Noah's Flood

[Midwest LDS]

12 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Does the church have a teaching on Noah's flood? 

Yes it seems so. We know Noah was a real person, Joseph Smith saw and spoke with him, and we know that the flood happened and destroyed a group of people who would not listen to Noah. Elder John A. Widstoe in 1943 said this about the flood "“The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further.”  So as I said about 20 pages ago (this is a long thread, people are pretty passionate about it☺), I believe in a global flood. It doesn't seem any harder to me than stopping the Earth in it's rotation like the Lord did through Joshua or causing a decomposing corpse to rise up and walk as the Savior did with Lazarus. There is far less scientific evidence of those events. But, this does not seem on the same level as the principal aspects of the Gospel (Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Atonement, Repentance, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins etc.) so if you are struggling with the idea of a global rather than a local flood, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Whichever group ends up being right, can say to the others I told you so when we get to the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Grunt]

Dupalicious

Edited May 31, 2018 by Grunt

[Midwest LDS]

Dup

Edited May 31, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Still not sure it's official teaching, but I guess I have to resign because alas, I don't really believe in a literal flood.

 

Believe what you want. Nobody will stop you.  When arguing against the church, though, it's probably best to let those you're educating know that you are, in fact, arguing against the church. I'm new though.  What do I know.

[Midwest LDS]

Dup

Edited May 31, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Believe what you want, but you're on the wrong side of the church.  

Eh, it won't be the first time, and it won't be the last. Notice though-I'm not arguing anything. Just saying what I believe. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

Yes it seems so. We know Noah was a real person, Joseph Smith saw and spoke with him, and we know that the flood happened and destroyed a group of people who would not listen to Noah. Elder John A. Widstoe in 1943 said this about the flood "“The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further.”  So as I said about 20 pages ago (this is a long thread, people are pretty passionate about it☺), I believe in a global flood. It doesn't seem any harder to me than stopping the Earth in it's rotation like the Lord did through Joshua or causing a decomposing corpse to rise up and walk as the Savior did woth Lazarus. There is far less scientific evidence of those events. But, this does not seem on the same level as the principal aspects of the Gospel (Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Atonement, Repentance, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins etc.) so if you are struggling with the idea of a global rather than a local flood, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Whichever group ends up being right, can say to the others I told you so when we get to the Celestial Kingdom.

Someone wrote a very good answer from AG too. 

https://askgramps.org/story-flood-allegorical/

[Midwest LDS]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Someone wrote a very good answer from AG too. 

https://askgramps.org/story-flood-allegorical/

Sounds like exactly what I was trying to say☺

[Grunt]

All I'm trying to say is what I believe isn't relative.  Everything I can find through official church sources says it is literal.  I'll publicly sustain that statement until given a reason not to.  "Because I can't find evidence of it" or "It doesn't make sense to me" isn't reason enough for me to publicly counter the church.

[askandanswer]

I admire the strength of your committment and steadfastedness

[Guest Scott]

Quote

 Everything I can find through official church sources says it is literal.

Which ones?   Things like the Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures are not official church doctrine and it even says so in the introductions.  I'm not saying that there aren't any official doctrines that might mention it, but which ones are you calling official?  

Anyway, one thing being ignored is that Church doctrines change over time (regardless if members want to admit it or not).

What one prophet says can be denounced as false doctrine or even heresy by another, something that has happened several times in our Church.  I guess that could be a whole different topic though.   

I wouldn't expect that Church doctrine won't continue to change though.  It will as time goes on; just as it has before.  Until we die, there will always be plenty of things to sort out.  

Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott

[BJ64]

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

So tell me, when was the earth dry?

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, Scott said:

Things like the Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures are not official church doctrine and it even says so in the introductions.  I'm not saying that there aren't any official doctrines that might mention it, but which ones are you calling official?  

The Guide to the Scriptures actually states the topics discussed represent the doctrines of the church. The Bible Dictionary doesn't carry that title.

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

The Guide to the Scriptures actually states the topics discussed represent the doctrines of the church. The Bible Dictionary doesn't carry that title.

Probably good to provide quote and source:

Quote

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. (Source emphasis added)

 

[BJ64]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

Here's one.

Is Donald W Perry authorized to speak on behalf of the church?

[BJ64]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

A worldwide deluge would be expected -- required -- to leave massive and obvious evidence of its existence, even many tens of thousands of years later. 

The floods I’ve seen didn’t leave evidence for more than a year or so. I don’t know why Noah’s flood would be expected to leave evidence for more than a few years. The waters were only on the earth for a number of months. The flood waters didn’t even kill the olive tree that the dove found after the water had receded. 

[Just_A_Guy]

27 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

So tell me, when was the earth dry?

“Face of the ground” in verse 13 comes from “ha’ adamah” (the surface of the ground).  “The earth” in verse 15 comes from “ha’ aretz” and suggests that even below the surface the ground/mud had finally dried and become stable.

16 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Is Donald W Perry authorized to speak on behalf of the church?

Only when he gets an article published in the Ensign.   

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The floods I’ve seen didn’t leave evidence for more than a year or so. I don’t know why Noah’s flood would be expected to leave evidence for more than a few years. The waters were only on the earth for a number of months. The flood waters didn’t even kill the olive tree that the dove found after the water had receded. 

Well, the floods you've seen is nothing compared to the flood in Noah's day.

[BJ64]

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, the floods you've seen is nothing compared to the flood in Noah's day.

Modern floods may be local but whether there is twenty feet of water for a few days or weeks or a greater depth for a year the destruction would be similar. As I said the flood apparently did not kill the olive tree that the dove found. At any rate I would not expect to notice anything evidence of a great flood unless the water was on the earth for hundreds of years.  

We have a very large local reservoir that has been in existence for about sixty years. Even the day when the water gets really low the grass grows, tree stumps are evident and an old asphalt road becomes drivable. The main evidence to the water is the erosion on the shoreline. I would suppose that if the dam was removed that in a few hundred years the vegetation would take over and the shoreline erosion would disappear.  

Edited June 1, 2018 by BJ64

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The Guide to the Scriptures actually states the topics discussed represent the doctrines of the church. The Bible Dictionary doesn't carry that title.

That's actually interesting.   The reason is that the information has been changed on LDS.org.

There used to be this statement in the Introduction of Study Aids (pertaining to all study aids):

While not part of the official “canon” of the scriptures, study aids serve to help us in our understanding of the gospel by providing insights from scholars and providing links to other scriptures and information that may relate to a given topic.

It is interesting that it seems to have been moved (or removed).   Can anyone still find it on lds.org?

I also see that a lot of information in the study aids has recently changes, including topics pertaining to Adam and Eve as well as the Book of Abraham.  Those two are the most interesting changes.   Interesting indeed.   I did know that things had changed a few years ago, but didn't notice how much.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Modern floods may be local but whether there is twenty feet of water for a few days or weeks or a greater depth for a year the destruction would be similar. As I said the flood apparently did not kill the olive tree that the dove found. At any rate I would not expect to notice anything evidence of a great flood unless the water was on the earth for hundreds of years.  

The bird brought back an olive leaf. From the time the ark came to rest until the dove returned the olive leaf was three months. Studies have been done to show that seeds under water for a long period and then settle in ground can spring up and show leaves. So, it can be strongly argued the olive leaf was from a new tree just springing forth.

According to the scriptures the flood "destroyed" the earth. The flood was a violent and catastrophic event the likes of the world had never before seen and hence afterwards will never see again. If a global flood really did happen we should expect to see massive evidences of it today. And we do in fact have those evidences. We have literal mountains of strata layers all over the globe and billions of fossils mixed into those strata layers.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Studies have been done to show that seeds under water for a long period and then settle in ground can spring up and show leaves. 

No argument here, but which studies are you referring to?  There are some plants that can germinate under water, but not olive trees.  I am not arguing, but am curious as to which studies you are referring to.  

[wenglund]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It is about character, faith and belief. Believing the scriptures reuires an element of faith that is needed in becoming like Christ. 

In my opinion, fruitless debates over interpretations of scriptures is the path to nowhere. I will leave you to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Grunt]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

Which ones?   Things like the Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures are not official church doctrine and it even says so in the introductions.  I'm not saying that there aren't any official doctrines that might mention it, but which ones are you calling official?  

Anyway, one thing being ignored is that Church doctrines change over time (regardless if members want to admit it or not).

What one prophet says can be denounced as false doctrine or even heresy by another, something that has happened several times in our Church.  I guess that could be a whole different topic though.   

I wouldn't expect that Church doctrine won't continue to change though.  It will as time goes on; just as it has before.  Until we die, there will always be plenty of things to sort out.  

Some have been posted in this thread for your reading pleasure.  Nobody said it was doctrine.  That's the whole point.  However, everything I've seen that the Church puts out says that, unless you have something that says otherwise. I'd love to read it.

[Grunt]

6 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Is Donald W Perry authorized to speak on behalf of the church?

He's obviously authorized to be published on the official church website that the church uses to put forth the information and self-image it wants public, to include talks and doctrine.