Baptism Of The Earth? Gospel Topics Article

[ERayR]

I'm so embarrassed that when I was in a Primary Presidency I taught the story of Noah's Ark to those children, fully believing every word, I wonder how many teachers were cringing in their seats.

 

Don't be embarrassed tss and company have no more negated Noah's flood than Rob and company have proved it.

[ERayR]

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

It appears to me you still believe in fairy tales on occasion.

[ERayR]

Science isn't a club, and I believe the Scriptures are the word of God as far as they are translated correctly.

 

 

Yuup.  Keep repeating it and maybe it will come true.  Someday.

[Tiki]

The Local Flood theory has some problems, but that is not one of them.

See http://www.oldearth.org/broken_promise.htm

The Global Flood theory has millions of problems

No offense, but that link is silly in its trying to disprove who the Covenant was made with.

Points to ponder if the flood had been local:

* There would have been no need for Noah to have built an Ark- Noah could have been lead to safety during the hundreds of years he prophesied and warned the people of the coming deluge

* There would have been more than 8 souls who survived - 1 Peter 3:18-20

* 1 Peter 3:18-20 was some of the verses President Joseph F. Smith was pondering after the death of his daughter - and subsequentially lead to his vision of the Salvation of the Dead which is canonized as D&C 138. So why would Peter or God lie about 8 souls survivng if it lead to new knowledge/revelation about his Gospel?

Edited May 10, 2014 by Tiki

[thesometimesaint]

Yuup.  Keep repeating it and maybe it will come true.  Someday.

 

Science is merely a systematic way to understand our universe and make logical predictions about it. Scriptures tell us why God did it, and science tells us how.

[Tiki]

Science is merely a systematic way to understand our universe and make logical predictions about it. Scriptures tell us why God did it, and science tells us how.

Science is not accurate but ever changing. Ever heard of Neptunism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptunism

It was considered science long ago, but has been rejected because it agreed too much with Creationism.

[Sidney Rigdon]

The Savior of the world himself, while he was here with the disciples, said, that, "As it was in the days of Noah, so should it be at the coming of the Son of man. They were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, and giving in marriage, and knew not, till the flood came and swept them all away--So shall it be, at the coming of the Son of man.

In essence, the flood is a symbol of what is to come.

[MormonFreeThinker]

No offense, but that link is silly in its trying to disprove who the Covenant was made with.

Points to ponder if the flood had been local:

* There would have been no need for Noah to have built an Ark- Noah could have been lead to safety during the hundreds of years he prophesied and warned the people of the coming deluge

* There would have been more than 8 souls who survived - 1 Peter 3:18-20

* 1 Peter 3:18-20 was some of the verses President Joseph F. Smith was pondering after the death of his daughter - and subsequentially lead to his vision of the Salvation of the Dead which is canonized as D&C 138. So why would Peter or God lie about 8 souls survivng if it lead to new knowledge/revelation about his Gospel?

 

"no need for Noah to have built the ark"

Because the people had to the last minute to get into the ark, before the rain started. 

Why was it necessary for Nephi to kill Laban? God could have cause Laban to have a heart attack. 

Answer that please. 

 

"There would have been more than 8 souls who survived"

How did Cain survive? Well, he was death before the flood. 

Yes, 8 souls survive in the world of Noah. I already proved using Book of Mormon scriptures that "world" means land or region. 

 

Please read the website

http://www.oldearth.org/floodlist.htm

Edited May 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tiki]

"no need for Noah to have built the ark"

Because the people had to the last minute to get into the ark, before the rain started. 

Why was it necessary for Nephi to kill Laban? God could have cause Laban to have a heart attack. 

Answer that please. 

 

"There would have been more than 8 souls who survived"

How did Cain survive? Well, he was death before the flood. 

Yes, 8 souls survive in the world of Noah. I already proved using Book of Mormon scriptures that "world" means land or region. 

 

Please read the website

http://www.oldearth.org/floodlist.htm

1. Did you get that idea from watching Russell Crowe's lousy acting? Noah warned the people for hundreds of years and probably lost some of his own children (surely he had more than 3 sons) who didnt believe him. They could have easily survived if the flood had been local.

2. The Lord got Laban drunk after Laban "partied" obviously, after stealing Lehi's riches. This put Laban into the hands of Nephi, as the Law of Moses allowed, not into the hands of a physician if Laban had had an heart attack. But your analogy is silly.

3. Cain was long dead. You don't understand the scriptures.

4. We've already countered your argument that God promised never again to send a flood that would destroy all flesh meaning a universal flood. Local floods happen all the time, consider Bangladesh/India during their monsoon season.

5. Please study the scriptures, not Al Gore.

[MormonFreeThinker]

1. Did you get that idea from watching Russell Crowe's lousy acting? Noah warned the people for hundreds of years and probably lost some of his own children (surely he had more than 3 sons) who didnt believe him. They could have easily survived if the flood had been local.

2. The Lord got Laban drunk after Laban "partied" obviously, after stealing Lehi's riches. This put Laban into the hands of Nephi, as the Law of Moses allowed, not into the hands of a physician if Laban had had an heart attack. But your analogy is silly.

3. Cain was long dead. You don't understand the scriptures.

4. We've already countered your argument that God promised never again to send a flood that would destroy all flesh meaning a universal flood. Local floods happen all the time, consider Bangladesh/India during their monsoon season.

5. Please study the scriptures, not Al Gore.

I am just going to respond to number 3. Yes, I agree Cain was long dead.

I am not going to respond your other points because they are so wrong on so many level, you did not think about what I wrote.

I can't think for you, so I invite you to think carefully about what I said. 

[thesometimesaint]

1. Did you get that idea from watching Russell Crowe's lousy acting? Noah warned the people for hundreds of years and probably lost some of his own children (surely he had more than 3 sons) who didnt believe him. They could have easily survived if the flood had been local.

2. The Lord got Laban drunk after Laban "partied" obviously, after stealing Lehi's riches. This put Laban into the hands of Nephi, as the Law of Moses allowed, not into the hands of a physician if Laban had had an heart attack. But your analogy is silly.

3. Cain was long dead. You don't understand the scriptures.

4. We've already countered your argument that God promised never again to send a flood that would destroy all flesh meaning a universal flood. Local floods happen all the time, consider Bangladesh/India during their monsoon season.

5. Please study the scriptures, not Al Gore.

 

1. I've never watched Mr. Crowe in "Noah". nor do I intend to.

 

2. So? What has that got to do with a Global Flood?

 

3. The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.127-128"On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson's book on the life of David W. Patten. From the book I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his recollection of David Patten's account of meeting "a very remarkable person who had represented himself as being Cain."As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me…. His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight.”

 

4. We believe the Scriptures to be the word of God as far as they are translated correctly. Yep flood stories are pretty global, but not a global flood.

 

5. I read the Scriptures every day. Where have I made reference to Al Gore?

[Tiki]

1. I've never watched Mr. Crowe in "Noah". nor do I intend to.

 

2. So? What has that got to do with a Global Flood?

 

3. The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.127-128"On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson's book on the life of David W. Patten. From the book I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his recollection of David Patten's account of meeting "a very remarkable person who had represented himself as being Cain."As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me…. His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight.”

 

4. We believe the Scriptures to be the word of God as far as they are translated correctly. Yep flood stories are pretty global, but not a global flood.

 

5. I read the Scriptures every day. Where have I made reference to Al Gore?

This is tiresome. Believe what you want:

Whatever floats your boat.

[thesometimesaint]

This is tiresome. Believe what you want:

Whatever floats your boat.

 

Agreed.

[rameumptom]

I would only ask all to consider one thing:

 

Are doctrine and history the exact same thing?  I think we too often incorrectly make them the same, to our own injury.  The Flood is doctrine. The Flood may or may not be history, depending on one's definition of Flood, timeline, whether the story has been transmitted down to us accurately or not, whether ancient belief systems affected the teachings when they were written down.

 

For example, someone in Israel believing that all the mountains were the size of the ones in his area, could easily believe they were all inundated.  They might have written the story differently had they ever seen the Andes or the other great mountain ranges.  Tradition affects all history.  We need to remember that during the history of the Bible, the world and Israel were usually in apostasy, and the holy scriptures (before they were scripture or even written down) could have gone through many changes based upon myth and superstition.  Jacob placing sheep in front of reeds to change their stripes is an example of a superstition that was believed anciently, and yet it ostensibly was something he believed in.  Couldn't other myths or superstitions also affect other stories, as well?

 

We need to use caution in what we consider to be history, when it comes to the scriptures.  They are correct, "insofar as they are translated correctly."  Even then, that does not mean all stories are historical, but they are inspired stories, nonetheless.

[rameumptom]

A perfect example happens in the BoM.

 

Jacob tells us that the Lamanites all dwell in tents, eat raw meat, and are savages. 

 

However, Zeniff, Ammon and others who actually go among the Lamanites find civilization, cities, buildings, and clothed peoples.

 

Which one is right?  From Jacob's perspective, he was right.  He possibly saw a few Lamanites as hunter-gatherers, living in the border lands in tents.  But it was only a small part of the real Lamanite situation.

 

When you have a bunch of blind men and you place them on different portions of the elephant, you can easily get varied answers - each part right, yet all wrong.

[Tiki]

A perfect example happens in the BoM.

 

Jacob tells us that the Lamanites all dwell in tents, eat raw meat, and are savages. 

 

However, Zeniff, Ammon and others who actually go among the Lamanites find civilization, cities, buildings, and clothed peoples.

 

Which one is right?  From Jacob's perspective, he was right.  He possibly saw a few Lamanites as hunter-gatherers, living in the border lands in tents.  But it was only a small part of the real Lamanite situation.

 

When you have a bunch of blind men and you place them on different portions of the elephant, you can easily get varied answers - each part right, yet all wrong.

No offense, but that's not entirely accurate. The Nephites, those who obeyed, left the Land of Nephi, which was inherited by the Lamanites. Thus Jacob was in the Land of Nephi when he made his remarks. Zeniff returned centuries later to the Land of Nephi from Zarahemla. (Jacob never saw Zarahemla.)

Generations later from Zeniff, for example, during the days of Captain Moroni, as recorded by Alma or Mormon recording Alma's writings, stated:

28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

Thus there were Lamanites who dwelt in cities, and at the same time the more idle who dwelt in the wilderness.

[Rob Osborn]

I would only ask all to consider one thing:

 

Are doctrine and history the exact same thing?  I think we too often incorrectly make them the same, to our own injury.  The Flood is doctrine. The Flood may or may not be history, depending on one's definition of Flood, timeline, whether the story has been transmitted down to us accurately or not, whether ancient belief systems affected the teachings when they were written down.

 

For example, someone in Israel believing that all the mountains were the size of the ones in his area, could easily believe they were all inundated.  They might have written the story differently had they ever seen the Andes or the other great mountain ranges.  Tradition affects all history.  We need to remember that during the history of the Bible, the world and Israel were usually in apostasy, and the holy scriptures (before they were scripture or even written down) could have gone through many changes based upon myth and superstition.  Jacob placing sheep in front of reeds to change their stripes is an example of a superstition that was believed anciently, and yet it ostensibly was something he believed in.  Couldn't other myths or superstitions also affect other stories, as well?

 

We need to use caution in what we consider to be history, when it comes to the scriptures.  They are correct, "insofar as they are translated correctly."  Even then, that does not mean all stories are historical, but they are inspired stories, nonetheless.

You have numerous prophets throughout history though who speak of the flood including Jesus himself. This is not some story just passed down by a myriad of people throughout the ages. Through divine inspiration we have latter day scripture (Moses) that speaks about the flood and testifies to the truth of it being a global event. You also have three different prophets who are shown by God the literalness of it covering the whole earth. We should be very cautious about just thinking this was some hand me down story of no real significance. This was a very catastrophic event that destroyed the earth topography and killed all life off the face of the land.

[thesometimesaint]

You have numerous prophets throughout history though who speak of the flood including Jesus himself. This is not some story just passed down by a myriad of people throughout the ages. Through divine inspiration we have latter day scripture (Moses) that speaks about the flood and testifies to the truth of it being a global event. You also have three different prophets who are shown by God the literalness of it covering the whole earth. We should be very cautious about just thinking this was some hand me down story of no real significance. This was a very catastrophic event that destroyed the earth topography and killed all life off the face of the land.

 

Bring on the Cockatrice.

[Rob Osborn]

Bring on the Cockatrice.

Yada Yada Yada...Back to your atheist ranting I see.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The biggest problem with a universal flood as a baptism is that it would require that the earth not only to have agency, but the capacity for sin (and not just the capacity for sin, but the reality of sin). Otherwise, as Moroni put it:

 

"And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption."

 

Isn't the earth already atoned for in the infinite atonement provided by Jesus Christ? It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of an absolute absence of data supporting such an event in the historical record. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of the absolute impossibility of a flood that covered every inch of the earth to the depth described in Genesis. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no need for the earth to be baptized because it is not an intelligent entity with agency capable of sinning. And it seems far more reasonable to reject the notion of a global flood on the basis that every thing we know of the diversity of life on planet earth (including the genetic diversity of mankind) stands in stark contrast to the idea that all life was destroyed except for what would fit on that boat.

 

And then of course, we have the real reality that most of the early LDS who believed in the notion that the earth was baptized brought this belief into Mormonism with them from their earlier faith traditions. It was not an uncommon notion prior to 1830. It remained a common interpretation of that verse in the New Testament. And in the absence of any revelation on the subject, there is no reason at all to accept this beyond the notion of a tradition that has been erroneously passed down to us today. Are we really so tied to young earth creationism and fundamentalist readings of scripture to assert that the science has no meaning? I guess for some, we are ... as Moroni continues (vss. 22-23):

 

"For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works."

 

Ben M.

[thesometimesaint]

Yada Yada Yada...Back to your atheist ranting I see.

 

You are being obtuse.

[thesometimesaint]

The biggest problem with a universal flood as a baptism is that it would require that the earth not only to have agency, but the capacity for sin (and not just the capacity for sin, but the reality of sin). Otherwise, as Moroni put it:

 

"And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption."

 

Isn't the earth already atoned for in the infinite atonement provided by Jesus Christ? It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of an absolute absence of data supporting such an event in the historical record. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of the absolute impossibility of a flood that covered every inch of the earth to the depth described in Genesis. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no need for the earth to be baptized because it is not an intelligent entity with agency capable of sinning. And it seems far more reasonable to reject the notion of a global flood on the basis that every thing we know of the diversity of life on planet earth (including the genetic diversity of mankind) stands in stark contrast to the idea that all life was destroyed except for what would fit on that boat.

 

And then of course, we have the real reality that most of the early LDS who believed in the notion that the earth was baptized brought this belief into Mormonism with them from their earlier faith traditions. It was not an uncommon notion prior to 1830. It remained a common interpretation of that verse in the New Testament. And in the absence of any revelation on the subject, there is no reason at all to accept this beyond the notion of a tradition that has been erroneously passed down to us today. Are we really so tied to young earth creationism and fundamentalist readings of scripture to assert that the science has no meaning? I guess for some, we are ... as Moroni continues (vss. 22-23):

 

"For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works."

 

Ben M.

 

Agreed.

[Rob Osborn]

You are being obtuse.

Dang mosquitos in here too....buzzzz

[Rob Osborn]

The biggest problem with a universal flood as a baptism is that it would require that the earth not only to have agency, but the capacity for sin (and not just the capacity for sin, but the reality of sin). Otherwise, as Moroni put it:

 

"And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption."

 

Isn't the earth already atoned for in the infinite atonement provided by Jesus Christ? It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of an absolute absence of data supporting such an event in the historical record. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of the absolute impossibility of a flood that covered every inch of the earth to the depth described in Genesis. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no need for the earth to be baptized because it is not an intelligent entity with agency capable of sinning. And it seems far more reasonable to reject the notion of a global flood on the basis that every thing we know of the diversity of life on planet earth (including the genetic diversity of mankind) stands in stark contrast to the idea that all life was destroyed except for what would fit on that boat.

 

And then of course, we have the real reality that most of the early LDS who believed in the notion that the earth was baptized brought this belief into Mormonism with them from their earlier faith traditions. It was not an uncommon notion prior to 1830. It remained a common interpretation of that verse in the New Testament. And in the absence of any revelation on the subject, there is no reason at all to accept this beyond the notion of a tradition that has been erroneously passed down to us today. Are we really so tied to young earth creationism and fundamentalist readings of scripture to assert that the science has no meaning? I guess for some, we are ... as Moroni continues (vss. 22-23):

 

"For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works."

 

Ben M.

I look at it more as "the like figure"- a symbol of baptism (for why the earth was immersed). The depth of the flood was not that great as the mountains we have today did not exist during the flood.

[thesometimesaint]

JS said "Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that

Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years…"