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

[Tacenda]

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?

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"?

Good one Cinepro, looks like Rob has quite the leg to stand on. I don't get why so many fight it, just accept that the church believes this and move on.

[Rob Osborn]

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

Tell you what, I give all a challenge-

Find somewhere, anywhere, on the Church website that proclaims as doctrine that the flood was a localized event. Then whatever answer you find, see if it compares with this official doctrine explained in the Guide to the Scriptures-

"During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing"

[The Nehor]

Huh? Read your bible.

 

"And the kingdoms of men used packs of trained Velociraptor attack animals to plague the land and T-rexes ate many of the giants of the day."

 

-Nehor's Appendix to 6th Enoch"

[Tiki]

Peter the Apostle discusses the Flood of Noah twice and the first is included in the D&C:

1)

Doctrine and Covenants 138:9

9 “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18–20.)

1 Peter 3:20

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

--------------

2)

Peter, the Apostle, addresses Scoffers in the last days, who think the entire world wasn't flooded:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

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:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Tiki

[MormonFreeThinker]

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 published this in the Ensign (the official Church magazine)"

I like this article What about you?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/07/earth-a-gift-of-gladness?lang=eng

 

"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?"

 

It's a problem, but it is not hard to speculate an answer. 

The Great Global Flood theory has bigger problems, and many. 

Edited May 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tacenda]

How many statements by general authorities can you find in lds.org?

How many of them clearly contradict the theory of Elder Widtsoe?

"The Church published this in the Ensign (the official Church magazine)"

I like this article What about you?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/07/earth-a-gift-of-gladness?lang=eng

"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?"

It's a problem, but it is not hard to speculate an answer.

The Great Global Flood theory has bigger problems, and many.

The apostles have clearly taught that we need to embrace science, but the Great Global Flood theory is against everything we know in modern science.

CFR...please paste the article and highlight that sentence because it's not in the article you linked. I'm either getting senile or it's not there.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

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?  

 

How many statements about a Great Global Flood can you find in lds.org? Great Global Flood statements by the apostles in church publications? 

How many flood statements clearly contradict Elder Widtsoe' theory? Compare the number of Flood statements to the number of Gospel Doctrine statements.  

 

The apostles have taught us to embrace science, but a great global flood contradicts everything known in modern science, so a first presidency statement will be nice. 

Edited May 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tacenda]

How many statements about a Great Global Flood can you find in lds.org? Great Global Flood statements by the apostles in church publications? 

How many flood statements clearly contradict Elder Widtsoe' theory? Compare the number of Flood statements to the number of Gospel Doctrine statements.  

 

The apostles have taught us to embrace science, but a great global flood contradicts everything known in modern science, so a first presidency statement will be nice. 

Did you skip over my CFR?  Or are you above the rules here? 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I simply made some changes, and I don't know what CFR means. 

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.byui.edu/Documents/instructional_development/Perspective/V4n2/v4n2_ott_s.pdf

 

The final document in the

Library Packet

is probably the one most

noteworthy, since it is both the most recent and the most concise

statement regarding the Church and evolution. This document is the

Evenson article titled, “Evolution” from the

Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Although several longer drafts of this article were submitted, the First

Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve ultimately approved a short

article of five small paragraphs (Evenson, 2001). As an added note to the

significance of this article, four paragraphs from it are currently used by

the First Presidency as the official response to members’ written requests

about the Church’s position on evolution. Because these paragraphs best

represent the Church’s current position on evolution, I have included

the text below.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First

Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine

revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal

offspring of Deity.... Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image

and endowed with divine attributes....

The Scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the

Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (Doctrine and

Covenants 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue

of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of

Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivans, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed

all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded:

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission

is to bear the message of the restored gospel to 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. (Evenson,1992)

[Rob Osborn]

 

http://www.byui.edu/Documents/instructional_development/Perspective/V4n2/v4n2_ott_s.pdf

 

The final document in the

Library Packet

is probably the one most

noteworthy, since it is both the most recent and the most concise

statement regarding the Church and evolution. This document is the

Evenson article titled, “Evolution” from the

Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Although several longer drafts of this article were submitted, the First

Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve ultimately approved a short

article of five small paragraphs (Evenson, 2001). As an added note to the

significance of this article, four paragraphs from it are currently used by

the First Presidency as the official response to members’ written requests

about the Church’s position on evolution. Because these paragraphs best

represent the Church’s current position on evolution, I have included

the text below.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First

Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine

revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal

offspring of Deity.... Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image

and endowed with divine attributes....

The Scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the

Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (Doctrine and

Covenants 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue

of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of

Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivans, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed

all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded:

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission

is to bear the message of the restored gospel to 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. (Evenson,1992)

 

And yet it is the 1909 statement that is the most up to date (Ensign 2002) defining if man evolved or did not. The 1909 statement is clear that man did not evolve.

[Rob Osborn]

Here is a discussion regarding the debate over the BYU packet and Encylopedia issue-http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/04/byu-evolution-packet-examined.html

[thesometimesaint]

Here is a discussion regarding the debate over the BYU packet and Encylopedia issue-http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/04/byu-evolution-packet-examined.html

 

Where can I find Gary Shapiro's name in First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?

[Rob Osborn]

Where can I find Gary Shapiro's name in First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?

He has generously taken upon himself to do the research and set things straight. You may disagree but everything he puts out is spot on with all research done.

[thesometimesaint]

He has generously taken upon himself to do the research and set things straight. You may disagree but everything he puts out is spot on with all research done.

 

I'm so glad that someone has taken it upon themselves to set the Apostles of the Lord straight.

[MormonFreeThinker]

How many apostles said that the Flood was Global in General Conference or church publications? 

How many statements clearly contradict Elder Widtsoe theory? 

 

Compare that number to the number of Gospel Topics statements. 

 

Are the apostles repeatedly teaching us that the FLood was GLobal and created continents and mountains? 

[Tacenda]

How many apostles said that the Flood was Global in General Conference or church publications?

How many statements clearly contradict Elder Widtsoe theory?

Compare that number to the number of Gospel Topics statements.

Are the apostles repeatedly teaching us that the FLood was GLobal and created continents and mountains?

I've been an active member for44 yrs. and never heard it taught that it was a local flood, CFR.

[JDave]

As I was reading along, I kept thinking I had made a comment on a flood thread a while back.  Turns out the comment I was thinking of was in an evolution thread but it fits perfectly here as well.
 

I would say that while evolution (a local flood) is not precluded by LDS doctrine, the simplest understanding of what is taught in LDS sources (i.e. scriptures and manuals) is creationism (a global flood).

Edited May 16, 2014 by JDave

[Rob Osborn]

I'm so glad that someone has taken it upon themselves to set the Apostles of the Lord straight.

He has researched the facts and laid them out. It would be nice if you actually did a little research yourself on these matters. (just so you know it makes you look stupid when you post comments like this without doing any research).

[thesometimesaint]

He has researched the facts and laid them out. It would be nice if you actually did a little research yourself on these matters. (just so you know it makes you look stupid when you post comments like this without doing any research).

 

I've done research on the subject for the last 43 years. The best I can find is that the subject has no bearing on my salvation, and that WHATEVER a person's own opinions are, they don't constitute Church doctrine. SEE my link to BYU Evolution Packet.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I've been an active member for44 yrs. and never heard it taught that it was a local flood, CFR.

 

The claim that the church has taught about a Great Global Flood that created continents and mountains, many times for many decades is an exaggeration. I cannot find hundreds or even dozens statements made by the apostles in official church publications. Perhaps in the Journal of Discourses, but it is not a church publication. 

 

Edited May 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cinepro]

How many statements about a Great Global Flood can you find in lds.org? Great Global Flood statements by the apostles in church publications? 

How many flood statements clearly contradict Elder Widtsoe' theory? Compare the number of Flood statements to the number of Gospel Doctrine statements.  

 

The apostles have taught us to embrace science, but a great global flood contradicts everything known in modern science, so a first presidency statement will be nice. 

 

The apostles have not taught us to "embrace science".  And we've certainly never been taught to "embrace science" if science is contradicting the scriptures or official Church teachings! 

 

I pointed out in another thread that most statements about "harmony" between the gospel and "science" date from the 1800's. Science back then was very, very different in its scope and theories than it is now.  In the first half of the 20th century, things changed, and even apostles with a scientific background or sympathy like Elders Widstoe and Talmage struggled to reconcile the doctrines of the church with current scientific theories.

 

One of the most interesting summaries of the Church's stance towards "science" can be found in an Ensign article from 1980:

 

The Gospel and the Scientific Worldview

 

 

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes. Yet the story is regarded skeptically today in our secular world. Most current geology texts ignore the Flood, ridicule it, or use it as an example of prescientific superstition.

 

Consequently, Latter-day Saints and other Christians sometimes find the apparent conflict between their faith in the scriptures and their education puzzling. The account of Noah’s flood is a typical illustration of the differences which occur between scriptural information and modern secular teachings about the history of the world.

 

What is the “scientific” view of our early world that so dominates our age? How did it come to be? Where does it seem to cause challenges for someone who loves and believes the sacred texts that recount events of that same early world? In order to better orient ourselves and assist us in helping others and our children, it may be helpful to examine certain aspects of the development of scientific thought, including the differences between the purely naturalistic explanations and those which involve the actions of God as part of the picture. Also, we will look at the further understanding available to us through modern-day revelation and the gospel context.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thus, it may be that the problem with uniformity as scientists know it is simply one of generalizing too soon, upon too small a sample. If, instead of a period of a few hundred years, the sample period were taken over enough thousands of years to include the whole life cycle of a world like ours, from creation to glorification, allowing for the operations of the power of God to bring about the desired changes throughout that whole period, then the principle of uniformity might seem to be perfectly sound, at least so far as it appears to us from modern revelation.

Within this enlarged view of a celestial uniformity, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth’s baptism. Brigham Young pointed out that the earth “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” (in Journal of Discourses, 8:83).

 

The law for a world such as ours closely parallels the law for its inhabitants. Like each of us, the earth existed for a time in the presence of God in a premortal, uncorrupted condition. Like each of us, it entered a fallen, mortal condition. Like us, it must be sanctified by being born again, first of the water and then of the Spirit. The earth has been cleansed by water baptism, and its cleansing by fire associated with the last days will allow the Holy Spirit to dwell throughout the whole earth during the Millennium when the earth, not yet glorified, will be sanctified. For the earth, as for us, the work of salvation can only be completed through death, which will alter its mortal structure, followed by a glorious resurrection, which will establish it upon celestial principles that it may abide in that glory forever.

 

 

This seems to represent the current thinking among Church leaders as well.  There isn't a single statement from any modern apostle or prophet (or anyone else in any church published talk, article or curriculum) acknowledging the possibility of a local flood, or that Adam's body may have evolved from a lower form.  Any time these subjects are mentioned in Church publications, it is only to reinforce that Noah's flood was global, and Adam didn't evolve (and in general, evolution is bad).

 

And I'll say it again just so everyone is clear: Elder Widstoe's conjecture in "Evidences and Reconciliations" (and in the OP) were arguing for a global flood.  He was merely trying to fathom some possibility where the idea of a global flood wasn't quite as bat-poop crazy as what we read plainly in the scriptures.  But he was still arguing for a global flood, because that's what the scriptures and the Church teaches. 

 

It may not be a "core doctrine", but that's what makes it so interesting.  If it were core doctrine, or wasn't so empirically "testable", then there wouldn't be anything to discuss because LDS aren't allowed to publicly disagree with core doctrines.

Edited May 16, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Which is all the more disappointing. Especially in the light of the Church's reliance on science to promote the Restored Gospel.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The apostles have not taught us to "embrace science".  

 

That statement discourages intellectual progress. 

 

At least two modern apostles 

 

"I am grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining knowledge — the scientific method and the spiritual method, which begins with faith in God and relies on scriptures, inspired teaching and personal revelation. There is no ultimate conflict between knowledge gained by these different methods because God, our omnipotent Eternal Father, knows all truth and beckons us to learn by them both." -- Elder Oaks 

 

"There are two ways to find truth—both useful, provided we follow the laws upon which they are predicated. The first is the scientific method. It can require analysis of data to confirm a theory or, alternatively, establish a valid principle through experimentation. The scientific method is a valuable way of seeking truth." - Elder Scott 

 

Elder Oaks said "no ultimate conflict" for a reason. 

 

"One of the most interesting summaries of the Church's stance towards "science" can be found in an Ensign article from 1980:"

 

Kent Nielsen is not an apostle, and not everything published in the Ensign is official doctrine. 

For example, an Ensign article talks about man made Global Warming, and the scientific evidence is strong, but the church does not have an official position on Global Warming, not yet. 

 

"Elder Widstoe's conjecture in "Evidences and Reconciliations" (and in the OP) were arguing for a global flood."

 

Elder Wistoe did believe in a Global Flood, but wrote that the Flood in some places "might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth" a "fraction of an inch in depth" is not a Great Flood.

 

How many modern apostles in general conference said that a global flood destroyed all animal life on Earth and created mountains and continents? I agree that the Flood was worldwide, the world of Noah. 

 

Anyways, like I said, there are so many evidences against a Great Global Flood, that an official first presidency statement will be nice. Official first presidency statement please. 

Edited May 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

I've done research on the subject for the last 43 years. The best I can find is that the subject has no bearing on my salvation, and that WHATEVER a person's own opinions are, they don't constitute Church doctrine. SEE my link to BYU Evolution Packet.

Trying to be nice here but I don't think you have researched Gary's extensive research on the matter. Here is his blog-

http://ndbf.blogspot.com/