This is a continuation of this thread:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1841923,1843899#msg-1843899I haven't engaged Mopologists to this degree in more than a decade. I wouldn't have done it this time, but apparently some of my Mormon relatives follow this guy's FB page, so I thought I'd throw a few facts and a little rational thinking into the discussion. The FB post began with a TBM criticizing John Dehlin's remarks re: comments on the BOM and DNA. Two Mopologists named Stephen Smoot and Blake Ostler finally responded to me. I assume that they are both high-ranking FAIRies. I'll post their remarks, then follow with my responses.
Blake: I do not think you grasp the Mormon views on this issue. Parry is definitely in the "historical flood camp" but I would dare say most Mormons who have studied biblical narratives are not. There is certainly room for differing views on this issue -- and it is clear that Stephen Smoot and I hold a different view as faithful Mormons. We are not bound to blblical fundamentalism.
Randy: Apparently, you didn't read Parry's article. He's in the "historical flood camp" because that is exactly what LDS scriptures and its leaders have taught throughout the existence of Mormonism. Parry states: "Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood...There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." Parry goes on to cite the "Scriptural Evidence for a Worldwide Flood." So, when you tell me that you don't think that I grasp the Mormon views on this issue, it seems to me that you are the one who fails to grasp them.
Blake: It is pretty clear that you do not understand what constitutes Mormon Doctrine. Of course one could show that ancient writers of scripture believed in a universal flood; it just so happens that Mormons do not affirm either scriptural inerrancy or fundamentalism.
Randy: Also, I assume that you're aware of the LDS teaching that after Jesus died, he went to the "spirit prison" to preach the gospel to the "spirits" of those who had drowned in the flood. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 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." If there was no global flood, then this LDS doctrine makes no sense. If there were Asian-descended people living all over the Americas who survived the flood, then the LDS concept that God used the flood to cleanse the earth of all sin (like a "do-over") has no meaning or effect.
Blake: Your eisegesis is terrible. Even if there was no flood, Christ went to preach to those spirits in spirit prison who died before his death and resurrection -- that is the Mormon view; not that there had to be a universal flood. In addition, the fact that there was no universal flood does not entail that there was no local flood. Your "reasoning" is severely flawed.
Randy: Re: your comment: "We are not bound to blblical fundamentalism." Is the Bible not official LDS doctrine? If the literal global flood is not official LDS doctrine, can you cite any scriptural verses or statements from LDS church leaders which support that idea?
Blake:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_FloodStephen: Please don't lecture me until you've read this:
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=4082&index=11Until then, I'm done here. Cheers!
Randy: Sorry, your article wouldn't open for me. I'm not trying to "lecture" you; I merely provided an article from the LDS church's "Ensign" magazine which affirms that the Noachic flood was global. If you don't believe that teaching, that's your business, but it is obvious that that is what the LDS church teaches.
Blake posted this link:
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=4082&index=11Randy: Is FairMormon the official doctrinal voice of the LDS church? That article states: "A belief that this flood was global in nature is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints;" How can that be the case, when "Ensign" magazine article I have cited, which quotes the relevant scriptural verses, clearly states that the flood covered the entire earth?
Randy to Blake: So, in your opinion, all of the scriptural verses which state that the flood was universal, and all of the statements from LDS church leaders who affirm that view, are all just false or speculative? Can you cite any statements from LDS church leaders which concur with your opinion that the flood wasn't universal?
Blake: Really? Look at the FAIR page I cited that quotes not less than 6 apostles who taught that the flood was local only.
Blake: You are trying my patience because you do not read. It cites statements by LDS General Authorities on the issue.
Randy to Blake: : When I posted the "Ensign" article by Donald Parry in which he quoted LDS scriptures affirming the reality of the global flood, Stephen Smoot replied "Since when has an Ensign article written over a decade ago by a BYU professor constituted 'official doctrine'?" I assume that he means that the LDS scriptures are not official doctrine. But now, you cite some LDS General Authorities' remarks on the issue (which are NOT official doctrine,) but you apparently believe that those remarks carry more weight than does the church's scriptures. Am I right?
Randy: Sorry to be so much trouble, but another thought occurred to me. The LDS church teaches that human life began with Adam and Eve in western Missouri about 6000 years ago, right? The human race grew from there, and about 1500 years later (about 4500 BC), God told Noah to build the ark and prepare for the flood. According to the story, the ark presumably came to rest on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. That's where humans began to re-populate the earth. My question: If the flood wasn't global, how did the ark travel from Missouri to the Middle East during the rains?
Randy: Someone sent me the material below some time ago. Is this what is taught in religion classes at BYU? From the Syllabus for Religion 327 – Lesson 12 Noah and the Flood
Was the Flood universal?
Moses 8:30 - "I will destroy all flesh from off the earth."
Genesis 6:13
Genesis 7:21-23
Ether 13:2 - "after the waters has receded from off the face of this
land . . ."
"The earth . . . has been baptized with water, and will, in the future
be baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost, to be prepared to go back
into the celestial presence of God." (Brigham Young, Discourses of
Brigham Young, 603)
"Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which
is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon
the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the
impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been
repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an
immersion of the earth in water. (Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and
Reconciliations, 127-28)
"The Lord baptized the earth for the remission of sins and it has been
once cleansed from the filthiness that has gone out of it which was in
the inhabitants who dwelt upon its face." (Brigham Young, JD, 1:274)
"The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was
that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and
all things sinful upon the face of it were washed away. As it came
forth from the ocean flood, like the new-born child, it was innocent,
it arose to newness of life; it was its second birth from the womb of
mighty waters--a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed
with all the innocency of its first creation." (Orson Pratt, JD 1:331)
"Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know
that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more
than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their
willful stubbornness they would not listen to him. (Mark E. Petersen,
Ensign, Nov. 1981, 65)
"The whole family of man was destroyed, except Noah and those seven
souls who received his testimony, a part of his family, and a part
only, for there were children that Noah had who rejected his
testimony, and who also shared in the destruction that came upon the
inhabitants of the earth." (George Q. Cannon, JD, 26:81)
Like · Reply · 21 hrs
Blake: Unfortunately we have the blind giving advice to the eyeless here. Some Mormons believe in a universal flood; some do not. Many like me take Genesis as a pre-scientific world-view that does not address the issues of science at all (precisely because it is based in narratives of post-exilic Israel and is addressing issues that became relevant only after the Renaissance).
So the biblical narrative is written from a very limited perspective. There was likely a large flood (probably involving the Caspian and Black seas) that appeared global from a limited perspective. The narratives that arose were also based on pre-scientifc observaton. However, the sheer number of flood myths suggests a real event that remained in the pre-literate memory of several cultures.
The LDS view of the bible is very different from the fundamentalist Protestant view. However, with respect to the DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon there is no contradiction since all agree that any DNA of the groups described in the Book of Mormon would have been assimilated into the culture and virtually disappeared through Founder and Bottle Neck effects. Further, we have no idea what the genome of 6th century pre-exilic Jews would have looked like at this point. May I suggest the following?
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/is-decrypting-the-genetic-legacy-of-americas-indigenous-populations-key-to-the-historicity-of-the-book-of-mormon/Randy to Blake: Re: your comment: "Some Mormons believe in a universal flood; some do not." Actually, I wasn't so much interested in what individual Mormons may believe, but rather what LDS official doctrine actually teaches. Below is a link to an article which details the church's official doctrine. So, wouldn't any Mormons who don't believe that official doctrine be defined as heretics or apostates?
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=engBlake: I am going to cut you some slack because it appears that you do not understand what constitutes "Mormon Doctrine:" The Ensign express individual opinions no more valid or authoritative than my own. Thus, citing this article does not establish that a universal flood is "Mormon Doctrine" as has been already stated on this very thread.
Randy: Re: your comment: "However, with respect to the DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon there is no contradiction since all agree that any DNA of the groups described in the Book of Mormon would have been assimilated into the culture and virtually disappeared through Founder and Bottle Neck effects." Into whose culture/DNA strains would the Book of Mormon peoples' DNA be assimilated? Who were these other cultures, and how and when did they come to exist in the Americas?
Randy: Re: your comment: "Further, we have no idea what the genome of 6th century pre-exilic Jews would have looked like at this point." Wouldn't the DNA of all pre-exilic Jews, as well as the DNA of every human living at that time, be descended from the eight people who were aboard Noah's ark and survived the flood?
Blake: Read my response to Simon Southerton here:
http://blakeostler.com/apologetics.htmlRandy: I'm sorry, I simply don't have the time to read long articles just to try to find the answers to my specific questions. Can you just answer my questions in layman's language? By the way, do your articles constitute official LDS church doctrine?
Randy: Thank you for providing the link to your article about "decrypting the genetic legacy." Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read such a lengthy treatise. I noted, however, one of the first sentences: "DNA studies focusing on the ancient migration of world populations support a North-East Asian origin of modern Native American populations arriving through the now-submerged land-bridge that once connected Siberia to Alaska during the last Ice Age, approximately 15,000 years ago." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that LDS doctrine holds that human life began with Adam and Eve in the western Missouri area about 6000 years ago. How does that doctrine square with your statement that I cited?
Randy: Also, since the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve over the last 6000 or so years, and Adam and Eve's posterity migrated to the Middle East and became the Semitic people---and you assert that there were also apparently some Asian-descended people who crossed into the Americas---then wouldn't all Semitic people as well as all Amerinds share close DNA relationships dating back no more than about 6000 years?
I wrote these last couple of posts last night. Those two guys haven't responded yet.