Noah'S Flood

[bcuzbcuz]

bcuzbcuz:

What do you get when you combine a Snickers candy bar, Campbells' chicken and rice soup, and an electric eel?

A Kangaroo, because it is a marsupial.

Knock, Knock!

[bcuzbcuz]

Yeah, you can write it, but can you pronounce it?

I can't pronounce it so it would answer to its name. I just whistle and it comes home for dinner!

[bcuzbcuz]

Quote mining is different than producing official contributions from the Church. I like Parry, but he is definitely bound by his perception of what is doctrine. He is of the McConkie and Millet school of thought where the opinions of past presidents are to be taken as doctrine, and the scriptures are to be taken literally. Of course, they both pick and choose what they want to take literally. There are many church scholars that disagree with his view on Isaiah and a host of other topics, and there are articles in the ensign that disagree with his assessment of the flood. Just as there are differing views on evolution among church leaders, there are differing views on Noah. The church has made an official statement on evolution (that they have no comment) but the church has not made an official statement concerning the flood. For now, we have various opinions and a reluctance to reconcile the events recorded in the scriptures with science. We don't want to admit it, but there is this ingrained need for our scriptures to be inerrant, and pesky matters such as science disrupt this deep seeded superstition.

Is your Canadian flag an emblem of independence from America or simply a pledge of allegiance to all things hockey?

[bcuzbcuz]

http://dictionary.re...aeopteryx?s=t�� Hit the speaker at the end of the pronunciation guide.

That, in my opinion, is cheating!

[Freedom]

Is your Canadian flag an emblem of independence from America or simply a pledge of allegiance to all things hockey?

Hey,

I'm not a lumber jack

Or a fur trader

And I dont live in an igloo

Or eat blubber

Or own a dog sled

And I don't know

Jimmy, Jally or Suzie from Canada

Although I'm sure they're really really nice

I have a Prime Minister not a President

I speak English and French not American

And I pronounce it about not "a-boot"

I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack I believe in peackeeping not policing

Diversity not assimilation

And that the beaver is a truley proud and noble animal

A toque is a hat a chesterfield is a couch

And it is prnouced "zed" not "zee" "zed"!

Canada is the 2nd largest landmass!

The 1st nation in hockey!

And the best part of North America!

My name is Joe and I am Canadian!

(courtesy of Molson Canadian)

[Freedom]

A problem I have is that people whom I am supposed to sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have made many statements to the contrary of what is stated above. Some of the statements that have already appeared in this thread are summarized below. There are many more

Official church publication, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998 - . . . . We Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who . . . . built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.

When I was a missionary, one of the things I taught as a reason we need living prophets to guide us today is so that when questions arise related to doctrine, we don’t have to guess and speculate, the Prophet can inquire of the Lord and give us accurate information and direction. This does not appear to be happening today unless we accept that a flood occurred that covered the entire world and wiped out all animal life (other than possibly fish) except for those that Noah collected onto the arc.

The prophet pronounces Gods will for us, and I do not see the nature of the flood, the age of the earth, or a host of other issues as relevant to Gods will for us. If the concepts have no bearing on our eternal salvation, I do not get overly concerned about it. I accept that there was a real flood, that Noah was a real person, and that the events as portrayed in the scriptures did occur. I think many church leaders affirm this fact, but they also add to it by arguing for a global flood and complete annihilation. I accept their council that it did actually occur and that, to me, is the prophet speaking. The fact that they add to this by attempting to settle the scope of the story is, to me, either fact or opinion. Which ever one it is matters little. People like Parry take them at their word and are passionately protective of statements by past prophets. The problem with this position is that they turn a blind eye to contradictions among these same people. You cannot have it both way. God is consistently much more vague in his approach, refusing to show all his cards and restricting clarity to precepts and ordinances. If God did not see fit to reveal the nature of the flood through scriptures, then I do not feel beholden to the opinions of a number of past church leaders.

In summation, focus on the principles.

[cinepro]

There are many church scholars that disagree with his view on Isaiah and a host of other topics, and there are articles in the ensign that disagree with his assessment of the flood. Just as there are differing views on evolution among church leaders, there are differing views on Noah. The church has made an official statement on evolution (that they have no comment) but the church has not made an official statement concerning the flood.

I'll give you 1,000,000 internet bucks if you can produce a quote from the Ensign (or any other official Church publication) that "disagree with his assessment of the flood."

Heck, I doubt you could even find a single statement from a General Authority ever acknowledging the possibility that the flood wasn't global, in any sort of publication.

It's okay to disagree with the Church leaders on this issue, but let's not get carried away in pretending they might secretly agree with you.

Edited July 24, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

If God did not see fit to reveal the nature of the flood through scriptures, then I do not feel beholden to the opinions of a number of past church leaders.

Just to be clear, the Prophets, Apostles, and Br. Parry all reference the scriptures when teaching a global flood. In other words, according to them, the "nature of the flood" is revealed through the scriptures.

[Closet Doubter]

The prophet pronounces Gods will for us, and I do not see the nature of the flood, the age of the earth, or a host of other issues as relevant to Gods will for us. If the concepts have no bearing on our eternal salvation, I do not get overly concerned about it. I accept that there was a real flood, that Noah was a real person, and that the events as portrayed in the scriptures did occur. I think many church leaders affirm this fact, but they also add to it by arguing for a global flood and complete annihilation. I accept their council that it did actually occur and that, to me, is the prophet speaking. The fact that they add to this by attempting to settle the scope of the story is, to me, either fact or opinion. Which ever one it is matters little. People like Parry take them at their word and are passionately protective of statements by past prophets. The problem with this position is that they turn a blind eye to contradictions among these same people. You cannot have it both way. God is consistently much more vague in his approach, refusing to show all his cards and restricting clarity to precepts and ordinances. If God did not see fit to reveal the nature of the flood through scriptures, then I do not feel beholden to the opinions of a number of past church leaders.

In summation, focus on the principles.

The prophet pronounces Gods will for us, and I do not see the nature of the flood, the age of the earth, or a host of other issues as relevant to Gods will for us.

Response: If the Lord is not going to give our leaders information related to these topics, then the men we sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators need to let us know that. They need to quit talking about these subjects as if they know any more than any other random church member about it.

If the concepts have no bearing on our eternal salvation, I do not get overly concerned about it.

Response: I am asked to sustain 15 men as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators several times each year. I can sustain them as good men. I can sustain them as good leaders. I can sustain them as moral authorities. Above this, all I can say is it appears we have Prophets that don't prophesy, Seers that don't see, and Revelators that don't reveal.

I accept that there was a real flood, that Noah was a real person, and that the events as portrayed in the scriptures did occur. I think many church leaders affirm this fact, but they also add to it by arguing for a global flood and complete annihilation. I accept their council that it did actually occur and that, to me, is the prophet speaking. The fact that they add to this by attempting to settle the scope of the story is, to me, either fact or opinion.

I keep hearing that any time the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators speak, they may be speaking truth or they may be speaking their own opinion and portraying it as truth and that I have to learn to pray and determine which it is. Good people do that and some get the answer that they are teaching truth, and some get the answer that they are teaching their own opinion. Even Bruce McConkie got it wrong on some topics by his own admission. I am not going to kid myself into thinking I am able to receive more accurate revelation than Elder McConkie. I therefore need to be able to count on my leaders to teach me truth.

[Cobalt-70]

There has been a few times in world history when water covered the entire planet, but none have been when our species was on it.

I'm not sure that is true. The whole earth might have been covered by ice a few times in the first couple billion years of its existence, but there were always continents, however small, that rose above the oceans.

[mfbukowski]

Since there is a great deal of evidence against a global Flood and since I think the standard date of the Fall (4004 B.C.) is likely to be innaccurate and since the OT Hebrew allows for a local interpretation, I postulate a local event, perhaps the sudden filling of the Black Sea. That is at around 5600 B.C. IIRC a similar event around 2200 or 2400 B.C.

Additionally, perhaps the ancients, finding shells and fish fossils far inland or on mountains, postulated a global flood not knowing of continental drift, uplift, and how layers get laid down.

It bothers me that we use "evidence" to prove there was no global flood but yet "evidence" also points to no God.

I say just forget about "evidence" for religious truths and take them for what they are- true stories that bring us closer to our Maker

It cannot ever be proven that there was or was not a global flood any more than you can prove the existence of God so alleged evidence either way becomes irrelevant.

To me, it is just a confusing position to take citing evidence in one direction and not the other.

Edited July 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

bcusbcuz:

See Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

HE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].

Widtsoe was on the right track. If the flood has a kernel of historicity beyond its mythology, whoever first told the story reported only what they experienced--a flash flood or tsunami in which somebody was saved by having the foresight to build a boat. They did not have global satellites to verify that Mt. Everest was covered with water, or even that the flood was more extensive than the local area where it occurred.

The idea that only a single man and his family survived, of all people on the planet, is an extrapolation. There would have been plenty of time for such an extrapolation, because the flood story was at least a thousand years old, and probably much older, before it was first written down by the authors of Genesis. A genetic bottleneck of only eight people would leave a glaringly-obvious trace within our genetic code, so that possibility is categorically ruled out by modern science.

As a myth and a parable, however, the flood story is a valuable and powerful one. The myth connects with Mormonism, perhaps, a bit more than it does with the rest of Christianity, because we like to imagine the earth as a gaia-like living organism, and as going through steps like baptism, death, and resurrection, etc.

[Closet Doubter]

It bothers me that we use "evidence" to prove there was no global flood but yet "evidence" also points to no God. . . . . . . It cannot ever be proven that there was or was not a global flood any more than you can prove the existence of God so alleged evidence either way becomes irrelevant.

In my skeptisizm and questioning, I would never agree that "evidence points to no God". Just the complexity of DNA suggests that an intellegent being, ie God had to be involved in the creation. I don't believe all that scientists say about evolution but the statement that I have heard attributed to David O McKay that "evolution is a beautiful concept if we recognize the hand of God in it" is profound.

[mfbukowski]

In my skeptisizm and questioning, I would never agree that "evidence points to no God". Just the complexity of DNA suggests that an intellegent being, ie God had to be involved in the creation. I don't believe all that scientists say about evolution but the statement that I have heard attributed to David O McKay that "evolution is a beautiful concept if we recognize the hand of God in it" is profound.

I have no problem with that and agree with you, but not everyone thinks that intelligent design is "scientific".

But personally I have no problem with that kind of thing- in fact I believe it is true. But my point is a polemical one for a hard-line science type who thinks there is no scientific evidence for God.

I personally think you just have to look around to see a world created by God- but in my atheist days that was not the case.

Additionally I think BC also agrees that intelligent design is not supported by evidence, but I could be wrong. So that is why I phrased it that way. The post was about the way we argue the point not about what is true

Edited July 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

I do not believe a flood ever covered the entire earth. I accept the possibility of a limited catastrophic flood that the person’s which experienced it believed wiped out the entire population of the earth. I don’t believe the statements by Joseph Fielding Smith that the flood was the baptism of the earth and covered even the highest peak of the highest mountain. I accept the statement from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the reasoning stated by earlier posters summarized below.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism - THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for a world wide flood during the last quarter of a million years. Thus precluding any such event for any proposed time frame for Noah. It is also a simple fact of the matter that the LDS are not nor have they ever been biblical literalistic. Symbolism and metaphor work quite well and still leave plenty of room for Noah being a prophet of God, building a boat and rescuing what he could in a massive albeit regional flood.

Noah could not have had all the animals from around the world in his ark. How would kangaroos arrive from the island of Australia? How about bison and llamas from the Americas? Now multiply this by thousands of mammal species, and millions of insects and birds, etc., and suddenly you find there is no room in the ark. Even if he got them all to the ark and in it again, how does one get them back to their own continents?

That archaeology shows a continuous pattern of civilization from 4000 BC through today in most areas of the world, shows that the whole world was not destroyed by a flood, but only the peoples that Noah was in contact with in a limited space of land.

Since most civilizations establish themselves along major waterways, e.g., rivers, lakes, oceans, and seas, then it would make sense that a large regional flood brought about by a natural catastrophe would account for the legends and subsequent surface destruction such as found in Crete and other locales.

A problem I have is that people whom I am supposed to sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have made many statements to the contrary of what is stated above. Some of the statements that have already appeared in this thread are summarized below. There are many more

The Prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, “If Ye Are Prepared, Ye Shall Not Fear”. October 2005 General Conference - There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only “eight souls were saved”.

A Prophet, Elder Mark Petersen, “Follow the Prophets”. October 1981 General Conference - . . . today much like Noah’s day when the population of the earth was wiped out in the flood and but eight righteous souls were spared? Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place.

A Prophet, Jeffry R. Holland, “A Promised Land”. Ensign, June 1976 - Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water.

70, Elder Hartman Rector, Jr., “Turning the Hearts”. April 1981 General Conference - The Lord further indicated that all flesh was corrupt in those days, and so he brought forth the flood and destroyed all flesh except Noah and his family. Therefore, we are all descendants of righteous Noah.

70, Elder William Bennett, “Covenants and Blessings”. October 1975 General Conference - Another one was Noah, who was chosen to be the second father of the human race here on earth, after the flood..

Official church publication, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998 - . . . . We Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who . . . . built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.

When I was a missionary, one of the things I taught as a reason we need living prophets to guide us today is so that when questions arise related to doctrine, we don’t have to guess and speculate, the Prophet can inquire of the Lord and give us accurate information and direction. This does not appear to be happening today unless we accept that a flood occurred that covered the entire world and wiped out all animal life (other than possibly fish) except for those that Noah collected onto the arc.

Just to be clear, The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (and Widstoe) are still teaching a global flood.

In the EoM, the entry for "The Great Flood" is part of the article on "Earth". Interestingly, here is what the rest of the quote from Widstoe says:

Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley. The great floods that have often occurred there make the description in Genesis seem very reasonable indeed. And if the historian saw the flood there, it is not unlikely that the waters covered the highest points or peaks, for there the mountains are but hills.

Great floods have visited the earth. That has been amply proved. For example, Professor C. Leonard Woolley, studying through excavations the ancient history of Mesopotamia, has found indisputable evidences of a flood in the neighborhood of Abraham's ancestral city of Ur. Whether that flood is the great flood of Genesis is not certain, for we do not know whether at that time the children of Adam had spread from their original home in what is now America into the lands now denominated Asia. (Woolley, The Sumerians)

Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D. & C. 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331).

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

Honestly, I don't think Widstoe would appreciate anyone using his quote as support for a limited-flood theory.

The EoM entry on "Noah" also emphasizes Noah's place as a "second Adam":

He became a second father-with adam-of all mankind following the Flood and later returned to earth as the angel Gabriel to announce the births of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ (HC 3:386; TPJS, p. 157).

Edited July 24, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Widtsoe was on the right track. If the flood has a kernel of historicity beyond its mythology, whoever first told the story reported only what they experienced--a flash flood or tsunami in which somebody was saved by having the foresight to build a boat. They did not have global satellites to verify that Mt. Everest was covered with water, or even that the flood was more extensive than the local area where it occurred.

The idea that only a single man and his family survived, of all people on the planet, is an extrapolation. There would have been plenty of time for such an extrapolation, because the flood story was at least a thousand years old, and probably much older, before it was first written down by the authors of Genesis. A genetic bottleneck of only eight people would leave a glaringly-obvious trace within our genetic code, so that possibility is categorically ruled out by modern science.

As a myth and a parable, however, the flood story is a valuable and powerful one. The myth connects with Mormonism, perhaps, a bit more than it does with the rest of Christianity, because we like to imagine the earth as a gaia-like living organism, and as going through steps like baptism, death, and resurrection, etc.

For those who lost homes in the floods of the Mississippi recently their "whole worlds" were flooded and destroyed. As far as those individuals were concerned the catastrophe might just as well have been "global".

But just to make it clear, I have no problem believing that the flood actually covered the planet as well. What "actually happened" is totally unknowable, so in my way of thinking it is silly to worry about it.

The important point is that earth has a spirit and was baptized and God restored the gospel through Noah. Those are the doctrinal truths and all we need to worry about.

[Cobalt-70]

But just to make it clear, I have no problem believing that the flood actually covered the planet as well. What "actually happened" is totally unknowable, so in my way of thinking it is silly to worry about it.

The important point is that earth has a spirit and was baptized and God restored the gospel through Noah. Those are the doctrinal truths and all we need to worry about.

I do like the Gaia connection to Mormonism, because of its environmental connotations. But like all doctrinal truths, the "truth" part is the lesson and the mythology, not the supposed historical act of the earth literally and physically being baptized by immersion--which never actually happened. But we can imagine that it did happen in some mythological reality, and treat the earth with the respect of a living, conscious being. We can understand that if we are wicked and selfish, and abuse our stewardship over nature, the earth may destroy us and "start over."

[blackstrap]

Let us hope we are only destroyed metaphorically.

[mfbukowski]

Let us hope we are only destroyed metaphorically.

Only everyone else will die metaphorically. We get to die subjectively. It's a little hard to know what it's like for someone else to die, but each of us will get to find out for ourselves.

What a fun thought- huh? In the end we are all alone.

[blackstrap]

Only everyone else will die metaphorically. We get to die subjectively. It's a little hard to know what it's like for someone else to die, but each of us will get to find out for ourselves.

What a fun thought- huh? In the end we are all alone.

I can agree in a sense. I have wondered how it works when many die together like Hiroshima. Must cause a bit of a line-up at the pearly gates.

[sunstoned]

I think the most recent contribution from the church on the subject and since it was published in the Ensign should be considered officially correlated material. The Flood and the Tower of Babel By Donald W. Parry

I haven't seen a Ensign Article that says the opposite of this.

Phaedrus

//cwald quoted from this article earlier in the thread.

From this and the other quotations from the general authorities that have been referenced in this thread, it does appear very clear what the church's teaching on this matter is. It is interesting to see that many apologist seem to be in disagreement with the brethren.

[Calm]

In the end we are all alone.

In our own head perhaps....but if we can experience oneness in the next life, feel the Spirit in this one....can we really assume we are all alone and not surrounded by masses aware of us though we are not aware of them? Many NDEs suggest we are not really alone. People are just waiting for us to become more fully aware. Edited July 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Ice is just another form of water. But even then there still has been a few times when liquid water cover the earth. At least accord to my geology books.

[BCSpace]

It bothers me that we use "evidence" to prove there was no global flood but yet "evidence" also points to no God.

It shouldn't because there is no evidence that precludes God.

I say just forget about "evidence" for religious truths and take them for what they are- true stories that bring us closer to our Maker

If the stories are presented as historical, how can they bring us closer to our Maker if they actually are not? Such casts doubt on whether or not there is a Maker. Not everyone in the scriptures is a Job. In the case of the Flood, there needs to be a Noah and there needs to be a Flood though it does not have to be world-wide.

It cannot ever be proven that there was or was not a global flood any more than you can prove the existence of God so alleged evidence either way becomes irrelevant.

Doesn't appear to be the case. The evidence against a global Flood is too strong.

To me, it is just a confusing position to take citing evidence in one direction and not the other.

The answer to this confusion is to know what is evidence and what is not evidence. A mere lack of evidence certainly isn't evidence in science which is why science does not and cannot yet address the issue of God's existence..

[Craig Paxton]

This article helped me conclude that the concept of a Universal Flood was a bunch of baloney...

https://dialoguejour...e_V40N03_95.pdf

It also helped me come to the conclusion that LDS leaders could not be relied on for teaching truth...they had for decades taught complete flasehoods as truth. It exposed the church as a very man-made organization...who's leaders could not be relied on as a source for truth than any other average person on earth. All one really had to do was be willing to ask difficult question and then not be afraid of the answers to those questions...and never to begin a quest for truth with the answer before the question has even been asked.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Craig Paxton