somehow constitutes an unfiltered and objective view of the central Church administration as it really was.

Can you give an example of something I was taught that was never really doctrine?

should give one pause to consider the grounding of today's doctrine.....and by the way, Universal Flood is still the doctrine being taught today...check the manuals.

Bazooka, you're one of the last people on here who's pretentious attempts to condescend to me are going to land.

The Church is teaching as doctrine something (about the Flood) you cannot believe. Avoid that little inconvenient fact all you like.

[_Bazooka]

Surely you mean that it is the interpretation of the standard works that is evolving, rather than the standard works themselves?

Both. Ours is an open canon, and things have been added and removed on multiple occasions in the past. Who knows what lies ahead. Certainly not you.

What was the last thing that was removed from the canon?

[_maklelan]

What was the last thing that was removed from the canon?

The Lectures on Faith.

[_maklelan]

Can you give an example of something I was taught that was never really doctrine?

That the accepted interpretations were the result of God communicating to the prophet.

The Church is teaching as doctrine something (about the Flood) you cannot believe. Avoid that little inconvenient fact all you like.

I'm not avoiding anything. I openly acknowledge that the Church has long advocated for a global flood. That does not make it official doctrine. We wouldn't need an Ensign article trying to convince us the flood was global if it were already enshrined doctrine. The fact that the issue hasn't really been directly engaged much since then is indicative of the Church's reticence to put a firm foot down. You don't really think it's going to back off on all Native Americans as Lamanites and still stomp on the gas on a wordwide flood, do you?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Can you give an example of something I was taught that was never really doctrine?

That the accepted interpretations were the result of God communicating to the prophet.

The Church is teaching as doctrine something (about the Flood) you cannot believe. Avoid that little inconvenient fact all you like.

I'm not avoiding anything. I openly acknowledge that the Church has long advocated for a global flood. That does not make it official doctrine. We wouldn't need an Ensign article trying to convince us the flood was global if it were already enshrined doctrine. The fact that the issue hasn't really been directly engaged much since then is indicative of the Church's reticence to put a firm foot down. You don't really think it's going to back off on all Native Americans as Lamanites and still stomp on the gas on a wordwide flood, do you?

Mak, you are trending towards that slope of slipperiness.. Careful there! You could be "thinking your way out" of a cushy job!

So, then NOTHING in the ensign is official doctrine or theology. Not worth the $1 rag it is printed on.

Got it. Now I know why I never subscribed to that boring magazine as a member.

[Guest]

Can you give an example of something I was taught that was never really doctrine?

That the accepted interpretations were the result of God communicating to the prophet.

Sorry maklelan, that the interpretations of the scriptures is a result of communicating with God was portrayed as a doctrinal principle as recently as 2007.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

But feel free to go down the "official Mormon Newsroom isn't an official source" route....

The Church is teaching as doctrine something (about the Flood) you cannot believe. Avoid that little inconvenient fact all you like.

I'm not avoiding anything. I openly acknowledge that the Church has long advocated for a global flood. That does not make it official doctrine. We wouldn't need an Ensign article trying to convince us the flood was global if it were already enshrined doctrine. The fact that the issue hasn't really been directly engaged much since then is indicative of the Church's reticence to put a firm foot down. You don't really think it's going to back off on all Native Americans as Lamanites and still stomp on the gas on a wordwide flood, do you?

It's what Seminary and Institute students are taught. It's what children and youth are taught on a Sunday. It's what adult members are taught every four years when the topic comes up in Gospel doctrine class. The global flood is enshrined in Mormon doctrine and it is directly engaged each and every time that subject is taught and every time teaching materials are refreshed or redistributed. Not only that, you retranslate the doctrine of a global flood every time you produce scriptures in new languages. Do you ever include a disclaimer that the newly translated scriptures contain non doctrinal stories like the universal flood?

Perhaps your department can advocate putting a disclaimer on this page Noah of the new Gospel Topics section.

[_SteelHead]

The doctrine resides in the scriptures there was a flood that covered all the earth and destroyed all flesh. The brethren have continually through official publications expounded upon the scripture to establish that it was a global flood that served as a baptism for the earth. That is the official doctrine of the church, as residing in the scripture and established by the prophets and the q12. As taught continually for the last 170+ years. As officially taught in conference addresses, ensign articles and lesson manuals. That you do not like it, or agree with it makes it no less doctrine.

[_SteelHead]

Isn't it great that we have FAIR and the apologist to clarify doctrine for us? To establish a different criteria for doctrine than what the church itself teaches.

The doctrine is in the standard works. Then why even have modern prophets? This is contrary to what the church itself teaches about conference addresses becoming scripture, and what the church teaches about the role of prophets in expounding and clarifying scripture, but who cares?

It is the official position of the church, but not official doctrine. It is not binding? WTF does this even mean? Individual members can believe just about anything and still be a member of good standing. Tobin just noted that he does not believe in the atonement, yet I think he also said he goes on splits with the missionaries. You can personally believe just about anything and still be considered a member in good standing. Now get up on Sunday in adult Sunday school as the teacher and teach your local flood, and see how well it goes over.

A local flood.... Let's see where else it falls apart. Oh yeah the covenant between god and Noah to never destroy the earth again with flood becomes meaningless. Guess we can throw that bit out too. As there have been plenty of local floods with death tolls into the millions.

I for one am glad we have the Apologist to look to to clarify LDS doctrine for us. Those 15 old white guys who claim authority, are just too out of touch with reality and with the times. I am glad they can take the 2007 approaching doctrine press release, and throw half of it out. In the standard works, but not consistent with my view of the standard works despite 170+ years of clarification around the event/scripture topic in question -> Not doctrine! Those standard works, so ambiguous..... Too bad we don't have any officially described way to clarify the standard works and establish doctrine.

Next question please.