Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[Rob Osborn]

There actually is some truth to the flood being likened with Baptism. Read this from the scriptures-

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.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:20 - 21)

Here it is in all it's glory. The flood was likened to being baptized because it was. Baptize means to dip or immerse. The earth was baptized in this sense that wickedness was destroyed through the immersion of the earth by the flood and only noah and his seed were saved. It is interesting that ancient prophets even said that the earth was baptized!

[HiJolly]

There actually is some truth to the flood being likened with Baptism. Read this from the scriptures-

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.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:20 - 21)

Here it is in all it's glory. The flood was likened to being baptized because it was. Baptize means to dip or immerse. The earth was baptized in this sense that wickedness was destroyed through the immersion of the earth by the flood and only noah and his seed were saved. It is interesting that ancient prophets even said that the earth was baptized!

The number "eight" is very special too, isn't it, since I just baptised my 8-year-old this month.

HiJolly

[cinepro]

The Church is silent on the issue.

I know there is still a month to go, but I think I have my winner for "Funniest Post of 2007".

Good job, Nofear. My joy at your comment is tinged only with sadness that it is so very untrue.

There are few points for which I would claim universal agreement among the Scriptures, every Church leader, and every Church publication for the last 177 years. The literalness and globalness of Noah's flood is one of these points. It has been continually referenced in the Scriptures, Conferences, talks and official and unofficial Church publications since 1830, without a single wink that even hints at the possibility of a local or allegorical interpretation. Not a single one.

You can say you don't agree with the literal and global interpretation (as many LDS do say), but you cannot say the Church "is silent" on the matter, or that the Church hasn't officially (and dare I say doctrinally) taught the literal, global version of the story continually and universally for its entire history.

This may change in the future (after all, we believe in continuing revelation), but as of today, November 30, 2007, the Church teaches only the literal, global version of the story. And it does so in scripture, on the website, in official Church magazines, and the currently used curriculum for Sunday School, Seminary, and college-level CES courses.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is what is wrong with religion, it offers such an inflexible static worldview that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one is not able to see the world as it is when presented the facts.

And what are the facts? I love this scientific debate. You think science has the answers to why we are here? I have seen nothing but a bunch of educated people making models of what "probably" took place. Nice.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm with Ron on this one. The flood was global, that has never been disproven by "science" so-called at least not to me. You can believe as you want, but I believe it was just as it says and have no reason to believe otherwise. Science also does not believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected with an immortal body of flesh and bone but I do. A lot of what I believe and know to be true is not in harmony with what so-called science thinks is true, but so what?

Amen Brother. Why is this even being debated. Science can only observe the physical universe. It does not claim to know what is in the spiritual universe. Accrouding to science it is or has not been observed throuth the scientific methood that Jesus rose form the dead. So it cant be proven one way or another through science.

[cinepro]

And what are the facts? I love this scientific debate. You think science has the answers to why we are here? I have seen nothing but a bunch of educated people making models of what "probably" took place. Nice.

The "facts" are regarding whether or not there was a global, catastrophic flood ~2400 BC. If there was a flood as described in the Old Testament, there are two problems. First, we would expect such an event to leave tons of geological, biological and archaeological evidence. Second, we would expect for there to not be a lot of geological, biological and archaeological evidence that we do have showing there wasn't a flood.

Basically, the world looks exactly as we would expect it to look in every way if there hadn't been a global, catastrophic flood around ~2400 BC. Every method we have at our disposal that allows us to see what the world looked like before ~2400 BC and after ~2400BC indicates that nothing like a global, catastrophic flood happened.

[maupayman]

Another problem if the Flood is local is the concept that the earth was baptised at this time which is still doctrine according to the Guide to the Scriptures.

Not a doctrinal work thankfully.

I think we have a few minor doctrines that are actually opinions based on a 'reasonable explaination' that was extant at whatever time they came about. I have no problem with these doctrines changing as more information becomes available. Until then, they are indeed doctrine according to the Church's standard of doctrine.

Was Bruce R. Mckonkie the first to teach this as doctrine?

[maupayman]

I'm with Ron on this one. The flood was global, that has never been disproven by "science" so-called at least not to me. You can believe as you want, but I believe it was just as it says and have no reason to believe otherwise. Science also does not believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected with an immortal body of flesh and bone but I do. A lot of what I believe and know to be true is not in harmony with what so-called science thinks is true, but so what?

Great feedback thus far, thank you all. The comparison to the resurrection has come up a couple of times now so i thought i would address that. This, in my mind, is not a good comparison because there is no way to know if someone has resurrected because they would not be on the earth. Furthermore, if someone dies today we do not believe they will be resurrected until a later time, so science has no way to prove or disprove this; there simply is no possible data on the matter. The flood, on the other hand would have clearly left its mark if it had been a global event. All the data i have read, including material from LDS scholars like Nibley, seems to indicate that geological, historical, and geograpic evidence conflicts with the global flood possibility. Just a few examples:

-as stated earlier, how would areas like Australia still have plant and animal life if the entire world was flooded?

-why do other nations, such as China, not record the event even though their history goes back further than the bible says the flood occured?

-why is there no evidence for such an event in sedimentary layers or ice core samples?

the list goes on and on....

[maupayman]

Tchild2:

Yours is an equal absolutist position. While there certainly are LDS that hold those positions. I'm not too sure the preponderance do. I am thankful for what I know of the Gospel, and try to learn more all the time. The Church doesn't hold even Prophets, Seers, and Revelators as inerrant. We have no concept such as Infallibility of anything that goes through the hands of man.

This puts the Saints in the position of questioning, testing, and trying, everything. Then going to God for the answer.

And what has God said regarding the flood?

The Church is silent on the issue. Members can be in good standing and believe in either a local or global flood at all levels of Church hierarchy.

PS: Additionally, we haven't been told that the earth has to be "baptized" with water. Some Church members like the symbolism but liking a concept doesn't necessitate it being true.

Did you read my opening post? Gordon B. Hinckley said it was a global flood in a general conference priesthood meeting, is that remaining silent?

[Tchild2]

And what are the facts? I love this scientific debate. You think science has the answers to why we are here? I have seen nothing but a bunch of educated people making models of what "probably" took place. Nice.

Greenland ice sheet!

Read and weep baby!

[maupayman]

Yup. Just in the last year or two there was an article on the literal global flood in the Ensign. <sigh> Good thing my eternal salvation doesn't hinge on my believing that error.

HiJolly

Thank you for your honesty HiJolly. So if you do not believe in the flood as global, how do you reconcile for example the garden of eden being in Missouri? This was the whole point of my thread was to see what people think about these further implications of the flood being non-global

[cinepro]

Thank you for your honesty HiJolly. So if you do not believe in the flood as global, how do you reconcile for example the garden of eden being in Missouri? This was the whole point of my thread was to see what people think about these further implications of the flood being non-global

I can't speak for HiJolly, but hey, maybe the Garden of Eden wasn't in Missouri!? Maybe Joseph Smith was improvising? Or maybe the continents separated after Noah's flood? Or maybe God has carefully changed everything just to make it look this way?

[HiJolly]

Thank you for your honesty HiJolly. So if you do not believe in the flood as global, how do you reconcile for example the garden of eden being in Missouri? This was the whole point of my thread was to see what people think about these further implications of the flood being non-global

Yes, and that's why I, after making a few comments on other posts, finally posted my own comments to your OP. Anyway, I think the singlemost helpful thing from the Church on this in recent times is this Newsroom article on the official website at www.lds.org about what Mormon Doctrine is. In there, they say (among lots of good stuff) that not all doctrines are of equal importance. A--men!

As I learned more about Church history and science and myself and other religions, the more I began to realize the truth. The truth is, God is real, and He loves us. The truth is also, that anyone who talks about Him or His Gospel, is quite likely to get it a bit wrong, including me. Like Son says, go to the source.

Of course, unlike Son, I am firmly and gratefully in love with not only God, but also the LDS Church. So, I overlook the warts and enjoy the fellowship and opportunities they have for me and my family. I take truth wherever I find it, and try to be nice when I find stuff that isn't quite as true.

HiJolly

[Tchild2]

I can't speak for HiJolly, but hey, maybe the Garden of Eden wasn't in Missouri!? Maybe Joseph Smith was improvising? Or maybe the continents separated after Noah's flood? Or maybe God has carefully changed everything just to make it look this way?

To continue along Cinepro's sound reasoning and always pragmatic wisdom: maybe Eden was Atlantis and Tang is really coke, and maybe black is white and the atoms making up all matter are really cheese doodles ready to be gobbled up by hungry mouths. With God anything is possible, even the setting aside of logic, reason, sanity and the very nature of reality.

There currently is another thread titled: "The Real Reason People Don't Join The Lds Church, ... and/or stay with it". That reason might be the realization that to join Mormonism, one might have to suspend reason for madness (taking the Bible literally). I would probaby choose reason as would most others I imagine. If you forgo Mormon thinking, you don't have to bend your mind to the impossible, the implausible, and the utterly insane.

Come on. What is so hard about seeing the global flood as allegorical? Is it really that hard to do? Could it be so, so difficult?

[jadams_4242]

To continue along Cinepro's sound reasoning and always pragmatic wisdom: maybe Eden was Atlantis and Tang is really coke, and maybe black is white and the atoms making up all matter are really cheese doodles ready to be gobbled up by hungry mouths. With God anything is possible, even the setting aside of logic, reason, sanity and the very nature of reality.

There currently is another thread titled: "The Real Reason People Don't Join The Lds Church, ... and/or stay with it". That reason might be the realization that to join Mormonism, one might have to suspend reason for madness (taking the Bible literally). I would probaby choose reason as would most others I imagine. If you forgo Mormon thinking, you don't have to bend your mind to the impossible, the implausible, and the utterly insane.

Come on. What is so hard about seeing the global flood as allegorical? Is it really that hard that hard to do? Could it be so, so difficult?

Allright if you insist! and thats only because of jonah being in the whales belly for three days without any Rolaids.

[Son]

Of course, unlike Son, I am firmly and gratefully in love with not only God, but also the LDS Church. So, I overlook the warts and enjoy the fellowship and opportunities they have for me and my family. I take truth wherever I find it, and try to be nice when I find stuff that isn't quite as true.

HiJolly

Hey! I love God and the CoJCoLDS.

son

[grego]

There are other historical and scientific problems with the story being interpreted literally, but my question is for LDS believers who have decided it must have been a localized event etc. It seems to me that a non-literal interpretation is problematic for LDS teachings...Do we simply write these teachings off? Why do we still teach these things? Any other thoughts?

Why write them off? But yes, one would have to, to believe in only a local flood. And, as Rob said, many more, especially, it would seem, Enoch.

I think Rob hit on an important point--what is essential to our eternal welfare, and what is not?

-=-=-=

Also, how specific have prophets asked regarding certain things, even scriptural accounts?

-=-=-=

this statement is problematic unless you can define the term worldly and biblical. When you say biblical you are assuming that there is a universally established interpretation.

Right. For example, with the Creation: What is meant by "a day"? 24 hours? 1,000 years? A "period of time"?

-=-=-=

Their entire world, as far as they were concerned, went from one mountain peak to the next.

I don't know about that. Enoch surely knew it was more than that--he saw the whole world. So I don't think this is really valid.

Translation and meaning might be, though, when considering statements. ("earth", "world", "land", etc.)

-=-=-=

The Church doesn't hold even Prophets, Seers, and Revelators as inerrant. We have no concept such as Infallibility of anything that goes through the hands of man.

This puts the Saints in the position of questioning, testing, and trying, everything. Then going to God for the answer.

Especially with matters of interpretation of matters like these in the scriptures.

I came to that conclusion with the story of Moroni and Pahoran.

-=-=-=

however it does seem unwise to tout the impossible as being true. Doing so lessens the rest of the message.

First it would have to be shown untrue.

-=-=-=

This is what is wrong with religion, it offers such an inflexible static worldview that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one is not able to see the world as it is when presented the facts.

Ah, like this:

Here's one for you go:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/275993.aspx

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...eOverview8.html

http://www.icr.org/topic/10/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/ages.asp

Lots of Flood Q&A:

http://www.icr.org/article/3126/12/

[maupayman]

I don't believe this teaching is correct. It was borrowed from certain protestant camps. Some LDS leaders thought it was a good defense of biblical teachings, and adopted it. Ooops.

Anyone know who was first in the LDS religion to teach that the world was baptised?

"this land" is global? Hmm... I'd say that's an overstatement.

What else is this referring to then? Your right it does not explicitly state the entire world was flooded, but it seems pretty obvious what it is referring to.

I think this points out the extreme importance of reading scriptures, praying and pondering their meaning, on a daily basis. Not to mention keeping our baptismal and temple covenants. If we understand the spirit, it helps us in the 'writing off' process. Scary, but I think needfull. Nothing brought this home to me more than a perusal of the Journal of Discourses. It's gotta be done.

HiJolly

I agree.

Thanks for addressing the questions directly HiJolly. I agree with most of your points. What of the revelation placing the garden of Eden in Missouri? This one seems to be the biggest problem with a non-literal view of the flood. I noticed it was the only question of mine you did not address.

[Ron Beron]

QUOTETheir entire world, as far as they were concerned, went from one mountain peak to the next. I don't know about that. Enoch surely knew it was more than that--he saw the whole world. So I don't think this is really valid.

Translation and meaning might be, though, when considering statements. ("earth", "world", "land", etc.)

The whole world, at least according to the ancients did not extend much more than beyond their viewing. The word of world in Hebrew is fairly limited, eretz means land as well as world. Their land was their world. It did not include the Himalayas or even the more local Aratta mountains.

[Ron Beron]

Anyone know who was first in the LDS religion to teach that the world was baptised?

Actually, it was referenced in the Bible. More recently Joseph Fielding Smith, in a reiteration of earlier leaders, BY, Orson Pratt, etc., stated, "FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. " Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320.

What else is this referring to then? Your right it does not explicitly state the entire world was flooded, but it seems pretty obvious what it is referring to.

Why is it essential the whole world should be flooded?

[JarMan]

I have been reading through some papers and discussions regarding Noah's flood. . . It seems to me that a non-literal interpretation is problematic for LDS teachings.

I believe a literal interpretation indicates a localized flood.

[alex71va]

Was the earth baptized by immersion? Or just a sprinkling?

[Deborah]

I think it has been clear that church leaders have talked about a universal flood as a baptism of the earth. They are also very clear that we do not know how this was done any more than we know how the creation took place. I don't have a problem with a literal interpretation simply because I think there is so much we don't know or understand. Contrary to the arrogance of modern science I think we have actually lost a lot of knowledge that was known to the ancients. Plus I don't dwell on it because it isn't essential to understanding the Plan of Salvation or the Atonement.

Those LDS who support a localized flood because of lack of evidence, then have to say that the critics are right when they deny the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because of lack of evidence, at least the evidence that supports the scientific world. I do wonder how one responds, however, to the fossil evidence of sea life found in the mountains of North America.

[HiJolly]

Thank you for your honesty HiJolly. So if you do not believe in the flood as global, how do you reconcile for example the garden of eden being in Missouri? This was the whole point of my thread was to see what people think about these further implications of the flood being non-global

I don't. It doesn't make sense to me, but it is doctrine. OTOH, there are many different ways of thinking about it, about how it could be so, etc. Perhaps some day it WILL make sense to me. So I continue to learn everything I can on the topic, keep my opinion fluid, and keep my mouth shut.

HiJolly

Hey! I love God and the CoJCoLDS.

son

Sorry. I know you love God, but as I understand it you don't love the Church to the extent that you will be a member. That's what I meant to say.

HiJolly

[Rob Osborn]

If the flood was a localized event and Noah had 120 years to prepare, why save such animals such as birds? Will they not just migrate to the next mountain range over when the flood came? Why build such an enormous ship capable of saving tens of thousands of animals if you can just pick up tour tent and move over to the next mountain? Would there still not be the same animals there also?

I think it is highly problematic that God would warn noah so far in advance and have him buid such a large ship if it was just a localized event. This isn't an "Evan Almighty" situation!

It was said earlier that there was no evidence of a global catastrophe in our historical past. I guess it is all in how one interprets the evidence then. There is more than ample evidence that a catastrophic flood happened in our past. Critics always bring strawman arguments to the table such as - how did the flood cover Mt. Everest? Duh, at the time of the flood Mt. Everest did not yet exist. It is interesting that critics always point their arguments at believers in hope that they will somehow baffle them. Another one I always here is that the earth contains millions and millions of species and therefore Noah could not of possibly saved them on the ship. Another strawman, the overwhelming majority of species are water/ sea dwelling animals which would not need saving.

There is no question in geology that the earth was once covered in a shallow sea, the part in question is when the earth was covered and if it was all covered at the same time. Every geologist in the world knows that major mountain chains are made of sedimentary rocks that were deposited in a shallow sea setting and then raised above that shallow sea afterwards. Geologists will admit that the sedimentary laters we generally see were laid down under water, they will just not admit however that it was done at the same general time. To do so would bolster the idea that there was in the past, a geologic catastrophe of biblical proportions. They surely couldn't have that on their hands now could they?