The Flood Story

[Tramper]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to have the truth, and Mormon theology claims that there are perfect harmony between science and true religion. The only conflicts exist in the minds of men.

My short question is this: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was worldwide?

The article below (see the link) may be a helpful introduction of this issue: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/content/wp-.../4003-White.pdf

The background for my question is this. Recently my bishop made a firm statement on this issue. He said that the Devil repeatedly attacks the Bible stories trying to persuade the faithful to abandon the true revealed stories that are important for our understanding of our salvation and the salvation of our entire planet.

[caudicus]

I was told that Dinosaurs were a trick of the Devil when I was young. People who suggest such ideas are truly immature and shouldn't be in positions of authority.

[Honorentheos]

We had a stake presidency member give a similar message a few years back, though it sounds like it had a bit more tact in the delievery. The effect was to leave everyone pretty much free to believe what one wanted, though I couldn't figure out where the line was drawn as to what could or could not be said in church on the matter...

[Tramper]

The problem with having everyone believe what they want is this. The firm believers (they who believe in the orthodox lie) are considered better members than they who knows the real truth. The Church could easily present the facts: The flood was never worldwide. We have grossly misinterpreted the Bible. End of discussion.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The problem with having everyone believe what they want is this. The firm believers (they who believe in the orthodox lie) are considered better members than they who knows the real truth. The Church could easily present the facts: The flood was never worldwide. We have grossly misinterpreted the Bible. End of discussion.

I know some Evangelicals who believe that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark. Here is an interesting story

[Tramper]

There is simply not space for a belief in a worldwide flood. Still the Church is silent on the matter. There is a pressure on members to still believe in things proven to be wrong. Our manuals treat the worldwide flood as an actual event that took place. It is even called a beginning of a new dispensation. I don't really know what to make of that?

[The_Monk]

The background for my question is this. Recently my bishop made a firm statement on this issue. He said that the Devil repeatedly attacks the Bible stories trying to persuade the faithful to abandon the true revealed stories that are important for our understanding of our salvation and the salvation of our entire planet.

"True" "revealed" and "revelation" are not synonymous with "historical."

Edit: My Stake President Dad doesn't believe in a worldwide flood. I've also presented the idea of a limited flood (as part of a mythological polemic) in teaching Institute, and no one's said boo.

[furii]

There is simply not space for a belief in a worldwide flood. Still the Church is silent on the matter. There is a pressure on members to still believe in things proven to be wrong. Our manuals treat the worldwide flood as an actual event that took place. It is even called a beginning of a new dispensation. I don't really know what to make of that?

Members are taught to believe in Christ and follow His principles. Regardless of "evidence" for or against a worldwide or local flood, we should continue in faith. We won't be condemned for believing one way or another.

Was it Pres. Hinckley that said things like the age of the earth, dinosaurs, etc. having no bearing on his salvation? I feel this falls under that category. So long as we believe Noah existed and was a prophet of God and that the Lord purged the wicked and saved the righteous, at the very least in the immediate locale, then we have no conflicts with the Lord.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Was it Pres. Hinckley that said things like the age of the earth, dinosaurs, etc. having no bearing on his salvation? I feel this falls under that category. So long as we believe Noah existed and was a prophet of God and that the Lord purged the wicked and saved the righteous, at the very least in the immediate locale, then we have no conflicts with the Lord.

This is the point, my salvation is not dependant on weather oor not a globabl flood happened. Pretty simple.

[Lightbearer]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to have the truth, and Mormon theology claims that there are perfect harmony between science and true religion. The only conflicts exist in the minds of men.

My short question is this: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was worldwide?

The article below (see the link) may be a helpful introduction of this issue: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/content/wp-.../4003-White.pdf

The background for my question is this. Recently my bishop made a firm statement on this issue. He said that the Devil repeatedly attacks the Bible stories trying to persuade the faithful to abandon the true revealed stories that are important for our understanding of our salvation and the salvation of our entire planet.

Why not? That is what the scriptures tell us... notwithstanding what some so-called science may say to the contrary. If science says the resurrection is impossible, I will still believe in the resurrection as a fact. I am not impressed by the theories of men that come clothed in the guise of science. 2,000 years ago the prevailing "science" said the sun revolved around the earth... but that was not true. A better question is: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was NOT worldwide?

[furii]

Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was NOT worldwide?

Yes. See my post above.

I agree that science is not something to base faith on, and it should certainly not change our beliefs one way or another because it is only a way of viewing the world, and best guesses, not definitive proof. But I do not think we should condemn people one way or another on this particular belief, so long as the important and doctrinally relevant points are held by all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why not? That is what the scriptures tell us... notwithstanding what some so-called science may say to the contrary. If science says the resurrection is impossible, I will still believe in the resurrection as a fact. I am not impressed by the theories of men that come clothed in the guise of science. 2,000 years ago the prevailing "science" said the sun revolved around the earth... but that was not true. A better question is: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was NOT worldwide?

Even more recent (and I love this one) is that a diet low in fat would help you loose weight. That turned out to be bogus too.

I stand by your words, and this is how I look at certain things.

To the skeptics, if there was a global flood what would it look like. Accourding to Noah's story the earth only would have been covered for a short time like a year or less. What would we or could we expect to see if it had happned?

Note: I believe it did happen.

[thesometimesaint]

Tramper:

I am a social scientist by training, but enjoy the physical sciences as well. Though we are but babes playing in the sand box of both, ultimately there is no conflict with true science and true religion.

I personally believe that Evolution is how God Created everything. That The Flood was a localized event, and I have no idea where the Garden of Eden is now.

I've served in various positions at my Ward and Stake level including in the Bishopric. I Home Teach my Bishop. I've never been turned down for a Temple Recommend, and go on a regular bases.

I am friends with the more Liberal, and the more Orthodox in my Ward.

It just isn't a problem for me.

[Joseph Antley]

Our mission president didn't believe in a worldwide flood. Before he moved last year, he came to our branch and gave a talk where he spoke about random things like the Flood, the curse of Cain, etc., much to several of the elderly members' astonishments ("How DARE he say that black skin is not God's curse!").

[ryanelwood]

Why not? That is what the scriptures tell us... notwithstanding what some so-called science may say to the contrary. If science says the resurrection is impossible, I will still believe in the resurrection as a fact. I am not impressed by the theories of men that come clothed in the guise of science. 2,000 years ago the prevailing "science" said the sun revolved around the earth... but that was not true. A better question is: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was NOT worldwide?

So you are going to accept what an ancient writing by an unknown author over the modern scientific method? Plain and simple there is no evidence for a world wide flood that has been found by geologists. Are you impressed with the theories of science that put men on the moon, invented computers, cars, phones, airplanes, modern medicine, etc, etc. Or are these just theories clothed in the guise of science?

[katherine the great]

My short question is this: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was worldwide?

Do you mean "can they claim that the flood was NOT worldwide?" I'm a member in good standing and I don't believe in a worldwide flood. The only thing that really makes it impossible for church leadership to teach a local flood is that church leaders have taught that the flood was a literal immersion baptism of the earth. Members who strongly believe that would have a hard time accepting a local flood.

[katherine the great]

Plain and simple there is no evidence for a world wide flood that has been found by geologists.

I would go even further and say that there is overwhelming evidence that there was NOT a worldwide flood in historic times. There are unbroken chains of animal and plant life that would have been completely destroyed if there had been a worldwide flood. All animals in the world would have been destroyed and then had to find their way back to their native lands without leaving any traces of themselves along the way (like kangaroos and polar bears.)

[ryanelwood]

I would go even further and say that there is overwhelming evidence that there was NOT a worldwide flood in historic times. There are unbroken chains of animal and plant life that would have been completely destroyed if there had been a worldwide flood. All animals in the world would have been destroyed and then had to find their way back to their native lands without leaving any traces of themselves along the way (like kangaroos and polar bears.)

Well said

[katherine the great]

Well said

However, I say that with complete belief that the scriptures are the inspired word of God.

[Tramper]

Do you mean "can they claim that the flood was NOT worldwide?" I'm a member in good standing and I don't believe in a worldwide flood. The only thing that really makes it impossible for church leadership to teach a local flood is that church leaders have taught that the flood was a literal immersion baptism of the earth. Members who strongly believe that would have a hard time accepting a local flood.

No, I meant what I said. Can a member in a leading position claim something we know to be false without any actions from higher Church levels? The Church should make an official statement on this matter. The Church should be a place for truth.

[thesometimesaint]

Tramper:

I can only go by what God has told us so far, and so far all we have is what is in the Scriptures. Until God gives us what He really did, and why. We are free to believe anything about The Flood we want. Hugh Nibley has some very good thoughts on it.

[Rommelator]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Hebrew word for "earth" simply mean "land"? And what ramifications would this have for how the Bible presents the Flood.

[dblagent007]

I could see this both ways, although I lean toward a localized flood theory. Part of the problem I have with a worldwide flood is that when Genesis was written, the people did not know that the world was a large sphere. When the people wrote the story and said that the water covered the whole earth, did they appreciate that world was a large sphere? No. The world as they knew it was a localized area of land. Thus, it covered the whole world (as they knew it). It just doesn't seem correct to impute knowledge of a spherical, enormous earth to the person that wrote the flood story.

[Uncle Wa]

Modern Science has painted itself into a corner on this one. Obviously everyone involved in "popular" modern geologic science revears the likes of Charles Darwin, Charles Lydell and the granddaddy of them all James Hutton as the "prophets" of modern uniformitarianism.

These men created an irrepairable rift between modern uniformitarianism and catastrophism. If you accept evolution and its foundation of uniformitarianism, you cannot accept catastrophism in any way shape or form.

Taking into account that focilized sea life is currently and continually found by geologists and paleontologists at above the 18,000 foot mark worldwide, how do you "true science" uniformitarians reconcile this? I mean give us a break. You can't have it both ways. If by your arguement the flood wasn't a worldwide immersion, what was it? I guess it just left the tips of some mountain ranges showing. That sounds like you're really straining at a knat there. You can't reject catastrphism for uniformitarianism and then run to it to explain just one phenomena like ancient sea life miles above the sea.

The bottom line is you are full of it and you don't know. Pardon me, the last statement was only directed at true scintists in this forum. For the rest of you pseudo-intellectuals who got a B+ on your college geology course, I have another comment. YOU REALLY DON"T KNOW.

Sure love ya,

Uncle Wa

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Wa:

Ever hear of Punctuated Uniformitarianism?

And yes I am a real honest to goodness scientist. I have a Bachelor of Science, and a Master of Science.