Church Essay Contradicts The Global Flood Theory

[MormonFreeThinker]

See the Bible Chronology, what happened before the tower of Babel? 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron?lang=eng

 

Notice how the essay promotes a scientific theory, and does not say its false. 

 

"Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska" 

 

Later, the essay quotes President Ivins to open that possibility  

 

"At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”" 

 

So if people migrated to the Americas before the Jaradites, then it means that there was no Global Flood. The essay was approved by the First Presidency. 

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Edited April 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

I have no problem with a massive albeit regional flood.

[Alan]

 

 

So if people migrated to the Americas before the Jaradites, then it means that there was no Global Flood. The essay was approved by the First Presidency. 

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

Why?

[canard78]

Notice how the essay promotes a scientific theory, and does not say its false. 

...SNIP... 

So if people migrated to the Americas before the Jaradites, then it means that there was no Global Flood.

 

I'll see your one DNA essay and raise you a Noah essay which states:

 

Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were the only people on the whole earth saved from the flood... Thus, God’s plan went unfulfilled and He determined to start again... Just as the earth was immersed in water... Noah himself was a symbol of Christ. It was necessary for any living creature who wished to be saved to come “unto Noah into the ark”

 

I don't believe in a global flood, but I am yet to find any "official" church sources that support my belief and I don't think the DNA does (unless you squint a bit). Rob Osborn and Cinepro will probably support this perspective (albeit from different ends of the scale).

 

The essay was approved by the First Presidency.

 

 

CFR

[thesometimesaint]

 

I'll see your one DNA essay and raise you a Noah essay which states:

 

 

I don't believe in a global flood, but I am yet to find any "official" church sources that support my belief and I don't think the DNA does (unless you squint a bit). Rob Osborn and Cinepro will probably support this perspective (albeit from different ends of the scale).

 

 

CFR

 

The story of Noah works better as a morality tale. A literal event just has too many holes in that boat to float.

[Alan]

What have the Jaredites got to do with the flood?

[bcuzbcuz]

What have the Jaredites got to do with the flood?

What have the Jaredites got to do with the flood?

Global flood=everybody before Jaredites has been wiped out. Not so global, global flood=lots of pockets of people left,, including any peoples who came across the Bering Strait before it was a strait.....such as last ice age..

[canard78]

What have the Jaredites got to do with the flood?

 

Indeed.

 

Global flood=everybody before Jaredites has been wiped out. Not so global, global flood=lots of pockets of people left,, including any peoples who came across the Bering Strait before it was a strait.....such as last ice age..

 

 

This only works if people take literally the idea that the Jaredites populated an empty 'double continent' rather than were given an empty 'land of promise' (like the Lehites). There could have been a global flood and the Jaredites could have also not been the first to discover the Americas. One does not prove the other.

 

As such the OP's argument is void on multiple counts.

[canard78]

What have the Jaredites got to do with the flood?

 

Alan, I just tried to message you but it says you can't receive any messages - is your inbox full? 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

I'll see your one DNA essay and raise you a Noah essay which states:

 

 

I don't believe in a global flood, but I am yet to find any "official" church sources that support my belief and I don't think the DNA does (unless you squint a bit). Rob Osborn and Cinepro will probably support this perspective (albeit from different ends of the scale).

 

 

CFR

 

 

"Noah essay which states" 

That is not one of the new essays, so we don't know if it was even approved by the First Presidency. 

 In the Book of Mormon, "whole Earth" means all the land

 

3 Nephi 9:11 And it came to pass that there was a voice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying:

Helaman 14:27 "that darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days"

3 Nephi 8:17 "And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings"

Alma 36:7 "whole earth did tremble beneath our fee" 

3 Nephi 1:17 "all the people upon the face of the whole earth from the west to the east, both in the land north and in the land south, were so exceedingly astonished" 

[BCSpace]

So if people migrated to the Americas before the Jaradites, then it means that there was no Global Flood. The essay was approved by the First Presidency.

 

While I accept a local Flood over a Global one, this 'essay' (how I wish you guys would quit calling them essays) does not conflict with the Global Flood which is the doctrine of the Church.  For example:

 

For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Ether 13:2

 

All the new topical addition says, and correctly so, is that the BoM does not say there was no one here before the BoM peoples and that could have been pre and/or post Flood.

[MormonFreeThinker]

What have the Jaredites got to do with the flood?

 

See the Bible Chronology, what happened before the tower of Babel? 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron?lang=eng%C2'>

[ksfisher]

While I accept a local Flood over a Global one, this 'essay' (how I wish you guys would quit calling them essays) does not conflict with the Global Flood which is the doctrine of the Church.  For example:

 

For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Ether 13:2

 

All the new topical addition says, and correctly so, is that the BoM does not say there was no one here before the BoM peoples and that could have been pre and/or post Flood.

In this verse Moroni doesn't make clear which waters that he is referring to.  It could be either the waters from the flood, or the waters at the time of creation.

[MormonFreeThinker]

While I accept a local Flood over a Global one, this 'essay' (how I wish you guys would quit calling them essays) does not conflict with the Global Flood which is the doctrine of the Church.  For example:

 

For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Ether 13:2

 

All the new topical addition says, and correctly so, is that the BoM does not say there was no one here before the BoM peoples and that could have been pre and/or post Flood.

 

" Global Flood which is the doctrine of the Church"

FAIRMORMON states "

"This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FairMormon is aware"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

 

"For example:For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land"

 

"Yet Ether says nothing about the New World being uninhabited, let alone barren of life. Vogel sees Ether 13:2 as supporting the "notion of a universal flood" (p. 49). "After the waters had receded from off the face of this land [America], it became a choice land above all other lands" (ibid.). But are these waters from the Noah flood or from the creation?"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/2/1/S00028-Indian_Origins_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

[frank_jessop]

See the Bible Chronology, what happened before the tower of Babel?

You will need to do better than that. Surely you have some refined explanation.

[frank_jessop]

"Global Flood which is the doctrine of the Church"

FAIRMORMON states "

"This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FairMormon is aware"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

Fairmormon speaks for fairmormon and fairmormon only; it does not speak for the Church. And in typical fashion, Fairmormon uses unrelated information to try and make a point. The fairmormon article is outdated considering the global flood from the topic essay.

[Rob Osborn]

See the Bible Chronology, what happened before the tower of Babel? 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron?lang=eng

 

Notice how the essay promotes a scientific theory, and does not say its false. 

 

"Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska" 

 

Later, the essay quotes President Ivins to open that possibility  

 

"At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”" 

 

So if people migrated to the Americas before the Jaradites, then it means that there was no Global Flood. The essay was approved by the First Presidency. 

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

I find it of great interest that nowhere in the article does it support nor reflect or even acknowledge that the scientists are right in that there was a migration before the flood. What they do say is also of great interest. Here-

 

"Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.⁴ These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians.⁵"

 

 

"Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, the evidence is simply inconclusive."

 

Those two statements quite frankly say that the Church itself may not agree with scientists and that the evidence for such is inconclusive. Nowhere in the article does it agree with or even recognize any group of people existing through a global flood in the Americas.

 

So, if anything, the Church is only coming out to say that even on both sides of a bitter argument, there is no actual proof or eveidence that either dismisses nor acknowledges sure proof of the Book of Mormon.

Next item please.

[BCSpace]

In this verse Moroni doesn't make clear which waters that he is referring to.  It could be either the waters from the flood, or the waters at the time of creation.

 

 

Footnotes go to Genesis 7 and 8 which means the doctrine is that it refers to the Flood.

[BCSpace]

" Global Flood which is the doctrine of the Church"

FAIRMORMON states "

"This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FairMormon is aware"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

 

"For example:For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land"

 

"Yet Ether says nothing about the New World being uninhabited, let alone barren of life. Vogel sees Ether 13:2 as supporting the "notion of a universal flood" (p. 49). "After the waters had receded from off the face of this land [America], it became a choice land above all other lands" (ibid.). But are these waters from the Noah flood or from the creation?"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/2/1/S00028-Indian_Origins_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

 

Neither FAIR or the Maxwell Institute establish or publish LDS doctrine.  The Global Flood is established, published and official LDS doctrine and it would be wrong to teach otherwise.  I think those of us who can see things in a more nuanced way still have a duty and obligation to implement the Church's teachings on Sunday, in part because there are those to whom this would be a stumbling block if they heard it, and freely speculate outside class and here, etc.

 

I would agree that at some point in the future it might be said that there was no specific revelation on it, just a reporting of what the ancient prophets, who believed the Flood was Global, said.

Edited April 28, 2014 by BCSpace

[MormonFreeThinker]

Fairmormon speaks for fairmormon and fairmormon only; it does not speak for the Church. And in typical fashion, Fairmormon uses unrelated information to try and make a point. The fairmormon article is outdated considering the global flood from the topic essay.

 

Noah is not a new Gospel Topic essay,  so we don't if it is approved by the first presidency? Where is the "Thank you" sentence?

All already proved the "whole Earth" in the Book of Mormon means all the land, not the entire planet.

 

 

Nowhere in the article does it agree with or even recognize any group of people existing through a global flood in the Americas.

 

The church probably does not have an official position, but when has the church published a lie without saying that it is "false" or  "a theory of men" or "it's not true"

The Gospel Topic article is open to the theory that people came to the continent before the Jaradites

"The Global Flood is established, published and official LDS doctrine"

Official statement please

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Remember the Book of Mormon intruduction? "Principle ancestors" If that was not a mistake, why did they change it?

Edited April 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cdowis]

Footnotes go to Genesis 7 and 8 which means the doctrine is that it refers to the Flood.

 

Footnotes have been known to change.  I don't think a footnote by itself represents doctrine, just a study aid like the Bible Dictionary.

[Rivers]

See the Bible Chronology, what happened before the tower of Babel?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron?lang=eng

Notice how the essay promotes a scientific theory, and does not say its false.

"Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska"

Later, the essay quotes President Ivins to open that possibility

"At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”"

So if people migrated to the Americas before the Jaradites, then it means that there was no Global Flood. The essay was approved by the First Presidency.

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Yes. This is certainly a plot hole.

[frank_jessop]

Noah is not a new Gospel Topic essay, so we don't if it is approved by the first presidency? Where is the "Thank you" sentence?

All already proved the "whole Earth" in the Book of Mormon means all the land, not the entire planet.

The church probably does not have an official position, but when has the church published a lie without saying that it is "false" or  "a theory of men" or "it's not true"

The Gospel Topic article is open to the theory that people came to the continent before the Jaradites

"The Global Flood is established, published and official LDS doctrine"

Official statement please

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Remember the Book of Mormon intruduction? "Principle ancestors" If that was not a mistake, why did they change it?

you have not shown demonstrated your point.

How does the possibility of people in the Americas before the Jaradites disprove a global flood?

Please show a timeline of how a people arriving in the Americas before the Jaradites is not possible with a global flood story.

[cinepro]

See the Bible Chronology, what happened before the tower of Babel? 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-chron?lang=eng

 

Notice how the essay promotes a scientific theory, and does not say its false. 

 

"Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska" 

 

Later, the essay quotes President Ivins to open that possibility  

 

"At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”" 

 

So if people migrated to the Americas before the Jaradites, then it means that there was no Global Flood. The essay was approved by the First Presidency. 

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

 

Prophets, Apostles and Official Church Publications Support Global Flood

 

But I agree that the essay is a good (if necessary) step towards a more scientific understanding of the history of the Americas.

 

I do disagree with their statement about Joseph Smith being "open to the idea of migrations other than those described in the Book of Mormon".  The footnote refers to the Times and Seasons article "Facts are Stubborn Things", but I don't see anything in that article that supports such a claim.

 

I do, however, know what Joseph Smith said in the Wentworth Letter in 1842 (emphasis added):

 

[During Moroni's visit in 1823] I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God, unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In this important and interesting book [The Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

 

I can understand the arguments that Joseph Smith didn't really know what The Book of Mormon was about, but it's a little disingenuous to say he believed there were "others" that predated the Jaredites.

[canard78]

"Noah essay which states"

That is not one of the new essays, so we don't know if it was even approved by the First Presidency.

In the Book of Mormon, "whole Earth" means all the land

3 Nephi 9:11 And it came to pass that there was a voice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying:

Helaman 14:27 "that darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days"

3 Nephi 8:17 "And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings"

Alma 36:7 "whole earth did tremble beneath our fee"

3 Nephi 1:17 "all the people upon the face of the whole earth from the west to the east, both in the land north and in the land south, were so exceedingly astonished"

You skipped the CFR that the DNA essay is first presidency approved. While you're at it, CFR that the old essay on Noah is less authoritative I the eyes of the leadership than the DNA one.