Noah's Flood

[askandanswer]

One possibility is that from the perspective of the person who recorded the event, the flood may have covered everything he saw, thus appearing to be universal. As far as he knew, it was universal.

Another possibility: We know that pre-flood people lived on the American continent. If the sea levels rose, as they do from time to time, and if Noah lived in a flat, flood-prone coastal neighbourhood, then its not hard to imagine that rising sea levels combined with a lengthy period of intense rain could have led to a situation whereby Noah and his ark floated out to the already existing nearby ocean, and they stayed on that existing ocean until they reached the flooded Murat River and sailed up along that river until they came to Mt Ararat in Turkey. If that was the route they followed, then they would have been on open ocean or flooded rivers the whole way, thereby giving the appearance that everything was flooded.

The prevalence among so many diverse cultures of stories about the whole earth being flooded lean towards the conclusion that at some point, there may have been some truth to these many legends. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Do you believe a flood covered the entire Earth?  I have never been able to accept this.  I could accept that Noah was in a flood and found himself swept out to sea, but a flood that covered all the earth??  No.

What is your thought on this?

I'm with Becca on this one, except I would say that I live my covenants as though the scriptural record is literal. On one hand: "the earth" was "the land" and not the planet; the baptism of the land ("earth") is in line with land of promise, inheritance set apart, etc. -- though this teaching may be a leftover from pre-restoration traditions; on the other hand: there is a lot to learn from a literal interpretation.

The idea "as though the scriptural record is literal" is consistent with many gospel principles taught in and out of the temple, as a scriptural word search of the phrase "as though" will demonstrate.

Edited May 4, 2018 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

I have always seen this issue as whether one believes God or the hand of man.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have always seen this issue as whether one believes God or the hand of man.

From my experience, one who uses The Flood as a litmus test for others' personal beliefs often appeals to “scientific,” “logical” and “philosophical” evidence – all products of the hand of man, mind you! -- to defend his view! 😊

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have always seen this issue as whether one believes God or the hand of man.

Creation details, what exaltation will and won't look like, details around the flood - all excellent opportunities for us humans to take up our unrighteous and poor quality tools of judgment, and use them on our fellow man in order to prove what kind of Christian they are. 

IMO, life really is sunnier when you don't do this jargle.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging

[CV75]

14 hours ago, person0 said:

For what it's worth, Church materials do teach that the flood was literal, and that it immersed the entire earth.  It is currently a part of our doctrine:

The writers of the Old Testament used “wash” to refer to “immersion” (the tevilah; for example, Exodus 40:12). As we know, analog rituals can be performed symbolically and carry the same legitimacy as though they took place in actuality. So the earth may have been symbolically baptized through a local flood, taking nothing away from our doctrine. The symbolic ordinance of a local flood yields the same effect as though an actual, global immersion took place; the ordinance renders the effect as though the event took place literally. There are many instances in Church practice where this pattern continues today.

[person0]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So the earth may have been symbolically baptized through a local flood, taking nothing away from our doctrine.

If that is what the brethren start teaching, then I will believe it (probably with initial hesitance).  Right now, even though logically that could be the case, it is not what is being taught, and I believe what is being taught.

Further, the minimal availability of resources pertaining to this topic is a clear indicator that it is a minor detail, not a principle of major importance.  However, as insignificant as it may seem, I have no reason to not believe what is currently being taught by the Church.

[MrShorty]

Perhaps it is just my bromance with Spackman's work, but I dislike the 1998 Ensign article -- for many of the reasons Spackman mentions here: http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/02/mormon-appropriation-of-fundamentalism-and-its-outcomes/ In particular, I dislike the whole no true Scotman-ish "[all good] Latter-day Saints believe in a global flood" that the author suggests. In less than 24 hours, this thread alone is evidence that there are many good LDS who do not believe in a literal, global flood. Speaking for myself, I don't usually appreciate articles like this that imply that my faith and commitment to God, Christ, and His Church are are somehow "less than" because I don't believe in a literal global flood. That was part of why I highlighted Elder Widtsoe's idea was to help point out that even some of our highest leaders have not believed in a global flood.

Probably related, but another aspect of this is how many "faith crises" (in Mormonism and broader Christianity) include some element of "could not reconcile science and religion and so I chose science". How many of those felt limited by a fundamenantilist view of scripture, and did not know that there are perfectly good ways of reconciling science and scripture.

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Creation details, what exaltation will and won't look like, details around the flood - all excellent opportunities for us humans to take up our unrighteous and poor quality tools of judgment, and use them on our fellow man in order to prove what kind of Christian they are. 

IMO, life really is sunnier when you don't do this jargle.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging

Thou hypocrite, are you not judging me?

[Rob Osborn]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From my experience, one who uses The Flood as a litmus test for others' personal beliefs often appeals to “scientific,” “logical” and “philosophical” evidence – all products of the hand of man, mind you! -- to defend his view! 😊

 

It's really about believing God can do something or not regardless of outward evidence. It just so happens in this case that there is mountains of evidence for a worldwide flood. But, one must believe first in God rather than look at the hand of man.

[NeuroTypical]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thou hypocrite, are you not judging me?

Absolutely not.  I don't know your heart, your reasoning, I don't even know your ability to accurately communicate what's on your mind.  

I am, however judging your words.  Interpreting meaning as best I can is a righteous judgment, something required in human communication.  You had something to say and said it, I am hearing it and judging it.  

So, when you indicate that you think one's opinion on the flood is indication of whether one believes God or the hand of man, I hear you saying you think one's opinion on the flood is an indication of whether one believes God or the hand of man.   It really sounds like you're taking someone's opinion and telling us what you think it means about their beliefs about God.  And since I am judging Elder Oaks' advice in that link to be sound and applicable, your words would seem to fall into the unrighteous judgment category.   My judgment may be correct or incorrect, I admit I may not be right.  But I'm just judging your words, and expressing how I've learned to do something else and it has brought me sunnier days.  Much lighter judgment than your judgment about what people believe.

No judging Rob Osborn necessary.

Edited May 4, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Rob Osborn]

42 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Absolutely not.  I don't know your heart, your reasoning, I don't even know your ability to accurately communicate what's on your mind.  

I am, however judging your words.  Interpreting meaning as best I can is a righteous judgment, something required in human communication.  You had something to say and said it, I am hearing it and judging it.  

So, when you indicate that you think one's opinion on the flood is indication of whether one believes God or the hand of man, I hear you saying you think one's opinion on the flood is an indication of whether one believes God or the hand of man.   It really sounds like you're taking someone's opinion and telling us what you think it means about their beliefs about God.  And since I am judging Elder Oaks' advice in that link to be sound and applicable, your words would seem to fall into the unrighteous judgment category.   My judgment may be correct or incorrect, I admit I may not be right.  But I'm just judging your words, and expressing how I've learned to do something else and it has brought me sunnier days.  Much lighter judgment than your judgment about what people believe.

No judging Rob Osborn necessary.

It's only you who are unrighteously judging. Take the mote out of your own eye first as the scriptures say.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

If that is what the brethren start teaching, then I will believe it (probably with initial hesitance).  Right now, even though logically that could be the case, it is not what is being taught, and I believe what is being taught.

Further, the minimal availability of resources pertaining to this topic is a clear indicator that it is a minor detail, not a principle of major importance.  However, as insignificant as it may seem, I have no reason to not believe what is currently being taught by the Church.

I'm not asking anyone to believe it, only sharing an observation. My take is that my observation is not inconsistent with the Church resources you shared in your post.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thou hypocrite, are you not judging me?

Wow, NT. You really suck.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's really about believing God can do something or not regardless of outward evidence. It just so happens in this case that there is mountains of evidence for a worldwide flood. But, one must believe first in God rather than look at the hand of man.

I think everyone who believes in God believes He can do something regardless of outward evidence. Yet you appeal to "mountains of [man-made] evidence" in reference to The Flood as being consistent with believing first in God, but back-filling statements of faith with "evidence" from teh philosophies of men isn't necessary. Pure testimony, such as those shared by person0 with his links to Church resources, are sufficient on that point.

[zil]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Wow, NT. You really suck.

Maybe we should see if this new chat feature sucks.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think everyone who believes in God believes He can do something regardless of outward evidence. Yet you appeal to "mountains of [man-made] evidence" in reference to The Flood as being consistent with believing first in God, but back-filling statements of faith with "evidence" from teh philosophies of men isn't necessary. Pure testimony, such as those shared by person0 with his links to Church resources, are sufficient on that point.

I agree that testimony alone is all that's needed. It's a bonus we have mountains of evidence also.

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree that testimony alone is all that's needed. It's a bonus we have mountains of evidence also.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree that testimony alone is all that's needed. It's a bonus we have mountains of evidence also.

Now that's just circular... Notice I was being very nice using the euphemism "unnecessary" since the philosophies of men also undermine testimony.

[MarginOfError]

I'll just link to this. 

 

I find the idea of a literal world wide flood to be as naive as the idea that a week has seven days because of Genesis.

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now that's just circular... Notice I was being very nice using the euphemism "unnecessary" since the philosophies of men also undermine testimony.

"Circular" like in the way geologists age rocks by the fossils in them then age the fossils by the rocks they are found in? Or were you meaning something else?

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'll just link to this. 

 

I find the idea of a literal world wide flood to be as naive as the idea that a week has seven days because of Genesis.

I wonder if you find it naive that Christ actually walked on top of water?

[MarginOfError]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I wonder if you find it naive that Christ actually walked on top of water?

Couldn't tell you. Wasn't there. There's simply no observable evidence either for or against the hypothesis.

But I'm not afraid to recognize that the story of such an event was written down sometime between 40 and 80 years after Christ's death by an unidentified, biased author who likely never met Jesus. So I'm willing to consider that it may have been literal, story telling device, or legend.

Whatever way you read it, you completely ignored the content of my post, which I find peculiar.

[BeccaKirstyn]

3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Couldn't tell you. Wasn't there. There's simply no observable evidence either for or against the hypothesis.

But I'm not afraid to recognize that the story of such an event was written down sometime between 40 and 80 years after Christ's death by an unidentified, biased author who likely never met Jesus. So I'm willing to consider that it may have been literal, story telling device, or legend.

Whatever way you read it, you completely ignored the content of my post, which I find peculiar.

Read this and your previous post and then noticed your profile states "uncooperative Mormon". 

Makes sense. 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

"Circular" like in the way geologists age rocks by the fossils in them then age the fossils by the rocks they are found in? Or were you meaning something else?

LOL something else entirely; nothing to do with geology.