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

[Opinion Slayer]

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.

You are long winded. If you don't believe in the global flood just say that don't waste your time making a sad attempt to disprove a principle the church teaches in their institute manuals of religion, their website and the standard works.

 

I find it funny how every time a quote from a prophet that held all the keys are used to as a witness of the global flood that upsets the science club they are so quick to pull out the "That's not church doctrine" card but anytime they can find a statement that they can use, they are so quick to use it even when it is in the minority. So hypocritical! 

 

God doesn't use a microscopes and beakers to do his work. He uses the Priesthood. 

[rameumptom]

Opinion Slayer,

you are putting words into Saint's mouth. You are using emotion terms to respond to him, rather than discuss the issues. I could easily say that you are on the road of apostasy, because of X, even when that may not be the case.

 

Saint believes in miracles. However, he also recognizes that the Bible is not a perfect book, and has errors in it.  Prophets write things according to their assumptions.  When Nephi explained Lehi's dream of the Tree of Life to his brothers, he had to explain that the river was a filthy river, but Lehi did not see it, because his mind was caught up on other things.  IOW, revelation is given that still leaves room for personal interpretation.  Joseph Smith Senior also had a vision similar to the vision of the Tree of Life, prior to Joseph Smith translating the BoM. However, in his vision, it was a North American forest, and not a Judean desert.

 

Joseph Smith fixed much of the Bible, which was in error.  Why not consider that some other things may also be in error, only we have not received a current revelation concerning it?  As it is, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and several apostles have shown concern about the story of the Flood, the Creation, and other events in the Bible.  Joseph stated that the Songs of Solomon are not inspired of God.  The Bible gives us at least 4 versions of the Creation story.  Which one is the most correct?

 

President Henry Eyring's father, Henry Eyring, was a renowned scientist.  I suggest you read his Reflections of a Scientist sometime.  I have no doubt that Pres Eyring's faith reflects much of his father's understanding of evolution, creation, etc.

[Opinion Slayer]

Isaiah 55:8

 

 8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I believe in science but until the Church teaches a different doctrine about the global flood and removes it from their sight, institute manuals and denounce that teaching and provide a different interpretation from the standard works I'll follow in their footsteps. One day when the veil is removed we will either all remember how the flood happened or we will be taught by Jesus himself on that event. Until then I'll be focusing my energies in more important teachings of the gospel, farewell.

[rameumptom]

Slayer, you are being insulting.  The manuals are imperfect and have errors in them. They are based upon Elder McConkie's views, which reflect those of Joseph Fielding Smith (who argued incessantly with Talmage and Widtsoe on science).  The Church is beginning to replace those old manuals, and you'll see much of such things removed.  In the newer Gospel Principles manual, there are few quotes remaining from Elder McConkie, for example.

 

You seem to have the opinion that the prophets are perfect and infallible.  That is false doctrine.  They are only called to be witnesses of Christ and to use the keys of the priesthood upon the earth.  The BoM tells us that its prophets made mistakes.  Joseph Smith was called under condemnation on several occasions by the Lord in the D&C. Recent apostles have said in General Conference that the Brethren are not perfect.

 

By the way, I wasn't being wordy. I was using evidence, something you clearly do not understand or reject because of  a closed mind. I have given examples from prophets and apostles, and yet you stick to one source, which is not necessarily the correct one.  I have no problem with you believing in a global flood. Believe it all you want. That is not a sin. But it is sin to be questioning others' faithfulness in the Church, simply because they believe differently.  For all I  know, Sometimes Saint may be a better saint than you are.  When did you last go hometeaching?

 

We use quotes to show that one statement from a prophet does not mean it is doctrine.  And doctrine changes in the Church.  There once was monogamy, then polygamy, then monogamy again.  Several apostles and prophets taught the curse of Cain, only to have that now rejected.

 

April 6, 1BC as Christ's birth is taught by some past prophets, based on Talmage's understanding of D&C 20:1.  Guess what? We now know, thanks to the JSPP that verse was not part of the original revelation, but was added as an introduction by the scribe John Whitmer!  Does that mean that Jesus was not born on April 6th? No. But it does mean that D&"C 20:1 can no longer be used as justification for that belief.  Also, history and science prove that Jesus had to be born around 6BC, otherwise the birth stories in the Bible are wrong (King Herod died in 4BC).

 

Some doctrines come by revelation, and some are introduced as assumptions that become viral and become the default belief. For this reason, President Packer has worked on keeping a tight ship among the apostles, insisting the teach only the core doctrines, and not their personal beliefs.

 

God uses all knowledge to do his work.  If it includes beakers and microscopes, more power to him.  As it is, God uses Urim and Thummim, Liahonas, written records, and other devices to bring about his great work.  Why not microscopes and beakers, as well?

[thesometimesaint]

 

Isaiah 55:8

 

 8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I believe in science but until the Church teaches a different doctrine about the global flood and removes it from their sight, institute manuals and denounce that teaching and provide a different interpretation from the standard works I'll follow in their footsteps. One day when the veil is removed we will either all remember how the flood happened or we will be taught by Jesus himself on that event. Until then I'll be focusing my energies in more important teachings of the gospel, farewell.

 

 

Prooftexting.

[rameumptom]

 

Isaiah 55:8

 

 8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I believe in science but until the Church teaches a different doctrine about the global flood and removes it from their sight, institute manuals and denounce that teaching and provide a different interpretation from the standard works I'll follow in their footsteps. One day when the veil is removed we will either all remember how the flood happened or we will be taught by Jesus himself on that event. Until then I'll be focusing my energies in more important teachings of the gospel, farewell.

 

 

For all I know, God's ways are all given through symbolism, even as we receive in the temple.  Why must we believe that God's ways are the ones you are attacking others with here?  Perhaps his ways are higher than your ways?  Perhaps some of his ways are higher than those of the prophets?

 

Do you not recognize that God is trying to teach us through one of his higher ways: science?  The doctrines of salvation have not changed.  Jesus is still the Christ. God lives. The Church has been restored.  The priesthood is God's power on earth, etc.

 

The Church has changed some of its views recently. We reject the curse of Cain theory, taught as doctrine for over a century. We reject the belief in  infallible prophets.  Evolution may be real, regardless of how many still quote dead prophets like Joseph Fielding Smith, who took the Bible literalism to a new level (yet still allowed himself the ability to determine which parts were symbolic and not historical).

 

Recently, in General Conference we've been told that all righteous members have access to the Spirit of God.  Why cannot you believe that the Lord may be revealing new and higher truths to some of us?  You will not see us teach local floods as doctrine. However, you will see that we take the quest for learning from God very seriously.  We seek not to be slothful in our work, but to diligently seek out his knowledge and will, using all the instruments at our disposal.

[thesometimesaint]

Slayer, you are being insulting.  The manuals are imperfect and have errors in them. They are based upon Elder McConkie's views, which reflect those of Joseph Fielding Smith (who argued incessantly with Talmage and Widtsoe on science).  The Church is beginning to replace those old manuals, and you'll see much of such things removed.  In the newer Gospel Principles manual, there are few quotes remaining from Elder McConkie, for example.

 

You seem to have the opinion that the prophets are perfect and infallible.  That is false doctrine.  They are only called to be witnesses of Christ and to use the keys of the priesthood upon the earth.  The BoM tells us that its prophets made mistakes.  Joseph Smith was called under condemnation on several occasions by the Lord in the D&C. Recent apostles have said in General Conference that the Brethren are not perfect.

 

By the way, I wasn't being wordy. I was using evidence, something you clearly do not understand or reject because of  a closed mind. I have given examples from prophets and apostles, and yet you stick to one source, which is not necessarily the correct one.  I have no problem with you believing in a global flood. Believe it all you want. That is not a sin. But it is sin to be questioning others' faithfulness in the Church, simply because they believe differently.  For all I  know, Sometimes Saint may be a better saint than you are.  When did you last go hometeaching?

 

We use quotes to show that one statement from a prophet does not mean it is doctrine.  And doctrine changes in the Church.  There once was monogamy, then polygamy, then monogamy again.  Several apostles and prophets taught the curse of Cain, only to have that now rejected.

 

April 6, 1BC as Christ's birth is taught by some past prophets, based on Talmage's understanding of D&C 20:1.  Guess what? We now know, thanks to the JSPP that verse was not part of the original revelation, but was added as an introduction by the scribe John Whitmer!  Does that mean that Jesus was not born on April 6th? No. But it does mean that D&"C 20:1 can no longer be used as justification for that belief.  Also, history and science prove that Jesus had to be born around 6BC, otherwise the birth stories in the Bible are wrong (King Herod died in 4BC).

 

Some doctrines come by revelation, and some are introduced as assumptions that become viral and become the default belief. For this reason, President Packer has worked on keeping a tight ship among the apostles, insisting the teach only the core doctrines, and not their personal beliefs.

 

God uses all knowledge to do his work.  If it includes beakers and microscopes, more power to him.  As it is, God uses Urim and Thummim, Liahonas, written records, and other devices to bring about his great work.  Why not microscopes and beakers, as well?

 

I'm just a some time Saint. I haven't been "Taken Up" yet. So it is a fair assumption that there still is plenty of work for me to do on myself. That being said I don't use science to disprove God and don't use God to disprove science. I'm fine with God and fine with science. I have no problem with a massive flood albeit a regional one, from Noah's perspective it covered what he could see. It works: it doesn't involve a suspension of physical laws; it doesn't invoke prooftexting; and it doesn't insult the many Saints whom believe the same. 

Edited May 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

In order to make sense of it all a few principles coupled with biblical text have to be in place.

 

The flood was indeed a global event. Only Noah, his family and the animals which were land dwelling were saved from the flood. The earth with its topography at that time was destroyed by the geologic events surrounding the flood. The mountains that existed at that time, however high or low, were destroyed by all the geologic events surrounding the flood. Here is this verse explaining this destruction-

 

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of , that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (2 Peter 3:5-6)

 

The amount of water to destroy this earth is the current water which is now in our ocean baseins. After the flood God caused the mountains we have now to rise up (upthrust) and the valleys (ocean trenches) to sink so that the water could recede from off the face of the land. This receding did not happen immediately but took hundreds of years to happen. Thus the great Rocky mountains, the Andes, Himilayas, Alps and all other mountain chains came into existence after the flood. All of these great mountain chains were once under water as they are easily seen and shown to be made of sedimentary layers laid under water and then upthrust to great height. You can hike up any of these mountains and see evidence of their watery laid strata at high elevations containing seashells and other evidences at heights now over 10,000 feet above sea level all over the world. This principle of upthrust is paramount to understanding the flood. If we can just understand that mountains such as Mt. Everest did not exist before the flood then we can begin to see the logic of it all and how it makes sense. There are of course other factors that come into play. There was the "division of the earth" in the days of Peleg. This is the division of the earth by the oceans due to continents breaking apart, colliding and then being upthrust. We know from BoM times that great upheavals forming mountains of grand height can and do form rather quickly and catastrophically. Not only this fact but also we learn that many great upthrusts were still happening some 2,000 years later after the flood in the BoM lands in the Americas. Ample evidence from places like Pumu Punka in Soth America show that once sea level areas in historical times were upthrust  over 10,000 feet basically overnight!

 

As we understand these simple principles then things start to line up. In the pre-flood world all the land was one piece and the inhabitants were warned to repent or be destroyed in the flood. Those who repented were taken up to the city of Enoch in the heavens while the wicked were left on the earth. Noah built a giant ship and put all the animals God had brought to him into it along with his sons and their wives. Then the floods came. From whence did they come? Mainly from under the earth. the crust was broken up and between this and the recycling of rainwater from the air, the earth was rather quickly destroyed. The amount of water we are speaking of would easily have the power to destroy any and all land mass in its way. How high did the waters go upwards? It had to be enough to clear the ships draft. Because Noah knew the height of the waterline on the ships draft he thus said this

 

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the mountains were covered . (Gen. 7:20)

 

This 15 cubits is the draft of the boat. we must remeber that as the floods destroyed the earth the sediment all leveled out flat in the oceans before being upthrust out of the ocean.

 

This scenerio is the only plausible story geologically for the flood to be a global event. There is ample evidence of this all over the earth. We thus see everywhere on the earth great upthrusts and great ocean trenches just as the scriptures point out. Not only this but in the cracks of these upthrusts we see the various sediment layers that were laid under water now twisted, bent and upthrust and broken all over the world. In order to believe this one immediately has to discard current geologic models of uniformatarianism. As such, the evidence for evolution disappears also as the rock layers are nothing more than the testimony of death from the flood. this of course includes dinosaurs- yes they were alive in pre-flood and after in the post-flood world. Evidence from all over the world also shows man and dinosaur together in ancient art, text, sculptures, etc.

 

Instead of taking a shoe horn to make the global flood fit current scientific understanding, we should really re-evaluate current scientific understanding because it is not what it proclaims to teach as truth.

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

Do you know that Elder Widstoe was an apostle?

 

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

[Rob Osborn]

Do you know that Elder Widstoe was an apostle?

 

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

Doesnt matter if he was or wasnt, his calculations were off. He wasnt speaking for the church eitherbut rather his opinion. Thats no different than you or I.

[frank_jessop]

Do you know that Elder Widstoe was an apostle?

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

Yes Widtsoe spoke against a sphere of water 26 feet deep and he spoke against a "blanket" which he said would defy gravity. (my assumption is that some must have thought the water blanketed the earth as though wrapped in a blanket, so that the water with a uniform depth followed the contours of the entire earth.)

However, Widtsoe also stated:

"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."

However, his personal opinion would not account for mass extinction. At least not in a way I can think of.

[ERayR]

Do you know that Elder Widstoe was an apostle?

 

.

 

So.

[ERayR]

Doesnt matter if he was or wasnt, his calculations were off. He wasnt speaking for the church eitherbut rather his opinion. Thats no different than you or I.

 

Isn't interesting that in a debate, sprinkled liberally with references from authorities, the above statement, in some form or another, is trotted out to justify our rejection of what they said.  It doesn't matter which side of the issue someone is on it is standard practice for rejecting that with which they disagree.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Yes Widtsoe spoke against a sphere of water 26 feet deep and he spoke against a "blanket" which he said would defy gravity. (my assumption is that some must have thought the water blanketed the earth as though wrapped in a blanket, so that the water with a uniform depth followed the contours of the entire earth.)

However, Widtsoe also stated:

"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."

However, his personal opinion would not account for mass extinction. At least not in a way I can think of.

 

"26 feet deep and he spoke against a "blanket" which he said would defy gravity."

He also said, "though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope."

He probably theorized about an unknown force that caused the rain and water to behave in a strange way.

 

"However, Widtsoe also stated"

He also stated that the Flood in some places "might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth"

Yes, he believed water covered the entire Earth, but my point is that "a fraction of an inch" is not considered to be a flood, therefore Elder  Widtsoe believed in a Local Flood.

 

" his personal opinion would not account for mass extinction"

There was no mass extinction on the entire planet.

 

Elder Widtsoe believed there was death before the Fall, and probably didn't believe the Flood killed all the animals on Earth.

Edited May 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

Isn't interesting that in a debate, sprinkled liberally with references from authorities, the above statement, in some form or another, is trotted out to justify our rejection of what they said.  It doesn't matter which side of the issue someone is on it is standard practice for rejecting that with which they disagree.

The difference though is that Brother Widtsoe was speaking his opinion and it wasn't actual church doctrine. Just as I am saying how the flood occurred- it is my opinion and not church doctrine. What is church doctrine is that it was a global flood. How exactly that global flood occurred in every detail is up for discussion and there is no official doctrine on the matter.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The difference though is that Brother Widtsoe was speaking his opinion and it wasn't actual church doctrine. Just as I am saying how the flood occurred- it is my opinion and not church doctrine. What is church doctrine is that it was a global flood. How exactly that global flood occurred in every detail is up for discussion and there is no official doctrine on the matter.

 

Still waiting for official church declerations and proclamations, because our scriptures are not clear about this issue.

Simply a direct First Presidency statement

Edited May 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Still waiting for official church declerations and proclamations, because our scriptures are not clear about this issue.

Simply a First Presidency statement

 

I  am too, but in the mean time BYU has one of the best museums of prehistoric creatures there is. But some want a Creationist Museum like the one Kentucky. 

[Rob Osborn]

Still waiting for official church declerations and proclamations, because our scriptures are not clear about this issue.

Simply a direct First Presidency statement

So, it being published in scripture, the Guide to the Scriptures" and numerous manuals doesn't make it official enough for you eh? Then stop quoting Widtsoes opinions and playing it out as if its doctrine then. How bout that?

[Rob Osborn]

I  am too, but in the mean time BYU has one of the best museums of prehistoric creatures there is. But some want a Creationist Museum like the one Kentucky.

And yet we have "historical" accounts of these supposed prehistoric animals...

[cinepro]

Slayer, you are being insulting.  The manuals are imperfect and have errors in them. They are based upon Elder McConkie's views, which reflect those of Joseph Fielding Smith (who argued incessantly with Talmage and Widtsoe on science).  The Church is beginning to replace those old manuals, and you'll see much of such things removed.  In the newer Gospel Principles manual, there are few quotes remaining from Elder McConkie, for example.

 

And yet, while we keep hearing about how Elder Widstoe was "an Apostle", the quote in the OP isn't from an official Church publication.  The manuals you are referring to reinforce what is taught in the scriptures and other Church publications. 

 

Also, can someone calculate the amount of water that would be needed to float a boat the size of the ark up into a mountain?  How would a local flood do that?  Wouldn't the water be flowing downward, towards the ocean?  I've heard that's what water usually does...

 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-6-noah---prepared-an-ark-to-the-saving-of-his-house?lang=eng

Edited May 14, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

And yet we have "historical" accounts of these supposed prehistoric animals...

 

No you don't.

[Rob Osborn]

No you don't.

Huh? Read your bible.

[rameumptom]

The Bible is not history in the modern sense, Rob.  History requires that a story is able to be backed up by other evidence.  While some stories in the Bible can be supported by archaeology, science, or other ancient writings, many of the older stories are not.  For example, archaeologically we can prove Jerusalem existed, however there is no global layer of sediment from 4500 years ago to show a global flood.

Most of today's manuals were written by Elder McConkie, who was very opinionated concerning science and other topics.  At the end of his life, he had to admit being wrong on at least some topics (curse of Cain, for instance), even though Mormon Doctrine (the book) was not updated to remove such concepts.

The Church teaches a global flood, not because it is actual history or that it was a flood that covered all the earth that we can prove, but because the Bible says so.  We often read things into the scriptures (6000 year old earth), which are not necessary to the story, and then insist that our eisegesis regarding it be the core doctrine.  Early saints believed in a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon, but most members who have studied it now understand that it could not have been a hemispheric story, but a local one.  That's the same concept with a global vs local flood.

[cinepro]

Still waiting for official church declerations and proclamations, because our scriptures are not clear about this issue.

Simply a direct First Presidency statement

 

That's a non sequitur.

 

Why would the First Presidency even issue a statement for something that is in the scriptures and has been clearly and consistently taught by Church leaders and publications for decades?  The Church has already made it as clear as it can, and the only people who think there is a gray area are those who can't believe in the global flood and therefore create all sorts of reasons why there just hasn't been enough said by the right people in the right places to make it official.

 

I mean, think about it.  The Church published this in the Ensign (the official Church magazine).  Look at the masthead for the Ensign on page 3 or 4 of each issue.  The first people listed, above the editor and other editorial staff are each member of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Now, before you go there, I'm not saying that every "Random Sampler" is the voice of God to the people.  But it's insulting to the Prophet and Apostles to imply that the doctrine and scriptural interpretations published (repeatedly and consistently) in the Ensign are somehow unofficial, or not believed by some of the Church leaders.

 

So in 1998, when a Professor of Hebrew at BYU publishes the following declarative statement, in a magazine under review from the leaders of the Church and with their names on the masthead, how can it be said this doesn't represent the official Church view on the subject?

 

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

 

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

 

So my question is this: was professor Parry wrong when he said that "we are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets"?  Or is the argument that the prophets were wrong in their "assurances"?

[ERayR]

The difference though is that Brother Widtsoe was speaking his opinion and it wasn't actual church doctrine.

 

You have no way of really knowing that anymore than those on the other side of the issue have.