The Noah Story: How literally do you take it?

[Prestor John]

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.)

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."

I totally agree with what you said about Deep. I respect both of you and value your opinions.

I understand your stance on this issue and I agree that it is not a topic to worry over. I just wanted to see your take on it.

If I believed as you did I would try to argue that Adam-ondi-Ahman does not necessarily have to refer to a specific place, but refers to more of an idea.

For example, both John the Baptist and Noah can be referred to as "Elias" because they both fulfilled roles through the spirit of Elias.

Similarily, Adam-ondi-Ahman could be anywhere that the Lord visits Adam while he meets with and presides over a body of Priesthood holders.

Even though I lean toward it being a one specific place, perhaps there are more (like the Hill Cumorah).

Anyways, I just wanted to see your take on it. Thanks.

 

[Katzpur]

If I believed as you did I would try to argue that Adam-ondi-Ahman does not necessarily have to refer to a specific place, but refers to more of an idea.

For example, both John the Baptist and Noah can be referred to as "Elias" because they both fulfilled roles through the spirit of Elias.

Similarily, Adam-ondi-Ahman could be anywhere that the Lord visits Adam while he meets with and presides over a body of Priesthood holders.

Yeah, that makes sense. Kind of like Zion doesn't necessarily have to be a specific place.

 

[Prestor John]

Yeah, that makes sense. Kind of like Zion doesn't necessarily have to be a specific place.

Exactly.

 

[Watchmen]

Katz, we were never perfect. We were always going to make mistakes. Hence the need for a Savior. The Adam and Eve story represents mankind's inability to get it right without a Savior.

 

[Katzpur]

Katz, we were never perfect. We were always going to make mistakes. Hence the need for a Savior. The Adam and Eve story represents mankind's inability to get it right without a Savior.

Interesting. Fair enough.

I asked you another question, too, though. Would you mind taking a stab at it? I asked: "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." Perhaps your view has changed since we talked earlier. I know that I really liked your previous explanation, but it sounds like you're maybe moving away from the idea that Adam and Eve ever existed at all. Mind clarifying?

 

[Watchmen]

Interesting. Fair enough.

I asked you another question, too, though. Would you mind taking a stab at it? I asked: "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." Perhaps your view has changed since we talked earlier. I know that I really liked your previous explanation, but it sounds like you're maybe moving away from the idea that Adam and Eve ever existed at all. Mind clarifying?

If I recall, my thought was that evolution is a very real thing, and at some point man progressed to the point where God deemed us ready for the spirits he had created. I know I explained it better before. Maybe I can find one of the old threads.

 

[Prestor John]

Katz, we were never perfect. We were always going to make mistakes. Hence the need for a Savior. The Adam and Eve story represents mankind's inability to get it right without a Savior.

The literal Fall of Man does represent Man's literal need for a literal Savior.

No one who has lived upon the Earth has ever been perfect, except the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Prestor John]

If I recall, my thought was that evolution is a very real thing, and at some point man progressed to the point where God deemed us ready for the spirits he had created. I know I explained it better before. Maybe I can find one of the old threads.

That is a very interesting take. One I'd love to hear more about as well.

 

[Thief]

if I may comment......

I always thought a global flood need only to be deep enough to kill crops
and in turn livestock

the social groups dependent.....would not survive
all of their life style would vanish

I do find it difficult to reconcile that all of humanity was reduced to the survivors on one ship

 

[Katzpur]

No one who has lived upon the Earth has ever been perfect, except the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think that's pretty much what Watchmen was saying. He is just saying that we'd have been prone to sin regardless of whether Adam and Eve had transgressed.

P.S. Once the two of you get going, it can get pretty heated. I think I'll leave the two of you to sort things out by yourselves.

 

[Katzpur]

If I recall, my thought was that evolution is a very real thing, and at some point man progressed to the point where God deemed us ready for the spirits he had created. I know I explained it better before. Maybe I can find one of the old threads.

Yeah, it was something like that. I liked it and it pretty much fell in line with how I see things. I've actually looked for the post I'm thinking of, but couldn't find it.

 

[Prestor John]

I think that's pretty much what Watchmen was saying. He is just saying that we'd have been prone to sin regardless of whether Adam and Eve had transgressed.

P.S. Once the two of you get going, it can get pretty heated. I think I'll leave the two of you to sort things out by yourselves.

Well, I would disagree with him if that is what he is saying. However, the only fun I have had talking about this idea was with a Jehovah's Witness. (A lot of fun)

As long as we all can agree that we can change our nature and receive forgiveness only through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, I don't see any reason to get too bent out of shape over this.

 

[Prestor John]

Yeah, it was something like that. I liked it and it pretty much fell in line with how I see things. I've actually looked for the post I'm thinking of, but couldn't find it.

I'm really interested in hearing it too.

How does it fall in line with your way of seeing things Katz?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm really interested in hearing it too.

How does it fall in line with your way of seeing things Katz?

Read my post #17 again. That explains my view of how Adam and Eve were our first parents but not literally the first being on earth who resembled humans. It would also explain the existence of dinosaurs, etc. and other pre-Adamic life that I can't just dismiss as never having existed. Watchmen's view was similar; I just liked how he put it.

 

[DeepShadow]

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?

Okay, this may seem evasive, but IMO there's a deep truth behind what I'm trying to say here: I don't reconcile them, because I don't think everything needs to be reconciled. If there's a serious discrepancy (like 5/6ths of science vs. a face value hermaneutic of Genesis), I work something out in my head, but when I encounter other things, I may speculate in several directions and then let it go without picking one. Like, when think of local flood vs. Adam-ondi-Ahman (AoA), the following rocks fall out of my head:

* Maybe there was just a lot more travel back then than we thought
* Maybe Spring Hill was just the place where Joseph got the vision, because he felt spiritually close to AoA there
* Maybe the historical Adam was a composite of more than one great progenitor--one the ancestor of Noah, the other had the meeting at AoA
* Maybe Adam and his posterity were transported there, like Nephi was taken to the high mountaintop
* Maybe the local flood was in America, instead of the Fertile Crescent

And each of these argues for a bit with the others, and with everything else I know, and then the debate just ends with nothing resolved. Except this: if I can come up with five possible paths for reconciling that, then God--in His infinite everything--can come up with so many more. And one of His ways to reconcile this is true, but it's not pertinent to my salvation to figure out which one. So I let it drop. If it ever becomes a problem, I will study and pray and try and work out something more concrete, but without that, I usually let the matter drop if I can come up with at least 3 reasons why it's not a contradiction.

 

[DeepShadow]

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.

Yeah, well when just the feeling that you might have hurt someone is enough to cause a literal panic attack, you learn to avoid personal attacks. But enough about me.

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.)

No, seriously, Katz, enough about me.

*sigh* You have been so patient with me of late. You keep me coming back.

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."

*sticks awesome quote in back pocket for later*

 

[Prestor John]

Read my post #17 again. That explains my view of how Adam and Eve were our first parents but not literally the first being on earth who resembled humans. It would also explain the existence of dinosaurs, etc. and other pre-Adamic life that I can't just dismiss as never having existed. Watchmen's view was similar; I just liked how he put it.

Aw. I didn't see the part of your comment about humankind evolving.

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

There are just so many stories in the Bible that I don't see any way to reconcile it with being the 100% LITERALLY TRUE WORD OF GOD that fundamentalists (not Fundie Mormons, just fundamentalists in general) make it out to be.

I'm not really sure what Noah's Flood was supposed to have been. It could have been just storytelling, but I'd probably go with the "local flood that was exaggerated" explanation most Old-Earth Creationists do.

 

[Orontes]

There are just so many stories in the Bible that I don't see any way to reconcile it with being the 100% LITERALLY TRUE WORD OF GOD that fundamentalists (not Fundie Mormons, just fundamentalists in general) make it out to be.

I'm not really sure what Noah's Flood was supposed to have been. It could have been just storytelling, but I'd probably go with the "local flood that was exaggerated" explanation most Old-Earth Creationists do.

Hello CMB,

If one assumes the Torah was composed during the Persian period (post the Jewish return from Babylonian captivity) then one is dealing with a Jewry that had been exposed to a larger and older Mesopotamian mythos. This would explain the flood story's existence.


A flood narrative created by a people living in the lower Levant (general Palestinian area) is odd given there are no floods of note in the local mountainous region. Jerusalem and its surroundings that served as the base of Hebrew settlement and culture are all in the highlands of larger Palestine. If however, one considers a captive people living in Babylon, they are a group exposed to the beliefs of Lower Mesopotamia. Lower Mesopotamian beliefs served as the cultural backdrop of the Babylonian Empire à la Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations. Lower Mesopotamia was often subject to massive flooding of the magnitude that could destroy settlements. For a subservient Jewish people, it is easy to see how they could co opt the myths of Mesopotamia and then make them their own by asserting it was their god Yahweh who was the source of destruction. To make one's god all the greater, the flood storyline goes from regional, to world covering.