Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Come on MG!

[Philo Sofee]

If this is true, would we find that this applies to all prophets, ancient and modern? You are correct in saying that leaders have not taught explicitly that there was not a worldwide flood. But they may very well have had their own thoughts in regards to the flood of Noah. Talmage went back and forth in regards to what he said or didn't say about progression between kingdoms of glory. What he taught changed as his situation changed and his thoughts evolved.

Regards,
MG

If we’re free to speculate that prophets are saying one thing but teaching another, then doctrine and theology are useless. I find myself agreeing with you.

Exactly. And remember, McConkie said if you believe a false doctrine such as Adam God you WILL be DAMNED.

[Philo Sofee]

I think that's likely. General Authorities...previous to the correlation movement pushed by Harold B. Lee...had varying opinions in regards to evolution. I don't see where "the flood" would be much different.

MG, have you actually studied the church's position previous to the "correlation movement" in regards to the Flood? Can you provide some statements/position of church leaders, previous to correlation that denied the Flood was global or literal?

Neither of the Pratt brothers did (mere Apostles, yeah I get it, but BY also taught in the JD's somewhere if I remember correctly, but, then again, yeah, he's just a useless dead prophet now) They LOVED to make the analogy of earth being baptized by immersion as the basis for the practice in the church rather than sprinkling.

[MG 2.0]

I think that's likely. General Authorities...previous to the correlation movement pushed by Harold B. Lee...had varying opinions in regards to evolution. I don't see where "the flood" would be much different.

MG, have you actually studied the church's position previous to the "correlation movement" in regards to the Flood? Can you provide some statements/position of church leaders, previous to correlation that denied the Flood was global or literal?

Elder John A. Widstoe, trained as a chemist, had a much different perspective and approach to the flood. Elder Widstoe recognized that there were serious factual problems in the traditional belief regarding the flood. The title of his 1940 Improvement Era article and his subsequent book, Evidences and Reconciliations, suggest his own approach to the subject. Widtsoe took seriously factual perspectives on the flood made by then-current scientists. He recognized that the narrators of the flood story were not eyewitnesses to the events and, hence, that the details of the story may not be reliable as history: “In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us,” he states, and, as a result, used a suggestive and inconclusive approach and sought a tentative compromise between science and religion. Yet it seems clear that Elder Widstoe did not believe in the traditional view. He tentatively rejected the idea that water could have covered the entire earth: “It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.” He suggested that the original writers may have relied on inaccurate traditions handed down from even earlier generations regarding the Genesis flood. “We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.” Widtsoe concluded: “The scriptures must be read intelligently.”

Elder Widstoe’s statement is remarkable on several accounts. It is certainly not a traditional view and contradicts the claim that the highest mountains were under fifteen cubits of water. Hence, he opens the door to new ways of interpreting the flood. The denial of complete knowledge regarding the details of the facts of a flood is echoed by Morris Petersen, a former stake president, who wrote the entry on the flood for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. “The Great Flood” appears as a subdivision under the entry “Earth.” He acknowledges the lack of empirical data to support a literal, universal flood...

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/article ... d-story-2/

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

MG,

Seriously, could you be any more dishonest in your research? You could have just been honest and told me you couldn’t find any sources showing church leaders denying a global flood.

Let’s actually look at what Elder John Widstoe said in his article. Elder Widstoe left no doubt that he believed in a literal global flood that covered the entire world:

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described ii, Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

https://bhroberts.org/records/0BXNou-0j ... m_of_earth

[Physics Guy]

How is it supposed to have rained in Antarctica? Or does frozen water count?

[Dr. Shades]

How is it supposed to have rained in Antarctica? Or does frozen water count?

To submerse Antarctica, it doesn't have to rain there. It only has to rain enough somewhere to cause sea levels to rise above the highest part of Antarctica.

[Alphus and Omegus]

How is it supposed to have rained in Antarctica? Or does frozen water count?

To submerse Antarctica, it doesn't have to rain there. It only has to rain enough somewhere to cause sea levels to rise above the highest part of Antarctica.

And if the ice melts enough, that also does the trick! Praise the lard!

[I Have Questions]

If anything, his link shows that LDS leaders expect agreement amongst themselves.

Yes, that is true in regards to what is put out in the world. They present a united front. The correlated teachings will be what is taught. But thought is another thing. Different folks, including G.A.'s I would expect, don't see the world in exactly the same way. They may think differently on various things.

They have their own thoughts.

At times, they may keep those thoughts to themselves, other times they may share. We all do that.

Regards,
MG

Really? You must have some great mind reading skills there MG. Do you have an example of any of the currently serving Apostles, voicing an opinion during their Apostleship on a doctrinal item that was different to the official Church position?

[Moksha]

How much water pressure would be placed on the Mariana Trenches if the Himalayas were submerged? Is this a question for Physics Guy?