Baptism Of The Earth? Gospel Topics Article

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob, so the earth wasn't really baptized then? We can cross off the idea of the essential necessity of the flood as the baptism of the earth? It was just metaphorical language, right?

 

On the other hand, the same mountains really did exist at that time. It all reminds me of something Elder Talmage once noted in his journal, following a discussion about pre-Adamites that: "The insistence on the part of three of our bretheren - really to the effect that all geologists and all geology are wrong in matters relating to the sequence of life on earth - has been surprising." And really, while we cannot deny the reality that such opinions exist, it still comes as a surprise to most of us - that we still have individuals who insist that "all geologists and all geology are wrong in matters relating to the sequence of life on earth". And I suppose that you can take some solace in the fact that there have been (and perhaps still are) General Authorities who take that position. But, the majority of them in the past and in the present, do not. I am reassured that for a long time now, your view has consistently been the minority view, which leaves me hope for a future in which we may escape it all together.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, so the earth wasn't really baptized then? We can cross off the idea of the essential necessity of the flood as the baptism of the earth? It was just metaphorical language, right?

 

On the other hand, the same mountains really did exist at that time. It all reminds me of something Elder Talmage once noted in his journal, following a discussion about pre-Adamites that: "The insistence on the part of three of our bretheren - really to the effect that all geologists and all geology are wrong in matters relating to the sequence of life on earth - has been surprising." And really, while we cannot deny the reality that such opinions exist, it still comes as a surprise to most of us - that we still have individuals who insist that "all geologists and all geology are wrong in matters relating to the sequence of life on earth". And I suppose that you can take some solace in the fact that there have been (and perhaps still are) General Authorities who take that position. But, the majority of them in the past and in the present, do not. I am reassured that for a long time now, your view has consistently been the minority view, which leaves me hope for a future in which we may escape it all together.

The mountains we have now did not exist before the flood. The mountains we have now were upthrust from the flood waters. I have recieved that testimony of truth and it don't really matter what anyone else says, I already know and can testify of this truth.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Right, and I can say the same thing about my point of view. The only difference is the fact that you have to deny the science. I don't. And it really is too bad that we have this difference of opinion, but, in the long run, I am quite comfortable being as completely dogmatic about my point of view as you seem to be about yours. It is clear to me that the Church's position is no different now than it was back in Elder Talmage's day, when the First Presidency issued a statement on the issue which reads in part:

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

This highlights the difference that I point out. The Church has historically recognized the value of science and its power to explain the world we live on and the universe in which we live. I suspect that there is a greater onus for real explanations from those who wish to deny that work.

[cinepro]

and "worldwide flood" can simply mean the world of Noah, I already presented evidence for that. 

 

Noah didn't write the story of the flood.  The Church teaches that Moses did: 

 

Among other things, latter-day revelation certifies to Moses as the original author of Genesis.

 

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/22

 

 

Moses saw the entire planet in a vision, so his "world" was the planet:

 

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

 

Moses 1

 

So when Moses writes this:

 

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/7?lang=eng

 

...he wasn't referring to a localized area in the middle east.

[CV75]

Maybe it's just that as baptism is an initial and essential ordinance for humans, the Flood (however it was carried out) was a similar ordinance for the Earth to consecrate her passage through the stages of progression through the subsequent dispensations, Millennium, death, resurrection, celestialization, etc. (AoF 10; D&C 88:25-26).

[Benjamin McGuire]

The problem CV75 is that Moroni (Chapter 8 ) argues quite clearly that baptism is not an essential ordinance for all humans. We have classes of humanity that we do not baptize (even for the dead). The rationale behind this notion is found both in the Book of Mormon and in the D&C. The question then is why do we assert a necessity for the baptism of the earth. Do we also assert the conditions that make baptism a requirement for most of us should also apply to the earth? That is, that does the earth have agency, is it competent, does it have the capacity to sin, and so on? And if the earth does not meet these criteria, then, as Moroni suggests, we need to recognize that baptism of the earth serves no purpose whatsoever - any redemption necessary for the earth should be covered by an infinite atonement. The baptism of the earth cannot be seen as necessary.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Benjamin McGuire

[CV75]

A couple of other thoughts: While Brigham Young says the Earth was baptised, I don't see where he states that it was by the Flood (or does he somehwre else than Journal of Discourses 8/83?): "Brethren and sisters, I wish you to continue in your ways of welldoing; I desire that your minds may be opened more and more to see and understand things as they are. This earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon."

 

From Moses 7, the kind of cleansing the Earth is pleading for is of the Spirit (sanctification) and not of water (baptism), and apparently makes this plea after the Flood (and certainly after any baptism connected with the Creation) by virtue of the blood of the Righteous.

 

The Earth's baptism also may not have been the Flood but another ordinance performed during the process of gathering the waters together during the Creation.

 

I think the Lord’s covenant with Enoch to stay the floods has more to do with giving mankind a break than it does to a reference of the earth needing or having been baptized specifically by the Flood.

[CV75]

The problem CV75 is that Moroni (Chapter 8 ) argues quite clearly that baptism is not an essential ordinance for all humans. We have classes of humanity that we do not baptize (even for the dead). The rationale behind this notion is found both in the Book of Mormon and in the D&C. The question then is why do we assert a necessity for the baptism of the earth. Do we also assert the conditions that make baptism a requirement for most of us should also apply to the earth? That is, that does the earth have agency, is it competent, does it have the capacity to sin, and so on? And if the earth does not meet these criteria, then, as Moroni suggests, we need to recognize that baptism of the earth serves no purpose whatsoever - any redemption necessary for the earth should be covered by an infinite atonement. The baptism of the earth cannot be seen as necessary.

I don't think we have to make it a requirement or that it represents for the Earth in every regard the exact same things it does for humans; it's just that Brigham Young said it was baptised (and the Earth's baptism also may not have been the Flood but another ordinance performed during the process of gathering the waters together during the Creation). As an ordinance for the Earth and not peolpe, the earth need not have the kind of agency or accountability people do, or any at all as far as we are concerned.

 

But in many ways, the Earth, like baptized people (Enoch 7:48 relects Mosiah 18:8-9) is desirous to come into the fold of God, to be called His, bears man's burdens as his dwelling place and in providing mankind sustenance; mourns with (and because) of us; comforts those that stand in need of comfort, and stands as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places.

Baptism is also a gate, and for the Earth, it would serve as a gate to the rest of its/her indispensible connection with the children of God.

Edited May 14, 2014 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

CV75 -

 

The notion of the earth being baptized in the flood wasn't something new within Mormonism. It is a reasonably old tradition. So when Brigham Young speaks of it, he isn't necessarily introducing some doctrine given through revelation. He is simply repeating a traditional view (which he does with a lot of things that we don't hold as doctrine either). We can anthropomorphize the earth all we like in our literature, but this doesn't actually give it the qualities of agency, or intelligence. If we don't assert that the baptism of the earth was necessary, then baptism of the earth serves no function (according to Moroni) and becomes a mockery of the atonement. Your position seems inconsistent.

[Rob Osborn]

Right, and I can say the same thing about my point of view. The only difference is the fact that you have to deny the science. I don't. And it really is too bad that we have this difference of opinion, but, in the long run, I am quite comfortable being as completely dogmatic about my point of view as you seem to be about yours. It is clear to me that the Church's position is no different now than it was back in Elder Talmage's day, when the First Presidency issued a statement on the issue which reads in part:

 

 

This highlights the difference that I point out. The Church has historically recognized the value of science and its power to explain the world we live on and the universe in which we live. I suspect that there is a greater onus for real explanations from those who wish to deny that work.

I don't have to deny science, I just have to deny certain opinions by scientists while upholding those of other scientists who have a different view.

[Benjamin McGuire]

No Rob, you have to deny the science. The opinions of those who may try to support a young earth creationism are at best a tiny minority, and are not accepted within the scholarly field of geology. There is no academic textbook in geology which presents the kinds of theories that you present. There are no professional peer reviewed academic journals that publish this kind of material as scientific studies in geology. It is pseudo-science. More to the point, we have no professional geologists in the church past or present who accept your version of events (including Elder James Talmage).

 

But, as I noted, it isn't just geology. It would require a rejection of the science of genetics, the field of archaeology, and so on - all of those other things that come together to also reject the idea of a young earth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CV75 -

 

The notion of the earth being baptized in the flood wasn't something new within Mormonism. It is a reasonably old tradition. So when Brigham Young speaks of it, he isn't necessarily introducing some doctrine given through revelation. He is simply repeating a traditional view (which he does with a lot of things that we don't hold as doctrine either). We can anthropomorphize the earth all we like in our literature, but this doesn't actually give it the qualities of agency, or intelligence. If we don't assert that the baptism of the earth was necessary, then baptism of the earth serves no function (according to Moroni) and becomes a mockery of the atonement. Your position seems inconsistent.

What do you suppose is the purpose of the imagery used for the earth being baptized is.  Another point about the earth is that it will be burned by fire to signify purity and that we are baptized we are baptized unto fire or born again by fire. 

 

I am not arguing for any position. Just curious.

[Rob Osborn]

No Rob, you have to deny the science. The opinions of those who may try to support a young earth creationism are at best a tiny minority, and are not accepted within the scholarly field of geology. There is no academic textbook in geology which presents the kinds of theories that you present. There are no professional peer reviewed academic journals that publish this kind of material as scientific studies in geology. It is pseudo-science. More to the point, we have no professional geologists in the church past or present who accept your version of events (including Elder James Talmage).

 

But, as I noted, it isn't just geology. It would require a rejection of the science of genetics, the field of archaeology, and so on - all of those other things that come together to also reject the idea of a young earth.

I only have to reject the opinions of scientists who hold to that uniformatarian view of the which have not been proven. The Book of Mormon speaks of great cataclysmic geologic mayhem with entire mountains being upthrust, entire cities buried and others which sank in the ocean. The topography changed so much they were left awe stricken all over the land. So tell me, which geologist is going to back these events? Tell me please?

My point is obvious from reading the scriptures that modern geologic theory by mainstream science has gotten a few things wrong where they just happen to matter the most.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Book of Mormon is a literary encounter. It has to be read and interpreted. Most of the discussion on the cataclysmic events comes from a retelling by a much later individual (redactor) who is reading about these events from a writer who believed that the end of the world was happening (the apocalypse). You interpret what you read. And then you try to force everything to fit the mold of your interpretation. But your interpretation doesn't just stem from the text of the Book of Mormon (as you suggest), you come to the Book of Mormon with a whole bundle of presuppositions. And those suppositions at least in part determine the interpretation. That is not an adequate replacement for real science. And as I keep pointing out, others, like Elder Talmage, read the Book of Mormon, studied Geology, and came to a far different conclusion than you have. And this means that your interpretation isn't necessarily the best interpretation of the text. Nor is your rejection of mainstream science appropriate in this case. Why should a geologist turn to the Book of Mormon to understand something better understood through science and the earth itself? Clearly, mainstream science has got most of it right - and its your interpretation of scripture that is wrong where it matters most (and in the long run, its completely irrelevant to living the gospel).

[CV75]

CV75 -

 

The notion of the earth being baptized in the flood wasn't something new within Mormonism. It is a reasonably old tradition. So when Brigham Young speaks of it, he isn't necessarily introducing some doctrine given through revelation. He is simply repeating a traditional view (which he does with a lot of things that we don't hold as doctrine either). We can anthropomorphize the earth all we like in our literature, but this doesn't actually give it the qualities of agency, or intelligence. If we don't assert that the baptism of the earth was necessary, then baptism of the earth serves no function (according to Moroni) and becomes a mockery of the atonement. Your position seems inconsistent.

In light of the various scriptural and traditional and perhaps Brigham Young’s views, I’m open to the idea that a baptism of the Earth (whether attributed to the Flood or not) could have served “gateway” purposes for the destiny of the Earth that are different than the gate for the salvation of human beings, yet serve as a type or figure for those very purposes (just as the Flood is used as a type for baptism, whether that incident was the actual baptism of the Earth or not). The actual baptism of the Earth (which I can envision occurring as a separate event from the Flood) would serve the Earth’s purposes, even if only to “consecrate” its dust for the bringing forth of the innocent and the unaccountable, which in part is fulfilling the measure of its creation.

[Rob Osborn]

The Book of Mormon is a literary encounter. It has to be read and interpreted. Most of the discussion on the cataclysmic events comes from a retelling by a much later individual (redactor) who is reading about these events from a writer who believed that the end of the world was happening (the apocalypse). You interpret what you read. And then you try to force everything to fit the mold of your interpretation. But your interpretation doesn't just stem from the text of the Book of Mormon (as you suggest), you come to the Book of Mormon with a whole bundle of presuppositions. And those suppositions at least in part determine the interpretation. That is not an adequate replacement for real science. And as I keep pointing out, others, like Elder Talmage, read the Book of Mormon, studied Geology, and came to a far different conclusion than you have. And this means that your interpretation isn't necessarily the best interpretation of the text. Nor is your rejection of mainstream science appropriate in this case. Why should a geologist turn to the Book of Mormon to understand something better understood through science and the earth itself? Clearly, mainstream science has got most of it right - and its your interpretation of scripture that is wrong where it matters most (and in the long run, its completely irrelevant to living the gospel).

So, are you saying none of those great and notable events happened in the BoM- the sinking of cities, hills and valleys being made, Mountains coming up overnight, cities buried by earth, etc?

[CV75]

I might not get back to this until the weekend but to expand on a couple of things:

 

We use priesthood ordinances to bless and sanctify bread and water; bless food; dedicate lands and temples; consecrate oil -- and to bless people, set them apart, etc. The lord commands the elements as well as people. So I think in the same way the Earth could have been legitimately baptized irrespective of the personality or agency we attribute to it.

 

Every time a person is baptized, the dust of the Earth which they are made gets baptized along with them; this dust of course gets recycled every so many days/years. In this sense the Earth is also baptized. Some of this baptized dust/element becomes inseparably connected with our spirits in the resurrection. I think the dominion of Adam / mankind over the Earth has a lot to do with our interconnectedness and ordinances for the Earth make sense on this level as well.

 

RE (kind of): New/Old Earth: The six periods of Creation may not have been consecutive but concurrent in different places over eons and then brought together in an instant. From the Lord's perspective, the Earth is old anyway because His true aim is to make "new heavens and a new earth" consistent with supporting His exalted children in the "new and everlasting covenant."

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob writes:

 

So, are you saying none of those great and notable events happened in the BoM- the sinking of cities, hills and valleys being made, Mountains coming up overnight, cities buried by earth, etc?

No. What I am saying is that the description provided is in part pre-determined by the expectations of those who described it. And, what I am saying is that none of those events actually preclude there having been mountains to begin with. Nor do the changes described in the Book of Mormon provide evidence for changes beyond what could be seen by those who provided those descriptions (that is, it may well have been in a fairly small geographic area - or even in a larger area - it certainly would not include all mountains everywhere). The point is that you can easily read the Book of Mormon text with an understanding that comes from modern sciences - and this may change the understanding of the text, but it doesn't conflict with the text. It is all about the presuppositions you come to the text with.

[Benjamin McGuire]

CV75, I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. The whole point of a baptism is the making of a covenant. It isn't about the dust. Baptism alone isn't capable of sanctifying a  person. Can the earth accept a covenant? I say that it cannot - any more than a part of it can - a rock or a tree. And there is no doctrinal justification for this sort of approach. Part of me sees a lot of these discussions as attempts to allow us to accept what Brigham Young said in some way (as opposed to seeing him as a man of many opinions as well as his revelations). But, not only do I not share that sort of compunction, I don't believe that Brigham Young meant any of these kinds of things that you suggest when he said what he said. I believe that he said it within the context that he brought with him to his Mormonism. And that is a bigger problem - because Brigham Young wasn't providing us with revelation (that he may not have adequately understood himself) or with scripture that he had to interpret (and thus might have misinterpreted), he was providing us with his personal understanding based on a whole host of issues. So there isn't a text for us to fall back on and say, see here is what Brigham Young was reading that he understood in this way, and here is how I am understanding that text to mean something different. When you provide an interpretation of a personal opinion, you only end up farther from a potential underlying reality, not closer.

[thesometimesaint]

Let the fun begin. :rofl:

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/15/creationist-ken-ham-atheists-love-pagan-pat-robertson-for-making-christians-looks-silly/

 

Ken Ham called televangelist Pat Robertson a pagan tool of secularists for his critical remarks this week about Young Earth creationists.

A “700 Club” viewer challenged Robertson on Tuesday for agreeing with scientists that the Earth was billions of years old, which creationists believe contradicts the biblical account of the universe and its origins.

“You have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence,” Robertson told the caller. “It just doesn’t. I’m sorry.”

Ham, who leads the Answers In Genesis ministry that operates the Creation Museum in Kentucky, blasted Robertson in a post Wednesday on his personal Facebook page, reported Right Wing Watch.

The creationist attacked Robertson’s comments point by point, accusing him of “utter ignorance of science” for disputing the “literal history” of the Bible – “as it is meant to be taken,” Ham said, “as Jesus takes it.”

Ham took offense to Robertson’s observation that the Earth and all of its observable phenomena could not have been created in just 6,000 years.

“Really Pat Robertson?” Ham said. “You mean there is no way God, the infinite Creator, could not have created the universe in six days just six thousand years ago? God could have created everything in six seconds if He wanted too!”

He said Robertson and other insufficiently doctrinaire Christians “compromise the Word of God with the pagan ideas of fallible men,” and that’s why his ministry works to promote the literal interpretation of the Bible.

“Sadly, it’s Pat Robertson who makes Christianity look silly, which is why the atheists love him today,” Ham said. “What a travesty! This man uses his position on a major Christian TV program to help the atheists mock God’s Word!”

[Rob Osborn]

Let the fun begin. :rofl:

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/15/creationist-ken-ham-atheists-love-pagan-pat-robertson-for-making-christians-looks-silly/

 

Ken Ham called televangelist Pat Robertson a pagan tool of secularists for his critical remarks this week about Young Earth creationists.

A “700 Club” viewer challenged Robertson on Tuesday for agreeing with scientists that the Earth was billions of years old, which creationists believe contradicts the biblical account of the universe and its origins.

“You have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence,” Robertson told the caller. “It just doesn’t. I’m sorry.”

Ham, who leads the Answers In Genesis ministry that operates the Creation Museum in Kentucky, blasted Robertson in a post Wednesday on his personal Facebook page, reported Right Wing Watch.

The creationist attacked Robertson’s comments point by point, accusing him of “utter ignorance of science” for disputing the “literal history” of the Bible – “as it is meant to be taken,” Ham said, “as Jesus takes it.”

Ham took offense to Robertson’s observation that the Earth and all of its observable phenomena could not have been created in just 6,000 years.

“Really Pat Robertson?” Ham said. “You mean there is no way God, the infinite Creator, could not have created the universe in six days just six thousand years ago? God could have created everything in six seconds if He wanted too!”

He said Robertson and other insufficiently doctrinaire Christians “compromise the Word of God with the pagan ideas of fallible men,” and that’s why his ministry works to promote the literal interpretation of the Bible.

“Sadly, it’s Pat Robertson who makes Christianity look silly, which is why the atheists love him today,” Ham said. “What a travesty! This man uses his position on a major Christian TV program to help the atheists mock God’s Word!”

Back on your atheist band wagon I see.

[thesometimesaint]

Back on your obtuse band wagon I see. Neither Ken Ham nor Pat Robertson are Atheist. They are both Evangelical Christians.

[Rob Osborn]

Back on your obtuse band wagon I see. Neither Ken Ham nor Pat Robertson are Atheist. They are both Evangelical Christians.

And yet to you, any chance to poke fun at either of them just makes your day.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Back on your atheist band wagon I see.

 

How can we know you are not an atheist like this guy? 

 

 

Just kidding We know you are not an atheist. 

 

and I do disagree with Edward Current 

Edited May 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

How can we know you are not an atheist like this guy? 

 

 

Just kidding We know you are not an atheist. 

 

and I do disagree with Edward Current 

Classic. I loved it!