Elder John A. Widtsoe On The Flood (Full Context)

[MormonFreeThinker]

Did the flood cover the highest mountains of the earth?

 

This question, really of insignificant importance, is a good example of man-made objections to the sacred character of the Bible, and therefore to faith.

The coming of the flood and its extent and duration, are described in the seventh chapter of the Book of Genesis. The account states that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Gen. 7:19-20).

A cubit, an ancient and well-known measure of length, is the distance from a man's elbow to the end of his middle finger.... If we employ the largest of these values, 20.61 inches, fifteen cubits would be something less than twenty-six-feet. This, then, was the depth of the flood, according to Genesis.

The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley. The great floods that have often occured there make the description in Genesis seem very reasonable indeed. And if the historian saw the flood there, it is not unlikely that the waters covered the highest points or peaks, for there the mountains are but hills....

Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation" [D&C 88:25]. They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D&C 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p.603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331).

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is the that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

Many Bible accounts that trouble the inexperienced reader become clear and acceptable if the essential meaning of the story is sought out. To read the Bible fairly, it must be read as Brigham Young suggested: "Do you read the scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?" (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197-198). This is our guide. The scriptures must be read intelligently. (Evidences and Reconciliations, edited by G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960, pp. 126-128)

 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I think the question is important, because we need to embrace modern science. 

 

two points

 

#1 Elder Widtsoe did not believe in a great ocean Flood. 

 

" It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely" 

 

#2 . Elder Widtsoe did not believe the Flood created mountains or continents 

"there is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record."

 

#3 Notice that he said in some places it might have rained "a fraction of an inch in depth"

 "a fraction of an inch in depth" is not a Flood, so Elder Widsoe did believe in a Local Flood. 

 

"This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope."

 

Perhaps Elder Widtsoe theorized about an unknown force that caused the water and rain to behave in a strange way. 

Anyways, there is no need for an ocean, the mountain is completely covered by water. 

 

Edited May 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tiki]

You forget about the fountains of the deep:

Genesis 7:11

11 ¶In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

[Palerider]

I have to agree in theory. Imagine the great depths of the mountains and the valleys of the oceans ( covering 2/3 of the earth's surface) some, If I am not mistaken, deeper than Everest is high,  being wrenched around by earthquakes and I'd bet you could get the remaining one third of the earth covered if need be.

 

Not saying that's how it happened.........just saying........ 

Edited May 13, 2014 by Palerider

[cinepro]

The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

 

Just so we're all clear, the story of Noah is in Genesis 6-8.  Genesis 8 tells us this about what happened at the end of the flood:

 

 

 

3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

 

4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

 

 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/8?lang=eng

 

So going by your "rain and mist" theory, how exactly did the ark get up onto the "mountains of Ararat"? 

 

And the waters stop or "abate" around the 5th month (150 days), but it isn't until the ~210th day (7th month) that the ark actually finds a mountain, and then it's another three months until the tops of the mountains are seen! 

 

 

Honestly, there's two ways to say you don't believe the story of Noah.

 

The first way is to just say "I don't believe the story of Noah's flood really happened."  The second is in the original post.  Honestly, the first way is much more honest and succinct.

Edited May 13, 2014 by cinepro

[Tiki]

This article may help:

Huge Underground "Ocean" Found Beneath Asia

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html

[The Nehor]

This article may help:

Huge Underground "Ocean" Found Beneath Asia

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html

That is nowhere near enough water.

[frank_jessop]

I think, based on the article, Widtsoe supported a global flood. While expressly pointing out that the depth of the flood at any given point was not the same depth. His analogy to baptism is instructive, in that all parts of the body must be under water. I do not think a "mist" or very wet fog would have satisfied the "immersion" aspect of baptism.

[Opinion Slayer]

 

Did the flood cover the highest mountains of the earth?

 

This question, really of insignificant importance, is a good example of man-made objections to the sacred character of the Bible, and therefore to faith.

The coming of the flood and its extent and duration, are described in the seventh chapter of the Book of Genesis. The account states that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Gen. 7:19-20).

A cubit, an ancient and well-known measure of length, is the distance from a man's elbow to the end of his middle finger.... If we employ the largest of these values, 20.61 inches, fifteen cubits would be something less than twenty-six-feet. This, then, was the depth of the flood, according to Genesis.

The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley. The great floods that have often occured there make the description in Genesis seem very reasonable indeed. And if the historian saw the flood there, it is not unlikely that the waters covered the highest points or peaks, for there the mountains are but hills....

Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation" [D&C 88:25]. They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D&C 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p.603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331).

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is the that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

Many Bible accounts that trouble the inexperienced reader become clear and acceptable if the essential meaning of the story is sought out. To read the Bible fairly, it must be read as Brigham Young suggested: "Do you read the scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?" (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197-198). This is our guide. The scriptures must be read intelligently. (Evidences and Reconciliations, edited by G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960, pp. 126-128)

 

And yet the churches institute of religion, the churches website teaches the global flood (Both governed by the first presidency) along with the standard works. Why don't you give the church office a call and ask them, if this is not church "doctrine" or correct teaching/principle why do they teach it?

LOL some people love kicking against the pricks... 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I think, based on the article, Widtsoe supported a global flood. While expressly pointing out that the depth of the flood at any given point was not the same depth. His analogy to baptism is instructive, in that all parts of the body must be under water. I do not think a "mist" or very wet fog would have satisfied the "immersion" aspect of baptism.

 

Again, Elder Widtsoe did not believe in a great flood that created mountains and continents. He did not believe the flood was a great ocean. 

 

" The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water...It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely"

"Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record." 

 

Perhaps Elder Widtsoe theorized about an unknown force that caused the water and rain to behave in a strange way. 

 

Notice that he said in some places it might have rained "a fraction of an inch in depth"

How is that going to kill the animals?

 

 "a fraction of an inch in depth" is not a Flood, so Elder Widsoe did believe in a Local Flood. 

Edited May 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Opinion Slayer]

Gen 7:21-24 is official doctrine

 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

 

So how could a local flood kill everything? Why didn't the fowls just go to dry land and hang out? There are so many species of creatures that live on mountains that are fowls, mammals and creeping things. But  I guess that's what happens when you misinterpret 15 cubit from the ground as oppose 15 cubit above the mountains like the scriptures state.

Genesis 7:19–20 [Gen. 7:19–20] states, “All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered … ; and the mountains were covered.” These verses explicitly state that all of earth’s high mountains (“hills” should read “mountains” here; Hebrew harim) were covered by the waters. Lest one believe that the statement “under the whole heaven” is figurative and can be read or interpreted in different ways, a scriptural search through the entire Old Testament reveals that the phrase is used elsewhere only in a universal sense, as it is here; the phrase does not refer to a geographically restricted area (see Deut. 2:25; Deut. 4:19; Job 28:24;Job 37:3; Dan. 9:12). For instance, Job 28:24 also uses the phrase when referring to God’s omniscience, which is certainly not restricted to a specific geographical region on the earth.

Genesis 7:21 [Gen. 7:21] states, “All flesh died that moved upon the earth, … every creeping thing … every man.” The phrase “all flesh” refers to all land animals, creeping things, and fowls and all of humanity, with the exception of those in the ark (see Gen. 7:23). The entry every in theOxford American Dictionary reads: “each single one, without exception.” Moses is clearly trying to let us understand that the Flood was universal.

Verse 22 [Gen. 7:22] states, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, ofall that was in the dry land, died.” Again the term “all” expresses a sum total. The term “dry land” should be read literally here, having reference to the land masses of our planet.

Verse 23 [Gen. 7:23] states, “Every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl.” Moses’ list of those destroyed by the Flood is inclusive; only Noah “remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”

I like this quote by Pres. Monson

"Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ' I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.' " (President Thomas S. Monson, "First Presidency Message: The Lighthouse of the Lord: A Message to the Youth of the Church," Ensign, Feb. 2001, p. 2; emphasis added.)

[thesometimesaint]

Water has weight. In physics increases in weight increase pressure which increase heat. Enough water vapor to generate enough liquid water to cover the entire earth would increase the temperature beyond the boiling.point of water.  If God must follow his own laws there is obviously a problem.

[thesometimesaint]

Giordano Bruno (Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; 1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer.^[3] He is celebrated for his cosmological theories, which went even further than the then-novel Copernican model: while supporting heliocentrism, Bruno also correctly proposed that the Sun was just another star moving in space, and claimed as well that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds, identified as planets orbiting other stars.

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.^[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori. After his death he gained considerable fame,

 

Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]; 15 February 1564^[3] – 8 January 1642), often known mononymously as Galileo, was an Italian physicist, mathematician, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the scientific revolution. His achievements include improvements to the telescope and consequent astronomical observations and support for Copernicanism. Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy",^[4] the "father of modern physics",^[5][6] the "father of science",^[7][6] and "the Father of Modern Science".^[8]

His contributions to observational astronomy include the telescopic confirmation of the phases of Venus, the discovery of the four largest satellites of Jupiter (named the Galilean moons in his honour), and the observation and analysis of sunspots. Galileo also worked in applied science and technology, inventing an improved military compass and other instruments.

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.^[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.^[9] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism.^[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII, thus alienating not only the Pope but also the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.^[9] He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.^[11][12] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.^[13][14]

 

Brigham Young Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited,

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith preached to a stake conference congregation in Hawaii:

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

Edited May 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[MormonFreeThinker]

"a fraction of an inch in depth" is not a Flood,  so Elder John A. Widtsoe believed in a Local Flood

Edited May 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Opinion Slayer]

Water has weight. In physics increases in weight increase pressure which increase heat. Enough water vapor to generate enough liquid water to cover the entire earth would increase the temperature beyond the boiling.point of water.  If God must follow his own laws there is obviously a problem.

How did Jesus walk on water? How did he break the laws of gravity? Does he control the elements or not? Can he turn water into wine or not? What law of physics did he break when he fed the 5000? How did prophets that were cast unto furnaces not burn? You're good for a laugh? According to mans understanding of "Laws" God doesn't seem to have a problem breaking them when I read the scriptures but that's because god commands and the elements obey! It's a gospel of miracles bud and that's doctrine!

[MormonFreeThinker]

How did Jesus walk on water? How did he break the laws of gravity? Does he control the elements or not? Can he turn water into wine or not? What law of physics did he break when he fed the 5000? How did prophets that were cast unto furnaces not burn? You're good for a laugh? According to mans understanding of "Laws" God doesn't seem to have a problem breaking them when I read the scriptures but that's because god commands and the elements obey! It's a gospel of miracles bud and that's doctrine!

 

Not necessarily, Jesus could have used unknown forces of nature to walk on water. Humans can now overcome Gravity by building an airfoil and pushing it through the air at high speed, there is no need to break the laws of physics.

 

But a Great Global Flood? Science has proven negative for that one, there are many evidences against a Great Global Flood.  

 

"a fraction of an inch in depth" is not a Flood, so Elder John A. Widtsoe believed in a Local Flood

Edited May 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

How did Jesus walk on water? How did he break the laws of gravity? Does he control the elements or not? Can he turn water into wine or not? What law of physics did he break when he fed the 5000? How did prophets that were cast unto furnaces not burn? You're good for a laugh? According to mans understanding of "Laws" God doesn't seem to have a problem breaking them when I read the scriptures but that's because god commands and the elements obey! It's a gospel of miracles bud and that's doctrine!

 

Miracles are just something that we don't understand. The second we understand it, no matter how wonderful it is it ceases to be a miracle. To claim that because we don't understand something it must be because of God, makes God a God of the Gaps. Those gaps are getting smaller and smaller all the time. God has to mean more to you than what you don't know.

SEE

[Opinion Slayer]

Not necessarily, Jesus could have used unknown forces of nature to walk on water. 

But a Great Global Flood? Science has proven negative for that one, there are many evidences against a Great Global Flood.  

 

"a fraction of an inch in depth" is not a Flood, so Elder John A. Widtsoe believed in a Local Flood

"But a Great Global Flood?" I finally get it now you guys are jokers. "Not necessarily, Jesus could have used unknown forces of nature to walk on water." LOL here is what Jesus taught.

 

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

Gosh talk about breaking laws (Eye roll) If nothing is impossible to mere mortals who have faith imagine what God can do? You guys are laughable duurrr. Call the church headquarters and ask them why they teach the global flood! Until then keep making me laugh...

 

 

 

[Opinion Slayer]

Miracles are just something that we don't understand. The second we understand it, no matter how wonderful it is it ceases to be a miracle. To claim that because we don't understand something it must be because of God, makes God a God of the Gaps. Those gaps are getting smaller and smaller all the time. God has to mean more to you than what you don't know.

SEE

I don't know what God you worship but my God is a God of miracles because he said so and he canst lie! But enjoy your science show. I'll stick to the prophets and scriptures. Peace out!

[thesometimesaint]

"But a Great Global Flood?" I finally get it now you guys are jokers. "Not necessarily, Jesus could have used unknown forces of nature to walk on water." LOL here is what Jesus taught.

 

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

Gosh talk about breaking laws (Eye roll) If nothing is impossible to mere mortals who have faith imagine what God can do? You guys are laughable duurrr. Call the church headquarters and ask them why they teach the global flood! Until then keep making me laugh...

 

Jesus is quoting as saying mustard seeds makes big trees. We need to be real careful when making claims about the natural universe.

 

Been there done that. SEE http://www.byui.edu/Documents/instructional_development/Perspective/V4n2/v4n2_ott_s.pdf

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know what God you worship but my God is a God of miracles because he said so and he canst lie! But enjoy your science show. I'll stick to the prophets and scriptures. Peace out!

 

I'm fine with miracles. No it isn't God who said so it is mortal fallible men that have claimed God has said so. I enjoy science and worship the God of Joseph Smith, Brigham  Young down to our current Prophet and President Thomas S. Monson.

[rameumptom]

For those insisting the flood is "church doctrine" please be aware that the Church has also stated that religious doctrine is not equal to science.  We believe some things that the scripture teach, knowing that the Lord may teach us a more perfect form later.  Brigham Young called some of these "baby stories", and we would do well to separate out myth from history.  Myths may be historical, or based on history. They are always based on teaching basic concepts regarding man, life and God.  That the Flood story we have from Genesis is not the original story, but is based on at least two different versions (40 days vs 150 days, animals 2x2 vs 7 animals, raven vs dove) shows us that there may be other assumptions or mistakes entered into the Biblical record.  We accept this awkward story as it is, because we do it on faith - regardless of how accurate it is compared to the actual history.  Its symbolism teaches us many things of great value, and so like a parable based on truth, it has redeeming truth to teach us. 

 

Elder Widtsoe realized there are issues with the Flood story, and set forth a theory to harmonize scripture to science.  I personally have no problem with some people believing in a global flood, as long as they acknowledge that there are other valid interpretations, which may include science, textual criticism of the scriptures, etc.

[Rob Osborn]

The whole premise is wrong by Widstoe. God bless him that he had faith to believe in the flood but his calculations and assumptions are a bit off.

[rameumptom]

Gen 7:21-24 is official doctrine

 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

 

So how could a local flood kill everything? Why didn't the fowls just go to dry land and hang out?

 

We get an example of this from the Book of Ether, where the Jaredites went forth upon the flood in barges similar to Noah's ark. Ancient Jewish tradition states Noah had glowing stones in his ark to give them light, so the Jaredites would have used that also.  The Jaredites took many things with them, including honey bees, because they did not know what they would find on the other side of the flood.  Note that the Book of Ether calls it a "flood" when referring to their ocean crossing!

 

Given that we are told they took seven of all species, it is possible that Noah actually only took clean species with him, not knowing what would be available on the other side.  The concept of 2x2 animals shows a different story that was combined.

 

If Noah began in America, crossed the ocean, and ended up in the Old World, then the birds he was accustomed to would not be available.

 

God is a God of miracles.  But we now understand how many of those miracles may occur, because God has also revealed science to us.  Science is not a tool of the devil anymore than sex is a tool of the devil.  These are things provided by God, to be used in an appropriate way to better mankind.

 

Birth is a miracle. Yet, we understand how birth works.  We can actually create life in a test tube. Just because we now understand the workings of inception and creation, does it mean it ceases to be a miracle?  In some ways, yes.  It is not as mysterious as it once was.  Comets were considered (including by the ancient Jews and Christians) to be an omen of evil. Heck, Halley's comet was feared through the 19th century, certain that its tail contained poisonous gases the earth would pass through.  With science, we now know it is a natural thing, and not necessarily a harbinger of doom (unless you watch action - earth destroying films).  There is probably a scientific method behind the 10 plagues of Egypt, Jesus' resurrection, and the Creation.  All miraculous, yet worked by God's understanding of science.  This is what Brigham Young, Elders Talmage and Widtsoe, among many others, have taught.

 

The Bible teaches many things, often contradicting itself.  Moses and Israel were commanded "Thou shalt not kill" from Sinai. Yet, Moses and Joshua would later annihilate entire cities, including women, children and animals.  Is there history in the Bible? Yes. However, it is not the type of history we understand in the 21st century.  Ancient Israel had no problem with changing a story to fit their perception of what history should be like, in order to establish the continuing relationship between God and man.  So the current Torah (5 Books of Moses) comes down to us through 5 different authors or groups of authors, with the final one (possibly Ezra) redacting everything.

 

Beginning in the late 1800s and through the 20th century, fundamentalism took over much of American Christianity.  They insisted that the Bible was the breath of God, infallible and perfect.  Many LDS leaders took that concept for granted as well, and began looking at the Bible from a certain perspective that actually contradicts how Joseph Smith and Brigham Young viewed scripture.  Joseph had no problem with seeing the flaws in the Bible, and even trying to correct some of them.  However, his great-nephew would be a Bible fundamentalist, arguing with Talmage, Widtsoe and Roberts over evolution, creation, etc.  He would even insist that man would never go to the moon, because it was against the teachings of the scriptures (referring to the Book of Moses' mandate to only focus on this earth, but ignoring the Book of Abraham's view of the cosmos).  That fundamentalism sunk deep into the Church, and became popular in Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, which became a default 5th book of scripture for almost 40 years.  Only now do we see the Church leadership moving away from such doctrinal fundamentalism, and towards focusing solely on core doctrines, leaving science to scientists and history to historians.

[Opinion Slayer]

I'm fine with miracles. No it isn't God who said so it is mortal fallible men that have claimed God has said so. I enjoy science and worship the God of Joseph Smith, Brigham  Young down to our current Prophet and President Thomas S. Monson.

It's so sad that you and the science club are so desperate to prove a local flood that the church does not teach that you resort to statements like this. 

" No it isn't God who said so it is mortal fallible men that have claimed God has said so."

To infer that the prophets were lying, misguided or incorrect about calling  God a God of miracles  because of your straw man arguments that the church does not teach is pretty pathetic. By the mouth of two or three witnesses... Being infallible and being a liar are two completely different things and to infer that they were claims and not revealed truth is a joke. He controls the elements and they obey and nothing is impossible to him. 

D&C 35:8 

 8 For I am God, and mine arm is not shortened; and I will show miracles, signs, and wonders, unto all those who believe on my name.

Num 14:22

 22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;