Mormon,Mormonism The Flood

The Bible describes a great flood that occurred during the time of Noah. The Lord declared that

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven: and every thing that is in the earth shall die (Genesis 6:17).

Noah was commanded to build an ark that was approximately 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (Genesis 6:15). Noah was told to bring into the ark all animals and fowls (Genesis 6:19-20, 7:2-3).

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth: and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life , of all that was in the dry land, died.

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven: and they were destroyed from the earth and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

And the waters prevailed upon the earth and hundred and fifty days. (Genesis 7:17, 19-24)

The story of Noah and the flood is a basic part of Christianity and thus of Mormonism. It is an interesting story, but a confusing story, and not all Latter-day Saints have the same interpretation of it. Most LDS that I have talked with take the story literally, that the whole planet was covered with a flood, and that Noah literally took mating pairs of all the animals and birds on the planet into the ark. Some LDS accept the story as being real but think the flood was a regional flood and didn't cover the whole earth, and that Noah took mating pairs of the animals and birds that were common to his area. Other LDS think the story is an allegory to teach the moral principles of faith and obedience to God.

The Lord through latter-day revelation, as recorded in the Doctrine & Covenants, refers to Noah as a real person, and I accept him as such. However, I have a problem with accepting the story of the flood as a global flood. My personal belief is that the flood was either a great miracle or was a local flood.

The scriptures do not teach a planet-wide flood

The verses in Genesis do not say the flood covered the whole planet. It is the destruction that is described as being planet-wide. For example, consider the following.

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die. (Genesis 6:17)

That verse states that (a) God would create a flood, and (b) all flesh on the earth would die. Some people, who believe in a world-wide flood, say the flood caused the destruction of all life. Other people, who believe in a local flood, say the flood didn't cause the destruction, but the process used by God to cause the flood caused the destruction. I'm in this latter group. As explained below, I'm posting information about the impact of large asteroids, because scientists say that such impacts could cause a local flood and also destroy all life in the region of the flood.

Genesis 7:19 does state that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.", but I believe that verse does not imply a planet-wide flood, only that the hills in the vicinity of the flood were covered. The phrase "that were under the whole heaven" is like the phrase in the scriptures about "the four corners of the earth". Both phrases are not accurate descriptions of the physical world. They are symbolic phrases. The phrase about all the high hills, that were "under the whole heaven" refers, I think, to all the hills that were in the area of the flood. There are a few other verses of scripture that refer to the flood, but those verses just refer to a flood with nothing implied about the extent of the flood.

In the Book of Mormon, there is a reference to the flood that needs explanation. Ether 13:2 states "that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands". To understand that verse, we need to understand that traditional Latter-day Saints believe that Adam and Eve lived on the North American continent not in the Mediterranean area. This implies that Noah also lived in the American continents. The phrase in Ether 13:2 "after the waters had receded from off the face of this land" refers to the American continents, the same land where Noah lived. Thus, the statement in Ether 13:2 does not, I believe, imply a planet-wide flood that reached from the Mediterranean area to the American continent.

An awfully lot of water would be needed to cover the whole planet

A simple model of the amount of water needed to cover the planet can be obtained if we assume the earth is a sphere with a radius of 4,000 miles. We can calculate the volume of that sphere. Then we can calculate the volume of a new sphere with a radius of 4,00x miles, where x is the elevation of the ark after it came to rest. The difference of the two volumes will give us the amount of water needed. The highest peak on the earth is Mt. Everest at an elevation of 29,035 feet. That elevation is not quite 6 miles. To simplify my calculations I assumed the water was 6 miles deep.

After performing the calculations described above, I learned that over a billion cubic miles of water would be needed to cover the planet to a depth of 6 miles. Because Everest is slightly less than 6 miles high, I'm using a figure of one billion cubic miles of water, a simple number that is easy to use in discussions. That is a lot of water. That is a lot more water than is contained in all the earth's oceans. It is hard for me to believe that that amount of water could accumulate in a storm lasting only 40 days. That accumulation of water would have to average 725 feet per day over the 40 days. That is 725 feet per day everywhere, not just in a canyon where runoff might accumulate. In addition, Genesis 8:3 states that the water was abated after 150 days, and that about 5 or 6 months later, Noah and his family left the ark. It is hard for me to believe that water almost 6 miles deep could evaporate or soak into the earth that fast. To me, the story of a literal flood covering the whole earth is very implausible. Because of that, I believe the flood was a local flood.

If the flood were planet-wide, the flood would have left great scars all over the planet. Some people say the Grand Canyon was caused by the flood. However, scientific dating of the Grand Canyon places the erosion that caused the canyon at a much earlier time than the time of Noah. In addition, if the flood were responsible for the erosion, there should be Grand Canyons all over the planet. The fact that there is only one Grand Canyon indicates that the forces that caused the erosion were not planet-wide.

The ark was too small to hold mating pairs of all the animals and birds

Now, let's look at size of the ark. To the people living in Noah's time, the ark probably seemed very large, but to us the ark was a small ship. For example, the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier is 1,092 feet long compared to the ark's length of approximately 450 feet. Unless God performed a great miracle, there is no way that a small ship such as the ark could hold mating pairs of all the animals and birds that were alive on the planet at the time of Noah. In addition, the ark would have to hold all of the food needed by Noah's family and the animals and birds.

I believe that God could perform a miracle, such as miniaturizing the animals and birds and putting them all in a state of hibernation for almost a year, but the Bible gives no hint that such a miracle was part of the flood-story, and I know of no pronouncement by a LDS Church President that the flood was a miracle that superseded natural laws. I believe a regional flood is a better interpretation of the flood story. Until the President of the Church declares that the flood was a miracle, I will continue to believe the flood was local and the destruction was universal.

The impact of a large asteroid could satisfy the requirements for the flood

Some scientists say that an impact by an asteroid 3 miles across could cause sufficient damage to destroy most of humanity. If that impact were in water, a large flood, albeit a local flood, would be created. Thus, such an impact would satisfy the requirements of the story of the flood: a flood and destruction of the people.

How about our General Authorities who teach a planet-wide flood?

Some people will say, in response to my view, "What about our LDS leaders, whom we believe are apostles and prophets of the Lord. Why would these inspired men continue to propagate an incorrect view of the story of the flood?" My response is that the Lord doesn't reveal all knowledge to his prophets. He reveals that which we need to know for our salvation. As one of our General Authorities said (I don't remember who said it), "We focus on salvation and leave science to the scientists" (my wording). Our General Authorities do not claim to be infallible in their knowledge of how God deals with mankind, and I don't believe they are infallible. There are many things about our physical world that our General Authorities do not understand, and they are leaving that paradigm to the scientists. They enter their ministry as apostles and prophets with biases and misconceptions given them by society, and I believe the concept of a universal flood is such a bias.

The real importance of the story of the flood

The important thing about the story of the flood is its message of faith and of obedience to God. It is not important for us to know exactly how the flood occurred. I've brought it up in this blog, since there are parallels between the scriptures and science on this matter. Someday we'll know exactly what happened during the time of Noah, but for now we need to focus on our relationship to God and His Son, Jesus Christ, on having the Holy Ghost with us daily, on keeping God's commandments, and on service to others.

Natural Events in Creation

Most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in God. We not only believe in God, but we believe we are literally the spirit offspring of God. We believe that God created life and placed it on this earth. The scriptures, though, don't tell us how God created the earth.

Scientists are trying to understand how physical life began on this planet. Some scientists say that life began spontaneously as certain elements and energy came together. Other scientists say that simple life forms came to this planet via asteroids. Some people speculate that intelligent people migrated to this earth as aliens. However it happened, evolution and natural disasters have drastically changed the earth.

Most scientists believe that world-wide disasters occurred that had drastic effects on the plants and animals that populated the earth. About 252 million years ago, most of the ocean organisms were destroyed. About 65 million years ago, the earth was believed to have been struck by a large asteroid. The results of this impact were that many if not most species of plants and animals were destroyed. The crater that is believed to have resulted from the impact has been located underneath the ocean near Guatemala.

Scientific Attempts at Creation

The creation of life can be considered from two viewpoints: the creation of human life and the creation of plant and animal life. From the LDS view, a living person is the combination of a physical body and a spirit-offspring of God. This combination is the human soul. The scriptures don't say when the spirit enters the body, that is, when life begins. Our living prophets haven't answered that question, either. And, science hasn't defined when life begins. Even if science were to define the beginning of human life, that definition would have no meaning in the religious view of life, since scientists have no knowledge or recognition of a "spirit" inhabiting our bodies. Any scientific definition of when human life begins may or may not be when the spirit actually enters a body such that the combination becomes a living soul.

Some scientists are researching life, how it began, how it can be created. They disregard (as well they should) the religious concept of human life being the combination of a spirit and a mortal body. Instead, they are attempting to determine if new life could be created as the result of natural laws. This post reviews some of their work.

Cloning

Cloning has been a successful technique to change the nature of organisms. The history of cloning history goes back to 1952 and continues to the present. The list of animals that have been cloned is long and includes sheep, monkeys, cats, dogs, cattle, deer, goats, horses, rats, mice, and water buffalo.

Cloning raises the question, "Is cloning the creation of life?" I expect that people will probably have differing answers to that question. My view is no. Cloning is only the creation of new life-forms, not of new life itself. Current cloning techniques involve changing the genetic material in an egg such that an embryo from that egg will have the new attributes. No new life has been created through cloning. The egg already had the "spark of life" (what ever that means), and cloning only changes the characteristics of the living organism that results from cloning.

New DNA/Genes

Of interest is the work of Craig Venter and his group. They created artificial DNA and plan to introduce that DNA into the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium with the hope that the chromosome will take over the bacterium. I agree that they have created an artificial DNA and if successful will have created new forms life that didn't exist before. In effect they will have bypassed the eons of time involved with evolution to create new forms of life. I do not agree that they will have created new life itself since the bacterium to be used in the experiment will already be alive. In 2010 Dr. Venter announced his team has produced new genes from basic chemicals.

Venter and his team at the not-for-profit J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), which has facilities in Rockville, Maryland, and San Diego, announced in 2010 that they had constructed the world's first completely synthetic bacterial cell. Using computer-designed genes made on synthesizer machines from four bottles of chemicals, the scientists arranged those genes into a package, a synthetic chromosome. When inserted into a bacterial cell, the chromosome booted up the cell and was capable of dividing and reproducing.

Creation of New Life

In 2002, scientists duplicated the polio virus using laboratory chemicals. They injected the virus into mice to demonstrate the virus was active. The mice became paralyzed and then died. Scientists are divided over the question of viruses being alive. If viruses are alive, the duplication of the polio virus would be a laboratory creation of an existing life-form but would not be new life, i.e. life that didn't already exist.

In order to create new life rather than to just modify or duplicate life, scientists would have to create new life from elementary elements in which the "spark of life" (what ever that means) did not already exist. Scientists at Harvard University announced in 2003 that they had created from basic elements a crude form of a cell. At that time, they did not claim to have created life, only to have created a primitive form of something, a "container", that is necessary for life to exist. Those scientists are now claiming to be on the verge of creating advanced or workable "containers" for new cells. ScienceDaily reported that scientists are trying to create new life-forms through the creation of re-programmable cells.

"We are talking about a highly ambitious goal leading to a fundamental breakthrough that will, -- ultimately, allow us to rapidly prototype, implement and deploy living entities that are completely new and do not appear in nature, adapting them so they perform new useful functions."

Is the creation of new genes the creation of life? I say "no", because the bacterial cell used by Venter already had the "spark of life". Venter and his group did create new genes, thus changing the characteristics of the cell, but they did not give the "spark of life" to the cell. I think the creation of new life would be the taking of chemicals and creating an artificial cell. Then artificial DNA and artificial genes would be inserted into the cell, and the cell would become alive and would replicate itself. My personal opinion is that this will happen at some time in the future. I think it is likely that science will progress to the point where scientists are able to create new embryos and the embryos will grow into living animals. If this is accomplished, will this "prove" there is no god? I say "no", because God works through natural laws, the same laws that scientists are discovering. In addition (from the religious viewpoint), in order to have new human life, a spirit-child would have to be placed into the body that was created via science, and that is something scientists can not do since their work only involves mortal matter while a creation of a spirit-child involves spirit matter.

Stem Cells

The recent announcement that scientists have successfully turned skin cells into stem cells has created a lot of attention and interest from the scientific and religious communities. The use of skin cells instead of human embryos for the generation of stem cells will bypass the touchy question whether the use of embryonic stem cells, which results in the killing of the embryos, is murder. In another blog, I have a page devoted to research on stem cells.

Now for a little speculation. I've been wondering if stem cells obtained from skin could be used to create human embryos and thus human life. In a technical sense, those embryos wouldn't be new life, since the stem cells were living and brought the "spark of life" from a living person. But, from the LDS viewpoint, the embryos would be new persons (or life-forms) if God allowed His spirit offspring to enter the bodies such that they became new souls.

Mormon,Mormonism One World Follows Another

While reading in the book of Moses this afternoon, I discovered another parallel between an Ekpyrotic Universe and the scriptures. This parallel is related to the parallel for many worlds, but it concerns the sequence of the worlds being created rather than there being many worlds.

The book of Moses states that as one world passes away another world will take its place.

And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. (Moses 1:37-38)

I don't know if those verses should be taken literally, such that only one world would be in existence at a time, or if the verses should be generalized to allow many worlds to be in existence at any given time. The important thing, I think, is that those verses teach that the Lord creates an unending series of worlds being created.

In a previous post, I introduced the idea of an Ekpyrotic Universe, a concept developed from the mathematics of string theory. According to that concept, there is an unending series of universes. Each universe ends in a fiery explosion, an explosion that ends one universe and creates another universe. The name "Ekpyrotic Universe" was given to that concept by scientists because Ekpyrotic is a Greek word denoting a large destructive fire. Ekpyrotic refers to an ancient Stoic concept of the universe having an unending series of hot, destructive births, coolings, and rebirths.

Creation Started with Nothing but Energy

Some of the most interesting parallels between science and religion are the parallels between a scientific theory known as an Ekpyrotic Universe and the Mormon view of creation. Very briefly, an Ekpyrotic Universe is a theory of creation. According to an Ekpyrotic Universe, there are many dimensions and the cosmos that we see is only one of those dimensions. Nearby our universe is another universe. We don't see that universe because it is in a different dimension. Our universe is on a collision course with the other universe, and in about a trillion years, the two universes will collide, resulting in a terrific explosion. That explosion, or big bang, ends the two universes and starts two new universes. Thus, if this concept is true, we have a neighboring universe that we can't see but that will eventually collide with our universe. Our universe began in a big bang, and it will end in another big bang when our universe collides with its neighbor universe.

After a trillion years of expansion, the matter in our universe will be distributed throughout the universe, but the density of that distribution will be so small that the universe will be essentially empty of matter. The universe, however, will have high energy and great gravity, and it is that gravity that will bring the two universes together. The significant thing to remember from this overview is that at the time a big bang occurs, the universe will be empty of matter but full of energy. That is, the creation of a new universe, via a big bang, will be the result of energy. The Ekpyrotic Universe was derived from string theory, and the basic concept in string theory is that all matter is composed of oscillating strings of pure energy.

So, we have a scientific theory that correlate creation with pure energy. How does this discussion relate to religion, you might ask? To answer that, let's turn to Genesis and read how God began his creation of the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:2-3)

Notice that the earth was without form and was void or empty. Darkness was upon the earth. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". Light is pure energy. So, let's re-read those verses from Genesis and substitute "energy" for "light" and "no energy" for "darkness". Let us also substitute "empty" for "without form, and void".

And the earth was empty and no energy was upon the face of the deep (on what would become the earth). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be energy: and there was energy.

Do you see the parallel? The heart of string theory is vibrating strings of pure energy. An Ekpyrotic Universe begins with pure energy. God began his creation by introducing energy into the creation-process. I expect that the people in the time of Moses didn't understand the concept of energy as we do. It was appropriate for Moses to phrase his revelation from God with the words "light" and "darkness", because the people could understand that.