Noah's Flood

[Grunt]

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

You got me. Don't you feel better.

I didn't look exhaustively, but I found none. I found this statement interesting at fairmormon:

They also mention Parry's '98 Ensign article as " clearly and directly indicat[ing]

his opinion that the flood was global in nature." [emphasis mine]. fairmormon, towards the end of the article, still insists that the Church takes no official position on this issue. The overall tone of the fairmormon article still seems to me to be that many members/prophets/apostles teach of a global flood, but this does not mean that Mormonism officially teaches that the flood was global. I may be straining at gnats here, but it seems an important distinction to make sometimes.

It's not about feeling better.  It's about ensuring what the Church teaches at the front of the conversation when people who teach against the church are talking.  It's just important that the distinction is made.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

You got me. Don't you feel better.

I didn't look exhaustively, but I found none. I found this statement interesting at fairmormon:

They also mention Parry's '98 Ensign article as " clearly and directly indicat[ing]

his opinion that the flood was global in nature." [emphasis mine]. fairmormon, towards the end of the article, still insists that the Church takes no official position on this issue. The overall tone of the fairmormon article still seems to me to be that many members/prophets/apostles teach of a global flood, but this does not mean that Mormonism officially teaches that the flood was global. I may be straining at gnats here, but it seems an important distinction to make sometimes.

Well, the official position of the church is that the flood covered the whole earth-

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) (Guide to the Scriptures, entry Flood at Noah's time)

[MrShorty]

@Rob Osborn: As I noted, the people of FairMormon would disagree with you. That should come as no surprise, because in this thread alone we have 600 some odd posts across 20 some odd pages of people disagreeing on this issue. In the spirit of Pres. H. B. Lee's "speak not only to be understood but to not be misunderstood", if the Church officially wanted to squelch all disagreement, they would put something in that Gospel Topics essay that explicitly refutes any of the alternative explanations.

[BJ64]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, the official position of the church is that the flood covered the whole earth-

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) (Guide to the Scriptures, entry Flood at Noah's time)

I find it interesting that people will take one verse and interpreted to mean something and then claim that to be doctrine. When I read that verse I do not read that the earth was baptized.

“...wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...”

I don’t get in those versus anything about the earth being baptized.

What I get is that Noah and his family were saved from the sins of the world by the waters of the flood and in a like manner we are saved or we get our salvation through baptism. I see nothing about baptism of the earth in this. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by BJ64

[Grunt]

47 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Rob Osborn: As I noted, the people of FairMormon would disagree with you. That should come as no surprise, because in this thread alone we have 600 some odd posts across 20 some odd pages of people disagreeing on this issue. In the spirit of Pres. H. B. Lee's "speak not only to be understood but to not be misunderstood", if the Church officially wanted to squelch all disagreement, they would put something in that Gospel Topics essay that explicitly refutes any of the alternative explanations.

Sure.  And if God wanted to squelch all disagreement, he'd run a PR firm from Manhattan.  That's an "anti" argument.  The FACT remains that LDS.org has the answer and only ONE answer.

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I find it interesting that people will take one verse and interpreted to mean something and then claim that to be doctrine. When I read that verse I do not read that the earth was baptized.

“...wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...”

I don’t get in those versus anything about the earth being baptized.

What I get is that Noah and his family were saved from the sins of the world by the waters of the flood and in a like manner we are saved or we get our salvation through baptism. I see nothing about baptism of the earth in this. 

It says the earth was completely covered with water. What more is there to say?

[Rob Osborn]

51 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Rob Osborn: As I noted, the people of FairMormon would disagree with you. That should come as no surprise, because in this thread alone we have 600 some odd posts across 20 some odd pages of people disagreeing on this issue. In the spirit of Pres. H. B. Lee's "speak not only to be understood but to not be misunderstood", if the Church officially wanted to squelch all disagreement, they would put something in that Gospel Topics essay that explicitly refutes any of the alternative explanations.

The Guide to the Scriptures defines selected doctrines, principles, people, and places found in the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. It also provides key scriptural references for you to study for each topic. This Guide can help you in your individual and family study of the scriptures. 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.

[BJ64]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It says the earth was completely covered with water. What more is there to say?

It may save the earth was completely covered with water but it says nothing about baptism of the earth.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It may save the earth was completely covered with water but it says nothing about baptism of the earth.

What's the difference? The earth was completely submerged in water.

[BJ64]

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

What's the difference? The earth was completely submerged in water.

A person can be completely submerged in water without it being a baptism.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

A person can be completely submerged in water without it being a baptism.

So...?

[Overwatch]

Hey LB,

It is very probable that the whole earth was flooded. Can I convince you or anyone of it 100%, NO.  It's fun when I get the chance to hike a mountain and find a sea shell on top. It really makes the history become more fun. 

 

Best wishes

[Anddenex]

On 5/26/2018 at 10:22 AM, BJ64 said:

I find it interesting that people will take one verse and interpreted to mean something and then claim that to be doctrine. When I read that verse I do not read that the earth was baptized.

“...wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...”

I don’t get in those versus anything about the earth being baptized.

What I get is that Noah and his family were saved from the sins of the world by the waters of the flood and in a like manner we are saved or we get our salvation through baptism. I see nothing about baptism of the earth in this. 

I find it interesting that people will take one verse and interpreted to mean something and then claim that to be doctrine. When I read that verse I do not read that the earth was baptized.

The "people" here is stemming from "lds.org", which just isn't anyone. When an individual Church member wants to study more about the flood and Noah this is what the Church teaches. (Source) The doctrine is that a flood happened. The interpretation of the flood and its outcome is provided from an authentic source. So, I find it interesting when an individual (church member) calls the Church "people" who somehow just take one verse and interpret it. This notion reminds me of many conversations with Protestant Christians who would ask, does the Bible speak of baptism for the dead? When you show them the verse they oddly say the same thing. You take one verse, interpret it, and call it doctrine -- or the way it was meant. I find it also interesting when members use the same arguments as Protestant Christians when trying to say the scripture means something it doesn't, although we have been given interpretation.

Joseph Smith is quoted to have said the following, "Noah came before the flood. I have come before the fire." It isn't hard to see the dual meaning of baptism and holy ghost (fire and cleansing), with flood (covering the whole earth), and fire (cleansing).

Just because you "don't get it" despite the Church's teachings doesn't really mean anything, because it is consistently taught, "This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21)." If you want to deny this, because you don't get it, sure that is your choice. I met a lot of people that don't get how certain verses speak of heavenly glories in the Bible, and not earthly entities, because it is a few verses taken out of context.

Who has the key, stewardship, and responsibility to teach true doctrine and interpretation to the whole body of the Church? (BJ64 or the Church's authentic sources?)

 

[Lost Boy]

On 5/26/2018 at 2:07 PM, Overwatch said:

Hey LB,

It is very probable that the whole earth was flooded. Can I convince you or anyone of it 100%, NO.  It's fun when I get the chance to hike a mountain and find a sea shell on top. It really makes the history become more fun. 

 

Best wishes

Or it just means that you ignore the real mechanism for the seashell being there and instead, insert a fantasy. 

[NeuroTypical]

Sticking seashells on tops of mountains?  I'll have to mention that to this guy:

 

Evidence is cool.  But it's important to understand the difference between evidence and proof.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I find it interesting that people will take one verse and interpreted to mean something and then claim that to be doctrine. When I read that verse I do not read that the earth was baptized.

The "people" here is stemming from "lds.org", which just isn't anyone. When an individual Church member wants to study more about the flood and Noah this is what the Church teaches. (Source) The doctrine is that a flood happened. The interpretation of the flood and its outcome is provided from an authentic source. So, I find it interesting when an individual (church member) calls the Church "people" who somehow just take one verse and interpret it. This notion reminds me of many conversations with Protestant Christians who would ask, does the Bible speak of baptism for the dead? When you show them the verse they oddly say the same thing. You take one verse, interpret it, and call it doctrine -- or the way it was meant. I find it also interesting when members use the same arguments as Protestant Christians when trying to say the scripture means something it doesn't, although we have been given interpretation.

Joseph Smith is quoted to have said the following, "Noah came before the flood. I have come before the fire." It isn't hard to see the dual meaning of baptism and holy ghost (fire and cleansing), with flood (covering the whole earth), and fire (cleansing).

Just because you "don't get it" despite the Church's teachings doesn't really mean anything, because it is consistently taught, "This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21)." If you want to deny this, because you don't get it, sure that is your choice. I met a lot of people that don't get how certain verses speak of heavenly glories in the Bible, and not earthly entities, because it is a few verses taken out of context.

Who has the key, stewardship, and responsibility to teach true doctrine and interpretation to the whole body of the Church? (BJ64 or the Church's authentic sources?)

 

It seems to me we can acknowledge that the flood-as-baptism idea has an excellent latter-day prophetic pedigree while also acknowledging that it is not an inevitable conclusion from 1 Peter 3:20-21.

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems to me we can acknowledge that the flood-as-baptism idea has an excellent latter-day prophetic pedigree while also acknowledging that it is not an inevitable conclusion from 1 Peter 3:20-21.

I agree. I prophet may say the earth was baptized but these verses don’t. 

[Anddenex]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems to me we can acknowledge that the flood-as-baptism idea has an excellent latter-day prophetic pedigree while also acknowledging that it is not an inevitable conclusion from 1 Peter 3:20-21.

I agree with the sentiment, excluding given interpretation (additional meaning) as provided by the Church, which I know you agree that these aren't just "random" interpretations. Let me see if I can clarify. The verse John 5:29, is said to the be verse Joseph Smith was translating which provided us with Doctrine and Covenants section 76.

"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5: 29)

Let's view what we can from this verse in relation to Doctrine and Covenants 76:

1) Speak of the law of restoration

2) Glories of heaven are not mentioned

3) This initially wasn't "doctrine" or canon scripture, it was a vision or interpretation provided.

"It seems to me we can acknowledge that the [glories of heaven and law of restoration] idea has an excellent latter-day prophetic pedigree while also acknowledging that it is not an inevitable conclusion from [John 5: 29].

The statement you provide is very different from finding it interesting that "people" including Church authentic sources will take one verse (or a few verses) and provide further interpretation and call it doctrine, as if they are in error.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Anddenex

[BJ64]

10 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I agree with the sentiment, excluding given interpretation (additional meaning) as provided by the Church, which I know you agree that these aren't just "random" interpretations. Let me see if I can clarify. The verse John 5:29, is said to the be verse Joseph Smith was translating which provided us with Doctrine and Covenants section 76.

"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5: 29)

Let's view what we can from this verse in relation to Doctrine and Covenants 76:

1) Speak of the law of restoration

2) Glories of heaven are not mentioned

3) This initially wasn't "doctrine" or canon scripture, it was a vision or interpretation provided.

"It seems to me we can acknowledge that the [glories of heaven and law of restoration] idea has an excellent latter-day prophetic pedigree while also acknowledging that it is not an inevitable conclusion from [John 5: 29].

The statement you provide is very different from finding it interesting that "people" including Church authentic sources will take one verse (or a few verses) and provide further interpretation and call it doctrine, as if they are in error.

However section 76 is recorded in our standard works. Baptism of the earth is not recorded in our standard works.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

However section 76 is recorded in our standard works. Baptism of the earth is not recorded in our standard works.

 

(Yet).

 

(I’m being facetious, of course.  Once we start trying to define doctrine by what we’re pretty sure will one day be canonical—that can lead us down a lot of rabbit holes in itself.  But I would agree with @Anddenex that prophetic near-consensus, even in the absence of canon, is not lightly set aside.)

Edited May 30, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Overwatch]

Lol Sea Shells on top of a mountain and the rainbow in the sky work for me.

No matter what scripture or scientific fact I can pull out of my booty it is to each person to believe a flood happened or not.

At this point it really doesn't matter (don't go stocking up on floaties); Next time Mother Earth is getting burned

🔥🔥🔥

[wenglund]

As I understand things, the doctrine is baptism by immersion, whereas the flood is a type and shadow (whether figurative or literal) of that doctrine. If so, then that should prioritize our focus and inform where greater unanimity or latitude in belief is appropriate.

The point being, our progression towards becoming like Christ is not dependent upon whether or not the flood literally covered the entire earth with water, thereby allowing us to concentrate on the things that enable us to progress, and not get stuck on things that don't.

By extension, another doctrine is that we are to be baptized by the fire of the Spirit, with the earth again providing a type and shadow, and this whether or not the entire earth will be burned by literal fire.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sticking seashells on tops of mountains?  I'll have to mention that to this guy:

 

Evidence is cool.  But it's important to understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Aye, and so the rest of the readers dont get confused, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. Only evidence exists and it can be interpreted as everything from believed to be false to believed to be true and every degree inbetween.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

As I understand things, the doctrine is baptism by immersion, whereas the flood is a type and shadow (whether figurative or literal) of that doctrine. If so, then that should prioritize our focus and inform where greater unanimity or latitude in belief is appropriate.

The point being, our progression towards becoming like Christ is not dependent upon whether or not the flood literally covered the entire earth with water, thereby allowing us to concentrate on the things that enable us to progress, and not get stuck on things that don't.

By extension, another doctrine is that we are to be baptized by the fire of the Spirit, with the earth again providing a type and shadow, and this whether or not the entire earth will be burned by literal fire.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, becoming like Christ embodies all truth and as such requires faith to get there. The flood is a type or representation of faith that if believed brings one closer to Christ.

[NeuroTypical]

26 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

there is no such thing as "proof" in science. 

Indeed.  I  wish more folks understood this.  Just evidence of varying strength.

 

That said, when you consider Noah's flood, the evidence really ain't that strong.  Folks who believe otherwise, tend to not understand the concept of evidence at all.

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by NeuroTypical