Today we tackle how Apologetics seeks to address a Global Flood by making allowances for the flood to be local and for one’s beliefs around the flood to not be a issue for one’s standing on the LDS Church. But is that the real heart of the issue? We demonstrate that a Global Flood is engrained in LDS Canon, testified by LDS Leaders, woven into LDS Theology, and Preached in LDS lessons. We also demonstrate that a Global Flood is simply absurd and for all intents and purposes demonstrably false. Once we show those two facets are at odds with each other, it becomes clear that Mormonism, whatever it is, is not what it claims to be.
FairMormon Global Flood Apologetics
Mormon Discussion Global Flood article
Sunstone Article on Global Flood
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Sorry, it’s been awhile since I listened to this, so I don’t remember if you covered this point, which is: without a global flood, there is no basis for the race-based priesthood ban.
Regardless of whatever recent apologetic statements or statements by the church’s media arm may say, the Mormon leaders like Brigham Young who upheld the priesthood ban gave their reasons for doing so. The priesthood was being denied to “descendants of Ham,” according to earlier church leaders. This is well documented, and any attempt to obscure this is simply dishonest.
Church leaders up until 1978 used race as a proxy for descent from Ham. This thinking required a global flood. They thought that all black people are descendants of Noah’s son Ham. However, without a global flood, subsaharan Africa would not have been flooded, and so the ancestors of modern black people need not be descended from Ham. Thus there is no basis for the race-based priesthood ban.
To put it another way, the church’s greatest 20th century embarrassment (the priesthood ban) couldn’t exist without the church’s most falsifiable teaching (a global flood).