Noah's Flood

[Lost Boy]

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay I will say it another way-

I've had dreams or visions about being resurrected. And, occasionally I have been wrong with dreams and visions. There isn't proof of resurrection. So do you believe in the resurrection?

I do believe in the resurrection. I believe because of the spirit telling me that it is true. I have zero proof beyond that. And I would hardly say the spirit whispering to me is proof either. Believing requires faith. 

I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later. 

I personally don't "know" the church is true. My experiences and feelings tell me that it is, but can I say with 100% conviction that it is? No, I can not. 

I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says. 

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says. 

 

I don't think they are lying.  I think saying you know the church is true is cultural.  Like you said, people say it because everyone else says it.  It's like folding your arms to pray.  Someone starts doing it then it catches on.

[Lost Boy]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't think they are lying.  I think saying you know the church is true is cultural.  Like you said, people say it because everyone else says it.  It's like folding your arms to pray.  Someone starts doing it then it catches on.

I think you are right in that it is cultural, but I still think it is dishonest at the same time.  I believe a few have that true knowledge, but I think most are like me, still on the path working our way to salvation building on our testimony little by little.

I would much rather hear an honest testimony.  "I experienced this.... " , "I felt that...."  It makes it much more real and powerful in my opinion.

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I do believe in the resurrection. I believe because of the spirit telling me that it is true. I have zero proof beyond that. And I would hardly say the spirit whispering to me is proof either. Believing requires faith. 

I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later. 

I personally don't "know" the church is true. My experiences and feelings tell me that it is, but can I say with 100% conviction that it is? No, I can not. 

I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says. 

Testimonies are interesting. I believe we can have a witness of truth but if we are not careful we can lose sight of it. Testimony and knowledge go hand in hand. We believe in the resurrection because in a sense we want to believe it on the one hand and so we are more willing to allow our minds the faith and on the other we have so many testimonies that it is true. But I believe it's no different with the flood except for the fact that you actually do have evidence for a flood right before our eyes. So, in that sense it requires less faith. But, because our salvation and eternal life doesn't depend on it we are more prone to lend ear to secularism and disbelieve it.

[Traveler]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 10:00 AM, Rob Osborn said:

The scriptures actually state that no life was physically placed on the earth to live until the seventh day. Up through the 6 previous day's of creation God was creating and preparing for life to be placed upon the earth. It wasn't until the seventh day that God sanctified the earth and then actually caused it to rain and life to spring forth. These accounts are in both Genesis ch. 2 and Moses ch. 3.

I think you are on to something but I am concerned that there is more to what is going on than you what you seem to imply.  So I will add another question - Where were the living things created on days 3, 4 and 6?   Was there 2 creations - one during the seven days and another one after?

 

The Traveler

[Lost Boy]

44 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Testimonies are interesting. I believe we can have a witness of truth but if we are not careful we can lose sight of it. Testimony and knowledge go hand in hand. We believe in the resurrection because in a sense we want to believe it on the one hand and so we are more willing to allow our minds the faith and on the other we have so many testimonies that it is true. But I believe it's no different with the flood except for the fact that you actually do have evidence for a flood right before our eyes. So, in that sense it requires less faith. But, because our salvation and eternal life doesn't depend on it we are more prone to lend ear to secularism and disbelieve it.

You keep saying there is evidence of the flood.  Where?  What is your evidence?

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

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Are you familiar with the word "Ethos"?  I used it before.  Did you understand my meaning of the word as well as the accompanying sentence?

 

Thanks for the word ethos. 

As a note - I would rather see the raw data rather than review conclusions by experts.  For example - rather than any source that claims 80% of scientist agree that there is global warming - I would rather see the data that tracks the %'s in our atnosphere of all green house gases over the last 20,000 years - overlaid against solar cycles (climat change in the sun) and geothermal activity during the same periods.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As a note - I would rather see the raw data rather than review conclusions by experts.

All of us would.  But what raw data is there from 2500 years ago?  All we have is information from other "experts".

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I don't think they are lying.  I think saying you know the church is true is cultural.  Like you said, people say it because everyone else says it.  It's like folding your arms to pray.  Someone starts doing it then it catches on.

Some people might do it because others do.  Other do it because their spiritual witness and confirmation is so strong as to make "Know" the proper word.  After all you can know something and still lack the means to prove it to someone else.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later.

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Testimonies are interesting. I believe we can have a witness of truth but if we are not careful we can lose sight of it. Testimony and knowledge go hand in hand.

I have seen this first hand - an inactive couple had lost much knowledge of the gospel and the Church, simple factual things about what the Church teaches that they could no longer remember.  They returned to activity a year or so after we met and their knowledge quickly returned.

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says.

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I don't think they are lying.  I think saying you know the church is true is cultural.  Like you said, people say it because everyone else says it.  It's like folding your arms to pray.  Someone starts doing it then it catches on.

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I think you are right in that it is cultural, but I still think it is dishonest at the same time.  I believe a few have that true knowledge, but I think most are like me, still on the path working our way to salvation building on our testimony little by little.

I would much rather hear an honest testimony.  "I experienced this.... " , "I felt that...."  It makes it much more real and powerful in my opinion.

Just because you don't feel you can accurately use the word "know" does not mean others in the ward you are attending cannot.  You are being uncharitable if you assume their use of the word is inaccurate - or worse, falsely (perhaps) or ignorantly (for certain) accuse them of lying.

Further, I can tell you from personal experience that to know the truth is useless compared to believing it, or better yet having faith in it, or a testimony of it, and all those pale in comparison to being converted to it.  Of them, knowledge, while being solid and sure, is weak sauce and conversion is power beyond imagining (if maintained).

The New Testament apostles walked with the Son of God and witnessed miracles most of us can only dream of.  Peter walked on water, and yet the Savior still said to him, "when thou art converted...".

Yes, some people say "know" in imitation [likely several times removed] of apostles who accurately said they know, but you can't know whether they're imitating or whether they know.

Finally, there's more than one way to "know".  A personal visit to heaven, or a person visit from heaven is not required.  So don't assume that what you mean when you say "know" is the only accurate way for another to use the word "know".  There are things I know, but when I've shared that here in the past, others have mocked, telling me I can't really know, so I decline to repeat it or explain again beyond saying that "know" is the right word for me to use.

[Jersey Boy]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I do believe in the resurrection. I believe because of the spirit telling me that it is true. I have zero proof beyond that. And I would hardly say the spirit whispering to me is proof either. Believing requires faith. 

I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later. 

I personally don't "know" the church is true. My experiences and feelings tell me that it is, but can I say with 100% conviction that it is? No, I can not. 

I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says. 

The reason why you perceive that those who have obtained genuine spiritual witnesses that the Church is true are being dishonest when they testify that they do know is because you have not received the same spiritual witness they have, and one cannot be expected to understand, appreciate and acknowledge that which he himself has not also personally experienced. Until you have received your own witness from the Holy Ghost that the restored Church is true, it’s only to be expected that you will continue to think that those who have genuine testimonies of the restored gospel are being dishonest when they testify that they know, and the reason for this is that the natural man naturally thinks that the concept of revelation of truth from God to man is nothing more than foolish hogwash and wishful thinking.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

Edited May 13, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later. 

This is no different than many scientific truths we've come across.  We "KNEW" light behaved like any other wave. Until it didn't.  We "KNEW" the earth was flat.  Until we didn't.  We "KNEW" that the sound barrier could not be broken.  Until we did.  We "KNEW" the brontosaurus was the largest dinosaur ever to have lived. Until we found the brontosaurus never existed after all.  So, then we "KNEW" they never existed.  Until we decided that it actually did, but it was just different.

Yet, we consider these scientific truths to be things we "know".  Are all scientists also liars?  You said that you "know" several things about science that make you disbelieve the story of Noah.  Do you really?  Or do you trust the words of others?  Have you ever looked at raw data?  Have you ever seen any photographs of earth core samples?  Have you preformed a variety of testing to verify the dating on such samples?  Have you done so at locations all around the globe?  Have you performed radioactive testing by placing radium near a canvas with lamp oil to determine that radioactivity actually works?  Have you flown around the globe?  I could go on...

You know that a great portion of the "knowledge" you have is not really base, visceral, knowledge.  You "know" because you trust the words of others.  It is impossible for any man to know virtually anything significant beyond his own experience without trusting someone else.

So, what is wrong with trusting the Spirit over trusting a textbook?  Nothing.  What is different?  You put faith in a textbook.  You don't put quite as much faith in the Spirit.  Why?

For some, it is because they don't have enough experience with Spiritual communication to understand it or have certainty when they hear/feel it. We have more experience with reading books.  We have experience with the societal order we've created with experts and people who specialize in different fields who are "hopefully" honest about their work.  And we trust them.

The weakness here is not the person who says they "know" when they really just "have a testimony".  The weakness is that you are lacking in experience with the Holy Ghost sufficiently to trust that feeling.  And in early stages, that would probably be wise.  But don't discount the testimony of others with more experience receiving promptings and confirmations from the Holy Ghost.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Guest

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

The reason why you perceive that those who have obtained genuine spiritual witnesses that the Church is true are being dishonest when they testify that they do know is because you have not received the same spiritual witness they have, and one cannot be expected to understand, appreciate and acknowledge that which he himself has not also personally experienced. Until you have received your own witness from the Holy Ghost that the restored Church is true, it’s only to be expected that you will continue to think that those who have genuine testimonies of the restored gospel are being dishonest when they testify that they know, and the reason for this is that the natural man naturally thinks that the concept of revelation of truth from God to man is nothing more than foolish hogwash and wishful thinking.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

You have gone and put words in my mouth.  That is being dishonest.  Never did I say that those who have had a genuine witness are being dishonest when they say they "know"

And then you imply that I am a natural man that does not receive the things of the Spirit of God...   Interesting.  Way to try a prop a guy up.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is no different than many scientific truths we've come across.  We "KNEW" light behaved like any other wave. Until it didn't.  We "KNEW" the earth was flat.  Until we didn't.  We "KNEW" that the sound barrier could not be broken.  Until we did.  We "KNEW" the brontosaurus was the largest dinosaur ever to have lived. Until we found the brontosaurus never existed after all.  So, then we "KNEW" they never existed.  Until we decided that it actually did, but it was just different.

Yet, we consider these scientific truths to be things we "know".  Are all scientists also liars?  You said that you "know" several things about science that make you disbelieve the story of Noah.  Do you really?  Or do you trust the words of others?  Have you ever looked at raw data?  Have you ever seen any photographs of earth core samples?  Have you preformed a variety of testing to verify the dating on such samples?  Have you done so at locations all around the globe?  Have you performed radioactive testing by placing radium near a canvas with lamp oil to determine that radioactivity actually works?  Have you flown around the globe?  I could go on...

You know that a great portion of the "knowledge" you have is not really base, visceral, knowledge.  You "know" because you trust the words of others.  It is impossible for any man to know virtually anything significant beyond his own experience without trusting someone else.

So, what is wrong with trusting the Spirit over trusting a textbook?  Nothing.  What is different?  You put faith in a textbook.  You don't put quite as much faith in the Spirit.  Why?

For some, it is because they don't have enough experience with Spiritual communication to understand it or have certainty when they hear/feel it. We have more experience with reading books.  We have experience with the societal order we've created with experts and people who specialize in different fields who are "hopefully" honest about their work.  And we trust them.

The weakness here is not the person who says they "know" when they really just "have a testimony".  The weakness is that you are lacking in experience with the Holy Ghost sufficiently to trust that feeling.  And in early stages, that would probably be wise.  But don't discount the testimony of others with more experience receiving promptings and confirmations from the Holy Ghost.

Actually it is significantly different.  Truth is eternal and never changing.   As such I don't recall ever using the term "Scientific truth."  Methinks someone is trying to put words in my mouth.  You can put a medium rare NY strip in my mouth, but don't appreciate have words shoved in there.  Any real scientist will profess that they seek truth, but their knowledge is still limited.  Generally they work on theories and such and don't claim truth.   I would never claim geology to be a truth.  That can only be speculated.   As for looking at raw data, yes I have.  I have taken core samples and looked at them.  Have I gone around the world looking?  No, I am not a geologist.  I have flown around the globe, been to around 40 countries.

I don't put faith into text books.  I read them and try to understand them.  But entirely concede that there are things that are incorrect in text books.  As for trusting the text book over the spirit?  No, I don't trust text books over the spirit.  But the spirit has never testified to me that the flood happened the way the bible says it did.  So what am I to do?

I do appreciate how you know what I am lacking.  You are very helpful...  I mean condescending.  You don't know me.  nor what I know.

[Jersey Boy]

 

54 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

You have gone and put words in my mouth.  That is being dishonest.  Never did I say that those who have had a genuine witness are being dishonest when they say they "know"

And then you imply that I am a natural man that does not receive the things of the Spirit of God...   Interesting.  Way to try a prop a guy up.

If you do not know, then you have something that’s less than the divine revelatory knowledge of the truth so often testified of in the scriptures. The Holy Ghost does not testify of things the things of God as things that may be or could be true; rather, he testifies of things that are true so that we might know what is true. If you are now at the point in your spiritually journey where you are able only to hope that the Church and gospel are true, that’s a good thing. We all have to start somewhere and an attitude of wanting to believe is a lot better than not wanting to believe or indifference.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I do believe in the resurrection. I believe because of the spirit telling me that it is true. I have zero proof beyond that. And I would hardly say the spirit whispering to me is proof either. Believing requires faith. 

I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later. 

I personally don't "know" the church is true. My experiences and feelings tell me that it is, but can I say with 100% conviction that it is? No, I can not. 

I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says. 

I know the gospel is true and I think there are various ways to KNOW.  The first may not be an actual pure knowledge, but it is faith that is built upon real evidence.  This is from when the spirit talks to you and testifies of truth.  Once you can identify the spirit and recognize that it is a different feeling, you can see when it is testifying of truth and when it is or is not more powerfully with you and witnessing to you. 

We had a discussion today in Priesthood regarding how one can tell the difference between their own inner feelings and that of the Holy Ghost.  I fear that this is a conundrum that some experience and so are unsure of their faith at times.  There is a distinct difference though and when one knows and can feel the difference this can help them to "know" the truth, or in other words, have the Holy Ghost witness to them and tell them when something is true.   This does not always happen for we do not need to know all things yet, but when we read the Book of Mormon it is normally a surefire way to bring the spirit into our lives.  Using the Book of Mormon to identify hat may be there beyond our normal instincts is an excellent way to start learning what the spirit feels like.  Even then, that does not seem to work with everyone. 

It seems that you have experienced this feeling already, as per your statement above where you believe because of the spirit telling you that the resurrection is true. 

I would agree that this is PERSONAL evidence though, and no scientist will accept it due to your personal evidence that they cannot see, hear, feel, taste, touch, or test.

A Second way some may know that the gospel is true is through personal experiences.  Some years ago I had an experience that still rocks me to the core when I think about it.  A young man had gotten a stick caught in his eye.  It seemed bad.  I gave him a priesthood blessing and in it I felt the need to tell him not only that he would be healed, but that he would regain his sight.  I felt that I needed to explicitly tell him to regain his sight so that the power of the Lord would heal him to that point.  I was nervous.  My personal fears wanted me to avoid saying such a bold statement and simply say what many priesthood holders say at times like these where medically it appears what  you are prompted to say is impossible.  I have to admit that at times my personal fears have taken over what I should say instead and I say something lesser such as the Lord will bless you with healing or the ability to endure.  That time I DID follow the promptings in this blessing and it made me nervous, but I had faith and hoped.  Nothing wracks the nerves like blessing someone with what seems to be an impossible blessing.

That man, despite being blinded at the time can see today out of that eye.  That is a modern day miracle that I personally was a part of and am convinced that the Man was healed by the power of the Lord.  I had nothing to do with it but be the servant to deliver the prayer and be brave enough to announce it.  It was completely the Lord reliant upon faith.   They say that Miracles help believers to increase in faith, while those that do not believe may quickly forget and it fails to convince.  Seeing modern day miracles is another way that someone who has already had a testimony from the Spirit can quickly go from simply Faith to absolute knowledge.  When you see something which simply does not seem to be able to be explained by science or medicine and see it occur in front of you, then you KNOW that something beyond your own knowledge and ability has had to have a hand in it.  Hence, I think those who experience this type of miracle CAN KNOW in reality that the Priesthood IS the power of the Lord and that this power is REAL.

Finally, one can know that the Lord lives by actually seeing him and having him teach them.  Elder Haight when he was alive had a special vision he related.  He was blessed to see the Savior.  I do not think this is something he typically shared with the public as it was a thing sacred to him.  However, after the vision I believe he would say he KNEW that the Lord was the Son of God and the Savior of the World.  That the Gospel was true and that he KNEW that the principles and ordinances were given to us from Heaven.

There may be some that simply say they know something due to peer pressure, but I also think that many who say they KNOW in church actually have gotten this knowledge in some manner.  It many not be one of those I list above, but I think many have gained this knowledge in one or all of the ways above. 

I know the gospel is true and I know that the Savior lives, protects us and that his atonement is real.  It is my testimony and it is something that I cannot just say I believe.  At this point I KNOW that the Savior lives and I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet.  Because of this I also know that the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated is true and that the gospel is true.  I admit the only witness I have of the Book of Mormon being true is from the Spirit, but because I know Joseph Smith was a prophet I can know that the work he did as a prophet is also true. 

I would hope that others can gain such a testimony in this life, but as with all things, it is the Lord wills it and as how things have been planned and executed in this life according to that great plan of salvation from above.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually it is significantly different.  Truth is eternal and never changing.   As such I don't recall ever using the term "Scientific truth."  Methinks someone is trying to put words in my mouth.  You can put a medium rare NY strip in my mouth, but don't appreciate have words shoved in there.  Any real scientist will profess that they seek truth, but their knowledge is still limited.  Generally they work on theories and such and don't claim truth.   I would never claim geology to be a truth.  That can only be speculated.   As for looking at raw data, yes I have.  I have taken core samples and looked at them.  Have I gone around the world looking?  No, I am not a geologist.  I have flown around the globe, been to around 40 countries.

I don't put faith into text books.  I read them and try to understand them.  But entirely concede that there are things that are incorrect in text books.  As for trusting the text book over the spirit?  No, I don't trust text books over the spirit.  But the spirit has never testified to me that the flood happened the way the bible says it did.  So what am I to do?

I think I can understand your viewpoint and I think it applies to a great many people.  I also think that you have a testimony from what you've expressed, but I also understand the hesitation one may have in declaring whether they know, or that they have faith, or that they believe.  At times, from what I've seen, the more powerful someone is in declaring what they feel or know the more powerful the adversary attacks them and that testimony.  If one does not have the testimony that they declare they have, they might quickly fall to the tempter's snares.  It is a scary proposition and we all have different levels of faith and knowledge as well as different levels of what we are willing to say or not to say.

In addition, most of our witness of the Lord and the gospel is a personal witness.  Excepting for miracles which normally only help the believer build their faith and knowledge but the unbeliever tosses away and may try to explain via other means, the other items (the Spirit testifying, visions, etc) are highly personal things and are not acceptable to science currently.  Thus, this leaves the world with a distinct lack of scientific evidence. 

As a Historian I can definitely see the evidence against the Bible actually being true or having happened.  Even the New Testament has VERY LITTLE evidence to support that the Lord even lived.  As for the world goes, I agree, there is no evidence that the world accepts in general about the Lord or his gospel as being anything buy myths and fables. 

The irony of course is that I believe in a literal Bible.  I believe it literally tells us what happened in addition to telling us about the truth.  Thus I believe in a literal flood over all the world, even if the worldly evidence I see seems to indicate that this never happened.  I don't know how this happened.

I did hear something, I think over the radio or maybe I read it here or someplace about Joshua (maybe it was from you even).  There is a story where the sun stood still

Quote

Joshua 10:13 King James Version (KJV)

¹³ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

We know today that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so why didn't the scriptures say that the Earth stood still instead of the Sun and the Moon?  The hypothesis is that in many ways the scriptures are written in the understanding of the time they are written.  I have been thinking about this today, and perhaps this is also relavant to the flood.  I still believe in a literal global flood, but perhaps some of the way it was written was expressed in terms from an earlier era and thus it is described in the same way that other stories of the time were related.  Perhaps my ideas of a global flood are greatly inflated of what happened, and in reality, even if water covered the whole earth, the high flood waters were more of a local phenomenon.  I do not know.

I think we can pray and know that the Story of the Flood is TRUE though (and there is a difference between truth and facts, but I think from your posts that this may be what you are getting at).

From what you've written I think you have a testimony, and it may even be stronger than mine or others.  I also understand why you would not say something you have in faith rather than a pure knowledge of sight and touch and hearing is something you believe rather than know.  I may be mistaken, but I think the misunderstandings being discussed is not a matter of testimony that we have received from the spirit, as I feel you have received and have a testimony (and I think you have stated as much), but rather a matter of how much evidence can actually be used to prove something happened, vs. our personal experiences which cannot be categorized as proof or evidence in a physical way such as science might use.

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Jersey Boy said:

 

If you do not know, then you have something that’s less than the divine revelatory knowledge of the truth so often testified of in the scriptures. The Holy Ghost does not testify of things the things of God as things that may be or could be true; rather, he testifies of things that are true so that we might know what is true. If you are now at the point in your spiritually journey where you are able only to hope that the Church and gospel are true, that’s a good thing. We all have to start somewhere and an attitude of wanting to believe is a lot better than not wanting to believe or indifference.

Yeah, I am not a fan of dishonest people.

[Guest MormonGator]

40 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yeah, I am not a fan of dishonest people.

Who is? 

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think I can understand your viewpoint and I think it applies to a great many people.  I also think that you have a testimony from what you've expressed, but I also understand the hesitation one may have in declaring whether they know, or that they have faith, or that they believe.  At times, from what I've seen, the more powerful someone is in declaring what they feel or know the more powerful the adversary attacks them and that testimony.  If one does not have the testimony that they declare they have, they might quickly fall to the tempter's snares.  It is a scary proposition and we all have different levels of faith and knowledge as well as different levels of what we are willing to say or not to say.

In addition, most of our witness of the Lord and the gospel is a personal witness.  Excepting for miracles which normally only help the believer build their faith and knowledge but the unbeliever tosses away and may try to explain via other means, the other items (the Spirit testifying, visions, etc) are highly personal things and are not acceptable to science currently.  Thus, this leaves the world with a distinct lack of scientific evidence. 

As a Historian I can definitely see the evidence against the Bible actually being true or having happened.  Even the New Testament has VERY LITTLE evidence to support that the Lord even lived.  As for the world goes, I agree, there is no evidence that the world accepts in general about the Lord or his gospel as being anything buy myths and fables. 

The irony of course is that I believe in a literal Bible.  I believe it literally tells us what happened in addition to telling us about the truth.  Thus I believe in a literal flood over all the world, even if the worldly evidence I see seems to indicate that this never happened.  I don't know how this happened.

I did hear something, I think over the radio or maybe I read it here or someplace about Joshua (maybe it was from you even).  There is a story where the sun stood still

We know today that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so why didn't the scriptures say that the Earth stood still instead of the Sun and the Moon?  The hypothesis is that in many ways the scriptures are written in the understanding of the time they are written.  I have been thinking about this today, and perhaps this is also relavant to the flood.  I still believe in a literal global flood, but perhaps some of the way it was written was expressed in terms from an earlier era and thus it is described in the same way that other stories of the time were related.  Perhaps my ideas of a global flood are greatly inflated of what happened, and in reality, even if water covered the whole earth, the high flood waters were more of a local phenomenon.  I do not know.

I think we can pray and know that the Story of the Flood is TRUE though (and there is a difference between truth and facts, but I think from your posts that this may be what you are getting at).

From what you've written I think you have a testimony, and it may even be stronger than mine or others.  I also understand why you would not say something you have in faith rather than a pure knowledge of sight and touch and hearing is something you believe rather than know.  I may be mistaken, but I think the misunderstandings being discussed is not a matter of testimony that we have received from the spirit, as I feel you have received and have a testimony (and I think you have stated as much), but rather a matter of how much evidence can actually be used to prove something happened, vs. our personal experiences which cannot be categorized as proof or evidence in a physical way such as science might use.

I think you have a pretty good handle on my view.  I am not one to willy nilly just say I know something.  Unless I know something to the nth degree, I typically won't say I know something.

I believe I have a strong testimony of the gospel.  But to me that does not equate to pure knowledge.   Take for instance a man that went blind, received a priesthood blessing and then eventually saw again.  I would probably see that as a miracle, but at the same time it is of a nature that you could explain away with science.  Now I have never heard of a severed head being restored or a severed leg....  Something like that would be near impossible to explain away...  As such would in my opinion not by faith promoting, but more of a parlor trick.  It would be more akin to the feeding the masses who came back again more for the physical food, than the spiritual food.  With restoring eyesight one cannot be 100% sure that it was through the power of God...  Thus you need faith to believe it.  Restoring a severed head on the other hand...  Now that would be something.

BTW, have you ever heard of someone receiving a priesthood blessing to regrow a severed hand?  Did it work?  Why not?  (I am assuming it hasn't happened).

As for the flood...  I've taught Sunday school many years and when it comes to the flood discussion, I have prayed about it many times.  Nothing.  I believe Noah to be real and have had a witness of that, but not of the flood.  It has been interesting reading comments here regarding it.  I can't say for sure it didn't happen just like the bible said, so I am not going to put anyone down for believing it did.  What I really didn't expect was the condescending attitude from some here towards my lack of a testimony of it.  I would hope attitudes like that don't come out in the local wards.  And just to be straight, when teaching Sunday School, I don't focus on the flood.  If someone asks my opinion about it, I give them my honest opinion that I don't think it happened the way the bible describes, but I wasn't there and don't know.  But I have only been asked that once.  And I wasn't excommunicated for my answer.

And to be very clear, I do believe in miracles.  I have been witness to some pretty cool stuff.  But at the same time, I believe God works mostly through natural means to achieve the miracle.  For instance, my parents were planning on going on a mission, but needed to sell their business.  They had tried in the past and had failed, and the deadline to get it sold was fast approaching.  Then one day out of the blue someone stops in saying that God told them to buy the place.  The person didn't even know it was for sale...  Pretty cool miracle.  Could it be written off as something else? Absolutely.  But I don't believe in chance.  I truly believe God knows the end from the beginning and things follow his plan.  And that is the biggest miracle of all...   His plan.

Throughout this discussion I have felt peer pressure to accept the flood.  I don't cave to things of that nature.  If the flood happened the way the bible says, then I am sure the spirit will eventually let me know. 

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

You keep saying there is evidence of the flood.  Where?  What is your evidence?

https://goo.gl/images/eKjV9T

 

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I think you are on to something but I am concerned that there is more to what is going on than you what you seem to imply.  So I will add another question - Where were the living things created on days 3, 4 and 6?   Was there 2 creations - one during the seven days and another one after?

 

The Traveler

There was one single period where the actual physical life forms were placed or formed on the earth and that was the seventh day. The previous day's were days of creation of the earth and stars and chemical processes and preparing the earth to support life. Until the earth was sanctified (set apart for holy use) it was not inhabited by physical life forms. The setting apart of the earth by the Gods on the beginning of the seventh day was for the purpose of the placing of holiness on to the earth. That holiness is life. It is thus why it isexplained that up until this point no actual physical life is found on the earth, God had not even caused it to rain yet.

[Anddenex]

12 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually, none of those are proof. Only evidence. And weak evidence at that. 

My wife had a vision that she has a twin flame.  Does that prove that she has one? 

I know of many Priesthood blessings that didn't save a life.  So how do you prove one did when others haven't.  And why have others come back to life when not receiving said blessing? 

I am sorry, but none of these are proof. Evidence, but not proof. 

In our life there are two opposing natures, and we are embracing in our every day thoughts, words, and deeds one or the other. These two natures are know by:

1) Spirit, Spiritual minded, the armor of God

2) The Natural man, Carnally minded, and the arm of flesh

The Spirit, spiritually minded, have this to say to us, "Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

The spiritually minded recognize testimony, scriptures, earth and its creation and motion, planets and their creation and motion, all denote (give evidence and proof) to a Supreme Creator (God).

The natural man, the arm of flesh, would like us to disbelieve -- to create doubt -- that these things do not denote and are not evidence or proof that God "really exists."

I am not sure the need to split hairs between "evidence" and "proof" as they are the same in practice. Proof is in the evidence. The spectrum of weak to strong is irrelevant as evidence is evidence. When an Atheist stands before God no amount of argument for "weak evidence" is going to change that this "weak evidence" (at least in their simple minds) was still proof (evidence) that denoted there was/is a God.

Twin flame is similar to the false theory of soul mates. If we have dreams of things already known as "false", well, if you have a dream and believe it to be true -- when we know it is false -- that is personal choice. If I have a dream I am a big fluffy elephant that can fly, am I a big fluffy elephant?

I had a dream that my mother-in-law was a snake, does this prove my mother-in-law was a snake? Creating a scenario that we know isn't true, doesn't negate dreams that are true and that indeed do come to pass and that denote, give evidence and proof, that there is a God. If people want to explain away truth, it is to their detriment.

The fact that a blessing doesn't always heal doesn't negate that a blessing healed. The lack of knowledge of why something does not occur every time, does not deny or negate that it has and does occur and give evidence and proof to God's existence. Because we can not explain why God chooses to move mountains for the Brother of Jared, and not move mountains for the pioneers does not negate or weaken what happened with the Brother of Jared and its evidence of God's existence.

I am sorry, but the arm of flesh is the only nature that would deny these miracles as evidence/proof for God's existence.  All these miracles and every miracle performed by the priesthood are evidence and proof of God's existence.

[BJ64]

Since the flood topic has turned to creation I’d like to know how those who consider the creation account to be precisely as written, how do you account for the physical evidence of such things as dinosaurs and pre humans such as Neanderthals, fossils of all types and petrified forests which would all predate the timeline af the creation of Adam and Eve?

From Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

If taken literally it would seem that after the earth’s land mass was created then the sun and all the stars were created. I think it would be hard to deny that the billions of stars that we see predate the earth by a long time.  

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

There was one single period where the actual physical life forms were placed or formed on the earth and that was the seventh day. The previous day's were days of creation of the earth and stars and chemical processes and preparing the earth to support life. Until the earth was sanctified (set apart for holy use) it was not inhabited by physical life forms. The setting apart of the earth by the Gods on the beginning of the seventh day was for the purpose of the placing of holiness on to the earth. That holiness is life. It is thus why it isexplained that up until this point no actual physical life is found on the earth, God had not even caused it to rain yet.

Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.