Noah's Flood


Lost Boy
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

So out of one side of your mouths you say that whatever the prophet says is doctrinal, but out of the other side of your mouths all the stuff that happened in the past doesn't count and wasn't doctrinal. ?????   Pick a side guys.

Who in this thread said that whatever a prophet says is doctrinal? It appears you are having comprehension issues Vort has been expressing. I have never heard/read anyone, in this thread, say all that a prophet says is doctrinal -- here comes the caveat which is always been stated -- unless he is acting as the prophet and not stating a personal theory or opinion.

They have picked a side, which you are clearly misrepresenting. Be more honest guys, or have better reading comprehension.

Also, they never said "don't question anything" they said don't speculate, how did you misunderstand that. ??????????????????????????????????? (hopefully that was enough questions marks)

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So when the Church state "We do not know" on the whys of the Priesthood ban.  Are they lying? 

I want to say again that I don’t think the church is lying. I only brought up that the theories that were disavowed were the same as the justification Brigham Young gave for the ban. Therefore if the theories were disavowed then any doctrine connected to them was also disavowed and of course the essay says that none of the theories is accepted as doctrine today. 

I will now remain silent on the topic so that no one will misunderstand anything I might say as being a criticism of the church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I want to say again that I don’t think the church is lying. I only brought up that the theories that were disavowed were the same as the justification Brigham Young gave for the ban. Therefore if the theories were disavowed then any doctrine connected to them was also disavowed and of course the essay says that none of the theories is accepted as doctrine today. 

I will now remain silent on the topic so that no one will misunderstand anything I might say as being a criticism of the church. 

I was not accusing anyone of lying.  I was asking for a clarification of @JohnsonJones position... (which he gave) Please note that it was in the form of a question and directly in response to his post which I quoted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I want to say again that I don’t think the church is lying. I only brought up that the theories that were disavowed were the same as the justification Brigham Young gave for the ban. Therefore if the theories were disavowed then any doctrine connected to them was also disavowed and of course the essay says that none of the theories is accepted as doctrine today. 

I will now remain silent on the topic so that no one will misunderstand anything I might say as being a criticism of the church. 

Just curious: Do you know what "disavow" means? Do you know that it does not mean "to proclaim as false"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Just curious: Do you know what "disavow" means? Do you know that it does not mean "to proclaim as false"?

dis·a·vow
ˌdisəˈvou/
verb
  1. deny any responsibility or support for.
    "he appears to be in denial of his own past, which he continually disavows"
    synonyms: denydisclaimdisown, wash one's hands of, repudiaterejectrenounce
    "the chairman disavowed the press release"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:
dis·a·vow
ˌdisəˈvou/
verb
  1. deny any responsibility or support for.
    "he appears to be in denial of his own past, which he continually disavows"
    synonyms: denydisclaimdisown, wash one's hands of, repudiaterejectrenounce
    "the chairman disavowed the press release"

Good job googling the term. So do you realize that the Church's disavowal of past theories does not mean that the Church proclaims those theories as false? This would include Brigham Young's theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Good job googling the term. So do you realize that the Church's disavowal of past theories does not mean that the Church proclaims those theories as false? This would include Brigham Young's theories.

disavow

[dis-uh-vou]

verb (used with object)

  1. to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate: He disavowed the remark that had been attributed to him.

  2.  

    disavow
    US   
     

    to say that you know nothing about or have no responsibility for something: 

    He disavowed his earlier confession to the police.
     

    Definition of disavow

    1to deny responsibility for repudiate 
    • disavowed the actions of his subordinates
    2to refuse to acknowledge or accept disclaim 
    • party leaders disavowed him

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

disavow

 
[dis-uh-vou]

verb (used with object)

  1. to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate: He disavowed the remark that had been attributed to him.

  2.  

    disavow
    US   
     

    to say that you know nothing about or have no responsibility for something: 

    He disavowed his earlier confession to the police.
     

    Definition of disavow

    1to deny responsibility for repudiate 
    • disavowed the actions of his subordinates
    2to refuse to acknowledge or accept disclaim 
    • party leaders disavowed him

     

You are doing a wonderful, really bang-up job of googling terms, but you're not answering my questions. Do you see, based on the terms you have googled, that disavowal does not mean proclaiming something to be false or wrong? That it is only a claim of no responsibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

disavow

 
[dis-uh-vou]

verb (used with object)

  1. to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate: He disavowed the remark that had been attributed to him.

  2.  

    disavow
    US   
     

    to say that you know nothing about or have no responsibility for something: 

    He disavowed his earlier confession to the police.
     

    Definition of disavow

    1to deny responsibility for repudiate 
    • disavowed the actions of his subordinates
    2to refuse to acknowledge or accept disclaim 
    • party leaders disavowed him

     

One can find quotations from various LDS writers that in the late 1800’s the Church disavowed the practice of plural marriage. But just because the Church disavowed it’s formerly fervently defended practice of polygamy doesn’t mean that the post-manifesto LDS Church ever declared the former practice to be a false doctrine that should have never been taught and implemented. The word disavow is one of fairly ambiguous meaning, and it’s likely for this very reason that the word was carefully selected and used in the essay on the priesthood ban. In his book, ‘The Viper on the Hearth,’ LDS scholar Terryl Givens states that the Church publicly disavowed its practice of plural marriage until the saints arrived in the safety of the Salt Lake Valley. So you can see the word’s meaning isn’t so cut and dried.

 

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a little disappointed in the tack this thread has taken.  Some seem so bent on being correct in their interpretation they’ll push a narrative that disparages church leaders to win an argument.   We absolutely shouldn’t forget the past, but neither should we live in it.  That’s why we have modern revelation. 

You all can point to academic essays and the writings of called men to support your bias, but to what end?   Great.  You’re correct.  Feel better?  Have you bolstered the faith of those who read your words?  Have you moved The Christ’s work forward?  Have you ministered to those around you?  

Ive said it before and I’ll say it again, I wish we had a “members only” group where you guys can bash each other over the head about whether or not so and so was a racist as a natural man.  I wonder what the agenda of some of you is, based on the comments and the discussions you’ve chosen to participate in.  

I’ll just step back and accept my “don’t stand in unrighteous judgment” comments, and acknowledge that they are deserved.   

Edited by Grunt
Public Education
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I think I am understanding JohnsonJones and BJ64’s position better now. I get the point. And, logically speaking, it’s a reasonable inference. It just would have been nice to know that it was an inference right from the start. Saying “the church says there was no doctrinal basis for the ban” is a pretty bold statement unless you temper it with “in my opinion” or “based on my understanding” or some such phrase to indicate that is how you are interpreting things. I see that point was eventually reached, even before I jumped onto the thread. But I’m grateful for the clarifications that helped me understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Connie said:

Okay. I think I am understanding JohnsonJones and BJ64’s position better now. I get the point. And, logically speaking, it’s a reasonable inference. It just would have been nice to know that it was an inference right from the start. Saying “the church says there was no doctrinal basis for the ban” is a pretty bold statement unless you temper it with “in my opinion” or “based on my understanding” or some such phrase to indicate that is how you are interpreting things. I see that point was eventually reached, even before I jumped onto the thread. But I’m grateful for the clarifications that helped me understand.

If they intended such disclaimers, that makes it more palatable.  But I'm still wondering how "none of these theories is accepted" somewhow translates into "there is no doctrinal basis."  Since they are unwilling/unable to explain this, perhaps you, with your level head and silver tongue, could shed some light on that translation.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The substance of thought is knowledge. “The human brain depends for its normal alertness, reliability and efficiency on a continuous flow of information about the world; . . . the brain craves for information as the body craves for food.”13 “What is true of individuals is also true of societies; they too can become insane without sufficient stimulus.”14 If the mind is denied functioning to capacity, it will take terrible revenge. The penalty we pay for starving our minds is a phenomenon that is only too conspicuous [on internet forums*]. Aristotle pointed out long ago that a shortage of knowledge is an intolerable state, and so the mind will do anything to escape it; in particular, it will invent knowledge if it has to. Experimenters have found that lack of information quickly breeds insecurity in a situation where any information is regarded as better than none.15 In that atmosphere, false information flourishes; and subjects in tests are “eager to listen to and believe any sort of preposterous nonsense.”16

Approaching Zion, chapter 3: Zeal Without Knowledge, Hugh Nibley

*Not remotely the location Nibley mentioned, and yet equally appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If they intended such disclaimers, that makes it more palatable.  But I'm still wondering how "none of these theories is accepted" somewhow translates into "there is no doctrinal basis."  Since they are unwilling/unable to explain this, perhaps you, with your level head and silver tongue, could shed some light on that translation.

This is what I’m understanding:

1.      The priesthood ban was put in place by Brigham Young who gave reasons for it in various places—political speeches and the like. There is no directly written revelation or any other historical records to indicate that there were other reasons than these.

2.      The theories that were later given for the ban were a direct result of those reasons that Brigham Young did give.

3.      So when the essay says that the theories are being disavowed, then the direct reasons for those theories would naturally be included. And it’s not unreasonable to conclude (via inference rather than from explicit statements) that “Brigham Young had no doctrinal basis for the priesthood ban.”

As Vort has pointed out, there may be some semantic issues with understanding the word “disavow.” But, from what I’m understanding, the main problem many of us have with the argument is that lack of evidence of other reasons doesn’t mean there weren’t other reasons, perhaps even doctrinal ones. We just don’t know. There’s not enough to go on. So while I can acknowledge that they have made a reasonable inference given what evidence there is, there is still, in my mind, the issue of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Make sense?

P.S. As an awkward introvert, I have never been called "silver tongued." Thank you. I am flattered. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Connie said:

This is what I’m understanding:

1.      The priesthood ban was put in place by Brigham Young who gave reasons for it in various places—political speeches and the like. There is no directly written revelation or any other historical records to indicate that there were other reasons than these.

2.      The theories that were later given for the ban were a direct result of those reasons that Brigham Young did give.

3.      So when the essay says that the theories are being disavowed, then the direct reasons for those theories would naturally be included. And it’s not unreasonable to conclude (via inference rather than from explicit statements) that “Brigham Young had no doctrinal basis for the priesthood ban.”

As Vort has pointed out, there may be some semantic issues with understanding the word “disavow.” But, from what I’m understanding, the main problem many of us have with the argument is that lack of evidence of other reasons doesn’t mean there weren’t other reasons, perhaps even doctrinal ones. We just don’t know. There’s not enough to go on. So while I can acknowledge that they have made a reasonable inference given what evidence there is, there is still, in my mind, the issue of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Make sense?

P.S. As an awkward introvert, I have never been called "silver tongued." Thank you. I am flattered. :D

Thank you.

I didn't actually have a problem with the word disavow.  But I simply thought it was quite a jump to say "no doctrinal basis."  But I suppose if one considers a doctrine as "an official teaching" rather than "Divine instruction" it would then follow that "We do not know" means there is no "doctrine".  But I do believe it was Divine instruction with no clear reason provided to mortal man.

And, although I recognize that you are not heavily involved in the forums, I've often felt quite enlightened when you do decide to participate.  I'd suggest changing your profile to read "Silver Tongued Bookworm".

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Connie said:

This is what I’m understanding:

1.      The priesthood ban was put in place by Brigham Young who gave reasons for it in various places—political speeches and the like. There is no directly written revelation or any other historical records to indicate that there were other reasons than these.

2.      The theories that were later given for the ban were a direct result of those reasons that Brigham Young did give.

3.      So when the essay says that the theories are being disavowed, then the direct reasons for those theories would naturally be included. And it’s not unreasonable to conclude (via inference rather than from explicit statements) that “Brigham Young had no doctrinal basis for the priesthood ban.”

As Vort has pointed out, there may be some semantic issues with understanding the word “disavow.” But, from what I’m understanding, the main problem many of us have with the argument is that lack of evidence of other reasons doesn’t mean there weren’t other reasons, perhaps even doctrinal ones. We just don’t know. There’s not enough to go on. So while I can acknowledge that they have made a reasonable inference given what evidence there is, there is still, in my mind, the issue of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Make sense?

P.S. As an awkward introvert, I have never been called "silver tongued." Thank you. I am flattered. :D

Consider for a moment if someone asked you about the Word of Wisdom.  One could easily point them to Section 89 which they can read what prompted the question and the Lords answer.

The same thing can happen with the 3 degrees of Glory, God having a Body, the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, Eternal Marriage, Polygamy,  the End of Polygamy, the End of the Priesthood Ban and so many others restored truths of the Gospel.  They all follow the same general pattern.  The prophet is prayerful pondering something.  The Lord answers.

With the Priesthood Ban we do not have that. (And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong by providing the documentation of Brigham Young's revelation).  Sure we have the scriptures found in Abraham about a restriction on priesthood based on linage, but those are scriptures that would be supportive of such a revelation being given, but they are of themselves not such a revelation and command to do so.

This is what is meant when the church says "We do not know."  This is a true statement but it is not a doctrinal one.  Tomorrow some historian might uncover some "lost" documentation that covers precisely this.  Or maybe God sees fit to reveal what happens.  Either way if this happens then the church's position would change.

Then the Ban was lifted/rescinded/appealed whatever and the church has Disavowed the reasons people have set forth for the Ban.  The Church has also lifted the practice of Polygamy and the Law of Moses.  All by God's command.  The difference is we have the Revelations that started those practices so we are not speculating on the Doctrinal bases for those.  And for all three the church will quickly move to correct anyone who tries to start up the practices again.

Our "lack of evidence" on the precise doctrinal basis for the ban... is not however "Evidence of Lack" on Brigham Young having one.  All Brigham Young needed was a simple "Do this" prompting from the spirit, and he is on solid ground.

Brigham Young was a human being with all the Human flaws that come with it.  He can and did make mistakes.  But he was also called of God to lead the Saints, and God was not afraid to correct him as needed.  Therefore the idea that the Ban was in place and remained it place for so long solely because Brigham was a flawed person (like we all are) is an attack on the idea of the church being lead by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this Church, we don't do major things (like give people the priesthood) without a revelation from God.  Revelation is generally instigated either by God, when moving forward His plan for His Kingdom, or by our or our leader's desires in seeking it.  If His chosen prophets were not seeking the revelation (even if somehow related to cultural norms), then God would only reveal it if it was needed at the time for His purposes.  Therefore, if we truly believe this Church is led by God, then either He has an intentional reason for what happened, or there simply was no reason for Him to intervene at the time.

Remember how Jesus Christ appeared to Saul?  Remember how the Angel abruptly intervened on the actions of Alma the Younger and the Son's of Mosiah?  Remember how there was a Great Apostasy where the true Church was missing for the earth for almost 2000 years, and then all of a sudden Joseph Smith started preaching the Restoration?  Obviously God has a plan, and He steps in when and where needed.  Christ thought it was okay for His Church to be missing for that long, and some members have a problem with the priesthood not being given to everyone for what, 150 years?

God doesn't frequently interfere to greatly influence our agency unless it is necessary.  How many children could be saved from a terrible life if God revealed to our prophet every instance of human trafficking?  Does anyone think a priesthood ban is anywhere near as bad as that?  Do you want to then claim God and Jesus don't love little children?  Or better yet, that the prophet is anti-child because he possibly is not pleading with God every day for a revelation about it?

The only point in even discussing the priesthood ban as an issue of concern is in asking whether or not it is evidence that the Church is not true.  It is not evidence of that.  Remember how initially only the Levites were given the priesthood?  That's 1/12 of the population of God's chosen people.  Remember how God struck Uzzah dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant?  Or how God prohibited Moses from entering the promised land because he abused his authority and God's power?  How many prophets are going to risk something like that by doing something for which they a) have no knowledge and b) have no temptation of perceived advantage?  If Brigham Young and other prophets didn't know the answer to that question, and didn't have revelation to do anything about it, then why would they do something about it?  I contend that they wouldn't, and that they didn't, and it was all completely valid, especially because of the fact that we have no idea why it happened.

The Church is true, and what that knowledge entails is enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Therefore the idea that the Ban was in place and remained it place for so long solely because Brigham was a flawed person (like we all are) is an attack on the idea of the church being lead by God.

I think that's a fair point. I imagine JohnsonJones and BJ64 would vehemently reject that conclusion of their idea and would love to hear their response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Connie said:

I think that's a fair point. I imagine JohnsonJones and BJ64 would vehemently reject that conclusion of their idea and would love to hear their response.

You are right. I believe Brigham Young was/is a prophet called and directed by God. I also believe he understood the reason for the ban. 

On the topic of revelation it would be good to know what qualifies as a revelation to the prophet for the church. Is it a vision or hearing the voice of The Lord or is it a spiritual prompting or merely feeling good about something? 

In the days of Joseph Smith when he had a question he would ask then receive a revelation which would then be recorded to become the Doctrine and Covenants. However not all of his revelations were published, such as those dealing with plural marriage, and I suspect not all of his questions were answered by revelation. 

I feel that The Lord does not micro manage His Church. I feel He calls wise men whom He allows to direct His church, giving direction and guidance through spiritual promptings or whatever when necessary.

Joseph Smith once said that he taught the members correct principles and then let them govern themselves. I suspect The Lord acts in a similar manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Who in this thread said that whatever a prophet says is doctrinal? It appears you are having comprehension issues Vort has been expressing. I have never heard/read anyone, in this thread, say all that a prophet says is doctrinal -- here comes the caveat which is always been stated -- unless he is acting as the prophet and not stating a personal theory or opinion.

They have picked a side, which you are clearly misrepresenting. Be more honest guys, or have better reading comprehension.

Also, they never said "don't question anything" they said don't speculate, how did you misunderstand that. ??????????????????????????????????? (hopefully that was enough questions marks)

No one in this thread has said it but it has been said in other threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 5/3/2018 at 6:47 PM, person0 said:

For what it's worth, Church materials do teach that the flood was literal, and that it immersed the entire earth.  It is currently a part of our doctrine:

I'm certain I could find other resources as well, but it is apparent to me that LDS doctrine is that the flood was literal and covered the entire earth.  Although I can't explain all the details, I believe it to be true.  I can't fully explain or understand how the atonement of Jesus Christ actually works to pay the price for sin either, but I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it does.

Here's what LDS Apostle, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles John A. Widtsoe had to say on the matter:

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further.  We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Scott said:

Some Apostles have disagreed.

For example, here's what LDS Apostle, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles John A. Widtsoe had to say on the matter:

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further.  We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

John A Widtsoe's quote doesn't disagree with what Person0 shared that the Church currently teaches within teaching materials. In that though, the most important teachings are the current teachings and here are some current teachings:

1) During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing

2) After the waters had receded, the land of America became a choice land, Ether 13:2

The Book of Mormon gives evidence to the flood extending to what we now call America, "the land of America," after the flood receded even here became a choice land. John A Widtsoe's quote provide important aspects:

1) The exact nature of the flood is not known

2) Inspired writers can either relate their experience, relate the experience as told to them, or have the past opened by revelation

3) In "other localities" the water may or may not have been as deep as in Noah's area, or it may have been -- these natures are unknown.

Nothing he said disagrees with what is shared, that is solely an inference you are providing not what he actually said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Scott said:

Some Apostles have disagreed.

For example, here's what LDS Apostle, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles John A. Widtsoe

:nownow:  The quote does not say that there was anywhere on earth that was not covered by water.  The quote says that some places on earth would have had more water than others.  This is obvious, the highest mountain might have only been covered 2 inches, while the lowest valley covered much much more.  When Elder Widtsoe gave this quote, the reason he was making that statement was because he was trying to explain that the 15 cubits / 26 feet deep number was clearly not sufficient to cover the tallest mountain.  He was giving an apologetic explanation that the biblical record is incomplete, but that a global flood was still real.

Quote

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism includes a quote from John A. Widtsoe regarding the reported depth of the flood. It should be noted, however, the Widtsoe himself actually believed in a global flood.
. . .
Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains.
(FairMormon)

Additionally, people may not realize what the Bible actually teaches about the flood.  Noah had to live on the ark for an entire year!  The 40 days was just the length of time the rain poured.

Quote

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month . . . he selfsame day entered Noah . . . into the ark.

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

That is like 320 days.  And it was even longer before Noah was able to actually leave the Ark (378 days total).   For it to take almost an entire year for the flood to dry, it had to be a massive flood.  To me it is clear and reasonable from the available records that the flood would have been global.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, person0 said:

He was giving an apologetic explanation that the biblical record is incomplete, but that a global flood was still real.

The book of Genesis does not talk about a "global" flood. The global nature of our planet was probably unknown to the author of Genesis, and almost certainly unknown to its audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

The global nature of our planet was probably unknown to the author of Genesis, and almost certainly unknown to its audience.

Isn't Moses the author of Genesis?

Quote

Moses 1:7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee.

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

...

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

So you think Moses saw all this and didn't see that the earth was spherical?

(I see no point in debating the flood, but the books of Moses and Abraham make it hard for me to believe that Moses and Abraham didn't understand that the earth was spherical.  I suppose one can assume their visions didn't include sufficient for that, or that they simply didn't understand, but that doesn't seem consistent with how Joseph Smith described having the heavens opened...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share