Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[cinepro]

Soon we will all be learning about Noah and the Flood in our Gospel Doctrine classes all over the world. 
 
Lesson 6: “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House”

In 2006 and 2010, I asked for people to share any experiences they had in their classes with the scope of the flood being discussed, with either the teacher or a class member bringing up the issue.

 

Obviously, the default LDS teaching and assumption is towards the global flood, so it may go unmentioned.  But please report back here if the issue comes up!

[Buckeye]

We covered it last week (must be ahead of the standard track for some reason).  The breadth of the flood did not come up, but if it did I was ready to comment that many members believe in a limited or figurative flood too, and just leave it at that. 

 

We did end up discussing a lot about how our day is approaching the wickedness of Noah's.  I commented that that may be true, but critically, we are still commanded to be in the world and not flee in our "arks."  God still has great hope for our neighbors and so should we.  That comment changed the entire tenor of the discussion.  Someone else mentioned the recent "round ark" tablet, which allowed me to comment on how there were many cultures with flood stories in OT times.

 

If anyone is interested, here is a great article for dealing with the flood in an LDS worldview:  https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V40N03_95.pdf.  I particularly love Elder Witsoe's idea that the earth's baptism can be a shower instead of a bath.  I'm thinking of trying that for my next child's baptism.  Until my wife slaps me, that is.

[David T]

Ben Spackman has a great scholastic overview of this stuff covered in that lesson for LDS on his blog here.

 

Two important points he brings up from the biblical text itself:

• The Biblical text in Genesis 6-9 depicts a universal flood.
• The Biblical text elsewhere knows nothing about a universal flood and seems to assume it didn’t happen.

It's a fun blog post. 

 

As for me? I'll be hanging out in Gospel Principles that week.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Soon we will all be learning about Noah and the Flood in our Gospel Doctrine classes all over the world. 

 Lesson 6: “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House”

In 2006 and 2010, I asked for people to share any experiences they had in their classes with the scope of the flood being discussed, with either the teacher or a class member bringing up the issue.

 

Obviously, the default LDS teaching and assumption is towards the global flood, so it may go unmentioned.  But please report back here if the issue comes up!

I think for doctrinal reason, deliverance and renewal, will be the themes...but the actual world wide flood, doubtful if Biblical account is accurate.

[Buckeye]

Ben Spackman has a great scholastic overview of this stuff covered in that lesson for LDS on his blog here.

 

Two important points he brings up from the biblical text itself:

• The Biblical text in Genesis 6-9 depicts a universal flood.
• The Biblical text elsewhere knows nothing about a universal flood and seems to assume it didn’t happen.

It's a fun blog post. 

 

As for me? I'll be hanging out in Gospel Principles that week.

 

Spackman is great.  Pointing out biblical inconsistencies is always fun, and rather effective.  No need to be an adversary.  Just point out the problem and let people start grapling with it themselves.  They usually come down from fundamentalism much better on their own than if they are pushed. 

[JLHPROF]

Soon we will all be learning about Noah and the Flood in our Gospel Doctrine classes all over the world. 

 

Lesson 6: “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House”

In 2006 and 2010, I asked for people to share any experiences they had in their classes with the scope of the flood being discussed, with either the teacher or a class member bringing up the issue.

 

Obviously, the default LDS teaching and assumption is towards the global flood, so it may go unmentioned.  But please report back here if the issue comes up!

 

My issue with denying a global flood is it completely negates the baptismal symbolism.  I've always liked the idea that the earth was representative of man, and just like us received the baptism of water, the baptism of fire, a death of sorts, and a resurrection and celestialization.  All of these things are alluded to in scripture. 

If we start saying the the earth wasn't baptised (immersed and wickedness swept off) it sort of cuts off this scriptural symbolism at the knees.  And I don't think God would go to the trouble of weaving that pattern through scripture if it wasn't factual in some way.

And as always, just because we can't prove it happened scientifically doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[cinepro]

My issue with denying a global flood is it completely negates the baptismal symbolism.  I've always liked the idea that the earth was representative of man, and just like us received the baptism of water, the baptism of fire, a death of sorts, and a resurrection and celestialization.  All of these things are alluded to in scripture. 

If we start saying the the earth wasn't baptised (immersed and wickedness swept off) it sort of cuts off this scriptural symbolism at the knees.  And I don't think God would go to the trouble of weaving that pattern through scripture if it wasn't factual in some way.

And as always, just because we can't prove it happened scientifically doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

While I acknowledge the teachings about the flood being "Earth's Baptism", the idea makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Even with the idea that the Earth has a "spirit", that doesn't mean it would need a "baptism".  After all, the animals all have spirits as well.

 

So it might have been a "baptism" insofar as it was washed and covered with water, but I can't see any spiritual meaning beyond that. 

[JLHPROF]

While I acknowledge the teachings about the flood being "Earth's Baptism", the idea makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Even with the idea that the Earth has a "spirit", that doesn't mean it would need a "baptism".  After all, the animals all have spirits as well.

 

So it might have been a "baptism" insofar as it was washed and covered with water, but I can't see any spiritual meaning beyond that. 

 

I understand that strangeness, but as I said, the symbolism (which may seem strange) is carried forward to the earth being consumed by fire (baptised by fire), dying, and being resurrected as a celestial sphere.  If I looked at the flood as baptism in isolation I could take it or leave it.  But it fits so beautifully with the journey of the earth from it's creation/birth, through baptism/flood, baptism of fire/second coming and the return of the Savior's physical presence (sounds like Calling and Election to me), and final state as a celestial body/sphere.

 

It is the beauty of the journey that makes me not want to doubt the first step as that would make the whole thing crumble.

[Buckeye]

While I acknowledge the teachings about the flood being "Earth's Baptism", the idea makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Even with the idea that the Earth has a "spirit", that doesn't mean it would need a "baptism".  After all, the animals all have spirits as well.

 

So it might have been a "baptism" insofar as it was washed and covered with water, but I can't see any spiritual meaning beyond that. 

 

Well, if the flood was global, most of the animals were also "baptized" along with the earth.  Unfortunately, just as with the proverbial witches in the lake, they appear to have failed their baptism. 

[teddyaware]

I understand that strangeness, but as I said, the symbolism (which may seem strange) is carried forward to the earth being consumed by fire (baptised by fire), dying, and being resurrected as a celestial sphere.  If I looked at the flood as baptism in isolation I could take it or leave it.  But it fits so beautifully with the journey of the earth from it's creation/birth, through baptism/flood, baptism of fire/second coming and the return of the Savior's physical presence (sounds like Calling and Election to me), and final state as a celestial body/sphere.

 

It is the beauty of the journey that makes me not want to doubt the first step as that would make the whole thing crumble.

The problem I consistently see in discussions like this one (where incredulity and skepticism reign amongst the board's naturalists) is that though God is said to be a God of mighty miracles, this all-important factor is almost always left out of the picture; the possibility for such isn't even considered. Rather, if the scriptural accounts don't fit into a naturalistic worldview, the testimony of the reality of the accounts is cast aside with nary a thought.

But I say a God who can turn water into wine, who can multiply bread and fish when none are present, who can raise Lazarus' stinking corpse from the dead, and who can raise a mighty race of millions of immortal super-humans from the dust in the mere twinkling of eye shouldn't have any difficulty causing a world-wide deluge.

I often wonder what the appeal is that would cause such hard-core skeptics to want to align themselves with a religion that's so chock full of miracles. I just don't get it.

Edited February 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Senator]

The problem I consistently see in discussions like this one (where incredulity and skepticism reign amongst the board's naturalists) is that though God is said to be a God of mighty miracles, this all-important factor is almost always left out of the picture; the possibility for such isn't even considered. Rather, if the scriptural accounts don't fit into a naturalistic worldview, the testimony of the reality of the accounts is cast aside with nary a thought.

But I say a God who can turn water into wine, who can multiply bread and fish when none are present, who can raise Lazarus' stinking corpse from the dead, and who can raise a mighty race of millions of immortal super-humans from the dust in the mere twinkling of eye shouldn't have any difficulty causing a world-wide deluge.

I often wonder what the appeal is that would cause such hard-core skeptics to want to align themselves with a religion that's so chock full of miracles. I just don't get it.

 

Ask Thomas.

 

Maybe certain personalities just wrestle more with the irrational, but quietly have a certain hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[cinepro]

The problem I consistently see in discussions like this one (where incredulity and skepticism reign amongst the board's naturalists) is that though God is said to be a God of mighty miracles, this all-important factor is almost always left out of the picture; the possibility for such isn't even considered. Rather, if the scriptural accounts don't fit into a naturalistic worldview, the testimony of the reality of the accounts is cast aside with nary a thought.

But I say a God who can turn water into wine, who can multiply bread and fish when none are present, who can raise Lazarus' stinking corpse from the dead, and who can raise a mighty race of millions of immortal super-humans from the dust in the mere twinkling of eye shouldn't have any difficulty causing a world-wide deluge.

I often wonder what the appeal is that would cause such hard-core skeptics to want to align themselves with a religion that's so chock full of miracles. I just don't get it.

 

The problem isn't belief in a God of miracles.  The problem is believing that one of God's miracles was to cover the planet with water around 2500 BC, killing all the plant, animal and human life except for what could be saved in a floating ark with 8 people and breeding pairs for the animals, and then subsequently miraculously re-arranging all the geological and biological evidence to make it appear exactly as if it hadn't happened.

 

It was also quite rude of Him to do it and not even tell the Egyptians and Chinese that had happened.  It seems they hardly noticed.

Edited February 7, 2014 by cinepro

[Calm]

It wouldn't have killed plant life save for that on the ark or the olive branch would never have been found.

[Duncan]

I am listening to Welcome to the Jungle and so I can switch to the scriptures without ruining this masterpiece of a son but doesn't it talk somewhere in Moses about "earths"? maybe to Noah et al they thought their area was it whereas in reality it clearly wasn't

[cinepro]

It wouldn't have killed plant life save for that on the ark or the olive branch would never have been found.

 

If a plant is underwater for 40 days (or 150 days), it dies.  So God keeping all of the plants alive would be another miracle. 

 

It also raises the question of why he didn't just keep the animals alive too, instead of making Noah take them on the ark.  So you're theorizing half a miracle.

[Senator]

It wouldn't have killed plant life save for that on the ark or the olive branch would never have been found.

 

There would have been massive floating debris such as would make the "Japanese debris tsunami" look like yard trimmings.

[Duncan]

There would have been massive floating debris such as would make the "Japanese debris tsunami" look like yard trimmings.

 

 

not to mention the bodies of the dearly departed, unicorns and leprechauns

[thesometimesaint]

It wouldn't have killed plant life save for that on the ark or the olive branch would never have been found.

 

Last time I looked covering olive trees with water for 40 days and nights will kill them.

[Calm]

Then as Senator claims, if it was a global flood that covered everything for at least 40 days it was a miracle...but there is I believe no indication that Noah took plant life on board to save it, right?

[Rob Osborn]

The problem isn't belief in a God of miracles.  The problem is believing that one of God's miracles was to cover the planet with water around 2500 BC, killing all the plant, animal and human life except for what could be saved in a floating ark with 8 people and breeding pairs for the animals, and then subsequently miraculously re-arranging all the geological and biological evidence to make it appear exactly as if it hadn't happened.

 

It was also quite rude of Him to do it and not even tell the Egyptians and Chinese that had happened.  It seems they hardly noticed.

I find it rather strange that with so much evidence for a global flood hardly anyone even notices. Perhaps its just too much evidence to notice.

[bcuzbcuz]

I find it rather strange that with so much evidence for a global flood hardly anyone even notices. Perhaps its just too much evidence to notice.

Do you want to run that past me, one more time? Just which "so much evidence" are you referring to? You responded to the Egyptians and Chinese not noticing any global flood, so I assume you have something, evidence, etc., that indicates that the Egyptians of 2500 BC got wiped out by the global flood.

Surprisingly, it appears that if the Egyptians got wiped out, their society immediately sprang up again, same language, same culture, same pyramid building, right where they left off, and not so much as any water erosion or deposits on their previous buildings. If their whole nation of people got wiped out, where did they find all the workers to continue building pyramids?

One of the factors that enabled the Egyptian society to expand and devote so much effort and resources into huge projects like pyramids and temples....and their temples covered acres of land, with walls almost 2 kilometers long, ( over a mile long), were their storehouses of grains. A global flood would have wiped out their graineries, or at the least, have water damaged them beyond repair and usage, yet the Egyptian storehouses remained. The Egyptians have written about problems with rodents depleting their food stocks, but no where did they write about problems with water damage.

So, please, share this evidence you talk about.

[bcuzbcuz]

My issue with denying a global flood is it completely negates the baptismal symbolism.  I've always liked the idea that the earth was representative of man, and just like us received the baptism of water, the baptism of fire, a death of sorts, and a resurrection and celestialization.  All of these things are alluded to in scripture. 

If we start saying the the earth wasn't baptised (immersed and wickedness swept off) it sort of cuts off this scriptural symbolism at the knees.  And I don't think God would go to the trouble of weaving that pattern through scripture if it wasn't factual in some way.

And as always, just because we can't prove it happened scientifically doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If the global flood symbalism equates to a baptism of the earth, it must also entail the wiping out of hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. The wickedness that would be washed away included huge numbers of babies and small children, too young to have committed any sins of "wickedness". Such a sweeping "cleansing" sounds uncomfortably similar to the bumper stickers that blare out their uncultured "Kill them all. Let God decide."

This baptism of the earth would have left heaps of stinking, rotting, animal and vegetable matter, or at least piles of bones and rubble. Great for fertilizer perhaps, but hardly what one would want as a celebration of cleansing.

[Calm]

And if the earth is baptised, why would not animals and such require baptisms as well? What it about the earth that requires a baptism?

Edited February 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Grudunza]

My issue with denying a global flood is it completely negates the baptismal symbolism. I've always liked the idea that the earth was representative of man, and just like us received the baptism of water, the baptism of fire, a death of sorts, and a resurrection and celestialization. All of these things are alluded to in scripture.

If we start saying the the earth wasn't baptised (immersed and wickedness swept off) it sort of cuts off this scriptural symbolism at the knees. And I don't think God would go to the trouble of weaving that pattern through scripture if it wasn't factual in some way.

And as always, just because we can't prove it happened scientifically doesn't mean it didn't happen.

From the Ben Spackman article:

"Baptism of the earth- This idea can’t be used to argue for a universal historical flood. The idea of the earth being baptized comes *from* the idea of a global flood, it was an interpretation of a worldwide flood. To then turn it around and use baptism of the earth as an argument *for* a global flood is circular and gets the causality backwards. But lets ask a different question- Why does the planet need baptism? Do dogs? Plants? Can it make decisions, or repent? Did someone lay hands on it? What sins had it committed? Is it now a member of the church? Again, the idea of the earth’s baptism grew out of the reading of a global historical flood, not revelation, and consequently it’s not a strong argument for a worldwide flood because of that circularity."

[Bikeemikey]

Do you want to run that past me, one more time? Just which "so much evidence" are you referring to? You responded to the Egyptians and Chinese not noticing any global flood, so I assume you have something, evidence, etc., that indicates that the Egyptians of 2500 BC got wiped out by the global flood.

Surprisingly, it appears that if the Egyptians got wiped out, their society immediately sprang up again, same language, same culture, same pyramid building, right where they left off, and not so much as any water erosion or deposits on their previous buildings. If their whole nation of people got wiped out, where did they find all the workers to continue building pyramids?

One of the factors that enabled the Egyptian society to expand and devote so much effort and resources into huge projects like pyramids and temples....and their temples covered acres of land, with walls almost 2 kilometers long, ( over a mile long), were their storehouses of grains. A global flood would have wiped out their graineries, or at the least, have water damaged them beyond repair and usage, yet the Egyptian storehouses remained. The Egyptians have written about problems with rodents depleting their food stocks, but no where did they write about problems with water damage.

So, please, share this evidence you talk about.

In the temple in Taiwan you can do proxy work for families where grandparents were born pre-flood, parents were born during flood (approx.) and children were born post flood. That is based on the churches Old Testament handbook chronological timeframe for the flood estimate.

Those families don't seem too disrupted by the global flood.