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

[dblagent007]

I'm sorry to break the bad news to you, but Genesis describes a global flood. It isn't a local flood described by a limited perspective. It isn't a flimsy translation of an originally described local flood. It is describing a global, worldwide, everything-including-Australia flood.

This is obvious in so many ways I feel silly for even needing to say it. But the critical, undeniable point is this:

Image how silly I feel having to point out to you how silly your "CRITICAL, UNDENIABLE POINT" is

If Genesis was describing a local flood, then God was covenanting with Noah to not send any more local floods. Which He has, like, a bazilliion times. Which would make God a liar. I repeat: the theory of a local flood makes God a liar, and a breaker of covenants.

Here is the critical line of the covenant:

1 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

What is silly is interpreting this covenant as a promise not to send a flood any where in the world ever again. The covenant was that God would not send any more floods in Noah's land that would cut off all flesh (again in Noah's land). I haven't heard or read of that happening again - at least Noah is silent about any additional floods in his land that cut off all flesh. Thus, it appears that God has kept his promise.

And as I've listed before, it isn't a matter of two equally valid interpretations of the flood story. The global flood is totally consistent with every word of the Bible; the local flood turns the story on its head, rendering it absolutely non-sensical and almost a farce, culminating in a silly covenant that doesn't mean anything.

Yeah because assuming that Noah knew that the earth was round, that he knew the height of all the mountains on the earth (how else would he know that it covered Mt. Everest), etc. is quite reasonable. Nothing farsical about that. In your account, Noah is some kind of ancient uber genius that knew things that would only be discovered by the masses thousands of years later.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There are two different kinds of Mormons. Dr. Shades called them "Chapel Mormons" and "Internet Mormons", and he developed a multi-point methodology to differentiate between the two. But I don't think it's that complicated. There are the LDS who accept the global flood story, and those who don't. I think that simple litmus test tells us all we need to know about a church-member's thought processes, and their openness to "alternate" theories regarding Church doctrine. Whether or not there is value in that distinction is another matter.

Someone better tell Talmage, Widstoe, Nibley, and their ilk that they are "Internet Mormons."

[Tarski]

Image how silly I feel having to point out to you how silly your "CRITICAL, UNDENIABLE POINT" is

What is silly is interpreting this covenant as a promise not to send a flood any where in the world ever again. The covenant was that God would not send any more floods in Noah's land that would cut off all flesh (again in Noah's land). I haven't heard or read of that happening again - at least Noah is silent about any additional floods in his land that cut off all flesh. Thus, it appears that God has kept his promise.

Yeah because assuming that Noah knew that the earth was round, that he knew the height of all the mountains on the earth (how else would he know that it covered Mt. Everest), etc. is quite reasonable. Nothing farsical about that. In your account, Noah is some kind of ancient uber genius that knew things that would only be discovered by the masses thousands of years later.

Someone better tell Talmage, Widstoe, Nibley, and their ilk that they are "Internet Mormons."

"Cut off all flesh"? OK, explain what you take that to mean.

By the way, if God is really all powerful, then it is hard to see what the moral difference is between letting it flood and making it flood.

[dblagent007]

"Cut off all flesh"? OK, explain what you take that to mean.

The key is to interpret this from Noah's perspective. I am woefully informed what his perspective would be, but it seems doubtful that he knew the earth was round, there was a mountain over 29,000 feet tall, that everyone on said round earth died in the flood. However, it seems quite reasonable to assume that he knew that everyone with which he was familiar ended up being cut off.

[Luigi]

The key is to interpret this from Noah's perspective. I am woefully informed what his perspective would be, but it seems doubtful that he knew the earth was round, there was a mountain over 29,000 feet tall, that everyone on said round earth died in the flood. However, it seems quite reasonable to assume that he knew that everyone with which he was familiar ended up being cut off.

However the text does make it quite clear that the covenant is not simply with Noah but all his posterity until the end of time (perpetual generations). If this is the case what is the significance of such a promise? Does it exclude a flood from occuring again in that specific geographic region? How does the promise to never have a flood cut off all flesh apply to Noah's descendants?

[dblagent007]

However the text does make it quite clear that the covenant is not simply with Noah but all his posterity until the end of time (perpetual generations). If this is the case what is the significance of such a promise? Does it exclude a flood from occuring again in that specific geographic region? How does the promise to never have a flood cut off all flesh apply to Noah's descendants?

Can you point me to the scripture that says the covenant is not simply with Noah but all his posterity until the end of time? I want to use the scripture as the starting point of any discussion on this.

[Luigi]

Can you point me to the scripture that says the covenant is not simply with Noah but all his posterity until the end of time? I want to use the scripture as the starting point of any discussion on this.

Genesis 9:9

9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you.

Genesis 9:12

12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations

[dblagent007]

Genesis 9:9

9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you.

Genesis 9:12

12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations

Since these are in Genesis, this would again require us to view this from Noah's perspective. If I were in Noah's shoes, I think it would be very meaningful if God promised not to do this again to me or my children, or my children's children. Global or localized flood, I think the covenant is of the same import to Noah, his children, grandchildren, on down the line a ways. After all, they were living in the land where it ocurred.

The covenant still has some value to later generations that live in that land, even though, presumably, no one knows the precise location or how much ground the covenant covers.

The only way the flood makes any sense is if it is read and understood from Noah's perspective, not our current modern perspective.

[cinepro]

Since these are in Genesis, this would again require us to view this from Noah's perspective. If I were in Noah's shoes, I think it would be very meaningful if God promised not to do this again to me or my children, or my children's children. Global or localized flood, I think the covenant is of the same import to Noah, his children, grandchildren, on down the line a ways. After all, they were living in the land where it ocurred.

The covenant still has some value to later generations that live in that land, even though, presumably, no one knows the precise location or how much ground the covenant covers.

The only way the flood makes any sense is if it is read and understood from Noah's perspective, not our current modern perspective.

First, none of the proponents of a local flood have ever gone so far as to actually propose a geography for where the local flood might take place. They can't. The best we can get is some vague generalization about the world "being different back then". The second we try to apply a "local flood theory" to any, you know, real place, it falls to shambles because there isn't a geography anywhere in the world that meets the requirements for a local flood theory. Meaning, the water would have to be deep enough to float an ark into the mountains or hills, deep enough to remain for a year, and wide enough to wipe out whole species of animals and every population that was known to a man who had lived in the land for over a hundred years. And big enough that a bird couldn't fly out to the edge of the flood waters.

Second, the second we start to viewing the scriptures from the "point of view of the author", we totally nullify the ability to have faith in the scriptures (or our modern leaders.) What other stories have been misinterpreted because we couldn't read the mind of the author?

As I've said many times before, my favorite thing about the local flood theory is how silly it makes the whole story. It's like a giant joke, and not even God, Noah, and the modern apostles knew about it. Every verse takes on a bizarrely weird meaning, in which every word means something other than what it says.

For example, here is a simple statement made by God to Noah:

Genesis 8

21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for manâ??s sake; for the imagination of manâ??s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

So the Lord is saying that after the flood, seasons and day/night cycles will continue. Well duh! It was just a local flood God! The seasons and day/night cycles had continued in China, and Egypt, and Australia the whole time. There was never any danger of these things stopping, and if Noah was worried about it, you could have told him that. But instead, God tricked Noah into thinking these things were going to continue because of God's post-flood benevolence.

It's also a unique and revolutionary development to understand that God's covenants only apply to the specific geography and people to whom He is covenanting. Blessings of Abraham? Sorry, he's gone, and so is the covenant. Covenant with Israel? Oops. They're all dead, and so is that covenant!

Yeah, I'm loving the local flood theories.

Also, in discussing the meaning of the "Ensign", and its status in the Church, I thought I'd check and see if it had the common disclaimer about it not being the official word for the Church. So I looked on the Administration and Staff information page, and here is what I found:

Ensign, Aug. 2008

[William the Conqueror]

no. I believe it was local, The "entire" world was a lot smaller back then. Kind of like when the Romans conquered the "entire" world. It's all about perspective.

So does Bernard K. Ramm, an American Baptist theologian.

[Tarski]

Since these are in Genesis, this would again require us to view this from Noah's perspective. If I were in Noah's shoes, I think it would be very meaningful if God promised not to do this again to me or my children, or my children's children. Global or localized flood, I think the covenant is of the same import to Noah, his children, grandchildren, on down the line a ways. After all, they were living in the land where it ocurred.

The covenant still has some value to later generations that live in that land, even though, presumably, no one knows the precise location or how much ground the covenant covers.

The only way the flood makes any sense is if it is read and understood from Noah's perspective, not our current modern perspective.

How about God's perspective? It's God's word isn't it? Let him just say what he means. We can understand simple ideas like "the whole world" or "all living flesh on the whole earth".

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. Besides, what person, ancient or not, would think that the earth consists of just what oneself or has seen. Normal people take the whole earth to include even those part which one may not be aware of if any.

If I say all the people in my house were killed in a fire that burned the house to the ground, you don't need to know how big my house is or how many it holds to understand the sentence.

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?

[DH]

I believe (on reason) that the account of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood as presented in the Bible is not literally true, but that it is a metaphor that can teach us true things.

[Ron Beron]

Well, what is the relation of the Ensign and its teachings to the LDS church? What is the relation of LDS.org to the church's teachings? Who controls the content of these mediums? Are there teachings in either the Ensign or on LDS.org that are wrong or non-doctrinal? If you know any, please elaborate.

The Ensign is not canon unless it carries a reproof or message of inspiration from either the president of the church or the First Presidency. An article by a faculty member of BYU does not carry the same weight and while helpful in a pseudo-doctrinal manner it is not canon or necessarily the mind and will of the Lord.

[Kreno]

They just stood on top of the mountains.

T-Shirt

Nice

[JarMan]

Me neither --on the second half of your response. However, It is more than "interpreting" scripture, these literal beliefs are part of the cosmological fabric of Mormonism. Attempting to re-interpret them tears at that fabric, and is material to know whether LDS prophets really do speak or know what is true.

". . . part of the cosmological fabric of Mormonism"???? I think you are mistaking Mormonism for other parts of the Christian community.

Is there some "official church doctrine" stamp that gets attached to official doctrines? I showed that it is taught definitively in church publications, has prophetic testimonies (testimonies are stronger than opinions aren't they?) per Donald W. Perry's claim, and there are no contrary "official" teachings. What constitutes doctrine for you other than consistent, repeated teachings via official channels of the LDS church?

I will repeat myself. You are the one who claimed it was doctrine. So the burden is on you to define what doctrine is. I asked for canonical or a signed statement from the First Presidency. Although this is not necessarily my definition of doctrine, I think it is a good starting point.

[Danna]

Danna:

I of course can not speak for your seminary teacher. So either you misremember what was actually said or he/she was wrong.

I suggest you read http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73

Edited to note: People not interested in what turned into a mini review of Nibley's Before Adam should just scroll down to Back to Noah, where I get on topic again.

Thank you for you link to Nibley's "Before Adam". It was very interesting. I am not qualified to comment on Nibley's view of fundamentalists, but I do have a few comments on his treatment of scientists. After flogging fundies for their inerrant view of the bible and narrow selection of scripture which results in creatio ex nihilo, Nibley turns to the received view of human evolution. Nibley basically tells us (in many more words than this) that the Pleistocene was probably boring, and in the absence of meaningful existence "These can't be our people". Then he goes on to draw a bad caricature of palaeontology, for example: "In the place of connections between the specimens, we have only resemblances, and it is on them that we base our whole story; classification, taxonomy, biosystematics;it is all a question of endlessly debated definitions, not a whit different from the harangues of the ancient Sophists." Ouch!

Of course Nibley is speaking from 28 years ago, but even then his review was unfair. These days a variety of disciplines associated with biochemistry, genomics, biology, palaeontology, geology, and anthropology provide strong convergent evidence for evolution.

So, 28 years after Before Adam, evolution is a given. It only remains to work out the mechanisms involved; a lively ongoing debate, as the mechanisms likely differed with environmental conditions. Even such apparently simple questions like "what is the unit of selection" keep philosophy of science students hard at work debating the merits of genes, organisms, kin-groups, species and so-on.

Nibley also misrepresents the transformation of our understanding of the evolution of hominids as revealing confusion among scientists amid the disintegration of links between early hominids and humans. Actually, the profusion of evidence we now have shows a wonderful picture of multiple, often parallel, lines of hominid descent. We now view the Neanderthal as our cousins, not our ancestors. Human ancestors shared the earth with a number of other hominid species at varying times, these others not being our direct ancestors. The hominid family is a tree of life, not a direct line of descent (mirroring the ancient ladder of progress with worms at the bottom and angels at the top). Rather than devolving into chaos and confusion, the study of early hominids is a vibrant and exciting field.

Nibley's basic premise seems to be that fundamentalists, with only the bible as scripture, have too narrow a view of the universe; and, naturalistic science, admitting such a breadth of evidence, takes too much effort to understand. Mormons on the other hand, can include what they like and ignore what they don't like. Well, in Nibley's words: "To recapitulate, religion has no plot. Science has no plot. This means that Joseph Smith is the only entry. He, at least, has given us a picture." Nibley does make a huge error here, asserting that there is nothing other than Mormonism between fundamentalism and naturalism. My Catholic husband and his Marian cohorts, without the benefit of the Book of Abraham, believe in the same version of creation that Nibley describes in subsequent paragraphs.

Nibley asserts that the Book of Abraham describes a 'creation' or organization process that allows for the committee (his words) to establish physical rules and events and then let nature take its course for as long as required to produce the world we see today. Annoyingly, when I suggested just this possibility to my seminary teacher, and then to my mother, only one year after Nibley presented this paper, I was met first by surprise that any student would consider this possibility, and then by horror that I would consider anything not conforming with a literal interpretation of Genesis. I will be forwarding Nibleyâ??s paper to my mother as soon as I have finished these comments. So Nibley seems to allow for natural processes to occur, including evolution of animal species. But not the evolution of modern humans.

Nibley spends some time attacking an evolutionary strawman: evolutionary progress. According to Nibley, "This is a natural product of the silliest doctrine of all that of cultural evolution. Taking one's own, contemporary civilization as the very latest civilization (which it is) and therefore the best (which it is not), it is the easiest thing in the world to classify all other civilizations on a scale of proximity to your own in time and spirit.â? Other than the misnomer â??cultural evolution" any scientist would be in perfect agreement with Nibley as to how silly it is. Evolution does not imply progress at all. Things that arise later are not automatically improvements on their predecessors. Evolution produces things that are better adapted to their environment than their predecessors - and environments change. Nibley asks: "Must modern man be an improvement on him (Adam)?" If Adam is a human from 6000 years ago, or even 30 000 years ago, no reputable biological scientist would be saying 'yes'.

In fact evolutionary change is so gradual, that with the exception of adaptation to local climactic conditions, and small adaptations resulting from the adoption of animal husbandry and agriculture (e.g. changes in lactase production in some adults) humans have not changed that much since we were neighbours to Mr. and Ms. N. E. Anderthal. We only have better tools and bigger libraries.

Then, near the conclusion, Nibley slides in a few fringe science notions, such as non-uniformitarianism and exo-genesis, thus allowing those who are not quite convinced by what he has said to date to believe pretty much whatever form of creationism they like and still conform to LDS 'doctrine'. Neither my teenage self, nor my mother were wrong! In the end, Nibley has given everyone license to believe what they want about pre-Adamic peoples: "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation-for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared."

Well, it was all very interesting. But it had absolutely nothing to do with my post to which you responded by posting this link!

Back to Noah

If your point is that scripture authors had different POVs, then that is fine, but none of the doctrinal loopholes Nibley identifies for those wondering about pre-Adamic peoples applies to the flood tale. The flood supposedly occurred well after Adam, only about four thousand years ago, and has been re-confirmed repeatedly as a world-wide catastrophic event by modern scripture, from the point of view of, well, see for yourself:

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

Presumably the words of God come to us through a translated Moses who would have a pretty accurate POVby the time he revealed his words to Joseph Smith.

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.

24 Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you; nevertheless they hearkened not.

25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.

26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life.

27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence.

29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.

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.

Without quibbling as to how high the water was, and where it all came from, the point is that a worldwide flood and the destruction of all flesh other than that in the ark is LDS doctrine is it not? So believing it or not, is not an option.

[Danna]

I was never taught that Abraham pended the document that JS had. Abraham may have written the original document but some else had copied it. This is all for another thread though.

I was, which is showing my age, I guess .

[JarMan]

First, none of the proponents of a local flood have ever gone so far as to actually propose a geography for where the local flood might take place. They can't.

And none of the global flood proponents can explain a myriad of challenges that have been presented on this board. For instance, how did all of the animals fit on the ark? The text, itself gives the dimensions of it. How did the aquatic animals survive the mix of fresh and salt water? How did the animals get to the ark? How did the animals get back to their homes? Where did all of the water come from? And this is just scratching the surface?

The best we can get is some vague generalization about the world "being different back then".

I haven't seen this line of reasoning. Maybe I missed it. I certainly haven't claimed this.

The second we try to apply a "local flood theory" to any, you know, real place, it falls to shambles because there isn't a geography anywhere in the world that meets the requirements for a local flood theory.

You really know the geography, geology, and hydrology of the entire world that well to make such a claim? I've spent my entire career studying the geography, geology, and hydrology of a very small area of the world and can't make such a claim. As a matter of fact, in the small area that I have studied (the state of Utah) there is, in fact, an area that could be a candidate for a local flood meeting most of the requirements in the Bible. Please go a little easier on the hyperbole because you are losing credibility each time you make such a sweeping claim.

Meaning, the water would have to be deep enough to float an ark into the mountains or hills, deep enough to remain for a year,

There are many candidates that fit this criteria. You are obviously ignorant on this subject.

and wide enough to wipe out whole species of animals

I don't think this is a requirement. I will repeat what I stated earlier. The animals on the ark weren't about saving entire species. They were for keeping Noah and his family alive.

and every population that was known to a man who had lived in the land for over a hundred years. And big enough that a bird couldn't fly out to the edge of the flood waters..

Once again this is very possible. I don't know why you keep claiming to know something that you obviously do not have any practical experience with. (Oh wait. You have a lot of faith. And that gives you license to spout off about subjects on which you have no knowledge or training.)

Second, the second we start to viewing the scriptures from the "point of view of the author", we totally nullify the ability to have faith in the scriptures (or our modern leaders.) What other stories have been misinterpreted because we couldn't read the mind of the author?

As I've said many times before, my favorite thing about the local flood theory is how silly it makes the whole story. It's like a giant joke, and not even God, Noah, and the modern apostles knew about it. Every verse takes on a bizarrely weird meaning, in which every word means something other than what it says.

From my point of view, the flood story is only bizarre if you believe it to be a global flood. A local flood makes things much easier to understand. And more importantly, the essential moral of the story is still retained.

For example, here is a simple statement made by God to Noah:

So the Lord is saying that after the flood, seasons and day/night cycles will continue. Well duh! It was just a local flood God! The seasons and day/night cycles had continued in China, and Egypt, and Australia the whole time. There was never any danger of these things stopping, and if Noah was worried about it, you could have told him that. But instead, God tricked Noah into thinking these things were going to continue because of God's post-flood benevolence.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

It's also a unique and revolutionary development to understand that God's covenants only apply to the specific geography and people to whom He is covenanting. Blessings of Abraham? Sorry, he's gone, and so is the covenant. Covenant with Israel? Oops. They're all dead, and so is that covenant!

Oh my! I'm nothing close to a scholar on the scriptures. But I can recall several local covenants in the scriptures. For instance, the Lord promised the Nephites that they would prosper in the land if they kept the commandments or else they would be destroyed. Same thing with the Jaredites.

Yeah, I'm loving the local flood theories.

Also, in discussing the meaning of the "Ensign", and its status in the Church, I thought I'd check and see if it had the common disclaimer about it not being the official word for the Church. So I looked on the Administration and Staff information page, and here is what I found:

Other than a slightly outdated first presidency, it's amazing to see all of God's modern apostles and several seventies credited together, without qualification, on the masthead of a magazine published by the Church, and to have members doubting the attitude of the "Church" toward claims and comments made in its pages.

Are you saying that anything published by the church is infallible? Now that's something that is demonstrably NOT doctrine.

[dblagent007]

First, none of the proponents of a local flood have ever gone so far as to actually propose a geography for where the local flood might take place. They can't. The best we can get is some vague generalization about the world "being different back then". The second we try to apply a "local flood theory" to any, you know, real place, it falls to shambles because there isn't a geography anywhere in the world that meets the requirements for a local flood theory. Meaning, the water would have to be deep enough to float an ark into the mountains or hills, deep enough to remain for a year, and wide enough to wipe out whole species of animals and every population that was known to a man who had lived in the land for over a hundred years. And big enough that a bird couldn't fly out to the edge of the flood waters.

I've heard the black sea as one alternative (they have even used modern scientific methods to show that there was a sudden influx of water from the mediterranean) or the Tigris/Euphrates river valley.

Second, the second we start to viewing the scriptures from the "point of view of the author", we totally nullify the ability to have faith in the scriptures (or our modern leaders.) What other stories have been misinterpreted because we couldn't read the mind of the author?

Faith is destroyed when we interpret the scriptures based on the piont of view of the author??!?!?!?!? That's a new one to me. If an author writes something, how else am I supposed to understand it? Isn't the reason that Isaiah is so hard to understand is that he wrote in a way that requires the reader to understand the traditions, customs, culture, etc. of the Jews of his day??

Maybe I'm crazy, but I would think that understanding the flood from the perspective of the person that lived through it and told about it would be best. If we don't view it from the point of view of Noah, who's point of view do we view it from?

As I've said many times before, my favorite thing about the local flood theory is how silly it makes the whole story.

Maybe if you repeat this enough times, it will come true. Or maybe not.

It's like a giant joke, and not even God, Noah, and the modern apostles knew about it. Every verse takes on a bizarrely weird meaning, in which every word means something other than what it says.

For example, here is a simple statement made by God to Noah:

Genesis 8

21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for manâ??s sake; for the imagination of manâ??s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

So the Lord is saying that after the flood, seasons and day/night cycles will continue. Well duh! It was just a local flood God! The seasons and day/night cycles had continued in China, and Egypt, and Australia the whole time. There was never any danger of these things stopping, and if Noah was worried about it, you could have told him that. But instead, God tricked Noah into thinking these things were going to continue because of God's post-flood benevolence.

Is your point that if it was a global flood things like cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night would cease, but in a localized flood they would not? I'm not entirely sure the best way to interpret this scripture, but I have a hunch that your interpretation is a little stretched.

It's also a unique and revolutionary development to understand that God's covenants only apply to the specific geography and people to whom He is covenanting. Blessings of Abraham? Sorry, he's gone, and so is the covenant. Covenant with Israel? Oops. They're all dead, and so is that covenant!

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.

Yeah, I'm loving the local flood theories.

Yeah, us loonies that want to understand the writings of an author based on that author's point of view instead of some other undefined point of view (or have you decided how we should approach understanding Noah's story?) five thousand years later. Crazy, crazy, I tell ya.

[JarMan]

Without quibbling as to how high the water was, and where it all came from, the point is that a worldwide flood and the destruction of all flesh other than that in the ark is LDS doctrine is it not?

No.

So believing it or not, is not an option.

What church do you belong to?

[dblagent007]

How about God's perspective? It's God's word isn't it? Let him just say what he means. We can understand simple ideas like "the whole world" or "all living flesh on the whole earth".

Last I checked, the scriptures are considered inspired writings of God's prophets and their dealings with certain people. The scriptures are God's word because they are inspired by him, not because he physically wrote them himself nor because they reflect a perfect eternal absolute understanding of all things. They reflect God's dealings with a certain people - people that probably didn't know the earth was round, the height of Mt. Everest, etc.

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. Besides, what person, ancient or not, would think that the earth consists of just what oneself or has seen. Normal people take the whole earth to include even those part which one may not be aware of if any.

If I say all the people in my house were killed in a fire that burned the house to the ground, you don't need to know how big my house is or how many it holds to understand the sentence.

First, the words "earth" and "land" were translated from the same Hebrew word. Second, it all depends on perspective. If Noah is describing his experience and he says all the land was flooded and all men and creatures in the land were destroyed, isn't it more likely that everyone in the land as Noah understood it was destroyed, than everyone in the entire world as we understand it today was destroyed?

How could Noah know that everyone on the planet earth was killed unless he witnessed it? He didn't have CNN for crying out loud. Noah testified of what he witnessed. Your interpretation requires Noah to know that the earth was round and everyone on it was dead - a highly unlikely proposition since Noah had to send out a bird to see if there was any land nearby.

As for your house fire, you do not have to have any special knowledge of your house. There is no reason to believe that you, describing this story from your perspective, didn't know how big your own house is or whether it burned down or not. However, you can't seem to do the same for Noah. Instead, you either impute that (a) he opines of things he did not witness or ( he knows things, like the earth is round, that no one else knew until thousands of years later.

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?

Silly me. I truly must be out of my mind to try and understand the story of Noah from his perspective as he would have understood it. Crazy, I know.

[dblagent007]

Back to Noah

If your point is that scripture authors had different POVs, then that is fine, but none of the doctrinal loopholes Nibley identifies for those wondering about pre-Adamic peoples applies to the flood tale. The flood supposedly occurred well after Adam, only about four thousand years ago, and has been re-confirmed repeatedly as a world-wide catastrophic event by modern scripture, from the point of view of, well, see for yourself:

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

Presumably the words of God come to us through a translated Moses who would have a pretty accurate POVby the time he revealed his words to Joseph Smith.

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.

24 Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you; nevertheless they hearkened not.

25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.

26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life.

27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence.

29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.

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.

Without quibbling as to how high the water was, and where it all came from, the point is that a worldwide flood and the destruction of all flesh other than that in the ark is LDS doctrine is it not? So believing it or not, is not an option.

Didn't the story of the flood originate with Noah and then was handed down to Moses (apparantly through Enoch)? If so, wouldn't it still depend on Noah's point of view?

[Tarski]

Last I checked, the scriptures are considered inspired writings of God's prophets and their dealings with certain people. The scriptures are God's word because they are inspired by him, not because he physically wrote them himself nor because they reflect a perfect eternal absolute understanding of all things. They reflect God's dealings with a certain people - people that probably didn't know the earth was round, the height of Mt. Everest, etc.

First, the words "earth" and "land" were translated from the same Hebrew word. Second, it all depends on perspective. If Noah is describing his experience and he says all the land was flooded and all men and creatures in the land were destroyed, isn't it more likely that everyone in the land as Noah understood it was destroyed, than everyone in the entire world as we understand it today was destroyed?

How could Noah know that everyone on the planet earth was killed unless he witnessed it?

Ummm, God told him? Read it again; it has God speaking his intentions etc.

[Tchild2]

The Ensign is not canon unless it carries a reproof or message of inspiration from either the president of the church or the First Presidency. An article by a faculty member of BYU does not carry the same weight and while helpful in a pseudo-doctrinal manner it is not canon or necessarily the mind and will of the Lord.

I can only chuckle at such hubris. When you stand up at general conference and proclaim with authority such a self serving statement, you might have an audience, and a modicum of credibility.

Cinepro already showed that the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve lend their name and support to the Ensign:

Ensign, Aug. 2008

[Tchild2]

I will repeat myself. You are the one who claimed it was doctrine. So the burden is on you to define what doctrine is. I asked for canonical or a signed statement from the First Presidency. Although this is not necessarily my definition of doctrine, I think it is a good starting point.

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.

[Ron Beron]

'Tchild2' writes,

I can only chuckle at such hubris. When you stand up at general conference and proclaim with authority such a self serving statement, you might have an audience, and a modicum of credibility.

Chuckle away, but frankly the question of the Ensign being canon has never been open to submission at the GC's. The Ensign is meant as a means of conveying important spiritual stories for the uplifting of the membership. It is not to be construed that every word contained therein is doctrinal canon. Wise up.

Cinepro already showed that the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve lend their name and support to the Ensign:

They lend their name because they are legal owners of the Ensign because they are the presidency of the Church. It does not mean they agree that everything in it is canon.

Ron - When you are in church, do you demand a signed letter from the first presidency on every matter? Is there even one such signed letter you are arbitrarily demanding now on any given matter, teaching, doctrine or belief. You are delving into the ridiculous now.

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.