Noah

[Hemidakota]

This is because the Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie writings dominated LDS literature for 1/2 century. But the Church is slowly getting beyond their speculations, and considering other concepts as also possible. Note how most of Elder McConkie's quotes are now out of the Gospel Principles manual - a huge accomplishment in and of itself. The Church has been trying to replace Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine for quite some time. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was one major effort in the early 1990s to do so, using commentary from dozens of LDS scholars, who shared many views on issues that were not necessarily 100% doctrine (unlike Elder McConkie, who presented his writings in such an authoritative manner that everyone thought it was 100% doctrine).

The Flood may or may not have been global. Hemidakota asked why Noah didn't just stop off along the coastlines for a while. Well, the ocean is a very big place. Joseph Smith stated the ark was built in what is now known as South Carolina - on the coastline. It could easily have floated from the Atlantic to the Pacific without going anywhere near land.

I do believe the world will one day be together in one giant mass. But just because Elder McConkie, who was in charge of putting together the 1980 scriptures, footnoted it to Peleg's day, does not make it doctrinal. He based it upon his opinions, which sometimes are correct, but sometimes incorrect, based upon the knowledge of the day.

Joseph Smith continually updated his revelations, as he received new information. Elder McConkie also understood this process, as he noted after the 1978 priesthood revelation. Old truths are frequently replaced by new and improved truths given via revelation.

Unless Noah decided go through the straits of Gilbraltar [very narrow] and with training wheels on the ark, rest itself on hill top...

Edited February 11, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

The ark was pretty darn big. It was about 450 feet long (about a football field and a half) and was constructed with multiple (many) levels.

If you're gather 14 of the clean animals and 4 of the unclean (as the story suggests), you could fit a LOT of different species in that space.

So was Noah...we think Noah was a small fat man, using our own knowledge today but that is not the case.

Size of our biggest Aircraft carrier, which can hold 6000 men/women, supplies, aircrafts, spare parts, and food to sustain for three months if need be. We need to remember, a cubic is not what we think it is since the size of these people were alot taller than us.

[Hemidakota]

There is a LOT of different bird species. Do you think we can limit animals referenced in the Noah epoch to vertebrates that live exclusively on land?

Some other things I find interesting. For example for the many references to floating things on water in the Bible only the floating thing built by Noah is called an Ark. There are other things in the scripture that are given the designation of Ark but they are not floating things on water. Perhaps the Ark was not what we imagine and create in our art work.

The Traveler

If I have a wolf, pardon me for calling it since Adam may had a different name for it, there was only one form called a dog – according to our language. There was no need to gather more than hundreds or thousand different varieties of the same canine specie doing Noah’s day.

Even the Bovine, there was only one original version. How many different varieties have we created since Noah or those prior to Noah’s deluge?

Many will say that Noah would have to carry thousands and thousands of type species of animals. But that was not the case. It was GOD who directed the lower intelligence to come to Noah and the Ark. Each specie and was it necessary to carry the varianty of such? Naa! Justice already gave the numbers of each type animal that GOD required to propagate their species after they were in this land. Some more…some less.

Even after Noah was in the new land, our compass direction today, still was not the same in Noah’s day. There are still issues with direction comparison with Nimrod story and locality of direction of travel.

As to the migration of others during the time of fallen tower, would not the Lord give the same spiritual message [by the Spirit for others] for them to go to these different lands throughout the earth? I suspect He did.

[Traveler]

If I have a wolf, pardon me for calling it since Adam may had a different name for it, there was only one form called a dog – according to our language. There was no need to gather more than hundreds or thousand different varieties of the same canine specie doing Noah’s day.

Even the Bovine, there was only one original version. How many different varieties have we created since Noah or those prior to Noah’s deluge?

Many will say that Noah would have to carry thousands and thousands of type species of animals. But that was not the case. It was GOD who directed the lower intelligence to come to Noah and the Ark. Each specie and was it necessary to carry the varianty of such? Naa! Justice already gave the numbers of each type animal that GOD required to propagate their species after they were in this land. Some more…some less.

Even after Noah was in the new land, our compass direction today, still was not the same in Noah’s day. There are still issues with direction comparison with Nimrod story and locality of direction of travel.

As to the migration of others during the time of fallen tower, would not the Lord give the same spiritual message [by the Spirit for others] for them to go to these different lands throughout the earth? I suspect He did.

There are some interesting thoughts here. One is the relation of species to type in considering the animal and plant kingdom. If we consider a possibility that all animal and plant species known to exist today were not individually represented on Noah’s ark then there are only two possibilities:

1. That G-d separately created additional species after the flood epoch. Something that is not mentions in any scripture and thus would be purely unjustified speculation.

2. That evolution is a vital aspect of all life since creation and that since the epoch of the flood there have been an abundance of new plant and animal species evolving.

But even with such considerations there are in addition vast dimensions in life and other “things” on earth that are most “mysterious” unless there are important elements of the story missing from the brief sketch of the flood epoch we are given in scripture.

My point is that perhaps the more we focus on the “mysteries” surrounding the brief amount of information given to us in scripture the more we may miss the value of such epochs. Kind of like an attitude of not being able to see the forest because of all the trees. If, for example, we view the Noah epoch strictly from the standpoint of “covenant” and the relationship of covenant to salvation (surviving overwhelmingly evil society and the eventual catastrophe of its demise) – we can get a very clear view into our responsibilities in preparing for living in a promised land, like heaven or the Celestial Kingdom. The arguments over faith and works are clearly demonstrated in the faith and works necessary to construct an ark of salvation.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

The ark was pretty darn big. It was about 450 feet long (about a football field and a half) and was constructed with multiple (many) levels.

If you're gather 14 of the clean animals and 4 of the unclean (as the story suggests), you could fit a LOT of different species in that space.

It actually states 7 clean and 2 unclean, not double that amount. And even with a "pretty darn big" ark, you couldn't fit that many of species of insects into the ark. There's just no way to preserve two from all the species of that period into the ark.

A limited gathering of animals for a limited, though still large flood, could be worked. We see both the Jaredites and Nephites gathering animals, including birds and bees.

[rameumptom]

So...Elder McConkie and whichever other GA's worked on the scripture footnotes were not inspired? My struggle with your comments are that we sustain these men as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.......and then later, say, well they based that on their understanding at the time....and now we know they were just wrong?

I taught this lesson on Sunday and I opened the door to discussion about a local flood vs. a global one or an allegorical story, etc. Nothing doing....my class was firmly in the literal camp.

Personally. I don't really care...it doesn't really affect my salvation...I don't think anyways. But, what else can we just ignore or second guess that is viewed as revealed truths? Isn't there a danger there? I mean, have any of the brethren said that the flood was anything other than what is taught by the church?

Doctrines of Salvation....wrong? How about The Miracle of Forgiveness? A bit dated? Just curious......Will we one day say...well the Book of Mormon is really an allegorical story...not a literal one. Obviously archaeology proves that because...........

Inspired? Yes. Perfect in their teachings? No. For instance, both were very insistent in their writings against evolution, even though the Church's official stance is open on it. Elder JFS and Elders Talmage and BH Roberts disagreed on such topics frequently and publicly. Their view points did not come down through the ages as strongly as the JFS/BRM pov did.

I would follow JFS/BRM on most concepts. But they had a few areas that were very speculative, based on opinion, and not based on direct revelation. I talk of those few areas of dispute as areas that we can and ought to disagree with apostles from decades ago.

Why? Because they are NOT doctrine, and I have as much right to the Spirit on non-doctrinal things as an apostle. Will I give strong consideration to an apostle's counsel? You bet I will. However, if it is not based on strong, core doctrine, then it is something I will personally have to consider.

[rameumptom]

Unless Noah decided go through the straits of Gilbraltar [very narrow] and with training wheels on the ark, rest itself on hill top...

Various areas could have flooded along the way. Since we don't know where he landed exactly, it could have been a mountain near a coast line, or just a grassy knoll in a flat area.

[rameumptom]

Doctrines of Salvation....wrong? How about The Miracle of Forgiveness? A bit dated? Just curious......Will we one day say...well the Book of Mormon is really an allegorical story...not a literal one. Obviously archaeology proves that because...........

You are making it sound like I would throw the entire book out. Not so. I would say that some points within the book may not be correct, and the decades since such books have been written would suggest so.

As for the Miracle of Forgiveness, there is much truth within it. However, many GAs today do not use the same tone. Compare Elder Kimball's view on homosexuality to that of recent comments by apostles on the same topic. There was a time when even the temptation was considered sin in the Church, not so any longer. When Elder Kimball wrote it, the Church focused on obedience, almost to the point of ignoring grace. Today, grace is a much bigger focus in the Church, and I would think that if the book were written by an apostle today, some things would be changed in it.

Also, is the story of David W. Patten seeing a Bigfoot/Cain creature allegorical or real? Is it accurate, or a faith promoting story?

As for the Book of Mormon, some of it IS allegorical. It does have the Allegory of the Vineyard, for instance. And we are beginning to see that it was written by the perspective and prejudices of the Nephites, who were sometimes wrong. Even Moroni admits that it is not a perfect work. For instance, the early Nephites claimed all the Lamanites wore loincloths and were savages, yet Ammon found them to be civilized and ready to be converted to the gospel. Clearly, two blind men can feel the same elephant and give an entirely different description of it. Both can be right AND wrong.

[rameumptom]

If I have a wolf, pardon me for calling it since Adam may had a different name for it, there was only one form called a dog – according to our language. There was no need to gather more than hundreds or thousand different varieties of the same canine specie doing Noah’s day.

Even the Bovine, there was only one original version. How many different varieties have we created since Noah or those prior to Noah’s deluge?

Many will say that Noah would have to carry thousands and thousands of type species of animals. But that was not the case. It was GOD who directed the lower intelligence to come to Noah and the Ark. Each specie and was it necessary to carry the varianty of such? Naa! Justice already gave the numbers of each type animal that GOD required to propagate their species after they were in this land. Some more…some less.

Even after Noah was in the new land, our compass direction today, still was not the same in Noah’s day. There are still issues with direction comparison with Nimrod story and locality of direction of travel.

As to the migration of others during the time of fallen tower, would not the Lord give the same spiritual message [by the Spirit for others] for them to go to these different lands throughout the earth? I suspect He did.

And what species of bird did penguins and ostriches derive from in the last 4000 years? And how did all the penguins make it only to the southern hemisphere, while polar bears made it north? It leaves a LOT of open questions about evolution over just 4000 years. And the fossil record just does not show evolution occurring that rapidly.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What if God had Noah take all the species he couldn't gather physically in the form of DNA strands, or even zygotes or eggs for that matter. Seeds, eggs, zygotes whats the diff? How much space would it take to fill the ark with every DNA variation of every species in the form of the codes being put on digital records and one DNA implanting device? I know I am being silly but my point is God's ways are God's ways which are mostly unknown to us. Maybe even Noah didn't understand how it was done, he just did what he was told to do and wrote it down the way he saw it which was through limited understanding. If God can have his followers use devices such as a Liahona or a Urim and Thummim, its not unreasonable to suggest that Noah used methods that are not revealed to us at this time.

[MeIRL]

Is that in the lesson manual? Because I'm pretty sure that bringing up contentious and tangential points of doctrine is not what gospel doctrine class is intended for.

Actually, I didn't bring it up....a class member did.

Really? Interesting, then, that you said:

I opened the door to discussion about a local flood vs. a global one or an allegorical story, etc.

Sounded to me like you were taking responsibility (perhaps credit) for allowing the discussion, if not for actually originating it.

I am pretty sure that YOU weren't there to know whether it was contentious or not.

But you don't really know, do you?

But no, I was not there. I was basing my comments on what you wrote.

Maybe the non-global-flood believers in your enthusiastically literalistic class were simply too intimidated to voice an honest view -- or maybe they just had the good sense not to invite disunity. Are you happy to have been the instigator of such potential intimidation and/or disunity?

Maybe or maybe they enjoyed the discussion.

Did the non-global-flood-believers tell you that? Hmmm. I suspect not, given that you said:

Nothing doing....my class was firmly in the literal camp.

Based on your statement, it is clear that if there were any people who disbelieved the "global flood" theory, they didn't make their opinions known. If they had, you would not likely have been so firm in your pronouncement of your class's supposedly unanimous opinion.

Intimidation? Disunity? Not in my class...smarty britches.

And you know this -- how? By how freely those who don't believe non-doctrinal dogma speak right up and disagree with the global flood believers?

Edit: Ironically, I note that ErikJohnson thinks contention is wonderful and Godly. Do you agree with him?

No.....but Erik seems to exercise some courtesy...unlike your condescending post that really has nothing to do with what I was asking Rameumpton.

Condescending? How so?

To quote the inimitable Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

So, why don't YOU step off......and stop trying to cause contention.

I am trying to do no such thing. But this is a discussion list, with much different rules and expectations than a Sunday School gospel doctrine class.

[bytor2112]

MeIRL....you make me laugh.....are you bored or just obnoxious? Seriously, why not add to the thread topic? I could really care less what you think about what I did or didn't do in Gospel Doctrine.

[Traveler]

What if God had Noah take all the species he couldn't gather physically in the form of DNA strands, or even zygotes or eggs for that matter. Seeds, eggs, zygotes whats the diff? How much space would it take to fill the ark with every DNA variation of every species in the form of the codes being put on digital records and one DNA implanting device? I know I am being silly but my point is God's ways are God's ways which are mostly unknown to us. Maybe even Noah didn't understand how it was done, he just did what he was told to do and wrote it down the way he saw it which was through limited understanding. If God can have his followers use devices such as a Liahona or a Urim and Thummim, its not unreasonable to suggest that Noah used methods that are not revealed to us at this time.

If we are trying to understand the science of the flood and Ark - then you are correct in your assessment that the scriptures are greatly inadequate. Maybe that is not what we should gain from the scriptures. Perhaps, just perhaps the intended message is clearly there but in our quest to make everything we understand today fit into scripture we miss the message from scripture.

The Traveler

[Justice]

I found a bit of useless trivia in my reading this week (yes, I'm reading Genesis again):

Genesis 7:

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

So, the flood began on what we know as February 17th. I'm not sure how the different calendars all coordinate over the years, but as I study things like this I am always amazed at how accurate they were maintained over time.

[rameumptom]

If we are trying to understand the science of the flood and Ark - then you are correct in your assessment that the scriptures are greatly inadequate. Maybe that is not what we should gain from the scriptures. Perhaps, just perhaps the intended message is clearly there but in our quest to make everything we understand today fit into scripture we miss the message from scripture.

The Traveler

And that is my point, as well. When we focus and insist too much on either a global or local Flood, we are missing what God wants us to learn from the story of Noah's flood.

[Moksha]

discussion about a local flood vs. a global one or an allegorical story, etc.

Wish my class had this discussion.

....my class was firmly in the literal camp .

Based on your statement, it is clear that if there were any people who disbelieved the "global flood" theory, they didn't make their opinions known. If they had, you would not likely have been so firm in your pronouncement of your class's supposedly unanimous opinion.

Many in my class would have voiced literalist opinions. I don't think those who view the whole tale as allegorical would have spoken up, at least I would not. Sometimes the free flow of ideas are not well received.

If we had touched upon the idea that the flood moved the continents all over the place (talk about major tsunamis), I may have asked the class an innocuous question, such as their opinion on plate tectonics..

[Dravin]

If we had touched upon the idea that the flood moved the continents all over the place (talk about major tsunamis), I may have asked the class an innocuous question, such as their opinion on plate tectonics..

I see divergent plate boundaries being the biggest issue, you can question the dating I suppose but the crust on both sides is graduated in age, if a continent just up and moved suddenly you'd expect to see a huge band of (really, really new geologically speaking) crust the same age as opposed to the graduation we do see.

[justaname]

Ugh, this literal or allegorical thing with the flood is so tiresome. I remember a gospel doctrine class I went to when I was in a BYU ward a long time ago and this discussion was brought up. I have to say that I have never felt the spirit move out of a class faster. Not because this question is taboo, but the contention in the room was so palpable, just like it is in this thread. Sad.

[MeIRL]

MeIRL....you make me laugh.....are you bored or just obnoxious?

Do you really believe that personal insults are warranted?

You made a statement. I questioned your statement. I marshalled evidence to buttress my claim. You are refusing to answer.

The fact is that all of us have been present in classes like yours, where people who hold a minority or otherwise unpopular opinion keep their mouths shut. Many of us have been that person. If your opinion is that plural marriage should be reinstituted, then you are right to keep your mouth firmly shut. But if your opinion is that evolution occurs in human beings or that the flood of Noah did not literally cover the face of the globe, why should your opinion be shouted down?

More to the point, why are such nondoctrinal elements being discussed in class at all?

Feel free to let fly with some more personal insults, bytor. If that's how you run your class, it's no wonder you don't get a lot of dissenting opinions from your own.

[bytor2112]

Do you really believe that personal insults are warranted?

You made a statement. I questioned your statement. I marshalled evidence to buttress my claim. You are refusing to answer.

The fact is that all of us have been present in classes like yours, where people who hold a minority or otherwise unpopular opinion keep their mouths shut. Many of us have been that person. If your opinion is that plural marriage should be reinstituted, then you are right to keep your mouth firmly shut. But if your opinion is that evolution occurs in human beings or that the flood of Noah did not literally cover the face of the globe, why should your opinion be shouted down?

More to the point, why are such nondoctrinal elements being discussed in class at all?

Feel free to let fly with some more personal insults, bytor. If that's how you run your class, it's no wonder you don't get a lot of dissenting opinions from your own.

Personal insults? How so? Because I asked you if you were bored or obnoxious? Your posts...at least the ones directed toward me...are obnoxious.

I am struggling to understand your point with all of this. So let me try again....

Sister XXXX raised her hand and said something like this, " My brother in law believes that the flood didn't really occur and apparently there are others that feel that way." (not exact, but close)

I replied that I have heard and read many different theories regarding this issue...local flood, allegory, etc........other hands went up and people expressed their thoughts regarding the issue and nearly everyone that spoke expressed their personal belief that the flood was a global one. It was brief and I redirected the class back toward the lesson. My personal opinion never entered the conversation......I am more of a discussion moderator and stay very close to the lesson manual.

MeIRL.....I hope this explanation is satisfactory to you and if you have perceived my comments as insulting, please accept my apology as that was not my intent.

[Vanhin]

A global flood is a doctrinal issue. The plain reading of the scriptures render that it was a global flood, and that has been the prevailing understanding throughout history. Only recently have people attempted to explain it differently because current science does not agree with it.

Just like the continents being divided asunder during the days of Peleg, a global flood had been consistently taught in the Church and is supported by the plain reading of the verses in question. The earth was covered and except for those who were saved by God, "all flesh" was destroyed upon the face of the earth exactly as the scriptures say. That is the plain reading.

We are all aware that the curriculum and scripture study helps are not the actual sources of doctrine that is binding on members of the Church, like the Standard Works themselves. However, the definitions and explanations in them are not just willy-nilly put in there by General Authorities with an agenda, as has been insinuated in this thread. The Church Curriculum Department and Scripture Coordination Committee all work under the direction of proper priesthood authority and keys. What is published along side of the Scriptures is a "big deal".

The Bible Dictionary includes a disclaimer at the beginning, explaining that the entries in it do not necessarily represent the doctrine of the Church (see Bible Dictionary). However, the more recently developed and published "Guide to the Scriptures" interestingly does not include such a disclaimer. In fact, using it as a helper in preparing talks and lessons, and increasing our own knowledge of the gospel, appears to be encouraged.

It can help you answer questions about the gospel, study topics in the scriptures, prepare talks and lessons, and increase your knowledge and testimony of the gospel. (Guide to the Scriptures)

Why do I bring that up? Because if you had no knowledge of the Flood, and you were tasked with preparing a talk or a lesson, you might come accross the following entry in this very recent Church publication.

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES

Flood At Noah’s Time

See also Ark; Noah, Bible Patriarch; Rainbow

During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3: 20-21).

God will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, Gen. 6: 17 (Moses 7: 34, 43, 50-52; 8: 17, 30). The waters of the flood were upon the earth, Gen. 7: 10. God set a bow in the cloud as a token of the covenant, Gen. 9: 9-17. After the waters had receded, the land of America became a choice land, Ether 13: 2. The wicked shall perish in the flood, Moses 7: 38; 8: 24. (Guide to the Scriptures: Flood At Noah’s Time)

It is nice because it shows all the scripture references involved. For example, a belief that the entire earth was covered in water is supported by the fact that the scriptures consider it to have been the "baptism" of the earth (1 Pet. 3: 20-21). In the true Church of Jesus Christ, baptism is done by "complete" immersion; so, it follows that if the flood was a "baptism" then the entire earth must have been immersed.

It is the currently established, consistenly taught, doctrine of this Church that there was a global flood. That's what the scriptures say happened. In the very least, all us uneducated members of the Church are quite justified in believing such drivel. I mean if the Church believes it enough to publish it, despite the current scientific understanding, why can't we believe it?

Many of us believe God is capable of dividing and flooding, and turning mountains into valleys, resurrecting the dead, and many such things to the astonishment of the scientific community.

For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God. Yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake. And by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley. Yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake; Yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center. Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved. Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done; And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun. And behold, also, if he say unto the waters of the great deep—Be thou dried up—it is done. Behold, if he say unto this mountain—Be thou raised up, and come over and fall upon that city, that it be buried up—behold it is done. (Hel. 12:8-17)

I am reminded of one more scripture.

When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. (2 Ne. 9:28)

Regards,

Vanhin

[MeIRL]

A global flood is a doctrinal issue. The plain reading of the scriptures render that it was a global flood,

Not so. A "plain reading" of the scripture, not imposing anachronistic cosmologies on the words, leaves no room for a "global" flood.

and that has been the prevailing understanding throughout history.

I would love to see your evidence that the ancient Hebrews believed in a spherical earth and understood these verses as you claim.

Just like the continents being divided asunder during the days of Peleg, a global flood had been consistently taught in the Church and is supported by the plain reading of the verses in question.

Again, this is false. Saying "the earth was divided in Peleg's days" is not remotely the same as saying "continental drift on the earth's crust all took place during the lifetime of an individual named Peleg."

The earth was covered and except for those who were saved by God, "all flesh" was destroyed upon the face of the earth exactly as the scriptures say. That is the plain reading.

Then you are conveniently ignoring other scriptures that speak of "all the earth" without literally meaning "all the earth". Or do you believe that Caesar Augustus set out to tax the Nephites?

It is nice because it shows all the scripture references involved. For example, a belief that the entire earth was covered in water is supported by the fact that the scriptures consider it to have been the "baptism" of the earth (1 Pet. 3: 20-21). In the true Church of Jesus Christ, baptism is done by "complete" immersion; so, it follows that if the flood was a "baptism" then the entire earth must have been immersed.

Why? Is the earth a human soul, a child of God in a literal sense? If not, please demonstrate the LDS doctrine teaching that immersion baptism is a saving ordinance for any creature other than a human soul.

It is the currently established, consistenly taught, doctrine of this Church that there was a global flood. That's what the scriptures say happened.

False. It is what you think happened. Those two things are not the same.

In the very least, all us uneducated members of the Church are quite justified in believing such drivel. I mean if the Church believes it enough to publish it, despite the current scientific understanding, why can't we believe it?

Someone said you couldn't believe it?

Please render the citation from this thread showing where someone -- anyone -- claimed that you couldn't, or shouldn't, believe as you do. I think you will find it nonexistent.

Many of us believe God is capable of dividing and flooding, and turning mountains into valleys, resurrecting the dead, and many such things to the astonishment of the scientific community.

And many of us further believe that God doesn't intentionally mislead us or put false records lying around to deceive us. The geological record is unmistakably clear.

I am reminded of one more scripture.

When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. (2 Ne. 9:28)

Say, that reminds me of a scripture, too:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Regards,

MeIRL

[Traveler]

.....

I would love to see your evidence that the ancient Hebrews believed in a spherical earth and understood these verses as you claim.

......

MeIRL

There is strong evidence that the ancient Hebrews during the era of King David did indeed know and understand that the earth was spherical. King David had a fleet of ships that would leave Israel ports and return in 3 years with goods that can only be obtained in India. In order to reach India the ships would have to sail around the tip of Africa. The navigation necessary to accomplish this task requires an understanding that the earth is spherical and a general understanding of the earth circumference.

The myth that the earth was flat was a creation of the traditional Christians of the Dark Ages that used the reference in scripture to “the four corners of the earth” as inspiration from G-d that the earth is flat. Even the ancient Egyptians knew the earth was spherical 4,000 years before Christ. Calculating the circumference of the earth is not a difficult task. The Book of Enoch found among the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates that the Ancients understood solar calendars and understood that the length day light as a ratio to night and knowing the time of day and day of the year allowed them to calculate latitude and longitude.

The Traveler

[Vanhin]

Not so. A "plain reading" of the scripture, not imposing anachronistic cosmologies on the words, leaves no room for a "global" flood.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: (Genesis 7:19-21)

The plain meaning of the scripture is all the earth and even the mountains were covered. Everything under the whole heaven. That certainly leaves room for a "global flood".

Why? Is the earth a human soul, a child of God in a literal sense? If not, please demonstrate the LDS doctrine teaching that immersion baptism is a saving ordinance for any creature other than a human soul.

I have already demonstrated that the earth was baptized during Noah's flood, and that it is LDS doctrine. Is Elder McConkie still misleading the Lord's Church from the spirit world? It is a consistent and well established doctrine.

"Latter-day prophets teach that the Flood or the total immersion of the earth in water represents the earth’s required baptism. Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: “Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling ‘the measure of its creation.’ They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water.” He writes that the removal of earth’s wicked inhabitants in the Flood represents that which occurs in our own baptism for the remission of sins." (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Flood and the Tower of Babel)

It is also well established doctrine that the earth will be cleansed (by fire), prior to receiving its paradisiacal glory (Articles of Faith 1). Whether there is more meaning to those actual "global" events, beyond symbolism is not really relevant. What is relevant is that both ancient and modern apostles considered the Flood a "baptism" of the earth. Last I checked, the earth is not a human soul.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

There is strong evidence that the ancient Hebrews during the era of King David did indeed know and understand that the earth was spherical. King David had a fleet of ships that would leave Israel ports and return in 3 years with goods that can only be obtained in India. In order to reach India the ships would have to sail around the tip of Africa. The navigation necessary to accomplish this task requires an understanding that the earth is spherical and a general understanding of the earth circumference.

The myth that the earth was flat was a creation of the traditional Christians of the Dark Ages that used the reference in scripture to “the four corners of the earth” as inspiration from G-d that the earth is flat. Even the ancient Egyptians knew the earth was spherical 4,000 years before Christ. Calculating the circumference of the earth is not a difficult task. The Book of Enoch found among the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates that the Ancients understood solar calendars and understood that the length day light as a ratio to night and knowing the time of day and day of the year allowed them to calculate latitude and longitude.

The Traveler

Exactly. I'm pretty sure Moses and Abraham would be considered ancient Hebrews. Both were allowed to behold some serious astronomy. Moses for example beheld a very intimate view of the earth.

And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God. (Moses 1:27)

They knew the earth was spherical for sure.

Regards,

Vanhin