Morality, Floods And Genocide

[CrimsonKairos]

I tend to think the flood was literal. Why? It has been taught that it was the baptism of the earth by water, and when Christ comes again it will be baptized with fire (that's where tithing and fire insurance come in handy ). Here's one example from Joseph Fielding Smith:

FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. (capitalization and emphasis his) (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320)

It could be a parable, but I tend to think it was literal.

What's needed is to answer Snow's challenge with a challenge. What's that? I should do it? Well, if you insist. B)

Snow, you keep asking, "Surely there was some way to provide the children with righteous parents so they wouldn't be raised in sin? Surely God didn't have to kill them." Well Snow, here's my question to you:

How would that work? Short of transplanting citizens of Enoch's city to the earth and inaugurating a "flood" of adoptions unrivalled before or since, how could God have provided righteous parents in lieu of the wicked who covered the earth?

[Guest Yediyd]

I tend to think the flood was literal. Why? It has been taught that it was the baptism of the earth by water, and when Christ comes again it will be baptized with fire (that's where tithing and fire insurance come in handy ). Here's one example from Joseph Fielding Smith:

FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. (capitalization and emphasis his) (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320)

It could be a parable, but I tend to think it was literal.

I agree with you CK!!!

[CrimsonKairos]

Here's an interesting take on the flood.

[the Ogre]

With that note however I should let you know also that I do not take the "story" of Noah and the flood as literal but more as parable as a way to show the power of the Almighty and scare the unrighteous. The Lord taught in parables in the NT, why not teach in parables in the OT, after all He was the God of the OT correct?

Bingo - an intelligent answer. Well done and thank you.

In scripture, we are able to read scripture two ways (at a minimum, there are of course many other methods of interpretation) allegory/parable and literal/historical.

If this is the case it is possible to say that the biblical account is parable and that a moral can be lifted from it and so the story is worth reading in Genesis.

The next is that the story is literal; that it happened just as the bible reports.

Many would see this as a paradox that cannot exist beside itself and yet I think it can.

There are some weaknesses in Snow's initial scenario:

1) We do not know the exact number of children alive/killed during the flood. This of course might not be that important a point but is worth noting. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing exactly what happened to these children.

2) We do not know the prophesies of Noah. We have no idea what the L-rd was saying to humanity at that time other then what is included in scripture and what is included is sparse.

Other people can poke other holes into what was said, but I would like to say: we simply do not know the rest of the story.

I have personal theory: I do not think the destruction Moroni describes in Ether and in his own book are the only time near-complete genocide happened on the earth. What if those alive at Noah's time had already nearly killed everyone off? Children are the easiest to kill, why is it that G-d has to be the only person who could have done it?

We just do not know. Any type of implication of The L-rd is reckless speculation considering the weakness of the historical record and considering the other examples of absolute destructiveness humanity is capable of. I believe it more likely that G-d was just killing off the final groups of wicked who survived possible (and oft repeated) global slaughter.

[Guest Yediyd]

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to add my two cents, or share what I have learned about the flood and Abraham being told to sacrifice his son.

RE: the flood and the innocent being killed...we don't know how wicked the world must have been, but if there was no hope for any child born during that era to have even a CHANCE of a decent life, I can only imagine how wicked people were, especially since, as wicked as the world is now, we are still here!

There must have been incredible sexual immorality...perhaps they initiated young children into sexual activity, maybe it was a part of their "culture"? No doubt homosexual activity was rampant, even encouraged. That has happened to us- there are even some groups out there who are using their influence to try and make sexual activity with children acceptable (NAMBLA and others).

We know that history has told us that even great societies begin their downfall (i.e. the Roman Empire, etc,) due to moral decay...

Snow, do you have children? If so, are they old enough to make really bad choices due to the evil influences they choose to listen to? They were born innocent...What if they had NO CHANCE of growing up to be a half-way decent person because their environment was that wicked?? What sort of miserable life would that be? Remember too, your grandchildren would have no chance at real happiness or joy either, their children, and so on...

As a parent, I would rather my innocent baby went back to his or her Maker then perpetuate evilness in the world. It wouldn't be a punishment but a mercy to their little souls, saving them from a horrible life. We just don't know what their life was like back then, but it must have been very bad.

It is not God's fault that people yield to the temptations of Satan and his followers. It is DESPITE his influence. Noah's people had 20 years (as he built the Ark) to listen to his begging and pleading with them to stop their evil practices and wicked lifestyles...no doubt he appealed to them to listen for their children's sake, to avoid such a horrible calamity of babies and children being drown in the flood.

God loved them..he gave them a prophet...Who is responsible for their refusal to obey their prophet thus bringing on their own and their children's destruction?? They were.

As far as Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, I don't understand why this is so widely seen as cruel and wrong, once you really study the facts we have been given. The main reason, I believe, that this was asked of him is so that when we are struggling with our lives and having trouble following the Lord's commandments, we can always look to the example of Abraham and how obedient he was. Some sources even say that his son Isaac knew what his father was doing, and was himself obedient to the Lord's command that he be sacrificed, willingly climbing the mountain with his father and gathering the wood for the fire!

The Lord had no intention of making Abraham go through with it, as we all know. He was giving us the ultimate example of obedience. This story has helped me to do what is required of me, no matter how difficult. (I would liken it to the story of Job's sufferings..the absolute worst case scenarios that make our problems seem more manageable by comparison.)

In the end Snow, those children who died in the flood were received into a state of perputual joy with their Heavenly Parents. We are taught that once we pass over we do not concern ourselves with the things of the world anymore...they have been saved without having to become spotted by the world, they are happy forever and that is what is really important in the end, isn't it?

I agree with almost everything you said...the onlything I beg to differ on is the time it took Noah to build the Ark...that was between 100 and 120 years...The people had plenty of time to repent.

[shanstress70]

I don't believe that the Bible is infallible. Too many translations and too many hands in the pot.

For those of you who believe that it was written without error, what are your reasons? BTW, I respect your opinion... just don't understand it.

[the Ogre]

I don't believe that the Bible is infallible. Too many translations and too many hands in the pot.

For those of you who believe that it was written without error, what are your reasons? BTW, I respect your opinion... just don't understand it.

On an LDS site, I think you are going to find more people who belive you then disbelieve you.

[Dr T]

I think Satan wants us to believe the Bible/God's word is not preserved. If you don't have the Bible what do you have for your beliefs beside yourself?

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't believe that the Bible is infallible. Too many translations and too many hands in the pot.

For those of you who believe that it was written without error, what are your reasons? BTW, I respect your opinion... just don't understand it.

On an LDS site, I think you are going to find more people who belive you then disbelieve you. Yup.

I'm not in total dissagreement with you, Shan...check out the thread that I started: No Ripple in the Glass, or you can read it in my blog...but I love my Bible...and I take most of it literally...I believe that it is lacking, and in arror in some places like in Gen. where it states: REPLENTISH the Earth and the original Hebrew says: FILL...that is why I am learning Hebrew, because I want to read it from the original source, well...the closest to the original that I can get...

[shanstress70]

I think Satan wants us to believe the Bible/God's word is not preserved. If you don't have the Bible what do you have for your beliefs beside yourself?

So I'm going to assume that you are a Christian who believes the Bible is infallible. If not, sorry. Why do you believe that we should think it's truly God's preserved word? Why do you trust imperfect men... that they were 100% honest?

And to answer your question, I don't think we have a lot to go on for the basis of our beliefs. I don't think anyone knows a whole lot, and I don't think God meant for us to know a lot... otherwise He would give us the answers in a nonrefutable manner. Yes, I do have a belief in God, but I don't pretend to know all the answers. I don't believe that anyone does until they pass onto the other side.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think Satan wants us to believe the Bible/God's word is not preserved. If you don't have the Bible what do you have for your beliefs beside yourself?

So I'm going to assume that you are a Christian who believes the Bible is infallible. If not, sorry. Why do you believe that we should think it's truly God's preserved word? Why do you trust imperfect men... that they were 100% honest?

And to answer your question, I don't think we have a lot to go on for the basis of our beliefs. I don't think anyone knows a whole lot, and I don't think God meant for us to know a lot... otherwise He would give us the answers in a nonrefutable manner. Yes, I do have a belief in God, but I don't pretend to know all the answers. I don't believe that anyone does until they pass onto the other side.

Paul said the same thing, Shanstress...in 1st Corinthians 13...now we see through a glass darkly...

[CrimsonKairos]

Shan, that's why I'm grateful for latter-day scriptures and revelations. We don't have to rely solely on the Bible. It's like we used to teach on the mission:

If you have one dot on a piece of paper, you can draw an infinite number of lines through it from an infinite number of directions. However, if you have two dots on a piece of paper, you can only draw one line between the two.

Similarly, if you have only one book of scripture (the Bible) then the number of interpretations are nearly infinite. However, if you have two or more books of scriptures, there is usually only one clear doctrine that emerges from consulting both of them, much like drawing a line between two dots.

Would you rather hang a door from one hinge or two?

[Dr T]

There is a proper way to reason about scripture/a method. Hermeneutics and exegesis plus the aid of the Holy Spirit. Sure people can have opinions about it but it must be consistent, based on the text and the context, who it was written to, and compared with the whole of scriptural for its support, etc. God said that his word will stand forever. I believe there are little, nonessential issues in scripture. It is something like 99.9% correct and 100% of the essentials. Those are not a problem for me, I think the essentials, Christ and him crucified and resurrected is what it's all about. "Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 tim 3:16). Really looking at what we have textually and comparing the consistency across time is phenomenal. The idea that "there are so many translations" just tells me that it hasn't truly been investigated Shan. Or may investigated and not understood. Biblical support, history, geography, etc. is so strong that to say its not is naive.

[CrimsonKairos]

2 Timothy 3:16 may be one of the most ironic passages as far as the accuracy of scriptures go.

Joseph Smith Translation of that verse reads:

And all Scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable...

It's not saying, "Hey this Bible you're holding contains only inspired words and is completely whole!"

The original verse was saying that all scriptures that are inspired are profitable. Not all things that assert they come from God are inspired, are scripture, or are profitable.

I love the internal evidence that the Bible is accurate...kinda' circular. Is the Bible whole? Yep? How do we know that? It says so in 2 Timothy!

[Guest Yediyd]

2 Timothy 3:16 may be one of the most ironic passages as far as the accuracy of scriptures go.

Joseph Smith Translation of that verse reads:

And all Scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable...

It's not saying, "Hey this Bible you're holding contains only inspired words and is completely whole!"

The original verse was saying that all scriptures that are inspired are profitable. Not all things that assert they come from God are inspired, are scripture, or are profitable.

I love the internal evidence that the Bible is accurate...kinda' circular. Is the Bible whole? Yep? How do we know that? It says so in 2 Timothy!

Kinda like asking a con-artist to be streight with ya!!!

[Dr T]

I don't expect any to believe what I'm saying. I know the differences in our beliefs are so vast and you have learned to dismiss my type of thinking. It's not surprising and actually expected. Just letting you know where I'm coming from with my beliefs.

[Guest Yediyd]

I don't expect any to believe what I'm saying. I know the differences in our beliefs are so vast and you have learned to dismiss my type of thinking. It's not surprising and actually expected. Just letting you know where I'm coming from with my beliefs.

Oh but I DO understand where you are comming from...I was a fundamentalist southern Baptist for 40 years of my life!!!! I was taught that the AV 1611 KJV was the ONLY reliable, INFALLIBLE, and COMPLETE word of G-d...been there, done that.

...still love you. BTW...Dr. T.

[prisonchaplain]

IF we believe in the resurrection, and the children of the flood were moral innocents ("age of accountability" and all), then they would have died and immediately entered an eternal state of blessing.

I don't think I missed the point Snow. I think the question I added to yours of "Can God be immoral?" is the real question. THe actions appear, when applied to a mere man, immoral and thus the conflict. If God is perfect and always just, then if we claim he is not because of the Biblical accounts, then something has to give. Either He IS unjust or there is a justifiable reason for those actions.

Dr. T., you do understand that Snow's point is that God is perfect, but that the Bible is not. I believe he is calling into question the veracity of the Flood account, and perhaps even of the value of the parable, since it puts God in the position of appearing to behave "ungodly."

[Dr T]

PC,

Yes sir. Thank you, I got that.

===

Yediyd,

See that's the difference. I do not hold the King James version as the only authoritative translation. I prefer the NASB personally but I read a number of translations when looking into each passage. Still loving being loved. :)

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think Satan wants us to believe the Bible/God's word is not preserved. If you don't have the Bible what do you have for your beliefs beside yourself?

So I'm going to assume that you are a Christian who believes the Bible is infallible. If not, sorry. Why do you believe that we should think it's truly God's preserved word? Why do you trust imperfect men... that they were 100% honest?

And to answer your question, I don't think we have a lot to go on for the basis of our beliefs. I don't think anyone knows a whole lot, and I don't think God meant for us to know a lot... otherwise He would give us the answers in a nonrefutable manner. Yes, I do have a belief in God, but I don't pretend to know all the answers. I don't believe that anyone does until they pass onto the other side.

The Bible is a miracle, 1400 years in the making. 40 authors from vastly different generations, a few different cultures, and three different languages. Vary levels of education and position. Yet, there is a unifying flow to it, a consistency, and a beauty. It has survived, where so many other pretended Scriptures and inspirations have faultered (btw, how's The Secret doing these days? ).

The idea that God would choose to reveal himself, both through live prophets and kings, and through the written word is compelling. This is a tanglible work that we can study and wrestle with. Much of it is simple enough. The NIV is written at a 7th grade reading level. And yet, scholars have spent their whole lives on it and confessed to having only scratched the surface.

So, yes, I believe the Bible is the believable word of God. You'll find typos in many editions, and there are a few passages that are debated. There are different understandings that come out of it. And yet, for all the Christian churches, there is an amazing convergence on key beliefs and understandings.

If Noah's flood literally happened--and I believe it did (so does Romney, btw)--then God whisked the innocents to an immediate and eternal reward. If it's parable, then there is much truth to be learned from it. And, btw, figuring out what God wants to teach me may be more important than whether the many of the accounts are historical or morality fables.

[Snow]

Dr. T., you do understand that Snow's point is that God is perfect, but that the Bible is not. I believe he is calling into question the veracity of the Flood account, and perhaps even of the value of the parable, since it puts God in the position of appearing to behave "ungodly."

Well - I don't believe the Bible is perfect but that is not the point I am making here. The flood story could be a parable of sorts without having to worry about whether or not it is completely moral or completely true.

[the Ogre]

The idea that God would choose to reveal himself, both through live prophets and kings, and through the written word is compelling.

But not compelling enough to think The Word could be given to live prophets in our time as well. Hmmm...

And, btw, figuring out what God wants to teach me may be more important than whether the many of the accounts are historical or morality fables.

Absolutely!

[Snow]

Why is it that only the people who agree with you have inteligent answers? My answer is not in agreement with you, but is valid just the same...and somehow...I knew you would not have a friendly response to me...what is it, Snow? why must you be so contrary? I don't understand how Emma gets banned for being too argumentative and you are allowed to continue to make people feel unwelcome and stupid every time they dissagree with you.

I don't care if anyone's answer agrees with me or not. I only care if it is correct or insightful. In this case you said: "Only G-d knows why he does the things he does, I am in no possition to second guess him." which has nothing to do with the point at hand. God is not being questioned here - only what people say about God.

I am sorry if you feel unwelcome. That is not my intent. You are probably more welcome here than I am and rightfully so. My only intent is to challenge and stir things up... if I am successful, interest and passion rise and we all learn something. I used to post here a lot. When I started, back on the old board, my knowledge of things LDS was about average. Because of the challenge and controversy we faced here, I studied religion and the scriptures every single day for over four years. While I am far from the most educated person on things Mormon, I do know somethings - some valuable things and it was these debates that motivated me.

By the way Yediyd, I don't have the power to make anyone feel stupid or feel any one way or another. People act and we adults decide how we are going to feel about it. If you don't like the way you feel because of what you see me, or anyone else post, then do something about it and change the way your feel and think and process.

[prisonchaplain]

..But not compelling enough to think The Word could be given to live prophets in our time as well. Hmmm...

A large % of Christian laity believe that the Bible is God's Word, and that the canon of Scripture (they would not know to call it that) is closed. For a long time, I also believed that the passage in Revelation about not adding to this word, referred to the whole Bible.

I've come to the same conclusion that Prof. Blomberg did, in his dicussion with BYU professor, Stephen Robinson: That the Scriptures are not absolutely closed, but that there has been no apparent revelation since the Bible was formally canonized.

So...there is room for the possiblity that God could add to the canon, and it is not automatically heretical for anyone, including Joseph Smith, to say that such has happened. So, the question is whether Smith's accounts are true.

(BTW, I probably would not have said such, even two years ago).

Well - I don't believe the Bible is perfect but that is not the point I am making here. The flood story could be a parable of sorts without having to worry about whether or not it is completely moral or completely true.

Are you simply arguing against the necessity of a dogmatically literalist understanding of such passages, then?

[Snow]

(BTW, I probably would not have said such, even two years ago).

We all mature.... of course the canon but remain theoretically open, else when Christ returned, we'd have to not listen to him - or consider his words are meritorious as Paul's and Peter's...