Saturday, October 25 2014


menuClick Here
Ronald P. Millett
Wednesday, March 12 2014

In Defense of the Prophet Noah and the Great Flood

By Ronald P. Millett Notify me when this author publishesComment on Article
Email Author
Author Archive
Send To a Friend
Print Article Bookmark and Share

The Great Flood that occurred during the life of the Prophet Noah was a key topic of the recent science and religion debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Many modern scientists assert that the Great Flood and many other events in Biblical history must be merely figurative stories. They claim the story of Noah, the ark and the flood cannot possibly be literally true.

Ancient and modern prophets, however, attest to the literal reality of a miraculous worldwide flood. Scientific analysis can suggest how God performed this great work and why it is very different from known historical floods. Ancient calendars, derived from the solar system’s celestial bodies, correlate with the Bible to also support the reality of the Great Flood.

1NoahThe prophet Noah called the people to repentance and prophesied about the Great Flood for one hundred and twenty years. (Moses 8:17)[1]

In previous articles I have discussed the great miracles of the scriptures including the flood. I would recommend reading Moroni Reveals a God of Miracles  and Restoration of Genesis: The Ascension and Return of the City of Enoch.” 

In this article I will focus on the specific Nye/Ham debate discussion of Noah and the Great Flood and especially suggest approaches using both scriptural testimony and reason in defense of the flood and Noah as the topic may come up in discussions.[2]

Both Barrels Blasting at Noah

Bill Nye, the Science Guy, came right out in the debate with strong attacks, including a good dose of sarcasm, against Noah and the other “seven zookeepers” on the ark.

“Mr. Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we observe in nature, a 500 foot wooden boat, eight zookeepers for 14,000 individual animals, every land plant in the world under water for a full year. I ask us all is that really reasonable?”[3]

In an interview after the debate, Bill Nye and Bill Maher commented on Ken Ham’s belief in divine creation and miracles like the flood.

“’I respect his passion,’ Nye said of Ham’s creationist stance. ‘At first I thought maybe he’s a charlatan who’s just trying to take advantage of people, but I think he might really believe it.’ ’Oh he totally believes it,’ Maher concurred, ‘which is why I don’t respect him.’”[4]

Miracles are by definition out of the norm and God performs them using natural laws that we do not understand and even may seem to override those laws we think we do understand. A worldwide flood is a great miracle, a fantastic, very hard to explain, out of the ordinary miracle.

I believe that this monumental historical event had to be planned and executed by God with great care and skill so it would not destroy all that He had done in creating the world for His children. Another effect of this carefully executed miracle is that God probably did not leave behind the signs we would expect from other floods that we know about in earth’s history.

Those who reject God and His miracles are described in the New Testament: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

This discussion between Bill Nye and Bill Maher after the debate would clearly classify them as unbelievers and that they consider religious belief and miracles to be utter foolishness.

Jesus and the Apostles Testified of Noah and the Flood

Ken Ham emphasized the preeminence of Jesus Christ and His testimony of the truth of the Old Testament history, especially Moses’ book of Genesis. Jesus compared the wickedness and unbelief of His day to the days of Noah.

2JesusJesus Christ testified of the truth of the Book of Genesis including the history of the prophet Noah.[5]

“And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:26-27)

The apostle Peter also validated the history of Noah and the flood as he discussed the mission of Christ in the spirit world before His Resurrection, a key scripture foreshadowing the great redemptive work for the dead.[6]

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, … being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18-20)

 Any Clarifications from Joseph Smith about the Flood?

Joseph Smith and modern scriptures testify as to the reality of Noah and his history. Joseph Smith did not correct or retranslate the Bible as it described Noah’s life and the reality of the flood. In the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith saw a vision of Moses who saw a vision of Enoch concerning Noah, Enoch’s great grandson: “Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up.” (Moses 7:43)

If Genesis needed to be clarified as partially figurative or a local flood, Joseph Smith definitely did NOT offer any corrections along those lines. Instead, Joseph Smith expanded and added to our knowledge of the history of the ark, the miracle of the Great Flood and the life and times of the great prophet and patriarch Noah.

3elijahAfter the appearance of Jesus Christ, Moses and Elias (Noah), Elijah appeared in the Kirtland Temple to bestow keys of the Priesthood.[7]

Noah is the angel Gabriel who is second in authority to the Archangel Michael over the earth. Noah brought the glad tidings to Zacharias about John’s future birth and then to Mary about the forthcoming birth of Jesus.Noah is also identified as the Elias who came to the Kirtland temple along with the Savior, Moses and Elijah.This angelic messenger restored the keys of “the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.


  1. So in your view, Genesis is assuming a modern cosmology? Is revelation necessarily of a scientific nature? What is the relationship between the Genesis flood account(s) and the Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and the Eridu Genesis? This article is amazingly problematic. The unwarranted assumptions, the overreaching, and the rhetoric, none of which get at the real problems of the text.
  2. A wise scientist once told me that true science and true religion will never conflict. Obviously the science is wrong here. Most of the scientific investigators of our day are trying to understand and explain the miracles of God while excluding God as the author. Paul said it very succinctly when he said that in the last days men would be forever studying and never coming to an understanding of the truth. I think they will all be in for a great surprise when they reach the other side. Shades of Korihor.
  3. I really appreciate your insights. Without faith miracles are never 'seen' even when they are observed. Please share your reference for the Noah/Elias link. Thanks.
  4. Bill Nye may not be not current on his science. I read a book 2 or 3 years ago, the name of which I do not recollect, written by a scientist about "Noah's Flood" or a similar title. The documentation therein goes a long way to support the story of Noah. The book compiles scientific findings from archeologists, oceanographers, paleontologists, geologists and even an office in the Russian navy that has mapped the floor of the Black Sea. There were other experts too, who have found physical, scientific evidence of the great flood. Until the internet it had not been possible to connect the research of greatly diversified scientific discoveries. This book is documented and footnoted and is based on findings, not theories. The author describes discovery of physical evidence of an ancient people being flooded. The pieces the author has put together are compelling.
  5. Good article. Two thoughts. I don't believe that having clear evidence/knowledge of them flood would undermine our need for faith. We see people, including ourselves, deny clear truths, facts and evidences all the time. We choose what we believe and how we interpret things; I.e., even with the Gold Plates in his hands, Joseph Smith, still had to have faith in God's plan and not just sell them. It is easier to understand the movement of the animals and the coverage of the flood when we remember that the land was not yet divided.
  6. It seems to me that a really vital and useful point has been overlooked. In 1 Ne 17:50, Nephi confirms that God has no problem turning earth into water and vicaversa – or water into wine for that matter. He is a God of miracles and has unimaginable power. So no problem about where all the extra water came from - and went to afterwards. Also, He would have had no problem re fresh and salt water fish – either the fish were adapted to the water or the water was adapted to the fish as required. Im surprised that Bro Millett makes no reference to the Jan 1998 Ensign article “The Flood and the Tower of Babel.” - or perhaps I missed it
  7. He flood was a soft target for Bill Bye. There are strongertioed guments, from design, to justify theism. I personally cannot justify a literel interpretation of the flood story, but I'm not going to give up on God because of it. Noah may have existed, but I don't necessarily want to be tied into believing everything said about him. Prophets can still perpetuate a mythological story if it has instructional benefit.
  8. . Believing in the Restoration means that we are free to bring new knowledge and understanding to bear when we consider the as-translated-correctly Bible. We're not limited to the imaginations of Evangelicals. "Where is there a writing intended to be taken in all its parts literally? Such a writing would be insipid and hence lack natural appeal. To expect a believer in the Bible to strike an attitude of this kind and believe all that is written to be a literal rendition is a stupid thought. No person with the natural use of his faculties looks upon the Bible in such a light." ----- Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., in Doctrines of Salvation, Bookcraft, 1956, vol. 3, pg. 188
  9. While I would never discount God's miracles, I have no problem with believing that the flood could have been a more localized event that was perceived by those who experienced it as worldwide because it encompassed the world they knew. The author states, "I thought what will happen to our little ones if this most central and beloved of Bible histories is declared blatantly false by their respected teachers in schools." While I agree that it should not be taught as "blatantly false," neither is it necessary for us to assume that an account passed down to us over thousands of years needs to be seen as literal truth in every detail. There is plenty of room for continued belief in miracles even for those of us who feel there could be a more scientifically realistic version of events behind the story. Insisting upon strictly literal interpretations of Biblical accounts sets us up for disappointment in so many other areas as well. I don't think that our faith--or salvation and exaltation--requires it.
  10. All the gold, silver, elements etc. on earth have always been here. That is why natural resources are limited. All the water that we have ever had is tied up in ice, liquid. or in the atmosphere. Science says that if all the glaciers melted it would raise the oceans only some 260ish wide, which makes Noah 's flood problematic. On the other hand massive regional flooding of the Tigis & Euphrates is well documented.
  11. Your faith allows you to believe in miracles. Fine, but that gives people everywhere license to believe in whatever they want with no evidence. Anybody can profess any kind of belief and cannot be challenged because "miracles." I can say that the moon used to be made out of cheese. It's rock now, and there's no evidence of cheese, because there was a miracle. But I will cling to my cheese moon history belief because I read about it in a book once. I can use my shield of faith to ignore pesky scientific facts and evidence, because they can't verify miracles.
  12. I think you articles are fascinating. I wasn't able to comment on the article about the ascension of the City of Enoch, but found some quotes of Joseph Smith that said that parts of the land and the city went with them; the patriarchs were always looking for that city. I have always felt that the original formation of the Grand Canyon happened during the crucifixion and that it is the greatest sign of his death when the rocks broke up all over the earth. Your article is fascinating and brought out things I had never thought about before and I want to study these Venus cycles more as that shows the order and way in which God operates and how he uses the planets and stars for signs and seasons. Thank you for your interesting articles.I did not watch the debate, but heard about it.
  13. I'm not sure where to begin. This pseudoscientific explanation of how the Flood could have occurred doesn't even touch on the serious iisues raised by human DNA studies, which show conclusively that our most recent common ancestors go far beyond the time of Noah. Incidentally, these DNA studies were all but endorsed by the Church in its recent explanation of why we don't have DNA evidence showing a link between indegenous populations and Nephi's kin. But what is most troubling about the article is this line: "And if we do not defend the miracles of the Bible, what will be left of our churches and our faith?" If our faith rests on a literal reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, then our faith is shaky indeed. Just because the story of Noah isn't historical doesn't mean it isn't true. It's a powerful story, rich in metaphor, and has valuable lessons for us as Christians and Latter-day Saints. There are reasons that story is in the Old Testament, but historical-scientific veracity isn't one of them.
  14. Very interesting article. It seems well thought out and researched. One thing that wasn't addressed is how today's human population could have come from just those 8 individuals. I'm thinking about the recent essay released by the Church about DNA and the Book of Mormon. In it, the Church used scientific studies that claim humans migrated to the Americas as long ago as 10,000 years. The essay concludes that the blood of the Lamanites have become mixed with the blood of those early migrants. How can those individuals be some of the ancestors of the living Native Americans if they were destroyed in the flood?
  15. While sharing Bro. Millett's view of God's sovereign wisdom and power, the historicity of Noah and the Flood, and the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith's revelations and teachings, readers should be aware that many faithful members, scholars, scientists, and modern apostles have carefully studied the story of Noah and the Flood and have found that it is in harmony with both scripture and mainstream science. I am sure that Bro. Millett would agree that none of us would want to imply that those who do not share our specific views on topics that are not fundamental to salvation (e.g., that do not affect our qualifications to be members in good standing nor our ability to hold a temple recommend) are necessarily skeptical of the scriptures or lack faith in God. In an article in the Instructor, for many years the Church's official magazine for teachers, we read these wise words ( "The Sunday School teacher who makes a pastime of ridiculing men of science, and of holding them up as the arch enemies of religion, usually loses the respect of the most intelligent members of his class. Others, who for the time being accept his conclusions, are forced later on to believe they must choose one or the other. Sometimes, they don't choose religion. And if they don't the deceptions of unscrupulous and irreligious teachers of science may have been one of the causes; but it's equally true that the Sunday School teachers themselves may have been the worst offenders." For information from faithful, mainstream Mormon scientists on the Flood and related topics, see, e.g.,
  16. Someplace recently, I read that there is a huge pocket of water under the island of Japan(?)- I read so much that I forget if this is the right place. Think of the fact that the Lord said he would not flood the earth again. That means He still has the capacity to do it again but has promised not to as a result of Enoch's pleadings. Perhaps the waters in the heavens were greater, so that when the rain began and the fountains of the deep broke up, it might have been a very quick elimination of individuals. When God destroys great masses of wicked people He does it quickly and mercifully. The earth had to be baptized with water, as do we, and then cleansed by fire, as we must be cleansed. All these things are both literal and typological.
  17. This is a very problematic and unfortunate article. It's not necessary (let alone wise) to cling to hyper-fundamentalist views of scripture that are based on traditional understanding in the absence of direct revelation. I believe in a God of miracles. I don't believe in a God who performs miracles on a massive scale and then covers up all the evidence so well that it looks like it happened in a completely different way that is logical and consistent. (See also: the Creation.)
  18. It is strange that we look at an ancient document through modern eyes, and then demand that it meet our expectations. Is there no room out there to suppose that the flood was a powerful metaphor? Why do we suppose that the "earth" for Noah included Australia? Or that the entire planet had to repopulate from the contents of the ark? We do more damage to the flood account and to our faith by refusing to admit what we do not know!
  19. In studying scriptures, it is helpful to do cross referencing, to use a very good commentaries,, and to have a copy of Strong's Concordance to the Bible, which enables you to understand Hebrew and Greek meanings of King James English. This is an excellent article, as it adds additional scientific information to which most of us do not have access. What interests me is: the earth was first covered with water when created, then baptized, cleansed and reborn with water by the flood, and will be again cleansed with fire in the end times. This is both literal and also typo-logical in that it points to the Savior's experience, and to ours. There comes a point when God can no longer send His spirit children to such corrupt and violent people, less it continue to degenerate the population. There are plenty of examples in the scriptures of the Lord's intervention in great wickedness on the earth in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the separation of peoples at the false temple or tower of Babel.. We also have examples of what is involved in great wickedness in societies by studying the history of the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations. To understand how the earth was repopulated by Noah's family members read Genesis 10.
  20. Additionally, since the Lord promised Enoch not to flood the earth again, it means that He still has the capacity to flood it, but due to Enoch's pleadings He promised not to do it again.
  21. Article does not validate or prove anything. It uses "authoritarian" approach to declare its position. No room for logic, common sense or observation. It says that if I don't see it your way then I am out of touch with God. Articles like this illustrate the narrowmindedness that comes from ignoring the data and common sense.
  22. >>> Alex Barclay : Im surprised that Bro Millett makes no reference to the Jan 1998 Ensign article “The Flood and the Tower of Babel.” - or perhaps I missed it <<< Brother Parry's excellent article is quoted in the footnotes and extensively in the two articles I mention at the beginning. >>> Eric : Just because the story of Noah isn't historical doesn't mean it isn't true. It's a powerful story, rich in metaphor, and has valuable lessons for us as Christians and Latter-day Saints. There are reasons that story is in the Old Testament, but historical-scientific veracity isn't one of them. <<< Why would the books of Mose and Abraham be called part of the "Pearl of Great Price" if they simply told fables or parables. Gabriel is Noah and Joseph Smith strongly testifies of him and his mission, however fantastic that mission may seem. >>> Robb Cundick : While I would never discount God's miracles, I have no problem with believing that the flood could have been a more localized event that was perceived by those who experienced it as worldwide because it encompassed the world they knew. <<< I don't know how any of the scriptures about Noah and the flood make any sense for a local flood. Even the huge Missoula flood would not need an ark. Brother Parry's 1998 Ensign article is excellent reading. --RM
  23. >>> Jeff Bradshaw: "The Sunday School teacher who makes a pastime of ridiculing men of science, and of holding them up as the arch enemies of religion, usually loses the respect of the most intelligent members of his class. <<< I think that the way Elder James E. Talmage would address these issues with faith, testimony and reason would certainly avoid this counterproductive description brother Bradshaw quotes. --RM
  24. Here' s an interesting article: There is likely much, much more water on or in the earth than we can observe.
  25. I have always believed there was a flood. I read the OT for years before I joined the church, and am surprised at how unfamiliar people in the church are with it. It makes me too obvious in Gospel Doctrine Class. My testimony of the power of God has greatly deepened with access to our LDS scriptures, a desire to do more in depth study, by constant rereading and pondering, learning more through the tools I have and then adding to that by quotes from Prophets, and insightful articles and books by academic researchers. My testimony of God's majesty, power, and great knowledge, which far surpasses ours, has increased my love and worship of Him. I am thankful for men who have the time to increase their understanding and thus enrich ours. ,
  26. "When I was a child I believed as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things" or something similar.. I know the LDS church needs the flood to get Adam's family from Missouri to the mid-east, but is it really necessary to force the issue so much that you have to throw all of modern science under the bus. Maybe its also time the church backed away from the Eden in Missouri idea. Also, wanted to note that not everything can be a one way street. What I mean is people of faith use oil, gold, iron etc., as found by geologists using basic geologic principles. These principles work - its a proven fact. However, when it comes to any conflict between what some guy said 5000 years ago what some other guy said in conference a couple of times I am required to abandon science and go with "some guy" who has no evidence other than what "some guy" said. You can't have it both ways.
  27. "Even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is, like most any other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable, which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. ... The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason. He expects every man who takes his 'yoke' upon him to have common sense enough to accept a figure of speech in its proper setting, and to understand that the holy scriptures are replete with allegorical stories, faith-building parables, and artistic speech. ... Where is there a writing intended to be taken in all its parts literally? Such a writing would be insipid and hence lack natural appeal. To expect a believer in the Bible to strike an attitude of this kind and believe all that is written to be a literal rendition is a stupid thought. No person with the natural use of his faculties looks upon the Bible in such a light." With his strong views in favor of divine creation and opposed to evolution, consider this quote by President Joseph Fielding Smith about his writings: "As I ponder the principles of the gospel, I am struck forcibly by the uniform manner in which I…have taught them over the years. The truths of the gospel are everlastingly the same. Like God himself, they are the same yesterday, today, and forever. What I have taught and written in the past I would teach and write again under the same circumstances." Oct 1970 conference. --RM
  28. It is articles like this that make me concerned about people who promulgate things like this, who are doing the Church no favors, or the people in the Church that they have influence over no favors. It makes me wonder why Meridian Magazine will publish such things that uphold young-earth-creationist type pseudoscience. There is nothing in the Church that demands that we should have loyalties to such things as the theories put forth in this article. The Global Flood is not something that is required to be defended to be a worthy Mormon. So let go of it. If someone like the writer of this article is a Seminary teacher or in CES, he should know better, because he would not be doing my kids or anyone else's kids any favors. We need to shave down the gospel to the very basics of all basics and let go of indefensible things that people have no business teaching to our children.
  29. It's interesting that, in the references to the Flood in the New Testament and Book of Mormon, there is no reference to the flood being global. "Leave no trace" is a good ethic for hikers. But our Father in Heaven communicates His truths to us, in part, through what we can see in His creation: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." (Romans 1:20.) Thus, there is no room for a God of truth to cover his tracks, and make creation seem to give evidence of something other than the truth. If the earth does not have the appearance of having been universally flooded -- it wasn't. God is not a man, that he should lie.
  30. There are many Evangelical scholars who argue that the evidence points to a local world flood, in their world. One could ask if you accept the worldwide view then how did the kangaroo, koala bear, lama get to their unique parts of the world without being eaten by the lions from the ark.
  31. Thank you brother Millett. This non literal view seems to be growing. I think the main reason members don't fully accept great miracles is because they have greater faith in science than in scripture. There is supporting science for the global flood, but one has to look for it. It is not found in the prevailing views of our modern agnostic science.
  32. I always wondered where such a large volume of water necessary for Noah's flood might come from. Two recent scientific findings provide a possible answer. I didn't know that there's a large amount of water deep in the Earth's mantle that is carried there by deep sea fault zones. "Seismologists at Liverpool have estimated that over the age of Earth, the Japan subduction zone alone could transport the equivalent of up to three and a half times the water of all Earth's oceans to its mantle." This is just one subduction zone they're talking about. Another article in Nature this month discusses the discovery of the first-ever sample of a mineral called ringwoodite containing a significant amount of water. It was found in a diamond brought up from deep in the earth by a volcanic rock known as kimberlite. This recent discovery also supports the notion that there is a very large amount of water in the Earth's deep mantle. In other words, the water needed to cause Noah's flood does exist. But how it got to the surface is another question.
  33. The author asked me: "Why would the books of [Moses] and Abraham be called part of the 'Pearl of Great Price' if they simply told fables or parables." I assume they're referred to as the Pearl of Great Price because they have valuable lessons for us, and that's true of whatever is historical as well as what is figurative or allegorical. I don't think you understand my belief that truthfulness and historicity can be independent of each other. Even the parts of Genesis I believe to be mythological aren't _only_ myth.
  34. Water subducted over hundreds of milluons of years does not form a big pond in the mantle. The water becomes part of the rock and magma. Magma cotain up to 5% water. time is the key to understsnding earth processes
  35. So an all-knowing and loving god creates children in his own image and knows that there will be a time when every single one of his children will behave in such an abhorrent manner that he will kill them all, except for a handful of them? Why not just wait til they die and judge them? What lessons about the nature of god are we supposed to learn from this? What does this teach us about how to treat our fellow humans? This is a very confusing event.
  36. I am always disappointed when I read an article such as this. This type of logic tends to harm the church and its members for its lack of logic and supportable evidence. The story of Noah is beautiful as a story about starting over and beginning life as a new person or an act of personal forgiveness and a new beginning. To argue that it is historical is truly disturbing. Two examples are sufficient: 1.) Animals with insufficient genetic diversity have high rates of infant mortality and birth defects. Cheetahs are a good example of this phenomenon and in the animal kingdom, genetic diversity is strong. 2.) There is no way that Noah could acquire all the animals on the earth, all the species and get them on the ark, let alone back to their respective environments. It is simply ludicrous to assume that all of that could be accomplished. Those are only two issues. There are many more. The church position on young earth theories has evolved moving from a young earth creationist view to a "we don't know how God did it" perspective. I like the second view better because it allows the church and religion to find truth. Fundamentalist beliefs are harmful and wrong. They damage members who feel a need to support such fictions while trying to learn scientific theories where there is actual evidence to support them. I'm sorry to say that I find this article is disgraceful and silly.
  37. Re the comment from Lex Anderson by "coincidence" I happened to come across this article.
  38. @zenzimbie "So an all-knowing and loving god creates children in his own image and knows that there will be a time when every single one of his children will behave in such an abhorrent manner that he will kill them all, except for a handful of them? Why not just wait til they die and judge them? What lessons about the nature of god are we supposed to learn from this? What does this teach us about how to treat our fellow humans? This is a very confusing event." How do you approach the scriptures that speak of the earth being cleansed by fire at Christ’s second coming (and apparently after the millenium at the Fathers coming)? It seems you would have the exact same feelings at that event as you do at a cleansing by water.
  39. @gale "I am always disappointed when I read an article such as this. This type of logic tends to harm the church and its members for its lack of logic and supportable evidence." You remind me of those who were ashamed when those in the great and spacious building were pointing fingers and mocking. You must spend a lot of time being disappointed since how many things related to the gospel can be supported with logic and evidence? Creation, the fall, the atonement, the existence of God/Angels/devils, any miracle you claim to name, the first vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, restoration of priesthood and keys, any revelation, the second coming, the resurrection, ad naseum.
  40. John, Does Gale's comment really remind you of those who were ashamed or embarrassed of the Gospel because of the taunting coming from those within the great and spacious building? Believing in a global deluge that covered even the tops of the Himalayas in no way places any of us in a better position when it comes to the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is, frankly, irrelevant to our salvation (though an interesting topic of discussion). Not all members of the Church are comfortable with the historicity of a global flood, but they may be just as committed to the cause of Christ as those who accept a literal, global interpretation of the flood. It is interesting to note that Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of Twelve opined, in chapter 22 his book Evidences and Reconciliations, that, "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. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation." Elder Widtsoe continued, "Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed. "So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence." To summarize, Elder Widtsoe had no problem with the notion of a flood that resembled a global rainstorm, which simultaneously covered the planet in a veneer of water, however thin. In certain areas, the flood that resulted may have been catastrophic on local levels, and may have seemed worldwide to Noah and his family who were afloat in the midst of it. In other areas of the planet, the "flood" may have been a downpour of rain that baptized the earth with a thin coating of water, but did not wipe out localized plant and animal life in those parts. As Elder Widtsoe illustrates, we have room in the Church for divergent views on the flood.
  41. Maybe God is someone who wants us to believe things on faith, and not to have actual evidence. The reasoning in this article would help explain a lot of the problems that those anti to the church bring up about the Book of Mormon. Maybe God removed all evidence of a Nephite, Jaredite, and Lamanite civilization. No Hebrew DNA in Native Americans, not a problem, God removed it from them and left no trace. No evidence of horses, elephants, steel, chariots, wheels, etc.,in the Book of Mormon time frame, no problem, God removed all the evidence, No evidence of great battles that involved millions of people, no problem, God removed all that evidence. Perhaps the Book of Mormon is a "leave no trace" miracle also.
  42. So, we must accept the literal event of the universal flood by faith? We must ignore our lying eyes, and rational mind. We must forget science, geology, radiology, and common sense because the great prophet Joseph Smith declared it to be a real event? I suggest that faith has one real big problem. It can be misplaced. If we followed the faith line we would still believe that the sun, moon and stars all revolve around the earth. It took a scientist, using t he scientific method to break the theological binders as to the fundamental nature of the universe. Even Joseph Smith said that a prophet could be wrong.
  43. I read the article and it bothers me that the author spends a lot of time writing the article and trying to cover all the bases but yet misses out on perhaps the most important aspect of believers of the global flood like Ken Ham. And what aspect is that? That the flood waters in Noah's day did not cover the present mountains we have today. The mountains we have today arose as a result of the flood and were upthrust and created a barrier so that the flood waters would no more cover the entire earth. Had the author even spent 5 minutes venturing to Ken Ham's site he would have found out this belief of Ken Ham and pretty much all other scholars who believe in the global flood.
  44. If you will go with a local flood with years of exaggeration, you may be on safe ground. But finding 10,000+ types of beetles, getting the kangaroos from Australia and back; lamas from South America and back is asking for me to suspend logic for an old story that is not new to the Bible.

Add Comment