Lost Boy

Yes, I know there is a large body of people that believe it including some that refer to themselves as "scientists" I have read some sites regarding this and I feel like I am checking my brain at the door when I visit those sites. Same feeling I have when visiting websites regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories, etc. There are also many that believe in hollow Earth and Flat Earth. There were also a lot of people that voted for Trump or Hillary.. Doesn't make either of them right as well. Two idiots are not smarter than one idiot (I am not calling you an idiot). Many want to see the scriptures as the perfect word of God. I don't know if it is to my credit or detriment, but I don't. I view them as books that need to be studies and prayed about and are mostly right. It is easier to just turn a blind eye to science and believe everything. I can't do that.

That last bit was a bit mean, but I am glad I am not alone in marrying today's science with the flood.

I am glad you have found a way to explain it to yourself. It doesn't make any sense to me, but in the end I doubt that it matters that much.

I completely agree. I doubt that it really matters whether we believe the bible account to be accurate or not. Probably not a salvation deal breaker.

They could meet you anywhere. The local church has a lot of class rooms and the missionaries often meet people there. Some people have messy houses and would rather not have people come in and see their situation.

Ok

I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole. I am not saying the flood didn't happen, but there is definitely no scientific evidence for it. And if you want to create things in your mind to help you believe the flood, then fine. To me, if it happened, God did it and then erased all evidence of it. To me that is the most plausible way of it happening. And as the assumption.... The assumption is that the water was at least as deep as Ararat (16,000ft) as the bible said this was the first mountain peak to poke out of the water. But if you want to think there were massive continental shifts of thousands of miles in the course of 10 months, that is certainly your prerogative. The next question would be why do all of the rearranging in the first place? Did God screw up how he wanted the Earth to look when he made it for Adam? Why not make it essentially like it is today? Where did kangaroos come from? were they on the ark? How did they get to Australia? Why didn't any hang around the middle east?

Gotcha. I do find it interesting how people try to deny the scientific evidence against a flood and then try to find a scientific way of proving it...

I am not saying it didn't happen. Just saying there is no evidence of it. This is one of the few things that i don't have a testimony of. If others do, then I can't dispute that. What I will dispute is the physical evidence.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the story. It says that the tops of the mountains became visible. That means the mountains existed before the flood water poofed away. This means the water had to be at least 16,000 ft deeper than it is now. The bible states that the water covered the high hills. So where did the water come from and where did it go? Where did all of the animals that didn't fit on the ark come from? How do you explain animals unique to certain continents such as Australia? Were they on the ark? If so, how did they get to Australia? If not, did God just poof them there after the flood? As for the Book of Mormon, it is not clear where these mountains are at, nor how high the mountains were. The Book of Mormon account is more believable as it is not requiring to poofing of non-existent material (water). And there is precedence for earthquakes changing the structure of the land.

In her vision she heard the words "Twin Soul" she had never heard this before. So afterwards she googled it. So I don't think it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for proof... if it isn't compelling enough for the masses to believe, then I would submit it is not compelling enough to be proof. This has nothing to do with whether I believe the miracle or not.

I am sorry, but a global flood does not explain sedimentary layers. Not even close. A global flood would explain one layer, not multiple layers. Nor does the flood explain mountains. Science has much more sound explanations for mountains and sediment layers, fossils on the top of mountains, etc. Plate tectonics explain this quite well. Take mount Everest.... It grows at 4 mm/year. given a million years, that is 4000 m. The Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. a million years is nothing in a 4.5 billion year old history. And just for your info, under water is not the only place where sedimentary layers form. They form on land as well. I am not saying the flood didn't happen. I don't know. But the evidence you provided does not further a flood story. So according to the flood story, the mountains were there before the flood waters abated. Where did the water come from to rain deep enough to cover the mountains? And then where did it go? Did God just poof the water here and then poofed it away? The average ocean depth is 12,000 ft. Mount arrat is 16,000 ft. So for the that mountain to be covered in water would require there to be over 2 times as much water on the planet as there is today. Where did it come from and where did it go? Perhaps you believe in Hollow Earth. I mean that is just as plausible. Also, the bible describes the water drying up. How do you dry up 16,000 ft of water in less than a year? For it to rain 16,000 ft of water in 40 days, it would have had to rain 3 inches of rain a minute over the entire planet. Here is the fastest recorded rain falls.. https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/what-is-the-most-rain-to-ever-fall-in-one-minute-or-one-hour.html Those were highly localized and only lasted a short time and no where near 3 inches per minute. So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man. The evidence is not there. God would have had to do the flood and then erased all traces of it. Seems like a lot of work to go through to get rid of all the bad people.

Yes, I will deny evidence as proof. I am not asking about twin flame theory. I am asking how she had a vision of it without ever knowing about it. Pronounced dead is not always dead and priesthood blessings are not involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome . It seems to me like it is not proof. There are plenty of people that came back to life without a priesthood blessing. Therefore it is not proof. It is only evidence. What I believe you are misinterpreting here is what I am saying. I am not here denouncing priesthood power. I believe miracles are worked through priesthood power. And the guy coming back alive after a blessing probably was due to the blessing. but miracles seem to always be a manner that is left open for the viewer to decide if it was a miracle or not. Just because a doctor pronounced him dead, does not necessarily mean he is dead. Now give a guy with a severed head a priesthood blessing and watch him come back to life.... now that would be proof. There is not history of something like that happening. Physically impossible for it to happen naturally. I know of no miracles in the modern day that don't require faith to accept as miracles. They are evidence, not proof. But if you want to view them as proof, I can't stop you. Proof - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. In all cases, the mind is not compelled to accept the miracle as truth or fact. Only by faith and the spirit does one know for sure.

OK, looks like sedimentary rock that formed over millions of years under heat and pressure.

Actually I will split hairs evidence is not proof. In a court of law any testimony for or against something is evidence. Proof can only be one, not the other. Either there is proof of something or there is not. There can be evidence for and against. And it is up to the viewer of the evidence to determine what it means. As for the twin flame thing, my wife had never even heard of a twin flame before her vision.. How do you explain that? Please don't get me wrong. I do believe in miracles. I have witness a number of what I would deem as significant miracles. I believe each and every one were through the power of God, yet I believe each requires faith to recognize it as a miracle. How do you know that someone was healed by the power of the Priesthood? If one was healed after receiving a blessing, does that mean they were healed by the power of the Priesthood? Or could it just be that the person was going to be healed anyway? It requires faith to believe in it. As such it is evidence not proof. I think God makes us search for much evidence of him for us to be able to understand him.

The simplest answer is the only way is for the spirit to testify to you of its truthfulness. Invite the missionaries over and talk with them. They aren't going to bite.. They can answer many of your questions. But if you really want to to know, pray about and study the book of Mormon. It is how I got a testimony.

I think you have a pretty good handle on my view. I am not one to willy nilly just say I know something. Unless I know something to the nth degree, I typically won't say I know something. I believe I have a strong testimony of the gospel. But to me that does not equate to pure knowledge. Take for instance a man that went blind, received a priesthood blessing and then eventually saw again. I would probably see that as a miracle, but at the same time it is of a nature that you could explain away with science. Now I have never heard of a severed head being restored or a severed leg.... Something like that would be near impossible to explain away... As such would in my opinion not by faith promoting, but more of a parlor trick. It would be more akin to the feeding the masses who came back again more for the physical food, than the spiritual food. With restoring eyesight one cannot be 100% sure that it was through the power of God... Thus you need faith to believe it. Restoring a severed head on the other hand... Now that would be something. BTW, have you ever heard of someone receiving a priesthood blessing to regrow a severed hand? Did it work? Why not? (I am assuming it hasn't happened). As for the flood... I've taught Sunday school many years and when it comes to the flood discussion, I have prayed about it many times. Nothing. I believe Noah to be real and have had a witness of that, but not of the flood. It has been interesting reading comments here regarding it. I can't say for sure it didn't happen just like the bible said, so I am not going to put anyone down for believing it did. What I really didn't expect was the condescending attitude from some here towards my lack of a testimony of it. I would hope attitudes like that don't come out in the local wards. And just to be straight, when teaching Sunday School, I don't focus on the flood. If someone asks my opinion about it, I give them my honest opinion that I don't think it happened the way the bible describes, but I wasn't there and don't know. But I have only been asked that once. And I wasn't excommunicated for my answer. And to be very clear, I do believe in miracles. I have been witness to some pretty cool stuff. But at the same time, I believe God works mostly through natural means to achieve the miracle. For instance, my parents were planning on going on a mission, but needed to sell their business. They had tried in the past and had failed, and the deadline to get it sold was fast approaching. Then one day out of the blue someone stops in saying that God told them to buy the place. The person didn't even know it was for sale... Pretty cool miracle. Could it be written off as something else? Absolutely. But I don't believe in chance. I truly believe God knows the end from the beginning and things follow his plan. And that is the biggest miracle of all... His plan. Throughout this discussion I have felt peer pressure to accept the flood. I don't cave to things of that nature. If the flood happened the way the bible says, then I am sure the spirit will eventually let me know.

Yeah, I am not a fan of dishonest people.

Actually it is significantly different. Truth is eternal and never changing. As such I don't recall ever using the term "Scientific truth." Methinks someone is trying to put words in my mouth. You can put a medium rare NY strip in my mouth, but don't appreciate have words shoved in there. Any real scientist will profess that they seek truth, but their knowledge is still limited. Generally they work on theories and such and don't claim truth. I would never claim geology to be a truth. That can only be speculated. As for looking at raw data, yes I have. I have taken core samples and looked at them. Have I gone around the world looking? No, I am not a geologist. I have flown around the globe, been to around 40 countries. I don't put faith into text books. I read them and try to understand them. But entirely concede that there are things that are incorrect in text books. As for trusting the text book over the spirit? No, I don't trust text books over the spirit. But the spirit has never testified to me that the flood happened the way the bible says it did. So what am I to do? I do appreciate how you know what I am lacking. You are very helpful... I mean condescending. You don't know me. nor what I know.

You have gone and put words in my mouth. That is being dishonest. Never did I say that those who have had a genuine witness are being dishonest when they say they "know" And then you imply that I am a natural man that does not receive the things of the Spirit of God... Interesting. Way to try a prop a guy up.

You keep saying there is evidence of the flood. Where? What is your evidence? As for the resurrection, that is easier for me to believe. That I have received a witness many times of its truthfulness. And it isn't secularism for me and the flood. I never once believed it to happen the way the bible portrays it even when I was a little kid. It never made sense to me and that is before I knew anything of science.

I think you are right in that it is cultural, but I still think it is dishonest at the same time. I believe a few have that true knowledge, but I think most are like me, still on the path working our way to salvation building on our testimony little by little. I would much rather hear an honest testimony. "I experienced this.... " , "I felt that...." It makes it much more real and powerful in my opinion.

I do believe in the resurrection. I believe because of the spirit telling me that it is true. I have zero proof beyond that. And I would hardly say the spirit whispering to me is proof either. Believing requires faith. I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later. I personally don't "know" the church is true. My experiences and feelings tell me that it is, but can I say with 100% conviction that it is? No, I can not. I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says.

So far as I can tell the universe acts according to set laws. Laws that govern how all matter interacts. There is nothing I have seen that contradicts nature. I would think that if God lies, you'd see unnatural things. But you don't. He follows his laws. Perfectly consistent. If he wanted to doom us to an eternity of torment, why go through all the effort? Sounds pointless. It would be far easier just to torment us from the get go.

Actually, none of those are proof. Only evidence. And weak evidence at that. My wife had a vision that she has a twin flame. Does that prove that she has one? I know of many Priesthood blessings that didn't save a life. So how do you prove one did when others haven't. And why have others come back to life when not receiving said blessing? I am sorry, but none of these are proof. Evidence, but not proof.