Meta
Pages
-
Recent Posts
- Getting Nearer to God Through the Book of Mormon
- Using the Book of Mormon to Communicate with Heavenly Father
- My Christmas Message for 2011:This Family Could Use Your Help…….View 3 Minute Video
- What is the most important thing a church member can do in this life?
- Four Year Anniversary in the Bloggernacle-Didn’t Find What I Had Hoped For-Decided to Write a Book
Recent Comments
- Grey_Wolf_Leader on Blown Away by Church History? Get Real!
- Jared on Jared—My Experience with the Savior
- Sandra M Lima on Jared—My Experience with the Savior
- Jared on Jared—My Experience with the Savior
- Sandra M Lima on Jared—My Experience with the Savior
Blogroll
Mormon Blog Aggregator
Categories
The Book of Mormon doesn’t have anything directly to say about the flood. Ether 13:2 is subject to Elder Widtsoe’s caveat, “When inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.” Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, (1960): 127
Ether in particular is subject to editorial layers. Original writers>Ether (who edits and compiles)>Mosiah (who translates)>Moroni (who edits again?)>Joseph Smith
Beyond those two considerations, it’s not entirely clear that this is a flood reference. Or at least, a reference to The Flood.
Jimbob, every copy of the LDS Bible has bound in with it the LDS Bible Dictionary (English) or Guide to the Scriptures (Spanish); and all electronic editions of the LDS Scriptures (CD and web) have them both.
The Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures both say Ether 13:2 is a Flood reference, as does the Topical Guide. Look also in the footnotes for Gen. 7.
Right Gary. And footnotes, the BD, and Spanish Guide to the Scriptures are infallible Doctrinal pronouncements based on revelation.
That’s hanging heavy weights on slender threads.
Jimbob, try the footnotes for Gen. 8:3 and Ether 13:2 also. They’re not infallible either. However, let’s look at a few Church publications and count the number of times these Study Helps are quoted as if they were reliable, not infallible mind you, but reliable.
Reliable enough in fact to be published and used right alongside the standard works themselves.
In the most recent general conference issue of the Ensign, November 2009, look at pages 34 and 105. In the current issue of the Ensign, February 2010, look at pages 8, 23, 24, and 55. In the current Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society manual, look at pages 38, 86, and 245. In the missionary service guide, Preach My Gospel, look at pages 24, 26, 28, 35, 37, 38, 39, 48, 49,56, 63, 66, 76, 77, 80, 86, 87, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 120, 126, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 196, and 231.
You’re absolutely correct Jimbob, they’re not “infallible doctrinal pronouncements based on revelation.” Of course neither are the talks given by the First Presidency and the Twelve in general conference. So what! We use them anyway, to help us understand and live by the what’s in the standard works.
So it seems to me that, based on official LDS media, Ether 13:2 may be reliably cited as a reference to Noah’s Flood.
Jared,
Elder Gary J. Coleman of the Seventy believes Alma 10:22 and Ether 13:2 both show that the Book of Mormon supports the Biblical account of the flood. (Ensign, Feb. 1996, p.14.)
Gary, by your reasoning, we would still be living the priesthood ban, because that was Church doctrine too. Want me to cite lots of talks, articles, and church publications? GA’s who believed in the reasons given and publicly expressed them?
Jimbob & R. Gary–
I’ve enjoyed the back and forth of your discussion. Thanks for commenting.
I used the word “support” carefully. If the Book of Mormon didn’t mention anything at all about the flood that would be a glaring omission, in my opinion, because the flood was a major event in the history of our world.
One of the unique things about the Book of Mormon is that the Savior gave his approval of Joseph Smith’s translation (D&C 17:6). In addition, the Savior while among the Nephite’s showed His interest and oversight in the details the original record keepers kept (3 Nephi 23:6-11).
Jared, it doesn’t so much “support” as “off-handedly allude to.” Nor does it (or Gary’s endless appeal to authority) have anything to say about genre questions or the issues of transmission which I raise above (which Elder Widtsoe was very aware of.)
If President Monson refers obliquely to King Arthur or Camelot in a line in GC, is he “supporting” a historical Arthur? Perhaps Gary can find us some GA references to Arthur in the Ensign or other official publications, thereby proving its historicity, genre, and accuracy!
There are many major events in the history of the world that the BoM says nothing about. Why should it be problematic?
Jimbob–
If you were to ask the question I did for the Friday Quiz, how would you have worded it?
I think of the greatest events in religious history in terms of how Elder McConkie outlined it:
1. Creation
2. Fall
3. Atonement
At the moment, I’m not sure what I would put for number 4 or 5, but I think the flood ranks in there. How about you?
“Does the Book of Mormon refer to the Biblical flood”?
Yes. No. Maybe, but not clearly. (And I would have voted #3)
As for ranking, I’ve never really thought about it, but I’d put Restoration (or First Vision, if we’re getting specific.) I don’t think flood would rank in my top ten.
Well, there you have it. You see the account of the Biblical flood as recorded in the Book of Mormon slightly different than I do. I wouldn’t say it “confirmed” the account of the flood because that would take an eye witnesses to use that term. The word “support is stronger” than “infer” but still useful here, in my opinion.
Regarding rankings: the flood isn’t in your top ten, I’m sure it would be in mine. But again, these issues are not too important. I’ll bet we agree on more things, in a gospel context, than we would disagree on.
Keep coming by, I enjoyed you’re insights.
Nice sidestep, Jimbob. I see hooked-on-logic worked for you too!
Sorry Gary. Not the same Jimbob
Seriously, is there any epistemological system for you besides authoritarianism?
.
Jimbob,
Nobody is required to agree with Church magazines, manuals, or web publications. Mine was merely an attempt to point out something the Church says about its own scripture in its own official media.
In case you cared.
But you don’t have to care. You may believe whatever you want.
Best wishes,
Gary
Gary, you didn’t answer my question. Instead, you assumed I’m simply ignorant of what the Church publishes.
Q1:Do you recognize any epistemology other than authoritarianism in the Church?
Q2: Can authoritative Church sources ever be wrong? Manuals, Ensign articles, GC talks, etc.? Ever?