Jeff K. Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I am shocked, SHOCKED, that there are differences of opinions among Latter-Day Saints about Noah's Flood!!!!!!!!!It is simply horrifying!!!!! This type of thing has NEVER happened before! Thank you, thank you, thank you, Cinepro, for bringing this to our attention for the seven hundred and sixty-fifth time!Global Warming? Or Noah's Flood? Opinions? There can be only one!
jo1952 Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I am shocked, SHOCKED, that there are differences of opinions among Latter-Day Saints about Noah's Flood!!!!!!!!!It is simply horrifying!!!!! This type of thing has NEVER happened before! Thank you, thank you, thank you, Cinepro, for bringing this to our attention for the seven hundred and sixty-fifth time!Hey! I hadn't seen that commentary before... Guess I haven't done my time yet here on Mormon Dialogue.....Later,jo 1
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Author Posted August 17, 2011 Fun time is over back to the OP.When ever we talk about Noah's flood (God's flood) we will always have to bring in geology. So before I continue we will talk about geology in general and see how the study goes. Of course the mere fact that I am writing about geology should give pause to Cinepro. I just had to add that since everyone had their shot. Actually for the most part I find Cinepro reasonableThere are two dynamics at work in shaping the earth. One is catastrophic events that change things in a big way and very quickly. The other way is to look at non-catastrophic events and model the world around them. Geology has decided to use the latter view to model the earth. Any catastrophic event is discarded unless crushing evidence is provided. Even then it is not enough in some cases.I want to talk about the Missoula flood. This is the flood(s) which carved the Columbia Gorge which separates Oregon and Washington. It seems that a man named J Harland Bretz published a report which detailed evidence of a huge flood in the 1920's. After all of his hard work he was looking forward to publishing his data and conclusions. This is when Bretz ran into the geologic establishment. To even suggest a catastrophic event in geology especially with water was "heresy" and an "outrageous hypothesis". The geologic community came out en masse to discredit Bretz and reject his conclusions. It took 40 years for his conclusions to be accepted. Now you might think that Bretz had done a half job and his data was weak. That was not the case, Bretz had done an outstanding job. You might think that competing theories were just as strongly connected to the data. No, that was not true, Bretz had the only theory connected to the data in any kind of logical way. So why did the geologist reject Bretz? To answer this we have to jump in the way back machine and see the foundations of geology.Catastrophism as a method of explaining the geologic landscape was pretty common before 1830. Then Charles Lyell who was a buddy of Darwin decided that catastrophism might support Noah's flood. He took an idea of James Hutton about gradual change and coined the term uniformitarianism. Now the naturalist who had ruled the centers of thought since the 1750's were always looking for an idea that would point to nature and away from the Bible to explain things. So lyell's idea caught on and catastrophism died as a method to explain anything in geology. Now along comes Bretz in the 1920's. The idea that Bretz had was rejected because it did not fit the dogma of geology. The facts did not matter. Sadly geologist in general still reject catastrophism as a method of change. So with this in mind I will reject all references to works of geology unless data is supplied. The opinions of geologist mean nothing to me and a show of hands in a room filled with group think is worthless.
Jeff K. Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I believe catastrophism is making a comeback of sorts.Today most geologists combine catastrophist and uniformitarianist standpoints, taking the view that Earth's history is a slow, gradual story punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[13]wikipedia
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Author Posted August 17, 2011 I believe catastrophism is making a comeback of sorts.wikipediaI agree but geology does not know where the balance is to correctly describe the past. The mere fact that they are changing should give us pause. My question must be can we trust geology to supply answers that we should use to help us interpret the Bible? For me the answer is no.
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 jo1952:The very foundations of science rest on the fact that this natural world/universe is observable, measureable, and we can make accurate predictions based on what we do observe, and measure. IOW It Works. A world wide flood is problematic for the reasons I linked to. If Hugh Nibley can believe in a very large but regional flood, and still be a good member of the Church. I feel like I'm in good company.
volgadon Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Does believing in a global or regional flood determine our salvation? It absolutely doesn't.
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Franktalk.The Lost Axe Head 2 Kings 6:1-71. Now the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, “Behold now, the place before you where we are living is too limited for us. 2. Please let us go to the Jordan, and each of us take from there a beam, and let us make a place there for ourselves where we may live.” So he said, “Go.” 3. Then one said, “Please be willing to go with your servants.” And he answered, “I shall go.” 4. So he went with them; and when they came to the Jordan, they cut down trees. 5. But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water; and he cried out and said, “Alas, my master! For it was borrowed.” 6. Then the man of God said, “Where did it fall?” And when he showed him the place, he cut off a stick, and threw it in there, and made the iron float. 7. And he said, “Take it up for yourself.” So he put out his hand and took it. Barring a unsupportale Supernatural miracle axe heads don't float.
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Author Posted August 17, 2011 One of the problems with a discussion of a Biblical event is that many seek evidence of the event. If the event was purely natural there is justifiable expectations of finding normal evidence trails. But in a Biblical event I expect supernatural forces in play and I do not know what kind of evidence trail that would leave on the earth. I do expect to find something but our expectations should not be the same as a natural event. More of seeking what is there rather than seeking a predetermined trail based on other natural events we have witnessed. I think we also have to look at the intent of God in the act and see what was His purpose. That may give us clues as to how much change or erosional effects we might see. The other thing we should look at is any mention in scripture where God has placed limits on natural processes or caused supernatural events that leave no trace and absolutely violate what we would expect from a natural event. Like when God moved the sun to change the shadow on a sun dial to shift, in this view the earth remained stable and the entire solar system rotated. Or did He reset the rotational position of the earth? It does not matter, it violates all kinds of natural laws. The forces involved should have torn the sun apart or the earth. So an event that includes supernatural forces may not leave expected trace evidence. Now in the flood we read about water covering the land and then receding. This could easily be accomplished by sinking the continents and causing the sea floors to rise. There are enough vertical faults on the earth to do this or the vertical faults are the result of the action. But even this comment of mine is looking for a mechanism that might leave something behind. On the other hand if God caused the earth to change shape by direct supernatural force so that the earth became like putty then we would not expect faults to be involved. We also read that the event was not quick, it was a year between the start and the landing of the ark.My intent is to open peoples minds to the possibility that a world wide flood did occur. I will not prove it. So if you are ready with all of your geology links they will not apply to the arguments I make. But I do ask that those who believe in God also believe in the powers of God.Much more to come.
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Franktalk:But science is all about evidence that we can observe and measure. If/when religion makes a claim about the natural world/universe then it is testable. IOW Does it work? Floating axe heads, global floods, etc., are statements about the natural world. Without evidence that they work, they join the Supernatural. Right now you are using the most advanced scientific device created by man, The Computer. It based on the same science that gave you everything from penicillin to air planes.
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) My intent is to open peoples minds to the possibility that a world wide flood did occur. I will not prove it. So if you are ready with all of your geology links they will not apply to the arguments I make. But I do ask that those who believe in God also believe in the powers of God.I don't doubt for a minute that God could create a miracle and make a global flood, by turning the earth into putty or whatever.The questions is - would he- and why is it important?In a very real sense, I don't care about if "it happened" or not- the important point is that we look to God for our salvation from the "floods" of adversity that could kill any one of us any second of the day, and more importantly the temptations and evils of the world which could kill our spirits.THAT is what matters to me!To even argue the point is to play into the hands of ...... people.... like cinepro who's goal it is to spread strife without any understanding whatsoever of the real issues at hand. Edited August 17, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 6. Then the man of God said, “Where did it fall?” And when he showed him the place, he cut off a stick, and threw it in there, and made the iron float. 7. And he said, “Take it up for yourself.” So he put out his hand and took it. Barring a unsupportale Supernatural miracle axe heads don't float.Why did he need a "stick"? Couldn't it have been a floating "log"?Couldn't there be parts of the story missing?There could be a totally natural explanation. The point is, we don't know and it could be natural or supernatural. The point is that God can help us with something as minor as losing an axehead - yes I know that they were a lot more valuable in the ancient world.
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 mfbukowski:I have no problem with an incomplete Bible. However to do so in the context of science makes a dogs dinner of both. We can't use science to "prove" the Bible, anymore than we can use the Bible to "prove" science. Fundimentally the Bible and science are looking a two differing things. The sciences look at the HOW God did it, while the Bible looks at the WHY.
altersteve Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I'm agnostic on this subject. The fact is that we don't know exactly when the Flood took place, and we need to know that before anything else. Unfortunately, the Lord simply hasn't revealed an exact timeline yet, so we're left with the chronologies that others have developed. The best thing for us to do right now, in my opinion, is to simply admit, "We don't know yet."
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Author Posted August 17, 2011 I'm agnostic on this subject. The fact is that we don't know exactly when the Flood took place, and we need to know that before anything else. Unfortunately, the Lord simply hasn't revealed an exact timeline yet, so we're left with the chronologies that others have developed. The best thing for us to do right now, in my opinion, is to simply admit, "We don't know yet."This is a good point. When was the flood? If we look at the age of each generation when the next was born we can make a timeline going back to Adam. But our current ages are in error. If we look at the Septuagint we can get a better picture. Anyway if you do the work you will find that the flood was around 3554 BC and Adam came along around 5800 BC. I feel these are pretty good dates. But it assumes no gaps. Since I take the Bible literally I don't think there are gaps.Once we have a date this causes problems with timelines established by science. I will write about that issue shortly.
jo1952 Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 jo1952:The very foundations of science rest on the fact that this natural world/universe is observable, measureable, and we can make accurate predictions based on what we do observe, and measure. IOW It Works. A world wide flood is problematic for the reasons I linked to. If Hugh Nibley can believe in a very large but regional flood, and still be a good member of the Church. I feel like I'm in good company.Science has no choice but to rest upon what is observable and measureable in the "natural" world. Often times, great leaps have been made which have benefitted man immeasurably. At those times, it is obvious that their theories about what they are observing are accurate. Many times, though, not so much. As a result, we see theories shifting, evolving, being abandoned, brand new theories developing, etc. I have a problem with science when science is used by the agenda of agnostics or atheists in attempts to disprove the existence of a God. This will obviously have a profound effect on their theories. In a perfect world, I would prefer that all scientists already believed in God; how they interpret what they are seeing would then, at least, be giving God credit FIRST; secondly they would then be trying to figure out how God did it. As it stands now, the scientific communities have become victims of monetary greed which in turn effects their focus, their decisions, their method of peer review (whose work they will recognize and whose they will not). Unfortunately all systems within mankind's society are effected in the same manner - science is no different. I have been giving more consideration to the flood and realized that when the lands were divided at the time of Peleg, that the great disruption this must have caused would easily have placed a layer of catastrophic evidences on top of evidences of the flood. Perhaps what man thinks he should be looking for in trying to identify some evidences of a world-wide flood has been buried beneath this layer of earth's activity; thus making his theory flawed if it does not incorporate the dividing of the land. Irregardless of physcial evidences, what are your thoughts concerning the baptism by water and by fire of the earth itself? Regards,jo 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 jo1952:I was an Agnostic before becoming a member of the Church. So I do know somewhat of the problems as well as benefits from such a belief.I don't view science as handicapped by its refusal to put God into the Test Tube. In fact I see it as a great plus. God has the nasty habit of messing up the results. Anytime we claim that God did it. We short circuit the discovery process. That process is how we learn about our physical world/universe. IE; The fickering pictures on the television screen aren't the product of God putting them there. Anymore that everytime there is an electrical storm it is Zeus throwing lightening bolts at us. I am a scientist, and a member of the Church. I thank God every day he allows me to learn more about how his creation works. I am truly amazed at its wonderful variety and complexity. But I don't put him into the how it works. 1+2=3 is true and verifable whether a Mormon or an Atheist says it. Plate Tectonics was around a LONG time before Noah or Peleg. It is still going on today. My veiw is that they were/are symbolic. But no less real in their consequences for us than literal events.
cinepro Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) I am shocked, SHOCKED, that there are differences of opinions among Latter-Day Saints about Noah's Flood!!!!!!!!!It is simply horrifying!!!!! This type of thing has NEVER happened before! In all seriousness, I can't think of any other topic on which the Church has so clearly, consistently and recently taught (the Global Flood), yet which so many LDS flat out disbelieve (and, apparently, have issues dealing with this disbelief and have problems clearly expressing themselves on the subject). I can't think of anything else like it, and I find it endlessly fascinating. I especially enjoy the degree of creativity used by those who disbelieve it to reconcile their disbelief. I know some people hate the idea of "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons", but this topic, more than other, clearly shows the different ways in which LDS can view the teachings of the Church.Now back to Franktalk and jo1952. Edited August 17, 2011 by cinepro
Bill Hamblin Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 In all seriousness, I can't think of any other topic on which the Church has so clearly, consistently and recently taught(the Global Flood), yet which so many LDS flat out disbelieve.I can't think of anything else like it, and I find it endlessly fascinating.Alas, the rest of us do not. 1
cinepro Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Alas, the rest of us do not.I've spent a lot of time on internet message boards, and this could be the first time I've ever seen someone post something in a thread they weren't interested in. I feel like I've just witnessed internet history.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I know some people hate the idea of "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons", but this topic, more than other, clearly shows the different ways in which LDS can view the teachings of the Church. Lame. As if any of the threads about the flood are representative of any majority of either supposed camp.There are plenty of internet Mormons that think the flood is global. And there were probably plenty that believed it did not happen globally before the internet was even around.But I digress this is not about intern vs chapel.
altersteve Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I thank God every day he allows me to learn more about how his creation works. I am truly amazed at its wonderful variety and complexity. It is truly a wonderful thing to learn about this world. I think the following quotes make it very clear that we Latter-day Saints should be strong advocates of science, and should be excited about scientific discoveries. God absolutely wants us to learn about His creation — the things that He created for us. In fact, I'd say it is a commandment. For this reason I believe those who say things like, "I believe such-and-such no matter what science tells me," do not quite understand the doctrine of eternal progression. This is our home, after all. There's no reason not to learn everything we can about it. And while I may not be a scientist by any means, I find it fascinating."The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study astronomy, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is part of a great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth" (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pg. 157, February 12, 1860)."Science reveals the beauty and harmony of the world material; it unveils to us ten thousand mysteries in the kingdom of nature, and shows us that all forms of life through fire and analogous decay are returned again to its bosom. It unfolds to us the mysteries of cloud and rains, dew and frost, growth and decay, and reveals the operation of those silent irresistible forces which give vitality to the world. It reveals to us the more wonderful operations of distant orbs and their relations to the forces of nature. It also reveals another grand principle, that the laws of nature are immutable and unchangeable as are all the works of God" (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, pg. 224, May 6, 1870)."How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature, and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us! How delightful this would be, and what a boundless field of truth and power is open for us to explore!" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, pg. 168, January 26, 1862). 1
cinepro Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 It is truly a wonderful thing to learn about this world. I think the following quotes make it very clear that we Latter-day Saints should be strong advocates of science, and should be excited about scientific discoveries. God absolutely wants us to learn about His creation — the things that He created for us. In fact, I'd say it is a commandment. For this reason I believe those who say things like, "I believe such-and-such no matter what science tells me," do not quite understand the doctrine of eternal progression. This is our home, after all. There's no reason not to learn everything we can about it. And while I may not be a scientist by any means, I find it fascinating."The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study astronomy, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is part of a great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth" (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pg. 157, February 12, 1860)."Science reveals the beauty and harmony of the world material; it unveils to us ten thousand mysteries in the kingdom of nature, and shows us that all forms of life through fire and analogous decay are returned again to its bosom. It unfolds to us the mysteries of cloud and rains, dew and frost, growth and decay, and reveals the operation of those silent irresistible forces which give vitality to the world. It reveals to us the more wonderful operations of distant orbs and their relations to the forces of nature. It also reveals another grand principle, that the laws of nature are immutable and unchangeable as are all the works of God" (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, pg. 224, May 6, 1870)."How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature, and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us! How delightful this would be, and what a boundless field of truth and power is open for us to explore!" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, pg. 168, January 26, 1862).Why are all your quotes over 130 years old?
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 cinepro:Does truth have an expiration date?
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 mfbukowski:I have no problem with an incomplete Bible. However to do so in the context of science makes a dogs dinner of both. We can't use science to "prove" the Bible, anymore than we can use the Bible to "prove" science. Fundimentally the Bible and science are looking a two differing things. The sciences look at the HOW God did it, while the Bible looks at the WHY.I know that, but with your usual two word answers, how was I supposed to know YOU knew that?So why are you arguing against the "supernatural"?I really should have answered this with just your name and some link to some site somewhere.
Recommended Posts