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

[Ron Beron]

'cinepro' writes,

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.

The tongue-in-cheek histrionics you put on here gets a bit tiresome. Did it ever occur to you that the ancient Jews were intrigued by similar stories among the Mesopotamians and the Levant and incorporated them within their dogma to illustrate the majesty and magnitude of God? I think that even many Jews probably felt the flood story was not to be taken literally but metaphorically. To use this dichotomy to "nick" the church and its leadership today is really unsavory and a bit pompous.

[Ron Beron]

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?

He was sustained after the article was published. Therefore, he made his comments as an authority, but not under the auspice of president or prophet.(This address was given in general conference in October 1982. )

[dblagent007]

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:

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?

I think the best argument against the localized flood theory is that most church leaders have not accepted it and have made statements, like the one you bring up, in support of the global flood theory.

Maybe over the weekend, I can do some Gospelink searching to see what other church leaders have to say on the subject.

[dblagent007]

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

True enough. Maybe the localized flood swept Noah out to sea, which would also explain why he was floating around so long . Another theory could be that Adam was cast far, far out of the garden of Eden, like to Mesopotamia. Someday, I'll have to spend more time on this issue.

[Ron Beron]

I think the best argument against the localized flood theory is that most church leaders have not accepted it and have made statements, like the one you bring up, in support of the global flood theory.

Maybe over the weekend, I can do some Gospelink searching to see what other church leaders have to say on the subject.

Good luck on that. The record is sparse.

[cinepro]

He was sustained after the article was published. Therefore, he made his comments as an authority, but not under the auspice of president or prophet.(This address was given in general conference in October 1982. )

Yes, but under what authority have you formulated your "limited covenant" theory? It's one thing to create a doctrinal theory in a vacuum and argue for it's validity in the absence of any counterstatements from Church authorities.

But here, you are arguing for a theory in direct opposition to the statement of an apostle in General Conference. We are now forced to choose who is more accurately representing the doctrine of the Church and the truth of the matter: you (meaning, those who promote a "limited flood" theory), or Elder Howard W. Hunter in General Conference.

Keep in mind that Elder Hunter is not speaking to matters of the physical world, or science, where we may easily dismiss such comments as being outside the scope of concern for God and his Prophets. Elder Hunter is specifically referring to a covenant between God and mankind, a subject upon which the latter-day apostles must be absolute experts. I mean, if they're fuzzy on the meaning and scope of covenants, then they are pretty useless in the overall scheme of things. The whole foundation of the Church is the idea that mankind can make specific, meaningful covenants with God, but if the latter-day apostles and prophets have been unclear on what these covenants actually are, and to who they apply, then we could be doing it all wrong and not even know it until it is too late.

FYI, he was ordained an apostle, which carries with it the title "prophet, seer and revelator" on October 15, 1959. While he wasn't the "Prophet", his statements were entirely within the scope of his duties as an apostle. If you want to argue that he was mistaken in his General Conference address, and his mistake was unnoticed to the degree that it was republished and specifically noted as a "Gospel Classic" in the Church's officially published magazine over 20 years later, that is certainly your prerogative.

I'm just wondering how many cherished illusions of the LDS people will fall before the theories of the "local flood" supporters and their ad-hoc reasoning to support an ill-concieved theory. If we want to add "apostolic understanding of God's covenants" to the pile, go ahead.

[cinepro]

Good luck on that. The record is sparse.

I'm guessing you've never been to LDS.org and searched for "noah & flood". I think Gospelink would probably crash if you tried to find all the statements regarding Noah's Flood.

[Tarski]

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,

Is he? What people?

Look, tell me this. When was there ever a flood in Biblical times that was big enough to kill off all species and people in the known world?

There wasn't.

Noah's idea of the world could not have been as small as you suggest. Would the flood have covered the nearby mountains (say Sinai)?

That's already to big to be true.

What do you make of worldwide flood myths in China or Greece?

[cinepro]

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.

First of all, if Noah can comprehend the fact that there is a God and is OK walking and talking with God, I'm confident that he could comprehend the same solar system that my 4-year-old understands. Don't the scriptures claim that God revealed the principles of astronomy to Abraham? Didn't Joseph Smith get a divine tutoring in how the universe works? Yet now you argue that the spherical shape of the Earth was too much for Noah to comprehend? Whatever works.

It is entirely possible that there were floods on other worlds. The lack of any other prophet or scripture mentioning it leads to a dearth of support for the idea, though. The huge number of statements from the scriptures and prophets about the global scope of the Earthly flood provide a huge amount of support for the idea. That's the difference. We're not talking about what is theoretically possible; we're talking about what has been clearly, consistently, and repeatedly taught, without contradiction, by the prophets and scriptures.

[Ron Beron]

I'm guessing you've never been to LDS.org and searched for "noah & flood". I think Gospelink would probably crash if you tried to find all the statements regarding Noah's Flood.

The question was on finding any official comments. There are many unofficial ones.

[Ron Beron]

Yes, but under what authority have you formulated your "limited covenant" theory? It's one thing to create a doctrinal theory in a vacuum and argue for it's validity in the absence of any counterstatements from Church authorities.

But here, you are arguing for a theory in direct opposition to the statement of an apostle in General Conference. We are now forced to choose who is more accurately representing the doctrine of the Church and the truth of the matter: you (meaning, those who promote a "limited flood" theory), or Elder Howard W. Hunter in General Conference.

Keep in mind that Elder Hunter is not speaking to matters of the physical world, or science, where we may easily dismiss such comments as being outside the scope of concern for God and his Prophets. Elder Hunter is specifically referring to a covenant between God and mankind, a subject upon which the latter-day apostles must be absolute experts. I mean, if they're fuzzy on the meaning and scope of covenants, then they are pretty useless in the overall scheme of things. The whole foundation of the Church is the idea that mankind can make specific, meaningful covenants with God, but if the latter-day apostles and prophets have been unclear on what these covenants actually are, and to who they apply, then we could be doing it all wrong and not even know it until it is too late.

FYI, he was ordained an apostle, which carries with it the title "prophet, seer and revelator" on October 15, 1959. While he wasn't the "Prophet", his statements were entirely within the scope of his duties as an apostle. If you want to argue that he was mistaken in his General Conference address, and his mistake was unnoticed to the degree that it was republished and specifically noted as a "Gospel Classic" in the Church's officially published magazine over 20 years later, that is certainly your prerogative.

You make some good points, but it fails to convince me that the LDS are incorrect. President Hunters comment of "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)." is based on the scriptures as he knows and understands in the limited way we know anything. Being an apostle doesn't make them infallible. There isn't a special condition that enables them to speak prophetically all the times. They speak as prophets when God wants them to. This is, in turn, felt by the spirit by individuals hearing it. Even BY was not accepted as always being accurate. I don't look to GA's to teach me history only God's love, concern and sometimes reproach.

I'm just wondering how many cherished illusions of the LDS people will fall before the theories of the "local flood" supporters and their ad-hoc reasoning to support an ill-concieved theory. If we want to add "apostolic understanding of God's covenants" to the pile, go ahead.

Probably many as the previous paradigms come down. Even so the central heart of Mormonism is still true in spite of the vagaries of tangential mythologies fall.

[Danna]

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.

Very funny.

This is a totally separate issue, which is completely clear when the verse is read in context. Here separate lands are identified on different planets. The issue other contributors are arguing over is the interpretation of an original hebrew word as either land in the restricted sense or earth in the global sense. Anyway, even if it were somehow relevant, the word land is defined in a global sense here.

[Ron Beron]

Very funny.

This is a totally separate issue, which is completely clear when the verse is read in context. Here separate lands are identified on different planets. The issue other contributors are arguing over is the interpretation of an original hebrew word as either land in the restricted sense or earth in the global sense. Anyway, even if it were somehow relevant, the word land is defined in a global sense here.

Not at all! Moses is observing our earth not a different planet. The original Hebrew word is e'retz which can mean both local land and entire earth and certainly not in a global sense because the ancients had no concept of a global sphere. No globe!

[Danna]

'Danna' writes,

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.

Fine 'Ron', but no matter how ancient God is, I would hope he would be aware that the earth is a globe. It is God speaking in the Book of Moses. Not Noah.

[JarMan]

I look to leaders of the church to give me guidance on spiritual matters. I don't look to them for geography lessons. We know that many leaders of the church have been wrong about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Even Joseph Smith was apparently mistaken about the geography. This has been acknowledged recently with the change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

I agree with the spiritual lessons of the flood story as stated by LDS leaders. I support and sustain these men as spiritual leaders. But they are mistaken on the geography aspect. So what? That isn't important to my salvation.

Interpreting the flood story as local instead of global does not diminish the spiritual message as all.

[JarMan]

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.

They don't know all things, though. They learn line upon line just like the rest of us. We don't consider their knowledge to be totally reliable and complete. If it was, why would they continue to receive revelation?

[JarMan]

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

Adam lived in the Americas. Thousands of years later Noah lived in the Middle East. Isn't it possible that in the intervening years people traveled from America to the Middle East? We have accounts of three groups of people traveling the other way.

[JarMan]

Regarding the idea of a limited covenant: looked at literally, all covenants are limited. In order for a covenant with the Lord to be considered a covenant, don't the people need to be aware that they have made a covenant? What kind of covenant excludes the covenantors? In other words, the people who have been taught of the covenant and are thus accountable are the only one who can be considered to be part of the covenant.

The covenant with Noah was like any other covenant. As it was taught to succeeding generations the new generations thus became covenantors. Complete strangers on other continents did not.

[Danna]

Not at all! Moses is observing our earth not a different planet. The original Hebrew word is e'retz which can mean both local land and entire earth and certainly not in a global sense because the ancients had no concept of a global sphere. No globe!

I think you missed that we were talking about the Book of Moses. This was revealed directly to Joseph, so there would not have been any Hebrew words to interpret. The Book starts out stating that Moses wrote down the words of God on Sinai (so no Noah involved, the story is God -> Moses), it is in the third person, so it looks like Moses is the Narrator. Then at the end of Chap 4, there is a personal aside to Joseph:

Moses 4:32 (And these are the words which I spake unto my servant Moses, and they are true even as I will; and I have spoken them unto you. See thou show them unto no man, until I command you, except to them that believe. Amen.)

So the revelation is God -> Joseph, repeating the discussion he had with Moses.

[cinepro]

They don't know all things, though. They learn line upon line just like the rest of us. We don't consider their knowledge to be totally reliable and complete. If it was, why would they continue to receive revelation?

The point would be that the prophets haven't learned "line upon line" when it comes to the global flood. Joseph Smith believed it, and every subsequent prophet believed it up to President Monson. You aren't proposing an additional level of understanding, you are proposing a contradictory restructuring of the story that also redefines such doctrines as the Baptism of the Earth, the Covenant with Noah, Noah being the father of the continuation of the human race etc. The principle of "line upon line" refers to an increase in wisdom based on previous principles and knowledge. The local flood is "line minus line", where the elements of the story are drastically reduced to render their meaning to become miniscule, insignificant, comical, or meaningless.

The shift from a global to a local flood isn't "line upon line". It's "Oh crap, science and rational thinking totally destroys the idea of a global flood...what else do we have?" The reason the Church leaders haven't "seen the light" is because they are trusting the scriptures, their predecessors, and the confirmation of the spirit, and don't see any need to doubt any of those. I love it when LDS Church members think they know more than the apostles about covenants and the scriptures and the fallibility of past Church leaders.

That's how I got started too. Baby steps guys. Baby steps.

[JarMan]

The point would be that the prophets haven't learned "line upon line" when it comes to the global flood.

How do you know? You presume way too much. First you're an expert on the geography of the entire earth. Now you know exactly how the prophets receive revelation?

Joseph Smith believed it,

He was also mistaken about Book of Mormon geography. Ho-hum.

and every subsequent prophet believed it up to President Monson.

Even if you could prove this, it's irrelevant. They are spiritual leaders. This is not a spiritual issue.

You aren't proposing an additional level of understanding, you are proposing a contradictory restructuring of the story that also redefines such doctrines as the Baptism of the Earth, the Covenant with Noah, Noah being the father of the continuation of the human race etc.

What I have proposed fits much better with the actual text of the Bible than a global flood theory does. And I have not claimed anything that is contradictory to the spiritual lessons taught by church leaders.

The principle of "line upon line" refers to an increase in wisdom based on previous principles and knowledge. The local flood is "line minus line", where the elements of the story are drastically reduced to render their meaning to become miniscule, insignificant, comical, or meaningless.

I haven't changed the elements of the story at all. It is the text, itself that convinces me it is a local flood.

The shift from a global to a local flood isn't "line upon line". It's "Oh crap, science and rational thinking totally destroys the idea of a global flood...what else do we have?"

Once again, you presume too much. I'm convinced of a local flood because the text requires one. That is the only possible way that the animals could have fit on the ark. Of course that IS rational thinking so, by your definition, it MUST be wrong.

The reason the Church leaders haven't "seen the light" is because they are trusting the scriptures, their predecessors, and the confirmation of the spirit, and don't see any need to doubt any of those.

The church leaders have seen the light on the spiritual issues which they have been ordained to to help us with and with which they have been given keys for. I support them on that level. The leaders don't have any claim to the keys of geography.

I love it when LDS Church members think they know more than the apostles about covenants and the scriptures and the fallibility of past Church leaders.

I haven't claimed any of this.

That's how I got started too. Baby steps guys. Baby steps.

Well, I'm probably fine then since the things you have accused me of don't accurately describe me at all.

[Cold Steel]

You know, you don't have to be a "so-called scientist" to realize just how illogical it is to believe that the entire Earth was covered with water and that some guy was able to build a ship to house two of every animal PLUS the food to feed two of every animal.

I don't think he put two of each animal in. For example, I believe that all cats today came from the same two that were aboard the ark, whether they be lions, tigers or house kitties. And there may have been places where other animals could have escaped to to avoid the flood. I'd think to liken it to baptism that at some point all of the Earth was covered. Whether it all happened at the same time, or whether parts were just covered with a few inches, there are many possibilities that are not recorded in the Bible. (And we LDS believe that the Bible is in no way complete. In short we only know what Noah knew, or more likely, what Moses knew.)

But I love how you so callously discount men and women who have devoted years of training and research as "so-called scientists".

Naaaaaah, it's just that they keep changing their minds. Buy a book on geology or astronomy today and in a decade they'll be hopelessly outdated. They'd be lucky to sell for a dime at a yard sale.

It's hilarious.

[Ron Beron]

I think you missed that we were talking about the Book of Moses. This was revealed directly to Joseph, so there would not have been any Hebrew words to interpret. The Book starts out stating that Moses wrote down the words of God on Sinai (so no Noah involved, the story is God -> Moses), it is in the third person, so it looks like Moses is the Narrator. Then at the end of Chap 4, there is a personal aside to Joseph:

Moses 4:32 (And these are the words which I spake unto my servant Moses, and they are true even as I will; and I have spoken them unto you. See thou show them unto no man, until I command you, except to them that believe. Amen.)

So the revelation is God -> Joseph, repeating the discussion he had with Moses.

No, I understood that we are dealing with a revelation given to Joseph via Moses' understanding. Nonetheless, we still have to deal with the realities of Moses' cosmological shortfalls. What he said specifically was earth not globe ( 29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called ^aearth, and there were ^binhabitants on the face thereof.) No matter the case Moses saw the lands which comprised the earth.

Fine 'Ron', but no matter how ancient God is, I would hope he would be aware that the earth is a globe. It is God speaking in the Book of Moses. Not Noah.

Certainly, God would, but again God doesn't reference globe in Moses, in fact, there isn't a single reference to globe in the modern scriptures.

[cinepro]

How do you know? You presume way too much. First you're an expert on the geography of the entire earth. Now you know exactly how the prophets receive revelation?

Actually, I am somewhat familiar with the geography of the entire Earth. Wasn't aware that had become an issue. And I make no claim to being anywhere near as knowledgeable about it as Noah or God.

I don't make any claims about how the prophets receive revelation. I let them speak for themselves.

He was also mistaken about Book of Mormon geography. Ho-hum.

Just wanted to clarify your opinion of Joseph Smith's insight into scriptural matters. If this conversation is the logical result of someone doubting Joseph Smith's inspiration regarding such things, then the slope is apparently much slipperier than any chapel Mormon could have imagined.

Even if you could prove this, it's irrelevant. They are spiritual leaders. This is not a spiritual issue.

I'm not the one claiming it's a spiritual issue. The Prophets are. They are the ones saying the Earth's Baptism is important. They are the ones saying Noah's preservation of the entire human race is a spiritual issue. And it's mystifying to have someone claim that a covenant between God and all mankind isn't a "spiritual issue". If it isn't spiritual, then what is?

What I have proposed fits much better with the actual text of the Bible than a global flood theory does. And I have not claimed anything that is contradictory to the spiritual lessons taught by church leaders.

Your reinterpretation depends on the assumption that Noah limited his view to the world he knew, and had no divine knowledge of the rest of the world. And even then, it doesn't fit at all. Just the issue of where the ark landed, the depth of the water (and whether it covered the "mountaintops"), and the need to preserve animals in an ark argue strongly against any local flood theory. Add in the strong LDS belief that Adam's posterity was in the New World until Noah's ark landed in the Middle East, and the local flood theory doesn't hold water, and it certainly doesn't offer any clarification to the Biblical account. It just muddies the meaning of every verse (and covenant) to the point of meaningless (and discredits latter-day prophets in the process-see "ho hum" above).

I haven't changed the elements of the story at all. It is the text, itself that convinces me it is a local flood.

You may have many good reasons to believe the local flood, but it isn't borne from a reading of the text alone. It is an external need that forces you to redefine every word of the biblical story. If the text itself argues for a local flood theory, and it's not a result of scientific or skeptical thinking, you would need to explain how the men we ask to officially understand and interpret the scriptures have been unable to see it.

Once again, you presume too much. I'm convinced of a local flood because the text requires one. That is the only possible way that the animals could have fit on the ark. Of course that IS rational thinking so, by your definition, it MUST be wrong.

That's wishful thinking, and I seriously doubt you have ever read the story in the Bible. Even if you limit the selection of animals to a local area, you still have major space and logistical problems in the ark. A local geography doesn't solve that problem, it just makes it a tiny bit less absurd. The entire story, from beginning to end, specifically argues for a global flood; I suspect passages you think are referring to a local flood are only interpreted that way because it was also assumed that every living human did live near Noah; it's only when we must deal with Australians and Chinese that the difference between a global or a local flood becomes critical.

The church leaders have seen the light on the spiritual issues which they have been ordained to to help us with and with which they have been given keys for. I support them on that level. The leaders don't have any claim to the keys of geography.

The most interesting quote is Elder Hunter explaining the scope of the covenant. Please argue that Elder Hunter didn't have the keys to explain God's covenants. Please, I beg of you. Never in my wildest fantasies of internet mormonism did I think I might ever hear an LDS say the things you have said. It's like Christmas morning for the critics, but it keeps happening over and over.

You might argue against Elder Hunter, but in the end, it will just be you arguing against a latter-day apostle. Good luck with that.

If you do in fact believe the things you are saying and this isn't some weird joke, then this conversation is the most surreal experience I have ever had online. If you have somehow found a way to believe everything you have said and still consider yourself to believe in modern-day revelation or that the men who speak in conference have any sort of insight into spiritual matter beyond the norm, and your head still hasn't exploded, you may be charting new territory when it comes to "creative interpretation" of doctrine and latter-day revelation.

[Ron Beron]

If you do in fact believe the things you are saying and this isn't some weird joke, then this conversation is the most surreal experience I have ever had online. If you have somehow found a way to believe everything you have said and still consider yourself to believe in modern-day revelation or that the men who speak in conference have any sort of insight into spiritual matter beyond the norm, and your head still hasn't exploded, you may be charting new territory when it comes to "creative interpretation" of doctrine and latter-day revelation.

Why do you care? You don't believe a jot or tittle of any of it. Not the bible, the BofM, nada, nothing. We have always been taught the president doesn't always speak as a a prophet. Rather than sit there all amazed and befuddled just realize that you are ignorant in how the church really works and the true role and significance of the prophets.