Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Honestly, I don't believe that they lived that long back then. 

But the fact remains that the ark was not nearly big enough to house 2+from every species, nor was the crew size adequate to care for that number of people, nor would there have been room for enough food and water.. 

So why build a boat that wasn't sufficient in size and not have enough people to man it? 

So, on the one hand it appears on the surface you can maybe believe the arks size but on the other hand can't believe they put animals yo fill it on the other..

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Perhaps it does.  But I don't think they are in conflict with any real important teachings.  Nor have I said that what I believe is fact.  I have stated that I have prayed about it multiples times and just have not gotten a testimony of Noah and the flood. 

 

I prayed about Joseph Smith as a Prophet and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon multiple times without receiving a testimony.  I didn't spend my time saying I didn't believe it.  I continued to study and pray.  

Edited May 18, 2018 by Grunt

[Lost Boy]

12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I know you asked the following of @Grunt

 

Since his response was

 

I'd like to take a stab at it then.

I am not put off by that passage of scripture...  Using it is designed to provoke "presentism" and current understandings that are misleading.

Today Slavery is directly linked to treating people as object and subhuman, for understandable reasons.

However when ever God speaks on the issue of Slavery he has to things to say depending on whom he addresses.  To the Slaves he does indeed say "Obey"  He does so consistently.   To the Masters he says in various ways.  Treat your slaves as people with respect and dignity.  You know like people.  By so doing God renders the current understanding of Slavery to a non issue.  Also note that Joseph Smith and the Church in the time that Slavery was legal had the same position.  Joseph Smith answer to the issue of Slavery wasn't for them to revolt.  It was for them to be bought by the government and then freed. 

Do you know what we today call a rich person who gains the services of a poorer person in exchange for the things the poor person needs?  We call it employment, we call it welfare, we call it a GOOD thing.

Can it be abused, was it abused??... certainly many things are.  But just because the system could be abused does not mean the system itself was evil.

An employed person has all the legal rights of the rich person.  He has the right to leave at any time.

Slavery is never right.  It is having dominion over another.  Did God really think this was OK?  I doubt it.  Rather, I feel this is the philosophy of an ancient writer putting in beliefs of his time.  

The system was absolutely evil.  Just some were more evil than others.

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I prayed about Joseph Smith as a Prophet and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon multiple times without receiving a testimony.  I didn't spend my time saying I didn't believe it.  I continued to study and pray.  

That was your approach.  I continue to study and pray as well, but if I have an issue, I rather put it out there and discuss it.

 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

That was your approach.  I continue to study and pray as well, but if I have an issue, I rather put it out there and discuss it.

 

You aren't discussing it.  You aren't asking for help with something you lack the testimony on.  You're defending your position that the Bible is false.   There is a huge difference.  

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

An employed person has all the legal rights of the rich person.  He has the right to leave at any time.

Slavery is never right.  It is having dominion over another.  Did God really think this was OK?  I doubt it.  Rather, I feel this is the philosophy of an ancient writer putting in beliefs of his time.  

The system was absolutely evil.  Just some were more evil than others.

In your opinion... Yet the Modern Church kept the same position regarding slaves obeying there masters as the Old Testament did.

Therefore we can turn the question back to you.  Do you believe Joseph Smith was right when he told the Church membership not to do things that disrupted the Master Slave relationship? And pretty much told the Slaves to obey their master?  Or do you think it was the Philosophy of Joseph Smith putting in his belief under his authority as a prophet of God? 

Edited May 18, 2018 by estradling75

[Lost Boy]

Just now, Grunt said:

You aren't discussing it.  You aren't asking for help with something you lack the testimony on.  You're defending your position that the Bible is false.   There is a huge difference.  

I have certainly explained what my hang ups are and I think they are significant.  And I have attacked pseudo science beliefs that try to support the ark story.  I have put out there multiple time that God could have done it and just left us no evidence.  

I like the gospel to make logical sense to me.  And for 99% of it, it does.  I view God as a very logical god.  Everything has reason/purpose.  I am lost on Noah and I know many others are too.

 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

I have certainly explained what my hang ups are and I think they are significant.  And I have attacked pseudo science beliefs that try to support the ark story.  I have put out there multiple time that God could have done it and just left us no evidence.  

I like the gospel to make logical sense to me.  And for 99% of it, it does.  I view God as a very logical god.  Everything has reason/purpose.  I am lost on Noah and I know many others are too.

 

Then perhaps spend less time arguing that it is false and more time asking for help with things that bother you, studying the topic, and praying for peace on it.

[Lost Boy]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

In your opinion... Yet the Modern Church kept the same position regarding slaves obeying there masters as the Old Testament did.

Therefore we can turn the question back to you.  Do you believe Joseph Smith was right when he told the Church membership not to do things that disrupted the Master Slave relationship? And pretty much told the Slaves to obey their master?  Or do you think it was the Philosophy of Joseph Smith putting in his belief under his authority as a prophet of God? 

I don't know the laws back then.  If Joseph could have got in a lot of legal trouble, or caused the members to get in legal trouble, I can see why he said what he said.  Did he denounce slavery?  I don't know.

Why didn't blacks have the priesthood?  Why were they treated as second class citizens for much of the history of the church?

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Then perhaps spend less time arguing that it is false and more time asking for help with things that bother you, studying the topic, and praying for peace on it.

Perhaps.  Most of the help I get is people giving me guesses how it might have happened.   Unfortunately, I guess, I am an engineer and pick things apart to the nth degree.  I scrutinize everything.

[Grunt]

Just now, Lost Boy said:

Perhaps.  Most of the help I get is people giving me guesses how it might have happened.   Unfortunately, I guess, I am an engineer and pick things apart to the nth degree.  I scrutinize everything.

The reason that is the help you get isn't that "you're an engineer".  That's a copout.  The reason that is the "help" you get is that your approach is antagonistic and you don't ask for guidance on a topic.  Your initial post was asking for opinions and you received many of them.  Then you spent the next 22 pages explaining why they are wrong and you are right.

[dellme]

16 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

An employed person has all the legal rights of the rich person.  He has the right to leave at any time.

Slavery is never right.  It is having dominion over another.  Did God really think this was OK?  I doubt it.  Rather, I feel this is the philosophy of an ancient writer putting in beliefs of his time.  

The system was absolutely evil.  Just some were more evil than others.

You really need to study your history more. Most modern people think of slavery as in the 1700s and 1800s variant.  But that variant was actually more the exception than the rule.  And a little known fact (in today's modern culture) is that the slaves that came to the USA back then were sold into slavery by rival tribes in Africa (in fact it STILL exists today in Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa). In ancient cultures slavery was actually a sign of mercy.

What do you do with a conquered people from war? You either kill them all off (as the Israelites did several times) or put them into slavery. You couldn't just have them free b/c they didn't mix with the conquerers (different culture/background etc.). They didn't have the infrastructure to house them-so they became slaves.

What about when people commit crime?  There were no general "jail" cells back in the day-prison was more reserved for political dissedents, murderers and the like.  However, if you stole from someone, what was the punishment-you didn't just rot in a jail cell-you became a slave to the person you injured.  People were debt slaves.

We have a modern form of slavery that no one likes to talk about-it's called prison or incarceration.  You might say well they committed a crime and so deserved to be in prison-yeah well that's exactly what the ancients thought about conquered people or debt slaves, or thieves.  Over 2 million USA individuals are modern day slaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States, especially since 1975 (but that's another topic).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

In Ancient Egypt, slaves were mainly obtained through prisoners of war. Other ways people could become slaves was by inheriting the status from their parents. One could also become a slave on account of his inability to pay his debts. Slavery was the direct result of poverty. People also sold themselves into slavery because they were poor peasants and needed food and shelter. The lives of slaves were normally better than that of peasants. Slaves only attempted escape when their treatment was unusually harsh. For many, being a slave in Egypt made them better off than a freeman elsewhere.^[2

[dellme]

12 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Why didn't blacks have the priesthood?  Why were they treated as second class citizens for much of the history of the church?

Presentism . . .go and read some history and think about what it would be like to live in those days and you'll figure out the answer.  Life was much, much, much different, attitudes, culture, mores, the way different cultures acted, behaved, etc.

That's like asking why slavery didn't end 100 years earlier (it would have been nice-but it didn't-different times).

Edited May 18, 2018 by dellme

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't know the laws back then.  If Joseph could have got in a lot of legal trouble, or caused the members to get in legal trouble, I can see why he said what he said.  Did he denounce slavery?  I don't know.

Why didn't blacks have the priesthood?  Why were they treated as second class citizens for much of the history of the church?

Indeed... All very good questions.

The simple fact is that God in the Bible and in the modern times has given the same command regarding Slavery.  We do not like it, we do not understand it but it is there anyways.  To Declare that the Bible is made up when it comes to telling us about Gods command regarding Slavery; but Joseph Smith's exact same command is OK, we just don't understand why,  is a logical dodge and copout .

Or in other words we take as an Article of Faith that "The bible is the word of God as long as it is translated correctly"  therefore you (and everyone else) really do not have a problem if you want to call something a mistranslated or allegorical.  Until and unless we also have modern revelation that confirms or restates it.  Modern revelation does not have a 'translated correctly" loop hole to hide behind.  Either it is modern revelation confirming the old story or it is not 

[Lost Boy]

Just now, Grunt said:

The reason that is the help you get isn't that "you're an engineer".  That's a copout.  The reason that is the "help" you get is that your approach is antagonistic and you don't ask for guidance on a topic.  Your initial post was asking for opinions and you received many of them.  Then you spent the next 22 pages explaining why they are wrong and you are right.

Right?  I don't know what the right answer is.  I do know that there have been a lot of wrong answers and mine is probably among them.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't know the laws back then.  If Joseph could have got in a lot of legal trouble, or caused the members to get in legal trouble, I can see why he said what he said.  Did he denounce slavery?  I don't know.

In the earlier days of the Church, Joseph was trying to work "with" the system trying to encourage people to make things better for slaves on their own.  Part of that approach included the slaves also behaving in a more dignified manner as he taught the masters to treat their slaves better.

As time wore on, he realized that slave masters would treat their slaves poorly dispite the behavior of the slaves.  So, he changed his position to outright abolition.  This was a very mortal change in the mortal attitudes of a good man trying to make life better for people of the time since he could not change the laws of the time.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't know the laws back then.  If Joseph could have got in a lot of legal trouble, or caused the members to get in legal trouble, I can see why he said what he said.  Did he denounce slavery?  I don't know.

In the earlier days of the Church, Joseph was trying to work "with" the system trying to encourage people to make things better for slaves on their own.  Part of that approach included the slaves also behaving in a more dignified manner as he taught the masters to treat their slaves better.

As time wore on, he realized that slave masters would treat their slaves poorly dispite the behavior of the slaves.  So, he changed his position to outright abolition.  This was a very mortal change in the mortal attitudes of a good man trying to make life better for people of the time since he could not change the laws of the time.

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed... All very good questions.

The simple fact is that God in the Bible and in the modern times has given the same command regarding Slavery.  We do not like it, we do not understand it but it is there anyways.  To Declare that the Bible is made up when it comes to telling us about Gods command regarding Slavery; but Joseph Smith's exact same command is OK, we just don't understand why,  is a logical dodge and copout .

Or in other words we take as an Article of Faith that "The bible is the word of God as long as it is translated correctly"  therefore you (and everyone else) really do not have a problem if you want to call something a mistranslated or allegorical.  Until and unless we also have modern revelation that confirms or restates it.  Modern revelation does not have a 'translated correctly" loop hole to hide behind.  Either it is modern revelation confirming the old story or it is not 

Yeah, I wrestle with that as well.  Did it really happen the way the bible says or is it just a story and our leaders go along with it because they don't want to disturb the status quo?  It would be a huge announcement for the church to come out and say parts of the bible aren't historically accurate.  That could shake the faith of many members...  Members who believe the scriptures can't be wrong.  And why disturb the status quo on something like Noah who's story really doesn't change ones salvation?

I mean I really feel like parents telling me santa is real.  Whereas something like the atonement, I have a deep belief for.  

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In the earlier days of the Church, Joseph was trying to work "with" the system trying to encourage people to make things better for slaves on their own.  Part of that approach included the slaves also behaving in a more dignified manner as he taught the masters to treat their slaves better.

As time wore on, he realized that slave masters would treat their slaves poorly dispite the behavior of the slaves.  So, he changed his position to outright abolition.  This was a very mortal change in the mortal attitudes of a good man trying to make life better for people of the time since he could not change the laws of the time.

Thanks for the history.  Were his views coming directly from God, or his own philosophy influenced by God?  Can the bible have personal philosophy in it that wasn't necessarily inspired by God?  I believe Joseph Smith struggled with this as well.

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yeah, I wrestle with that as well.  Did it really happen the way the bible says or is it just a story and our leaders go along with it because they don't want to disturb the status quo?  It would be a huge announcement for the church to come out and say parts of the bible aren't historically accurate.  That could shake the faith of many members...  Members who believe the scriptures can't be wrong.  And why disturb the status quo on something like Noah who's story really doesn't change ones salvation?

I mean I really feel like parents telling me santa is real.  Whereas something like the atonement, I have a deep belief for.  

You believe the Prophet is more interested in protecting the organization than serving Christ?

[Lost Boy]

22 minutes ago, dellme said:

You really need to study your history more. Most modern people think of slavery as in the 1700s and 1800s variant.  But that variant was actually more the exception than the rule.  And a little known fact (in today's modern culture) is that the slaves that came to the USA back then were sold into slavery by rival tribes in Africa (in fact it STILL exists today in Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa). In ancient cultures slavery was actually a sign of mercy.

What do you do with a conquered people from war? You either kill them all off (as the Israelites did several times) or put them into slavery. You couldn't just have them free b/c they didn't mix with the conquerers (different culture/background etc.). They didn't have the infrastructure to house them-so they became slaves.

What about when people commit crime?  There were no general "jail" cells back in the day-prison was more reserved for political dissedents, murderers and the like.  However, if you stole from someone, what was the punishment-you didn't just rot in a jail cell-you became a slave to the person you injured.  People were debt slaves.

We have a modern form of slavery that no one likes to talk about-it's called prison or incarceration.  You might say well they committed a crime and so deserved to be in prison-yeah well that's exactly what the ancients thought about conquered people or debt slaves, or thieves.  Over 2 million USA individuals are modern day slaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States, especially since 1975 (but that's another topic).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

In Ancient Egypt, slaves were mainly obtained through prisoners of war. Other ways people could become slaves was by inheriting the status from their parents. One could also become a slave on account of his inability to pay his debts. Slavery was the direct result of poverty. People also sold themselves into slavery because they were poor peasants and needed food and shelter. The lives of slaves were normally better than that of peasants. Slaves only attempted escape when their treatment was unusually harsh. For many, being a slave in Egypt made them better off than a freeman elsewhere.^[2

So you wage war, and instead of killing the victims, you enslave them....  That sounds pretty Christlike.

as for individuals that are incarcerated, that is hardly slavery.  Slavery has always been used for economic reasons.  Inmates are not an economic boon for anyone.  They are a huge drain on society.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Thanks for the history.  Were his views coming directly from God, or his own philosophy influenced by God? 

First, I'm surprised you got that post.  I've been having trouble getting my posts to actually show up.

To answer your question.  I don't know.  No way to be certain.

What I figure (personally) is that the status of slaves in the country was not to be solved by the Church.  It was to be solved by guns and bullets. That was not the mission of the Church.  If it were, we could have taken over the entire country when Nauvoo was at its height.

So, since it was not a part of the mission of the Church, then I am hesitant to believe it was revelation.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Guest

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

You believe the Prophet is more interested in protecting the organization than serving Christ?

No.  Why not have it both ways?  

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

No.  Why not have it both ways?  

Because the implication of your post was that the Apostles wouldn't come out and denounce parts of the Bible because it would shake the faith of its membership.  You can't serve Christ and lie to membership about the nature of doctrine.

[Traveler]

I am very fair skinned (will sun burn in 15 minutes) and my eyes are blue.  This come for my genetics which is mostly Scandinavian.  What is not Scandinavian in my ancestry is North Western European.   I guess I am about as “white” as anyone can be.  With that said – I discovered (very recently) that I am a descendent from slavery.  This was somewhat of a shock.  But what I have learned is that historically slavery is not limited to any particular human so-called race.  I have ancestors that were “white” slaves.

I am quite sure if anyone could trace their ancestry far enough we would all discover that we descended more from slavery than from free peoples.  The real question is not about if or weather we participate in any kind of class distinction in the society in which we live - but how we treat others that our society classify of a different class than our own.

 

The Traveler