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

[Alf O'Mega]

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.

[cinepro]

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.

That's not quite what we have "always been taught".

Here's the context for the quote:

Joseph said that once when he was in his office, he saw two boys fighting in the street. He ran out, "caught one of the boys (who had begun the fight with clubs,) and then the other; and, after giving them proper instruction," as he termed it, "gave the bystanders a lecture" for egging the boys on instead of stopping the fight, and finally concluded the matter by saying that nobody was allowed to fight in Nauvoo but himself (History of the Church, 5:282-83). Joseph Smith favored music, drama, debating, hiking, boating, athletics, parties, dancing, and picnics. He liked going for long walks, horseback riding, and getting out into the beauty of nature. Here is the account of his activities for Wednesday, February 8, 1843:

This morning, I read German, and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet;" but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such. After dinner Brother Parley P. Pratt came in: we had conversation on various subjects. At four in the afternoon, I went out with my little [son] Frederick, to exercise myself by sliding on the ice. [History of the Church, 5:265]

Leonard Arrington - The Looseness of Zion

I love how this simple comment regarding Joseph's recreational activities has been turned into a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card for LDS. It's as if we have been given permission that no other people have had: the permission to ignore a prophet anytime we like and still feel like we understand and respect what a prophet is. God has given us many gifts, but the gift of picking and choosing which prophetic statements we care to believe is truly one of His greatest. Wouldn't it be ironic if, after decades of making such a big deal about being God's true Church with the one Prophet on Earth, what apologists want most of all is to not have to listen to the Prophet when they don't want to?

I wonder if ever, in Joseph Smith's wildest imagination, he could have dreamed of a day when LDS would doubt that apostles, speaking in General Conference and republished in the Church's official publications, were "acting as such". I mean, it's not like Elder Hunter was wrestling with his kids in the yard and said in an ofthand comment to a neighbor "I'd love to come to Saturday's barbecue; and I think Noah's covenant applied to all mankind."

If the "true role and significance of the Prophets" isn't to stand before the world in General Conference and explain God's covenants to the world, and to continually and consistently help us understand the nature, scope and meaning of the scriptures, then just what the heck is their role? When are they "acting as such"?

Whether or not I believe something is irrelevant to my argument, because everything I have argued is backed up by evidence from the scriptures, or the statements of modern day apostles and prophets. That's what's so ironic. Your argument for the limited flood is based entirely on speculation over what Noah (a man who walked and talked with God) might not have known about the world and the geography outside his local experience. My argument is based on actual quotes from the scriptures with dozens of statements by modern day prophets and apostles consistently reinforcing the same interpretation (and, ironically, the opposite interpretation from yours.)

This thread is truly the fulfillment of prophecy made by future prophet and then apostle Elder Ezra Benson:

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling.

...

But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. "Even in the Church," said President Kimball, "many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterday's prophets and mentally stone the living ones" (Instructor, 95:257).

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or mind their own business. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

...

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet

Luckily, I think he was acting as a former Secretary of Agriculture and not as an apostle when he said that.

[The_Monk]

"the Book of Moses.... 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:"

I don't think this is accurate. The Book of Moses is not a unity, except by editorial joining. It came in bits and pieces. Joseph began with Genesis and wrote and rewrote, he did not start with a clean slate. He continued making changes in the creation chapters right up until his death. It's a mistake to think that God simply handed Joseph the text in the form we have it in, or dictated it to him.

"â??The translation was not a simple, mechanical recording of divine dictum, but rather a study-and-thought process accompanied and prompted by revelation from the Lord.â?- -Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation" Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1985), 39.

"Examination of the original manuscripts of the JST shows that, soon after the initial writing, Joseph further modified and revised these early chapters in a number of ways. This included a complete rewriting of the early chapters of Genesis, which was then followed in the editorial process by a number of inter-linear inserts and deletions. In some instances, additional material was written on small pieces of paper and pinned to the manuscript at places needing still further correction.

Thus, there are two drafts of the manuscript for the first twenty-four chapters of Genesis, with the [page 44] second copy being more complete and presenting a more extensive text than the first draft. These pre-publication documents are not numbered, but they are dated in various portions, and these dates serve to clarify and delineate the sequence.

Although the translation of the early chapters of Genesis was initially revealed and recorded between June 1830 and February 1831, it is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith continued to revise and modify this material until his death in 1844.â? -Robert J. Matthews, "How We Got the Book of Moses," Ensign (January 1986): 43-44.

[Danna]

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.

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.

I never said 'globe' was written anywhere! and the actual word - globe or world does not matter! Unless you claim the world is flat or a cube.

You are deliberately mis-reading the Book of Moses. Or only reading what you agree with.

Read the whole Book. It takes about 20 minutes. Who is talking and when?

Moses 1:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

[Danna]

"the Book of Moses.... 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:"

I don't think this is accurate. The Book of Moses is not a unity, except by editorial joining. It came in bits and pieces. Joseph began with Genesis and wrote and rewrote, he did not start with a clean slate. He continued making changes in the creation chapters right up until his death. It's a mistake to think that God simply handed Joseph the text in the form we have it in, or dictated it to him.

"â??The translation was not a simple, mechanical recording of divine dictum, but rather a study-and-thought process accompanied and prompted by revelation from the Lord.â?- -Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation" Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1985), 39.

"Examination of the original manuscripts of the JST shows that, soon after the initial writing, Joseph further modified and revised these early chapters in a number of ways. This included a complete rewriting of the early chapters of Genesis, which was then followed in the editorial process by a number of inter-linear inserts and deletions. In some instances, additional material was written on small pieces of paper and pinned to the manuscript at places needing still further correction.

Thus, there are two drafts of the manuscript for the first twenty-four chapters of Genesis, with the [page 44] second copy being more complete and presenting a more extensive text than the first draft. These pre-publication documents are not numbered, but they are dated in various portions, and these dates serve to clarify and delineate the sequence.

Although the translation of the early chapters of Genesis was initially revealed and recorded between June 1830 and February 1831, it is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith continued to revise and modify this material until his death in 1844.â? -Robert J. Matthews, "How We Got the Book of Moses," Ensign (January 1986): 43-44.

Thanks for the clarification.

The point was though, that there was no Hebrew original and no POV of Noah. The book is by revelation. What you say makes sense of the switches in POV between 3rd person and 1st person deity.

[Ron Beron]

'Danna' writes,

I never said 'globe' was written anywhere! and the actual word - globe or world does not matter! Unless you claim the world is flat or a cube.

Yes you did, to wit...

"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

."

And yes, according to the ancients the world is flat.

You are deliberately mis-reading the Book of Moses. Or only reading what you agree with.

Read the whole Book. It takes about 20 minutes. Who is talking and when?

Maybe you should read again. Moses is referencing lands on this planet.

Moses 1:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

You never included this in your original posting. We are discussing the flood on this planet not on another.

[Ron Beron]

Thanks for the clarification.

The point was though, that there was no Hebrew original and no POV of Noah. The book is by revelation. What you say makes sense of the switches in POV between 3rd person and 1st person deity.

While there isn't a reference to Joseph of any Hebrew it would still resonate with Moses with the cosmology he was most familiar with. This was conveyed to Joseph.

[JarMan]

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.

It's an issue because you made the claim that there is nowhere on earth that could be a candidate for a local flood. This is obviously wrong. So your sweeping claims that are obviously false damage your credibility in this discussion. And I highly doubt that Noah knew more about geography then either you or me.

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

Yes you do. You said they haven't received knowledge line upon line as it relates to the flood. Are you admitting now that you misspoke?

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.

You've completely missed the point. Or you are ignoring it and hoping that I won't notice. The point is that even though Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and had many insights into it, he still didn't know some of the non-spiritual things in it, such as the geography, very well. And why would he? That is not his purpose.

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?

I haven't said that either of these are not spiritual issues. What I have said is that whether the flood was local or global, the spiritual issues are the same. It is the geography issue, itself, which is not a spiritual issue.

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.

No, my assumption is based on the fact that Noah could only fit a limited number of animals onto the ark, based on the size that is given to us in the text. You have completely ignored this aspect of the story over and over again. The ark requires that flood be local. This is not "reinterpretation." It is an honest reading of the text.

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.

I have addressed each of these points, already. But instead of addressing my responses, you have chosen to reiterate your original points. If you hope to influence my thinking, you will have to do more than insult me and my church. I am beginning to think that that is the only reason you are involved in this thread.

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).

You apparently have a much different view of the prophets than I do. In your world they are experts not only on the spiritual, but on many different aspects of the non-spiritual side of life. My "ho-hum" comment was regarding the fact that Joseph Smith was apparently not correct about some of the geography of the Book of Mormon. For some reason you think this is a big deal that should rock my testimony.

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.

I see that you are now also an expert on psychoanalysis of somebody you don't even know. Is it possible that you are projecting yourself onto me and then tearing into me because of your own self-loathing?

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.

I've explained that several times, already. But you've apparently ignored every word. If you would like me to take anything you say seriously you are going to need to engage in a discussion in which you address what I have said instead of repeating the same points over and over again.

That's wishful thinking, and I seriously doubt you have ever read the story in the Bible.

Nope. Never read it. Forget the fact that almost the entire story has been cut and pasted into this very thread.

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.

No, it makes the story possible . . . whereas a global flood is not.

The entire story, from beginning to end, specifically argues for a global flood;

I maintain that the entire story argues for a local flood. I've given my reasons, which you have not addressed. Keep on repeating yourself, though.

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.

I can't decipher what you are trying to say here.

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.

Let's look at the text of Elder Hunter's talk. It says:

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).

Emphasis added.

It's easy to see that Elder Hunter is making a point that I have previously made, which is that there are always two sides to a covenant with God. When he says "all mankind" he qualifies that by adding that, essentially, the people need a prophet and the word of God in order for them to be covenantors. How does God make a covenant with those who are ignorant of Him?

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.

I must sheepishly admit that I initially engaged in debate on this topic a little naively. At first I thought that you really believed in a global flood and were trying to convince me of the error of my ways. I'm a little bit slow some times, but I think it's clear to me now what your agenda really is.

[Danna]

'Danna' writes,

Yes you did, to wit...

"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

."

And yes, according to the ancients the world is flat.

Maybe you should read again. Moses is referencing lands on this planet.

You never included this in your original posting. We are discussing the flood on this planet not on another.

1.

global

Adjective

1. of or applying to the whole earth: global environmental problems

2. of or applying to the whole of something: a global total for local-authority revenue

globally adv

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006

[LeSellers]

Do you believe (on faith) the account of the â??Great Floodâ? and â??Noahâ??s Arkâ? as it is reported in the Bible?

Yes, I do, too.

This morning, as I was reading the book of Mormon, I read, in Ether, the following:

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof; 3 And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord.

I believe that Ether and Moroni did, too.

Lehi

[Ron Beron]

Yes, I do, too.

This morning, as I was reading the book of Mormon, I read, in Ether, the following:

I believe that Ether and Moroni did, too.

Lehi

I guess we have to come back to the old canard on what is meant by 'land'. Do we accept the Hebrew account of land or the literalist account?

[cinepro]

Yes, I do, too.

This morning, as I was reading the book of Mormon, I read, in Ether, the following:

I believe that Ether and Moroni did, too.

Lehi

Nice try. But if we learn anything from the many different flood stories found in all different cultures, it's that there have been many, many localized floods all over the world. Ether was obviously talking about the American Localized Flood, which happened about 600 years after Noah's flood.

[LeSellers]

Nice try. But if we learn anything from the many different flood stories found in all different cultures, it's that there have been many, many localized floods all over the world. Ether was obviously talking about the American Localized Flood, which happened about 600 years after Noah's flood.

On what do you base this interpretation of the passage?

Moroni, Ether's redactor, explains that the story, much as recorded in Genesis, was among the plates Ether hid, and that he, Moroni, did not translate them because they were "had among the Jews".

3 And as I suppose that the first part of this record, which speaks concerning the creation of the world, and also of Adam, and an account from that time even to the great tower, and whatsoever things transpired among the children of men until that time, is had among the Jewsâ??

So, it was not a localized flood to which he referred, but the same flood, Noah's, of which we speak here.

Lehi

[cinepro]

On what do you base this interpretation of the passage?

Moroni, Ether's redactor, explains that the story, much as recorded in Genesis, was among the plates Ether hid, and that he, Moroni, did not translate them because they were "had among the Jews". So, it was not a localized flood to which he referred, but the same flood, Noah's, of which we speak here.

Lehi

My bad. You're right. Must have been a worldwide flood.

[hagoth7]

As to whether it was world-wide or multiply local...makes little difference to me. I lean toward global but keep an open mind....

Ditto.

In such discussions, what frequently comes to my mind is the nativity passage where Augustus Caesar decreed that all the world should be taxed. I don't see any rational basis for taking that phrase literally to mean Roman census takers were sent to China, Australia, and the New World. Instead, based on what we know of Augustus and the Empire, I view that passage to mean the limited portion of the world that was known and controlled by Rome. Likewise, although my starting point is a global flood, I'm quite open to the idea of something more localized.

[Somebodyz]

Yes I do believe the Bible account. The earth was baptized with water. The animals went into the ark 7 by 7, unless unclean then it was 2 by 2. (Funny how the Noah account is constantly referred to as 2 by 2, that is a myth)

I don't know how and have many questions about the whole event. Maybe because I'm ignorant (some say it's bliss) or because of blind faith. I'll cling to blind faith in this instance, until I have full knowledge of the details.