Themis wrote: :) We have already backed up what the church teaches. If we are wrong then feel free to back up what you want to believe.
Years ago I researched the flood. The global flood has its problems. In my mind, it's either local or it didn't happen. We also have evidence that the Noah story had earlier roots/origins. Now, how that dovetails into the recorded teachings regarding the flood, both in scripture (including the Book of Mormon) and from religious leaders and teachers...that's another matter.
It's a tough nut to crack. I'm the first one to admit it. The BYU Corpus GC site I linked to demonstrates that "Noah" and "Flood" seem to show a decline in useful/practical doctrinal exposure in the recent past.
mentalgymnast wrote:Years ago I researched the flood. The global flood has its problems. In my mind, it's either local or it didn't happen. We also have evidence that the Noah story had earlier roots/origins. Now, how that dovetails into the recorded teachings regarding the flood, both in scripture (including the Book of Mormon) and from religious leaders and teachers...that's another matter.
It's a tough nut to crack. I'm the first one to admit it. The BYU Corpus GC site I linked to demonstrates that "Noah" and "Flood" seem to show a decline in useful/practical doctrinal exposure in the recent past.
Regards, MG
I agree with you the flood story has major problems, and that it has earlier roots. The issue I thought was about what the church teaches regarding whether the church considers it a global event or a local. As we have shown they consider it a global event. No one has show anything else. Now I have already said one need not believe it in order to be a good member. I will take you past as an admission you don't know of any official church source saying we don't know or that it was local.
by the way The story really falls apart when we want to make it a local flood. As a believer I did think more local, but like you did not think any more of it. The problem with a local flood is that the whole story falls apart. You no longer need to take animals or even built a boat. Local floods are also a common event in earth's history.
Ok WD, before we veer off into more doctrines of WD mingled with hot air, what is the official position of the LDS church in regard to the nature of the flood of Noah?
The official doctrine of the Church is that it was global.
Sigh. Genesis 7:4 -- For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Genesis 7:23 -- And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
I agree --it's moot. My point is, if you are going to say "let's look at what the scriptures say," you have to look at what they actually say. Not what you wish them to say. It would be more honest to say: can I place an interpretation on the scriptures that doesn't make me look like an idiot for believing there was a global flood.
The word translated as "earth" can also mean a locality, a region, a kingdom, or...the whole earth.
Water Dog wrote:If God killed every living creature on earth then this whole discussion is moot. The verse doesn't read "every living create" but qualifies it with "that is with you,".
That would certainly account for the disappearance of that annoying "Yodeling Finch" from the Galapagos.
Depends on who you ask. James E. Talmage, David O. McKay, and John Widstoe would have their POV. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie would have theirs. This translates into "we don't have all the information", for the definitive answer.
Not at all. These men certainly had varying opinions, but none of them became doctrine except that which was officially published by the Church.
An excellent example is the 1931 statement which settled the argument between Talmadge and Roberts with JFS. Neither the existence or non existence of pre-Adamite races of man is doctrine. Hence one could claim they existed and another could claim they did not exist and neither would be in conflict with doctrine.
Damn, Bcspace, right or wrong, you do no tap dancing around your stand here.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951