Close Topic Options

Noah's Ark - Page 2

With all respect, I think maybe he was being sarcastic and was trying to make a point to the person that asked that question as who knows it sounded silly for him that someone would ask him whether it is "literal" or not. Just my thoughts.

Ark Noahs

I think there is a misunderstanding in what President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, he wasn't teaching that the fire at the second coming will not be literal, but quite different. We know from the scriptures that the waters were literal covering the earth, even the top of the mountains.

There are evidences that point to a world wide flood. In a book called The trial of the stick of Joseph (or was it Ephriam), any who in it he talks about how in Peru they found a complete whales skeleton about 1,000 ft above sea level.

As for the dividing of the continents, I read some where that the continents were divided during the flood. Which last for over 150 days and that is found in Genesis 8:3. It was simply the rain that last 40 days.

As for the animals on other continents we have an example of how the animals got spread to different continents. In Ether 1:41 it says, "Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families."
I believe after that people that the Lord brought over to the American continent brought additional animals.

Of course this is Me, and how I believe.

Noah's Ark Studies Doctrine Mormon

Yes, without a reference it is highly suspect. Another possibility is he was using sarcasm and he believes both in a literal burning and a literal flood.

LDS- I posted before I read your coment...so I agree with you, he may have been using sarcasm.

Edited: gaucho on 22nd Mar, 2005 - 8:26pm

Page 2 Ark Noahs

I would check that source on Joseph Fielding Smith. Sounds like it may be taken out of context or misquoted. We have plenty of the brethren that have spoken of a literal flood that covered the whole earth. To cite one, President John Taylor said: "...God said He would bring a flood upon the earth and He brought it. [The Bible] simply tells us that 'all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.' That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism."
- Journal of Discourses 26:74-75
And back to the original question, it seems that Moses refers to a continental divide in Genesis 10:25. "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided." The footnote on Peleg's name shows that his name means division. Whether this is the start of the shift from Pangea, I don't know.
As far as how the plants survived I tend to believe that Noah did what the brother of Jared and Nephi later did when crossing to the American continent. I think that he had seeds of all kind on the ark with him. That doesn't explain the olive tree, but I don't see why the Lord wouldn't have him take seeds on the ark as well as animals.

Ark Noahs

I struggle with this topic. I have problems taking the flood as a literal flood that covered the whole earth and here is why I feel this way. I personally believe that the scriptures do not say anything about the dividing of the continents. The Old Testament wording regarding Pelag and the earth was divided in not a good translation. A better translation I feel is "in the days of Pelag the nations were divided. This Hebrew wording is used to refer to nations or political divisions.
I do not buy the earth baptism idea because if the earth needs baptism (which origionated from Elder widtsoe) then that opens a big can of worms in my opinion. If the earth needs baptism then are we saying that the earth sins or that it has some fashion of capability moral decision-making like humans? We do agree that those humans who are unable to make such decisions (like down syndrome) do not need to be baptized, so are we saying that the earth can make its own moral decisions? If the earth needs baptism then why not animals? Are they not also free agents in the same way the earth is? I am personally am not sure if we want to take that idea on.
I just feel that the logic of the flood just do not add up for me. There are over 10 million different species of animals on the earth how do you fit all of those on the dimensions of the ark given in Genesis? To me it just does not fit. To me the scriptures allude that Noah and his family was not the only people left on the earth. The pearl of Great Price says that the Lord told Enoch that a remnant of his seed would always be found among the nations of the earth. Enoch was Noah's great grand Father, so if Noah and his family was the only to survive the great flood, then all of the people on the earth would have been his seed. There would not be a remnant amount among the nations of men if that were the case? Perhaps we are just reading Noah's account from his perspective, and from what he saw it looked like the whole world was flooded, but does that really mean that it was? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Also the Book of Moses and Abraham describe the flood and the "floods" does this mean there were multiple floods at that time instead of one giant flood? Anyway this is just my take on the topic.