Allegory


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

I find this part extremely amusing from someone who is adamant that there can be no other interpretation of Noah's flood other than it was a complete and total world flood.

Whether or not it was a complete flood has relevance in the grand scheme of things and is doctrinal. Whether or not my friend received a revelation and forgot it does not. There is no conflict here.

EDIT: Actually, let me clarify. If you guys are arguing about whether the water level covered all land, I will say the same "who knows, who cares". What I do care about is the fact that all land-creatures were destroyed in the flood except those in the ark. If you want to argue that the flood was somehow contained in only the populated regions of earth * be my guest, so long as you're not disputing the important point.

* that argument would pose problems as to how Noah got from the American continent before the flood, to the middle east after the flood.

Edited by Doctrine_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The following is a computer script that calculates the amount of water necessary to cause a global flood, assuming that the highest peak in the world needed to be covered.

> d.earth <- 24901.55 #diameter of the earth (miles)

> r.earth <- d.earth / 2 #radius of the earth (miles)

> r.e.feet <- r.earth * 5820 #radius of the earth (feet)

>

> h.everest <- 29029 #height of Mount Everest (feet)

>

>

> r.everest <- r.e.feet + h.everest #radius of earth plus Mount Everest

>

> v.earth <- 4/3 * pi * r.e.feet^3 #volume of the earth

> v.everest <- 4/3 * pi * r.everest^3 #volume of earth + Mount Everest

>

> delta.v <- v.everest - v.earth #Volume from sea level to Mount Everest

>

> delta.v * 7.48051948 #Gallons required to cover Mount Everest

[1] 1.433463e+22

>

>

> n.gall <- delta.v / 3 #Adjusting for 1/3 of volume to be

> #filled by hills and mountains

>

> n.pool <- n.gall / 600000 #Olympic size swim pools required to

> #flood the earth

>

> n.atlantic <- n.gall / 17543940979332434 #Atlantic Oceans required to

> #flood the earth

>

> v.everest

[1] 1.595764e+24

> v.earth

[1] 1.593847e+24

> delta.v

[1] 1.916261e+21

>

> n.gall

[1] 6.387536e+20

> n.pool

[1] 1.064589e+15

> n.atlantic

[1] 36408.79

>

So, to summarize, it would require

1,595,764,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water to flood the entire earth

That's 1,064,589,000,000,000 olympic size swimming pools

That's 36,408.79 Atlantic Oceans.

I wonder where all that water came from

I also wonder how those on the ark could breathe at 29,000 feet.

This is even more problematic as providing that amount of water would require the use of the additional oxygen in the air, making elevation a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not it was a complete flood has relevance in the grand scheme of things and is doctrinal. Whether or not my friend received a revelation and forgot it does not. There is no conflict here.

Hogwash. The doctrines and teachings pertaining to the gospel of Jesus Christ are not at all tied to the validity of the complete flood hypothesis. If it were revealed tomorrow that the flood only extended over the known landscape of Noah's time, nothing about the gospel would change.

The flood is not doctrinal in the least bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hogwash. The doctrines and teachings pertaining to the gospel of Jesus Christ are not at all tied to the validity of the complete flood hypothesis. If it were revealed tomorrow that the flood only extended over the known landscape of Noah's time, nothing about the gospel would change.

The flood is not doctrinal in the least bit.

First, I did not claim the flood is tied to ALL the doctrines of the gospel. The flood is completely irrelevant in a discussion on tithing for example. I simply said the world wide flood is doctrinal, meaning it has been verified by scripture and modern revelation.

You obviously didn't look at the 3 links I posted. 3 articles from the Ensign from general authorities who clearly state it was a world wide flood, not a localized one. Therefore, it IS doctrine.

And here is a small quote from one just in case you don't bother to look it up yourself.

Scriptural Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Many prophets from two different continents and different eras have identified Noah as a historical, not a mythical, character. These include Enoch (see Moses 7:42–43), Abraham (see Abr. 1:19), Amulek (see Alma 10:22), Moroni (see Ether 6:7), Matthew (see JS—M 1:41–42), Peter (see 2 Pet. 2:5), Joseph Smith (see D&C 84:14–15; D&C 133:54), and Joseph F. Smith (see D&C 138:9, 41). The Lord Jesus Christ himself spoke to the Nephites of the “waters of Noah” (3 Ne. 22:9). Recent latter-day prophets and apostles have similarly spoken of Noah. For example, Elder Howard W. Hunter, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, asked, “Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament?” 3

The most voluminous scriptural witness to Noah and the Flood is recorded in the writings of Moses, who dedicated a total of 57 verses in the King James Version to the account (Gen. 6:9–8:19). It is instructive to note that some of Noah’s actual words are preserved in the book of Moses, which introduces them with “And it came to pass that Noah continued his preaching unto the people, saying”—followed by his words: “Hearken, and give heed unto my words; Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you” (Moses 8:23–24). This text is significant in that it confirms that Noah, like his predecessors, understood the gospel covenant, including the baptismal ordinance and Jesus Christ’s role as Savior.

Moses may have received his information about Noah through direct revelation, or perhaps he used ancient records that were written by one of the eyewitnesses to the Flood, such as Noah himself or one of his sons. Such records, presuming they once existed, are now lost to the world. In the book of Genesis, Moses clearly states that a flood occurred, and the terminology definitely refers to a worldwide flood, as opposed to a localized flood. The Joseph Smith Translation backs up the Genesis account, modifying the wording only slightly.

If you want scientific evidence and explanation to everything before you believe it, I suggest you give me the scientific explanation of how Jesus turned water to wine, walked on water, turned a few loaves and fishes into enough food to feed 5000 people, and raised the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I did not claim the flood is tied to ALL the doctrines of the gospel. The flood is completely irrelevant in a discussion on tithing for example. I simply said the world wide flood is doctrinal, meaning it has been verified by scripture and modern revelation.

But that isn't doctrine. Doctrine would be unchanging, independent of scientific discovery, and eternal. You cannot demonstrate that we will never learn that the flood was not worldwide.

You obviously didn't look at the 3 links I posted. 3 articles from the Ensign from general authorities who clearly state it was a world wide flood, not a localized one. Therefore, it IS doctrine.

The Flood and the Tower of Babel Donald W. Parry -- NOT a general authority

Noah, the Great Preacher of Righteousness Joseph B. Romney -- NOT a general authority

The Gospel and the Scientific View F Kent Nielsen -- NOT a general authority

Aside from the fact that you can't bother to verify what your sources are, let's take a look at what a general authority and president of the Quorum of the Twelve had to say about space travel

"May 14,1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: 'We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.' Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds: 'The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.'" (Read more in Doctrines of Salvation, Bruce R. McConkie, comp., vol. 3 (Salt Lake Cit, Utah: Bookcraft, 1954–56), p. 203

How did that statement turn out? My point being, general authorities and prophets have been known to make errors about scientific matters. So, by counter example, your claim to general authority verification is lacking.

If you want scientific evidence and explanation to everything before you believe it, I suggest you give me the scientific explanation of how Jesus turned water to wine, walked on water, turned a few loaves and fishes into enough food to feed 5000 people, and raised the dead.

I didn't say I had to have scientific evidence and explanations to believe anything. I simply object to the assertion that there is no other possible explanation. Quite honestly, I don't care if the flood was worldwide or not. the message is the same either way, as is the symbolism. God got his point across, and that's all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do still adamantly oppose the idea that the flood was not a worldwide occurrance. Sure, there might not be complete geological evidence (at least not that our brilliant modern scientists can understand), but neither is there a complete understanding of how Dinosaurs and fossil records can be reconciled with the fact that the Earth is not millions of years old.

I often wonder about dinosaurs and the fact that the earth is over a billion years old.....This verse from Moses, might shed a bit of light:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten

Perhaps "worlds" pertains to ....."the world of dinosaus" or "the world of paleolithic man" etc. As, the scriptures might have justas easily said Earth. The account of the creation pertains only to our existence and relation to the Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"May 14,1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: 'We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.' Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds: 'The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.'" (Read more in Doctrines of Salvation, Bruce R. McConkie, comp., vol. 3 (Salt Lake Cit, Utah: Bookcraft, 1954–56), p. 203

Err....the moon landing was a hoax...right? Everyone knows that...it was filmed in the desert. Seriously. So...I think JF Smith WAS correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that isn't doctrine. Doctrine would be unchanging, independent of scientific discovery, and eternal. You cannot demonstrate that we will never learn that the flood was not worldwide.

Yes, Doctrine is eternal, unchanging, and independent of science. Doctrine is defined in scripture and by modern revelation. But if I can't demonstrate we will never learn it was local, you can't demonstrate that we will.

Aside from the fact that you can't bother to verify what your sources are, let's take a look at what a general authority and president of the Quorum of the Twelve had to say about space travel

Slip of the fingers. I was typing fast and had "general authorities" in my head. I did not intend the word "general" to be there. Just authorities (as in scholar types). The point was that it was in the Ensign, and the Ensign is considered scripture in that it is the current communication from the Brethren (though not on the same par as the standard works).

How did that statement turn out? My point being, general authorities and prophets have been known to make errors about scientific matters. So, by counter example, your claim to general authority verification is lacking.

And you'll notice that that statement was not at a general conference, nor printed in any of the church magazines. Even so, I consider there to be a big difference between giving an opinion of future events without any scriptural support, and making a statement about past events using scriptures as the basic foundation for those statements.

I didn't say I had to have scientific evidence and explanations to believe anything. I simply object to the assertion that there is no other possible explanation. Quite honestly, I don't care if the flood was worldwide or not. the message is the same either way, as is the symbolism. God got his point across, and that's all that matters.

I agree to a point. i don't care if the water covered the entire world or not (even though I believe it did), but as I've said before, my sticking point is that all humans in the entire world were destroyed. Now, if someone wants to believe that at that point humans only lived in the one area, therefore a localized flood would have got the job done *, so be it. I don't think it's worth arguing about in that situation. But if someone is claiming that some humans survived on the other side of the world, I find a problem with that.

* though, that still doesn't explain how Noah went from North American before the flood, to the Middle east after the flood.

Edited by Doctrine_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Doctrine is eternal, unchanging, and independent of science. Doctrine is defined in scripture and by modern revelation.

Slip of the fingers. I was typing fast and had "general authorities" in my head. I did not intend the word "general" to be there. Just authorities (as in scholar types). The point was that it was in the Ensign, and the Ensign is considered scripture in that it is the current communication from the Brethren (though not on the same par as the scriptures).

I wouldn't even consider it scripture. About the best you can say is that it has passed the Correlation Department. But so has everything in the Church News, and I would be shocked if anyone wanted to call that scripture.

And you'll notice that that statement was not at a general conference, nor printed in any of the church magazines. Even so, I consider there to be a big difference between making a future prediction without any scriptural support, and making a statement about past events using scriptures as the basic foundation for those statements.

It was a statement made in a stake conference by a person acting as an official spokesperson of the Church. So general authorities can now only proclaim doctrine through General Conference and Church magazines? What about talks given by general authorities at area conferences that are then later published in Church magazines? Were they not scripture before publication?

I agree to a point. i don't care if the water covered the entire world or not (even though I believe it did), but as I've said before, my sticking point is that all humans in the entire world were destroyed. Now, if someone wants to believe that at that point humans only lived in the one area, therefore a localized flood would have got the job done, so be it. I don't think it's worth arguing about in that situation. But if someone is claiming that some humans survived on the other side of the world, I find a problem with that.

I don't see what would be wrong with people surviving on the other side of the world. As far as Noah knew, the world had been obliterated. As far as Moses knew, no one had survived. They didn't know if there were people outside of the region they had experience with. Their knowledge of the world was pretty limited. Is it really so hard to believe that what was revealed and/or recorded by Moses was only that which was necessary to teach and instruct the people in his stewardship?

Let's also not forget the the Old Testament was rewritten a number of times, often by people not nearly as inspired as Moses. It's a text that reflects the best knowledge and wisdom of the time, but is in no way complete. I don't see why modern day revelation should be any different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't even consider it scripture. About the best you can say is that it has passed the Correlation Department. But so has everything in the Church News, and I would be shocked if anyone wanted to call that scripture.

It was a statement made in a stake conference by a person acting as an official spokesperson of the Church. So general authorities can now only proclaim doctrine through General Conference and Church magazines? What about talks given by general authorities at area conferences that are then later published in Church magazines? Were they not scripture before publication?

As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question)

I don't see what would be wrong with people surviving on the other side of the world. As far as Noah knew, the world had been obliterated. As far as Moses knew, no one had survived. They didn't know if there were people outside of the region they had experience with. Their knowledge of the world was pretty limited. Is it really so hard to believe that what was revealed and/or recorded by Moses was only that which was necessary to teach and instruct the people in his stewardship?

But there are later references about Noah being the father of mankind as was Adam. I think Moses 7 or 8 talks about all nations being the seed of Noah.

But lets say there were other people who survived, where's the scientific evidence of that? We know that Eden and the civilization that followed was in North America. We know that after the flood, Noah ended up in the Middle East. So, the flood had to have at very least covered north America and the Middle East. So if there were other people somewhere, tell me where?? All scientific evidence points to civilization beginning in the middle east. If there were survivors elsewhere, their evidences should be older, and either their civilizations have been completely obliterated or they simply haven't been found. Which is extremely hard to believe. Harder, in fact, than a global flood.

I wouldn't even consider it scripture. About the best you can say is that it has passed the Correlation Department. But so has everything in the Church News, and I would be shocked if anyone wanted to call that scripture.

It was a statement made in a stake conference by a person acting as an official spokesperson of the Church. So general authorities can now only proclaim doctrine through General Conference and Church magazines? What about talks given by general authorities at area conferences that are then later published in Church magazines? Were they not scripture before publication?

As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question)

Let's also not forget the the Old Testament was rewritten a number of times, often by people not nearly as inspired as Moses. It's a text that reflects the best knowledge and wisdom of the time, but is in no way complete. I don't see why modern day revelation should be any different.

But most of what we're discussing is from Moses and/or Abraham in the Pearl of Great price which were only written once and translated by Joseph so I don't buy that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what Doctrine_Guy thinks of the story of Jonah.

If you wonder, why don't you ask? I'll assume you're asking.

That Jonah was swallowed by a big fish (not a whale) and spit out again so he could visit Nineveh.

Actually, there was a news story several years ago off the coast of south America where a guy got swallowed by a giant grouper and got out 2 days later . . . somewhat digested, but alive.

Why, are you going to tell me it was allegorical?? Maybe Jonah was just swimming in the water near the fish? Maybe there was a submarine named "big fish" that transported him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question)

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

You should pay particular attention to section #3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

You should pay particular attention to section #3.

HAhahaha. Ok, in the first place this thing is written by some guy for the "Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research". Does that sound like the name of any kind of reputable source, or a bunch of people who want to apologize for any doctrine that offends someone.

In the second place, they did a pretty good job of cutting and clipping different quotes to try to prove their opinion. But none of the quotes from any of the brethren say that general conferences addresses are not scripture.

And third, since they're publication is by their own definition non-scriptural, then why should I believe it any more than Joe Shmoe's opinion?

No thanks, I'll stick to what I've been taught in church for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAhahaha. Ok, in the first place this thing is written by some guy for the "Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research". Does that sound like the name of any kind of reputable source, or a bunch of people who want to apologize for any doctrine that offends someone.

In the second place, they did a pretty good job of cutting and clipping different quotes to try to prove their opinion. But none of the quotes from any of the brethren say that general conferences addresses are not scripture.

And third, since they're publication is by their own definition non-scriptural, then why should I believe it any more than Joe Shmoe's opinion?

No thanks, I'll stick to what I've been taught in church for decades.

Ummmmm you've never heard of this organization before? I suggest you look into them before making fun of them lol since they do pretty much what you've been doing with your posts in a lot of ways.....

FAIR Website Guide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question)

As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question)

Mormon Doctrine is carefully defined by the Church here: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

Doctrine is not: General Conference talks, Stake Conference talks, Ensign articles, General Authorities books (including McConkie's Mormon Doctrine: UNLESS the Holy Ghost bears witness to you that it is the Truth. But in that case, it's not binding on anyone but *you*.

HiJolly

Edited by HiJolly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAhahaha. Ok, in the first place this thing is written by some guy for the "Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research". Does that sound like the name of any kind of reputable source, or a bunch of people who want to apologize for any doctrine that offends someone.

Well this "some guy" is Michael R. Ash who has written numerous articles for FAIR and for MormonTimes which is published by Deseret News. Deseret News which is owned by Deseret News Publishing company. It is a for profit venture of the Church. He has a weekly column which comes out Mondays.

He's not some fly by night author.

Edited by pam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda the same way we shouldn't have to believe your opinion?

To Wingnut: Did I ever claim you have to believe me? Nope. Believe me or not, makes no difference to me one way or the other.

To Pam: I'm not saying he's a crackpot or anything. It was a very well written brochure, but that doesn't make it doctrine. He may be a very well respected writer, but his writings are not scripture. (p.s. I was going to make a crack about you being a chargers fan, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea, huh? Let me just say that on a different board, my screen name is Broncos_guy)

To Soulsearcher: I'll accept they are a well-meaning group, probably with some very smart people working there. But that doesn't change the fact that they are not affiliated with the Church, and they have no more authority to define doctrine than I do.

To HiJolly, Thank you. That is a much better reference than anything else so far. And I actually believe that it strengthens my position to some degree.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 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.

In other words, Doctrine must 1-agree with the standard works and 2- be consistently proclaimed in official publications.

So, putting my referenced articles to the test we see that all assertions made therein are based upon the standard works. And the fact that there were multiple articles, not just one isolated statement, shows consistency within official publications.

Whereas, the space statement given was not backed by the standard works, was not in any publications, and was never repeated.

At this point, allow me to take a step backwards. It's obvious that I'm starting to get on everyone's nerves, and for that I give an unequivocal blanket apology. It is not my intention. I realize that my writing/speaking style is somewhat pugnacious and I tend to "stir the pot". Please know that no matter how I come off, I really do understand that I'm not the smartest guy in the world. I know I'm not always right. But I will give my opinion and do the best I can to back it up. When proven wrong, I'll admit it (though in this discussion I fear there is no way to prove who's right or wrong).

So with that in mind let me take another quote from HiJolly's link:

The mistake . . . . is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center.

At the core of this question, I think we can agree that the most relevant and important points are that God keeps his promises, He sends prophets to warn people of their mistakes, and animals are tasty . . . oh wait . . . maybe not that last one (although they are). Edited by Doctrine_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Pam: I'm not saying he's a crackpot or anything. It was a very well written brochure, but that doesn't make it doctrine. He may be a very well respected writer, but his writings are not scripture.

FAIR was set up to defend LDS doctrine and to answer questions.

Is that also not what you are doing here as well? I fail to see the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question)

HiJolly addressed this one pretty well. But the point I was making was that your definition of scripture was flawed and included references that could be contradicting and potentially erroneous.

More specifically, you claimed originally that if it was stated by a general authority--and later that if it was in an approved Church publication--then it was as good as scripture and irrefutable by science. A single counter was all that was needed to disprove this conclusion, and such was provided.

But there are later references about Noah being the father of mankind as was Adam. I think Moses 7 or 8 talks about all nations being the seed of Noah.

Again, so far as was known to those people who were the media of these revelations. Recall, Joseph Smith also taught that the Lamanites were the ancestors of the Native Americans. This was later watered down to 'the principal ancestors,' and currently the Church states that the Lamanites were 'among the principal ancestors.' It isn't unprecedented that as science learns more, the Church changes some of its understanding about historical events.

But lets say there were other people who survived, where's the scientific evidence of that? We know that Eden and the civilization that followed was in North America. We know that after the flood, Noah ended up in the Middle East. So, the flood had to have at very least covered north America and the Middle East. So if there were other people somewhere, tell me where?? All scientific evidence points to civilization beginning in the middle east. If there were survivors elsewhere, their evidences should be older, and either their civilizations have been completely obliterated or they simply haven't been found. Which is extremely hard to believe. Harder, in fact, than a global flood.

I never stated there was any existing evidence. I offered a plausible alternative. I do not claim it is true or false. Simply that such an alternative is plausible.

But most of what we're discussing is from Moses and/or Abraham in the Pearl of Great price which were only written once and translated by Joseph so I don't buy that one.

The works of Moses were not written only once. The 'writings' of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price were expanded discourses dictated by Smith as he read through Genesis. In fact, the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is the n+1th rewriting of Moses's teachings.

Abraham appeared on the papyri as written, presumably, by Abraham. As a translation without additional commentary, we can only assume that its content is limited to the knowledge Abraham possessed at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Pam: I'm not saying he's a crackpot or anything. It was a very well written brochure, but that doesn't make it doctrine. He may be a very well respected writer, but his writings are not scripture. (p.s. I was going to make a crack about you being a chargers fan, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea, huh? Let me just say that on a different board, my screen name is Broncos_guy)

Clearly, as they are not statements given in doctrinal settings or from the scriptures or from appropriate authorities.

To Soulsearcher: I'll accept they are a well-meaning group, probably with some very smart people working there. But that doesn't change the fact that they are not affiliated with the Church, and they have no more authority to define doctrine than I do.

Right, so don't present your definition as the only one there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, as they are not statements given in doctrinal settings or from the scriptures or from appropriate authorities.

Right, so don't present your definition as the only one there is.

I'm not presenting mine as the only one. I'm just telling what I've always been taught. Never claimed I'm the supreme authority.

Seriously people, lighten up. Not even one single laugh or smirk at my pathetic attempts at humor??

Edited by Doctrine_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never stated there was any existing evidence. I offered a plausible alternative. I do not claim it is true or false. Simply that such an alternative is plausible.

Ok fine, you win, I give up. Is that what you want me to say?

Everything I've always been taught, and all my impressions from every time I've ever read the scriptures or taught Gospel Doctrine leads me to believe the flood was world wide. If you all want to disagree and have a scientific probability discussion, be my guest. But this thread is starting to get too contentious, so I'm through discussing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share