This is a continuation of this thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1841923,1843899#msg-1843899

I haven't engaged Mopologists to this degree in more than a decade. I wouldn't have done it this time, but apparently some of my Mormon relatives follow this guy's FB page, so I thought I'd throw a few facts and a little rational thinking into the discussion. The FB post began with a TBM criticizing John Dehlin's remarks re: comments on the BOM and DNA. Two Mopologists named Stephen Smoot and Blake Ostler finally responded to me. I assume that they are both high-ranking FAIRies. I'll post their remarks, then follow with my responses.

Blake: I do not think you grasp the Mormon views on this issue. Parry is definitely in the "historical flood camp" but I would dare say most Mormons who have studied biblical narratives are not. There is certainly room for differing views on this issue -- and it is clear that Stephen Smoot and I hold a different view as faithful Mormons. We are not bound to blblical fundamentalism.

Randy: Apparently, you didn't read Parry's article. He's in the "historical flood camp" because that is exactly what LDS scriptures and its leaders have taught throughout the existence of Mormonism. Parry states: "Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood...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." Parry goes on to cite the "Scriptural Evidence for a Worldwide Flood." So, when you tell me that you don't think that I grasp the Mormon views on this issue, it seems to me that you are the one who fails to grasp them.

Blake: It is pretty clear that you do not understand what constitutes Mormon Doctrine. Of course one could show that ancient writers of scripture believed in a universal flood; it just so happens that Mormons do not affirm either scriptural inerrancy or fundamentalism.

Randy: Also, I assume that you're aware of the LDS teaching that after Jesus died, he went to the "spirit prison" to preach the gospel to the "spirits" of those who had drowned in the flood. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." If there was no global flood, then this LDS doctrine makes no sense. If there were Asian-descended people living all over the Americas who survived the flood, then the LDS concept that God used the flood to cleanse the earth of all sin (like a "do-over") has no meaning or effect.

Blake: Your eisegesis is terrible. Even if there was no flood, Christ went to preach to those spirits in spirit prison who died before his death and resurrection -- that is the Mormon view; not that there had to be a universal flood. In addition, the fact that there was no universal flood does not entail that there was no local flood. Your "reasoning" is severely flawed.

Randy: Re: your comment: "We are not bound to blblical fundamentalism." Is the Bible not official LDS doctrine? If the literal global flood is not official LDS doctrine, can you cite any scriptural verses or statements from LDS church leaders which support that idea?

Blake: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

Stephen: Please don't lecture me until you've read this:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=4082&index=11

Until then, I'm done here. Cheers!

Randy: Sorry, your article wouldn't open for me. I'm not trying to "lecture" you; I merely provided an article from the LDS church's "Ensign" magazine which affirms that the Noachic flood was global. If you don't believe that teaching, that's your business, but it is obvious that that is what the LDS church teaches.

Blake posted this link: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=4082&index=11

Randy: Is FairMormon the official doctrinal voice of the LDS church? That article states: "A belief that this flood was global in nature is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints;" How can that be the case, when "Ensign" magazine article I have cited, which quotes the relevant scriptural verses, clearly states that the flood covered the entire earth?

Randy to Blake: So, in your opinion, all of the scriptural verses which state that the flood was universal, and all of the statements from LDS church leaders who affirm that view, are all just false or speculative? Can you cite any statements from LDS church leaders which concur with your opinion that the flood wasn't universal?

Blake: Really? Look at the FAIR page I cited that quotes not less than 6 apostles who taught that the flood was local only.

Blake: You are trying my patience because you do not read. It cites statements by LDS General Authorities on the issue.

Randy to Blake: : When I posted the "Ensign" article by Donald Parry in which he quoted LDS scriptures affirming the reality of the global flood, Stephen Smoot replied "Since when has an Ensign article written over a decade ago by a BYU professor constituted 'official doctrine'?" I assume that he means that the LDS scriptures are not official doctrine. But now, you cite some LDS General Authorities' remarks on the issue (which are NOT official doctrine,) but you apparently believe that those remarks carry more weight than does the church's scriptures. Am I right?

Randy: Sorry to be so much trouble, but another thought occurred to me. The LDS church teaches that human life began with Adam and Eve in western Missouri about 6000 years ago, right? The human race grew from there, and about 1500 years later (about 4500 BC), God told Noah to build the ark and prepare for the flood. According to the story, the ark presumably came to rest on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. That's where humans began to re-populate the earth. My question: If the flood wasn't global, how did the ark travel from Missouri to the Middle East during the rains?

Randy: Someone sent me the material below some time ago. Is this what is taught in religion classes at BYU? From the Syllabus for Religion 327 – Lesson 12 Noah and the Flood
Was the Flood universal?

Moses 8:30 - "I will destroy all flesh from off the earth."

Genesis 6:13

Genesis 7:21-23

Ether 13:2 - "after the waters has receded from off the face of this
land . . ."

"The earth . . . has been baptized with water, and will, in the future
be baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost, to be prepared to go back
into the celestial presence of God." (Brigham Young, Discourses of
Brigham Young, 603)

"Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which
is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon
the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the
impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been
repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an
immersion of the earth in water. (Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and
Reconciliations, 127-28)

"The Lord baptized the earth for the remission of sins and it has been
once cleansed from the filthiness that has gone out of it which was in
the inhabitants who dwelt upon its face." (Brigham Young, JD, 1:274)

"The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was
that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and
all things sinful upon the face of it were washed away. As it came
forth from the ocean flood, like the new-born child, it was innocent,
it arose to newness of life; it was its second birth from the womb of
mighty waters--a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed
with all the innocency of its first creation." (Orson Pratt, JD 1:331)

"Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know
that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more
than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their
willful stubbornness they would not listen to him. (Mark E. Petersen,
Ensign, Nov. 1981, 65)

"The whole family of man was destroyed, except Noah and those seven
souls who received his testimony, a part of his family, and a part
only, for there were children that Noah had who rejected his
testimony, and who also shared in the destruction that came upon the
inhabitants of the earth." (George Q. Cannon, JD, 26:81)
Like · Reply · 21 hrs

Blake: Unfortunately we have the blind giving advice to the eyeless here. Some Mormons believe in a universal flood; some do not. Many like me take Genesis as a pre-scientific world-view that does not address the issues of science at all (precisely because it is based in narratives of post-exilic Israel and is addressing issues that became relevant only after the Renaissance).

So the biblical narrative is written from a very limited perspective. There was likely a large flood (probably involving the Caspian and Black seas) that appeared global from a limited perspective. The narratives that arose were also based on pre-scientifc observaton. However, the sheer number of flood myths suggests a real event that remained in the pre-literate memory of several cultures.

The LDS view of the bible is very different from the fundamentalist Protestant view. However, with respect to the DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon there is no contradiction since all agree that any DNA of the groups described in the Book of Mormon would have been assimilated into the culture and virtually disappeared through Founder and Bottle Neck effects. Further, we have no idea what the genome of 6th century pre-exilic Jews would have looked like at this point. May I suggest the following?

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/is-decrypting-the-genetic-legacy-of-americas-indigenous-populations-key-to-the-historicity-of-the-book-of-mormon/

Randy to Blake: Re: your comment: "Some Mormons believe in a universal flood; some do not." Actually, I wasn't so much interested in what individual Mormons may believe, but rather what LDS official doctrine actually teaches. Below is a link to an article which details the church's official doctrine. So, wouldn't any Mormons who don't believe that official doctrine be defined as heretics or apostates?

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

Blake: I am going to cut you some slack because it appears that you do not understand what constitutes "Mormon Doctrine:" The Ensign express individual opinions no more valid or authoritative than my own. Thus, citing this article does not establish that a universal flood is "Mormon Doctrine" as has been already stated on this very thread.

Randy: Re: your comment: "However, with respect to the DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon there is no contradiction since all agree that any DNA of the groups described in the Book of Mormon would have been assimilated into the culture and virtually disappeared through Founder and Bottle Neck effects." Into whose culture/DNA strains would the Book of Mormon peoples' DNA be assimilated? Who were these other cultures, and how and when did they come to exist in the Americas?

Randy: Re: your comment: "Further, we have no idea what the genome of 6th century pre-exilic Jews would have looked like at this point." Wouldn't the DNA of all pre-exilic Jews, as well as the DNA of every human living at that time, be descended from the eight people who were aboard Noah's ark and survived the flood?

Blake: Read my response to Simon Southerton here:

http://blakeostler.com/apologetics.html

Randy: I'm sorry, I simply don't have the time to read long articles just to try to find the answers to my specific questions. Can you just answer my questions in layman's language? By the way, do your articles constitute official LDS church doctrine?

Randy: Thank you for providing the link to your article about "decrypting the genetic legacy." Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read such a lengthy treatise. I noted, however, one of the first sentences: "DNA studies focusing on the ancient migration of world populations support a North-East Asian origin of modern Native American populations arriving through the now-submerged land-bridge that once connected Siberia to Alaska during the last Ice Age, approximately 15,000 years ago." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that LDS doctrine holds that human life began with Adam and Eve in the western Missouri area about 6000 years ago. How does that doctrine square with your statement that I cited?

Randy: Also, since the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve over the last 6000 or so years, and Adam and Eve's posterity migrated to the Middle East and became the Semitic people---and you assert that there were also apparently some Asian-descended people who crossed into the Americas---then wouldn't all Semitic people as well as all Amerinds share close DNA relationships dating back no more than about 6000 years?

I wrote these last couple of posts last night. Those two guys haven't responded yet.

I don't know squat about Smoot, but Blake Ostler is a real up and comer in the apologetics universe. He's an attorney and has published books of apologia. He has fawning acolytes, one of whom gave me such a spanking once for not falling in line with Ostler's line.

Ostler is an attorney and has acquired a vocabulary even bigger than mine! But he uses it for evil, whereas I use mine to talk Saucie into bed. Clearly I am the winner!

Now that I think about it, your church custodian friend was the one who schooled me on just how bright a shining star the Great Ostler is in the mopology firmament.

Try to remain humble, Randy, that the great one has deigned to converse with you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2016 08:50PM by elderolddog.

"He has fawning acolytes"

Yeah, there are "chapel Mormons" (who follow the church's teachings and leaders) and "internet Mormons" (the fawning acolytes/fanboys of the apologists.

"Try to remain humble, Randy, that the great one has deigned to converse with you."

I wasn't very impressed. My takeaway from the dialogue, as with every other Mopologist I ever debated with, is that the average high-school graduate with average knowledge and basic common sense is superior to the "smartest" Mopologist out there. The Mopologists are defending an indefensible proposition, so it's easy to refute them.

1. Blake to Randy: "Many like me take Genesis as a pre-scientific world-view that does not address the issues of science at all"

Okay then, let's leave Genesis out of it. (This isn't hard; all I had to do was look in the Index for Noah.)

Alma 10:22
"Yea, and I say unto you that if it were not for the prayers of the righteous, who are now in the land, that ye would even now be visited with utter destruction; yet it would not be by flood, as were the people in the days of Noah, but it would be by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword."

3 Nephi 22:9 [Resurrected Jesus is speaking; he should know Mormon doctrine]
"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."

Ether 6:7
"And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters."

Moses 7:42-43
42 And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;
43 Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up.

So is Blake also throwing out the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price when they run counter to his opinions?

LDS scriptures state, even without the flood, that Noah was an actual person.

D&C 107:52
"Noah was ten years old when he was ordained under the hand of Methuselah."

Is Blake cherry-picking events from Noah's life, accepting some scriptures and denying others?


2. Blake to Randy again: "The Ensign express individual opinions no more valid or authoritative than my own."

That begs the question, what source *does* Blake Ostler concede expresses more valid or authoritative statements than his own opinion? He's dismissing scriptures and GA quotes that happen to disagree with his own views (JFS and BRM haven't even been brought in here; that would be too easy), so what's left?

Modern prophets? Do they preach official Mormon doctrine? Here's one from 1987.

Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pp. 104-05:
"For nearly six thousand years, God has held you in reserve to make your appearance in the final days before the second coming of the Lord. Some individuals will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head — even Jesus Christ. While our generation will be comparable in wickedness to the days of Noah, when the Lord cleansed the earth by flood, there is a major difference this time. It is that God has saved for the final inning some of His strongest children, who will help bear off the kingdom triumphantly. That is where you come in, for you are the generation that must be prepared to meet your God." ("In His Steps," Church Educational System Devotional, Anaheim, California, 8 February 1987.)


And another prophet, someone who Blake might have heard of. Was Spencer Kimball's knowledge of Mormon doctrine inferior to Blake Ostler's?

Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 136:
"This ascendancy of the natural man, this rejection of God's call to repentance, has caused the destruction of entire civilizations. In the early generations it is true that those who were sufficiently righteous followed Enoch to a translated life; but only eight, Noah and sons and their four wives, were preserved later through the great flood, all others being drowned. In their debauchery, the unrepentant Babylonians lost their kingdom, and the individuals of the nation placed their souls in serious jeopardy when they did not repent. Likewise Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of the plain, were destroyed. They had their chance also to repent but ignored the warning voices of the prophets who came to them.

So who does Blake Ostler defer to in his knowledge and understanding of Mormon doctrine? My bet is nobody.


3. Do Ostler or Smoot accept a literal Tower of Babel? If yes, why do they accept the tower but not the flood? If no, then they admit the BOM isn't true. If the tower story is false, then the Book of Ether is false, and if Ether is false, then so is the BOM. For the BOM to be true, the tower must be an historical fact.

Another "scriptural" verse which you didn't list, but I would have if Ostler were to keep responding, is Moses 8:30: "And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth."

Ostler can pretend that "the biblical narrative is written from a very limited perspective" and "The narratives that arose were also based on pre-scientific observation" if he so desires, but he can't dismiss Joseph Smith's "modern revelation" of the Book of Moses so easily.

Ostler is apparently trying to straddle the fence between Mormon beliefs and scientific fact, but he has yet to realize that that's an impossible task. Amusingly, I discussed this dialogue with my employee today, who is an Evangelical Christian. She believes in the literal flood story, but she realizes that you either have to believe in the flood or the science, and not parts of both.

You also quoted:

"2. Blake to Randy again: "The Ensign express individual opinions no more valid or authoritative than my own."

That's an example of these apologists' pomposity and hypocrisy: he disses the material published in the church's official organ (which is still found on the church's official website), and instead refers us to his articles on FAIRMormon---while the FAIRMormon homepage clearly states:

"Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FairMormon are solely those of FairMormon and not those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

There are a lot of other questions I'd like to ask Ostler or Smoot if they want to dialogue more, such as:

If it's okay for individual Mormons to disbelieve in the global flood, would it be okay if he stated that view while say, teaching a church class?

If accepting the flood story isn't essential to being a faithful Mormon, then can you also reject the entire Book of Mormon and remain a faithful Mormon too? Seeing as how there's no more evidence to support the BOM story than there is for the flood.

Since you assert that the DNA of the Book of Mormon people was absorbed into the Amerind population via "genetic drift," and there's no archaelogical evidence for the BOM people either, then what evidence do we have that they existed in the Americas at all?

Ostler opined: "There was likely a large flood (probably involving the Caspian and Black seas) that appeared global from a limited perspective." I'd like to ask him to provide the evidence for a flood that large in that area and the proper timeframe for it to relate to the Noah story. He'd have to show evidence of a devastation of population in that time and place.

Ostler also didn't address the fact that a FAIR article he cited conceded that the Americas have been occupied for about 15,000 years, when LDS teachings hold that human life began with Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

If these apologists thought these issues out to their logical conclusions, they'd have to reject all of Mormonism's truth claims. Several former FAIR apologists, including Kerry Shirts, Bill Reel, and Kevin Graham, have already done that. If the Mormon story was as unassailable as Smoot and Ostler think it is, their own brethren wouldn't be rejecting it.

Randy:
You are right to quote from the Ensign (heavily correlated before anything at all is printed and published), and CES manuals (also heavily correlated to ensure doctrinal clarity).

While I worked full time in CES, the church spent literally millions of dollars for a multi-year, intensive, Professional Development Program (PDP). It consisted of long summer retreats, long and boring activities and lectures during the year, and homework during the school year.

One of the main objectives (there were several), was to inform CES teachers and administrators that CES is to represent the first presidency in the classroom and reinforce the (real) doctrines of the church so the youth have a clear path to eternal life. One summer a long and important session about doctrine emphasized that LDS doctrine can be found in any work published by the church. In other words, look in the front of the work and see if it says, "Published by the Church of yada, yada, yada." If it is, you mar regard it as doctrine, we were assured.

If it's published by Bookcraft (like McConkie's Mormon Doctrine), it is not doctrine. If it is published by the church (like the Ensign, CES manuals, Talmage's Jesus the Christ, etc.) it may be regarded as "binding upon the members of the church" and may be considered as official church doctrine.

That's why, when debating some issues on Mormonthink a couple of years ago with FAIRies, I kept emphasizing that apologists have no business telling me what doctrine and is and what it isn't. Doctrinal interpretations and pronouncements only come from the President of the Church (or the combined Presidency, and Q of the 12), and publications published by the Church. Therefore, apologists need not yap about cry "foul" when non members or ex-mormons quote doctrine.

Until the real authorities of the church, whose job it is to pronounce and interpret doctrine, correct me and others reading from church sources, I am not under any obligation to listen to the crying, whining, and moaning from earnest but misguided apologists who pretend to speak for authorities hiding behind their large boxes of Depends (disguised as walnut wood grained pulpits).

I love reading your stuff Randy! Great work.

"If it's published by Bookcraft (like McConkie's Mormon Doctrine), it is not doctrine. If it is published by the church (like the Ensign, CES manuals, Talmage's Jesus the Christ, etc.) it may be regarded as "binding upon the members of the church" and may be considered as official church doctrine."

You know, I learned and understood that in 1974, as a 19-year-old missionary. Ostler can diss an "Ensign" article if he wishes, but when he does so, he's telling the "chapel Mormons" who read his stuff that he's not an orthodox member.

"That's why, when debating some issues on Mormonthink a couple of years ago with FAIRies, I kept emphasizing that apologists have no business telling me what doctrine and is and what it isn't. Doctrinal interpretations and pronouncements only come from the President of the Church (or the combined Presidency, and Q of the 12), and publications published by the Church. Therefore, apologists need not yap about cry "foul" when non members or ex-mormons quote doctrine."

That's what's so funny about these pompous apologists. They think that they're members of the College of Mormon Cardinals, when they actually have no more authority or credence than does the ward hymn book coordinator.

"I love reading your stuff Randy! Great work."

Thanks, Ken. I value your opinions more than probably anybody else's on this BB. You have spent years in the belly of the beast, and you know what you're talking about.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2016 10:02PM by randyj.

As a nevermo, I certainly have no real knowledge or understanding of official Mormon doctrine. I find your exchange(s) with both Smoot and Ostler utterly fascinating.

More than anything, I admire you for your politeness and your very convincing arguments, along with your very succinct and most professional delivery. I actually enjoyed reading this post! Thank you for sharing it, Randy :)

"As a nevermo, I certainly have no real knowledge or understanding of official Mormon doctrine."

But I'm sure that you can perceive the difference between the church's actual published teachings and what those apologists say.

"I admire you for your politeness and your very convincing arguments, along with your very succinct and most professional delivery."

Wow, thanks a lot. A lot of people over the years have thought that I'm too crude and harsh with the Mobots. I don't think anyone's ever called me "professional" before. I might have to print that one out and show it to my wife. :-)

I will second the comments regarding Blake. I know him. He was my attorney once and the father of a friend. He is a brilliant speaker and very full of himself (like a lot of alpha-male types). You are good to have gotten this conversation with him. I would loved to hear more if you have it.
He has been criticized as being too 'out there' in many of his apologist attempts. Expansionist theory? Talk about bending yourself into a pretzel to explain BoM anachronisms...

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/updating-the-expansion-theory/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2016 01:30AM by qanae.

"You are good to have gotten this conversation with him. I would loved to hear more if you have it."

I'll go back there when I have some time to see if he's made any more responses. I have a feeling that he just wanted to post links to his lengthy papers and have me try to wade through them, rather than answering my simple questions.

"He has been criticized as being too 'out there' in many of his apologist attempts."

Indeed. I wonder how many TBMs who read that thread were aghast when he denied that the flood was global.

"Expansionist theory? Talk about bending yourself into a pretzel to explain BoM anachronisms..."

I just read that article you linked. It sounds like he's pushing what I used to call the "word substitution theory" of the BOM. Meaning, any word in the BOM could actually mean some other word. "Horses" could mean "deer" or "tapir," "steel swords" could mean "wooden axes with sharp obsidian heads," etc. IOW, he's trying to explain away the anachronisms in the BOM by theorizing that the words don't actually mean what they say. Problem is, when a Mopologist does that, he's destroying the credibility of *everything* written in the BOM, and not just the anachronisms. For instance, "two thousand stripling warriors" could actually mean "two dozen hunchbacked dwarves." Such theories actually undermine the overall credibility of the entire BOM story.

Another Mopologist recently wrote an article in which he theorized that the (unlikely) population figures in the BOM were the product of exaggeration on the part of the ancient writers. All of these silly theories are really just attempts to explain way the lack of evidence to support the BOM, rather than being actual evidence. They are similar to wild theories proposed by a criminal lawyer in a trial wherein he's defending an obviously guilty client. IOW, it's just desperation tactics.

Regarding Blake Ostler's comments:

"Some Mormons believe in a universal flood; some do not. Many like me take Genesis as a pre-scientific world-view that does not address the issues of science at all...Some Mormons believe in a universal flood; some do not. Many like me take Genesis as a pre-scientific world-view that does not address the issues of science at all (precisely because it is based in narratives of post-exilic Israel and is addressing issues that became relevant only after the Renaissance).

"So the biblical narrative is written from a very limited perspective. There was likely a large flood (probably involving the Caspian and Black seas) that appeared global from a limited perspective. The narratives that arose were also based on pre-scientific observation."

Ostler's term "pre-scientific world-view" seems to be another way of him opining that the stories in Genesis are just myths. The question is, if a Mormon doesn't believe in the flood doctrine, then why believe in anything else in Genesis? For instance, why believe in the Adam and Eve story, when the FAIR article Ostler cited admits that the Americas have been inhabited by Asian-descended people for at least 15,000 years?

When Ostler writes that "the biblical narrative is written from a very limited perspective," he's actually saying that he doesn't believe that the Bible is actually the word of God, compiled by inspired prophets. IOW, he's saying that he's a heretic who doesn't really believe that the Bible is a standard work. In light of that, one wonders why any rank-and-file Mormons give him any credence whatsoever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2016 12:19PM by randyj.

Exactly my thoughts when I read Blake's "pre-scientific world-view." I was surprised he didn't continue this line when you tried to nail him to age of the Earth and location of the Garden of Eden.

Also, in line with what you and Ken have already relayed regarding what constitutes church doctrine: I recall an occasion in the early 90s when my dad was upset by a church member's talk that strayed into less-than-orthodox territory. When we got home, he took me to the bookshelf and pulled out a Deseret Book publication, showed me the title page, and said it was not doctrine because it was not published by the LDS church. Scriptures, magazines, and manuals were to be treated as doctrinal. Heck, we even taught that having access to a monthly message through the magazines was evidence of the church being a "true and living church."

I'm really surprised to read through your back-and-forth with these two. I thought the concept of the universal flood was pretty, um, universal among Mormons. When I was personally reaching the point where I could no longer reconcile Bible stories with the real world, I was tempted to view the Old Testament as mostly myths. However, specific events such as the flood, the tower of Babel, and the parting of the Red Sea are corroborated in the Book of Mormon and D&C, so I was bound to treat these stories as literal.

Thanks, Randy, for engaging in what would be too exasperating a task for many of us!

"Exactly my thoughts when I read Blake's 'pre-scientific world-view.' I was surprised he didn't continue this line when you tried to nail him to age of the Earth and location of the Garden of Eden."

Yep. For a guy who's supposedly a lawyer, apparently he isn't smart enough to realize that if he views the universal flood story as myth, he starts down the slippery slope of rejecting all of Genesis. I don't know if Ostler will reply to me any more. He probably just wants to provide links to his sleep-inducing FAIR articles and hope that that will shut questioners up.

"When we got home, he took me to the bookshelf and pulled out a Deseret Book publication, showed me the title page, and said it was not doctrine because it was not published by the LDS church. Scriptures, magazines, and manuals were to be treated as doctrinal."

I was taught that Deseret Book publications, although not strictly "doctrinal," did in fact represent mainstream, orthodox doctrine of the church leaders. Those productions are reviewed and correlated for churchwide dissemination. Those include Talmadge's "Jesus the Christ" and "The Articles of Faith." On my mission, those were the only works apart from the Standard Works and GAs conference addresses that we considered to be doctrinal. LeGrand Richards' "A Marvelous Work And A Wonder" came close to that standard as well.

On the flip side, "Bookcraft" publications, such as Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," are not officially-sanctioned works.

"I'm really surprised to read through your back-and-forth with these two. I thought the concept of the universal flood was pretty, um, universal among Mormons."

Of course it is. Ostler is trying to ride the fence between church teachings and scientific research.

"Thanks, Randy, for engaging in what would be too exasperating a task for many of us!"

You're welcome. Actually, this activity wasn't very taxing for me. Anybody who was an active Mormon for 30-40 years should know that Ostler's views are far removed from what the church teaches. It only took a few minutes of research to find enough passages from the standard works, GA sermons, and church lesson manuals to refute his nonsense. I took the time to do this because some of my TBM relatives might read it. Also, that LaCour guy's FB page apparently has a lot of readers, so hopefully I reached a few other TBMs as well. I wonder how many of them read Ostler's comments and thought to themselves "What? Ostler is saying that the flood wasn't global? That's not what the church teaches."

Hi RandyJ

Just a small observation. Is the earth 6,000 years old, or 8,000 years old?

If you use the date as 6,000BC for Adam and Eve, and 4,500BC for the global flood, then since we are now 2,000+ AD, that makes the earth 8,000 years old.

Other than that, I thought your posts and responses were awesome!

Ussher puts the creation at 4,004BC, and most bible literalists put the flood at about 2,500 to 3,000BC. So that makes the earth just over 6,000 years old. If you believe that.

No I don't.

But I just noticed some dates in Randy's discussion that were a little off from a Bible literalist timeline. He'd want to correct that so to avoid giving those he debates with an excuse to question his thorough work.

"Is the earth 6,000 years old, or 8,000 years old?"

The exact age doesn't matter. I rounded off the dates to make the discussion easier. The point is that Ostler's FAIR article which he cited affirms that DNA research shows that humans have inhabited the western hemisphere for at least 15,000 years. Obviously, if that's true, then the LDS doctrine that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth and lived in western Missouri is blown to bits. That's what I tried to get Ostler to address, but he didn't bite.

Incidentally, my LDS-published Bible, 1979 edition, carried this material in its Bible Dictionary section, under "Chronological Tables":

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN THE DAYS OF THE EARLY PATRIARCHS

B.C. 4000 Fall of Adam.
3000 Ministry of Enoch.
2400 Ministry of Noah; the Flood.
2200 Tower of Babel.

I'm no math whiz, but I'm pretty sure that 4,000 + 2,000= 6,000.

Also:

Doctrine & Covenants 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals? A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2016 12:22PM by randyj.

I only think it matters when you are dealing with people who are nit-picky and they decide all your excellent research is crapola because of one simple, minor, inconsequential date error.

That is the mind of a TBM of course. I get what you meant, but a TBM desperate to defend his little testimony may be looking for any excuse to debunk your words in their mind.

It's only a thought from me. I'm impressed with your narrative. I'm not trying to criticize you here.

In my OP above, I had quoted 1 Peter 3:18-20 to illustrate the LDS doctrine that the deceased Jesus went to the spirit world to preach the gospel to those who had died in the flood without having heard the gospel while living. (Those verses, of course, mention Noah and the flood.) Blake Ostler replied to that:

"Your eisegesis is terrible. Even if there was no flood, Christ went to preach to those spirits in spirit prison who died before his death and resurrection -- that is the Mormon view; not that there had to be a universal flood."

Ostler's view is that those verses do not mean that the people in the spirit world to whom Christ taught the gospel necessarily included those who had died in the flood.

While a missionary in the mid-'70s, I taught from the "Uniform System for Teaching Families." The 2nd discussion, titled "Eternal Progression," reads:

"...those who lived on earth and died without hearing the gospel will have an opportunity to hear it and either accept of reject it. That opportunity will come to them while they await the resurrection of the dead. As a matter of fact, Christ inaugurated the preaching of the gospel to those in the spirit world. After his crucifixion, while his body lay in the tomb, the Savior, as a spirit, went to the spirit world and prepared the way for the preaching of the gospel."

The manual then invites the investigator to read 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6, which I had quoted to Ostler. I had been taught and believed the entire time I was a Mormon that those verses referred to the wicked people who had drowned in the flood; that's why the passage mentions "wherein eight souls were saved by water." Ostler, of course, is forced to take the position that the flood wasn't universal, in order to accept the DNA evidence that the Americas have been inhabited by at least 15,000 years. So I looked for more info on the issue and found this from "Jesus The Christ" on lds.org:

"While divested of His body Christ ministered among the departed, both in paradise and in the prison realm where dwelt in a state of durance the spirits of the disobedient. To this effect testified Peter nearly three decades after the great event: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

"The disobedient who had lived on earth in the Noachian period are especially mentioned as beneficiaries of the Lord’s ministry in the spirit world. They had been guilty of gross offenses, and had wantonly rejected the teachings and admonitions of Noah, the earthly minister of Jehovah. For their flagrant sin they had been destroyed in the flesh, and their spirits had endured in a condition of imprisonment, without hope, from the time of their death to the advent of Christ, who came as a Spirit amongst them. We are not to assume from Peter’s illustrative mention of the disobedient antediluvians that they alone were included in the blessed opportunities offered through Christ’s ministry in the spirit realm; on the contrary, we conclude in reason and consistency that all whose wickedness in the flesh had brought their spirits into the prison house were sharers in the possibilities of expiation, repentance, and release."

https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-36.p15?lang=eng

Obviously, Talmadge referred specifically to those people who had drowned in the flood as being those to whom Christ preached the gospel. So Ostler's remark that my "eisegisis is terrible" on this subject is refuted by James E. Talmadge. Maybe Ostler will next opine that Talmadge's eisegisis is terrible too.

I was a missionary in 1975-76 and that was part of the same discussion I taught while in Louisana and Mississippi. It seems pretty specific to me.

"I was a missionary in 1975-76 and that was part of the same discussion I taught while in Louisana and Mississippi."

I knew a gal named Lamb who was in that mission around that time. She might have been a year or two later. Ring a bell?

Funny thing was, she was from Alabama, but was living elsewhere when she decided to serve a mission. So she put in her papers, and her mission called her to Alabama, where her family lived. She told the missionary department that, and they shipped her to MS/LA instead. So much for "inspired" mission calls.

OMG, we were companions and became good friends. She was from Montgomery.

"OMG, we were companions and became good friends. She was from Montgomery."

That's how I knew her. I'm from Montgomery too. There were two wards there, and her family was in the other one, so I didn't know them that well. Was her first name Edith? I think she had a younger sister named Elaine, who married a guy named Steve.

Small world, huh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2016 08:23AM by randyj.

Her name was Donna. Her sister Edith married Steve L. He had been a missionary in Louisiana and Mississippi at the same time as Donna and me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2016 08:43AM by iris.

We moved to East Tennessee in 1984, and I hadn't heard much about them for many years, so I got the names confused. Steve and I actually went on a week-long bus trip to the Washington temple when we were single RMs in 1977. We roomed together and got to know each other. IIRC, the Lamb girls' brother (can't remember his name) was the bishop in my late mother's ward in Montgomery a few years ago.

BTW my wife's father came from southern Mississippi, just north of the Biloxi/Gulfport area. My oldest daughter spent a year doing theatre in Nawlins about 7-8 years ago.

It is a small world. Sadly, Donna passed away several years ago. I remember Steve as a really nice missionary.

Very cool about your daughter.

Conversation with Mormon apologists is just too slippery and deceitful for my taste. I butted heads with Peterson and Ash. Peterson went ad hominem on me, and Ash denied the dictionary definition of the word "doctrine."

No mas

"Some Mormons believe in universal flood some do not."

True with a lot of doctrine, beliefs and ideas. I once did an informal poll in the last Ward I was in. One third of the Ward membership thought Nephi went accross the Atlantic....

Doctrinal chaos made worse by recent statements by the fifteen nursing home candidates all my age. It is throughout the church.

Gatorman

"Some Mormons believe in universal flood some do not."

"True with a lot of doctrine, beliefs and ideas."

That's why I quote the church's actual publications when dealing with these guys. No matter their level of ignorance, it's hard for them to argue with their own church's published teachings.

The funniest thing about these two guys, Smoot and Ostler, is that they pompously write articles and put them on the FAIR website, and then instruct questioners to read them, as though their web articles constitute official church doctrine---but the FAIR homepage clearly states: "Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FairMormon are solely those of FairMormon and not those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

While researching more info tonight on the LDS position re: the Noachic flood, I came across this passage:

"Where Did Noah Land When the Ark Came to Rest?

"It should be remembered that the Garden of Eden was in the land now known as North America (see Reading 2-17). Although it is not known how far men had moved from that general location in the sixteen hundred years between the fall of Adam and the Flood, it is likely that Noah and his family lived somewhere in the general area. The Bible says that they landed on Mount Ararat when the ark finally came to rest. No location for Mount Ararat is given in the scriptures. The traditional site is a mountain found in northeastern Turkey near the border of Russia."

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs?lang=eng&_r=1

This passage is important because it confirms that human life began with Adam and Eve in North America, which is of course what we were taught in church. Obviously, for the ark to have traveled from North America to Mount Ararat, the flood would have had to be universal. This is a very important point which blows Russell Nelson's and the Mopologists' theory that "other people inhabited the Americas when the BOM people arrived" to bits. The bottom line being, Mormons can either accept the evidence that the Americas have been continuously occupied for about 15,000 years, or they can believe in their church doctrine, but they can't believe in both.

Neither of the two Mopologists (Stephen Smoot and Blake Ostler) have replied to my last posts I copied to this thread, but I took the time to make a few more responses tonight. I'm copying them here in case my posts get deleted from that FB page.

Stephen Smoot Re: your statement: "I am the co-author of a published article on the history of Mormon interpretations of the flood of Noah. Are you sure you want to presume to tell me what the 'official' Mormon position is on this topic?"

Stephen Smoot, does the following statement represent the official Mormon church position on the flood? " 29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.
30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/8?lang=eng

Stephen Smoot Does this passage reflect the official LDS church position re: the flood? "Noah lived at a time when people thought and did evil continually (see Genesis 6:5, 11), and God called him to be a preacher of righteousness to that wicked generation. When the people rejected his message, God commanded Noah to build an ark, gather animals, and prepare for a flood. Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were the only people on the whole earth saved from the flood (see Genesis 6:13–22; 7:21-23; Moses 8:16–30). " https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

Stephen Smoot How about this passage? "The Lord decreed that [the earth would be cleansed] by water, a worldwide deluge. Therefore, from among his premortal spirit children, God chose another great individual—His third in line, Gabriel—to resume the propagation of mankind following the flood.” (Mark E. Petersen, Noah and the Flood [1982], 1–4.) https://www.lds.org/.../genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs...

Stephen Smoot How about this passage? "How Could the Flood Cover the Entire Earth, Including Mountains? What Was the Significance of This Immersion?

“I would like to know by what known law the immersion of the globe could be accomplished. It is explained here in a few words: ‘The windows of heaven were opened’ that is, the waters that exist throughout the space surrounding the earth from whence come these clouds from which the rain descends. That was one cause. Another cause was ‘the fountains of the great deep were broken up’—that is something beyond the oceans, something outside of the seas, some reservoirs of which we have no knowledge, were made to contribute to this event, and the waters were let loose by the hand and by the power of God; for God said He would bring a flood upon the earth and He brought it, but He had to let loose the fountains of the great deep, and pour out the waters from there, and when the flood commenced to subside, we are told ‘that the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained, and the waters returned from off the earth.’ Where did they go to? From whence they came. Now, I will show you something else on the back of that. Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the question is—How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells that ‘all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.’ That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.” (John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 26:74–75.) https://www.lds.org/.../genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs...

Stephen Smoot How about this passage? "President Joseph Fielding Smith said: 'So the Lord commanded Noah to build an ark into which he was to take his family and the animals of the earth to preserve seed after the flood, and all flesh that was not in the ark perished according to the Lord’s decree. Of course this story is not believed by the wise and the great among the children of men, any more than was Noah’s story in his day” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:39). https://www.lds.org/.../the-pearl-of.../the-book-of-moses...

Stephen Smoot How about this passage? "The history of the peopling of the earth is really a history of the scattering of the descendants of Noah, who is sometimes referred to as the “second father of mankind.” This general scattering began soon after the Flood when the sons of Noah and their children began to spread forth “in their lands, … after their nations” (see Gen. 10:5, 20, 31) and was greatly accelerated at the time of the Tower of Babel, when the Lord confounded the people’s language and did “scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” (Gen. 11:9.) https://www.lds.org/.../who-and-where-are-the-lamanites...

Stephen Smoot How about this passage? "Noah lived in times of great wickedness, and although he cried to the people to repent, they did not heed his words. When the flood came, only Noah and his family were saved (see Genesis 7:23)." https://www.lds.org/.../2009/02/the-great-plan-of-our-god...

Blake Ostler Re: your comment: "Your eisegesis is terrible. Even if there was no flood, Christ went to preach to those spirits in spirit prison who died before his death and resurrection -- that is the Mormon view; not that there had to be a universal flood." Does the following passage reflect the official, orthodox Mormon doctrine? "While divested of His body Christ ministered among the departed, both in paradise and in the prison realm where dwelt in a state of durance the spirits of the disobedient. To this effect testified Peter nearly three decades after the great event: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The disobedient who had lived on earth in the Noachian period are especially mentioned as beneficiaries of the Lord’s ministry in the spirit world. They had been guilty of gross offenses, and had wantonly rejected the teachings and admonitions of Noah, the earthly minister of Jehovah. For their flagrant sin they had been destroyed in the flesh, and their spirits had endured in a condition of imprisonment, without hope, from the time of their death to the advent of Christ, who came as a Spirit amongst them. " https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-36...

The hilarious thing about this dialogue is that I went to lds.org and typed in search words like "Noah universal flood" etc. and found all of these passages in minutes. Smoot and Ostler are waging war against their own church's published teachings.

This is great, but some of your links to the search results are incomplete.

Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm currently discussing this topic with a TBM, and the links would be great!