Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[DragonLancer]

Sure.

 

Dec 5, 1891 - Stake President relates "incident of the Prophet Joseph telling Dimick B Huntington.....that Noah built the Ark in the land where South Carolina is now." (http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_history.htm; Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power)

 

Duane E. Jeffrey, a BYU professor noted that there was a “report by one of Joseph Smith’s brothers-in-law, Oliver Huntington, and published in the Juvenile Instructor, that Joseph taught that Noah built his ark in the vicinity of our present-day states of North or South Carolina.” (“Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions,” Sunstone, October 2004, p. 44, note 32)

 

So, as you can see, they are both reports from Huntingtons, for whatever it is worth, but they coincide with the statement from the book of Mormon in Ether.

 

I suppose that someone that is up to the task could search out primary/original sources.

Edited December 9, 2014 by DragonLancer

[thesometimesaint]

 

Sure.

 

Dec 5, 1891 - Stake President relates "incident of the Prophet Joseph telling Dimick B Huntington.....that Noah built the Ark in the land where South Carolina is now." (http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_history.htm; Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power)

 

Duane E. Jeffrey, a BYU professor noted that there was a “report by one of Joseph Smith’s brothers-in-law, Oliver Huntington, and published in the Juvenile Instructor, that Joseph taught that Noah built his ark in the vicinity of our present-day states of North or South Carolina.” (“Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions,” Sunstone, October 2004, p. 44, note 32)

 

So, as you can see, they are both reports from Huntingtons, for whatever it is worth, but they coincide with the statement from the book of Mormon in Ether.

 

I suppose that someone that is up to the task could search out primary/original sources.

 

 

Oliver Huntington probably isn't the best source for what JS believed.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

[DragonLancer]

Oliver Huntington probably isn't the best source for what JS believed.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

 

Joseph Smith in his revelations, when speaking by the spirit, was a wonderful and effective conduit for the will of God.

I see no reason to believe that Joseph Smith, in his speculations, was different than anyone else of the time.  

It is well documented that Brigham Young believed the Sun was inhabited.  There is no difference here.

People can engage in speculation when they are prophets, and are not always inspired.  So there is no need to find fault with Oliver Huntington as the messenger.

We might as well let Joseph Smith be the one to actually have said what he said.  It means nothing for his prophetic abilities.

Furthermore, the statements from the Huntingtons are supported by the statement in Ether.  There would be more reason to question if there was no supporting pillar from the Book of Mormon, saying that the waters had covered some unknown portion of the American continent (how extensive a flood was in America is anyone's guess).  It is logical that it at least took place in South Carolina but there is no information to show how extensive.

That's the difference between quoting "any old statement", versus a methodology of having supporting information in scripture.  The reliability of the statement is much more plausible than standing on its own.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Sure.

 

Dec 5, 1891 - Stake President relates "incident of the Prophet Joseph telling Dimick B Huntington.....that Noah built the Ark in the land where South Carolina is now." (http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_history.htm; Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power)

 

Duane E. Jeffrey, a BYU professor noted that there was a “report by one of Joseph Smith’s brothers-in-law, Oliver Huntington, and published in the Juvenile Instructor, that Joseph taught that Noah built his ark in the vicinity of our present-day states of North or South Carolina.” (“Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions,” Sunstone, October 2004, p. 44, note 32)

 

So, as you can see, they are both reports from Huntingtons, for whatever it is worth, but they coincide with the statement from the book of Mormon in Ether.

 

I suppose that someone that is up to the task could search out primary/original sources.

 

Do you have any primary sources? And they are really late.

These look like a "he said she said" type of thing. They really are not very useful.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

Joseph Smith in his revelations, when speaking by the spirit, was a wonderful and effective conduit for the will of God.

I see no reason to believe that Joseph Smith, in his speculations, was different than anyone else of the time.  

It is well documented that Brigham Young believed the Sun was inhabited.  There is no difference here.

People can engage in speculation when they are prophets, and are not always inspired.  So there is no need to find fault with Oliver Huntington as the messenger.

We might as well let Joseph Smith be the one to actually have said what he said.  It means nothing for his prophetic abilities.

Furthermore, the statements from the Huntingtons are supported by the statement in Ether.  There would be more reason to question if there was no supporting pillar from the Book of Mormon, saying that the waters had covered some unknown portion of the American continent (how extensive a flood was in America is anyone's guess).  It is logical that it at least took place in South Carolina but there is no information to show how extensive.

That's the difference between quoting "any old statement", versus a methodology of having supporting information in scripture.  The reliability of the statement is much more plausible than standing on its own.

 

That he was. His personal ideas not withstanding he was the Prophet of the Restoration.

 

BY had a lot of personal ideas we now know that were flat out wrong. But I don't hold that against him. He was a brilliant leader and I personally doubt the Church would have survived without his strong leadership in leading the Church across the American plains, and that first decade in the valley of the Salt Lake. 

 

I don't believe we can use the Scriptures as a vehicle to establish any specific place in the America's for Noah and company.

[DragonLancer]

Do you have any primary sources? And they are really late.

These look like a "he said she said" type of thing. They really are not very useful.

 

They are indeed a he said she said type of thing, which is the problem with all such statements.  That's the best I have on the subject, and given enough time, if I had a lot of interest in the subject, I could dig, but I don't have that much interest.  I am spending my time on Book of Abraham and KEP research for the foreseeable future.  That's why you really do have to either take it or leave it.  I would recommend to you that if it isn't convincing to you as is that you just leave it, because I really have nothing to offer beyond this.  Defending the Huntington statements isn't something that I have a real lot of dedication to, nor do I plan on putting a lot of effort into trying.  I am offering it up as something that somebody else that has more dedication to the subject can follow up on or try harder to defend.

 

I have made the choice to believe in the statements myself based on the statement in Ether.  Either way, Ether is plausibly speaking of a local flood in America.  The advantage of the Huntingtons statements is the possibility of narrowing it down to a coastal area.  The real evidence for this point of view is in Ether.

Edited December 9, 2014 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

That he was. His personal ideas not withstanding he was the Prophet of the Restoration.

 

BY had a lot of personal ideas we now know that were flat out wrong. But I don't hold that against him. He was a brilliant leader and I personally doubt the Church would have survived without his strong leadership in leading the Church across the American plains, and that first decade in the valley of the Salt Lake. 

 

I don't believe we can use the Scriptures as a vehicle to establish any specific place in the America's for Noah and company.

 

Absolutely.  But that is all I was saying for the statement is this, in summary.  Here is the logic flow for this conclusion whoever may be interested:

 

(1) The scriptures are real records of real, historical people with real historical events (yes, I know David Bokovoy and others push for entirely pseudepigraphical or fictional explanations for Genesis in some cases.  I disagree in the case of the flood and Noah).

(2) The flood happened somewhere on the planet, but geologic and other scientific evidence shows it is clearly not global.  The biggest evidence is continuity of species in the various places that they have been for millions of years.  They didn't get wiped out by a global flood and then just miraculously go back to exactly where they were before.  The ark didn't magically have every species and subspecies of terrestrial life on the planet in it.  And other magical explanations are not acceptable.

(3) Archaeological continuity is clear all over the earth going back tens of thousands of years.

(4) Since we know that the flood was not global, it is nice that the Book of Mormon provides a statement in Ether that seems to support the idea that the flood happened in America.  This narrows it down to a specific continent.

(5) The plausibility of the Huntington statements in conjunction with the Book of Mormon text is a strong indication that the flood happened at least on the east coast.  It could have been a disaster much like a huge Tsunami or something, or who knows what.  Narrowing it down to the east coast makes the claim scientifically testable.  Can we find evidence of a flood somewhere in the vicinity of 2500 BC to 5000 BC on the east coast of North America?

(6) LDS tradition places Adam and his descendants in North America, so its logical that Noah would be too, assuming that the heartland of pre-flood Adamic descendants didn't change.  Perhaps there were migrations from the area, but its logical that people mostly stayed in North America that were descendants of Adam.  The people from other places in Asia and so forth up until this time were clearly descendants of Neaderthal and Cro Magnon and so forth.

(7) I actually forgot to mention before something else that seems to support this position. There is actually a hint in the Book of Moses in the Enoch section that the abode of the prophets at the time (the land of Cainan) was near the east sea, in the domain of the sons of Adam.  Enoch said:

 

41 And he said unto them: I came out from the land of Cainan, the land of my fathers, a land of righteousness unto this day. And my father taught me in all the ways of God.

And it came to pass, as I journeyed from the land of Cainan, by the sea east, I beheld a vision; and lo, the heavens I saw, and the Lord spake with me, and gave me commandment; wherefore, for this cause, to keep the commandment, I speak forth these words.  (Moses 6:42-43)

 

It seems that after the time of Adam in Adam-Ondi-Ahman, the righteous people went to the coast.  It is clear from the D&C that they all took a trip to Adam Ondi Ahman for the conference there, but still, the prophets had made the east coast their home after the time of Adam.  This would have been where Noah continued to live.  And it is very plausible that it happened to be SOUTH CAROLINA, that was the pre-flood land of Cainan.

 

(8 ) It is an interesting parallel that South Carolina became a place that was related to modern destructions of people in America, being the place where the rebellion started, that ended up resulting in the destruction of many souls in the Civil War.  That is an interesting coincidence that that place would be involved twice in the destructions of the wicked on American soil.  It is clear that things happen over and over again with geographic places, sometimes in sacred history, such as with Cumorah being the place of destruction for the wicked twice.  And also with Mount Moriah being the place of the attempted sacrifice of Isaac and also the place of the temple.

 

The evidence seems to coincide because the prophets had been there for some time, as Enoch said.  It was the land of his fathers.  Even if you discount the Huntington statements, this hint in the Book of Moses about the Geography of the place where Enoch and his fathers lived is a good indication of where Noah probably continued to live, and then finally, the local land of Cainan became wicked at the time of Noah, ripe for destruction.  Far from being the destruction of all flesh all over the planet, the flood seems to be the way the Lord elected to destroy the land of Cainan locally.  From Noah's perspective, he was taken out to sea, so he could only see water.

 

Right after the flood, people started all congregating together in one in Babel.  Could this be the hint or indication that perhaps something similar was happening in the coast of North America, and that the tower of Babel was a repeat?  Perhaps "all flesh" was destroyed, meaning, all the sons of Adam, except for Noah's family.  Perhaps the other men that survived were not sons of Adam at all, but were Cro Magnon/Neanderthal descendants.  They were the "gentiles" of the time.  The covenant race were the descendants of Adam at the time.  Perhaps it was only later on that people really started mixing in with the "gentile" races in Asia after the flood.

Edited December 9, 2014 by DragonLancer

[mnn727]

Oliver Huntington probably isn't the best source for what JS believed.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

However it is well known and well documented that Joseph believed that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden and into Missouri, so South Carolina would fit (as would all of the Eastern Seaboard)

Edited December 9, 2014 by mnn727

[thesometimesaint]

However it is well known and well documented that Joseph believed that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden and into Missouri, so South Carolina would fit (as would all of the Eastern Seaboard)

 

The Gulf of Mexico is a lot closer. But I hesitate to claim any particular place in the America's for a variety of reasons.

[DragonLancer]

The Gulf of Mexico is a lot closer. But I hesitate to claim any particular place in the America's for a variety of reasons.

 

True, but that assumes that Noah was in the middle of the continent versus the eastern coast.  I am good with however it turns out.

[bcuzbcuz]

Joseph Smith in his revelations, when speaking by the spirit, was a wonderful and effective conduit for the will of God.

I see no reason to believe that Joseph Smith, in his speculations, was different than anyone else of the time.  

It is well documented that Brigham Young believed the Sun was inhabited.  There is no difference here.

People can engage in speculation when they are prophets, and are not always inspired.  So there is no need to find fault with Oliver Huntington as the messenger.

We might as well let Joseph Smith be the one to actually have said what he said.  It means nothing for his prophetic abilities.

Furthermore, the statements from the Huntingtons are supported by the statement in Ether.  There would be more reason to question if there was no supporting pillar from the Book of Mormon, saying that the waters had covered some unknown portion of the American continent (how extensive a flood was in America is anyone's guess).  It is logical that it at least took place in South Carolina but there is no information to show how extensive.

That's the difference between quoting "any old statement", versus a methodology of having supporting information in scripture.  The reliability of the statement is much more plausible than standing on its own.

The Carolina´s? Who woulda thought?

How deep a port would be needed for a boat from Genesis 6:15 that tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark?

A boat that length, fully loaded, What would be the displacement of such a craft? How much of the boat would be under water level? AAnd therefore, how deep would the water need to be?

[DragonLancer]

The Carolina´s? Who woulda thought?

How deep a port would be needed for a boat from Genesis 6:15 that tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark?

A boat that length, fully loaded, What would be the displacement of such a craft? How much of the boat would be under water level? AAnd therefore, how deep would the water need to be?

 

All good questions for those inclined to do the math.

 

I doubt a port would be needed if it was built on land close to the coast and deep water flowing over the land swept it out to sea.

 

I think its a classic assumption that no port would be necessary in the global scenario because the land would be covered with water.  In this, a similar assumption could be made I suppose.

Edited December 9, 2014 by DragonLancer

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

They are indeed a he said she said type of thing, which is the problem with all such statements.  That's the best I have on the subject, and given enough time, if I had a lot of interest in the subject, I could dig, but I don't have that much interest.  I am spending my time on Book of Abraham and KEP research for the foreseeable future.  That's why you really do have to either take it or leave it.  I would recommend to you that if it isn't convincing to you as is that you just leave it, because I really have nothing to offer beyond this.  Defending the Huntington statements isn't something that I have a real lot of dedication to, nor do I plan on putting a lot of effort into trying.  I am offering it up as something that somebody else that has more dedication to the subject can follow up on or try harder to defend.

 

I have made the choice to believe in the statements myself based on the statement in Ether.  Either way, Ether is plausibly speaking of a local flood in America.  The advantage of the Huntingtons statements is the possibility of narrowing it down to a coastal area.  The real evidence for this point of view is in Ether.

Fair enough.

[DragonLancer]

https://books.google.com/books?id=XmwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=carolina+ancient+flood&source=bl&ots=xSQ2uwyk-1&sig=iysWmLqb3ZkhjTfQHF7p-2MS-h8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1o2HVK23MNDqoASq-oG4CQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=carolina%20ancient%20flood&f=false

 

This is not really a source for anything of significance because of its early date.  Rather it is just a starting place for posing questions, but it would be nice to know from a current Geologist if there is indeed evidence for such a thing.

Edited December 10, 2014 by DragonLancer

[MormonFreeThinker]

The Church Institute manuals says that the evidence for an Old Earth is strong.  

"Very few people, either members of the Church or members of other religions, hold to this theory, since the evidence for longer processes involved in the Creation is substantial"

 

If the Earth is Old, that means that the geological formation in Arches cannot be young. The same evidence that proves the Earth is Old, also proves that geological formations in Arches are Old. You can't cherry pick the Science. 

 

 

Elder Uchtdorf  said, "scientists can look at the rings of trees and make educated guesses about climate and growing conditions hundreds and even thousands of years ago" 

 

Old Tjikko tree is 9,550 years old. 

 

 

Methuselah is a 4846-year-old Great Basin bristlecone pine tree  

 

Edited December 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

The Church Institute manuals says that the evidence for an Old Earth is strong.  

"Very few people, either members of the Church or members of other religions, hold to this theory, since the evidence for longer processes involved in the Creation is substantial"

 

If the Earth is Old, that means that the geological formation in Arches cannot be young. The same evidence that proves the Earth is Old, also proves that geological formations in Arches are Old. You can't cherry pick the Science. 

 

 

Elder Uchtdorf  said, "scientists can look at the rings of trees and make educated guesses about climate and growing conditions hundreds and even thousands of years ago" 

 

Old Tjikko tree is 9,550 years old. 

 

 

Methuselah is a 4846-year-old Great Basin bristlecone pine tree  

 

From that same source it also says-

Although the majority of geologists, astronomers, and other scientists believe that even this long period is not adequate to explain the physical evidence found in the earth, there are a small number of reputable scholars who disagree. These claim that the geologic clocks are misinterpreted and that tremendous catastrophes in the earth’s history speeded up the processes that normally may take thousands of years. They cite evidence supporting the idea that thirteen thousand years is not an unrealistic time period. Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals have occurred in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity. These books are Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval. Two Latter-day Saint scientists, Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, have also advocated this theory in their book Science and Mormonism. A short summary of the Cooks’ approach can be found in Paul Cracroft’s article “How Old Is the Earth?” (Improvement Era, Oct. 1964, pp. 827–30, 852).

Also, on your tree dating methods- it has been proven that tree ring dating is not always accurate. There are some years where several growth rings will appear.

[MormonFreeThinker]

From that same source it also says

 

So you believe the Earth is only some thousands of years old? If no, why not?

 

 

Also, on your tree dating methods- it has been proven that tree ring dating is not always accurate. There are some years where several growth rings will appear.

 

For some trees, including bristlecone pine, ponderosa pine, and douglass fir, double rings are rare and easy to spot with a little practice. A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too young. For most of the dendrochronological record, dates are determined from more than one source, so errors can be spotted and corrected. Dendrochronology is in rough agreement with carbon-14 dating, so even if it is off, it is not off by much. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years. Noah's flood happened about 4,500 years ago according to some Bible timelines. 

Edited December 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

http://geology.byu.edu/museum/

[mnn727]

Although the majority of geologists, astronomers, and other scientists believe that even this long period is not adequate to explain the physical evidence found in the earth, there are a small number of disreputable scholars who disagree. 

I corrected your post.

[Rob Osborn]

I corrected your post.

It was quoted material.

[Rob Osborn]

So you believe the Earth is only some thousands of years old? If no, why not?

 

 

 

For some trees, including bristlecone pine, ponderosa pine, and douglass fir, double rings are rare and easy to spot with a little practice. A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too young. For most of the dendrochronological record, dates are determined from more than one source, so errors can be spotted and corrected. Dendrochronology is in rough agreement with carbon-14 dating, so even if it is off, it is not off by much. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years. Noah's flood happened about 4,500 years ago according to some Bible timelines.

Depends on what you mean by how old the earth is. I think matter itself is eternal. As for the organization of the planet? Who knows, it doesnt matter to me if it took 6000 years or 600 million. The main point is how old the earth is since death entered the world and that was some 6,000 years ago.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The main point is how old the earth is since death entered the world and that was some 6,000 years ago.

 

Why is it important to believe that? There are many members that believe in death before the Fall, including Elder Talmage. 

No one has been excommunicated for expressing that view, it is not apostasy, it is not false doctrine. 

 

"Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine." 

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

 

Can you name a member of the church who has been excommunicated for saying that there was death for millions of years?

 

I won't go to hell for expressing my views, I am going to go to the Temple today,  

Edited December 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[mnn727]

It was quoted material.

Yes and I corrected it. 

[ERayR]

Yes and I corrected it. 

 

Tis high to be a judge.

[Rob Osborn]

Why is it important to believe that? There are many members that believe in death before the Fall, including Elder Talmage. 

No one has been excommunicated for expressing that view, it is not apostasy, it is not false doctrine. 

 

"Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine." 

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

 

Can you name a member of the church who has been excommunicated for saying that there was death for millions of years?

 

I won't go to hell for expressing my views, I am going to go to the Temple today,

Its true that you will not be excommunicated for believing in death before the fall. The same can be said for those believe polygamy was never a commandment by God in the early days of the church. There are a myriad of such doctrines that doesnt place ones membership in peril for one belief over another. But, the fall really makes no sense if there was death before the fall. It also doesnt make much sense for there to be "men" before Adam on the earth when the scriptures tell us that Adam was the first man of all men on this earth. The flood also makes no sense if it were just a localized flood. These three doctrines (no death before the fall, Adam the first man, the global flood) all pretty much counter mainstream science and tell us that mans learning and wisdom is not on par with God and his mighty hand.