The Noah Story: How literally do you take it?

[sageowl]

Hi LDS-ers,

Growing up in the church, I was taught that the Noah tale in the bible was simple face value truth, and as far as I could tell, I was surrounded by people who genuinely believed it to be so. As an adult with a non-professional but active interest history and science, I have to say that the Noah story is at best an interesting ancient folk tale, along the lines of Paul Bunyan, and just as impossible to take seriously.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone LDS who:
Takes this story as historical truth (Just a, "yes I do" will do)

or from any LDS-ers who understand all the "blue ox" level improbabilities in this story, and still make it jive with your faith. How do you do that!? (from you guys, I'd like to hear lots of details. Genuinely interested in your insights)

Thanks!

 

[Katzpur]

Hi LDS-ers,

Growing up in the church, I was taught that the Noah tale in the bible was simple face value truth, and as far as I could tell, I was surrounded by people who genuinely believed it to be so. As an adult with a non-professional but active interest history and science, I have to say that the Noah story is at best an interesting ancient folk tale, along the lines of Paul Bunyan, and just as impossible to take seriously.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone LDS who:
Takes this story as historical truth (Just a, "yes I do" will do)

or from any LDS-ers who understand all the "blue ox" level improbabilities in this story, and still make it jive with your faith. How do you do that!? (from you guys, I'd like to hear lots of details. Genuinely interested in your insights)

Thanks!

Hi, sageowl. Well, I'm LDS and was born and raised in the Church. My father was a university professor (in the language department of the University of Utah), and I thought he was just about the smartest man on earth. He's no longer living, and I've come to realize that he's really just in the top 10%. Even though he was active in the Church, I picked up a few things from him at a very early age, and one of them was that I don't need to believe everything I ever heard over the pulpit. I caught on really quickly that my Sunday School and Seminary teachers were not scholars and that if they taught me things that seemed to be totally wacko, they probably were. I can't remember having any conversations with him about Noah and the ark, but I know now what he would have had to say about it. I do remember having him shake his head in disbelief when I came home from Sunday School one Sunday and told him that I just learned that all of the languages in the world today came into existence at the time of the Tower of Babel. He never made a point of telling me that he believed a lot of the stories in the Bible (probably in the Old Testament in particular) not to be literal accounts of what actually happened, but I grew up knowing that God gave me a brain and intended for me to use it.

Today, at the ripe old age of 67, I would have to admit that I see a great many stories in the Bible as allegorical. I wouldn't say that they are on the same level as folk tales. I think there probably was a flood and that Noah probably did assemble as many animals as he could from his part of the world. When the Bible says that the flood covered the whole earth, I believe that means it covered the earth as far as Noah could tell. I don't believe that he somehow managed to find a couple of polar bears or penguins or a myriad of the other animals we have in the world today. Like you, I find that concept impossible to take seriously. I make most of the Old Testament jive with my faith, because I don't see a literal belief in those stories as being essential to my salvation. I do believe in the core doctrines of Mormonism, including Mormonism understanding of the Plan of Salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Noah's Ark falls into a category of teachings that I do not take literally and do not worry all that much about.

 

[Orontes]

Hi LDS-ers,

Growing up in the church, I was taught that the Noah tale in the bible was simple face value truth, and as far as I could tell, I was surrounded by people who genuinely believed it to be so. As an adult with a non-professional but active interest history and science, I have to say that the Noah story is at best an interesting ancient folk tale, along the lines of Paul Bunyan, and just as impossible to take seriously.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone LDS who:
Takes this story as historical truth (Just a, "yes I do" will do)

or from any LDS-ers who understand all the "blue ox" level improbabilities in this story, and still make it jive with your faith. How do you do that!? (from you guys, I'd like to hear lots of details. Genuinely interested in your insights)

Thanks!

Hello,

The biblical narrative is inconsistent. It appears to contain at least two distinct traditions that the author of Genesis tried to mix together. These two traditions are typically identified as the El Tradition and the Yahweh Tradition. Further, the Genesis account appears to be influenced by older Mesopotamian flood story lines. A literate Jewry came on the scene within a world that already had a well established myth tradition(s), and therefore needed to justify itself in that context. There is in many ways an old testament to the Old Testament that informs many of the larger story lines.

 

[sageowl]

Hi Katz,

Thank you for your honest answer.
Do you find that your take on the Old testament is one that you can comfortably share with other LDS folks in a formal church setting such as a sunday school class?

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Katz,

Thank you for your honest answer.
Do you find that your take on the Old testament is one that you can comfortably share with other LDS folks in a formal church setting such as a sunday school class?

Well, it would almost depend upon the mood I was in that day. If I were feeling particularly outspoken, maybe. It's just that I am so much more liberal in how I look at the Old Testament than the average member of the Church, that more often that not, I find myself just sitting in silence. I have found a website, though, comprised entirely of people like me, and I share a lot of my feelings with them. They are all LDS people who, like me, have no desire to leave the Church but who struggle with being "different" from the norm in this way.

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, I do.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, I do.

So you believe that Noah literally rounded up two penguins, two kangaroos, two cottonmouth snakes and two alligators? Could you explain how you think he went about doing this? I'm curious as to whether you believe all of the Bible is to be taken literally? Do you, for instance, believe in a literal 6-day creation? (I'm not going to try to argue with you. I'm just curious.)

 

[Prestor John]

So you believe that Noah literally rounded up two penguins, two kangaroos, two cottonmouth snakes and two alligators? Could you explain how you think he went about doing this? I'm curious as to whether you believe all of the Bible is to be taken literally? Do you, for instance, believe in a literal 6-day creation? (I'm not going to try to argue with you. I'm just curious.)

I'm glad that we belong to a Church that doesn't "cement" all their beliefs. It makes for some great discussions.

I do not believe that Noah gathered all the animals himself. I read in the book of Jasher that the animals came to Noah themselves upon the completion of the Ark. Not only did the required number of animal pairs come, but other animals came as well and defended the Ark when hordes of men and women tried to board after the rains began.

As to the Creation - I believe that the use of "day" was a mistranslation of the original Hebrew which should have read "periods of time" that had discernible beginnings and ends.

I don't fault any member of the Church for not believing in a literal Flood. It doesn't really affect anything outside of the idea that the Earth had been "baptized".

The only Old Testament story I would take issue with another member of the Church over is if they claimed that the events of the Garden of Eden and Fall were allegorical.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm glad that we belong to a Church that doesn't "cement" all their beliefs. It makes for some great discussions.

I do not believe that Noah gathered all the animals himself. I read in the book of Jasher that the animals came to Noah themselves upon the completion of the Ark. Not only did the required number of animal pairs come, but other animals came as well and defended the Ark when hordes of men and women tried to board after the rains began.

As to the Creation - I believe that the use of "day" was a mistranslation of the original Hebrew which should have read "periods of time" that had discernible beginnings and ends.

I don't fault any member of the Church for not believing in a literal Flood. It doesn't really affect anything outside of the idea that the Earth had been "baptized".

The only Old Testament story I would take issue with another member of the Church over is if they claimed that the events of the Garden of Eden and Fall were allegorical.

Thanks for your response. Yes, I am also grateful that we belong to a church that doesn't "cement" all their beliefs. and I would pretty much go along with you in terms of the biblical account of the Fall. There would have had to be an actual Fall in order for an Atonement to be necessary. Perhaps every last detail is not as described, but that's immaterial. (I'm thinking, for instance, of "the serpent" not being an actual talking snake, but someone who has the qualities we think of when we hear the word "serpent.")

 

[Prestor John]

Thanks for your response. Yes, I am also grateful that we belong to a church that doesn't "cement" all their beliefs. and I would pretty much go along with you in terms of the biblical account of the Fall. There would have had to be an actual Fall in order for an Atonement to be necessary. Perhaps every last detail is not as described, but that's immaterial. (I'm thinking, for instance, of "the serpent" not being an actual talking snake, but someone who has the qualities we think of when we hear the word "serpent.")

Exactly. One-hundred percent.

My brother left the Church many years ago and he once told me that the Atonement didn't make much sense to him and as we got to talking I ended up finding out that he believed the idea of the Garden and the Fall were allegories. I told him that he would never come to believe in or understand the Atonement if he did not believe in and understand the literal Fall.

It is so crucial!

 

[Watchmen]

Exactly. One-hundred percent.

My brother left the Church many years ago and he once told me that the Atonement didn't make much sense to him and as we got to talking I ended up finding out that he believed the idea of the Garden and the Fall were allegories. I told him that he would never come to believe in or understand the Atonement if he did not believe in and understand the literal Fall.

It is so crucial!

No it's not. I know plenty of card carrying, happy Mormons who believe many of the scriptural stories to be allegories, including one of my anthropology professors at BYU.

 

[Katzpur]

No it's not. I know plenty of card carrying, happy Mormons who believe many of the scriptural stories to be allegories, including one of my anthropology professors at BYU.

So what do you believe with regards to the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, Watchmen? I think your beliefs concerning the age of the earth and Adam and Eve's relationship to prehistoric man (Neaderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc.) was, at least at one time, very similar to mine. You just explained your position better than I did mine. When you say that one of your anthropology teachers believe many of the scriptural stories in the Bible to be allegories, are you saying that he believed the Fall of Adam to be just an allegory? What did he have to say about the Atonement? It seems to me that Jesus would have never seen the need to redeem us from an "allegorical fall." I'd be interested in your thoughts.

 

[Prestor John]

So what do you believe with regards to the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, Watchmen? I think your beliefs concerning the age of the earth and Adam and Eve's relationship to prehistoric man (Neaderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc.) was, at least at one time, very similar to mine. You just explained your position better than I did mine. When you say that one of your anthropology teachers believe many of the scriptural stories in the Bible to be allegories, are you saying that he believed the Fall of Adam to be just an allegory? What did he have to say about the Atonement? It seems to me that Jesus would have never seen the need to redeem us from an "allegorical fall." I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I'm super interested in your thoughts about the age of the Earth and Adam and Eve's relationship to prehistoric man.

I'm not committed to any one theory, so I'm super interested in hearing your take.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm super interested in your thoughts about the age of the Earth and Adam and Eve's relationship to prehistoric man.

I'm not committed to any one theory, so I'm super interested in hearing your take.

Well, I definitely believe in a very old earth. I believe scientists are now saying it's about 4.5 billion years old, and based on their findings, I'm on board with that. I have quite a bit of respect for science, probably because it was always my weakest subject in school, and anybody who can make heads or tails of it, is a whole lot smarter than I am. As far as how Adam and Eve fit into the whole story, I'm less certain. I am, however, uncomfortable, completely dismissing scientists discoveries of prehistoric man, and I am also unwilling to even conceive of dinosaurs and human beings ever existing together here on earth. So, what I am inclined to believe -- at least until a better idea comes along -- is that while I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first "human-like" beings on the earth, they were the first ones that God created who were "in His image." And I'm thinking of "image" not only as it applies to physical appearance -- although that's certainly part of it -- but being His spirit offspring, and having a human spirit that is capable of worshiping Him and aspiring to be like Him. As to the particulars of how this accomplished, I haven't even really given it much thought. So, I do believe that the human race has evolved over the years (but in accordance with God's directions), so in a sense, I guess I could say that we have physical ties to prehistoric man, but that our spiritual ancestry dates only back to Adam and Eve. And I don't know if that makes any sense or not.

 

[Prestor John]

Well, I definitely believe in a very old earth. I believe scientists are now saying it's about 4.5 billion years old, and based on their findings, I'm on board with that. I have quite a bit of respect for science, probably because it was always my weakest subject in school, and anybody who can make heads or tails of it, is a whole lot smarter than I am. As far as how Adam and Eve fit into the whole story, I'm less certain. I am, however, uncomfortable, completely dismissing scientists discoveries of prehistoric man, and I am also unwilling to even conceive of dinosaurs and human beings ever existing together here on earth. So, what I am inclined to believe -- at least until a better idea comes along -- is that while I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first "human-like" beings on the earth, they were the first ones that God created who were "in His image." And I'm thinking of "image" not only as it applies to physical appearance -- although that's certainly part of it -- but being His spirit offspring, and having a human spirit that is capable of worshiping Him and aspiring to be like Him. As to the particulars of how this accomplished, I haven't even really given it much thought. So, I do believe that the human race has evolved over the years (but in accordance with God's directions), so in a sense, I guess I could say that we have physical ties to prehistoric man, but that our spiritual ancestry dates only back to Adam and Eve. And I don't know if that makes any sense or not.

Good stuff. I didn't have much of an opinion until I read a book called, "Earth: In the Beginning". I can't remember the author right now, but its an easy find.

Basically, just as Joseph Smith said, the Creation of the Earth took a lot of time and counsel. The Prophet claimed that the Creation was like making a cake. Ingredients were added to make a whole. It was a complicated process.

The author's take is similar to your own, but he expounds and mentioned how a part of the "process" in preparing the planet to sustain human life was to introduce simple plants and creatures which added valuable organic materials and elements that were needed for more complex plants and animals.

When the Earth was ready for more advanced life, the Lord would either introduce the new life into the mix or perform a mass extinction to make room for a whole new wave of life.

This process was repeated over and over, each new wave of life adding essential nutrients to the planet.

I don't remember if it was the author or my personal opinion that "man-like" creatures were eventually introduced to the planet as sort of a "test-run" to see if everything was ready for Adam and Eve to be placed.

Anyways, the book is really good and the best part about it is that a lot of the most interesting stuff is not speculation. The author actually quotes scripture. It's a blast.

I don't know if I agree with everything in that book, but your personal opinion, at least, comforts me cause now I know I'm not the only Mormon whose thinking about this crazy stuff.

Thanks again.

 

[DeepShadow]

Hi LDS-ers,

Growing up in the church, I was taught that the Noah tale in the bible was simple face value truth, and as far as I could tell, I was surrounded by people who genuinely believed it to be so. As an adult with a non-professional but active interest history and science, I have to say that the Noah story is at best an interesting ancient folk tale, along the lines of Paul Bunyan, and just as impossible to take seriously.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone LDS who:
Takes this story as historical truth (Just a, "yes I do" will do)

or from any LDS-ers who understand all the "blue ox" level improbabilities in this story, and still make it jive with your faith. How do you do that!? (from you guys, I'd like to hear lots of details. Genuinely interested in your insights)

Thanks!

I believe the Noah story describes a local event in the Fertile Crescent, not a worldwide flood. Thus, I would say it's neither entirely allegory, nor to be interpreted literally (by which I mean a face-value hermaneutic).

 

[Prestor John]

Hi, sageowl. Well, I'm LDS and was born and raised in the Church. My father was a university professor (in the language department of the University of Utah), and I thought he was just about the smartest man on earth. He's no longer living, and I've come to realize that he's really just in the top 10%. Even though he was active in the Church, I picked up a few things from him at a very early age, and one of them was that I don't need to believe everything I ever heard over the pulpit. I caught on really quickly that my Sunday School and Seminary teachers were not scholars and that if they taught me things that seemed to be totally wacko, they probably were. I can't remember having any conversations with him about Noah and the ark, but I know now what he would have had to say about it. I do remember having him shake his head in disbelief when I came home from Sunday School one Sunday and told him that I just learned that all of the languages in the world today came into existence at the time of the Tower of Babel. He never made a point of telling me that he believed a lot of the stories in the Bible (probably in the Old Testament in particular) not to be literal accounts of what actually happened, but I grew up knowing that God gave me a brain and intended for me to use it.

Today, at the ripe old age of 67, I would have to admit that I see a great many stories in the Bible as allegorical. I wouldn't say that they are on the same level as folk tales. I think there probably was a flood and that Noah probably did assemble as many animals as he could from his part of the world. When the Bible says that the flood covered the whole earth, I believe that means it covered the earth as far as Noah could tell. I don't believe that he somehow managed to find a couple of polar bears or penguins or a myriad of the other animals we have in the world today. Like you, I find that concept impossible to take seriously. I make most of the Old Testament jive with my faith, because I don't see a literal belief in those stories as being essential to my salvation. I do believe in the core doctrines of Mormonism, including Mormonism understanding of the Plan of Salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Noah's Ark falls into a category of teachings that I do not take literally and do not worry all that much about.

I believe the Noah story describes a local event in the Fertile Crescent, not a worldwide flood. Thus, I would say it's neither entirely allegory, nor to be interpreted literally (by which I mean a face-value hermaneutic).

I want to ask both of you a question concerning this topic. I have no intention of starting a debate or argument over it. I'd just like to see your take on it.

I had a thought in the shower this morning (where I do most of my thinking) and my question is:

How do you reconcile your belief in a local Flood event with the LDS belief that the Garden of Eden/Adam-ondi-Ahman were located in Missouri?

 

[Katzpur]

I want to ask both of you a question concerning this topic. I have no intention of starting a debate or argument over it. I'd just like to see your take on it.

I had a thought in the shower this morning (where I do most of my thinking) and my question is:

How do you reconcile your belief in a local Flood event with the LDS belief that the Garden of Eden/Adam-ondi-Ahman were located in Missouri?

To be completely honest, I have always had a real problem with the supposed location of the Garden of Eden. It makes absolutely no sense to me that it could have been located where Joseph Smith says it was. Since it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on either the gospel message or on my own salvation, it's something I just put on the shelf and don't worry about.

(Deep Shadow only posts on Sundays, so don't think he's avoiding the question if you don't get an answer right away.)

 

[Prestor John]

To be completely honest, I have always had a real problem with the supposed location of the Garden of Eden. It makes absolutely no sense to me that it could have been located where Joseph Smith says it was. Since it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on either the gospel message or on my own salvation, it's something I just put on the shelf and don't worry about.

(Deep Shadow only posts on Sundays, so don't think he's avoiding the question if you don't get an answer right away.)

Yeah, I would never think that of Deep. I know that you have been slowly bringing him back to life here.

OK. Follow up question.

How do you reconcile your belief concerning the location of the Garden of Eden/Adam-ondi-Ahman with the revelation that Spring Hill, Missouri is the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman? (Doctrine and Covenants 116)

 

[Katzpur]

Yeah, I would never think that of Deep. I know that you have been slowly bringing him back to life here.

Deep Shadow is my role model. He is such a class act. You ought to see him in "full debate mode." I've never seen anybody quite so brilliant. And he never, ever, ever loses his cool or resorts to personal attacks. I wish I could get him to post here more frequently. (Now I've publicly embarrassed him and he probably won't ever come back.)

OK. Follow up question.

How do you reconcile your belief concerning the location of the Garden of Eden/Adam-ondi-Ahman with the revelation that Spring Hill, Missouri is the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman? (Doctrine and Covenants 116)

I fall back on Bruce C. Hafen's advice: "When you take a small pebble and place it directly in front of your eye, it takes on the appearance of a mighty boulder. It is all you can see… Do not waste your energy on useless worry. The Lord will take the pebble that fills your vision and cast it down among the challenges you will face in your eternal progress. It will then be seen in perspective."