Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Noah's Ark
Do Mormon's believe in a literal flood? Do they believe water covered the whole earth and all the trees and plant life died? All animals would not fit on Noah's Ark. He would have run out of food and water - and been unable to care for all those animals for 1 year. Plus, once they land, there would be no plant life. Seems far fetched to me - maybe a localized flood?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
uh....what?
Now, this is a great question!
Donald Parry answers this in the Jan 98 Ensign.
Here is a link:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4a5557b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
He unequivocally states that LDS believe that the Flood covered the entire earth. Alot of scholars cite research or scholarship demonstrating when Noah said the whole earth, he meant only the Fertile Crescent or Mesopotamia. Parry disputes this with scriptures and citations of McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.
Which would be consistent with the notion of the Earth's "baptism", and not *sprinkling*, so to speak.
Although, personally, I think I would be OK if it just flooded the region and destroyed all the wicked people and innocent animals there, as opposed to a global inundation. It would not be a testimony-shaker for me to discover that Machu Pichu or Mt McKinley weren't completely immersed. Altho the Bible is clear that all inhabitants save Noah's 8 were all destroyed; there were no other human survivors but those in the ark.
On a sidenote, in this article he describes how the Tower of Babel was actually a false Temple. That by "trying to reach heaven" has implications of mimicking temple worship, which has deeper understanding to LDS, and not just building a tall tower or ziggurat and walking up into heaven. Never knew that.
Post a Comment