Do You Believe The â??biblical Accountâ?�?

[Ron Beron]

What church do you belong to? The LDS church claims it. You are the lone member off in left field dissenting. The church knows exactly where they stand on the issue and they proclaim and teach that position in no uncertain terms repeatedly. If you want to quibble over the exacting definitions of doctrine, take it up with your church, your leadership and the LDS system of making mystical and ambigious 98% of their so-called doctrines. It is the LDS church making the claim, and doing so repeatedly, consistently and uniquivocally.

Where is this unequivocal and unimpeachable doctrine taught? Elders Widstoe, Talmage, and Roberts have all find some disagreement with the literal story taught in the Bible. Are they also in "left field"? Do they represent a dissident fringe within the church or are they simply applying some the brains God gave all of us?

[cinepro]

Where is this unequivocal and unimpeachable doctrine taught? Elders Widstoe, Talmage, and Roberts have all find some disagreement with the literal story taught in the Bible. Are they also in "left field"? Do they represent a dissident fringe within the church or are they simply applying some the brains God gave all of us?

Can you please provide the quotes from these fine apostles wherein they express their divergent views on the nature and scope of the flood? Has such an idea as the local flood ever been expressed in any official Church meeting, publication or setting? Even once?

To answer your first question, the unequivocal and unimpeachable doctrine of the global flood is taught in the Old Testament, The Pearl of Great Price, General Conference, Sunday School, Primary, Seminary, and college-level institute classes. Also articles in the Ensign, New Era and Friend, talks to BYU students, and regional and local conferences and meetings.

If you're third question is meant to imply that someone who believes in the global flood doesn't use their brain, I'm inclined to agree with you. Such a belief is rooted in faith, not the arm of the flesh.

[Ron Beron]

Can you please provide the quotes from these fine apostles wherein they express their divergent views on the nature and scope of the flood? Has such an idea as the local flood ever been expressed in any official Church meeting, publication or setting? Even once?

To answer your first question, the unequivocal and unimpeachable doctrine of the global flood is taught in the Old Testament, The Pearl of Great Price, General Conference, Sunday School, Primary, Seminary, and college-level institute classes. Also articles in the Ensign, New Era and Friend, talks to BYU students, and regional and local conferences and meetings.

If you're third question is meant to imply that someone who believes in the global flood doesn't use their brain, I'm inclined to agree with you. Such a belief is rooted in faith, not the arm of the flesh.

I previously posted such info here... http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208470154

Talmage had equally troublesome views in relationship to the flood, but he generally agreed with the status quo. I cannot find his comments on this, but I will find them.

I agree that there isn't an official declaration on this.

[Tchild2]

Whenever something is delivered as doctrine or canon it IS accompanied by a signed letter from the First Presidency. To be sure the presidency of the church has never made an official declaration on the great flood et al.

So is the first presidency wrong concerning the global flood? Are the authors of the Ensign wrong, not once but two or three times now? Would you go on record saying they are wrong? You are arguing semantics of what is doctrinal while ignoring the greater implications of what is actually being taught by the LDS church.

If it isn't doctrinal, why is it the same message over and over and over again over the decades, unaltered and consistent? Why is the church wasting precious time and energy reiterating the literalness of a global flood when Ron Beron on the internet knows...or suspects that so many LDS church leaders are giving out non doctrinal pap to the masses? and Ron can prove it because no signed letter by the first presidency exists.

[Ron Beron]

'Tchild2' writes,

So is the first presidency wrong concerning the global flood? Are the authors of the Ensign wrong, not once but two or three times now? Would you go on record saying they are wrong? You are arguing semantics of what is doctrinal while ignoring the greater implications of what is actually being taught by the LDS church.

The First Presidency has never made an official declaration regarding a global flood, therefore they cannot be wrong. The author of the Ensign article is incorrect in his assumptions.

If it isn't doctrinal, why is it the same message over and over and over again over the decades, unaltered and consistent? Why is the church wasting precious time and energy reiterating the literalness of a global flood when Ron Beron on the internet knows...or suspects that so many LDS church leaders are giving out non doctrinal pap to the masses? and Ron can prove it because no signed letter by the first presidency exists.

Does it exist? No, therefore you are spouting codswallop. To my knowledge the church has little time or inclination to announce the historicity of the flood only the lessons we can gain from it. You confusing the historical over the spiritual. There is little or no evidence either historically or scientifically for a global flood. In fact, the term global did not even exist in Noah's age! The flood is a spiritual story not a historical fact.

[Tchild2]

'Tchild2' writes,

The First Presidency has never made an official declaration regarding a global flood, therefore they cannot be wrong. The author of the Ensign article is incorrect in his assumptions.

Of all the church teachings extant, how many are backed by an "official declaration" by the first presidency? Will we get to use this argument against any and all assertions you make about LDS beliefs? I agree that the author of the Ensign is wrong. But the Ensign is an official medium for the church reflecting its doctrines, teachings and beliefs. So who decides if the Ensign articles are wrong, and assumptions unwarranted? You?

Does it exist? No, therefore you are spouting codswallop. To my knowledge the church has little time or inclination to announce the historicity of the flood only the lessons we can gain from it. You confusing the historical over the spiritual. There is little or no evidence either historically or scientifically for a global flood. In fact, the term global did not even exist in Noah's age! The flood is a spiritual story not a historical fact.

Hey I agree with you. However, the global flood has been taught as a literal reality, factual and tangible. Donald W Perry Said so, and he did it with the full support of the church via the Ensign. Since the church has and does teach it as truth, and there is nothing "official" to refute it. Perhaps you could provide an "official declaration" by the first presidency that such teachings are not doctrinal? It looks like you have the burden of proof, not me.

[Danna]

No.

What church do you belong to?

No church, I am now a skeptic. The only church I have ever been a member of is the LDS. My DH is Catholic and we live and let live. My family are either LDS or exLDS agnostics. I am on this board because I did a deal with my mum to read the BoM and I thought she was a member here, then found it interesting. I think she is a lurker though (hi mum!). This is one of the topics we discuss.

Back to your first statement. Please explain why you (and others here) do not consider the Book of Moses to be Doctrine! Not only is it one of the canonised works, it is even open to too much interpretation. dblagent007 stated that the narrative in Moses was handed down from Noah, thus was still Noah's POV. That is not what the text says.

Here is Moses again:

Book of Moses 1:1 THE words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain

We have two amazing events here. First, we have the words that God spoke to Moses on Mt Sinai, and Moses wrote down. Then we have the original text revealed directly to Joseph Smith through divine agency. Noah and his POV are not involved here. God gives the details to Moses. Moses' writings are transmitted to the pen of Joseph (or his mouth, from memory he dictated this?). Surely something involving this amount of interference with natural laws would be pretty important!

And a large component concerned a flood that wiped out ALL flesh bar that on the ark. I do not think the land vs earth discussion is relevant here at all. There is no 'original' word to discuss. Other uses of earth in Moses make it pretty clear that the globe is involved.

Book of Moses Chap 7:43

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.

Book of Moses Chap 8:17

And the Lord said unto Noah: My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he shall know that all flesh shall die; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years; and if men do not repent, I will send in the floods upon them.

Book of Moses Chap 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.

[dblagent007]

And a large component concerned a flood that wiped out ALL flesh bar that on the ark. I do not think the land vs earth discussion is relevant here at all. There is no 'original' word to discuss. Other uses of earth in Moses make it pretty clear that the globe is involved.

Funny, but the land vs. earth issue is explicitly set forth in Moses:

Moses 1

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called ^aearth, and there were ^binhabitants on the face thereof.

[JarMan]

What church do you belong to? The LDS church claims it.

Some members of the LDS church claim it. The church itself does not. Constantly repeating that it is doctrine does not make it doctrine.

You are the lone member off in left field dissenting.

Do you mean to tell me that you have surveyed 13 million Mormons and I am the only one who thinks the flood was local? I'm not even the lone member on this board arguing for a local flood.

The church knows exactly where they stand on the issue and they proclaim and teach that position in no uncertain terms repeatedly.

You have a few examples of people giving their opinions on the issue, and that is equivalent to the church itself teaching it in no uncertain terms repeatedly? Puh-lease.

If you want to quibble over the exacting definitions of doctrine, take it up with your church, your leadership and the LDS system of making mystical and ambigious 98% of their so-called doctrines. It is the LDS church making the claim, and doing so repeatedly, consistently and uniquivocally.

It is you who called the global flood doctrine. Not the LDS church. They have not taught this repeatedly, consistently, or unequivically. You claim that 98% of the church's doctrine is mystical and ambiguous and yet you can't even define what doctrine is. If you want to continue to bash the LDS church, in general, I suggest you start a new thread. This thread is about a specific story in the Bible and how people understand it.

[JarMan]

No church, I am now a skeptic.

Well, no wonder you left the church. I would to If I thought believing everything I heard was not an option.

[JarMan]

No matter how small you think the earth is, or how large, the concept of all the earth and all men is the same. If God says that he has killed off every living creature and all humans save those on the ark, I don't need to know how big the earth or it's shape to understand the meaning of this.

We discussed the word "all" earlier in this thread. Bo back and read what was written and then respond to it. But please don't just reiterate what was said by others without even addressing the counter points that have been made.

How much more obvious could it be that with the shrunken flood story, you are just rationalizing to make an ancient grand and epic myth sit better with what you know about the world now?

On the contrary. I'm reading the story as it exists in the text and the conclusion I reach from the text itself is that there was a local flood. The fact that a local flood is more realistic is important, but it is not the motivating factor for me.

[Tchild2]

Some members of the LDS church claim it. The church itself does not. Constantly repeating that it is doctrine does not make it doctrine.

Your arguing semantics again. What is the church other than the collective teachings it offers through its official mediums? They are official and endorsed by the leadership for a reason: because they represent the official teachings of the church. The Ensign is edited by a general authority, so the "opinions" in the Ensign are endorsed by the church leadership. You don't put much faith in your LDS leadership to disseminate their doctrinal teachings in settings that they control, do you?

Do you mean to tell me that you have surveyed 13 million Mormons and I am the only one who thinks the flood was local? I'm not even the lone member on this board arguing for a local flood.

99.9 percent of sane persons believe the flood story to be either local or mythology. That is the point here; it is a falsifiable claim that has been taught as literally true by persons claiming to speak for God. That is material in weighing whether the LDS church is man-made or divine.

You have a few examples of people giving their opinions on the issue, and that is equivalent to the church itself teaching it in no uncertain terms repeatedly? Puh-lease.

Prophets, apostles and general authorities you mean? The sad thing is that you cannot offer a single "official" teaching to the contrary.

It is you who called the global flood doctrine. Not the LDS church. They have not taught this repeatedly, consistently, or unequivically. You claim that 98% of the church's doctrine is mystical and ambiguous and yet you can't even define what doctrine is. If you want to continue to bash the LDS church, in general, I suggest you start a new thread. This thread is about a specific story in the Bible and how people understand it.

A global flood narrative is contained in two sets of canonized scripture; Genesis in the Bible and the Pearl of Great Price. It was Christianity, the LDS church and LDS prophets that interpreted it literally. The literal claim of a global flood in its fullness is still being taught as currently as of 2008.

[Tarski]

We discussed the word "all" earlier in this thread. Bo back and read what was written and then respond to it. But please don't just reiterate what was said by others without even addressing the counter points that have been made.

On the contrary. I'm reading the story as it exists in the text and the conclusion I reach from the text itself is that there was a local flood. The fact that a local flood is more realistic is important, but it is not the motivating factor for me.

You keep losing track of the fact that God himself speaks. He uses the term "all flesh"

And what do you make of the ark, the two of every species or the length of the flood?

Besides, the archeological evidence a local flood big enough to be described in terms of all flesh and whole earth etc. is absent.

Would it count if there was a rainy day and Noah helped a pig across a puddle while his cousin slipped in the mud and died?

No, it would have had to have been a huge flood. One that wiped out all peoples of the middle east and one that could have lasted as long as is stated.

Genesis 7:24

And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:3

And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the one hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Such a flood never happened.

To even need an ark to preserve all species (even all in the middle east) the flood would have to be big enough that we would know about it from the geological records.

Never happened.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Funny, but the land vs. earth issue is explicitly set forth in Moses:

Moses 1

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called ^aearth, and there were ^binhabitants on the face thereof.

Well that puts that issue to rest doesnt it?

THis got me thinking. I ahve to right out my thoughts when I have more time.

[dblagent007]

You keep losing track of the fact that God himself speaks. He uses the term "all flesh"

Well shoot, how do we know he wasn't talking about everyone on all worlds being destroyed by a flood? After all, God is speaking and he is certainly aware of the many other worlds with people on them, yet he adds no qualification to the term "all flesh."

Let me see if I understand how you are suggesting this went down:

God: Noah, I am going to destroy all flesh in the land in a flood. Build an ark so that you, your family, various animals, etc. will live.

Noah: Okay,

God: P.S., Noah, there is something I need to tell you. You live on a huge spherical planet so when I say "land," I mean the entire planet. The planet revolves around the sun with seven or eight other planets, depending on how you define the term "planet."

Noah: [jaw drops in stunned silence]

God: Okay, well . . . uh . . . just build the ark.

On the other hand, maybe God spoke to Noah knowing how Noah would understand and retell his words. IIRC, I believe there are scriptures that say something like God speaks to man according to man's understanding. This seems to be a plausible, even likely, interpretation of God's dealings with Noah since it would not require any specialized knowledge on Noah's part.

If you are right that God meant the entire planet when Noah didn't have any conception of that, then we all need to reread the scriptures to make sure that God is not speaking to us using terms that we will only understand thousand of years later.

[cinepro]

There is another critical aspect to the argument for a "local flood" which has been overlooked.

Namely, the proponents for a local flood argue that we should interpret Genesis 6-9 from Noah's "point of view". If Noah thought the "whole world" was just the land and people he personally knew, then when he says the flood covered the "Earth", or "Land", or "World", then we should interpret that to mean just the area that Noah knew about and considered to be the "Earth".

The problem is that one of the key claims of the LDS is that prophets, both biblical and modern, know things no one else does. We consider their knowledge about things such as the pre-existence, post-existence, and past, present and future of the the Earth to be totally reliable.

But suddenly, when we are given a scriptural account of a Prophet talking with God, and recounting events, we must restrict the scope of the story to the physical world that the Prophet was personally familiar with. If Noah had only traveled and lived in a certain area, then we must limit the scope of his life experience to those areas, and when he claims there was a flood that covered the "earth", we must necessarily limit that to Noah's limited perspective.

This is a new and radical approach to interpreting the words of the Prophets, and if it is the case for Noah, we should consistently apply it to all Prophets. We should reinterpret everything Joseph Smith said as being limited to his specific experience. The Word of Wisdom should only be interpreted as having meaning to Joseph's Northeastern-US upbringing and life experience. Prounouncements of 19th and early 20th century prophets must be placed in a limited Utah/Idaho context. And anything Prophets have said about a pre- or post-mortal existence must be dismissed, or at least doubuted, because this falls outside of their immediate physical life experience.

If we are going to argue that Prophets know something we don't, and their knowledge exists apart from their immediate physical limitations into a broader spiritual realm, then we can't use Noah's limited physical experience as de facto proof of a local flood (especially when the scriptures themselves and the words of God in those scriptures give every indication of a global flood).

If the scriptures described a local flood, but believers wanted to argue for a global flood, then it would be reasonable to argue that the local flood-description is a result of Noah's limited physical experience. But everything in the scriptures and Church-published modern day apostolic interpretation speaks to a global flood, so it diminishes and discredits the claim of what a prophet is, or should be, to argue that through all of Noah's prophetic experience and conversations with God, he never understood there were people who lived outside of his local area. And it was deceitful for God to address Noah as if that were the case.

So not only does the Local Flood theory turn the biblical story into a farce, it diminishes the claim of what a prophet is, and how we should consider their claims regarding supernatural events and their conversations with God. And of course, it also thoroughly discredits the ability of modern apostles to correctly evaluate the meaning and scope of scriptural stories.

[Ron Beron]

'Tchild2' writes,

Of all the church teachings extant, how many are backed by an "official declaration" by the first presidency? Will we get to use this argument against any and all assertions you make about LDS beliefs? I agree that the author of the Ensign is wrong. But the Ensign is an official medium for the church reflecting its doctrines, teachings and beliefs. So who decides if the Ensign articles are wrong, and assumptions unwarranted? You?

What you call a reflection is simply that...a reflection. The only official canon (and I make that a distinction from doctrine) are the scriptures and official proclamations. As to the determination of what is wrong or not is generally found in the promptings of the spirit. The fact that we have such consternation about the dogma found in the Ensign underlines that fact that we are not united in spirit on this.

Hey I agree with you. However, the global flood has been taught as a literal reality, factual and tangible. Donald W Perry Said so, and he did it with the full support of the church via the Ensign. Since the church has and does teach it as truth, and there is nothing "official" to refute it. Perhaps you could provide an "official declaration" by the first presidency that such teachings are not doctrinal? It looks like you have the burden of proof, not me.

Good challenge, but unnecessary. I believe the First Presidency would rather leave to a personal expression of faith or knowledge. We don't need to be taught in all things. That is why we have the spirit. Somethings of greater spiritual import require the direction of the First Presidency and we are informed hence.

I will also agree that the idea of a global flood has either been taught or accepted within the church, but I believe on those occasions it reflects the personal faith and opinion of the authority. While we might disagree on the historicity of the event we agree, I would hope, on the spiritual message of the event. As a recent article on the subject concluded...

LDS leaders have demonstrated far more interest in the story's moral, social, and existential symbolism than in its historical details. The point of these sermons is how to exercise faith, how to live in a corrupt world about to be destroyed, how to maintain faith in the LDS Church despite the scoffing of critics, and so forth. We suspect that current Latter-day Saints will continue to use Noah's story as a religious and literary model, just as in the past.

Clayton M. White and Mark D. Thomas (On Balancing Faith in Mormonism with Traditional Biblical Stories: The Noachian Flood Story

[Ron Beron]

'Danna' writes,

And a large component concerned a flood that wiped out ALL flesh bar that on the ark. I do not think the land vs earth discussion is relevant here at all. There is no 'original' word to discuss. Other uses of earth in Moses make it pretty clear that the globe is involved.

Please consider how the ancients considered the earth. The earth e'retz was not a globe, but a sheet on which all things, however limited.

As to all flesh dying off. To a observer such as Noah, the ostensible author of the flood story, then all life would have been wiped out. That doesn't mean it was.

[Ron Beron]

'Tchild2' writes,

A global flood narrative is contained in two sets of canonized scripture; Genesis in the Bible and the Pearl of Great Price. It was Christianity, the LDS church and LDS prophets that interpreted it literally. The literal claim of a global flood in its fullness is still being taught as currently as of 2008.

While it doesn't denigrate the "message" of the flood an incorrect reading of the flood story due to a lack of understanding ancient nuance and language can lend to some uncritical reading and literalness of the flood. I have yet to hear or read of a general authority, aside from their personal views, an official message that a global flood occurred. Two reasons,

1. There wasn't a globe in the minds of the ancients.

2. It was a localized large scale flood that to the eye of the observer would appear to be a world-wide flood.

[dblagent007]

But suddenly, when we are given a scriptural account of a Prophet talking with God, and recounting events, we must restrict the scope of the story to the physical world that the Prophet was personally familiar with. If Noah had only traveled and lived in a certain area, then we must limit the scope of his life experience to those areas, and when he claims there was a flood that covered the "earth", we must necessarily limit that to Noah's limited perspective.

This is a new and radical approach to interpreting the words of the Prophets, and if it is the case for Noah, we should consistently apply it to all Prophets. We should reinterpret everything Joseph Smith said as being limited to his specific experience. The Word of Wisdom should only be interpreted as having meaning to Joseph's Northeastern-US upbringing and life experience. Prounouncements of 19th and early 20th century prophets must be placed in a limited Utah/Idaho context. And anything Prophets have said about a pre- or post-mortal existence must be dismissed, or at least doubuted, because this falls outside of their immediate physical life experience.

The story of Noah and the flood has a distinct geographical element to it that other teachings, stories, etc. (such as the WoW) do not.

Let's use the Word of Wisdom as an example. First, there is an important difference between the Word of Wisdom and the flood. The flood was a single event that was witnessed by certain people. The Word of Wisdom is a revealed principle that we live by and as such has changed over time. However, my point is easily illustrated by a review of the event aspect (i.e., historical aspect) of the Word of Wisdom.

As an event, we must view the Word of Wisdom from the perspective of those that experienced it. If we don't use the perspective of the original people involved in interpreting events, then we will fall into error. The WoW is a good exmple to use because today we understand it much differently than the people did back in the 1800s. If we didn't know that the Word of Wisdom was more like good advice back in the 1800s, we would be extremely shocked to learn that Heber J. Grant enjoyed beer when he was a young man. It wasn't shocking to the members at the time, but it sure is now given how we understand the Word of Wisdom.

If we are going to argue that Prophets know something we don't, and their knowledge exists apart from their immediate physical limitations into a broader spiritual realm, then we can't use Noah's limited physical experience as de facto proof of a local flood (especially when the scriptures themselves and the words of God in those scriptures give every indication of a global flood).

So how much scientific knowledge are you going to impute to Noah because of his calling as a prophet? Last I checked, being a prophet meant that you knew certain gospel truths, had a testimony of them, and would testify about them to others. It didn't usually mean they were endowed with great scientific knowledge from God.

If the scriptures described a local flood, but believers wanted to argue for a global flood, then it would be reasonable to argue that the local flood-description is a result of Noah's limited physical experience. But everything in the scriptures and Church-published modern day apostolic interpretation speaks to a global flood, so it diminishes and discredits the claim of what a prophet is, or should be, to argue that through all of Noah's prophetic experience and conversations with God, he never understood there were people who lived outside of his local area. And it was deceitful for God to address Noah as if that were the case.

I agree that your best argument for a global flood rests on the many modern statements to that effect. However, there have been and are church leaders that believe the flood was not global as well.

A localized flood does nothing to discredit Noah. He is describing his experience. He lived through it, and he is giving his account. God addressing Noah with full knowledge of Noah's limited understanding is hardly deceitful. I imagine that when God has addressed anyone on earth in any situation he has had to be fully congnizant of that person's limited understanding. After all, I doubt anyone comes close to God's understanding (Barack Obama excluded of course).

So not only does the Local Flood theory turn the biblical story into a farce, it diminishes the claim of what a prophet is, and how we should consider their claims regarding supernatural events and their conversations with God.

A prophet is an otherwise ordinary person that has been given a holy calling because of his faith and works. That has always been my understanding. I didn't know I was diminishing the role of a prophet by asserting that in many instances he has the same understanding of scientific principles as his contemporaries. Apparantly, a prophet must also have also received additional scientific knowledge from God which he writes about in his writings so that his contemporaries won't understand it, but so that people thousands of years later will. Riiight. I'm a wee bit skeptical of this claim.

[cinepro]

'Tchild2' writes,

While it doesn't denigrate the "message" of the flood an incorrect reading of the flood story due to a lack of understanding ancient nuance and language can lend to some uncritical reading and literalness of the flood. I have yet to hear or read of a general authority, aside from their personal views, an official message that a global flood occurred. Two reasons,

1. There wasn't a globe in the minds of the ancients.

2. It was a localized large scale flood that to the eye of the observer would appear to be a world-wide flood.

I've got to say, I love reading this thread, and then going to the Church website and reading about Noah's flood. It's like crossing a portal between two parallel universes.

Here's an awesome article. Granted, the author isn't a GA, but just get a load of the opening claim:

Noahâ??s majestic importance as a major prophet of God is clearly noted in biblical text. He is, after all, the central figure in the account of a universal flood and was responsible for the continuation of humankind. Still, without the revelations of the Restoration we would miss so much more about Noah and his pivotal role both as a mortal and as a nonmortal.

While speaking in 1839 to members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and some Seventies prior to their leaving for missionary service, the Prophet Joseph Smith said: â??Noah, who is Gabriel, â?¦ stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.â? 1

Noah, The Great Preacher of Righteousness

So help me out here. When I read that, do I need to interpret it according to Noah's view of the world, Joseph Smith's view of the world, or Brother Romney's view of the world?

Brother Romney also goes into a little detail about how close Noah was with God:

The import of this teaching about Noah walking with God is that Noah, as did Adam and Enoch before him, received the fulness of the priesthood with its sealing power. 8 In fact, it is written that Enoch â??walked with God,â? as did his people, and he talked with God, â??even as a man talketh one with another, face to faceâ? (Gen. 5:24; Moses 7:4; see also D&C 84:19â??24; D&C 107:49; Moses 6:39; Moses 7:20, 69). In the fulness of the priesthood, Enoch â??and every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course; to put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every bandâ? and, most important, â??to stand in the presence of Godâ? (JST, Gen. 14:30â??31). Obviously, Noah enjoyed those blessings.

It's a tragedy of epic (and mythic) proportions that in all this walking and talking, God didn't mention to Noah that there were other people living outside of his local geographical area.

There is also another article where the author deals with the scientific problems regarding Noah's Flood:

One of the dramatic stories in Genesis is of a flood, a flood so cataclysmic that we call it simply the Flood. According to the Genesis record, God told Noah, â??I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall dieâ? (Gen. 6:17).

And the scripture records that â??in the six hundredth year of Noahâ??s life â?¦ were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

â??And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

â??And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; â?¦ and the mountains were covered.

â??And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.

â??And Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the arkâ? (Gen. 7:11â??12, 19â??21, 23).

The worldwide flood of Noahâ??s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of yearsâ??and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes. Yet the story is regarded skeptically today in our secular world. Most current geology texts ignore the Flood, ridicule it, or use it as an example of prescientific superstition.

Consequently, Latter-day Saints and other Christians sometimes find the apparent conflict between their faith in the scriptures and their education puzzling. The account of Noahâ??s flood is a typical illustration of the differences which occur between scriptural information and modern secular teachings about the history of the world.

The author goes into a history of science and its relationship with "religion", and then argues that one of Joseph Smith's great triumphs was to reinforce the truth of scripture in the face of scientific skepticism. One of the ways he did this was to show the spiritual importance of the reality of the worldwide flood:

Within this enlarged view of a celestial uniformity, the worldwide flood of Noahâ??s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earthâ??s baptism. Brigham Young pointed out that the earth â??abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell uponâ? (in Journal of Discourses, 8:83).

The law for a world such as ours closely parallels the law for its inhabitants. Like each of us, the earth existed for a time in the presence of God in a premortal, uncorrupted condition. Like each of us, it entered a fallen, mortal condition. Like us, it must be sanctified by being born again, first of the water and then of the Spirit. The earth has been cleansed by water baptism, and its cleansing by fire associated with the last days will allow the Holy Spirit to dwell throughout the whole earth during the Millennium when the earth, not yet glorified, will be sanctified. For the earth, as for us, the work of salvation can only be completed through death, which will alter its mortal structure, followed by a glorious resurrection, which will establish it upon celestial principles that it may abide in that glory forever.

The Gospel and the Scientific View: How the Earth Came to Be

Does someone want to email the good Brother Neilsen and let him know the bad news? Turns out the Earth's baptism wasn't by immersion, so God may have to redo it.

[cinepro]

And just to be fair, I will point out that proponents of the limited flood haven't seemed to grasp what is probably their strongest argument. If the Flood was sent as a punishment for the wicked who would not heed Noah's warning, it would be unmerciful and unjust to wipe out everyone on the planet if Noah could only warn those people in his local geographic area.

Most Bible literalists would argue that there were no people in other parts of the planet (this being pre-Tower of Babel and pre-Jaredite), but if we believe the evidence that there were people on other continents, then it would be logical to assume that God didn't kill them via a flood they hadn't been warned about.

[cinepro]

Yeah it would be pretty stupid to generalize the conditions of one covenant that has a distinctly geographical aspect to it to other covenants that do not. I'm definitely with you on that one. Why anyone would want to do such a thing is beyond me.

Regarding the scope of the covenant God made with Noah, I was surprised to find this very subject has been addressed by a latter-day Prophet of God:

Reading and studying the scriptures make us conscious of the many conditional promises made by the Lord to encourage obedience and righteous living. Israelite history is filled with examples of covenants, which constitute one of the central themes of the Old Testamentâ??the promises of God made in exchange for the commitments of the prophets and the people.

The Lord made a covenant with Noah, and the rainbow became the token of that eternal covenant with all mankind (see Genesis 9:13). The covenant made with Abraham and his seed was sealed by the ceremony of circumcision as a sacrament (see Genesis 17:10â??11). And the token or sign of the great covenant with all Israel made at Sinai was the Sabbath (see Exodus 31:12â??17).

Howard W. Hunter - Commitment to God (Republished 2006)

Emphasis added.

So President Hunter, a man sustained as a latter day voice for the Lord, clearly says that Noah's covenant applies as an eternal covenant with all mankind. For those who would promote a "limited covenant" theory, does this change your mind?

And if the covenant is eternal, and covers all mankind, what was the exact promise God was making, considering there have been many, many local floods that killed people and animals since then?

[LeSellers]

A localized flood does nothing to discredit Noah. He is describing his experience. He lived through it, and he is giving his account. God addressing Noah with full knowledge of Noah's limited understanding is hardly deceitful.

There is one problem, however, with this "localized flood" theory:

It undermines (does not destroy, but makes it more difficult) to see the origin of mankind in Missouri.

If Noah's flood was world-wide, getting from somewhere in what-is-now-North-America to eastern-what-now-is-Turkey (or -Armenia) is no problem at all: boats in storms travel a long, long way in 200 days. Take away the oceanic voyage, and we are left with a Noah who either started out in Eurasia or who swam the last three thousand miles.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

it would be unmerciful and unjust to wipe out everyone on the planet if Noah could only warn those people in his local geographic area.

Except this assumes that Noah was unable to move about himself. He was 500 years old when the commandment to build the ark came to him, and 600 when the first rains hit the earth.

Someone can travel a very long distance in five or six centuries. (Making the assumption that there was a world-wide dispersal of humanity prior to the flood.)

Lehi