Noah's Flood

[Lost Boy]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That story was not addressing your position on the flood.  It was about your claim that just because you're an engineer, you scrutinize everything.  My point was as I said in the introduction.  Just because you're scrutinizing things, it does not mean that you must first disbelieve.

After gathering all the necessary information, one of the first questions an engineer tends to ask is: "What is wrong with this?"  Instead, one should ask,"Is there anything wrong with this?"

This is not literal.  But the slight difference in wording I've chosen is to indicate an attitude.  Are you looking for a reason to say it is wrong?  Or are you actually being unbiased in your approach?

Most of the work I've gotten in my career is because I don't look for a REASON to tell the client to shove off because it can't be done.  I look for a WAY to change our design to still meet the needs of the client so I can tell them it CAN be done.

It seems that many of the problems you have with scriptures and even doctrines/beliefs of the Church is because you seem to almost be LOOKING for a reason to doubt.  Start looking for a reason to believe and you'll be surprised at what you find.

 

Many of the problems?  I have two...  The flood and 6 day creation.   Trust me, I have long wanted to be the good saint and just believe.  But I have not been able to.  Therefore I have to decide either everything is false, or perhaps just a few things and the important ones aren't.   So that is where I am.

I could go to the customer that wanted the square box that looked like a circle and could have made him a circle and called it a square box.  Everyone would be happy...  They got what they wanted, I get paid, but I live with the knowledge that I compromised my own ethics to get there.

I have several options here.  I can believe the flood happened and ignore the biblical narrative,  I can believe a local flood happened and ignore the biblical narrative,  I can try and believe the biblical narrative and make up stuff to try and make it work in my head.  The first two I can do.  The third is much harder.  The more I think about it, the more I can't accept it.  Maybe I am on a road to apostasy, and maybe the Lord wants us to question things.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Many of the problems?  I have two...  The flood and 6 day creation.   Trust me, I have long wanted to be the good saint and just believe.  But I have not been able to.  Therefore I have to decide either everything is false, or perhaps just a few things and the important ones aren't.   So that is where I am.

I could go to the customer that wanted the square box that looked like a circle and could have made him a circle and called it a square box.  Everyone would be happy...  They got what they wanted, I get paid, but I live with the knowledge that I compromised my own ethics to get there.

I have several options here.  I can believe the flood happened and ignore the biblical narrative,  I can believe a local flood happened and ignore the biblical narrative,  I can try and believe the biblical narrative and make up stuff to try and make it work in my head.  The first two I can do.  The third is much harder.  The more I think about it, the more I can't accept it.  Maybe I am on a road to apostasy, and maybe the Lord wants us to question things.

I'm afraid I don't understand.  You say you have only two problems -- which BTW, are not really clear doctrinally -- but that is enough to make you NOT believe?... I'll tell you another short story.

My brother-in-law once saw my T-Shirt with the "Word Perfect" Logo on it.  He made some kind of snide comment about it.  I asked,"What's wrong with Word Perfect?"

"I just don't like Microsoft."

"Uhmm. Word Perfect is NOT Microsoft.  They're one of the biggest comepetitors."

"I know."

"Okay.  So, what's wrong with it?"

"I just don't like Word Perfect."

This is what you're sounding like when you look at two beliefs that are NOT clearly defined and say you're ready to drop the whole basket because of two things that aren't even in the basket.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Guest

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Many of the problems?  I have two...  The flood and 6 day creation.   Trust me, I have long wanted to be the good saint and just believe.  But I have not been able to.  Therefore I have to decide either everything is false, or perhaps just a few things and the important ones aren't.   So that is where I am.

I could go to the customer that wanted the square box that looked like a circle and could have made him a circle and called it a square box.  Everyone would be happy...  They got what they wanted, I get paid, but I live with the knowledge that I compromised my own ethics to get there.

I have several options here.  I can believe the flood happened and ignore the biblical narrative,  I can believe a local flood happened and ignore the biblical narrative,  I can try and believe the biblical narrative and make up stuff to try and make it work in my head.  The first two I can do.  The third is much harder.  The more I think about it, the more I can't accept it.  Maybe I am on a road to apostasy, and maybe the Lord wants us to question things.

You're on the road to apostasy.  However, it isn't your lack of testimony that's taking you there, it's your reaction to it.  Instead of accepting you don't have a testimony and can't understand how it could be true at this time, you use that as support that is false and devote your time to building up a defense of your bias.  

There are MANY things I don't understand.  There are MANY things I don't have a testimony of and struggle with wrapping my brain around them.  I accept that and assume I'll gain that testimony when the time comes.  It's not something required for baptism or a temple recommend.  Why would you focus on something you don't have a testimony of, to the point that you're arguing the testimony of Jesus Christ is false?  

[Lost Boy]

16 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You're on the road to apostasy.  However, it isn't your lack of testimony that's taking you there, it's your reaction to it.  Instead of accepting you don't have a testimony and can't understand how it could be true at this time, you use that as support that is false and devote your time to building up a defense of your bias.  

There are MANY things I don't understand.  There are MANY things I don't have a testimony of and struggle with wrapping my brain around them.  I accept that and assume I'll gain that testimony when the time comes.  It's not something required for baptism or a temple recommend.  Why would you focus on something you don't have a testimony of, to the point that you're arguing the testimony of Jesus Christ is false?  

I may be presumptuous, but I feel there are MANY things I do understand.  And those few I don't, I am trying to figure a way to make them fit.  Or figure a way to set it aside for now.  The real issue is that Noah is intertwined in the gospel and is mentioned several places in the scriptures and by modern day prophets.  How do I rectify that?  It really is not a place that I want to be.  

I just tell myself the story isn't that important and I will know the answer at some future point.  I don't know if it is a good thing or not, but there have been several that have messaged me and have let me know they have the same thoughts.  

I do find it interesting the responses.  It ranges from I completely believe, to I have some concerns, but will believe, to want to believe, but find it hard to.

[Lost Boy]

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm afraid I don't understand.  You say you have only two problems -- which BTW, are not really clear doctrinally -- but that is enough to make you NOT believe?... I'll tell you another short story.

My brother-in-law once saw my T-Shirt with the "Word Perfect" Logo on it.  He made some kind of snide comment about it.  I asked,"What's wrong with Word Perfect?"

"I just don't like Microsoft."

"Uhmm. Word Perfect is NOT Microsoft.  They're one of the biggest comepetitors."

"I know."

"Okay.  So, what's wrong with it?"

"I just don't like Word Perfect."

This is what you're sounding like when you look at two beliefs that are NOT clearly defined and say you're ready to drop the whole basket because of two things that aren't even in the basket.

I think you completely misunderstood me.  Dropping the whole basket hasn't crossed my mind.  I mean I said it could be an option as logically, if you say a book is absolutely true and if you find within it things that aren't true, you can logically dismiss the whole thing.

But that is not what is going on in my brain.  Not even close.  I have witnessed way too many things in my life to dismiss the gospel.  I feel the holy spirit all the time.  I have no thought of leaving the church.  I just want to reconcile the flood.

like dang...  Oh you don't believe the flood?  No..   Well I'm sorry you'll be leaving the church.    like dang dang..

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

I think you completely misunderstood me.  Dropping the whole basket hasn't crossed my mind.  I mean I said it could be an option as logically, if you say a book is absolutely true and if you find within it things that aren't true, you can logically dismiss the whole thing.

But that is not what is going on in my brain.  Not even close.  I have witnessed way too many things in my life to dismiss the gospel.  I feel the holy spirit all the time.  I have no thought of leaving the church.  I just want to reconcile the flood.

like dang...  Oh you don't believe the flood?  No..   Well I'm sorry you'll be leaving the church.    like dang dang..

You're right.  I apparently misunderstood you.  But even re-reading that earlier post, that is what it sounded like.  Thank you for clearing that up.

No, I don't believe the literalness of the global flood has been established. I myself just chalk it up to another thing I just don't fully understand because there is a lot we don't know.  

As an engineer, is it a good idea to render judgment when you don't have all the data?  Well, this is no different.  I mean, look at just how much is actually written about the flood.  The fact that it took, what, a hundred years to build the ark should tell you that there was much more to the story.  But we don't have the whole story.  So, why the push to render judgment on something when we clearly have only a tiny part of the information?

As I mentioned before, we don't know if it was a flood in a small area or over the whole earth.  You've got a few data points.  And because of that you're willing to declare with a high degree of certainty that it was impossible?  I'm not.  And I've thought about this more than once.  Each time, I come to the conclusion that we simply don't have sufficient information to make any kind of judgment about the secular details.  In the meantime, just listen to the spiritual message of the story.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're right.  I apparently misunderstood you.  But even re-reading that earlier post, that is what it sounded like.  Thank you for clearing that up.

No, I don't believe the literalness of the global flood has been established. I myself just chalk it up to another thing I just don't fully understand because there is a lot we don't know.  

As an engineer, is it a good idea to render judgment when you don't have all the data?  Well, this is no different.  I mean, look at just how much is actually written about the flood.  The fact that it took, what, a hundred years to build the ark should tell you that there was much more to the story.  But we don't have the whole story.  So, why the push to render judgment on something when we clearly have only a tiny part of the information?

As I mentioned before, we don't know if it was a flood in a small area or over the whole earth.  You've got a few data points.  And because of that you're willing to declare with a high degree of certainty that it was impossible?  I'm not.  And I've thought about this more than once.  Each time, I come to the conclusion that we simply don't have sufficient information to make any kind of judgment about the secular details.  In the meantime, just listen to the spiritual message of the story.

I have not passed final judgement on the flood.  I suspect there is more than we know like you said.  

My intent of this thread was to never shake anyone's testimony, but I truly did want to hear people's take on the flood.  Maybe my means were bad, but I think it has shown that thoughts about the flood are all over the map.  I honestly wonder if church leaders have had the same reservations about the flood and don't have an answer so they just let it be.  Maybe there are things in the scriptures that are supposed to test our faith.  I don't know, but whatever, I enjoy the gospel..  I rejoice in it.  It has gotten me through some tough times and is there for the good ones too.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I have not passed final judgement on the flood.  I suspect there is more than we know like you said.  

My intent of this thread was to never shake anyone's testimony, but I truly did want to hear people's take on the flood.  Maybe my means were bad, but I think it has shown that thoughts about the flood are all over the map.  I honestly wonder if church leaders have had the same reservations about the flood and don't have an answer so they just let it be.  Maybe there are things in the scriptures that are supposed to test our faith.  I don't know, but whatever, I enjoy the gospel..  I rejoice in it.  It has gotten me through some tough times and is there for the good ones too.

Well, like I said, thanks for clearing that up... again.

I don't know what Church leaders think about it because it isn't something we hear a whole lot about. I believe the story was there for spiritual reasons, not secular ones.  If it were there for secular reasons, there would be more detail that would help us understand it better.  I suppose you understand the phrase "looking beyond the mark."  I believe that to consider the details of the flood are not nearly as important as the spiritual message.  It was a type and shadow of the earth being baptized by fire at the Second Coming.  That message has many different branches of knowledge that are spiritually rich.

For the record, I don't think things in the scriptures are there to test our faith.  I think that our mortal minds blind us to the spiritual message to the point that we begin to doubt things.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Guest

[Grunt]

29 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I have not passed final judgement on the flood.  I suspect there is more than we know like you said.  

My intent of this thread was to never shake anyone's testimony, but I truly did want to hear people's take on the flood.  Maybe my means were bad, but I think it has shown that thoughts about the flood are all over the map.  I honestly wonder if church leaders have had the same reservations about the flood and don't have an answer so they just let it be.  Maybe there are things in the scriptures that are supposed to test our faith.  I don't know, but whatever, I enjoy the gospel..  I rejoice in it.  It has gotten me through some tough times and is there for the good ones too.

This is probably the attitude you should adopt, in my opinion.  People would be more receptive to it and perhaps share their own issues so you can work through them together.  It certainly isn't the attitude that you've displayed in this thread.  

Thanks for clearing that up and changing your tone a little.  

Edited May 18, 2018 by Grunt

[Lost Boy]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

This is probably the attitude you should adopt, in my opinion.  People would be more receptive to it and perhaps share their own issues so you can work through them together.  It certainly isn't the attitude that you've displayed in this thread.  

Thanks for clearing that up and changing your tone a little.  

I got a bit defensive/aggressive there.  It didn't turn out well.  I did learn a lot from this topic, though.  It was very interesting to see how people try to prove it could have happened.   It is also interesting how many people believe it at face value.  If it is true, I hope to be able to do that some day.  Till that day, I'll just keep keeping on.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Because the implication of your post was that the Apostles wouldn't come out and denounce parts of the Bible because it would shake the faith of its membership.

Something somewhat similar did happen, but it wasn't a denouncement, rather than a "discussion" that some stories in the Bible may or may not be allegorical.  It's part of our Church history.    It was in the early 1900's.   Several BYU professors and (lesser) Church leaders were teaching that several of the stories in the Bible were allegorical rather than actual events.   This included the story of Jonah and the Tower of Babel (and evolution and Adam and Eve; see below).  

The Church hierarchy did take notice and told the professors and church leaders  that regardless of whether or not some of the stories (such as the story of Jonah) are allegorical or factual, that they shouldn't be taught as allegories because it would place doubt in young and developing minds.  At the time, church leadership did hint at (but not come out and say) that some of the Bible stories may be allegorical, but that teaching that in schools and Sunday school would come at a great cost.  Higher church leadership and school administrators also said that obedience to the prophet (who was Joseph F Smith at the time) was a lot more important than trying to figure out which stories were allegorical, even if it was true that some may have been.  Joseph F Smith didn't want professors and lesser Church leaders teaching that some of the stories in the Bible were allegorical.  

The controversy actually caused waves throughout the Church and at BYU.   In addition to Jonah and the Tower of Babel, there was also a controversy about teaching evolution at BYU, but now days, evolution is taught at BYU with the full blessing of the Church.    The controversy and hard feelings caused the loss of four well respected BYU professors, either by resignation ( the two Chamberlain brothers) or coerced resignation (the two Peterson brothers), and had a big negative effect on BYU.    The professors themselves, according to school administrators at least, probably would have been allowed to continue to teach (with some modification) if they hadn't broke one of the rules at BYU which had stated that any books about the Bible can't be taught from if they are from non-Mormon sources (this also included books about the Bible from non-Mormon Christians).  Such books could be used for preparation of lessons, but not quoted in lessons.  The big clincher though is that one of the professors taught that the story of Adam and Eve did not happen (unlike Roberts and Talmage who [at least much of, but not all of the time for Talmage]) believed in evolution, but believed that Adam and Eve still existed).   The Tower of Babel, story of Jonah, and evolution were one thing, but teaching that Adam and Eve didn't really exist was too much for Church and school leadership.  

For those who want to know more, I'd suggest listening to/reading the summary of Dramatized History of the Church, part 59 and other sources such as the sources at the BYU library, which are still available for research.  One is the Ralph Chamberlin oral history interview, ID MSS OH 238; Tom Perry Special Collections.

Here's a pretty good article as well, written in 1911:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/013-10-16.pdf

See also here:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044102881828;view=1up;seq=170

Interestingly, more than a century later, the same topics are still being discussed, and not that much has changed other than teaching evolution at BYU has the full blessings of the Church and the story of Jonah is now said to be a beautiful poem in the Bible Dictionary (read it yourselves), which may or may not mean that the story is allegorical.  I won't go there.  

 

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

Quote

 6 day creation

 

A lot of church materials say that the 6 day creation may have not been six 24 hour days.  Just one random example:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question/was-the-creation-confined-to-six-24-hour-days-as-we-know-them?lang=eng

Latter-day Saints have additional information that allows a third view: that each “day” of the Creation was of unspecified duration, and that the creation of the earth took place during an unknown length of time. In fact, Abraham stresses that time is synonymous with day. For example, Abraham 4:8 summarizes the second creative period by stating that “this was the second time that they called night and day.” This usage is completely consistent with the ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew word YOM, often translated “day,” can also mean “time” or “period.” In other words, the term translated “day” in Genesis could be appropriately read as “period.”

Also, the term day is used in scripture to indicate the “period wherein the labor of God is performed.” Day in this sense is usually contrasted with the night or darkness wherein the labor is ceased. The Savior used the term in this light when He said, “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” (John 9:4; see also John 11:9–10.) The Book of Mormon carried over this ancient usage also. The warning is issued in Alma that “the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. …

“I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.” (Alma 34:32–33.)

The above ideas suggest that each “day” may not even be of the same length:

“There is no revealed recitation specifying that each of the ‘six days’ involved in the Creation was of the same duration.” 

What seems clear is that the accounts of the Creation were given to us for reasons other than determining the “how” and the “how long” of creation. A more fruitful approach is to read them with a view to what they tell us concerning God’s work and glory.

Read the rest in the link.  Or just plug "Six day creation" or "6 day creation" into the search box in LDS.org

Edited May 18, 2018 by Scott

[Lost Boy]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Something somewhat similar did happen, but it wasn't a denouncement, rather than a "discussion" that some stories in the Bible may or may not be allegorical.  It's part of our Church history.    It was in the early 1900's.   Several BYU professors and (lesser) Church leaders were teaching that several of the stories in the Bible were allegorical rather than actual events.   This included the story of Jonah and the Tower of Babel (and evolution and Adam and Eve; see below).  

The Church hierarchy did take notice and told the professors and church leaders  that regardless of whether or not some of the stories (such as the story of Jonah) are allegorical or factual, that they shouldn't be taught as allegories because it would place doubt in young and developing minds.  At the time, church leadership did hint at (but not come out and say) that some of the Bible stories may be allegorical, but that teaching that in schools and Sunday school would come at a great cost.  Higher church leadership and school administrators also said that obedience to the prophet (who was Joseph F Smith at the time) was a lot more important than trying to figure out which stories were allegorical, even if it was true that some may have been.  Joseph F Smith didn't want professors and lesser Church leaders teaching that some of the stories in the Bible were allegorical.  

The controversy actually caused waves throughout the Church and at BYU.   In addition to Jonah and the Tower of Babel, there was also a controversy about teaching evolution at BYU, but now days, evolution is taught at BYU with the full blessing of the Church.    The controversy and hard feelings caused the loss of four well respected BYU professors, either by resignation ( the two Chamberlain brothers) or coerced resignation (the two Peterson brothers), and had a big negative effect on BYU.    The professors themselves, according to school administrators at least, probably would have been allowed to continue to teach (with some modification) if they hadn't broke one of the rules at BYU which had stated that any books about the Bible can't be taught from if they are from non-Mormon sources (this also included books about the Bible from non-Mormon Christians).  Such books could be used for preparation of lessons, but not quoted in lessons.  The big clincher though is that one of the professors taught that the story of Adam and Eve did not happen (unlike Roberts and Talmage who [at least much of, but not all of the time for Talmage]) believed in evolution, but believed that Adam and Eve still existed).   The Tower of Babel, story of Jonah, and evolution were one thing, but teaching that Adam and Eve didn't really exist was too much for Church and school leadership.  

For those who want to know more, I'd suggest listening to/reading the summary of Dramatized History of the Church, part 59 and other sources such as the sources at the BYU library, which are still available for research.  One is the Ralph Chamberlin oral history interview, ID MSS OH 238; Tom Perry Special Collections.

Here's a pretty good article as well, written in 1911:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/013-10-16.pdf

See also here:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044102881828;view=1up;seq=170

Interestingly, more than a century later, the same topics are still being discussed, and not that much has changed other than teaching evolution at BYU has the full blessings of the Church and the story of Jonah is now said to be a beautiful poem in the Bible Dictionary (read it yourselves), which may or may not mean that the story is allegorical.  I won't go there.  

 

 

Good Stuff.  So I am probably not wrong in thinking at least some church leaders have had similar doubts...

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

In addition to Jonah and the Tower of Babel, there was also a controversy about teaching evolution at BYU, but now days, evolution is taught at BYU with the full blessing of the Church.  

I disagree. The controversy with evolution was somewhat solved with the packet given out. But it is in fact far from settled between church leadership and what is taught. I have personally dialogued with several BYU zoology professors there over the recent years and it's still a disputed topic.

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. The controversy with evolution was somewhat solved with the packet given out. But it is in fact far from settled between church leadership and what is taught. I have personally dialogued with several BYU zoology professors there over the recent years and it's still a disputed topic.

I don’t know how BYU can be considered a credible university if they can’t teach the world view of science. 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

I have personally dialogued with several BYU zoology professors there over the recent years and it's still a disputed topic.

Obviously.   I never claimed otherwise.  What I said was that Church leadership has said that it is OK to teach evolution at BYU (and public schools).  That doesn't meant they are taking  a position on evolution, but only that it's OK to teach it in schools.  I even have a hard copy of a Deseret News article from the early 1990's where the First Presidency says so.   I can scan it when I get home, but it may take some time to find.  

Edit:

Let's just cut to the chase.   I sent this question directly to the Church using the official church page.

Does the LDS Church Leadership support the teaching of evolution at BYU and in public schools?

 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Scott

[Grunt]

President Spencer W. Kimball explained, “There must be works with faith. How foolish it would be to ask the Lord to give us knowledge, but how wise to ask the Lord’s help to acquire knowledge, to study constructively, to think clearly, and to retain things that we have learned” (Faith Precedes the Miracle [1972], 205; italics in original).

President Kimball said: “In faith we plant the seed, and soon we see the miracle of the blossoming. Men have often misunderstood and have reversed the process.” 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Grunt

[Rob Osborn]

On 5/18/2018 at 11:08 PM, Scott said:

Obviously.   I never claimed otherwise.  What I said was that Church leadership has said that it is OK to teach evolution at BYU (and public schools).  That doesn't meant they are taking  a position on evolution, but only that it's OK to teach it in schools.  I even have a hard copy of a Deseret News article from the early 1990's where the First Presidency says so.   I can scan it when I get home, but it may take some time to find.  

Edit:

Let's just cut to the chase.   I sent this question directly to the Church using the official church page.

Does the LDS Church Leadership support the teaching of evolution at BYU and in public schools?

 

The church will never be okay about the false teaching of man evolving from animals. That's why they made the packet to begin with.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

The church will never be okay about the false teaching of man evolving from animals

Here is what the last official statement on evolution was from the Church.  Official statements have been issued since then).

[The idea that] there were not pre-Adamites upon the earth’ is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the [pre-Adamite] controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

They said the question should be left to scientific research (PS, the above is included in the BYU packet).   Why do you think that they were lying? It seems you are implying that anyone who doesn't believe your own version of paleontology is an apostate.  Are you therefore the real apostate for not obeying the above?  (I won't answer that question; you must do that on your own.  As for me, I accept the fact that others may not agree with me and can still be good members of the Church).  

Who is really obeying the last official statement issued by the church?

Is it:

A.   Those who claim that the Church's official stance is that there is no evolution.

B.    Those who say that it should be left to scientific research.

The answer is B.  for those who lack reading comprehension.  

Of course there have been other things said by some church members after that statement, but the fact remains that the above is the last official statement issued by the Church.   You can either choose to believe it or not.  

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

So the first Presidency was lying when they made the last official statement on evolution?  (No official statements have been issued since then).

[The idea that] there were not pre-Adamites upon the earth’ is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the [pre-Adamite] controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

They said the question should be left to scientific research (PS, the above is included in the BYU packet).   Why do you think that they were lying? It seems you are implying that anyone who doesn't believe your own version of paleontology is an apostate.  Are you therefore the real apostate for not obeying the above?  (I won't answer that question; you must do that on your own.  As for me, I accept the fact that others may not agree with me and can still be good members of the Church).  

Who is really obeying the last official statement issued by the church?

Is it:

A.   Those who claim that the Church's official stance is that there is no evolution.

B.    Those who say that it should be left to scientific research.

The answer is B for those who lack reading comprehension.  

Of course there have been other things said by some church members after that statement, but the fact remains that the above is the last official statement issued by the Church.   You can either choose to believe it or not.  

Then again, I don't know why I would want to debate with someone who copies and paste things from the website "Answers in Genesis" along with other similar websites (which are both bogus and non-LDS) and calls it his own personal "revelation".   Not cool.  

Am I mean for pointing that out?   Maybe, but it is true (anyone who wants to confirm this can compare Rob's posts with the websites themselves).

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-fossil-record-1/

 And this time I am sort of poking fun at you, but you are being really uncivil and unreasonable, rather than rational. You are also extremely judgmental (then again I am sometimes as well).   Judgemental on my part or not, you are the kind of person who drives people away from the church.  And no, you don't have to respond to my post.  

I've adopted a new policy for folks like you who choose to be smug and ignorant- Good day!

[Guest Scott]

 

Quote

I've adopted a new policy for folks like you who choose to be smug and ignorant

 

My only advice is that anyone is free to share any opinion you have; you are free to quote any Church leader that you want and that might support your viewpoint; and you are free to believe anything you want.    You are free to quote any sources you want to, but whenever possible they should be credited.  It's not really a good idea to display your opinions as official policy of the Church.  That kind of thing is never a good idea, no matter who you are.

Anyway, food for though. 

And I do apologize if my last post was over the top.   I have to hand it to you though, you do know how to get on someone's nerves.  

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

 

Smug and ignorant (and not to mention dishonest) would be to copy and paste material off another website (without siting sources) and then to call it your own revelation.    That isn't revelation, that's plagiarism.  

Also, unless the First Presidency starts posting on this forum, no one here has the right to dictate Church policy or statements.   You may quote and summarize Church policy, but you don't have the right to dictate it based on your own belief.   You don't have to agree with all of the Church's policies or statements, and you may point any  of them out, but you shouldn't dictate such policies and imply that you speak for the Church.  Such actions can even result in Church discipline (I'm not saying that it will, but it can).

So, my advice to you is that you are free to share any opinion you have; you are free to quote any Church leader that you want and that might support your viewpoint; and you are free to believe anything you want.    You are free to quote any sources you want to, but they should be credited.  You shouldn't however, display your opinions as official policy of the Church.  That kind of thing is never a good idea, no matter who you are.

Anyway, food for though. 

And I do apologize if my last post was over the top.   I have to hand it to you though, you do know how to get on someone's nerves.  

Thou shalt not bear false witness. Do not accuse me of plagiarism. Thats accusation against me is serious and will get you banned.

[Guest Scott]

17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thou shalt not bear false witness. Do not accuse me of plagiarism. Thats accusation against me is serious and will get you banned.

Agreed.   Though shalt not bear false witness.

Much of your post below is plagiarized.  Is isn't hard to pick out the parts that you wrote and the parts that are plagiarized.   A quick google search picking out specific sentences will pull up results on where these things came from.

Well, since none of us has ever witnessed a global flood (this includes scientists) we have no general marker. But, we have all witnessed localized floods and thus on a small scale know several things about flood geology. We know for instance that flooding waters are extremely destructive, probably the most destructive force in nature. Erosion rates with floods are thousands of times greater as rushing waters exponentially gain in power the deeper and faster they run. Erosion creates sediment to be carried and deposited. In normal circumstances like in rivers, streams, etc, depositing sediment on lake or sea beds in small and uniform is observed, these deposits happen generally in cycles either several times a year or once a year. Their deposits annually form what geologists call "varves". Varves are not thick and not relatively uniform over great areas as lake and sea beds are not generally flat to begin with. Fossil layers are not found in varves either. Flooding events though create sediment layers vastly different. The sediment created from flooding is thousands of times in magnitude as the erosion is vastly enhanced. As such, the sediment layers in flood events are more uniform in thickness, vastly deeper per layer by as much as tens of thousands as compared with varve layers, and will contain within their layers the trapped remains of living plants and animals that die and get buried rapidly. Understanding these principles of observable localized flooding helps us build a bigger picture of what we should look for with a flood of global catastrophic proportion.

Thus, in putting together the picture of a global deluge we should see evidence of vast and thick layers of sedimentary rock all over the world. We should see signs where rapid burial happened in the rock evidence trapping living plants and animals which would later become fossils. We should see evidence of erosion events that happened rather quickly after tge flood as the sediments were still soft and easily eroded. We should see evidence of mountain uplift. We should see evidence of strata layers in upthrusts in all the major mountain chains. We should see sedimentary layers from the upthrust rock to be bent and distorted or broken. We should expect to see vast deposits of chalk and limetone. We should expect to see entire forests buried so fast with sediment that the fossilized trees extend through several sediment layers in tge rock. We should see evidence of very large animals like dinosaurs to be buried completely in one layer of the sediment, not through a hundred varve layers. 

Those are just some of the main things. We see all of that. The evidence for a massive catastrophic flood is found on every continent. Whats interesting about this is that nowhere in the world are these same geologic events being created today. The slow erosion we get from rivers and streams do not carry the necessary amount of sediment to create what we see in the evidence of the rocks. And not by just a little but by magnitudes of difference. Understanding varves and how annual and semi annual layers form on lake and sea beds is important because those layers we see exposed such as in the Grand Canyon are not slow anuual deposits of sediment. Some of those layers individually are hundreds of feet thick and spread over thousands and thousands of square miles. Thick layers of sediment only form in catastrophic flooding situations. Otherwise its just varves which are very thin and not uniform over great areas. 

Once one begins to understand this principle of real geology he must conclude that the tale of the rocks point to catastrophic flooding events (notice I said it in plural). The flood itself was just one of several geologic catastrophes that happened around the flood. Flooding actually was still occuring for probably hundreds of years after the flood as trapped portions of water were escaping off the uplifting landscape. We see evidence of this also all over the world. Other events wuld have been present also such as earthquakes and volcanos. We see evidence of this also with sediment layers tilted and other parallel layers on top. We see lava beds inbetween and disrupting strata layers. This is evidence that volcanos were present as should be as massive pressures of tge earth crust were being uplifted and pressed down and forcing the magma to vent.

Tgis is just a start but tge more you look tge easier it is to see the hidden face. After much study you see tge hidden face first and tge other face disappears.

As far as being banned, I have never been banned from any forum, let alone an LDS one.  You however, have been banned from many LDS ones.  You say that it is because of your conservative viewpoints, but most LDS members have conservative viewpoints and they haven't been banned.

 

[Rob Osborn]

35 minutes ago, Scott said:

Agreed.   Though shalt not bear false witness.

Much of your post below is plagiarized.  Is isn't hard to pick out the parts that you wrote and the parts that are plagiarized.   A quick google search picking out specific sentences will pull up results on where these things came from.

Well, since none of us has ever witnessed a global flood (this includes scientists) we have no general marker. But, we have all witnessed localized floods and thus on a small scale know several things about flood geology. We know for instance that flooding waters are extremely destructive, probably the most destructive force in nature. Erosion rates with floods are thousands of times greater as rushing waters exponentially gain in power the deeper and faster they run. Erosion creates sediment to be carried and deposited. In normal circumstances like in rivers, streams, etc, depositing sediment on lake or sea beds in small and uniform is observed, these deposits happen generally in cycles either several times a year or once a year. Their deposits annually form what geologists call "varves". Varves are not thick and not relatively uniform over great areas as lake and sea beds are not generally flat to begin with. Fossil layers are not found in varves either. Flooding events though create sediment layers vastly different. The sediment created from flooding is thousands of times in magnitude as the erosion is vastly enhanced. As such, the sediment layers in flood events are more uniform in thickness, vastly deeper per layer by as much as tens of thousands as compared with varve layers, and will contain within their layers the trapped remains of living plants and animals that die and get buried rapidly. Understanding these principles of observable localized flooding helps us build a bigger picture of what we should look for with a flood of global catastrophic proportion.

Thus, in putting together the picture of a global deluge we should see evidence of vast and thick layers of sedimentary rock all over the world. We should see signs where rapid burial happened in the rock evidence trapping living plants and animals which would later become fossils. We should see evidence of erosion events that happened rather quickly after tge flood as the sediments were still soft and easily eroded. We should see evidence of mountain uplift. We should see evidence of strata layers in upthrusts in all the major mountain chains. We should see sedimentary layers from the upthrust rock to be bent and distorted or broken. We should expect to see vast deposits of chalk and limetone. We should expect to see entire forests buried so fast with sediment that the fossilized trees extend through several sediment layers in tge rock. We should see evidence of very large animals like dinosaurs to be buried completely in one layer of the sediment, not through a hundred varve layers. 

Those are just some of the main things. We see all of that. The evidence for a massive catastrophic flood is found on every continent. Whats interesting about this is that nowhere in the world are these same geologic events being created today. The slow erosion we get from rivers and streams do not carry the necessary amount of sediment to create what we see in the evidence of the rocks. And not by just a little but by magnitudes of difference. Understanding varves and how annual and semi annual layers form on lake and sea beds is important because those layers we see exposed such as in the Grand Canyon are not slow anuual deposits of sediment. Some of those layers individually are hundreds of feet thick and spread over thousands and thousands of square miles. Thick layers of sediment only form in catastrophic flooding situations. Otherwise its just varves which are very thin and not uniform over great areas. 

Once one begins to understand this principle of real geology he must conclude that the tale of the rocks point to catastrophic flooding events (notice I said it in plural). The flood itself was just one of several geologic catastrophes that happened around the flood. Flooding actually was still occuring for probably hundreds of years after the flood as trapped portions of water were escaping off the uplifting landscape. We see evidence of this also all over the world. Other events wuld have been present also such as earthquakes and volcanos. We see evidence of this also with sediment layers tilted and other parallel layers on top. We see lava beds inbetween and disrupting strata layers. This is evidence that volcanos were present as should be as massive pressures of tge earth crust were being uplifted and pressed down and forcing the magma to vent.

Tgis is just a start but tge more you look tge easier it is to see the hidden face. After much study you see tge hidden face first and tge other face disappears.

As far as being banned, I have never been banned from any forum, let alone an LDS one.  You however, have been banned from many LDS ones.  You say that it is because of your conservative viewpoints, but most LDS members have conservative viewpoints and they haven't been banned.

 

Can you please show where I plagiarized? I do copy and paste things just as a others do. But your accusation of plagiarism is wholly unwarranted. I expect a retraction and apology.

[Guest Scott]

...

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott