I am sorry that you think believing what the Scripture clearly demonstrates,
namely that there are occasional revelations to people of other cultures is
unorthodox. I don't. I once again want to re-iterate that I do not know
how the story of the flood was handed down. Periodic revelation even over
time to one particular peoples or family would be equally effective at
keeping the story alive. But I feel, sadly, that there are many who probably
would agree with your very unfair characterization of my views as being in
the same Ballpark as LDS. I guess when reason fails, start the name calling.
I will try to explain this to you but I really don't think you care what I
say if I disagree with you. The difference between what I am only suggesting
here, not advocating, is that the LDS "revelation" is contradictory to
orthodoxy. What I would suggest is that any revelation God would make would
be consistent with orthodoxy. Not everyone who claims a revelation is
telling the truth. If God chose to reveal himself to others He would be
consistent with other, previous revelations. LDS "revelation" is not
consistent with the orthodox view in any way shape or form.
I would also suggest that when God made His revelation, it should ultimately
be consistent with observational reality. The LDS orthodoxy does not match
archaeological observation. There are no ruins of great cities on the North
American continent in the regions their tale says there should be. Thus you
have a revelation which does not match the data.
I worry that the current widely held conservative interpretation of
Scripture places the Bible in a similar situation, because you can't explain
where the evidence of a world wide flood is, must require Christians to
ignore the massive amount of evidence for evolution, ignore the activities of
fossil man, ignore the fact that the paleontology has transitional fossil
forms, ignore genetic data, and ignore the fact that only about 8 mutations
are needed to create a new species (see Nature August 31, 1995, p. 762-765).
Why would we want to make Christianity like the LDS "revelation" i.e.
unsupported by observational data? We have to reject nearly everything
science observes in order to hold to this anti-evolutionary view of
pre-history. Wouldn't it be better to find a view which does match
observational reality without giving up the important doctrines like the
special creation of man, the Fall, the Flood, the creation of Eve from Adam's
rib?
You wrote:
>>Nebuchadnezzer? It took Daniel, an Israelite, to do the actual "revealing."
Under this reasoning, Israelites would have to be present for those guys in
China and Mexico who got the Flood story in order for it to be recorded.<<
The fact that God spoke in a dream to Pilate's wife is clearly a case of
revelation to someone in another culture without an intermediary. Are you
suggesting here that it is heretical to believe that God spoke to Pilate's
wife? or to Pharoah?
You made a simple universal statement that God did not reveal Himself to
other cultures. This is absolutely contradicted by the evidence. In the case
of Pilate's wife, no Israelite or Christian was needed for her to understand
the revelation that Jesus was an innocent man.. Thus it was direct
revelation to an unbeliever.
What about the case of Cornelius. I had forgotten him. Acts 10:1-4 says
"At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known
as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing;
he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at
about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of
God who came to him and said, "Cornelius!" Cornelius stared at him in fear."
And further, in Acts 10:28 Peter says
"He said to them: 'You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to
associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should
not call any man impure or unclean.'"