The significance of the literal global flood in the days of Noah

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It has been suggested that it doesn't matter whether Noah's flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened.

I would suggest that the reality of the literal global flood in the days of Noah matters. 

Here are some reasons why I  believe it matters.

1. Ancient and modern prophets have taught that the flood literally happened. The world wide global flood is spoken of as a literal historical event in the Old and New Testaments (including the JST) and in the Book of Mormon. From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, the leaders of the church who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have taught that the flood literally happened.

If we doubt the truthfulness of the words of the prophets in regards to the flood, what other words of the prophets will we doubt?

2. According to the scriptures, God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ both stated that the flood literally happened.

If we doubt the truthfulness of the word of God in regards to the flood, what other words of God will we doubt?

3. Why do we feel the need to doubt the word of God in regards to the flood having literally happened? 

The only reason we would doubt that the flood literally happened is because we have been taught in secular schools not to believe it. There's literally no other reason to doubt it. 

If we doubt God's word about the flood because of what secular schools tell us, what else will they cause us to doubt? 

Shouldn't our trust be in the word of God and not in the teachings of secular schools?

4. According to the scriptures the reality of the destruction of all life upon the earth, except for the lives on board the arc, during the literal global flood and the reality of the destruction of the wicked prior to the Lord's second coming are connected.

Doubting the one leads to doubting the other.

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.

(2 Peter 3:3-7)

36 ¶ But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

(Matthew 24:36-39)

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

(Luke 17:26-27)

If we doubt that the flood literally happened because of what we have be taught in secular schools, what reason do we have to believe in the literal second coming of the Savior and the literal fulfillment of the prophesied events that are to precede it?

And if we doubt the prophesies about the events of the last days and the return of the Savior, why would be anxiously watching and preparing for his return like he has commanded us to do?

In my opinion there is a very real danger in doubting whether the global flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened?

I see absolutely no benefit in doubting these stories. All I see is a step down the road to loss of faith and disillusionment.

But what do you all think?

Is there any good thing that can come from doubting that the flood literally happened?

The good thing that comes from doubting that a literal flood of the entire earth happened is that you accept the truth.  Because such an event did not happen. It certainly did not happen in the time frame the Bible gives it but really it just did not happen.  Ever. 

[Kevin Christensen]

What is the doctrine of Christ on which we should build, and what is more or less than that which constitutes building on sand?

Quote

Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. (3 Nephi 11)

Considering interpretation of scripture, Joseph Smith has this:

Quote

Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings (“all of them have some truth”), but because “creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.” ((Joseph F. Smith, ed. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 327.)) Joseph Smith also explained that “the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” ((Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:215.)) The real problem with creeds is not their content ((“I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn’t prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine.” Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183–84, spelling modernized.)) but their function. When in place, creeds place a person and a society beyond repentance, beyond change. Creeds box a person in and throw away the keys to further light and knowledge. If that is not abominable, what is?

Against the notion that prophets have only one input, God's omniscience and perfect understanding and transmission, and one output, the same, consider Nephi's and Alma's descriptions of their own inputs and outputs:

Quote

The Book of Mormon itself argues that on some matters a prophet might suppose he understood, and not ask, and therefore not
receive revelation (see 3 Nephi 15:15-23 on the matter of other sheep). Even revelation may not be all-encompassing. Nephi
says of Lehi's experience of a vision, "so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of
the water" (1Nephi 15:27). Nephi writes of himself"And now, if I do err, even they did err of old" (1 Nephi 19:6).
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 

That means Alma has recieved direct revelation on some things, has studied some things, doesn't know everything by revelation, and has some personal opinions. 

D&C 1:25-26 in formally stating the "authority of my servants" has this:

Quote

Inasmuch as they have erred, it might be made known.

Inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed

 Regarding anything covering the whole earth:

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 aresidue 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:

...

14 And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested bin 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. (Exodus 10)

If the "face of the earth" can be local and relative for locusts in Exodus (unless you think that we have to believe that they swarmed Australia, Antarctica, and Everest or our faith is vain), why not Genesis?  The Hebrew behind "land" and "earth" is the same word.

In a previous discussion here, Ben McGuire responsed to claims that the earth had to be baptized with the question, "When and how did the earth become accountable, sinful, and need to be baptised?"  He also pointed out that the notion comes from earlier Protestant thought, and is not an LDS doctrine.

In his Before Adam talk in 1980 at BYU, published in Old Testament and Related Studies, Hugh Nibley observed that what Genesis recounts is what Noah saw, and that Noah did not see where the birds went.  He also points to Moses 7:52, where the Lord covenants with Enoch that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, which is meaningless if after the flood, all nations were his seed.

BYU Professor Duane Jeffery offered this survey of Flood interpretations in LDS culture and science.

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

LDS scientist David Bailey highlights this quote from Brigham Young from 1871:

Quote

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts--they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-history-evolution.php

Since we are all ignorant relative to what God knows, the best thing for us is to repent of the beams in our own eyes, and, rather than set up stakes and bounds to what we must think now, as though we ought to conform to an existing Big Book of What to Think, we ought to seek ever greater light and knowledge, to seek enlightenment of our minds and enlargement of our souls.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[rongo]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This is too generalized.  Of course it matters whether "other" stories in the scriptures actually happened.  But we need to be specific about which stories.  For example, do you believe the story of the good Samaritan actually happened?   Do you believe the story of the sower who sowed seeds actually happened?  What about the story of the tame and wild olive tree in Jacob chapter 5?  Did that really happen?  Does it matter whether those stories actually happened for them to teach us truth?

Like @LDS Watchman said, you (and others) are taking stories told as parables and comparing them to stories told as history. Everyone (including the original hearers) knows the difference between the two. That isn't what we're talking about here. The question is: which, if any, of the historical stories in the Bible really happened? Trying to obscure the matter by asking things like "Do you believe the congress of trees in Judges 9:7-15 is real history?" is an attempt to make literalists look ridiculous. No one is talking about believing that parables really happened. 

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, rchorse said:

Since the flood and other stories can't be proven one way or the other with secular/scientific means (although the scientific means argue very strongly against a global flood), all I have left is revelation. God has not seen fit to reveal to me whether the flood was global or local, and the modern prophets haven't published any revelation on the matter.

Given that combination of circumstances, I've settled on the belief that it could have been global if God wanted it to be or it could have been local. If God doesn't think it's important enough to reveal one way or another, it can't really be important to my salvation. Especially when I contrast that against other points of gospel doctrine. God has revealed to me that he lives, that Jesus is his son and was resurrected, and that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. God has revealed to me that he still works miracles and speaks to modern prophets. 

In light of that, I'll take God's impressions on me of what's important to believe over what someone with no stewardship over me tells me is important to believe. While these historical, archaeological, and theological questions are fun to research and discuss, I could ultimately go either way on the majority of them and still sleep just fine at night in terms of my standing before God.

Yes if there was a global flood there would be plenty of evidence. There isn't. Case closed.

[rpn]

Has anyone mentioned that there is a possibility that the prophets didn't lie or were mistaken AND there was no worldwide flood?   We don't generally know what we don't know.   Noah could well have experienced his whole world under water.   But he would have no way to know that his view of the whole world wasn't really the  whole world.   There is lots of evidence that people's large world view anciently about how big the world was (not to mention it's shape) was not accurate.

I take comfort in the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates all absolute truth in whatever subject area or arena.   When we know everything, it will fit together and make sense.    God told us to study and learn in all areas as part of our individual discipleship, which means He's not afraid/concerned that what we learn is somehow going to disprove Him or undermine His plan.  

Edited December 17, 2020 by rpn

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The good thing that comes from doubting that a literal flood of the entire earth happened is that you accept the truth.  Because such an event did not happen. It certainly did not happen in the time frame the Bible gives it but really it just did not happen.  Ever. 

You are probably wrong there. The general trend is that the Earth was covered in water about 3 billion years ago so those who believe the Earth literally needs to be baptized are covered.

You would be hard pressed to have Noah in an ark because there would have been no wood to make it out of since the life forms at the time were not nearly that complex or even multicellular at all until about 600 million years ago.

Unless God had Noah travel through time.....I think I have cracked it.

Yes, and I know that is not what you were saying so no insult intended. I am just being a contrarian.

[2BizE]

I am a firm believer that the flood did not happen in the manner described, and that this story is simply an analogy or a parable.  Keep in mind that back in those days, someone’s worldview was much different. Their whole world knowledge could be contained in a small geographical area.

[rongo]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Speaking of the creation (Adam created from dust) and possibly the rest of Genesis, Brigham Young said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

Yes, and he also said:

"Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle." (Journal of Discourses 3:320)

and

"All this vast creation was produced from element in its unorganized state; the mountains, rivers, seas, valleys, plains, and the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms beneath and around us, all speaking forth the wonderful works of the Great God. Shall I say that the seeds of vegetables were planted here by the Characters that framed and, built this world—that the seeds of every plant composing the vegetable kingdom were brought from another world? This would be news to many of you. Who brought them here? It matters little to us whether it was John, James, William, Adam, or Bartholomew who brought them; but it was some Being who had power to frame this earth with its seas, valleys, mountains, and rivers, and cause it to teem with vegetable and animal life. Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth." (Journal of Discourses 7:285) 

I love Brigham Young's explanations and insight. He believed that the story about Eve being created from Adam's rib, and Adam being created out of dust to not be literal, but where would he come down on the issue of the Flood, or the Creation for that matter, if he were participating in this discussion? I don't think his view of transplanted humans and flora and fauna is any more palatable to the non-literalists among us than the Flood or the Creation or Tower of Babel (or thousands of other Bible stories) are. It seems disingenuous to me to use Brigham Young as a bromide against "nursery tales" in trying to get literalists to give up their silly nonsense. 

 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, rpn said:

Has anyone mentioned that there is a possibility that the prophets didn't lie or were mistaken AND there was no worldwide flood?   We don't generally know what we don't know.   Noah could well have experienced his whole world under water.   But he would have no way to know that his view of the whole world wasn't really the  whole world.   There is lots of evidence that people's large world view was anciently about how big the world was (not to mention it's shape) was not accurate.

There is even evidence for this if you take the account literally. Noah wouldn't have sent out birds if he was sure the whole earth was covered in water.

[LDS Watchman]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The good thing that comes from doubting that a literal flood of the entire earth happened is that you accept the truth.  Because such an event did not happen. It certainly did not happen in the time frame the Bible gives it but really it just did not happen.  Ever. 

I completely disagree. In my opinion rejecting the flood is akin to rejecting the truth.

What's next? Did the people of the Book of Mormon never exist? Did Jesus Christ ever exist? 

[rongo]

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

What about Christ's miracles, like turning water to wine, the feeding of the 5 thousand, raising the dead, giving the blind their sight, and so on?

Does it matter if these stories, which cannot be explained by secular science, actually happened? 

I think this is the crux of the matter. I'm not throwing down a gauntlet and insisting that people list what miracles they think actually happened, but I strongly suspect that the non-literalists believe "not very many, and of those, Jesus misunderstood according to His times." e.g., no real demonic possession, it was just what we would call mental illness or cerebral palsy, etc.).

I think part of this divide in the Church is belief in the possibility of miracles in our day. My wife, children, and I have experienced real Old and New Testament miracles, so we know that they are real and possible. Many members, though, don't really believe that they are possible in our day. Maybe hundreds or thousands of years ago, but today? 

I think we're living Moroni's warning about the time when people will believe that miracles have ceased, and I don't think he was referring only to people outside of the Church. 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It has been suggested that it doesn't matter whether Noah's flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened.

I think it may be helpful to differentiate a bit here.  Here is my thinking on the subject:

1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial

There are some "stories in the scriptures" that are helpful and valid even if they never "actually happened."  The Parable of the Talents, for example.  Historicity is not necessary for such stories to be instructive and "true."

The Parable of the Talents.    The Good Samaritan.  Zenock's Allegory of the Olive Tree.  The story of Job (maybe - I'm sort of conflicted on this one).  These are stories that may have actually happened, or may be purely fiction.  We'll never really know, I suppose.  But it doesn't matter, since these stories are intended to preach moral precepts, not establish the reality of the events described.  So they can be historical or ahistorical.  It doesn't matter.  

2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood

Then there are some stories that happened, but about which we lack the particulars, or about which we may harbor erroneous notions.  For example, I think it's sort of hard to deny that Noah's Flood happened at all, but I think the scope of it (local rather than literally every square inch of dry land in the world covered) is open for principled, reasoned discussion.  We must, in the end, construe/interpret scripture.  We should seek to understand it both in the way it was originally intended, and also in ways that reconcile the narrative with observable things.  Consider, for example, Luke 2:1, which states: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  Dan Peterson noted:

Quote

Augustus was much too savvy to have invited the Persians and the Chinese -- or even the Germanic tribes of Scandinavia, the Picts of Scotland, or the ancient Irish -- to pay taxes to him. He wasn't savvy enough to have demanded taxes from the Japanese, the Maya, the Hawaiians, the Tibetans, and the Congolese. Augustus, a competent and realistic ruler, sought to collect taxes from all of those who were subject to him. Which, though many, wasn't exactly "all the world." It wasn't even all the known world.

In other words, even though the text says "all the world should be taxed," nobody interprets this verse in an absolutist, literal way.

For this category of narratives from scripture we really need to remember the Church's teachings on A) inerrancy (we reject it), B) continuing revelation (we are big into this), and C) seeking knowledge and wisdom from the "best books" (we are big into this, too).

For me, I view Noah's Flood through this lens.  I believe there was a literal flood, but I have real reservations about the notion that I am required to believe that the flood was global.  

I like this comment by William Hamblin (responding to Brent Metcalfe) :

Quote

Historicity and Truth

Thus the real historical problem is quite different from the one Metcalfe claims is central to the "apologist" enterprise.  Metcalfe would have us believe that I (whom he would place squarely in the camp of the apologists) am arguing that "the Book of Mormon is only true if the personalities and events it describes were objectively real (p. 154). In fact, this is simply Metcalfe 's own faulty presentation of the argument. He is thereby obscuring the real issue of the connection between the antiquity and historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophet hood of Joseph Smith. by shifting the grounds of the argument from the historical truth of the events of the book, to the ethical or doctrinal truth of statements that are made in the text. While it is quite true that doctrinal statements made in the Book of Mormon-such as "Jesus is the Christ"-may be true even if the book is not ancient, the prophethood of Joseph is still compromised. Furthermore, the authoritative power of the statement that "Jesus is the Christ"--even if it is true-is greatly diminished when we realize that the stories of the power, prophecy, and miracles of God, and of the resurrection of Jesus and his visitation to the New World, are simply pious fictions.

Let me state my position on the question of the relationship be tween historicity and truth. First, it is quite possible for scripture to be ahistorical. For example. the parables of Jesus are true, and yet entirely fictional. Likewise the story of Job may well be an extended parable. Second, I make no claim that everything in the Book of Mormon itself is in fact historical. For example, I doubt that anyone would argue that Zenos' allegory of the olive tree (Jacob 5) ever really happened. Likewise, it is possible that there may be historical or scientific mistakes in the Book of Mormon.

Thus, the issue is not, as Metcalfe would have us believe, that the Book of Mormon must be historical for it to be considered scripture. The argument is that the Book of Mormon must be historical for Joseph to be a prophet. Those who would argue that Joseph is the prophetic author of a nineteenth-century pious forgery must provide a cogent explanation for why Joseph's prophetic claims should be taken seriously in light of the falsity of his visionary claims-a falsity which necessarily follows from the nonexistence of the plates and Moroni. 

3) Stories that Require Historicity

I will note that there are major portions of the scriptures that must be "historical" (meaning that the persons described were real, and that the events described really happened).  

Consider, for example, these comments by Daniel C. Peterson:

Quote

It is vastly important that the scriptures be reliable guides to salvation and to the nature of God and His purposes. It is far less important that they be entirely accurate on the numbers of Israelites who left Egypt, or on the magnitude of the number it in the construction of Solomon’s temple. Historicity is essential. Inerrancy is not. And the two are not the same. Some skeptics want us to abandon our belief in the historicity of the scriptures because the scriptures do not appear to be infallible. But this is a leap we need not take. Some among those skeptics want us to believe that the scriptural stories can still be religiously meaningful even if they are purely fictional. In some cases, of course, this is true. The story of Job illustrates various answers to the problem of evil just as well if it is fictional as it does if it is an accurate historical account. In this regard, it rather resembles Plato’s Republic, or his Symposium, where we really do not care whether Thrasymachus or Alcibiades really said or did the things Plato relates. But Jesus is not Job, and it matters very much whether the story of Christ really happened as the Gospels say it did. Even here, though, we must distinguish the essential from the nonessential.

And these remarks by Kent Jackson (regarding the historicity of the origins of the Book of Mormon) :

Quote

Given all the clear and consistent claims in favor of historicity made by the Book of Mormon itself, by Joseph Smith, by other witnesses, and by the revelations of God to Joseph Smith, what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be “true,” in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?

This is not an invitation for anyone to leave the Church. It is, instead, an invitation to abandon the fallacious and logically impossible argument that the Book of Mormon can be true, though not historical, while Joseph Smith, the revelations of God, and the book itself claim in clear and unmistakable terms the opposite.

And these remarks by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks (also regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon) :

Quote

The Book of Mormon’s major significance is its witness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Eternal Father who redeems and saves us from death and sin. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable—whether the persons really lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of His appearances to them?

Professor John W. Welch pointed out to me that this new wave of antihistoricism “may be a new kid on the block in Salt Lake City, but it has been around in a lot of other Christian neighborhoods for several decades.” Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived.

I highly recommend Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul H. Hoskisson, and available online for free.

Quote

I would suggest that the reality of the literal global flood in the days of Noah matters. 

With respect, I disagree.  As Daniel Peterson put it: "{W}e must distinguish the essential from the nonessential."  I feel quite at ease viewing the Flood as possibly-but-unlikely-to-have-been "global."

Quote

Here are some reasons why I  believe it matters.

1. Ancient and modern prophets have taught that the flood literally happened. The world wide global flood is spoken of as a literal historical event in the Old and New Testaments (including the JST) and in the Book of Mormon.

That it is "spoken of as a literal historical event" doesn't mean that we fully understand what happened, or that it was necessarily global.

Quote

From the days of Joseph Smith to the present, the leaders of the church who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have taught that the flood literally happened.

But I question whether all of them have taught that the flood was literally global, or that it is essential that we believe it to have been.

Consider, for example, this excerpt from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us {Widtsoe, p. 127}.
...
Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations. Salt Lake City, 1987.

Thoughts?

Quote

If we doubt the truthfulness of the words of the prophets in regards to the flood, what other words of the prophets will we doubt?

I do not accept the premise.  Also, Joseph Smith taught that "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."

Quote

2. According to the scriptures, God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ both stated that the flood literally happened.

Which is a separate question from whether the flood was literally global.

Quote

If we doubt the truthfulness of the word of God in regards to the flood, what other words of God will we doubt?

Again, I do not accept the premise.

Quote

3. Why do we feel the need to doubt the word of God in regards to the flood having literally happened? 

Again, I do not accept the premise.

Quote

The only reason we would doubt that the flood literally happened is because we have been taught in secular schools not to believe it. There's literally no other reason to doubt it. 

You are conflating the scope of the flood with whether the flood happened at all.  

As for there being "no other reason to doubt" a global flood, consider this:

Quote

It is obvious that most of Earth's water is in the oceans, so let's look at rain. Rain is atmospheric water condensing and falling. The atmosphere contains about 13,000 km³ of water. If ALL of this water were to rain out of the atmosphere at the same time, it amount to about 2.5 cm of rain planetwide. That's ONE INCH!

Now the claim is that ALL mountains on Earth were covered. That must include Everest, which is approximately 8.86 km. high. The claim is, therefore, that Earth was covered with water to a depth of 8.86 km. This amounts to a water volume of roughly 4,500,000,000 km³, which is about 3.25 times the total amount of water in the oceans today! And - the atmosphere contains only 13,000 km³. That's tiny compared to the total. Where does all that extra water come from? And where does it go when the flood recedes? If you postulate that is now in the Earth, it would occupy a cube about 1,650 km. on a side. That's just over 1,000 miles per side, or 1/8 of Earth's radius! That would show up FAST in seismic studies, and no such reservoir has been seen.

Thoughts?

Quote

If we doubt God's word about the flood because of what secular schools tell us, what else will they cause us to doubt? 

Again, I do not accept the premise.

Quote

Shouldn't our trust be in the word of God and not in the teachings of secular schools?

I think our trust in the former should should predominate over, but not totally exclude, some trust in the latter.

Quote

4. According to the scriptures the reality of the destruction of all life upon the earth, except for the lives on board the arc, during the literal global flood and the reality of the destruction of the wicked prior to the Lord's second coming are connected.

Doubting the one leads to doubting the other.

If we doubt that the flood literally happened because of what we have be taught in secular schools, what reason do we have to believe in the literal second coming of the Savior and the literal fulfillment of the prophesied events that are to precede it?

Again, I do not accept the premise.

I believe Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God.  I believe in the miracles described in the scriptures.  I believe in angels and heavenly manifestations.  I believe in Joseph Smith's theophanies and the reality of the Gold Plates and Joseph's translation of them.  I believe in all sorts of things that are amazing, and that are treated with scorn, disbelief, etc. in many quarters.  But I have real reservations about the idea that Noah's Flood necessarily encompassed the whole earth, up to fifteen cubits above Mount Everest.

If I am wrong to harbor such reservations, I believe the Lord will forgive me. 

Quote

And if we doubt the prophesies about the events of the last days and the return of the Savior, why would be anxiously watching and preparing for his return like he has commanded us to do?

Again, I do not accept the premise.

Quote

In my opinion there is a very real danger in doubting whether the global flood and other stories in the scriptures actually happened?

See my numbered comments above.

Quote

I see absolutely no benefit in doubting these stories. All I see is a step down the road to loss of faith and disillusionment.

But what do you all think?

Is there any good thing that can come from doubting that the flood literally happened?

I think the Flood happened, but I doubt it was global.  Meanwhile, I think we need to spend more time and effort to focus on loving God, loving our neighbor, and keeping our covenants.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 17, 2020 by smac97

[rongo]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no geological evidence for a worldwide flood nor is there an extinction record you would see if there were one.

 

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes if there was a global flood there would be plenty of evidence. There isn't. Case closed.

What would evidence of a global flood look like? How would the extinction record look different, the sediment layers, the compressed animal and vegetable matter that makes up coal, oil, and natural gas? 

I don't think this has been adequately (or at all) dealt with. I think most think the idea of a flood is so absurd that it doesn't need any treatment. 

Like when we ask critics what evidence of Book of Mormon peoples would look like. 

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I completely disagree. In my opinion rejecting the flood is akin to rejecting the truth.

What's next? Did the people of the Book of Mormon never exist? Did Jesus Christ ever exist? 

Claims of supernatural events and such are the burden of those making the claim to demonstrate the truth of the claim.  A global flood 4000 or so years ago has about 0evidence to support it and a lot to show it never happened. 

 

Likely  the people of the BoM did not exist.

 

Jesus likely existed.  Was he what the Bible claims abut him? Maybe, maybe not. Lots of pros and cons on that one.  If you want to read a book that challenges whether or not Jesus ever claimed to be divine I suggest How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I completely disagree. In my opinion rejecting the flood is akin to rejecting the truth.

What's next? Did the people of the Book of Mormon never exist? Did Jesus Christ ever exist? 

That is a slippery slope argument. Saying that we cannot do one thing without doing another is silly.

I also believe the census in the Book of Numbers is vastly inflated. Over half a million? When the total population of Egypt would probably have been less than two million?

Does this mean I am about to reject the reality of Jesus Christ? Or am I allowed to believe Joseph Smith when he said there are errors in the Bible?

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Jesus likely existed.  Was he what the Bible claims abut him? Maybe, maybe not. 

What historical and scientific evidence do we really have that Jesus likely existed? Other than we date our years from around when he was believed to have been born? What evidence do we actually have?

[Teancum]

Let's start with all humans descending from a handful of people 4000 years ago.  Boom!

Edited December 17, 2020 by Teancum

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

... what do you all think?

I think you are probably from somewhere in the southern states of the U.S. even though I am a bit perplexed about why you said "you all" instead of the more usual "y'all".

And I also think the flood in Noah's days actually happened even though I am not 100% sure about what actually happened in regard to the extent of the flood.  

Do you think you know how much water it would take to drown everybody then living on this planet?  Or where everybody on this planet was living?

'm not sure but I doubt that there were people living everywhere on the planet back then.  I think all the people back then were living on only a small area on this planet, even though all the land was massed together into only one continent.

So how high would the waters need to go to get to everybody then living back then?  I'm pretty sure there were various elevations, some at sea level and some other areas at higher elevations, so how much water would it take to drown everybody except for those who were on that ark?

I am proof that someone can believe the flood happened without understanding exactly what happened back then, and since all of those details don't really matter in my own life I am fairly comfortable with not knowing all of what actually happened.

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

What would evidence of a global flood look like? How would the extinction record look different, the sediment layers, the compressed animal and vegetable matter that makes up coal, oil, and natural gas? 

I don't think this has been adequately (or at all) dealt with. I think most think the idea of a flood is so absurd that it doesn't need any treatment. 

Like when we ask critics what evidence of Book of Mormon peoples would look like. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

What historical and scientific evidence do we really have that Jesus likely existed? Other than we date our years from around when he was believed to have been born? What evidence do we actually have?

Read Ehrman's book.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Let's start all humans descending from a handful of people 4000 years ago.  Boom!

More like 6000 years ago now, not counting the people who spawned our race on this planet who lived long before that in the eternal past.  But anyway, yeah, that was just for clarification.  Let's start from that point back then. Boom!

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

I already know about the Black Sea flood (it's the go-to explanation for local flood LDS). Thanks for linking to the article, though. It was succinct. The Smithsonian article doesn't address what evidence of a global flood would look like, and I'm unaware of anyone treating that in-depth. Sediment cores, etc. in the Black Sea area with glacial melt, sure --- that's part and parcel of the local flood theory (as well as the river floodings around the world that are sometimes held out as the Urquellen for the ubiquitous flood stories). 

But, what would the global evidence for a global flood be? That's my question.

Again, it's like how critics refuse to define what evidence of Book of Mormon peoples would look like. They refuse, because they know that it would look a lot like the evidence we already have, but we would have no way of distinguishing between Bom/non-Bom. Similarly, non-literalists don't want to define what global flood evidence would look like, because it would be relatively easy for literalists to find case studies and examples. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Read Ehrman's book.

I would like to, but don't have it at the moment. I'm not going to CFR-nanny you ("you aren't allowed to refer to a whole book!"), but can you think of a few points off the top of your head? If not, I do plan on adding a couple of Ehrman books to my list. 

I'm just curious (others can chime in, too) by what evidence people accept Jesus as a historical figure, but not Moses, Abraham, etc. I think there is little in the way of solid, "scientific/historical" evidence for Jesus; we have traditions and writings. 

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

What historical and scientific evidence do we really have that Jesus likely existed? Other than we date our years from around when he was believed to have been born? What evidence do we actually have?

Little, we have the gospels, the memory carried in Christianity itself, and a line from Josephus that was either altered (would be evidence he existed) or added (worthless). 

I think the more convincing argument that Jesus existed is found in the attacks on Christianity. Why did they not throw this in as an attack? You are following someone that no one has any credible record of would have been impressive. The earlier Jewish anti-Christian pieces painted him as the son of a Roman soldier and a whore who snuck off to Egypt and learned some neat tricks to gull his credulous followers. Why not go with the attack that he never existed instead? They weren't that far removed. He was in either living or secondhand memory at the time. Why go with the Joseph Smith approach?

Also, if Jesus was invented why pick a nobody? Why not base it on Judas Maccabeus or someone with some name recognition?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would like to, but don't have it at the moment. I'm not going to CFR-nanny you ("you aren't allowed to refer to a whole book!"), but can you think of a few points off the top of your head? If not, I do plan on adding a couple of Ehrman books to my list. 

I'm just curious (others can chime in, too) by what evidence people accept Jesus as a historical figure, but not Moses, Abraham, etc. I think there is little in the way of solid, "scientific/historical" evidence for Jesus; we have traditions and writings. 

From a secular point of view, Jesus' historicity is probably all due to Josephus.