Baptism Of The Earth? Gospel Topics Article

[MormonFreeThinker]

I had enough, so here are my final thoughts.  

 

Noah was not Christ, Noah was a symbol. 

 

What is the symbolism of Noah and the flood?

God uses symbols to teach gospel truths. In the New Testament, Peter explained that the flood was a “like figure” or symbol of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21). Just as the earth was immersed in water, so we must be baptized by water and by the Spirit before we can enter the celestial kingdom. Also, 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” (Genesis 7:9, 15). 

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

 

The Noah article does not endorse the Global Flood Theory, it doesn't talk about the nature of the Flood.  It doesn't talk about the issue or the debate. Here is an Ensign article that really endorses a Global Flood, see the difference? 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

 

There is no official church statement that endorses a Global Flood. The church defined the published doctrine here 

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

I need an official church statement, because there is so much scientific evidence that contradicts the Global Flood. 

 

Opinion Slayer wrote

 

"My position is based on scriptures and teachings of latter-day prophets with an emphasis on PROPHETS PLURAL not singular. Like I said earlier find me a prophet that didn't teach universal flood? That principle has been taught by dozens of the prophets in our time specifically by some of the greatest doctrinal minds of this dispensation and that is irrefutable. I may not find an official statement by the church with a nice font letter head but I can find dozens and dozens of prophets teachings the universal flood and you can't find me one single one that teaches the opposite. Best of luck to you, if you need an official statement from the church on every doctrine you are going to need it!" 

 

"There are dozens of gospel principles that the church has not made an official statement that it teaches"

 

The gospel principles are taught very clearly in the scriptures, but the Global Flood interpretation is not that clear. The new church essays prove that the interpretation of church leaders is not always right. Have you read them? 

http://en.fairmormon...l_Topics_essays

"teachings of latter-day prophets with an emphasis on PROPHETS PLURAL"

Most church leaders used to believe that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors, we now know the Lamanites were only a small fraction. 

 

"That principle has been taught by dozens of the prophets in our time"

Really? I can find far more statements about gospel principles. 

http://en.fairmormon...lood/Statements

 

Yes, the world of Noah was destroyed, only Noah and his family were saved, I agree. The world of the Nephites was also destroyed. 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" 

 

Have a nice day people. 

Edited May 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[bluebell]

I'm not sure board rules allow a poster to create a thread just to post his or her final thoughts on something.  Discussion has to be the goal.  Are you willing to discuss the OP or is this just a lecture?

[thesometimesaint]

I had enough, so here are my final thoughts.  

 

Noah was not Christ, Noah was a symbol. 

 

What is the symbolism of Noah and the flood?

God uses symbols to teach gospel truths. In the New Testament, Peter explained that the flood was a “like figure” or symbol of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21). Just as the earth was immersed in water, so we must be baptized by water and by the Spirit before we can enter the celestial kingdom. Also, 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” (Genesis 7:9, 15). 

https://www.lds.org/topics/noah?lang=eng

 

The Noah article does not endorse the Global Flood Theory, it doesn't talk about the nature of the Flood.  It doesn't talk about the issue or the debate. Here is an Ensign article that really endorses a Global Flood, see the difference? 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

 

There is no official church statement that endorses a Global Flood. The church defined the published doctrine here 

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

I need an official church statement, because there is so much scientific evidence that contradicts the Global Flood. 

 

Opinion Slayer wrote

 

"My position is based on scriptures and teachings of latter-day prophets with an emphasis on PROPHETS PLURAL not singular. Like I said earlier find me a prophet that didn't teach universal flood? That principle has been taught by dozens of the prophets in our time specifically by some of the greatest doctrinal minds of this dispensation and that is irrefutable. I may not find an official statement by the church with a nice font letter head but I can find dozens and dozens of prophets teachings the universal flood and you can't find me one single one that teaches the opposite. Best of luck to you, if you need an official statement from the church on every doctrine you are going to need it!" 

 

"There are dozens of gospel principles that the church has not made an official statement that it teaches"

 

The gospel principles are taught very clearly in the scriptures, but the Global Flood interpretation is not that clear. The new church essays prove that the interpretation of church leaders is not always right. Have you read them? 

http://en.fairmormon...l_Topics_essays

"teachings of latter-day prophets with an emphasis on PROPHETS PLURAL"

Most church leaders used to believe that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors, we now know the Lamanites were only a small fraction. 

 

"That principle has been taught by dozens of the prophets in our time"

Really? I can find far more statements about gospel principles. 

http://en.fairmormon...lood/Statements

 

Yes, the world of Noah was destroyed, only Noah and his family were saved, I agree. The world of the Nephites was also destroyed. 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" 

 

Have a nice day people. 

 

Believe I know it can be frustrating at times, but bluebell is right. We are here to discuss and have friendly disagreements with each other about all things Mormon and closely related subjects.

[BCSpace]

Here is an Ensign article that really endorses a Global Flood, see the difference? 

https://www.lds.org/...-babel?lang=eng

 

There is no official church statement that endorses a Global Flood.

 

 

The Ensign article is published by the Church.  Hence a Global Flood and the baptism of the earth is official LDS doctrine.  See your own link on doctrine which is also in my siggy.

 

Such is also taught in this manual here...

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs?lang=eng

 

...in section 4-15

 

Say rather that perhaps there is no specific revelation that details the Flood, instead, the Church has adopted traditional Christian thinking on the matter in the absence of specific revelation.

 

I think that's the best argument a local Flood proponent such as myself can make and it's not very strong.

Edited May 8, 2014 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

The Ensign article is published by the Church.  Hence a Global Flood and the baptism of the earth is official LDS doctrine.  See your own link.

 

Say rather that perhaps there is no specific revelation that details the Flood, rather, the Church has adopted traditional Christian thinking on the matter in the absence of specific revelation.

 

I think that's the best argument a local Flood proponent such as myself can make and it's not very strong.

 

According to the Church itself. However valuable Ensign articles are. They merely reflect the opinions of that writer. They are not doctrine.

 

Agreed.

 

Agreed, Though I see it a bit more strongly than you do.

[BCSpace]

According to the Church itself. However valuable Ensign articles are. They merely reflect the opinions of that writer. They are not doctrine

 

.

Publication by the Church is the one and only standard for official doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

.

Publication by the Church is the one and only standard for official doctrine.

 

No it isn't. I don't see Ensign articles mentioned here do you?

 

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

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[BCSpace]

No it isn't. I don't see Ensign articles mentioned here do you?

 

 

Yes.  The Ensign is an official Church publication.

[Rob Osborn]

Whats the big deal people? The official doctrine by the church regarding the flood is that it was indeed a global event where the water covered the entire planet. Don't like it? Then choose to disagree. But please do not rant on and on about it not being the official church doctrine when in fact it is and has never ever been taught as anything short of a global flood. Every church manual and publication that teaches about the flood teaches it the same way as the scriptures specify- that it was indeed a global event.

[BCSpace]

Whats the big deal people? The official doctrine by the church regarding the flood is that it was indeed a global event where the water covered the entire planet. Don't like it? Then choose to disagree.

 

Precisely.

 

 

Every church manual and publication that teaches about the flood teaches it the same way as the scriptures specify- that it was indeed a global event.

 

The only problem here is that while, as the Church's statement says, the doctrine resides in the Four Standard Works etc., no one can establish what that doctrine is unless they are the prophets and apostles, also stated in the Church's statement. So while, for example, one might see the water in John 3:5 as being physical birth, as many other christians do, the prophets have said it means water baptism and the ONLY way we know that is because such is officially published in a manual or other Church publication.

Edited May 8, 2014 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

Precisely.

 

 

The only problem here is that while, as the Church's statement says, the doctrine resides in the Four Standard Works etc., no one can establish what that doctrine is unless they are the prophets and apostles, also stated in the Church's statement. So while, for example, one might see the water in John 3:5 as being physical birth, as many other christians do, the prophets have said it means water baptism and the ONLY way we know that is because such is officially published in a manual or other Church publication.

 

Except that you are leave out out "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications". Please show me where Ensign articles have met that requirement,

[cinepro]

Except that you are leave out out "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications". Please show me where Ensign articles have met that requirement,

 

If something is consistently proclaimed in the Ensign, then it has been consistently proclaimed in an official Church publication.  It's not that hard to figure out.  It's also consistently proclaimed in the Church curricula, conference talks, and the scriptures.

 

I can see the argument against it if there have been conflicting statement made on a subject, or if something was taught one way in the past, but now it's taught differently in our day.  But when it comes to the Global Flood, it's pretty dang consistent over the decades (and centuries).

 

Speaking to the OP, it's okay to admit that the Church teaches something you don't agree with.  You won't get kicked out if you think the flood was regional in scope, or allegorical.  And if enough people publicly admit it, it might encourage Church leaders to acknowledge their openness to alternate theories. 

 

But that hasn't happened with Noah's flood yet (and because of the ancillary principles that are associated with the Global Flood, I don't expect it to happen any time soon).

Edited May 8, 2014 by cinepro

[MormonFreeThinker]

I can see the argument against it if there have been conflicting statement made on a subject, or if something was taught one way in the past, but now it's taught differently in our day.  But when it comes to the Global Flood, it's pretty dang consistent over the decades (and centuries).

 

So was the teaching that "Lamanites are the principle ancestors" church doctrine?

 

You can't prove that all 15 apostles have taught that the Flood was Global.

"The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve." 

Elder Neil L. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign

[Opinion Slayer]

"I had enough, so here are my final thoughts..."

 

Obviously not since you opened up a new thread about it. You're thin skinned, sorry. But for people like you and THESOMETIMESAINT are just going to have to deal with people that trust the words of the prophets about gospel doctrine that have been echoed and retaught over and over again such as the earth is a living being and she has a sex and she was indeed baptized by water and will be baptized by fire and will die only to be resurrected so she can abide by celestial law and be the home for those who were valiant in their testimony of Jesus for eternity and that the flood was universal as the scriptures state.

 

And  people that try to use a subject not related to gospel doctrine as leverage for their opinion such as He said "man would never be on the moon..." therefore he can be wrong on gospel principle (Even though he has held all the keys to the kingdom) is sad, myopic and ridiculous as if an worldly opinion has the same value as a doctrinal one. A prophet of God is the prime teacher on earth when it comes to doctrine not scientists. 

 

I know that the global flood and the baptism by full immersion of the earth was true and not because an opinion that I have but because the prophets have spoken it! 

 

You have been given agency to choose as you will. 

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

Thought that I would add that the church "Guide to the Scriptures" contains this introduction-

" The Guide to the Scriptures defines selected doctrines, principles, people, and places found in the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. It also provides key scriptural references for you to study for each topic. This Guide can help you in your individual and family study of the scriptures. It can help you answer questions about the gospel, study topics in the scriptures, prepare talks and lessons, and increase your knowledge and testimony of the gospel."

With this in mind let me once again bring up what it says about the flood in Noah's day-

"During Noah's time the earth was completely covered by water."

[BCSpace]

Please show me where Ensign articles have met that requirement,

 

 

They are published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and go through a review process that's headed by one or more apostles delegated to that task by the 15. I think all it would take is for you to attend the Teacher Prep courses and you would understand this. The mags have been considered official publications since at least the 1970's.

[BCSpace]

You can't prove that all 15 apostles have taught that the Flood was Global.

"The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve." 

Elder Neil L. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign

 

 

You don't have to see a statement by each one on any specific doctrine.  They all approve of the Church's publication process.

[BCSpace]

Thought that I would add that the church "Guide to the Scriptures" contains this introduction-

 

 

That is correct.  Contrast that with the introduction for the Bible Dictionary.  In other words, the doctrine is that the Bible Dictionary is not doctrine.  One would of course find many Bible Dictionary concepts taught elsewhere in official publications just as one would the JoD and BRM's Mormon Doctrine both of which of course are not doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Speaking to the OP, it's okay to admit that the Church teaches something you don't agree with.  You won't get kicked out if you think the flood was regional in scope, or allegorical.  And if enough people publicly admit it, it might encourage Church leaders to acknowledge their openness to alternate theories.

 

Yes, I think one should differentiate between what the Church considers doctrine and the process by which one personally accepts or rejects doctrine.  It seems to me that some confuse the two.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

"I had enough, so here are my final thoughts..."

 

Obviously not since you opened up a new thread about it. You're thin skinned, sorry. But for people like you and THESOMETIMESAINT are just going to have to deal with people that trust the words of the prophets about gospel doctrine that have been echoed and retaught over and over again such as the earth is a living being and she has a sex and she was indeed baptized by water 

 

I know that the global flood and the baptism by full immersion of the earth was true and not because an opinion that I have but because the prophets have spoken it! 

 

 

I trust the prophets when they give instructions and commandments, but being temple worthy doesn't require me to believe the opinions of church leaders. "The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men." - Elder Andersen

 

There is so much scientific evidence against a Global Flood, only an official church statement will make me rethink. If th e Global Flood happened, then God created the evidence against the Flood to make the world appear to be something else. 

 

In the scriptures, chapter headings had mistakes. 

 

Here is another example that church leaders are not perfect

 

"Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." 

Race and the priesthood 

[Opinion Slayer]

Thought that I would add that the church "Guide to the Scriptures" contains this introduction-

" The Guide to the Scriptures defines selected doctrines, principles, people, and places found in the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. It also provides key scriptural references for you to study for each topic. This Guide can help you in your individual and family study of the scriptures. It can help you answer questions about the gospel, study topics in the scriptures, prepare talks and lessons, and increase your knowledge and testimony of the gospel."

With this in mind let me once again bring up what it says about the flood in Noah's day-

"During Noah's time the earth was completely covered by water."

How dare you teach doctrine here! LOL

[Opinion Slayer]

I trust the prophets when they give instructions and commandments, but being temple worthy doesn't require me to believe the opinions of church leaders. "The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men." - Elder Andersen

 

There is so much scientific evidence against a Global Flood, only an official church statement will make me rethink. If th e Global Flood happened, then God created the evidence against the Flood to make the world appear to be something else. 

 

In the scriptures, chapter headings had mistakes. 

 

Here is another example that church leaders are not perfect

 

"Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." 

Race and the priesthood 

You think you have to be perfect to teach true doctrine? Like I said before you have agency and if you want to believe in a partial or symbolic flood go ahead. If you need an official statement from the church to change your mind than I feel sorry for you but hey if you really need that why don't you write a letter to Pres. Monson and ask him? And let us know what he says. The good news for you is that this principle will not effect your salvation so I wouldn't sweat it. Try not to get so flustered and open a new thread the next time someone disagrees with you. And FYI I don't need you to give me examples of how our leaders aren't perfect because when you read the scriptures you learn that only Jesus was perfect! But keep in mind and make no mistake about the fact that the men He has selected are as good as it gets upon this earth especially the prophet. I will follow him to the end! Peace out

[MormonFreeThinker]

You think you have to be perfect to teach true doctrine? Like I said before you have agency and if you want to believe in a partial or symbolic flood go ahead. If you need an official statement from the church to change your mind than I feel sorry for you but hey if you really need that why don't you write a letter to Pres. Monson and ask him? And let us know what he says. The good news for you is that this principle will not effect your salvation so I wouldn't sweat it. Try not to get so flustered and open a new thread the next time someone disagrees with you. And FYI I don't need you to give me examples of how our leaders aren't perfect because when you read the scriptures you learn that only Jesus was perfect! But keep in mind and make no mistake about the fact that the men He has selected are as good as it gets upon this earth especially the prophet. I will follow him to the end! Peace out

 

There were teachings in official church publications that are not perfect, like in the chapter headings, Book of Mormon introduction. That is my point. 

 

"The good news for you is that this principle will not effect your salvation "

Unfortunately,  believing in a Global Flood is like believing that the Earth is the center of the solar system. 

So you think that "no Death Before the Fall" is also doctrine?

 

My hope is that more members become more open minded, and embrace science. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

 

"I had enough, so here are my final thoughts..."

 

Obviously not since you opened up a new thread about it. You're thin skinned, sorry. But for people like you and THESOMETIMESAINT are just going to have to deal with people that trust the words of the prophets about gospel doctrine that have been echoed and retaught over and over again such as the earth is a living being and she has a sex and she was indeed baptized by water and will be baptized by fire and will die only to be resurrected so she can abide by celestial law and be the home for those who were valiant in their testimony of Jesus for eternity and that the flood was universal as the scriptures state.

 

And  people that try to use a subject not related to gospel doctrine as leverage for their opinion such as He said "man would never be on the moon..." therefore he can be wrong on gospel principle (Even though he has held all the keys to the kingdom) is sad, myopic and ridiculous as if an worldly opinion has the same value as a doctrinal one. A prophet of God is the prime teacher on earth when it comes to doctrine not scientists. 

 

I know that the global flood and the baptism by full immersion of the earth was true and not because an opinion that I have but because the prophets have spoken it! 

 

You have been given agency to choose as you will. 

 

I have no problem with people believing anything they want.

 

I trust the words of the prophets. Like "A Prophet is Only A Prophet when Acting as Such", and "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine".

 

CFR that a planet can have sex.

 

CFR that nonhuman objects need baptism.

 

CFR that we literally die at baptism.

 

Are the Lamanites the main ancestors of the American Indians? Do axeheads float? If I go to the top of a tall mountain can I see every nation on this planet? Where can I find a cockatrice? Are bats birds? How many laborers did it take to build Salomon's stable's? Will I see better if I rub spit in my eyes? Is our planet at the center of the solar system? Can I stop the sun in its path by holding up my arms? Does water have weight? Do salt water fish live in fresh water? Where did Noah put the million species of insects on his boat? How many Trilobites were there? What is Gopher Wood? Did Noah ride around on dinosaurs? Did Unicorns not make it onto his boat?

 

I'm fine with God teaching me doctrine and science without error. Human's not so much.

 

I know that Noah was a prophet of God; He built a boat trying to save as much as he could. That he accurately recorded what he saw; A massive albeit regional flood. That time and constant retelling of his story has altered what was meant to be a morality story into a literal event devoid of meaning beyond a psychopathic God. What type of parent deliberately drowns their children in a tub of water?

 

As we all do. Well I have so sign off now. Gotta get some sleep so I can take my grandnephew through the Temple for his first time.

[Rob Osborn]

There were teachings in official church publications that are not perfect, like in the chapter headings, Book of Mormon introduction. That is my point. 

 

"The good news for you is that this principle will not effect your salvation "

Unfortunately,  believing in a Global Flood is like believing that the Earth is the center of the solar system. 

So you think that "no Death Before the Fall" is also doctrine?

 

My hope is that more members become more open minded, and embrace science.

am very open minded and do in fact embrace science. Its just that my view of science is different than others, not that I am alien to it. I honestly think being "open minded" means that we shouldn't discount events like the flood just because some modern geologists say it couldn't happen.