Gen. 9:11 // Noah's covenant and world flood theory

[HiJolly]

Maybe it's not the whole message, or perhaps there are even multiple mesages. But, certainly, part of the message is that God will save man from utter and global destruction if He follows His commandments. I think it's a great lesson for us in our day.

Yes, I totally agree with this!

HiJolly

[Justice]

Ok. Doctrine is declared in the Four Standard works, and in the declarations and proclamations of the First Presidency, and in the Articles of Faith. See the Church's web site.

Church publications explain and teach from these sources, but are not sources of doctrine, themselves.

Therefore, discussions, explanations and teachings of the baptism of the earth are not doctrinal.

HiJolly

But, c'mon, if it's taught that it was global in a church lesson manual, isn't that at least "evidence" and not "utter nonsense?" (I know you didn't say utter nonsense, but that's the mentality I'm speaking against here.)

[HiJolly]

But, c'mon, if it's taught that it was global in a church lesson manual, isn't that at least "evidence" and not "utter nonsense?" (I know you didn't say utter nonsense, but that's the mentality I'm speaking against here.)

The scriptures clearly teach that there was a global flood. Not a local flood. There are profound teachings brought forth by that flood, that cannot be taught as clearly or as meaningfully if there were not a global flood. There's no doubt in my mind concerning that fact.

That's right, I never did say it was nonsense, nor would I.

I have had an amazing 20 years or so of personal, deep study and learning about the flood. I suppose there are still more things for me to learn.

One thing I have learned is to not get too mentally invested in *How* God did what He did, and equally, to not get too spiritually invested in what I think He actually did do.

HiJolly

[Snow]

"The publishers" just happen to be "the Church."

No, not exactly. There is an editor or editors of the magazine and articles have to make it through the editorial process. It is inaccurate to say, however, that "The Church" (the institutional organization comprised of leadership authority and members) publishes/approves the articles.

I don't think I need to remind anyone of some of the dubious material that has found it's way into "Church" publications.

Is your problem with his evidence that it is from the scriptures? Are you looking for evidence outside the scriptures?

I'm rather amazed that you don't view his article as evidence of a global flood, seeing he is a professor at BYU and the article was published in the Ensign, and it is located on the Church web site.

So now you're a comedian?

I know that you can't be serious when you act like scriptural accounts constitute actual evidence. Scripture is evidence of religious belief and dogma but it is hardly evidence that there actually was a flood... or perhaps you are willing to stipulate that it's inclusion in Koran and Hadith are evidence that fundamentalist terrorists will be rewarded in paradise with 75 full-bossumed virgins.

It's not that his words are confusing or hard to interpret.

You guys crack me up.

My question to you, Snow, is what would "the other side" have to produce in order for you to view it as evidence? I'm not speaking about proof, mind you, but evidence. If the article were written by a Harvard proffessor and it was in a thesus or the National Geographic make a difference?

Ah - the old appeal to authority. Are you not aware that is a logical fallacy? It's not WHO says it, but rather the actual EVIDENCE which is addressed by the authority - so, no. I would not accept it just because a Harvard prof said it. There'd have to be some actual and convincing evidence to back up what he said.

Snow, this IS evidence of a global flood. It may not agree with your opinion; it may be hard for you to accept because it may cause you to have to re-think a great many of your beliefs about what in the scriptures might be actual events. I really don't know how or why you can reject it as evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not. It's rather silly to stare at something and say it's not what it is.

There were other articles on the Church web site that discussed the flood, and of the 30 or so articles I went through, not a single one expressed the opinion of a localized flood. I'm still looking.

Yeah - I got your joke the first time. Now you need to get some new material.

[Snow]

We will come to know that nothing is impossible for the Lord.

Well - no. Not if you accept what scripture says:

God cannot lie (Enos 1:4)

God cannot save people in their sins nor can he deny His word. (Alma 11:34, 37)

Clearly there are things, according to scripture, that God cannot do.

As there was no high mountians as we see today versus before Noah's day.

Certainly you must have some real evidence (not dogma). Please share it with us.

[Vort]

It should be very easy for you to show us the text in the Bible, or evidence from a reliable source, that clearly shows how you believe it's utter nonsense. I mean, if you say you disagree, then you just disagree. But, utter nonsense? That'll be a neat trick, when, in fact, you're working against the wording in the Bible.

You want me to find wording in the Bible that teaches "all the earth was under water -- but, oh, this is not meant to anticipate a changed worldview that teaches that we live on a gigantic sphere"?

It's anachronistic. That's the point. The Bible can no more say that the Flood was "global" than Newton's Principia Mathematica can teach about relativistic gravitation.

[MobyMule]

Does it really matter if the whole world was covered or not? What real impact would it have on doctrine and the things that pertain to salvation if it was or wasn't?

[HiJolly]

Does it really matter if the whole world was covered or not? What real impact would it have on doctrine and the things that pertain to salvation if it was or wasn't?

Yes, I think it does. There are a lot of LDS that are SPIRITUALLY invested in the literality of the Global Flood, such that if it did not actually happen, not only might they lose the benefit of the moral story and implications, but they might actually decide that the Church is not true, or the Bible is not true, because of it. Their trust in authority figures would be crushed, and that would be the end of it.

Kinda like how the best anti-Mormons use actual true Mormon history to shock and destroy the testimonies of otherwise oblivious LDS members. Not because they are right in their evil insinuations or distortions, but because the LDS faithful might feel that their trust has been violated.

HiJolly

[Snow]

Yes, I think it does. There are a lot of LDS that are SPIRITUALLY invested in the literality of the Global Flood, such that if it did not actually happen, not only might they lose the benefit of the moral story and implications, but they might actually decide that the Church is not true, or the Bible is not true, because of it. Their trust in authority figures would be crushed, and that would be the end of it.

Kinda like how the best anti-Mormons use actual true Mormon history to shock and destroy the testimonies of otherwise oblivious LDS members. Not because they are right in their evil insinuations or distortions, but because the LDS faithful might feel that their trust has been violated.

HiJolly

Let's think about that a minute...

1. Do you seriously believe that people, grown-up let's say, would stop believing that the Church was true (whatever that means) if the Church didn't definitively say that the flood was literally and historically as described in the Bible?

2. Will I be any more or any less "saved" if it turns out that the flood myth wasn't completely accurate?

3. Why do you think that God wanted all the dolphins dead?

[MobyMule]

Yes, I think it does. There are a lot of LDS that are SPIRITUALLY invested in the literality of the Global Flood, such that if it did not actually happen, not only might they lose the benefit of the moral story and implications, but they might actually decide that the Church is not true, or the Bible is not true, because of it. Their trust in authority figures would be crushed, and that would be the end of it.

Kinda like how the best anti-Mormons use actual true Mormon history to shock and destroy the testimonies of otherwise oblivious LDS members. Not because they are right in their evil insinuations or distortions, but because the LDS faithful might feel that their trust has been violated.

HiJolly

I don't buy that. I'm not saying a flood didn't happen. I'm just saying that whether or not it was Global I think isn't the main issue of the story. It is about being obedient and folllowing God and his servants. Whether or not I personally believe in a global flood or not should not have any bearing on my salvation.

Edited December 18, 2009 by MobyMule

[OneEternalSonata]

In my estimation, whether the flood is or isn't global my beliefs in Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father remain unchanged. Even so, I believe God could fully flood the earth. I'm not about to limit the extent of His power. Its not like I could, even if I wanted to.

[Vort]

Let's think about that a minute...

1. Do you seriously believe that people, grown-up let's say, would stop believing that the Church was true (whatever that means) if the Church didn't definitively say that the flood was literally and historically as described in the Bible?

Yes. I personally know several. I would be surprised if there were not at least a few on this very discussion list whose testimony of the gospel would be badly threatened if Noah's flood were shown to be anything less than literal in nature and global in scope.

2. Will I be any more or any less "saved" if it turns out that the flood myth wasn't completely accurate?

Of course not, but that is not the issue.

3. Why do you think that God wanted all the dolphins dead?

Not sure what HiJolly said that implies to you he thinks that God wanted the dolphins dead.

[Vort]

I don't buy that. I'm not saying a flood didn't happen. I'm just saying that whether or not it was Global I think isn't the main issue of the story. It is about being obedient and folllowing God and his servants. Whether or not I personally believe in a global flood or not should not have any bearing on my salvation.

I agree. I think HiJolly does, too. I believe you are missing his point, which I understand to be that the literal occurrence and global nature of the flood of Noah are central to the testimony of many Saints. This may be unfortunate, but it is a fact.

[OneEternalSonata]

Whether or not I personally believe in a global flood or not should have any bearing on my salvation.

I too believe it shouldn't have any bearing on salvation. However, I'm hesitant to say that there are not some who do hinge their beliefs on a global flood. People lose faith for lesser reasons. Its hard to believe sometimes, but always worth it to have faith in the Lamb.

Edited December 18, 2009 by OneEternalSonata

[bytor2112]

And I would submit the fact that at the Second Coming of Christ, the earth will be "cleansed" by fire, before receiving it's paradisaical glory, as this collection of scriptures indicate (which include references to the flood as well): Topical Guide: Earth, Cleansing of

Regards,

Vanhin

Hmm....maybe it will be a "localized" cleansing.....New Orleans, Moscow and Paris or something like that.

[Justice]

You want me to find wording in the Bible that teaches "all the earth was under water -- but, oh, this is not meant to anticipate a changed worldview that teaches that we live on a gigantic sphere"?

It's anachronistic. That's the point. The Bible can no more say that the Flood was "global" than Newton's Principia Mathematica can teach about relativistic gravitation.

What exactly did you say was utter nonsense?

[Justice]

Snow, if you're suggesting that just because someone claims a book is scripture that makes it scripture, then I really can't respond. If I have to believe Joe Blow's book he claims is scripture because he says so, before I can take the Book of Mormon as scripture, then I'm not really sure where to go with this conversation.

[Snow]

Yes. I personally know several. I would be surprised if there were not at least a few on this very discussion list whose testimony of the gospel would be badly threatened if Noah's flood were shown to be anything less than literal in nature and global in scope.

A testimony (faith) has to be based on something true. If you believe something that is false, it's just a wrong notion in your head. If someone's conviction crumbles because it turn out one basis of their conviction is false, it's not a matter of harming a testimony, it's just exposing a bad notion in their head.

If the flood, as described in the Bible, ultimately turns out to be true and along the way some testimony holder meets with some stumbling blocks (about the flood) that cause them to lose their testimony, it still wasn't a real testimony, it was merely intellectual acquiescence.

Not sure what HiJolly said that implies to you he thinks that God wanted the dolphins dead.

Nothing - I just wonder why flood (as described in the Bible) believers think God wanted all the dolphins dead.

[Snow]

Snow, if you're suggesting that just because someone claims a book is scripture that makes it scripture, then I really can't respond. If I have to believe Joe Blow's book he claims is scripture because he says so, before I can take the Book of Mormon as scripture, then I'm not really sure where to go with this conversation.

Missed the point entirely.

You are claiming that because someone said there was a flood, that is, in fact, evidence that there was a flood. Now you are implying that only such people that count are the ones you say count.

[Vort]

A testimony (faith) has to be based on something true.

A testimony is not faith, per se. A testimony is a revelation. The question is, What would it take for someone to cease believing the revelation they were given? In the case of at least some people, merely discovering that Noah's flood did not cover the entire earth would apparently be enough to cause them to forsake the revelation of truth they received. That does not mean their revelation (testimony) was false, or that the seed wasn't good. It is that they planted it in a dry wadi that got flooded out.

Okay, sorry about that one.

If you believe something that is false, it's just a wrong notion in your head.

I partially agree with this, but in the end I think I do not agree. We, all of us, believe wrong things. In fact, there may not be anything we believe that is pristinely correct. But that doesn't mean all our knowledge is false or useless. It means we're using Aristotelian physics instead of Newtonian, or Newtonian physics in stead of Einsteinian.

Nothing - I just wonder why flood (as described in the Bible) believers think God wanted all the dolphins dead.

God hates dolphins.

[Justice]

I don't think I'm the one missing the point. You minimalize the scriptures as a source of evidence, when in fact they should be more like a source of proof.

"Someone" in the Bible said there would be a flood? "Someone?!" Are you serious? To what lengths will you go to prove your point? You say God's word is not any more reliable than "someone?"

I don't view books of scripture in the same light as I do other books. You, however, have your prerogative.

It's really amazing how quick people on this forum are to say, "That source isn't reliable for evidence or doctrine, only the 4 standard works are." And then now, one of the 4 standard works is no better evidence than "someone."

And as far as me claiming which books count, was Joseph Smith a prophet? Is Thomas S. Monson a prophet? What books do they say count? Might it be the same books I say count? I wonder where I got it from.

[Vort]

What exactly did you say was utter nonsense?

To quote my previous post:

You and others are arguing that we should believe a in global flood because the Biblical record describes the flood as global. I am pointing out that this is utter nonsense.

That is: The Biblical record does not describe a flood as being global because the Biblical record cannot describe a flood as being global. That does not directly argue about the global nature of the flood; rather, it argues about the mindset of those who wrote the account.

[Justice]

Why can't it be describing a global flood? Doesn't God know what a global flood is?

Genesis 7:

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

There are many more scriptures that use this language, together with the evidence presented that the Hebrew word used for "earth" in this instance was consistent with their word for "whole earth" and not partial or locational.

As I said, I can understand that you disagree. No problem. But, you use the words that it "cannot" be describing a global flood as if it is impossible because of a weakness in the writers, whatever that may be. I say that is hogwash! God is fully capable of making known to any prophet what "global flood" means, if He is capable of showing Moses and Enoch all the inhabitants that would ever live on the earth; past, present, and future.

Cannot? Utter nonsense? Why don't you just say you interpret it differently and you disagree. Saying it is "impossible" is a severe lack of faith in the power of God. If you just said you disagree this conversation would be much more meaningful.

[Snow]

Why can't it be describing a global flood? Doesn't God know what a global flood is?

Still with the comedic routine?

God didn't write Genesis.

[Justice]

Well, since God didn't write any of the books we have on earth, where does that leave us?

According to you, we have no reliable written source for His word. We can make up whatever we want.

I really can't believe you're going there.