LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_SteelHead]

The Community of Christ seems to have gone this direction. Is this a winning strategy? Who knows? Their membership is at 250k members and there is very little to distinguish them from other Christian churches at this point. Should the SLC branch of Mormonism go this direction, I see a general decline in membership as it too will have little to offer not found in other churches. But then again, I see a general decline in growth for churches in general as the world becomes more secular.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Maklelan,

Just so I'm clear, what I'm hearing you say is that the church teaches folk doctrines and uses ad hoc rationalizations which results in members, leaders, and critics alike having a sophomoric and naïve perception of the Church. Do I have this right?

If so, can you give some other examples (besides the Flood) of "doctrines" that the church teaches that are also the result of folk history or ad hoc rationalizations? The Tower of Babel? The coffee, tea, and beer ban? A literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden? The literal necessity of giving signs and token to enter the Celestial Kingdom? The literal existence of Nephites? Where does it end?

[_Fence Sitter]

Is paying 10% on your gross just folk doctrine?

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I see a future when the bulk of LDS core doctrine can be taken literally by some or viewed allegorically by others...as long as they together embrace the one core belief that can never be allowed to be nuanced...“the church is true”.

The real question is how this emerging worldview will ultimately impact the health of the church. Can Mormonism survive and thrive when nothing matters and every truth claim is up for personal interpretation? I guess time will tell.

This is already the case. It's just that the literal believers can shout it from the rooftops and the allegorical believers have to keep it to themselves and ignore when the leaders say things like this:

For those whose faith has faded, the reasons may be real to them, but these reasons do not change the reality of what Joseph Smith restored. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” One cannot successfully attack true principles or doctrine, because they are eternal. The revelations that came through the Prophet Joseph Smith are still correct! It is a mistake to let distractions, slights, or offenses pull down our own house of faith.

We can have a certain testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and Redeemer of mankind, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet commissioned to restore the Church in our day and time without having a complete understanding of all gospel principles. But when you pick up a stick you pick up both ends. And so it is with the gospel. As members of the Church we need to accept all of it. Even limited spiritual assurance of some of the aspects of the gospel is a blessing, and in time the other elements of which you are uncertain can come through faith and obedience.

The gap between what is popular and what is righteous is widening. As prophesied by Isaiah, many today “call evil good, and good evil.” Revelations from the prophets of God are not like offerings at the cafeteria, some to be selected and others disregarded.

[_Craig Paxton]

But when you pick up a stick you pick up both ends. And so it is with the gospel. As members of the Church we need to accept all of it.

Evidentally F.A.I.R., BC, Maklelan, MG and Tobin didn't get this memo...

[_fetchface]

Mormon Trivia: Did you know that not only did the flood cover the entire planet, but that the continents were unified before the flood and were divided at that time as well?

Source: Jeffrey R. Holland https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1976/06/a-promised-land?lang=eng

Those stupid so-called intellectuals think they know everything. If only they read Ensign articles from the '70s, they could really know when the continents formed!

[_Tim the Enchanter]

But when you pick up a stick you pick up both ends. And so it is with the gospel. As members of the Church we need to accept all of it.

Evidentally F.A.I.R., BC, Maklelan, MG and Tobin didn't get this memo...

Just to clarify even though it's probably obvious, James E. Faust said that, not me.

Perhaps James E. Faust learned it from Hugh B. Brown during the April 1958 General Conference (halfway down the right hand column):

We think neither individuals nor groups of men, under whatever title, are justified in their attempts to pick and choose between particular aspects of the whole gospel. We profoundly dissent from the opinion that there is an element in the message which changes with varying conditions. The message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that there has been a restoration of the identical gospel which Jesus taught and which the apostles preached at his command.

EDIT:

Or perhaps it was Hugh Pinnock that influenced Faust, though he was merely a member of the 70, when he said:

[R]esolve to live the gospel of Jesus Christ in its entirety. “For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.” (D&C 84:44.) Many people live the gospel according to themselves. That is self-deception.

There is only one true gospel. We may alter it or tint it with our own notions. But if we will adhere to the pure teachings of Jesus Christ, we will eliminate many of the rationalizations that lead to problems. The menu has only one entree. To pick and choose which of God’s precepts to live is Satanic self-centeredness. Integrity is the foundation of our life-style.

[_mentalgymnast]

Wow, that's pretty convoluted reasoning.

That's what gymnastics do for you. Gotta keep limber.

If something produced by the Church and posted within its 'Gospel Topics' section isn't meant to be reflective of the Church's official position, then how do you really know what the Church's official position is on anything?

In the memo from the "Priesthood Dept." it says the memos are meant to provide information. Official position? Doesn't say. It does say that it provides "accurate and transparent information on church history and doctrine within the framework of faith". But it doesn't say completely accurate or fully transparent. So if the essays aren't fully transparent or completely accurate then there can't be an official position taken on something that is less than fully fleshed out when one knows that there is additional information available. At least if you're going to be fully honest. What is in the essays may be more or less transparent and/or accurate if one is not looking for and/or aware that there is additional information available. Those that wrote the essays wouldn't necessarily feel obligated to encourage members to investigate further because, well, there would always be room for further investigation...so where would one draw the line? They drew the line where there is safety to both the organization and many, if not most, members. So they go with disclosure, but not full disclosure. And that's considered to be OK because, as is stated, the information is to be used within the "framework of faith". Full disclosure could cause doubt. And doubt and faith cannot coexist. So anything that could cause doubt is left out of the framework upon which the essays are constructed so that faith can be exercised/maintained.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I've concluded that if the CofJCofLDS isn't "the truth"...then it's some flavor of agnosticism/deism/atheism for me. And there are a number of reasons for this that I'd just as well not flesh out right now...

So I go with the possibilities/probabilities/plausibilities. And for me, it's the CofJCofLDS unless I come across the proverbial "smoking gun" which honestly, I haven't yet...although there are a bunch of issues, etc., that are unresolved. At this point I'm willing to live with a certain degree/amount of ambiguity...the stakes are high.

Regards,
MG

MG my conclusion from the post above it that you are so close to apostasy that it scares you to death. My advice for you if you want to stay a "Mormon" is to leave this board immediately, don't read anything more about the church and I mean pro or con. Go hide your eyes from the world by immersing yourself into 10 to 20 callings and for your testimony's sake quit thinking. Don't rock the boat you are almost drowning.

I'm Ok. Ambiguity and faith can coexist. And reading is good. Balance is key.

Regards,
MG

[_malkie]

What is it about the global flood that makes so many uneasy while at the same time able to accept so many other implausible events?

The earth stands still.
Parting the Red Sea.
Joshua making the walls of Jerico fall merely by blowing horns.
Loading enough animals onto an ark to repopulate an area even the size of a local flood event.
Jaradites floating across the sea in sealed barges.
The existence of a Hebrew Bible written in Egyptian or Reformed Egyptian in 600 BC.
Talking Asses
Job
Resurrecting dead people so they are exactly the same people.
The astronomy that Abraham taught the Egyptians

Look, if you are able to accept stuff like this as within the power of God, what's the big deal with accepting a global flood?

Perhaps in some cases the question of scope of the "happening", and a not-completely-impossible-that-something-could-have-happened explanatory mechanism makes some things seem less impossible.

Some are such egregious violations of the known laws of science that even if they had been made to happen, there would be (have been) enormous repercussions. The sun standing still falls into this category.

Others (google "parting of the Reed Sea") could be large-scale exaggerations of something feasible. It has been suggested that the walls of Jericho could have been damaged by a minor earthquake, that had nothing to do with the horns of the Israelites.

Apologetics that focus on finding a mechanism that could explain an exaggeration (unfortunately removing the miraculousness) will satisfy some people.

by the way, MG, are you not concerned that the church is practicing something other than what it preaches - In other words, giving the appearance of transparency and openness while crossing their individual and collective fingers behind their backs?

Remind me again: what is the standard of honesty that the church teaches?