Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Plagiarism is using someone else's work without giving them credit or giving sources.  It doesn't matter if you change a few words around.   You must give credit and state sources.

 (PS, I am the author of many books, articles, publications, photographs, etc., and I do know what plagiarism is).  

Are you saying that you are the original author of the material in your post above and that it was the websites that copied you rather than vice versa?  

Is your above post, which I copied word for word your own original research?   Or did you copy most of it from the writings of Michael Oard and the likes (of which works are on several websites including, but not limited to Answers in Genesis)?

Who copied who?   Was it the websites that copied you or you that copied the websites (without giving credit)?

If it was you that copied the material from other websites, without giving credit or sources, then yes, you are a plagiarist. 

If it is the websites who copied your material, yes I will will offer a full apology and retraction. I make sure that I compensate fully for any restitution due  for any harm done. I will even leave the website if you want .   You have my word on all of this.  If you would like, I will even report those websites for plagiarizing your material and not giving credit.

So which is it?   Who copied who?  A simple and concise anwser of a few words is sufficient.  

 

 

Please quote where you say I plagiarized. CFR please

Edited May 21, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[BJ64]

On 5/18/2018 at 12:33 PM, Lost Boy said:

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

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

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

Another option you have is to choose to not be bothered by the fact that science and the Bible don’t agree. The Bible doesn’t have to be proved scientificly. Then there is also the statement that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. There is no claim that the Bible is completely correct. If you don’t believe a Bible narrative don’t worry about it so long as you believe in the principles and commandments the Bible teaches. 

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

Another option you have is to choose to not be bothered by the fact that science and the Bible don’t agree. The Bible doesn’t have to be proved scientificly. Then there is also the statement that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. There is no claim that the Bible is completely correct. If you don’t believe a Bible narrative don’t worry about it so long as you believe in the principles and commandments the Bible teaches. 

To me they kind of have to agree.  For some reason I have it in my mind that God would not put fake history in the the geological record.  If the flood happened, I think God would not erase that from the geological record.  And there is no record.  I guess I would find it easier to allow for the bible to be incorrect.

As for the principals and commandments in the scriptures, I have no issue with them.

 

[Rob Osborn]

Where did you go Scott? I await your references.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Where did you go Scott? 

Work.   I do not post on company time.

Anyway, originally I was going to pick out every sentence you wrote (in the post I quoted) showing sources of your claims, but in retrospect that would be mean and unproductive.  I should be nicer.

Anyway, much of what you said in your post is just rehash of several points commonly posted as articles on creationists websites, such as Answers in Genesis, but passed around on various other websites as well.  To be honest I have a big beef with websites similar to and including Answers in Genesis (they spread so much mis-information), and one reason you were getting on my nerves is because you were guilty by association.  

I disagree with you, but I should have been nicer about it in my posts.   I do apologize for that.

Anyway, moving on and to answer your question, whenever something is published, unless it is common knowledge (such as "George Washington was the first President of the United States",  "Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth", or Bogota is the capital of Colombia), sources and credits should be provided.   This is true even if the wording is modified.  Perhaps I am overly stringent on this being a published author myself. 

I'll just select at random one of the quotes in your post:

Some of those layers individually are hundreds of feet thick and spread over thousands and thousands of square miles. Thick layers of sediment only form in catastrophic flooding situations.

I do know that the only place you will find such information (which by the way I disagree with; if you really want to discuss this I will and will show you that it is incorrect) is on creation websites such as Answers in Genesis.

For example, compare your above statement with statements in Answers in Genesis:

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly..The only mechanism that could spread such thick layers of sand over many continents is the Genesis Flood.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have simply read up on such websites, and were quoting or summarizing the information from memory without remembering where you read it and leave it at that.   Most of the other stuff you said is also on various websites, especially, you guessed it (well, I'll just leave that website along for now).   If you really want me to, I can do the same as above, but I think I'd rather just give you the benefit of the doubt and be nicer about it.   I would recommend however, that you do provide more sources in your post.   It would be of great value in getting your points across. 

It's OK to disagree, but it should be civil.   I did take your posts as civil and judgmental, and admit that I responded back in an uncivil and judgmental manner.  I really do apologize for that and hope that we can have some good civil discussions in the future.  

Oh, and have a good evening and night.   And I do mean this in a very nice, rather than sarcastic tone.  

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Work.   I do not post on company time.

Anyway, originally I was going to pick out every sentence you wrote (in the post I quoted) showing sources of your claims, but in retrospect that would be mean and unproductive.  I should be nicer.

Anyway, much of what you said in your post is just rehash of several points commonly posted as articles on creationists websites, such as Answers in Genesis, but passed around on various other websites as well.  To be honest I have a big beef with websites similar to and including Answers in Genesis (they spread so much mis-information), and one reason you were getting on my nerves is because you were guilty by association.  

I disagree with you, but I should have been nicer about it in my posts.   I do apologize for that.

Anyway, moving on and to answer your question, whenever something is published, unless it is common knowledge (such as "George Washington was the first President of the United States",  "Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth", or Bogota is the capital of Colombia), sources and credits should be provided.   This is true even if the wording is modified.  Perhaps I am overly stringent on this being a published author myself. 

I'll just select at random one of the quotes in your post:

Some of those layers individually are hundreds of feet thick and spread over thousands and thousands of square miles. Thick layers of sediment only form in catastrophic flooding situations.

I do know that the only place you will find such information (which by the way I disagree with; if you really want to discuss this I will and will show you that it is incorrect) is on creation websites such as Answers in Genesis.

For example, compare your above statement with statements in Answers in Genesis:

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly..The only mechanism that could spread such thick layers of sand over many continents is the Genesis Flood.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have simply read up on such websites, and were quoting or summarizing the information from memory without remembering where you read it and leave it at that.   Most of the other stuff you said is also on various websites, especially, you guessed it (well, I'll just leave that website along for now).   If you really want me to, I can do the same as above, but I think I'd rather just give you the benefit of the doubt and be nicer about it.   I would recommend however, that you do provide more sources in your post.   It would be of great value in getting your points across. 

It's OK to disagree, but it should be civil.   I did take your posts as civil and judgmental, and admit that I responded back in an uncivil and judgmental manner.  I really do apologize for that and hope that we can have some good civil discussions in the future.  

Oh, and have a good evening and night.   And I do mean this in a very nice, rather than sarcastic tone.  

It's all good. Just to be clear, there is a world of difference in sharing views similar with someone or something other and actually plagirising them. I have spoken with a myriad of folks like you so I am aware of the constant attacks against creationism, intelligent design, etc. I have see every rebuttal under the sky so we could shoot back and forth and marathon this out hundreds of pages if you want but I also know neither side wins and it just makes for a giant hissing contestso what's the point?

BTW, you keep bragging up your superior credentials so I'm curious, what's your publishing name you go by?

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

  To be honest I have a big beef with websites similar to and including Answers in Genesis (they spread so much mis-information), and one reason you were getting on my nerves is because you were guilty by association

And to be honest with you, I have a big beef with the secular atheism junk science they teach in schools (they spread so much misinformation). Your comments are typical of the attacks used by the atheism movement against traditional Christianity.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

creationism, intelligent design, etc.

No argument here, but I assume you know that LDS members are not creationist by most definition.  They do believe in intelligent design.   Most definitions, for example, in the dictionary below say that creationism is a belief that God created everything out of nothing (which is not was the LDS believe).  

 Definition of creationism

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism


 

Quote

BTW, you keep bragging up your superior credentials so I'm curious, what's your publishing name you go by?

No, I wasn't bragging.   I was just saying that I have published a lot of books, articles, photos, etc.  I will answer your question though.  

As far as my publishing name, I just go by my real name.  The name of my publishing company was Notch Mountain Publishing, but I don't do much business under that name anymore.  

This was my first book that I wrote and published (I did so at age 22):

https://www.amazon.com/Western-Uinta-Backcountry-Guide-Patterson/dp/1890828173

I can't believe people are selling them for $50-$266.34.  Since the book is now out of date, I usually just give them out for free (If anyone wants one let me know).

I also have articles published in some of the National Geographic Magazine/National Geographic Adventure, Backpacker, and outside.   You can see my photographs published in those magazines as well.

In addition, you can see some of my photos published in books by Michael Kesley of Kelsey Publishing, Provo Utah.

I have also published information in several travel guides as well.

Some of my photos have been used on the cover or school text books as well, including a book on geology.  

I don't publish many books anymore since I usually just put my stuff on the internet now days.   You can see a lot of it below (if you wanted to):

https://www.summitpost.org/users/scott/16365

I guess all of that is a bit off topic though.

Quote

And to be honest with you, I have a big beef with the secular atheism junk science they teach in schools (they spread so much misinformation). Your comments are typical of the attacks used by the atheism movement against traditional Christianity.

You are right that sometimes atheists use science to support their viewpoint.   Don't make the mistake that everyone who believes in science is an atheist though; that is far from true.

As far as attacks on traditional Christianity, I assume you know that Mormons are not traditional Christians (according to our own prophets).  Be careful with those websites.   A lot of those websites are definitely anti-Mormon, or related to anti-Mormon groups.  Answers in Genesis also contains articles such as the below:

https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/every-mormons-need-for-rest/

Or just plug in the word "Mormons" into the search box in such websites:

https://answersingenesis.org/search/?refinement=&language=en&q=mormons

Anyway, if you want to know my beef with websites such as Answers in Genesis, it is because they do misrepresent many things.   I don't have a beef with them for having a different opinion; I just don't like the misrepresentation.  Here's an example:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/fossil-hat/

According to Answers in Genesis, the hat itself turned to stone.   This isn't correct.  The hat simply got covered in calcium carbonate (and the hat is still present under the deposits).   Calcium carbonate and travertine do indeed form fast.   You can see this at geysers and some springs since geysers can cover wood and trees with mineral deposits.  If you are interested, here is a photo I took of a cold water geyser where you can see mineral deposits on wood (if you look closely):

Answers in Genesis also claims that deposits such as the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood.  While many layers in the Grand Canyon were indeed formed underwater, the Coconino Sandstone was definitely formed on land.  There are footprints of reptiles and mammals in the sandstone, so it can't be formed by the flood.  There are fossil prints of animals dragging their tails on land.   Mammals and reptiles don't crawl at the bottom of the ocean (or lake or whatever the flood could be referred to) and mammals and reptiles don''t drag their tails under water.  

So, it's really not the difference in opinion that causes by beef with Answers in Genesis, nor is it their belief in the six day creation or young earth theory.  I don't have a problem with that at all.   They do misrepresent things though, such as in the examples above.   

[Guest Scott]

Here's another interesting quote from the Answers in Genesis website, where they mention both the flood and Mormons:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/feedback/eager-to-expose-false-teaching/

I was always fascinated with Noah’s Flood when I was a little boy, but rejected it when I got into the "public school" system. Thankfully, the Lord opened my eyes to the "real scientific evidence," and my faith has been so strong in the past 6 years. At 25, I am all the more eager to expose false teaching whether it deal with the Benny Hinn’s or Mormons. 

Ouch.

 

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

No argument here, but I assume you know that LDS members are not creationist by most definition.  They do believe in intelligent design.   Most definitions, for example, in the dictionary below say that creationism is a belief that God created everything out of nothing (which is not was the LDS believe).  

 Definition of creationism

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism


 

No, I wasn't bragging.   I was just saying that I have published a lot of books, articles, photos, etc.  I will answer your question though.  

As far as my publishing name, I just go by my real name.  The name of my publishing company was Notch Mountain Publishing, but I don't do much business under that name anymore.  

This was my first book that I wrote and published (I did so at age 22):

https://www.amazon.com/Western-Uinta-Backcountry-Guide-Patterson/dp/1890828173

I can't believe people are selling them for $50-$266.34.  Since the book is now out of date, I usually just give them out for free (If anyone wants one let me know).

I also have articles published in some of the National Geographic Magazine/National Geographic Adventure, Backpacker, and outside.   You can see my photographs published in those magazines as well.

In addition, you can see some of my photos published in books by Michael Kesley of Kelsey Publishing, Provo Utah.

I have also published information in several travel guides as well.

Some of my photos have been used on the cover or school text books as well, including a book on geology.  

I don't publish many books anymore since I usually just put my stuff on the internet now days.   You can see a lot of it below (if you wanted to):

https://www.summitpost.org/users/scott/16365

I guess all of that is a bit off topic though.

You are right that sometimes atheists use science to support their viewpoint.   Don't make the mistake that everyone who believes in science is an atheist though; that is far from true.

As far as attacks on traditional Christianity, I assume you know that Mormons are not traditional Christians (according to our own prophets).  Be careful with those websites.   A lot of those websites are definitely anti-Mormon, or related to anti-Mormon groups.  Answers in Genesis also contains articles such as the below:

https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/every-mormons-need-for-rest/

Or just plug in the word "Mormons" into the search box in such websites:

https://answersingenesis.org/search/?refinement=&language=en&q=mormons

Anyway, if you want to know my beef with websites such as Answers in Genesis, it is because they do misrepresent many things.   I don't have a beef with them for having a different opinion; I just don't like the misrepresentation.  Here's an example:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/fossil-hat/

According to Answers in Genesis, the hat itself turned to stone.   This isn't correct.  The hat simply got covered in calcium carbonate (and the hat is still present under the deposits).   Calcium carbonate and travertine do indeed form fast.   You can see this at geysers and some springs since geysers can cover wood and trees with mineral deposits.  If you are interested, here is a photo I took of a cold water geyser where you can see mineral deposits on wood (if you look closely):

Answers in Genesis also claims that deposits such as the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood.  While many layers in the Grand Canyon were indeed formed underwater, the Coconino Sandstone was definitely formed on land.  There are footprints of reptiles and mammals in the sandstone, so it can't be formed by the flood.  There are fossil prints of animals dragging their tails on land.   Mammals and reptiles don't crawl at the bottom of the ocean (or lake or whatever the flood could be referred to) and mammals and reptiles don''t drag their tails under water.  

So, it's really not the difference in opinion that causes by beef with Answers in Genesis, nor is it their belief in the six day creation or young earth theory.  I don't have a problem with that at all.   They do misrepresent things though, such as in the examples above.   

And while I agree with quite a lot of creationist material I don't consider myself a creationist by general standards. I lean more in the ID movement. That said, LDS doctrine mostly lines up with a mixture of modified creationism and Intelligent Design. There are many forms of creationism out there and not all creationists believe in the creation being 7, 24 hour days. Neither do all creationists believe in creation from nothing. The same with ID, not all ID'ers believe in creationism and some even support long ages on the earth and evolution. Aside from those differences, the main tennets of their arguments directly align with LDS doctrines.

Me and my brothers, friends and fellow scouts used to trapse all over the Uintahs when we were teenagers. My brother and his friend even took their mountain bikes and rode from the top of Big Cottonwood canyon, down through Park City and then through the Uintahs back wildreness and from their to Flaming Gorge when they were teenagers. We met them at the Gorge a week later. Good times. Our favorite lake we used to camp at was Tail lake and Wall lake. Yes good times.

One of the greatest disputes in the rocks are those of footprints. Flood adherents though do not believe in traditional geology stratification processes and it creates a lot of dispute because we see the flood event as actually a series of flooding events and other geologic activity taking place over several hundred years. Therefore the prints are easily accounted for as they were obviously made at periods of geologic processes where at that moment they either weren't under any water or very shallow water. Other flooding events and upthrusts and earthquake and volcanic activity was all ongoing for several hundreds of years after the flood. 

 

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here's another interesting quote from the Answers in Genesis website, where they mention both the flood and Mormons:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/feedback/eager-to-expose-false-teaching/

I was always fascinated with Noah’s Flood when I was a little boy, but rejected it when I got into the "public school" system. Thankfully, the Lord opened my eyes to the "real scientific evidence," and my faith has been so strong in the past 6 years. At 25, I am all the more eager to expose false teaching whether it deal with the Benny Hinn’s or Mormons. 

Ouch.

 

To be honest I have about as much trust in AIG in some areas as I do with the zoology Dept. at BYU and, to be honest, I can't stand some of the folks at BYU. I'm kind of in my own little boat as I have a mix and match approach to where I gather information from and form my own beliefs. Some people ask if I'm a creationist and I say- I believe in the creation but don't mistake my admission to mean I'm a proponent or spokesman for AIG. The same with BYU- I love the school, follow their sports programs and cheer for them but don't take that to mean I'm a believer in some of the philosophies they teach or love all their professors. In fact, me and Steven Peck are as close to what some could call "enemies" as anything else. We have had enough bad debates between us that we have to ignore each other.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Our favorite lake we used to camp at was Tail lake and Wall lake.

That's the part of the Uintas my book covers.  If you want a free copy, just PM me your address and I'll send one.
 

Quote

Flood adherents though do not believe in traditional geology stratification processes and it creates a lot of dispute because we see the flood event as actually a series of flooding events and other geologic activity taking place over several hundred years.  Therefore the prints are easily accounted for as they were obviously made at periods of geologic processes where at that moment they either weren't under any water or very shallow water.

 

That's not what Answers in Genesis says, though.   They say that the Coconino Sandstone was formed under water (at least they say that most of the time).   They argue that it wasn't formed on land, but by water from the flood:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/intraformational-parabolic-recumbent-folds/

The article doesn't bother mentioning all of the footprints from land animals in the sandstone.   That's what I meant by misrepresentation.

So, while we do disagree on several things, it sounds like we do agree on the footprints being formed on land.

 

 

[Guest Scott]

PS, I went back and edited the posts that were personal attacks.   I'd rather just have an interesting conversation rather than a heated argument.  I apologize for the discussion getting overly heated.  

Edited May 22, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's the part of the Uintas my book covers.  If you want a free copy, just PM me your address and I'll send one.
 

That's not what Answers in Genesis says, though.   They say that the Coconino Sandstone was formed under water (at least they say that most of the time).   They argue that it wasn't formed on land, but by water from the flood:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/intraformational-parabolic-recumbent-folds/

The article doesn't bother mentioning all of the footprints from land animals in the sandstone.   That's what I meant by misrepresentation.

So, while we do disagree on several things, it sounds like we do agree on the footprints being formed on land.

 

 

I think the general area of disagreement I have with mainstream geology is the amount of time it took for the events to take place. Flood geology is interesting to me because it's the only process I can agree upon with formation of much of the sedimentary layers we see exposed. I just don't buy the whole millions of years business in explaining the build up of the layers. No known process in the world is doing that on the level we see exposed like in the Grand Canyon. Layers don't just form so thick and relatively uniformly on the bottom of shallow seas.

[BJ64]

Where I live there is about three to ten feet of sandy silty vocanic ash topsoil. Below that is a hundred or more feet of sand and gravel. That being smooth rounded polished stone. To produce that would have required a lot of rock to be broken up then polished smooth by the action of water. All of that did not happen in a few days or years. In fact I suspect the landscape here has not changed much in the past several thousand years. I believe it took millions or billions of years of great turmoil to produce the land on which I live. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

Where I live there is about three to ten feet of sandy silty vocanic ash topsoil. Below that is a hundred or more feet of sand and gravel. That being smooth rounded polished stone. To produce that would have required a lot of rock to be broken up then polished smooth by the action of water. All of that did not happen in a few days or years. In fact I suspect the landscape here has not changed much in the past several thousand years. I believe it took millions or billions of years of great turmoil to produce the land on which I live. 

And perhaps this might be somewhat true if no geologic events were transpiring. The reality though is that the record we see in the rocks doesn't match up with the philosophy of uniformatarianism.

[askandanswer]

I don't know if its been mentioned already but I came  across 3rd Nephi 22:9 yesterday and to me, this gives weight to the idea that some sort of huge flood occurred during the days of Noah.

9  For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.
 

This statement by Christ in the Book of Mormon (sometimes referred to as the most correct book on Earth) helps to lessen the impact of the argument that the idea of a global flood arises from mistranslation or poor authorship of the Book of Genesis.

Edited May 25, 2018 by askandanswer

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I don't know if its been mentioned already but I came  across 3rd Nephi 22:9 yesterday and to me, this gives weight to the idea that some sort of huge flood occurred during the days of Noah.

9  For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.
 

This statement by Christ in the Book of Mormon (sometimes referred to as the most correct book on Earth) helps to lessen the impact of the argument that the idea of a global flood arises from mistranslation or poor authorship of the Book of Genesis.

But does it mean the whole Earth, or Just part?

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

But does it mean the whole Earth, or Just part?

The whole earth.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

Quote

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

 

 

[Lost Boy]

55 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The whole earth.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

 

Yeah, I have seen the article.  I don't care for it. 

[Grunt]

8 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yeah, I have seen the article.  I don't care for it. 

That's OK.  Many people don't care for the teachings of the Church.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Grunt

[Lost Boy]

11 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's OK.  Many people don't care for the teachings of the Church.

There certainly are those people.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

That's OK.  Many people don't care for the teachings of the Church.

At the risk of just going round and round in circles, I will note that this same Ensign article was mentioned back on page 1, and I mentioned that I disliked the article for the same kind of reasoning that you are using here -- the whole "no true Scotsman" feel of the arguments. From my post on page 2 (about post #33):

In particular, I dislike the whole no true Scotman-ish "[all good] Latter-day Saints believe in a global flood" that the author suggests. In less than 24 hours, this thread alone is evidence that there are many good LDS who do not believe in a literal, global flood. Speaking for myself, I don't usually appreciate articles like this that imply that my faith and commitment to God, Christ, and His Church are are somehow "less than" because I don't believe in a literal global flood.

Are we going to say that one who rejects Parry's article in the '98 Ensign must also reject the entirety of Mormonism (and Christianity)?

I agree that many members of the Church (including some who are apostles and prophets) teach about a literal, global flood. I remain unconvinced that the Church as a whole officially teaches the global flood. It raises the question of "how many apostles and prophets and other members of the Church must believe and teach something before a belief officially enters the official dogma of the Church". I don't know how to answer that question, but I don't feel comfortable declaring that this particular belief has risen to this level.

There. Anyone who wants to ride the carousel again can go back to the beginning (or page 2, or where ever you feel like circling back to).

 

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Are we going to say that one who rejects Parry's article in the '98 Ensign must also reject the entirety of Mormonism (and Christianity)?

 

Of course not.  I don't reject the entirety of Catholicism or other Christian faiths.  However, the Mormon faith teaches what I posted.  If you disagree with that teaching, you are against facets of Mormon faith.  What that means really isn't any of my business, beyond the fact that when you say "I'm Mormon and I believe 'X' about the flood" it would be nice if you added, "but this goes against the Church's teachings".  Otherwise, it's important that others DO stand up and say "that's great, but you're disagreeing with the church".  If you continue to persuade others that you are right, then you are persuading them to side against the church.  That has larger implications.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that many members of the Church (including some who are apostles and prophets) teach about a literal, global flood. I remain unconvinced that the Church as a whole officially teaches the global flood.

 

Not entirely true.  Could you post an article from LDS.org for me that says the flood DIDN'T cover the entire Earth?

Edited May 25, 2018 by Grunt

[MrShorty]

You got me. Don't you feel better.

I didn't look exhaustively, but I found none. I found this statement interesting at fairmormon:

Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

They also mention Parry's '98 Ensign article as " clearly and directly indicat[ing]

his opinion that the flood was global in nature." [emphasis mine]. fairmormon, towards the end of the article, still insists that the Church takes no official position on this issue. The overall tone of the fairmormon article still seems to me to be that many members/prophets/apostles teach of a global flood, but this does not mean that Mormonism officially teaches that the flood was global. I may be straining at gnats here, but it seems an important distinction to make sometimes.