Paul Hoskisson
The authors of the Old Testament told very few “stories” for a story’s sake. Scriptural accounts were meant to illustrate a point usually having to do with Israel’s relationship to God. Authors carefully chose how they presented their messages, often fashioning the way they presented history in order to emphasize continuing themes. Those looking at the Bible as a strictly scientific, literally precise, and historically exact record often become frustrated when they come to stories that don’t fit in well with what is known from secular studies.
One of the accounts that falls into this category is that of Noah and the Flood. Many theories abound as to interpretation, but few hold water when evaluated scientifically, literally, or historically. Instead of concentrating on the discrepancies between secular theories and traditional interpretations, warns retired BYU Professor Paul Hoskisson, readers would get further by concentrating on looking for what is being taught. The literal meaning and the metaphorical meaning are not “either/or” propositions and both are important. However, if one gets hung up on the literal meaning, one can rarely get to the ultimate meaning.
Joseph Smith never commented on interpretations of the Flood in the Bible, but an editorial in a church magazine while W. W. Phelps was editor reflected the common Protestant view of the time. The Flood was seen as a baptism of the earth. But Protestants, it should be noted, see baptism differently than Mormons view baptism. In the LDS Church, baptism is seen as a necessary ordinance for exaltation and includes immersion whereas a Protestant is more likely to view it as a general cleansing carried out in various manners.
By the turn of the century, Elder Orson F. Whitney began writing and speaking about the Flood as a baptism in the sense of a necessary ordinance the earth needed despite its lack of ability to make decisions. This thought has persisted and been debated in LDS circles since that time.
Join Laura Harris Hales of the LDS Perspectives Podcast as she discusses with Paul Hoskisson some of the possible meanings of the Flood story and what it meant for the earth to be cleansed from its environment.
This podcast is cross-posted with permission of LDS Perspectives Podcast.
It seems to me that Joseph Smith’s revelation about Adam-Ondi-Ahman being a place where Adam and Eve lived and the story of the Jaredite voyage in the Book of Mormon put Noah into perspective. There had to be a point at which the descendants of Adam holding the priesthood migrated from the “New World” to the “Old World” where the story of the Tower of Babel begins, and the story of Abraham begins, clearly set in the land between Mesopotamia and Egypt. The only long distance migration described in Genesis is the voyage of Noah. In the context of the Restored Gospel, Noah’s story follows a recurring pattern, in which a community became sinful and was going to be destroyed, while a righteous remnant was led by God to a promised land. The Jaredites very consciously follow the pattern of Noah in preparing their vessels, including asking God to light them the same way that rabbinic traditions say the ark was lit. The sea voyages of Noah and the Jaredites were both about a year.
I think it is ironic that the traditional assumption has been that the Flood was a world-covering event, BUT the ark is assumed to be just a glorified houseboat that floats up and then settles to earth as all the extra water just disappears. As we saw in Houston in 2017, continuous heavy rain “covers” the earth. 40 days of heavy rain would be enough to destroy homes and crops and make the affected area uninhabitable. It could lift an ocean worthy vessel and carry it down to the sea, launching it on an intercontinental voyage.
Why should we think that Noah is describing the entire pkanet being overfilled with water above all mountain tops? Was he getting weather satellite images? Was he hearing international shortwave broadcasts from the other continents? If all humans on earth were so wicked they deserved death, had Noah warned ALL people on all continents to give them a chance to repent? But what his story actually says, from his viewpoint, concerns people who were left after Enoch’s city was translated, who chose evil, so that Noah’s family was a righteous remnant, taken elsewhere by God. And his voyage was recapitulated by the Jaredites, in reverse.
This is the most plausible explanation I’ve read or heard of the flood, taking into account all we’ve received in the Restoration. Thank you!
Thank you for at least allowing for those who find the flood narrative to be fictional to have a seat at the gospel table. I have found that some take offense when I point out the parallels to Gilgamish or the impossibility of that much water covering the earth. Yet, I feel that this story does serve many purposes. Your summary above just about “covers it” completely.
We all need to hit the reset button from time to time and go back to the start.