Was Noah Really a "Preacher of Righteousness"?

[cinepro]

(Edit: The info I was looking for is in The Book of Moses)

One aspect of the narrative of Noah and the Ark that seems to be a given for LDS is that Noah was a preacher of righteousness.  He wanted to convince people to live righteously and avoid death in the flood, but they just wouldn't listen.

On the Church's page about Noah, this claim is made with no reference to back it up:

Quote

Noah lived at a time when people thought and did evil continually (see Genesis 6:5, 11), and God called him to be a preacher of righteousness to that wicked generation. When the people rejected his message, God commanded Noah to build an ark, gather animals, and prepare for a flood.

We even have a picture of it:

The thing is, nowhere in the Bible does it say Noah actually tried to preach to anyone, or warn them about the flood.  In fact, when Noah is first told about the flood and commanded to build the ark, this is what he is told:

Quote

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.

He isn't told that he can bring in everyone who converts, or who has faith and believes.  He isn't told to warn people.  He is simply told that a flood will come, and that he gets to take his sons, wife and daughters-in-law.  That's it.

The second point, I guess, is that if the flood were actually a local event, then if Noah had tried to warn the people that everyone was going to die and they didn't believe him, then many of the doubters would have been right.

Edited April 23, 2018 by cinepro

[bluebell]

Here's what the BD says about Noah-

The patriarch; son of Lamech (Gen. 5:29–32). When he was 10 years old, Noah was ordained to the priesthood by Methuselah (D&C 107:52). He became a preacher of righteousness and declared the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as Enoch, teaching faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 2:5; Moses 8:19, 23–24). His life was sought by unbelievers, but he was preserved by the power of God (Moses 8:18, 26). He and his sons Japheth, Shem, and Ham, and their wives, making eight in all, were saved from the Flood by the ark he had built at the command of God (Gen. 6–8; Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20). We learn from latter-day revelation that Noah is also the angel Gabriel (HC 3:386).

The Lord’s covenant with Noah affirmed that the earth would never be covered with a flood again (Gen. 9:1–17; Moses 7:49–52). Noah, a righteous man, holds the keys of a dispensation and stands next to Adam in authority (HC 3:386). Other references to Noah are Isa. 54:9; Ezek. 14:14, 20; Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 3:36; 17:26–27.

The exact reference that teaches that he was a 'preacher of righteousness' is in 2 Peter 2:5.  It talks about him warning people in Moses.

Edited April 23, 2018 by bluebell

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

We even have a picture of it:

Good thing they had photographic technology back then and took pictures like this to document these important events.  I just wish they had gotten some pictures from the ark when the waters were covering the whole earth, a picture from space would have been cool.  

Also, Noah must have been pretty buff under that toga, with all that arm raising and ship building.  

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Here's what the BD says about Noah-

The patriarch; son of Lamech (Gen. 5:29–32). When he was 10 years old, Noah was ordained to the priesthood by Methuselah (D&C 107:52). He became a preacher of righteousness and declared the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as Enoch, teaching faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 2:5; Moses 8:19, 23–24). His life was sought by unbelievers, but he was preserved by the power of God (Moses 8:18, 26). He and his sons Japheth, Shem, and Ham, and their wives, making eight in all, were saved from the Flood by the ark he had built at the command of God (Gen. 6–8; Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20). We learn from latter-day revelation that Noah is also the angel Gabriel (HC 3:386).

The Lord’s covenant with Noah affirmed that the earth would never be covered with a flood again (Gen. 9:1–17; Moses 7:49–52). Noah, a righteous man, holds the keys of a dispensation and stands next to Adam in authority (HC 3:386). Other references to Noah are Isa. 54:9; Ezek. 14:14, 20; Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 3:36; 17:26–27.

The exact reference that teaches that he was a 'preacher of righteousness' is in 2 Peter 2:5.  It talks about him warning people in Moses.

Ah, I should have checked the footnotes.  The Book of Moses adds a lot more to the narrative.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

(Edit: The info I was looking for is in The Book of Moses)

One aspect of the narrative of Noah and the Ark that seems to be a given for LDS is that Noah was a preacher of righteousness.  He wanted to convince people to live righteously and avoid death in the flood, but they just wouldn't listen.

On the Church's page about Noah, this claim is made with no reference to back it up:

We even have a picture of it:

The thing is, nowhere in the Bible does it say Noah actually tried to preach to anyone, or warn them about the flood.  In fact, when Noah is first told about the flood and commanded to build the ark, this is what he is told:

He isn't told that he can bring in everyone who converts, or who has faith and believes.  He isn't told to warn people.  He is simply told that a flood will come, and that he gets to take his sons, wife and daughters-in-law.  That's it.

The second point, I guess, is that if the flood were actually a local event, then if Noah had tried to warn the people that everyone was going to die and they didn't believe him, then many of the doubters would have been right.

I think he gave member referrals to Enoch, and the converts subsequently moved to Zion and were eventually taken up to be rescued from the Flood. So why the ark? It's such a bummer to be translated only to be returned to mortality.

Edited April 24, 2018 by CV75

[stemelbow]

I don't think there's any reason to take Noah's story so literally.  It's most likely a mythical story involving Noah, centuries after the dates estimated for NOah's life.  One of the larger mistakes with the Bible, people seem to make, is to take it so literally.  

[Robert F. Smith]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think there's any reason to take Noah's story so literally.  It's most likely a mythical story involving Noah, centuries after the dates estimated for NOah's life.  One of the larger mistakes with the Bible, people seem to make, is to take it so literally.  

It is much more complicated than that, stemelbow.  There are multiple Flood Stories in the ancient world, most of them earlier than the biblical one, and they all share many points in common.  It is impossible that they are not related to one another.  The biblical writers are not witnesses to such an ancient event, and have no idea whether any of the particulars are correct.  They are merely passing the story on in a form that is familiar to them.  The archetypal meaning which the story has is its main importance.  The facts are lost in the mists of time.  The same applies to the various Creation Stories, as well as to the variant stories of the Life of Christ:

Quote

One important thing to consider is that just because a story has multiple versions, it doesn’t mean that they are incorrect. For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all true and sacred books of scripture, and yet they each present a different version of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. It seems that something similar played out in the early accounts of the Creation.

Not only do Abraham, Moses, and Genesis each contain different versions of the Creation, but several biblical passages provide clues that there were even more versions. In Genesis 1, for example, we learn that creation from chaos took six days, starting with light and ending with humans. Genesis 2, on the other hand, has no mention of the number of days. In addition, it reports that man was created first, then Eden, plants, animals, and finally woman.
* * * * * 
In the Book of Job, on the other hand, God “laid the foundations of the earth” (38:4), “laid the measures” and “stretched the line upon it” (v. 5). He also “fastened” the foundations and “laid the corner stone thereof” (v. 6), and “shut up the sea with doors” (v. 8). In Psalm 104 God created the earth by stretching “out the heavens like a curtain” (v. 2), and laying “the beams of his chambers in the waters” (v. 3). He also laid “the foundations of the earth” (v. 5), covering the earth with waters and setting bounds that they cannot pass (v. 9), and appointing “the moon for seasons” (v. 19).  Book of Mormon Central, “Why Do We Have Three Different Accounts of the Creation? (2 Nephi 2:22),” KnoWhy #400, January 18, 2018, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-do-we-have-three-different-accounts-of-the-creation .

We need to adopt much broader and more sophisticated views of ancient Scripture, none of which was composed by professional historians under the rules of modern historiography.  We need to understand such literature in proper context.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is much more complicated than that, stemelbow.  There are multiple Flood Stories in the ancient world, most of them earlier than the biblical one, and they all share many points in common.  It is impossible that they are not related to one another.  The biblical writers are not witnesses to such an ancient event, and have no idea whether any of the particulars are correct.  They are merely passing the story on in a form that is familiar to them.  The archetypal meaning which the story has is its main importance.  The facts are lost in the mists of time.  The same applies to the various Creation Stories, as well as to the variant stories of the Life of Christ:

We need to adopt much broader and more sophisticated views of ancient Scripture, none of which was composed by professional historians under the rules of modern historiography.  We need to understand such literature in proper context.

Why, when Church doctrine, signed off by modern day Prophets, presumably after consultation with God, is that the flood of Noah was literal, global, happened around 2,300BCE and wiped out all of humanity except for the eight people and animals on a single boat? Are you saying the Church has it wrong?

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why, when Church doctrine, signed off by modern day Prophets, presumably after consultation with God, is that the flood of Noah was literal, global, happened around 2,300BCE and wiped out all of humanity except for the eight people and animals on a single boat? Are you saying the Church has it wrong?

You are anthropomorphizing the Church, which is a fallacy.  The Church doesn't get things right or wrong.  People inside a Church might get things right or wrong, and we need to specify which items some Church members got right and which they got wrong.  When we name them, and cite out sources, we may make some marginal gains in understanding just what the facts are.  There is, for example, no official LDS position on when the Great Deluge occurred.  Indeed, the LDS "Bible Dictionary" published by the Church pooh poohs such a notion (see under "Chronology").

One thing that might help you in your appraisal is to take seriously the words I quoted from Book of Mormon Central about the variant stories of creation, the life of Christ, etc.  You need to engage the fact that ancient prophets have given us mutually irreconcilable parallel accounts of such events.  Sometimes it is helpful to sit in on local university courses on biblical literature (such courses are also available online).

[rongo]

Going back to cinepro's opening post, I think there's a lot we don't know about Noah and his ministry (Book of Moses helps, but I think there's more than that, too). Noah was the angel Gabriel, according to Joseph Smith, and was subsequently given the mission of "calling" Mary and Zechariah (announcing the important births). Joseph Smith specifically singles him out as one of the premier Eliases, or forerunners. So, he wasn't just some guy who built an ark and said, "No ark for you!" to people. I think there is good reason to assume, as Harry Anderson (a non-Mormon) did in his painting, that Noah spent a lot of time during the centuries the ark was built trying to get people to repent and accept the gospel. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by rongo

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are anthropomorphizing the Church, which is a fallacy.  The Church doesn't get things right or wrong.  People inside a Church might get things right or wrong, and we need to specify which items some Church members got right and which they got wrong.  When we name them, and cite out sources, we may make some marginal gains in understanding just what the facts are.  There is, for example, no official LDS position on when the Great Deluge occurred.  Indeed, the LDS "Bible Dictionary" published by the Church pooh poohs such a notion (see under "Chronology").

One thing that might help you in your appraisal is to take seriously the words I quoted from Book of Mormon Central about the variant stories of creation, the life of Christ, etc.  You need to engage the fact that ancient prophets have given us mutually irreconcilable parallel accounts of such events.  Sometimes it is helpful to sit in on local university courses on biblical literature (such courses are also available online).

Actually, I’m taking Church Leaders at their word. Your way, nothing is what it seems, which erodes entirely the doctrinal foundation of the Church. 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Actually, I’m taking Church Leaders at their word. Your way, nothing is what it seems, which erodes entirely the doctrinal foundation of the Church. 

As Brother Brigham used to say, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."  And as Joseph used to say, "A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such."

Taking leaders who are merely expressing human opinions at their word is nice (when and if they are infallible), but what do you do when they don't agree with one another, or when you attribute to them positions which they have not taken?  You need to cite your sources and carefully compare what leaders actually say, not the figments of your imagination.  That way you just might make some marginal gains.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Marginal Gains]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As Brother Brigham used to say, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."  And as Joseph used to say, "A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such."

Taking leaders who are merely expressing human opinions at their word is nice (when and if they are infallible), but what do you do when they don't agree with one another, or when you attribute to them positions which they have not taken?  You need to cite your sources and carefully compare what leaders actually say, not the figments of your imagination.  That way you must might make some marginal gains.

Can you show me where the Church, not humans expressing personal opinions, allows for the flood of Noah to be anything other than literal, global, wiping out all but eight of the entire human race that populated the planet when it happened?

[Kevin Christensen]

Robert's point that the Church is a bunch of humans with personal opinions is important here.  And there is the fact that the Greek ekklesia means "assembly or gathering" that is, a bunch of people with personal opinions.  And there is the formal statement regarding the authority of my servants in D&C 1.

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

And there is the fact that historically, we do have differences of opinion around.   For instance, this:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/134-27-45.pdf

And there is the issue of passages like this:

Quote

Else, if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to morrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast:

5 And they shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field:

....

And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such.

15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

Oddly enough, we don't have any debates about whether the plague of locusts covered Australia and Greenland, as well as Egypt.

And passages like this:

Quote

And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

Which makes sense because in Hebrew land and earth are the same word.

And stuff like this from Nibley.

Quote

So with Noah in the ark. From where he was, “the whole earth” (Genesis 8:9) was covered with water as far as he could see; after things had quieted down for 150 days and the ark ground to a halt, it was still three months before he could see any mountaintops. But what were conditions in other parts of the world? If Noah knew that, he would not have sent forth messenger birds to explore. The flood as he described it is what he saw of it. “He sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground.” (Genesis 8:8.) Couldn’t he see for himself? Not where the dove went. It was not until seven days later that he sent it out again; and after flying all day, the bird came back with a green leaf fetched from afar; “so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.” (Genesis 8:11.) Still he waited another seven days. When the dove did not return, Noah had his answer. In some distant place, trees were bearing and there was birdfood to be found. But not where Noah was. All that time he had not dared to open up.

Note that the author does not fall into the literary trap of telling where the birds went and what they saw. That became a standard theme of early Oriental literature, faithfully reflected in the classical stories of the sea-eagle and the hoopoe. All Noah tells us is what he saw of the birds and the flood. The rain continued at least in spots, for there was that magnificent rainbow. Why do Christians insist on calling it the first rainbow, just because it is the first mentioned? Who says that water drops did not refract light until that day? Well, my old Sunday School teacher, for one, used to say it. The rainbow, like the sunrise, is strictly the product of a point of view, for which the beholder must stand in a particular place while it is raining in another particular place and the sun is in a third particular place, if he is to see it at all. It is a lesson in relativity.

...

Speaking of Noah, God promised Enoch “that he [God] would call upon the children of Noah; and he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed [Enoch’s through Noah] should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; and the Lord said: Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come.” (Moses 7:51—53.) Methuselah boasted about his line as something special. (Moses 8:2—3.) Why special if it included the whole human race? These blessings have no meaning if all the people of the earth and all the nations are the seed of Noah and Enoch. What other line could the Messiah come through? Well, there were humans who were not invited by Enoch’s preaching—not included among the residue of people not entering Enoch’s city. They were “the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain . . . had not place among them.” (Moses 7:22.)

That is in Nibley's 1980 "Before Adam." 

And again, there is the issue of authority, and whether prophets are sock puppets, with one input and one output, or people, who are rather more complex:

Quote

Alma is especially instructive on the nature and extent and sources for prophetic knowledge:

Now as to this thing I do not know. . . . But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me. (Alma 7:8-9)

Now I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know. . . . Now when this time cometh no one knows. . . . Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, . . . it mattereth not; for God knoweth all things; and it sufficeth me to know in this case . . . what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently to know; and this is the thing of which I do know. . . . Behold it has been made known unto me by an angel. . . . Now, whether . . . I do not say; let it suffice, that . . . I do not say that . . . but behold, I give it as my opinion.” (Alma 40:3-5, 9, 11, 19-20)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Robert's point that the Church is a bunch of humans with personal opinions is important here.  And there is the fact that the Greek ekklesia means "assembly or gathering" that is, a bunch of people with personal opinions.  And there is the formal statement regarding the authority of my servants in D&C 1.

And there is the fact that historically, we do have differences of opinion around.   For instance, this:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/134-27-45.pdf

And there is the issue of passages like this:

Oddly enough, we don't have any debates about whether the plague of locusts covered Australia and Greenland, as well as Egypt.

And passages like this:

Which makes sense because in Hebrew land and earth are the same word.

And stuff like this from Nibley.

That is in Nibley's 1980 "Before Adam." 

And again, there is the issue of authority, and whether prophets are sock puppets, with one input and one output, or people, who are rather more complex:

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Aren't you forgetting the earth baptism theology (coupled with baptism by fire when the earth is refined and resurrected)? Or will the conflageration only be in the Carolinas or Black Sea area as well?

There is a big difference between the "face of all the land" passages you quoted, and the language describing the Flood. And let's not forget the Book of Moses and Book of Mormon passages, as well as the consistent and unified teaching and interpretation from every prophet and apostle on this. Even John A. Widtsoe found it necessary to speculate about a worldwide rain so heavy that every bit of earth and mountain was covered at once --- thus making it unnecessary for everything to be submerged, but allowing for everything to be covered at one instant (not unlike some font baptisms).

[mfbukowski]

On 4/23/2018 at 3:08 PM, hope_for_things said:

Good thing they had photographic technology back then and took pictures like this to document these important events.  I just wish they had gotten some pictures from the ark when the waters were covering the whole earth, a picture from space would have been cool.  

Also, Noah must have been pretty buff under that toga, with all that arm raising and ship building.  

It needs dialogue bubbles from the people below saying "Scoff " from each one though.

[Kevin Christensen]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

Aren't you forgetting the earth baptism theology (coupled with baptism by fire when the earth is refined and resurrected)? Or will the conflageration only be in the Carolinas or Black Sea area as well?

There is a big difference between the "face of all the land" passages you quoted, and the language describing the Flood. And let's not forget the Book of Moses and Book of Mormon passages, as well as the consistent and unified teaching and interpretation from every prophet and apostle on this. Even John A. Widtsoe found it necessary to speculate about a worldwide rain so heavy that every bit of earth and mountain was covered at once --- thus making it unnecessary for everything to be submerged, but allowing for everything to be covered at one instant (not unlike some font baptisms).

Ben McGuire pointed out the baptism of the earth speculation was circulating in Protestant circles long before we showed up. And he asks 'When did the earth sin so that it requires baptism?'

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ben McGuire pointed out the baptism of the earth speculation was circulating in Protestant circles long before we showed up. And he asks 'When did the earth sin so that it requires baptism?'

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

There is also a problem that the water of the earth is part of the earth, so how can oceans and rivers be part of what is used to baptize the earth?

Elder Widtsoe's theory about baptism being a layer of rain that needs not be more than a minute covering works better than a deluge because of that issue.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ben McGuire pointed out the baptism of the earth speculation was circulating in Protestant circles long before we showed up. And he asks 'When did the earth sin so that it requires baptism?'

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Couldn't the fall, which also affected the earth, be a valid answer for why the earth would need baptism?

[MormonMason]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why, when Church doctrine, signed off by modern day Prophets, presumably after consultation with God, is that the flood of Noah was literal, global, happened around 2,300BCE and wiped out all of humanity except for the eight people and animals on a single boat? Are you saying the Church has it wrong?

The Church tries to stick with their understanding of scripture.  Further revelation, however, can change some portions of that understanding.  Many members of the Church believe that all were wiped out but the eight.  I do not hold that view, however.  My reason for not holding that belief is because of what I have read in the writings of Josephus and the Book of Moses.  Josephus writes that there were other survivors of the flood besides the eight.  Moses also implies it, at least the way I read it.  Another factor is that the word translated "earth" also can be translated "land" (local meaning).  But as to Moses, here is the passage that seems to support my understanding:

Quote

49 And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?
50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.
51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah;
52 And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand;

(Moses 7:49–52)

My understanding? You cannot have a remnant of Noah's seed preserved among the nations if each and every single person on earth is a literal, lineal descendent of Noah.  If that were so, there would be no remnant of his seed.  They all would be his seed, as would be those of all nations.  But if some were not his descendants among the nations, this saying makes a lot of sense to me because then a remnant would be found among such nations.  Perhaps not everyone was wiped out in the flood as we have long thought.

The thing is, most major cultures have flood stories.  The names and details differ, and sometimes the number of people.  What if God had many people make arks of various sorts all around the globe? What if some people managed to climb mountains high enough to allow them to survive? Not everywhere on the entire globe had to have had water 40 cubits deep.  What the Bible was describing may have only been descriptive of local land rather than the entire earth when it comes to describing how high the water was over the mountains in that particular region.  The same word in Hebrew can mean land, region, country, or earth, just like another word does in Greek.  That is not to say it was the same all over the globe.  A single millimeter of water deep in some places still would fulfill the literal understanding of the baptism-of-the-earth analogy.  Anyone in such a region would likely survive.  So I tend to keep an open mind on this.  I know a number of others who think likewise.

Edited April 25, 2018 by MormonMason

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ben McGuire pointed out the baptism of the earth speculation was circulating in Protestant circles long before we showed up. And he asks 'When did the earth sin so that it requires baptism?'

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I’m thinking when the earth collided with another large body and that collision created the moon.  In other words, sexual sin.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ben McGuire pointed out the baptism of the earth speculation was circulating in Protestant circles long before we showed up. And he asks 'When did the earth sin so that it requires baptism?'

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Great point. I never liked that idea but I didn't understand why.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/23/2018 at 3:00 PM, cinepro said:

 

Actually, the caption they left out is: "It's gonna be HUUUUGE"

That's part of the Bible that was not translated correctly.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Aren't you forgetting the earth baptism theology (coupled with baptism by fire when the earth is refined and resurrected)? Or will the conflageration only be in the Carolinas or Black Sea area as well?

We also have the theology of Moses leading Israel dryshod through the Red Sea being an actual baptism (1 Cor 10:2).  How is it that they can have a baptism without getting wet?  Clearly we need to consider the issue more broadly.  We need to consider the constant presence of hyperbole, and of figures of speech.  We must not sink to the level of yokels, as so often happens with the evangelicals.

5 hours ago, rongo said:

There is a big difference between the "face of all the land" passages you quoted, and the language describing the Flood. And let's not forget the Book of Moses and Book of Mormon passages, as well as the consistent and unified teaching and interpretation from every prophet and apostle on this. Even John A. Widtsoe found it necessary to speculate about a worldwide rain so heavy that every bit of earth and mountain was covered at once --- thus making it unnecessary for everything to be submerged, but allowing for everything to be covered at one instant (not unlike some font baptisms).

Scientist Widtsoe did not have the benefit of modern knowledge about the great Pluvial rains at the end of the last ice age, which some scholars credit with leading to the worldwide phenomenon of Flood Stories even where there isn't much water today.  So we can speculate all we want and not necessarily come to any real conclusion on such controversial issues -- which are not salvific in any case.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Can you show me where the Church, not humans expressing personal opinions, allows for the flood of Noah to be anything other than literal, global, wiping out all but eight of the entire human race that populated the planet when it happened?

You haven't yet responded to my posts, and you have made a number of false statements, all the while fallaciously personifying the LDS Church.  I asked you to cite your sources, and a few quotes wouldn't hurt.  You obviously haven't done your homework yet.  Can't have a real discussion if you are unprepared to engage the issues.