LDS Apologist Walking Away from Universal Flood

[_maklelan]

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.

But you've repeatedly rejected these comments from "President Newsroom" as official. Now that they're rhetorically useful for you they're suddenly supremely authoritative? Irrespective, none of this refers to the interpretation of the standard works.

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

That's your route, remember?

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?

I also retranslate the stories of Job, Jonah, and the Good Samaritan, but those aren't literal history either.

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

Perhaps one day you'll learn to address my concerns instead of just groping around for something snarky and sophomoric to say.

[_maklelan]

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.

I don't establish the criteria, I just explain what it is for the benefit of those who don't seem aware. Also, I'm not an apologist.

The doctrine is in the standard works. Then why even have modern prophets?

Because the Church isn't just about official doctrine.

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?

No it's not. Scripture and canon are two entirely different things.

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.

I've done that. It went over just fine.

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.

Geez, you guys are getting really worked up. Why is this so important to people who have left the Church or never even joined it?

[_maklelan]

Doctrine:
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.

Oh, dictionary semantics, just to show me how naïve you are about how language and the human mind function.

I presume you used the term "advocated" instead of taught, because you are desperately trying to frame the presentation of the topic by the LDS Church as a mere suggestion, or concept presented to members for their thoughtful consideration. Nice try.

No, that's not what I'm trying to do.

by the way, the global flood is not just one of many things that is taught by the LDS Church, its a core teaching. Not only is intertwined with the atonement, but who ever wrote the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, presented a historical narrative built upon the global flood having literally occurred.

And you think I'm not aware of this?

[_Fence Sitter]

Geez, you guys are getting really worked up. Why is this so important to people who have left the Church or never even joined it?

Many of us have not "left" the church and interact with it on a daily basis with friends and family who still are believers. We have these same conversations in real life.

[_maklelan]

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?

That comment was in reference to Bazooka's recollection of his upbringing within the Church, which was mediated by local leadership, family members, or other people who help digest and make sense of the scriptures and the comments from central Church leadership.

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?

There are numerous. The different notions about the reasons for the priesthood ban are folk doctrines and ad hoc rationalizations that have been advocated as recently as a couple years ago.

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?

It never ends. No human society or community will ever arrive at a point at which their worldview is permanently static and absolute.

[_maklelan]

Many of us have not "left" the church and interact with it on a daily basis with friends and family who still are believers. We have these same conversations in real life.

But you're not one of the ones here creating an inordinate stink.

[_maklelan]

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...

And that's exactly the sophomoric and fundamentalistic blind faith that you all rightly ridicule regularly here. That's not how faith communities function, that's how sectarianism and extremism develop.

[_Fence Sitter]

Many of us have not "left" the church and interact with it on a daily basis with friends and family who still are believers. We have these same conversations in real life.

But you're not one of the ones here creating an inordinate stink.

I must not be trying hard enough.

for what it's worth I too think that a global flood is a fundamental belief in the church, though I do not think it rises to the level of the atonement or the restoration.


The answer to why people are creating a stink is simple, we like to argue.

I don't know how many times in the middle of what I thought was a reasonable conversation, the person with whom I am talking blurts out "why do you like to argue so much?".

[_fetchface]

If a global flood isn't an official doctrine of the church, then the obvious follow-up question would be, what would an example of an official doctrine of the church look like?

It seems to me that once you knock off everything in the same category of the "global flood doctrine" you might be looking at a pretty small remainder.

[_Bazooka]

If a global flood isn't an official doctrine of the church, then the obvious follow-up question would be, what would an example of an official doctrine of the church look like?

It seems to me that once you knock off everything in the same category of the "global flood doctrine" you might be looking at a pretty small remainder.

Well, the only attempt at clarifying what is or what isn't official doctrine is the statement issued by the Mormon Newsroom referenced earlier in this thread. On the basis of that statement a Literal, Global Flood is indeed official doctrine. If that statement isn't accepted by some, then there really isn't anything that a member can turn to in order to decipher what the Church really believes, officially.