Are These Masonic Teachings

[Winnie G]

Ok this aught to get members dander up on this board.

This last Sunday an older sister in my ward during Sunday school made the remark that “There had been to rain until the rains flooded the earth in Noah time”

Most of us looked at each other and in are minds said, “Say what”?

She said, “There were mists and dew but no rain”.

Our teach only new to our ward said “well I don’t know if that is true”.

the teacher did not say much and nether did any of us sitting there.

She is a older lady it’s hard to say “No your wrong” to your elder.

Oh, it gets better she later said in class that the people of Babel were trying to reach another planet close to earth??????

That came close to the end of the class and afterwards I leaned forward and said to the couple in front of me. OK have ether of you heard of this planet? Or there being no rain?

The husband has served in the church all their lives he was at one point was a stake president.

They said they had never heard of this.

So I came home and while taking to a friend who missed church last Sunday, I asked her if she had ever heard of these ideas. She said, "Holy cow that is not doctrine that is from the Masonic teachings"!

So is that true? Do any of you know if this is Masonic teachings?

[Guest MrsS]

Winnie, go to this site http://beardall2000.com/gospdoct.shtml

This is Bill Beardall's site, he is a Gospel Doctrine Teacher out of Spokane Washington. I download and print off his lessons, along with the Gospel Doctrine lessons from the Teachers Manual at lds.org ~ I find that I have learned more this way.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm I think this link will work. This is the Old Testament ~ Teacher's Manual. If it doesn't work let me know and I will tell you how I got there.

Your question to the Tower of Babel and the flood will be explained here.

FLOOD:

# "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." (Genesis 7:19)

1. HOW COULD THE FLOOD COVER THE ENTIRE EARTH, INCLUDING MOUNTAINS? WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS IMMERSION?

* John Taylor: "I would like to know by what known law the immersion of the globe could be accomplished. It is explained here in a few words: 'The windows of heaven were opened' that is, the waters that exist throughout the space surrounding the earth from whence come these clouds from which the rain descends. That was one cause. Another cause was 'the fountains of the great deep were broken up' - that is something beyond the oceans, something outside of the seas, some reservoirs of which we have no knowledge, were made to contribute to this event, and the waters were let loose by the hand and by the power of God; for God said He would bring a flood upon the earth and He brought it, but He had to let loose the fountains of the great deep, and pour out the waters from there, and when the flood commenced to subside, we are told 'that the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained, and the waters returned from off the earth.' Where did they go to? From whence they came. Now, I will show you something else on the back of that. Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the question is - How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells that -all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.' That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism." (JD, 26:74-75)

* The Flood was a baptism for the earth.

o Orson Pratt: "The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and all things sinful upon the face of the earth were washed away. As it came forth from the ocean floor, like the new-born child. it was innocent; it rose to newness of life. It was its second birth from the womb of mighty waters-a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed with all the innocence of this first creation." (JD, 1:331)

o Brigham Young: "The earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon." (JD, 8:83)

TOWER OF BABEL:

# WHY DID THE DESCENDANTS OF NOAH DECIDE TO BUILD A TOWER?

* To have a physical structure that would reach up to heaven.

o Brother Hugh Nibley: "An investigation of the oldest temples...concludes that those high structures were also 'gigantic altars,' built both to attract the attention of the powers above...and to provide 'the stairways which the god, in answer to these prayers, used in order to descend to the earth. . . . He comes bringing a renewal of life in all its forms.' From the first, it would seem, men built altars in the hopes of establishing contact with heaven, and built high towers for the same purpose (see Genesis 11:4)." (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, 4:360)

o Elder Orson F. Whitney: "The people who built the Tower of Babel are said to have done so in order that its top might 'reach unto heaven.' It was to prevent them from accomplishing this purpose, that the Lord confounded their language. Tradition credits Joseph Smith with the statement that the 'heaven' they had in view was the translated city." (Saturday Night Thoughts, p.101)

+ This is an interesting idea. Certainly, these people had knowledge of the city of Enoch. I would think that Noah often taught his family about his great grandfather and the city of righteousness he established. He probably spoke of it in the fondest of terms. Noah was one who suffered the destruction of an evil world and often wished that he could be in such a place. The story of Enoch was passed from generation to generation and became part of the history of these people, even after wickedness returned to the world. Rather than live a righteous life, these people somehow believed they could find Zion, the city of Enoch, by building a tower that reached into the heavens.

I wouldn't know about Masonic teachings ~ Even though we have been told that Joseph Smith joined the masons and encouraged others to join, I was told it was to teach them to keep sacred things sacred. NOW- I don't remember who told me this, nor do I know if this is Church teachings or "The Gospel" according to a human being. I do know that when I have had an encounter with a rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving male ~ I find out later that he is a Mason. Thus ~ I equate Masons with nasty, rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving teachings. They are a secret order ~ You can not get a Temple recommend if you belong to them/it. (?)

[Snow]

So is that true? Do any of you know if this is Masonic teachings?

No - not Masonic. Sounds Ari-onic to me.

[john doe]

I have heard the 'no rain, just mist' theory before. A co-worker said he read the theory in a book by an LDS author, I don't believe it was a well-known author. I'll see if I can find out the exact reference from him.

I believe the theory as put forth, if I remember correctly, claims that the earth had some sort of canopy that basically produced a mist but no rain. I would assume that this would also mean that there would not have been much of a weather system either, if you were to take the theory to a further level. The idea was that the continents were all together at the time as well, so it was supposedly not a huge canopy, it only covered 1/3 of the earth's surface . From what I understand, this author didn't cite any scientific proof for this idea, he supposedly got it from reading some ancient manuscripts of some sort. Or maybe he made it all up.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

I, too, have heard the no rain/only mist idea. Though I can't remember whence, it was a source I trusted at the time (maybe heard it on Sunday School or something). No wonder the people of Noah's time thought he was a nut case - they'd never had rain before.

Here's Gen 2:4-6 --

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

(Edited to add the scripture)

[Serg]

The manuals for studying the flood , show that before the flood there was no rain in earth, but a mist, a sort of humidity that came from the earth tocover the land and mantain it wet enough.

So that person was right. Now, in the Babel thing of reachin another planet, hes craked.

[Snow]

The manuals for studying the flood , show that before the flood there was no rain in earth, but a mist, a sort of humidity that came from the earth tocover the land and mantain it wet enough.

What manuals? The How-to-destroy-mankind-with water manuals?

Where on this rainless earth did the author's of such a silly idea get their information?

[Jason]

Ok this aught to get members dander up on this board.

This last Sunday an older sister in my ward during Sunday school made the remark that “There had been to rain until the rains flooded the earth in Noah time”

Most of us looked at each other and in are minds said, “Say what”?

She said, “There were mists and dew but no rain”.

Our teach only new to our ward said “well I don’t know if that is true”.

the teacher did not say much and nether did any of us sitting there.

She is a older lady it’s hard to say “No your wrong” to your elder.

Oh, it gets better she later said in class that the people of Babel were trying to reach another planet close to earth??????

That came close to the end of the class and afterwards I leaned forward and said to the couple in front of me. OK have ether of you heard of this planet? Or there being no rain?

The husband has served in the church all their lives he was at one point was a stake president.

They said they had never heard of this.

So I came home and while taking to a friend who missed church last Sunday, I asked her if she had ever heard of these ideas. She said, "Holy cow that is not doctrine that is from the Masonic teachings"!

So is that true? Do any of you know if this is Masonic teachings?

No they are not. First let me point out that this information came from a Woman. Women are not allowed to be Masons. Therefore, anything a woman has to say on the matter is totally irrelevent. Women may, however, join an appendant body known as the "Eastern Star". This body does have it's own teachings, but they are not Masonic teachings. The Eastern Star does not teach or know the teachings of Freemasonry. It was created in the late 19th century to give women something to do while the men were in Lodge.

Further let me say that, as a Mason, there are just as many speculators in Masonry as there are in Mormonism. While you may find individual Masons advocating such theories, they are not part of the rituals of the Blue Lodge.

I wouldn't know about Masonic teachings ~ Even though we have been told that Joseph Smith joined the masons and encouraged others to join, I was told it was to teach them to keep sacred things sacred. NOW- I don't remember who told me this, nor do I know if this is Church teachings or "The Gospel" according to a human being.

Brigham Young said that the secret of Masonry was to learn to keep a secret. Obviously I disagree, as does every Mason I've ever known, but that's beside the point.

I do know that when I have had an encounter with a rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving male ~ I find out later that he is a Mason. Thus ~ I equate Masons with nasty, rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving teachings.

Ah, but should I judge all of Mormonism based on a single nasty fellow?

They are a secret order ~ You can not get a Temple recommend if you belong to them/it. (?)

Secret order is correct, however you can get a temple recommend and many Latter-day Saints are in fact Freemasons. Several Mormons belong to my lodge as a matter of fact.

There was a brief time when the LDS church counseled its members not to join "secret orders" during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But this eventually fell to the wayside and all is well with Mormons who wish to join esoteric societies (aka Freemasons, Odd Fellows, etc.).

[Sugarbay]

<div class='quotemain'>

So is that true? Do any of you know if this is Masonic teachings?

No - not Masonic. Sounds Ari-onic to me.

ROFLMAO!

<div class='quotemain'>

Ok this aught to get members dander up on this board.

This last Sunday an older sister in my ward during Sunday school made the remark that “There had been to rain until the rains flooded the earth in Noah time”

Most of us looked at each other and in are minds said, “Say what”?

She said, “There were mists and dew but no rain”.

Our teach only new to our ward said “well I don’t know if that is true”.

the teacher did not say much and nether did any of us sitting there.

She is a older lady it’s hard to say “No your wrong” to your elder.

Oh, it gets better she later said in class that the people of Babel were trying to reach another planet close to earth??????

That came close to the end of the class and afterwards I leaned forward and said to the couple in front of me. OK have ether of you heard of this planet? Or there being no rain?

The husband has served in the church all their lives he was at one point was a stake president.

They said they had never heard of this.

So I came home and while taking to a friend who missed church last Sunday, I asked her if she had ever heard of these ideas. She said, "Holy cow that is not doctrine that is from the Masonic teachings"!

So is that true? Do any of you know if this is Masonic teachings?

No they are not. First let me point out that this information came from a Woman. Women are not allowed to be Masons. Therefore, anything a woman has to say on the matter is totally irrelevent. Women may, however, join an appendant body known as the "Eastern Star". This body does have it's own teachings, but they are not Masonic teachings. The Eastern Star does not teach or know the teachings of Freemasonry. It was created in the late 19th century to give women something to do while the men were in Lodge.

Further let me say that, as a Mason, there are just as many speculators in Masonry as there are in Mormonism. While you may find individual Masons advocating such theories, they are not part of the rituals of the Blue Lodge.

I wouldn't know about Masonic teachings ~ Even though we have been told that Joseph Smith joined the masons and encouraged others to join, I was told it was to teach them to keep sacred things sacred. NOW- I don't remember who told me this, nor do I know if this is Church teachings or "The Gospel" according to a human being.

Brigham Young said that the secret of Masonry was to learn to keep a secret. Obviously I disagree, as does every Mason I've ever known, but that's beside the point.

I do know that when I have had an encounter with a rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving male ~ I find out later that he is a Mason. Thus ~ I equate Masons with nasty, rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving teachings.

Ah, but should I judge all of Mormonism based on a single nasty fellow?

They are a secret order ~ You can not get a Temple recommend if you belong to them/it. (?)

Secret order is correct, however you can get a temple recommend and many Latter-day Saints are in fact Freemasons. Several Mormons belong to my lodge as a matter of fact.

There was a brief time when the LDS church counseled its members not to join "secret orders" during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But this eventually fell to the wayside and all is well with Mormons who wish to join esoteric societies (aka Freemasons, Odd Fellows, etc.).

HE'S BAAAAAACKKK!

In all his glory. Good to see you, JDawg, boy!

B)

[prisonchaplain]

The manuals for studying the flood , show that before the flood there was no rain in earth, but a mist, a sort of humidity that came from the earth tocover the land and mantain it wet enough.

So that person was right. Now, in the Babel thing of reachin another planet, hes craked.

I've actually read this theory too...so it's not merely a Mormon idea, and I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the Masons. My guess is the "no rain mist canopy" theory is speculation as to how a Pre-Flood world could have been so different as to account for the longer lives (no damaging sun rays getting through the mist, etc.). Bottom-line: It's not doctrine, nor serious scientific theory, but rather speculation as to how to explain in rational-sounding ways some of the mysterious aspects of the Old Testament.

[Guest MrsS]

<div class='quotemain'>

I do know that when I have had an encounter with a rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving male ~ I find out later that he is a Mason. Thus ~ I equate Masons with nasty, rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving teachings.

Ah, but should I judge all of Mormonism based on a single nasty fellow?

I'm sorry Jason, I failed to put the plurals in my statement. Let me re-word that okay.

"I do know that when I have had encounterI knew the truth! Thus I do not make hasty judgements, and I domy best NOT to jump to conclusions.

[Palerider]

HHHmmmmm......Let me look out the window and see if the moon is full.......

[Jason]

I also want to state that I was not describing you Jason. You can be rather snippy and snarky. But I have noticed that for the most part you are provoked. Though you do have cynical down pat & and you do do a real good sarcastic too.

Very true.

But since Im the resident Mason, any questions you have I'd be happy to answer.

[Guest MrsS]

But since Im the resident Mason, any questions you have I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you Jason

[john doe]

I have heard the 'no rain, just mist' theory before. A co-worker said he read the theory in a book by an LDS author, I don't believe it was a well-known author. I'll see if I can find out the exact reference from him.

I believe the theory as put forth, if I remember correctly, claims that the earth had some sort of canopy that basically produced a mist but no rain. I would assume that this would also mean that there would not have been much of a weather system either, if you were to take the theory to a further level. The idea was that the continents were all together at the time as well, so it was supposedly not a huge canopy, it only covered 1/3 of the earth's surface . From what I understand, this author didn't cite any scientific proof for this idea, he supposedly got it from reading some ancient manuscripts of some sort. Or maybe he made it all up.

I talked to my co-worker the other day. He says he believes he read the 'mist canopy' theory in a book by Cleon Skousen called The First 2,000 Years. He said the argument he read was quite persuasive. I don't happen to have a copy or I could verify it, if anyone here has one, I would be interested in hearing more info on it.

[Cal]

Well, considering the fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that was a long time to be without rain. I quess the dinosaurs just roamed around in a mist, and the erosion of the North American eastern mountain ranges took place without the benefit of rain. That must be why it has taken about 100 million years for the Appalacians (sp) to wear down from what looked much more like our present day Sierra Nevadas. Actually, geologically, any speculation that there was no rain before about 4000 years ago is enough to make anyone with the least scientific education roll on the floor with laughter. Let's get real folks--Genesis may have something solid to say about the history of some nomadic pre-Hebrews, but is just a nice, quaint little folk tale when it comes to the geology of the earth. There is no way the earth was EVER covered with water in the way a literal reading of Genesis would suggest. A man named Noah may have built a boat to survive some local storm and flooding, making his "whole world" seem inundated, but that's it. The fact that BY and JT thought that such a flood was a literal reality shouldn't make us ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. After all, faith is based on reason, anything else is just credulity.

[Snow]

Well, considering the fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that was a long time to be without rain. I quess the dinosaurs just roamed around in a mist, and the erosion of the North American eastern mountain ranges took place without the benefit of rain. That must be why it has taken about 100 million years for the Appalacians (sp) to wear down from what looked much more like our present day Sierra Nevadas. Actually, geologically, any speculation that there was no rain before about 4000 years ago is enough to make anyone with the least scientific education roll on the floor with laughter. Let's get real folks--Genesis may have something solid to say about the history of some nomadic pre-Hebrews, but is just a nice, quaint little folk tale when it comes to the geology of the earth. There is no way the earth was EVER covered with water in the way a literal reading of Genesis would suggest. A man named Noah may have built a boat to survive some local storm and flooding, making his "whole world" seem inundated, but that's it. The fact that BY and JT thought that such a flood was a literal reality shouldn't make us ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. After all, faith is based on reason, anything else is just credulity.

Hey Cal,

I got a debate going on another thread. Let me get your educated opinion. I say that it is obvious (in addition to various evidence that also support the contention) that as people go from uneducated to educated, their reading/understanding of the bible goes from something more literal towards something less literal.

Whaddaya think?

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

I have heard the 'no rain, just mist' theory before. A co-worker said he read the theory in a book by an LDS author, I don't believe it was a well-known author. I'll see if I can find out the exact reference from him.

I believe the theory as put forth, if I remember correctly, claims that the earth had some sort of canopy that basically produced a mist but no rain. I would assume that this would also mean that there would not have been much of a weather system either, if you were to take the theory to a further level. The idea was that the continents were all together at the time as well, so it was supposedly not a huge canopy, it only covered 1/3 of the earth's surface . From what I understand, this author didn't cite any scientific proof for this idea, he supposedly got it from reading some ancient manuscripts of some sort. Or maybe he made it all up.

I talked to my co-worker the other day. He says he believes he read the 'mist canopy' theory in a book by Cleon Skousen called The First 2,000 Years. He said the argument he read was quite persuasive. I don't happen to have a copy or I could verify it, if anyone here has one, I would be interested in hearing more info on it.

Yeah, I have a copy of that book. I will look it up for you.

I equate Masons with nasty, rude, obnoxious, overbearing, self-serving teachings. They are a secret order ~ You can not get a Temple recommend if you belong to them/it. (?)

A couple of LDS missionaries once told me that Gordon B. Hinckley is a mason. I don't know how true that is though.

[Snow]

I just looked through the chapter on the flood and didn't see anything like that, but I didn't reread the whole book.

It's been a long time since I read the book. Looking at it now I am stuck by how sophmoric it is, at least the part I just looked through.

[john doe]

I know my parents had it at one time in the 70's, but I was never interested in reading it.

[Snow]

I read it when I was 20 years old and quite enjoyed it and really like some things he had in the appendix, like a section on the atonement and the source of God's power.

However, looking at it now I am reminded that everything written by Skousen is BS... Brother Skousen.

He says that the ark was able to hold all the animals in the world because only one pair of dogs was required to represent all dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos etc, only one pair of cats to represent all tigers, lions, pumas, leopards, jauguars, ocelots, etc, and only one pair of horses to represent the the entire equine famil, and so on. Now I am no scientist but that sounds like bunk to me.

He says the flood started on Feb 17th or 2344 BC. He acknowledges that some people think that the flood might not have been a world-wide flood up to the tops of the mountain as described in the Bible but rather some regional or local flood or something less than to the tops of the highest mountains. He easily sweeps such opinions aside by observing that 1. there were living witnesses to the event and 2. God confirmed it.

Egads.

I wonder how much water would have been required to raise the level of the ocean to 29,000 feet above sea level?

[BenRaines]

While I do not know it as doctrine I would agree somewhat with Snow. Many of the biblical things refer or seem to refer to the world known to them. Even up until 1492 the world was rather small in comparison to what we know of today.

Often prophets speak of seeing the beginning of creation until its destruction but then they add that they are not able to disclose what they have seen. That may have been true of ancient prophets as well.

Science too has changed as what was believed to be true by scientists and physicians has changed over the years. Thank goodness too. I am glad that we do not drill holes in skulls of living people or attach leechs anymore.

I belived that prophets of old as well as 1800 prophets while they had an understanding of God's dealings with his people did not have all the understanding of the ages with them as far as science and how it was done in regards to physics, etc.

I guess that is why I walk by faith. As much as I respect science it is not a perfect science.

Ben

[prisonchaplain]

While I do not know it as doctrine I would agree somewhat with Snow. Many of the biblical things refer or seem to refer to the world known to them. Even up until 1492 the world was rather small in comparison to what we know of today.

Often prophets speak of seeing the beginning of creation until its destruction but then they add that they are not able to disclose what they have seen. That may have been true of ancient prophets as well.

Science too has changed as what was believed to be true by scientists and physicians has changed over the years. Thank goodness too. I am glad that we do not drill holes in skulls of living people or attach leechs anymore.

I belived that prophets of old as well as 1800 prophets while they had an understanding of God's dealings with his people did not have all the understanding of the ages with them as far as science and how it was done in regards to physics, etc.

I guess that is why I walk by faith. As much as I respect science it is not a perfect science.

Ben

I'm going to be simplistic here, but here it goes: Ben, of course, is right. All believers walk by faith, and by sight. Even fundamentalists now agree that the earth is not flat and does not have corners. The difference between conservatives to moderates vs. moderates to liberals, is that the more theologically "right wing" you are, the more likely you are to stick to the Scriptures' most literal read, until proven otherwise. On the other hand, the more "left wing" you are, the more quickly you are to dismiss previous understandings, and to say science has shed new light. People of faith might walk either side of the narrow path, but the right side seems safer to me.

[JLePage]

Hello I am new here here is my 2 cents.

As far as this being masonic teaching I would say not that I know of. However for informations sake I will add that I am a Mormon Mason and hold a current temple reccomend. Honest we are not all rude and obnoxious:)

The teachings of mist and no rain before the flood stem from a couple of quotes from the Old Testament:

(Genesis 2:5-6.)

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

(Genesis 9:12-16.)

12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

The bow is referring to the rainbow, that had never been previously seen due to lack of rain. Weather you accept this as historical fact is up to you :)

Oh..and no President Hinckley is not a Freemason.

Bro. Jeff

[LionHeart]

Here is my opinion on science vs. religion: When you break down science to it's most basic form, you realize that science is an attempt to measure or weigh everything. If it cannot be measured or weighed, it therefore does not exist. Hence we have many scientists who do not believe in God or spirits. This is a purely scientific approach, with no religion involved.

Now, one must ultimately come to terms with the fact that there are some common phenomenon out there that cannot be scientifically explained; like magnetism for example. Magnetism is a very common phenomonon, however, no one has ever been able to determine how it works. Many people have their theories, but what exactly is happening there? There is certainly some unseen force there, but what is it that makes the magnetic field rotate? What is the magnetic field composed of? Why does it only attract iron and not everything? But the point is, there are some absolute unseen forces that connot be scientifically explained.

Now I know there is a God. I also believe there is a science behind His power; in other words, it's not just some ablotutely unexplainable force that God stumbled onto one day. I believe He understands how it works.

Now when an engineer designs and builds a sophistocated machine, (and I'm speaking from experience here) he will spend days and weeks if not years of trial and error until that machine finally does what he wants it to do. By the time he is finished with it, he knows everything there is to know about that machine. And if he wants it to do something else, he knows what will be neccesary to make it do that.

So assuming that God created the Earth, would it not be reasonable to assume that he could make it do what he wanted it to do? So if he decided to flood the Earth, he would be able to do it. Even though His method of doing so might fly in the face of modern science. With the power at his disposal, he is able to do it. Does it have to be explainable by mere mortal science? No, but that does not mean that the power is not there. When Jesus performed His miracles, especially when he resurrected Lazerus, something like that would fly in the face of modern science; yet I'll bet there was a science behind it. We can't explain it today, but I know that God could if He so chose to do.

There were also reports of miracles happening in the early days of the LDS Church.

I honestly believe that the reason we don't see miracles happening today is the fact that everyone demands a scientific explanation for everything. Everone is skeptical anymore; nobody has any faith.

As for myself, I choose to believe that God has power that we can't explain. I choose to have faith in Him; even if I am ridiculed by extreme scientists. Because in the end, it's not going to matter how well we understood everything around us; the thing that is going to matter is how well we exercised our faith in Him.