Noah's Flood

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

Anyway, one thing being ignored is that Church doctrines change over time (regardless if members want to admit it or not).

Correct. In 1951 everyone knew that the teaching barring African-Americans would last forever. It did not. 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Correct. In 1951 everyone knew that the teaching barring African-Americans would last forever. 
 

Point of pedantry:  no, they didn’t.  See the 1949 George Albert Smith statement at https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[BJ64]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The bird brought back an olive leaf. From the time the ark came to rest until the dove returned the olive leaf was three months. Studies have been done to show that seeds under water for a long period and then settle in ground can spring up and show leaves. So, it can be strongly argued the olive leaf was from a new tree just springing forth.

According to the scriptures the flood "destroyed" the earth. The flood was a violent and catastrophic event the likes of the world had never before seen and hence afterwards will never see again. If a global flood really did happen we should expect to see massive evidences of it today. And we do in fact have those evidences. We have literal mountains of strata layers all over the globe and billions of fossils mixed into those strata layers.

Including dinosaur fossils which predate the flood by millions of years.  

[Grunt]

42 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Correct. In 1951 everyone knew that the teaching barring African-Americans would last forever. It did not. 

 

I thought Brigham Young specifically said it wouldn't last forever?  If so, why would people think the opposite?  People should probably spend less time trying to confirm what they wish were true and listen to what is, or isn't, actually said.  

Quote

President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

 

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I thought Brigham Young specifically said it wouldn't last forever?  If so, why would people think the opposite?  People should probably spend less time trying to confirm what they wish were true and listen to what is, or isn't, actually said. 

More importantly, it was policy, not doctrine, just as it was policy that the Levites were the priests rather than all the men of Israel.  (But then, lots of people define "doctrine" as "whatever Church authorities happen to be saying at the moment" - which would include policies, advice, and the lunch menu.  I don't define "doctrine" that way, nor do I believe it's the correct definition of doctrine, but whatever.)

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, zil said:

More importantly, it was policy, not doctrine, just as it was policy that the Levites were the priests rather than all the men of Israel.  (But then, lots of people define "doctrine" as "whatever Church authorities happen to be saying at the moment" - which would include policies, advice, and the lunch menu.  I don't define "doctrine" that way, nor do I believe it's the correct definition of doctrine, but whatever.)

As a newb, I struggle with doctrine, teachings, and policy.  I feel they are all important, but don't all carry the same weight. 

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

As a newb, I struggle with doctrine, teachings, and policy.  I feel they are all important, but don't all carry the same weight. 

Elder Bednar describes doctrine as eternal, unchanging truths.  This is how I've always thought of it.  He describes "principles" as being below that, and "application" below that.  His breakdown seems to me an easy way to distinguish between "this is just the way we do things here and now" (which might change as soon as we figure out / need a better / different way) and "here's the eternal truth we're trying to adhere to" (which has never changed and never will).

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Point of pedantry:  no, they didn’t.  See the 1949 George Albert Smith statement at https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements.

Point of pedantry: There was a time when everyone knew it would last forever.  From 1844 to 1977/77ish African American couldn't participate in Temple ordinances. No, I'm not a time traveler, but if in 1900 you argued that they could, it would probably  be seen as just as shocking as arguing that Noah's Flood might be metaphorical. 

And hey, maybe in 20 years we'll all be saying the same thing about gay marriage that we are saying about African Americans in the priesthood now. (kidding everyone)

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Point of pedantry: There was a time when everyone knew it would last forever.  From 1844 to 1977/77ish African American couldn't participate in Temple ordinances. No, I'm not a time traveler, but if in 1900 you argued that they could, it would probably  be seen as just as shocking as arguing that Noah's Flood might be metaphorical. 

Not long after 1900, a young missionary named David O. McKay was flabbergasted to learn that there was even a ban at all.  

Presentism is a very dangerous historical approach.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

In 1951 everyone knew that the teaching barring African-Americans would last forever. It did not. 

As far as I know, it wasn't meant to last forever, but Brigham Young did say that the negros would only be allowed the priesthood until after every single white person were allowed to here the gospel.   For a nice summary, see/listen to Disc 68 Church History.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Not as far as I know, but he did say that the negros would only be allowed the priesthood until after every single white person were allowed to here the gospel.   For a nice summary, see/listen to Disc 68 Church History.

 In my post you selectively quoted, I provided the information you seek.

[Guest Scott]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 In my post you selectively quoted, I provided the information you seek.

Oops, sorry.  Gotcha.  I was mixing up yours and Gator's post since I only glanced through very quickly before posting.   Will edit.

  

Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott

[Just_A_Guy]

31 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And hey, maybe in 20 years we'll all be saying the same thing about gay marriage that we are saying about African Americans in the priesthood now. (kidding everyone)

I know you said this in jest, but you have—unwittingly or otherwise—described precisely why so many people need for the policy to have been an uninspired error.

[Guest Scott]

Anyway, perhaps the best example I can think of that pertains to changing Church Doctrine is the Adam God Theory.   This was definitely taught in our Church from ca. 1852 to ca. 1912.   It used to be part of the endowment ceremony and there were also Church hymns sung in church that had the doctrine. 

I won’t go into that much detail about the Adam God Theory or Doctrine, since that would open up another heated discussion, but anyone else can read it on your own.  Here are some brief examples and details.

Brigham Young said the following in General Conference in April 9 1852 that Adam was our God and Father. 

Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

Those who wish to can delve farther, but it was an important and often discussed doctrine during that time period of our Church.  It's even discussed on FAIR:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

Later prophets have denounced the doctrine and theory and have called it false doctrine and heresy.  

For example, here is a talk by Spencer Kimball from October General Conference 1976: 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

While it is a bit surprising that President Kimball used the word alleged" and only General Authorities, rather than including Prophets, the theory or doctrine was definitely taught in our Church before 1912 and it was definitely denounced as false doctrine and heresy by later prophets.  

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Anyway, perhaps the best example I can think of that pertains to changing Church Doctrine is the Adam God Theory.   This was definitely taught in our Church from ca. 1852 to ca. 1912.   It used to be part of the endowment ceremony and there were also Church hymns sung in church that had the doctrine. 

I won’t go into that much detail about the Adam God Theory or Doctrine, since that would open up another heated discussion, but anyone else can read it on your own.  Here are some brief examples and details.

Brigham Young said the following in General Conference in April 9 1852 that Adam was our God and Father. 

Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

Those who wish to can delve farther, but it was an important and often discussed doctrine during that time period of our Church.  It's even discussed on FAIR:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

Later prophets have denounced the doctrine and theory and have called it false doctrine and heresy.  

For example, here is a talk by Spencer Kimball from October General Conference 1976: 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

While it is a bit surprising that President Kimball used the word alleged" and only General Authorities, rather than including Prophets, the theory or doctrine was definitely taught in our Church before 1912 and it was definitely denounced as false doctrine and heresy by later prophets.  

 

It was also consistently publicly opposed by various Q12 members throughout Young’s lifetime; and the evidence that it was included in the lecture at the veil is somewhat overstated.  Adam-God may be on par with some of the explanations for the ban; but it had a far weaker authoritative pedigree than the ban itself.  

[dellme]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Elder Bednar describes doctrine as eternal, unchanging truths.

Well the doctrine behind Blacks not having the priesthood is actually very simple and easy-just no one wants to hear it.  The doctrine is that at different points in time the Gospel or parts of the Gospel are restricted to certain groups.  This doctrine that God can restrict the Gospel and the preaching or exercise of the different portions of the Gospel to different groups is plain in the scriptures.

That is doctrine.  The policy is the implementation of the doctrine; i.e. the implementation being that at one point Blacks were restricted from access to parts of the Gospel (in accordance with long-standing scriptural doctrine that restriction when approved or commanded by God is good) and then they were not restricted (again in accordance with the doctrine that the Gospel may or may not be restricted).

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Including dinosaur fossils which predate the flood by millions of years.  

Some people think that but the evidence of such isn't compelling.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

It was also consistently publicly opposed by various Q12 members throughout Young’s lifetime

Yes, and it goes to show that the Quorum of the 12 and even the First Presidency also disagree on several issues/doctrines at times.    It certainly isn't surprising that we as "normal" members also do.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, and it goes to show that the Quorum of the 12 and even the First Presidency also disagree on several issues/doctrines at times.    It certainly isn't surprising that we as "norma" members also do.

 That's an interesting point that none of us really understand. From the outside, it looks like the 12 apostles agree on everything all the time. On some issues, that is certainly true. But on other issues, they might disagree more than what we know. Very interesting! 

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

 That's an interesting point that none of us really understand. From the outside, it looks like the 12 apostles agree on everything all the time. On some issues, that is certainly true. But on other issues, they might disagree more than what we know. Very interesting! 

I'd be willing to bet it isn't that rare, depending on the topic.  Natural man has opinions and biases.  It's hard to keep your desires out of your understanding of some things.  That's why there is a process to doctrine and canonization.  It's also why, in my personal situation, I find it distasteful to speak against church policy and teachings.  Sure, it may change later, but with 200 years of history the things that seem to make it to the public eye and are later denounced seem to be very few and far between.

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, and it goes to show that the Quorum of the 12 and even the First Presidency also disagree on several issues/doctrines at times.    It certainly isn't surprising that we as "normal" members also do.

I agree; but of course there are limits.  If I’m taking a position that contradicts other official statements on the basis that “well, the Q12 don’t always agree, and there was that time Tom Monson wiggled his ears at me which I’m pretty sure means he secretly thinks I’m right”—well, I may want to re-think that line of reasoning.  

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'd be willing to bet it isn't that rare, depending on the topic. 

Obviously you and I don't know-unless my intuition is confirmed and your real name is David Bednar. 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Obviously you and I don't know-unless my intuition is confirmed and your real name is David Bednar. 

Busted.

[Guest Scott]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 That's an interesting point that none of us really understand. From the outside, it looks like the 12 apostles agree on everything all the time. On some issues, that is certainly true. But on other issues, they might disagree more than what we know. Very interesting! 

I wonder what they would say if they posted on these forums?

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

I wonder what they would say if they posted on these forums?

They'd say that this guy named @MormonGator is awesome.