The Global Flood and Mormon Scripture | Ep. 1623 | LDS Discussions Ep. 12

Hello everyone, and welcome back to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. And a special edition of Mormon Stories Podcast, because we are, um, well, into an amazing series dealing with Mormon Church truth claims, uh, with Mike from LDS Discussions.com. We have covered several topics around the Book of Mormon, and now we have begun an exploration of the Bible. We've done Adam and Eve. Uh, today we're going to be covering, uh, the global flood and Mormon scripture. Next, we're going to be covering the Tower of Babel. And I just, uh, cannot say enough good things about the series. Mike, thank you so much.

No, you know what? It's been fun. And it's kind of fun because I think for me, kind of doing them in this, the way we're doing it, kind of in order, um, you know, it's kind of refreshing my memory a bit from doing these like a year ago on the website. And, um, and so far, the feedback's been pretty good. I mean, I think, like I said, the goal is to be able to give information that helps people to explore this stuff and understand it. And to do it in a way, I think, that doesn't make someone who is either a believer or a nuanced believer, I think, feel like they're being punched in the face repeatedly. Like, you know, because sometimes when you read stuff online, it just feels like you're just being viciously, um, torn apart. And it's gonna feel like that anyways when you're having these things kind of challenged. But at the same time, I'm hoping, um, so far, I've had a few people have reached out and said that it's, they appreciate that we're doing it in a way, I think, that is a little more, you know, gentler. And, um, you know, that's the goal. It's just because I'm trying to think about this as we do it as if you're presenting it to, you know, a Sunday school class that, you know, is going to struggle with this stuff in the same way that I did, you know, when I was going through it.

Yeah, yeah. As far as I, the way I think about this is, uh, and we'll just repeat this every time because some people are gonna find this on YouTube in the middle and they won't have listened to anything before. After, I'll just say very quickly, uh, the, you know, uh, religion is an important part of people, many people's lives. But people make very important decisions based on the truth claims of their religion. And Mormonism is no different. And people make really important life decisions based on the premise that the Mormon Church is exactly what it claims to be and is based on a bunch of truth claims. And so this, this whole episode is about informed consent. It's about people, um, knowing the, the facts and the evidence about the Mormon Church's truth claims. We want to do that lovingly and respectfully. And then we want to let people make whatever decisions they want to in their life. And we are not about tearing down Mormonism, destroying faith, hurting people. We just want people to have evidence and facts and then make informed decisions. So that's our commitment to you today. And the topic that we're covering is, uh, Noah in the Ark and, uh, the global flood and Mormon scripture. So, uh, where do you want to begin? Where do you want to begin, Mike?

So we can just, uh, I guess begin kind of in the same way we did Adam, just to go over really quickly. Um, most people who are listening are aware of the story. Um, but obviously this is in Genesis. And there's two kind of flood stories. But, um, the global flood is the famous story in Genesis where Noah builds an ark, um, to be saved from the catastrophic flood where all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both fowl and of cattle and of beast and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. And so this story is one that we're going to run into a lot of the same issues that we do with Adam and Eve, which is that it's an ideological myth because we can show through a lot of different areas that a global flood did not happen. And kind of to what John was saying a second ago, you know, one of the things about Mormonism is that they make very tangible truth claims. They make a lot of claims that are testable. And whether or not Joseph Smith intended for them to be tested or thought they ever would be able to be tested, is that's another issue. Um, but because of the tangible truth claims that are made with modern revelation and with, um, the, you know, modern scriptures, at least modern with regards to the fact they live around for 200 years, um, you know, this makes the global flood being a literal event necessary for Mormonism. And in a lot of ways, I think that is where you see a little bit of a fork in the road. Because a lot of mainstream churches that believe in, you know, the Hebrew Bible, um, can find value in these stories without needing them to be literal history. And as we're going to see as we go through this, Mormonism doesn't, can't do that because of the fact that, just like with Adam and Eve, they cement this in as a literal event.

Yeah, and, and I just, right off the bat, man, I'm reading the King James version of Genesis and I'm just going to reread this. All flesh died that moved upon the earth. And then it actually, it like, it gets more specific. All birds, all cattle and beasts, every creeping thing. So literally every bug, every single insect and bug. I'm already thinking, really? I mean, mosquitoes. And I guess mosquitoes don't creep. So like ants, yeah, like everything that would make the soil, like worms, everything that would make the soil, uh, you know, be fertile for crops. Every creeping thing died. And every human died. Okay. And I don't, I don't need to say anything more. But that's, that's what the Bible says. I didn't realize it got that specific. So, yeah.

I mean, I, you know, he's sharing that. Yeah, you know, it's funny because I said before, I grew up in a Protestant background. And I remember, um, going and having our Sunday school class on on the ark. And I remember, you know, you're at this point, I'm like, uh, probably about 12 years old, 10 years old, somewhere in that range. And they're going through and they're, they're reading these verses, but everyone dies. And, you know, as a kid, you know, you would think, oh, you'd be like, oh, my goodness, that's horrible that all the people died. My first thought was, all the dogs, you know, because you're a kid. But it's just like, in my head, I'm like, that can't be true. You couldn't, you wouldn't have, you know, in, in this, I'll keep the shorts, it's kind of silly. But to your point, when you actually think about it, you're like, that means all the dogs died. It means all, you know, we'll get into this a little more as we go, but it means that all of the babies died. That, you know, if you believe God did this, he killed babies, he killed unborn children. And, um, and as a kid, I was so focused on the dogs. And because of that, I had a really hard time taking it as literal, even then, because I could not allow myself to believe, um, that God would kill all the dogs on the planet. As, you know, because I grew up with dogs and that was like, you know, I still love dogs. And, um, so, but to your point, it is very, very literal. Um, and that's why within Mormonism, because they build on that literal story and they actually, you know, expand upon it, it's really hard to get away from it. And that's why we're going to see as we go, that it's just scientifically, from all fields of study, just, you can prove it did not happen.

Yeah. Just without even getting into the intellectuality of it. My my top memory of the global flood is we're reading the story of Noah's flood to my daughter Maya. She's like five. Yeah. And she's like, okay, so God created all those animals and people, right? And we're like, yeah. And God loved all those animals and people, right? And we're like, yeah. And then she's like, and then God killed them all. Yeah. And she's five. I mean, that's the thing. It's so grim. Like, when you, like, a lot of times when you, when you talk about it in Sunday school or in church, you talk about the fact that it allows, you know, um, Noah to survive and obviously to replenish the earth. At the same time, when you actually think about it, it's just so grim. And it's also part of what we'll see in the Book of Mormon, which I don't really, I don't think any of the overviews talk about just how, when, you know, when Jesus dies and is resurrected, you see all the cities getting destroyed in the Book of Mormon. And you're just like, that's that Old Testament God that will just, you know. And it's, it's why I think a lot of times we don't like to focus on the Old Testament so much because when you think about these things, they're horrific. And, um, there were many ways, not to be too glib about it, but it reminds me when I was, uh, working for Microsoft, uh, the Windows, Microsoft Windows would lock up occasionally. And you, you'd have to do Control-Alt-Delete, you can reboot your computer because your computer would freeze. The global flood feels like God's Control-Alt-Delete. I mean, it basically is. I created all this, but I didn't do it quite right, so I'm just going to have to hit the Control-Alt-Delete button. And the reason why that's glib is because it's literally killing and murdering women, children, animals, and even bugs. Yeah, they're all kind of innocent. But we're, we're laboring the point. All right.

Yeah, we are. So, um, basically, you know, again, we can look at this in a lot of different ways. Um, I talked about this with the Adam and Eve, uh, episode, just mentioning, you know, what David Bokovoy pointed out, that a lot of these stories are based off of Babylonian myths. Which makes sense because scholars believe that these, um, stories were basically composed, or at least composed in the form we have today, um, during the Babylonian exile. So that actually makes sense. And, um, so David Bokovoy pointed out, without Babel, there's no Bible. And again, we'll see that here because the Epic of Gilgamesh, which we talked about in the Adam and Eve story as well, is the most famous flood myth, um, that most scholars would argue Noah's story was inspired from. Um, and the Old Babylonian version was written by 1800 BCE. As we discussed in the Adam and Eve episode, most scholars would date Genesis being composed in the way we have it today about the sixth or fifth century BCE. And because it was written in Hebrew, the earliest it could have been written would have been 1000 BC. So even if you want to argue it was being orally told before that, um, you're still gonna have to contend with the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh was written long before, um, the ability to write Genesis would have happened about 1000 BCE. So you've got that time difference there, and that's really important.

So just to be clear, when you say no, when you or David Bokovoy say, no Babel, without Babel, there's no Bible, do you mean Tower of Babel, or do you mean Babylon? Oh, they mean like Babylonian myths. Yeah, yeah. There weren't Babylonian myths that predated the Bible. We wouldn't have a lot of the myths in general. Yes, yes. Yeah, I think David, the implication is, is that a new group of people, meaning the Israelites, needed some founding stories to begin their scripture. And so they just kind of, they, it's remix. They kind of incorporate into their early scripture. Yeah, that they, they were passed on from other civilizations to them. Yeah. It would be like, you know, um, I know David Bokovoy said he wasn't the first one that kind of coined that phrase. So, um, I know, I know it's apparently a pretty well, you know, used phrase because of how influential the Babylonian myths are. But one of the ways I've heard it explained is like, if you had no ability to write down history, and we went through the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War and all that, we couldn't write it down. And then all of a sudden, like a hundred years later, we could write it down. The way it would be written down would be so different than the actual history because you'd be telling these stories over and over again to generations, to different communities. Each community is going to have a different need that you're trying to fulfill with the stories. Um, and so because of that, what we would have a hundred years later would be so different than what actually happened. And the only reason we have more info on the Revolutionary War is because we could write down, um, information. We do have a lot of contemporary records. With the Babylonian myths, these are being told orally, um, and then obviously with the Epic of Gilgamesh, just, you know, obviously in a form, I think they're on tablets or cuneiform tablets, something like that. So I mean, we have something we can reference to. So then when you look at Genesis, which we know now was composed much later, and then you see the similarities, you can kind of see where they're pulling from. And again, it's kind of like that whole, um, I don't know if you consider it anything like pseudepigrapha, but it's like you're, you're, you're, you know, actualizing, as Dave Bokovoy says, you're actualizing these earlier events to give your own community meaning because your community is trying to, um, have these foundational religious texts that they're going to live by. And it's hard sometimes to have those texts when you have all these questions like, where do we come from? You know, how did, how did we get here? Um, and these stories are going to answer that.

Got it. Okay. So the Epic of Gilgamesh, I said that's obviously going to be the most important one. Um, I, there are so many flood stories around the world. But Epic of Gilgamesh is obviously, because of the fact that it's, you know, a Babylonian, um, myth, it's going to be, um, more important to the community that's going to compose, um, what will be Genesis. And so, um, according to Babylonian Professor Andrew George, who wrote a book translating the Epic of Gilgamesh, he noted that the flood story in Genesis mirrors Gilgamesh so closely that few doubt that the account in Genesis is derived from Gilgamesh. Um, so basically just saying it's, it's so close that really, it's one of those things like, to doubt the similarities and to doubt the connections between the two is to kind of go against the evidence. As we talk about the apologetics sometimes, you, you have to, you know, ignore evidence in order to make your conclusion work. I mean, he's just basically saying at this point, they're too close to even, you know, try to argue that there's no connection.

All right. So that's kind of getting a scholar's viewpoint on that. Yeah. And again, you know, I think, I don't know if consensus is such a tricky word with this stuff, but I would argue that when you read stuff about Epic of Gilgamesh to the global flood, you're just going to see so many people that will point this out because it's really uncanny. And we'll obviously get into that in the next slide, all the parallels. And I guess there's going to be believing Mormons that are like, well, I don't care what scholars say, that's why we have prophets. And that's fine. This is, this episode, this series is for people that value evidence.

Yeah. Well, and I would argue this, this series is for anyone who really wants to know. And again, I don't want to get off on a tangent, but I think, I think I mentioned the first episode, but, you know, the, the two questions you have to ask yourself, um, are, if the church wasn't true, would you want to know? And that a lot of people will say yes. But then when you actually start to talk deep down and snow, so until that you can be honestly yes, then these episodes aren't for you because you're not going to be in that mindset. Yeah, these episodes, I mean, these episodes will be here for if that time comes. But until then, um, it's not. And then the second question, basically, is what would you need to see in order to, um, acknowledge that the truth claims of Mormonism don't add up? And that obviously is a question that you have to answer as you do this. Um, but to your point, yeah, if you're a believing member who is going to say, I don't care. Like, if you're a Heartland model follower and you're like, I don't care what you say about this stuff. Well, that's okay. Um, you know, but obviously this is not going to be something that's gonna be helpful. But I think for people who are gonna willing to start with a blank slate, like you just say, and that's what I had to do at one point. It's, it's really painful. It's really hard to get your mind in a mindset where you could say, just wipe the slate clean. I'm starting from, you know, like I said, in the first episode, you're taking the puzzle, you're pulling it all apart, you're spreading it on the table, and you're like, I'm just going to start with where it goes, wherever that might be. And then once you get there, these episodes will be here for you to try to piece it back together. And I'm not saying I'm perfect on this. I'm not saying I'm the be all end all, because I'm not. But I am saying that hopefully these things can point you in the directions where, if you want to learn more about these topics, you at least have a a foundation to work from and to go from.

Perfect. All right. Well, let's dig into the parallels. Yeah. Gilgamesh and the flood story. Yep. So the parallels here, like I said, they're pretty vast. And so in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the great gods create a secret plan to flood the world. But one of the gods, name, I don't know if you say E or E or whatever, Sumerian god Enki tells Utnapishtim, I can't say this right, to demolish his house and build a boat to keep both people and animals alive. So they're basically saying, demolish your house, use it to build a boat to keep the people and animals alive. The boat is then constructed with six decks, divided into seven and nine compartments. And the boat was loaded with all of the relatives and craftsmen of the boat, along with all of the beasts and animals of the field, which will sound familiar to what we just said in Genesis. The boat is then launched and the storm lasts 60 days and 60 nights, a little different than 40. Um, with the storm pounding intermittently. On the seventh day, the boat then landed at Mount Nisir. And, um, the Greek, Sumerian, or no, uh, uh, Utnapishtim first releases a dove and then a raven to see if the waters had dried upon the earth. Then he sent the livestock in different directions to replenish the earth and offered animals and sacrificed to the gods.

So, holy moly. Yeah, I mean, it's just, it's all right there. The dove is there. It's got the boat. It's got a god commanding it. It's got everyone, every beast and animals dying. Yep. Like, it's even got, like, I mean, it's not 40 days and 40 nights, but it's, it's close. You know, multiple nights. It lands on a mount. Yeah, like that's, that's pretty. Yeah.

And that's one of those things too, for me, when I first started doing the deep dive and I really did not touch Bible stuff as much. And I, I think I was messaging with someone, um, who had connected with, who was kind of in that same boat, was just trying to figure it out. And I think I had said something about the global flood. I'm like, yeah, you know, it makes no sense that, you know, we couldn't have a global flood. Yet there in America. And he just said, if you looked at the Epic of Gilgamesh. And I was like, I don't know what that is. And then you look at it and you're like, holy crap, like that's exactly what the Genesis story is, obviously with details changed. And, and that's a problem. Again, because the dating tells you that it was written before Genesis. And now an apologetic standpoint would be to say, well, they both came from the same event. So Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis are both retelling the same event with different details because of the fact that they're being written, you know, maybe long after. And I guess that's an argument you can make. But the evidence again, is going to tell you, as we talked about before, because of the, the fact that these texts were likely composed in the Babylonian exile, that they're going to be pulling from the Babylonian myths they're familiar with. And it just gets messy, especially when you combine that with what we'll get into in a little bit, which is the fact that science tells us this didn't happen.

Yeah. All right. So why summarize? Why the episode is important? And so we, we've mentioned this in some of our other overviews, especially about Book of Mormon kind of influences. But of course, there are going to be differences between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's story. But the similarities are too crucial to deny. They're very core. You know, in Gilgamesh, a man is instructed by a god to build a ship to weather an impending flood to cleanse the earth of all living beings. This man seeks to save all of his relatives and animals. In both stories, the boat lands on the side of a mountain, meaning that the water was so high that it, you know, that's the only place a boat could land. The character sends out a dove and then a raven until they know the water receded enough to let the livestock out. Then they set make sacrifices to God for being saved. And like I said earlier, some apologists will argue these are coming from the same event. But like I said, you have to combine that with the fact that the timing and the place being a Babylonian myth is, you know, going to influence. And the fact that around the world, there are other flood stories with similar events. Obviously, this is the closest. Um, and, and so when you do that, combining with the fact that we can show, as we'll get to, a science that didn't happen, you've just got too many problems to make the argument that, you know, this did happen, but it came from separate events. And, um, again, that also is going to be more compounded by Mormonism, you know, cementing this down and expanding on it.

Yeah, yeah. All right. So now we've, uh, we've, we've understood the parallels with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Let's move to a science perspective.

Yeah. And so just from like a basic scientific perspective, there isn't just an overwhelming amount of evidence that makes clear that there was not a global flood that happened at one time that wiped out everything on earth. So we're going to highlight some of those areas here, just to explain why this is like a consensus. If you go to any non-religious scholar, um, they will not even entertain the idea of a global flood, just because there's just too much evidence. Like there are, we can't even go into the details. And, um, you had done an episode a while back with Simon Southerton on the global flood that I, everyone should check out because he's, he goes through this in more detail. And obviously he's, you know, he's got the background in, in the, the education to explain this without any question. Um, and so the fact is, you could, you can show that. And so, um, this is going to be so much of a consensus that even FairMormon concedes that the story of a global deluge then appears to be at complete odds with scientific data. So FairMormon will say outright, this is a complete odds with the science. And we'll get into the apologetics at the end, but that's how much of a consensus there is that they're going to say that upfront in their apologetics.

Yeah, yeah. The science is, is overwhelming. And I'll put a link to the Simon Southerton Mormon Stories episode on the global flood. We, Simon invites a geologist on who is actually lovely. He's completely not anti-religion. He just says he's been studying the earth forever. He actually shows graphical renderings of, of what, what, um, regional floods would have looked like to an ancient human. And he shows some animations and he talks about what, what a flood might have seemed like to them. But he also talks about the impossibility, physically, geologically, of of a global flood. So, so we'll put a link to that in, definitely.

All right. So, yeah, so we're just going to go into this. And again, on, if you go to LDS Discussions.com, there's a little more than this. This is kind of a little bit just to go over the, the overview of the overview. But the story itself, it reads like a mythical story, just as Adam and Eve does, because when you think about the logistics of the ark, it would be impossible for this time frame. This is a ship that is 450 feet long, made out of wood. Um, the fact that we're putting it out, what would be, you know, saltwater. And I guess you could say the rainwater would not be, but you'd solve all the saltwater that was already there. Um, it just, it wouldn't survive a flood without massive reinforcements. And none of which were technologically there when Noah would have lived. And again, I get the apologetic there would be to say, with God, all things are possible. But I'm saying from the perspective of how we're doing this, we're taking this at face value. Um, and in Genesis, you've got two creation stories. So in one story, they take two of every animal. In the other story, they take two of every animal, and then seven of each of the pure species, because they're going to set use the other five for sacrifices. Um, it would be impossible, given what we know about fossils and, um, where different animals on the earth came from. So you'd have to then argue that somehow Noah got kangaroos from Australia onto the boat. And, you know, you have bears and penguins and, you know, all these animals that you've got some that are indigenous to America, some to Australia, some to, you know, Europe and Asia. And all of those things, it would just be impossible. And so not only would it be impossible to locate and get them all together, but then to fit two of each animal on a ship, it's, um, these are elements of a tall tale or a fable or a mythical story. And the moment you start to really think about the logistics, you realize immediately this could not happen in the way that the story would portray it. I'm sure we're going to get to this, but it's like, where did they get the food and the water to feed all the animals and bugs? How did they store it for all those days? What did you do with the excrement for all those animals? Like, and then, yeah, yeah, the boat would have the elephants and the giraffes and the hippos and the lions and them from fighting. And yeah, and, and reinforcing the boat with steel. And then, and yeah, like, how did the polar bears land on Mount Ararat and travel to the North Pole without dying? How did the kangaroos hop to Australia from Mount Ararat? That's the problem. And all the marsupials, you know, and we talked about this in the Simon Southerton episode. Well, the koalas, there's just like, there's like dozens and dozens of marsupials that are only native to Australia. Yep. And why, why is it that marsupials are native to Australia? It's because evolution, um, you know, selected for pouch, you know, you know, birthing animals there over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yeah, I mean, that's just, that all that evidence is there. How did then the marsupials get on the boat, but then migrate back? It's just, there are a gazillion reasons why scientifically this is possible, unless you just say science knows nothing and you're just trying to deny all of science. And like I said, that, and that's one of the, when we finally get to the end of this series, one of the, the late overview topics I did was was kind of looking at that, where it's like, you flip, flip it on its head, because sometimes we always think about Mormon truth claims, are they true or false? That's it. Joseph Smith, get it right. And it's like, take a step back. And I, I challenge everyone to do this, because when you watch these episodes, if you're a believer and you're looking at me and you're saying, this guy is deceived or misguided, whatever the case might be, flip it on its head and say, if this is correct, then what is, who got it wrong? And if, and then say, if they got it wrong about that, then you have to wipe out everything we know about those fields. And so that is a slippery slope. And that's why you can't just say, you can't give special pleading to this story because you need it to work. You have to then expand and say, well, if I say that this is true, that means that all of the consensus we have is false. And if that's false, everything that comes from those studies is false. And it's just, it's a never-ending problem. And it's one we have to accept. And we talk about this in the DNA in the Book of Mormon episodes. If you want to say DNA doesn't, doesn't know the whole story, well, we're using it for medical advances and scientific advances. You can't throw, you know, to use the phrase, you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. In this case, you're throwing out the bathwater to preserve this one belief. And it just doesn't, it doesn't work. Um, and it just gets messy really quickly. And I'm going to apologize because I kind of, uh, stole the thunder of this next.

That's fine. And that's just it. I mean, this is why, you know, I think you were able to pick up on that so quick, because once you start thinking about the details of the story, it just falls apart. Like, you would have to fit all these animals on a ship. A lot of them are predators and prey. You gotta keep them from fighting and killing each other. There's no way Noah could care for all of them if they got, you know, I'm sick or scared, or they need a specific food. I mean, different animals need different food. The amount of food needed to feed them would be problematic because you've got to have that weight on the boat to last that long. The kinds of food is a problem. The amount of water you would need, because again, the flood, even if you want to say rainwater is pure, it's mixing with the saltwater underneath. There's no way to do that. You have to figure out how these animals keep a proper exercise sanitation. Um, some animals need cold weather, some need warm weather. And again, we're, you know, the point of going through this isn't to like, just make fun of it. It's just to say, like, you need all of these details to line up. And these are being written from a perspective that I think a lot of scholars actually would argue that when this was written, this was not meant to be taken as literal history. It wasn't until, you know, we get into, you know, not even before Joseph Smith, a little bit, but until you get into that era where all of a sudden these things start turning literal as opposed to more metaphorical. And that is another fingerprint that tells you again, as you go through Mormonism in the scriptures of it, that it's coming from an era where the stuff's being taken literal, whereas if you'd gone maybe 400 years earlier, they probably wouldn't have wouldn't have expanded on the story because of the fact that they could have accepted the fact that it's not a true literal history.

Yeah. Also, I'm just going to say, what comes to my mind is, if if God is powerful enough to make a magic boat and to manage all these animals so that they can survive and not kill each other and be fed and live and survive, and then once they get off the ark, all make their ways to the right places and replicate, if God has the magic power to do all that, why didn't God have the magic power to not make a flood necessary to begin with? And to not have to kill all the men, women, and children and animals in the first place? If you're gonna go to the magic God, magic God should have thought this through better.

Well, I mean, and that's the thing. It's like, again, you have that, excuse me, have that, like, you know, like you're, again, we don't, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but one of the things that's frustrating about this story to me is it makes, in my opinion, God seem like a pretty horrible person. And I know how offensive that is. And so please let me explain, because we're told every life is precious, and I fully believe that. But in this particular example, in the story, if you want to believe in its literal history, you have to believe that God could not have just taken out the people that were wicked and causing problems, but instead took out all the women, the children, the babies, the unborn babies, the innocent animals. And it's just, I'm thankful it's a mythical story, because if it wasn't, if it was somehow literally history, it would make me very angry to think that that would happen. And I want to go off on a tangent because that's kind of outside of the realm of what we're talking about with Mormonism, but, yeah, I mean, to your point, you would think that there could be some sort of a targeted, um, way to take out the people that were so wicked that he wanted to start over, as opposed to just out, like you said, kind of outright rebooting the world. And, um, but again, they've got a special power. There must have been a better way.

Yeah, I mean, that's just it. And yeah, and again, I'm trying not to get in too many tangents here, but that's, oh, that's, no, I'm just, I'm summarizing. No, no, I know. It's just, it's one of those inconsistencies because you'll hear, um, and I'll keep this short, when they had the November 15 policy with the church, right? And they talked about it after, you know, it came out and it was highly controversial. And, um, I don't know if it was Russell Nelson, I think it might have been. And he talks about how they went through every permutation of what could have happened, and God gave them the revelation of the November 15 policy. That after, thinking about every permutation of what could happen from that policy, God revealed him the way to do it, which was the November 15 policy. And it's one of those things where it's like, we're told God thinks through all these things, and this is the best that that could happen. And, and you go, no, because, you know, in this particular case, you, I, you know, we'll get into it, but the estimates, I think, are between like 10 and 30 million people on the earth. To kill that many people, just to take care of the few wicked, just, it doesn't make sense.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. So anyways, and the Mormon Church's top apologetic arm agrees with us that it doesn't make sense. And then the science. And it's always fun when FairMormon or the Mormon Church's top apologists agree with science.

Yeah. And that's the thing. I mean, and we talked about this in the DNA episode, but you have to have a pretty clear consensus, I think, for apologetics to be willing to make that space, because of course, you're going to fight it until you can't. And so, um, like we said, if, you know, Fair admits that that the science is clear. And so these are just some more things beyond the animals. So if there was a global flood, how do you explain the relative ages of mountains? Why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the flood? Why is no evidence of flood in the ice core? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated all the way back to 40,000 years by counting the annual layers. A worldwide flood would have expected to disrupt that, and there's no disruption in the in the sediments in the ground. Um, and the sediments kind of form the same way where it's like, you know, year after year after year, layer after layer. Um, so you got the, how are the polar ice caps even possible? Because if you had such a massive water as the flood, which would have been like 4,000 years ago, that would have been enough water basically to either break the polar caps off or just melt them up altogether. Why did the flood not leave any traces on the sea floors? You know, a year-long flood, because it's 40 days and 40 nights, but the water doesn't recede for a long time. You would see the footprints of that in the sea bottom cores. Why is there no evidence of a flood and tree ring dating? The tree rings go all the way back to somewhat 10,000 years. No evidence of any disruption during this time. And so it's kind of like we were talking about with the DNA in the Book of Mormon episode, um, there are so many instances where you're like, well, you would see a disruption if there was going to be one, and here we just, there's no disruption. In fact, the evidence is all telling us that everything was okay. Everything just kind of continued on. Um, obviously, there's some local issues here and there, but that, that's way different than a global flood. You're saying all of these points come from FairMormon's website that you pulled on this slide? No, no, no, no. I'm saying that because FairMormon is admitting the science is not clear. And I'm saying, so because FairMormon is admitting to science clear, here's here's why the science is not clear. So this is not from Fair warning. This is from an article that's kind of going through all of the all of the reasons that just make it impossible. Yeah. And we again, we dive into this also on the Simon Southerton global flood episode.

Okay, great. So, uh, next question. How did civilization survive the flood?

Yep. And this is going to be something we'll see in the next episode with the Tower of Babel as well, because again, you would have disruptions if these events are literal. And so there are a number of civilizations that were here before the flood, and none of them were wiped out by the flood or appear to have been interrupted in any meaningful way. So we have the Sumerians, that they date between 4,500 and 2,000 BCE. The Egyptian Old Kingdom, which they date is starting between 2686 and 2181 BC, with the Great Pyramid built at 2560. Um, you've got the Minoans on, uh, Crete. I'm not sure if they say no one's right, 2600 to 1100. Um, you've got Norte Chico in Peru, 3,500 to 1800 BC. So all of these are four civilizations that we have, um, enough records to say they were established before the global flood. If there was a global flood, you would expect to see, obviously, these civilizations wiped out with their remain, with their remnants behind.

Tell me again, the date we estimate the global flood needed to be? It would be like, uh, 20, 20, 400 BCE, somewhere in there. 2200, I think. 400. Somewhere around there. I might have. These are civilizations that we have evidence that they predated it. They predated it. And that they had continuity through it. Yes. And existed afterwards. Yes.

And that's all even if, even if you believe that these civilizations got wiped, didn't exist until after the flood, there's no way they could have developed to the advanced level that they did with their own languages, with their own sophisticated technological developments. There's no way they could have developed that fast, even if they started right after the flood.

Correct. Well, yeah. And if you think about it from the perspective of the way say the Book of Mormon comes up with it, with with the way these stories branch out, or even in the Bible, just say, for example, the global flood wiped out all these, all these civilizations. And so obviously, you know, the eight people in the ark start repopulating and they spread out. Those people would be carrying those traditions. And so you would see those traditions in Egypt, you see those traditions all these areas because they're all leaving with one language, all of those things. And so that's where you just again, when we talk about compounding problems, it's just it compounds and compounds and compounds because we have evidence saying it didn't happen. And even if you want to argue it did from like a scriptural standpoint, then those are the questions you have to answer. Like, well, why don't they? It's kind of like, why don't the Book of Mormon people have Jewish traditions in the Book of Mormon if they truly came from, you know, from Jerusalem? And those things would pop up here where it's like, well, if that were the case, you'd have writings on cave walls, um, reflecting the story because they would have lived through it or their parents, whatever their grandparents. We'd have none of that.

Yeah, the evidence is that these, that these, uh, separate civilizations developed independently. Yeah. And over a very, very long period of time that predates the flood. And that has continuity after the flood. Right.

Yeah. So basically, again, you, you would expect disruption, obviously, you'd expect obliteration. Um, but you have none of that. And so, like, again, in the pyramids, there's inscriptions. There's no reference to any type of global flood. Um, you know, and again, if global flood occurred, how did animals become spread out so quickly? You know, and, and there are some, you know, young earth creationists who will make up, I shouldn't say make up, but who have theories like an angel took, angels flew them around the world. And I'm not trying to make fun. I'm just saying, like, at some point, that's where you get to it. It's because there's nowhere else to go. And so you just, there's too much evidence against it. There's too many civilizations, there's so many animals, it, the migration path, all that. He's just, there's no way. And that's why Fair would admit that the science is, is pretty overwhelming against the idea.

Yeah. And if God's gonna fly people around with angels, why did he need to make a boat in the first place? He could have just, right, lifted everybody up, flooded the earth, drained it, lifted everybody back down. If you're gonna be flying people around with special angels, you didn't even need the boat.

Yeah, I mean, that's the thing. It's like you're trying to, um, and again, I'm trying to compare this to Mormonism. It's the same thing. It's like, well, why, well, have the plates if Joseph's just gonna be given, given in a rock and a hat? These things don't add up when you start pulling, pulling the layers back. And, um, yeah, in this case, I think it was supposed to be mythical or more, you know, figurative. So I think that's, it's just, it's the problem of more modern times to to to, you know, kind of impose a literal view on it. And that leads to problems. And so this will take us, um, kind of into Mormonism. And yeah, um, you know, the Book of Mormon requires a global flood if you want to believe it's an ancient historical text. There's just no way around it. Um, the Book of Mormon declares there was a global flood. In Ether 6, the flood is addressed from the Jaredite plates, which would have been created shortly after the flood, around the time of the Tower of Babel. And it says, for behold, they rejected all the words of Ether, for he truly loved, or truly told them of all things from the beginning of man. And that after the waters had receded from the off the face of this land, it will become a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord. Wherefore, the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof. And then, and that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord. So this is basically telling us that there was a global flood that effectively was used by God to preserve America for the Book of Mormon people. And this just, it eliminates the apologetics of a local flood because now you need a massive local flood at the same time, both in America.

And the old world in order to make these two stories mesh. And obviously, we just don't have that. Yeah, and that's the thing is that, um, and we'll talk about this more. More modern-day Mormon apologists are going to want to do what other Protestant Christian sects have done, which is to say, "Oh, it's just a myth that was never meant to be taken seriously." But that's the problem with Joseph Smith. Over and over and over again, he makes everything literal and he makes everything material. And he writes it into all the different forms of scripture. He sort of infects the Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants with all the literality, including Doctrine and Covenants saying, "Six thousand, it was a six thousand-year earth or whatever." Like, Joseph Smith was all about the literality. And and so he, it's, it's, he paints himself into a corner.

Overnight, yeah. I mean, that's just that he wanted to have answers for everything. And by doing so, that was his power. That was easy. Yeah, that's the charisma is being able to have these answers to the questions people had. And unfortunately, one of the problems is you keep building on it. And you know, as we go through this, it could, you know, the Book of Mormon, obviously, is the big one, but it gets worse. And so, um, you know, it's just, it, this is why, like you said, you can't get away from it. And so, Garden of Eden in Missouri is the best. Yes.

So we talked about this in our last episode. So Joseph Smith, after the Book of Mormon is written, is going to proclaim that Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman, which is in Missouri, which is the place where they were lived after being expelled from the garden. Um, he proclaimed that this is where they lived. So basically, he's saying Adam and Eve lived in Missouri. But this problem is going to continue because that means that Noah's story is going to begin in America. And that means that a global flood is necessary because you got to go, you got to bring Noah from Missouri to the old world. And again, without a global flood, Noah cannot get from Missouri to the old world. And without a global flood, the Americas would not be preserved for the Jaredites, um, following their destruction, the or, and following the destruction that the Jaredites, Lehi. So effectively, you need, because some apologists will say, "Well, look, it could have been a local flood where Noah took the Mississippi River, then kind of connected out to the ocean, went to the old world." But that just doesn't answer because you still need everyone to die in the Americas to preserve it based on what the Book of Mormon and what prophets have told us. So this is just, again, I keep talking about layers. This is like layer upon layer upon layer of problems. And so every time you answer one, you're still going to have a bunch underneath. And this is Joseph Smith just cementing into the ground that a global flood was literal.

Yeah, and I mentioned before that that that gets one of the biggest laughs in the entire Book of Mormon musical. It's just like, you know, that, that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri. Yeah, mocking. But right, it gets those laughs not because people want to be mean, right? Because it's just so kind of ridiculous. Yeah, I mean, I don't talk about Mormonism a whole lot to people that aren't Mormon. And I've only done it to a few people. And that's one of those ones where you tell them that, and they, they will like, they'll have that reaction, either like, kind of like, like, kind of like that blurting out laughing, or just kind of like the gasp because it's like, "Wait, what? You like, it's so completely nonsensical to a 2022 understanding of the world that when you say that, the immediate reaction is like, there's no way people believe that." And it's like, they do. And, you know, again, I would argue again, as I, I was a convert, that is the stuff that was never told to me until after I was in the church for a while. And even then, that is not, this, you do not hear very often in modern times. Like, last, I don't know, couple decades, you're not going to hear in church much at all that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri. I'm trying to think, I obviously haven't been active, you know, I'm still a member, but I haven't acted for years. But I just don't remember that being mentioned in Sunday school classes. And if it is, it's quick. You know, don't mention Adam-ondi-Ahman and just move because the more you think about it, the more it falls apart.

And I'm thinking, and, you know, we'll get to the Kinderhook episode. Yeah. And we'll talk about Zelf. But what, what, what Joseph seems to show. Oh, so Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, and Zelf. These are all examples where Joseph is like, "Oh, look, mummies and papyrus." And then in his mind, it's like, "Oh, I associate Abraham with Egypt." And so like, this is the Book of Abraham, even though we know it's not. Or the Kinderhook plates, somebody literally makes fake plates to fool Joseph. They give them to Joseph, and immediately Joseph declares the origin of the plates and starts the process of translating them, even though they were fake to begin with. Or Joseph walks and finds some bones, and it's, he's like, "That's Zelf, the white Lamanite." You know what I mean? He's got this, he's got this penchant. And part of his power is built on being able to just immediately know what things are and tell everybody their history. That's like his brand. That's like his superpower. He's a seer. And it always works. Like you've told us so many times, Mike, it always works when nobody can disprove what you said. Exactly. As long as there's no archaeology, Egyptology, anthropology, geology, genetics, as long as there's nothing to disprove it, um, he's fine. So when Joseph says, "Oh, Emma, don't worry, the golden plates are safe," you know, and he's looking into a seer stone, as long as no one can disprove that they're, he's fine. But as soon as Lucy, you know, Lucy Harris has got the 116-page manuscript, all of a sudden, Joseph can't use the stone and he can't find them anymore. Yep. He's, he's very knowledgeable. And again, I'm even thinking of the Book of Mormon prophecies we talked about, um, how he's really good about prophesying about things that he knows happened in the past in the Book of Mormon. But all of a sudden, the prophecies stop. There's no prophecies about anything that happened past 1829 in the Book of Mormon. And that's just this, this is just Joseph's pattern again and again and again. He's like, "Oh, I'm walking around Missouri. Look, the Garden of Eden. There's some stones. He's thinking about Adam and Eve and an altar or or whatever. And he's like, boom, Garden of Eden right here where we're walking." Right.

Yeah, no, that's it. I mean, that's just it. You know, it's the whole, it's, it's good. I don't mean to like take us off on a side track, Mike. Everything you've been teaching me is starting to crystallize patterns in my mind. And that's why I, I bring that out. No, and it's true. And that's, you know, in the first episode, I talked about that, like, you're gonna see these patterns. And that's why I wanted to do them in a way that's kind of like, maybe not perfectly chronological, but it, it takes you through a linear thread of this stuff. Because once you see the patterns, then you can start to understand how he did it and what he was pulling from. And, you know, I think, um, when you talk about some of the, the other things like Kinderhook plates, that is what happens when you build your brand. Uh, you know, he's a confidence man. I, I know that has a derogatory term to some because it sounds like a con man or because it kind of is a con. But the whole thing is, he needs people to have confidence in him. So when people have questions, um, he has to give them, or else people are going to start saying, kind of like you see in today's church where people are saying, "Why can't they get answers on Heavenly Mother? LGBTQ people?" All that. Because you need to have answers in order to keep people, um, believing that you are the only person who can answer them. And, um, but the problem is, when you give all those answers, you're also giving tangible, testable claims. And for Joseph, a lot of those were testable after he, he died. But, um, the fact is, we can, we can look at a lot of them now today and test them. And if, and when you see them start to pile up over and over again, that they don't withstand the evidence, that that's a, that's a problem that has to be addressed. And you can't just brush them away as saying that the science is wrong, or that we're misinterpreting it, or that maybe Joseph meant something else. Because we have to take it at face value, because that's all we can do is take it the way he said it.

And there's a perfect segue to that. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop with Joseph. Because this slide says, "All Mormon prophets from Joseph Smith to Russell M. Nelson today have all proclaimed a global flood." Yeah. And so this is going to be, um, there's more quotes on the website. I just picked three just because, honestly, we, you know, we could read them all day. But, Prophet Joseph F. Smith said, uh, "The flood was a baptism of the earth. Now, a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized. For the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling." And that's again, injecting Mormonism into that, you know, Joseph Smith throwing down, throwing down. There's no, there's no, there's no, you know, confusion there. And then Jeffrey R. Holland. More recently. I have to say, Joseph Fielding Smith, his son wrote those books, Doug. Um, okay, so it says Joseph F. Smith, but those Doctrines of Salvation books, weren't they written by Joseph Fielding Smith? You know, so Joseph F. Smith was his dad, and then Joseph Fielding Smith. And I've read all, all three Doctrines of Salvation volumes, one, two, three. I read them on my mission. And it's just all there. Literal flood, six thousand-year earth. So it's not just Joseph, father, it's Joseph Fielding as well. Okay, I may have screwed that up too. And I was putting there. That's fine. And then Jeffrey R. Holland, a little bit more recently, in 1976, said, "Such a special place, America needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity, the very surface of the earth was rent in response to God's decree. The great continents separated, and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart without habitation. It waited for the fulfillment of God's special purposes." And then Bruce R. McConkie. The Garden of Eden. Does that have to do with the flood? Yeah, he's basically just saying that they had to basically get rid of everything on the earth in order to preserve America for the Book of Mormon people. And so he's saying that they set the promised land apart by basically flooding it and getting everything off of the, off of the land here. And that the America then waited for the fulfillment, which would be the Book of Mormon. I mean, I don't mean to be rude here. I've, I've met twice. I've had lunch with Elder Holland. And I talked to him about evolution. And he told me personally, he believed in evolution. But that evolution didn't contradict the plan of salvation. That you could believe in both. Right. On the one hand, I'm, I'm not surprised that he's okay with a global flood. But the fact that he went to Yale University to get a PhD, um, it's just kind of mind-blowing. Just like Russell Nelson's a medical doctor, and he doesn't believe in evolution. Yeah, contradicts Elder Holland, by the way. I, I just have to say, it is a little bit weird to have a super-educated guy still believing in a global flood. It's so, anyway, that's just my observation. No, it's true. And, and, um, Bruce R. McConkie, who, um, has obviously more, uh, you know, direct, uh, beliefs. The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the old world by the flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the global flood as a global phenomenon. Phenomenon. And he's right. He's right. And that's the thing. Like, the problem is, you could look at that and go, "Well, he's a different time." Bruce McConkie said a lot of things that obviously have caused a lot of harm for people. But he is right in this instance, that the scriptures that Joseph Smith gave us, whether you believe he authored them or not, is telling us not just in the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Abraham also needs a global flood. All these things need global floods. And so you cannot tell me that you can believe in a local flood and still maintain historicity of the scriptures of Mormonism. It, you cannot. You just can't do it. They're too interwoven with literal stories from Genesis. And this one is really important because of the fact that it ties into the reason that the Americas were left empty, which again, we covered a lot in the DNA episode. Because now we're told there were a lot of people there. But the point is, nobody believed that until all of these scientific studies started getting to the point where you could not avoid, you know, these implications.

Yeah. And, uh, and so progressive Mormons nowadays are gonna say, "Well, prophets, seers, and revelators get it wrong sometimes." Yeah. Well, if that's true, if like all of them from then until now have gotten it wrong, including the current ones, yeah. If Mormons are going to be consistent, they have to say, "Well, did we get the race thing wrong?" Which now the church is admitting they did. "Well, did they get the LGBTQ thing wrong?" Which they kind of are now waffling about. And they get the woman thing wrong. And then at that point, it's like, the slippery slope. Will you ask, "What's the value of a prophet, seer, and revelator if they literally get so many crucial things wrong?"

Okay, so let's go on to the church still teaching from its website in the Gospel Topics Essays about the necessity of a global flood. Yeah. So now they don't have a full essay on it, but they have a Gospel Topics entry on Noah. And the church states, "When the people rejected his message, God commanded Noah to build an ark, gather animals, and prepare for a flood. Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were the only people on the whole earth saved from the flood." Um, and then the Book of Abraham itself, um, requires the same thing. And so, a Book of Abraham says, "As it was with Noah, so shall it be with thee, but through my thy ministry, my name shall be known in the earth forever, for I am thy God. When this woman discovered the land, it was under water, who afterwards settled her sons in it. And thus from Ham sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land." So the Book of Abraham is telling us that Egypt was discovered while it was still underwater, which would be, you know, the residual of the flood. And this obviously leads into the whole curse of Ham, which leads into the, the racism that comes from the Book of Abraham. We'll get into that down the road. But, um, just pointing out that you have to have a global flood for both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. And Joseph Smith produced both of those years apart, too. So I mean, you know, again, you would, there would be, you know, that would give him a chance if you're talking about getting it right. You know, and we see the exact same thing because Joseph Smith believed, just as so many in his day did, that the Bible was a history book. And so he's trying to write these, these scriptures so that people around him believe, and people around him, including himself, believe them to be literal history. So of course, he's going to carry on that tradition. It's just unfortunate for him that that's just not what happened.

Yeah. Okay. And so if we're doing the body count, the Bible's a problem. The Book of Mormon's a problem. Joseph Smith's a problem. Every prophet from Joseph to the current one is a problem. The Book of Abraham is a problem as it relates to the flood. And it gets worse, because the Book of Moses is. Yeah, that's the next slide. Yep. So now we're going to get to the Book of Moses, which is the same problem. Remember, the Book of Moses is obviously expanding off of Genesis, but it's part of Joseph's mistranslation of the Bible, which depending on, uh, which leaders you read, um, you know, is either an inspired translation or given through pure revelation. But this would have given him a chance to clarify the historicity of the flood. But instead, he doubles down. He says, "And it came to pass that Noah continued his preaching unto his people, saying, Hearken, give heed unto my words, believe and repent of your sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things manifest. And if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you." And God said unto Noah, this is a few verses down, "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence. And behold, I will destroy all flesh from off the earth." And so, basically, not only do you need a global flood, but this ties back into some of the things talked about in the Book of Mormon, because Joseph Smith, I was writing, being baptized into, in the name of Jesus Christ, thousands of years before Jesus was like, literally known to anyone. And so these are the problems you get when you see, you can tell Joseph Smith is rewriting Genesis from a 19th-century Christian perspective, because he's literally doubling down on a global flood. And then he's also throwing in there, uh, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, when nobody in that time, nobody would have known who Jesus was. That, that is just absolutely, you know, from a scholarly perspective, no chance. And so to do this requires you to can basically disconnect from evidence and in logic and say that God gave this as a revelation, um, to Moses, and Moses gave this as a revelation to, you know, or to Noah, and all that. And the problem with that is that Joseph Smith is going to double down now. And you would then have to say, "Well, then everyone in the Bible got it wrong." But they didn't. You know, I mean, and this is where you start getting twisted up when you try to make it work.

Yeah. And if God really wants people to believe and not to lose their faith, if that's like the whole purpose of the plan of salvation, man, if God's going to take the time to reveal new scripture to Joseph, whether it be the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Moses, or Book of Abraham, why couldn't God have slid in there, "Hey y'all, you know how the Bible had a lot of, you know, mistakes because of it being changed over time? Just so you know, that whole flood thing, not literal. Don't, don't lose your faith over it. It's just a nice myth or a fable." But that's not what's happening. It's not in the literality. And the thing is, again, you know, you could, you can make the argument that because the, the flood was known to these people, um, you know, even if they, even if the ancient people believed it more in a figurative sense, that Joseph Smith wouldn't then write, rewrite Genesis and say, "This didn't really happen." But, or, you know, maybe he could have said, "You know, I revealed unto Moses this story, and it wasn't literal, um, but at the same time, um, it provides value." Or he could have even just left it as is. But the fact is, he expands on it, he doubles down on it. And that's where he, where it gets to the point where it's really hard to excuse it as just him preserving a tradition.

And so, all right, so let's, uh, let's now look at a little bit more in-depth, the Mormon apologetic response to the global flood. Yeah. So this is FairMormon. And this is from their entry on the global flood. They say, "The church does not require a belief in a global flood, despite BYU Professor Donald W. Perry's article in Ensign. What the church teaches is that Noah was a real prophet, and that he was commanded to save his family, along with a number of animals in an ark, from a flood which covered his world." And again, this sounds great to say to a believing member who's struggling to maintain their faith. But the problem is, if you don't believe in a global flood, you do not believe in a historical Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, or even, you know, a historical Bible to that point. And so this just, it, from an apologetic standpoint, it just doesn't really feel, um, intellectually consistent with what they're still telling you to, to maintain belief in.

Can I just, can I just note a problem here? Yeah. Okay. So you just shared a quote from FairMormon saying, "The church does not require a belief in a global flood." You might, if I just back up to a slide, you just have Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomenon." Okay, so help me out, Mike. Who are we supposed to believe here? Do we believe Bruce R. McConkie, ordained as a prophet, seer, and revelator, um, saying that Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomenon, and the scriptures? Or do we believe FairMormon? They have no authority. They are not ordained as prophets and revelators. They'll tell you a gazillion times that what they have to say is not even official church doctrine. They'll do their best to distance themselves from the church and discredit themselves by saying they're not official, which does not acknowledge them as official spokespeople. And yet, somehow, we're supposed to give any care that they're telling us what we do and don't have to believe in? I don't get that. Can you help me?

No, I mean, I said this, I think, in a previous episode, but in a lot of ways, they're like the car salesman who's basically in their head trying to do anything they can do to keep you from walking out the door. And, um, in this case, what they're telling you is, they're telling you something that they know is gonna make somebody who's struggling with feel better. But at the same time, what they're not telling you is all of the underlying things, the underlying implications that not believing in a global flood has within Mormonism. And again, I've said this with the Adam and Eve story, these problems are not that big of a problem for any other religion that is either mainstream Christian or, you know, Jewish people, because they can take these stories as mythical, take the values and walk from and use those and and leave the, the rest behind. But because Joseph Smith doubles down, and because he makes truth claims based off them, because the church is so, um, requires so much of us, that I feel like that it matters. You know, if you make tangible claims and they are proven false, um, then that's a problem. And, you know, the thing is, you asked earlier, why do we have prophets if they keep getting it wrong? And the better way to look at it is, um, if someone gave you a calculator, and you use that calculator for your, your home budget or business decisions, and you knew that that calculator was going to get it wrong two percent of the time, you know, would you ever use that calculator? And the answer is, of course not. Because if it's getting it wrong two percent of the time, it may end up costing you a lot of money, or maybe it'll, you know, end up causing problems with whatever you're trying to calculate for work or home. These prophets are not getting it right 90 percent of the time, you know? And so the problem is, what you're going to get, what if you're doing medical calculations? Exactly. If you're doing, uh, architectural structural calculations for like pieces of a building or skyscraper that are all going to fit together, you're going to use a calculator that's going to be wrong, you know, that much. Yeah. And that's the problem. So we're, you know, again, we're not talking about two percent of the time being wrong. We're talking about, I mean, it's hard to put a percentage on without getting hit with speculation. But you get the point. Without being insulting, right? Well, it's not, I mean, I mean, I was being serious because I'm like, in my head, I'm like, would you say 50? But I wouldn't even argue that it would be that high because we can show on all of these claims that they have problems. And so that's just the point. It's like, would you, if you, if you wouldn't trust a calculator, um, that you know is going to be wrong, just say, five percent of the time, would you trust prophets who are deciding, um, how you spend your money, um, what you eat and drink, what underwear you're wearing, um, where you're going to spend your free time? Yeah, I love you. Yeah, who, who you're going to, you know, use your political clout to stop from having equality? And again, I'm, we don't get into tangible. I'm just saying, if a calculator is wrong five percent, you're not going to use it. So if prophets of the church keep getting it wrong to the point where all the apologetics today are basically telling you to ignore the old prophets, what is that telling us as far as the reliability of today's prophets? Why should we possibly think today's prophets are going to be any more correct when we can already show Russell Nelson has gotten it wrong on a lot of issues by himself? So yeah, it's a problem. It's who you marry, when you marry. Yeah. Oh, how soon you have kids, how many kids you have, whether or not you pursue an education, whether you have a career, how you dedicate your whole life. It's just really great, um, or, or significant. I also just want to note that this is another common and disingenuous tactic of of Mormon apologists, because they'll tell you something like, "You don't have to believe in a global flood," with no authority. Okay, won't add to that. The implications that some, yeah, that's just it. They don't go, "Okay, well, now that, now that we've given you permission, without any prophetic authority, yeah, that you don't believe in a global flood, let us take you through all the ways that you can still believe the Book of Mormon, Abraham, Moses, and Doctrine and Covenants, and prophetic authority." Will spend time helping you understand why you should care about these scriptures and these prophets, even though they're wrong. They don't, they don't get into that. They want you inspecting the bark of the tree without ever stepping back to look at the forest. And that's what it is. Let's not, let's not drill into that. Yeah, just wanted to kind of give that, um, reflection.

So Fair concludes, "What we can accept about the flood and what is..." Yeah. So what they're saying, basically, is that you don't have to believe in a literal global flood. But here are the things that we can accept, regardless of whether or not it's global or local. And so they're saying, "There existed a prophet named Noah. Noah was commanded by the Lord to construct an ark. Noah warned the people of the impending deluge. Noah, his family, and the animals he collected were saved from it. The Lord made a covenant with Noah and his descendants." And so this is one of those things, and this is where I get really north apologetics, because what they'll say is, "We can't know everything. So let's throw away all the things we do know, just in the hopes of what we don't know." And this is a problem because what they're telling us to do is to say, "You can throw away the idea that it's a global flood, which is the whole cornerstone of the story." And they're saying, "You can do that as long as you believe the details that come from that bigger story." And to me, that's just not intellectually honest. Because they're saying that you can accept this as belief, and these are things that we can't possibly know or not know. And then throughout all the things that we know didn't happen. And it just doesn't, that's not how history works. It's not how, it's not how anybody else in, uh, apologetics of Mormonism would approach claims from, you know, Catholics or Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology. And so if you can't apply the same critical thinking to your own church that you would apply to others, that's a red flag that there's problems. And this is an area where we're just Fair is spending so much time on saying, "Here's what you can accept, even though these are the only things we can't prove or disprove." Um, oh, and by the way, we're not going to get into the fact that this is how important this is because of what Joseph Smith does with regards to like Joseph putting Adam and Eve in Missouri, as well, because that has implications that go into the story as well, that they're kind of going to skirt by.

Yeah. And this is again, the apologetic tactic. They want to shrink the target. They want to shrink it. It's like, it's like the Book of Mormon geography. Yeah, everyone knew it was tip to tip, you know, Alaska down to the tip of South America. Everyone knew that. Joseph Smith, all the prophets and revelators from then until now, the Book of Mormon itself, we covered that in the Book of Mormon. And yet, now what apologists want to do is they want to put a tiny little group in Central America that was surrounded by other people. Because, as we covered in the DNA episode, genetics, just DNA alone, just overwhelmingly invalidates the Book of Mormon. Yeah. So they want to shrink into this little tiny little population that immediately got overwhelmed. Because they, they know there's no evidence for their claim. And you just, it's so brilliant, Mike, what you highlight here. By saying that, you, you can still believe in Noah. How do you prove Noah didn't exist? You still have to believe that God talked to Noah. How could anyone disprove that God talked to Noah? All of these bullets, it's just brilliant what you're saying. They're all things that are disprovable. And then everything about the surrounding story that, that again, is validated and verified by all the Mormon scriptures and prophets. Yeah. Uh, we're going to just say, "These are not the droids you're looking for." And expect you not to think through how this story alone of the global flood literally sinks the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Abraham, the Pearl of Great Price, and all the prophets in their authority from then until now.

Yeah. And again, we could, we could go on with examples like all day long. But it'd be like, you know, if you're a sports fan, and I was like, you know what, I was in, um, I was in New York, and I walked into a room, and there were all the greats. There was, you know, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, Steve Young. And I had dinner with them. I played football with them. And then all of a sudden, someone says, um, "I looked at your schedule. You weren't in New York that week. You were actually at home working the entire week." And I was like, "Well, just because I wasn't there didn't mean you can't believe that I played with them." You know what I mean? It's like, once you take the part, once you take the part you can disprove and throw that away, you can't then just say, "All these other elements can withstand." Because they can't. And that's, that's the problem. You cannot say, "Well, maybe it didn't happen, and the whole thing didn't happen like the Bible says it was, but you can still believe the elements that we can't disprove." And it's like, you can't do that and then be intellectually consistent with how we would approach any other religion or any other claim from, you know, from, you know, scientific or non-scientific perspective. It just, it doesn't work that way. And then you're giving special pleading to your case, which just doesn't work because of the fact that it's so cemented in as literal history within Mormonism. Again, this is an argument you can make a little better if you did not double down and triple down. It's just, you can't do it.

Yeah. Yeah. So you, this slide, your, this next slide, you're basically saying Fair wants us to have our cake and eat it too, right? Yeah. And so this is from Fair, and so they say, "As demonstrated by Doctrine and Covenants, a belief that this flood was global in nature is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints. We are encouraged to study and teach each other science. Traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally. The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to rethink their views as to the nature of the flood. Some still believe in a global flood. Some believe in multiple floods happening over time. Some believe in a local flood. One localized to the immediate surroundings of Noah is the best explanation of the evidence. Some believe there was no flood at all. People of different views can be members in good standing." And I just, the thing is, you're, you're telling people that, um, you could be a member in good standing if you, if you don't believe it. But then they're also telling you that you should be sharing science with each other. I would, I would welcome anyone who's a member who is a teacher on Sunday to go in and start teaching science to your class about the science of the Book of Mormon or this, and see how long you're a member in good standing for. Because this is simply not true. You can be a member in good standing as long as you keep these thoughts yourself. But to say that we are encouraged, um, to study and teach each other science is simply not true. And it, again, is skirting the fact that, um, they are ignoring a lot of the implications that come from telling people you can do this. I want to address this, "Have your cake and eat it too." But since you've already talked about the good standing, let's go and do the next slide, and then we'll come back to that. Yeah.

And so, um, going beyond what I just said, this is not about whether or not you could be in a good state. It's not about whether a member can be in good standing. It's about whether or not the church's truth claims hold up to the evidence. Like, I don't care if I could be a member in good standing if the church is not what it claims to be, if the church's truth claims are false. Me being a member in good standing means nothing to me. And so, um, this apologetic is basically seeking to assure people who are coming to terms with the fact that the flood could not be global. They're trying to assure them, "You can, you could be welcome at church." But it's not actually answering all of the things we've already talked about in this episode that Mormonism, you know, again, cements into the ground as a literal story that is unmovable because of the fact that it's doctrine. And so, um, Fair gives this quote. They say, "The story of a global deluge then appears to be at complete odds with scientific data, which may encourage some members not only to doubt the scriptures, but to even question the existence of God. Therefore, can one create better assumptions about the nature of the flood of Noah, and yet still accept what is taught in church?" And this is where I get annoyed because they're telling members, "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater." But what I said earlier is true, which is every other religion can do what they're saying. Other religions can absolutely, um, understand that this is not historical, but still believe in God. And, and so the Mormon church here is saying, "We own the concept of God. So if you walk away, you can't do that." But what I would argue is, you can walk away from Mormonism and join another Christian church, or become Jewish, or any other church that believes in the Hebrew Bible, and still maintain a faith in God. God does not need Mormonism. Mormonism, Mormonism needs God. And so Fair here is tying God to Mormonism. And I find that to be such a manipulative tactic. Because they know full well that you can believe in God without believing in the Book of Mormon, in the Book of Abraham. And yet, they don't even give you that as is, as part of the equation. The equation is, you either stay here and believe in God, or you walk away and lose everything. And I hate that equation because it's simply, it's just dishonest.

Yeah. It really is a bait and switch. And here's what I mean by that. And I, and I, I talked about this last night in the episode about the Book of Abraham. Joseph, the whole value proposition of the of the founding of the Mormon Church was that Joseph had special powers. As we learned in our treasure digging episode, what Joseph learned from his folk magic treasure digging was that he could get people to believe he had special powers right when he didn't have special powers. And even after the treasure wasn't found, he could get them to still believe. That is the thing. The value proposition that that carries into the Book of Mormon, into the founding of the church, into him, into the Doctrine and Covenants, declaring him as a prophet, seer, revelator, and translator. And then from there on, everyone's like, "Wow, what's Joseph going to come up with next? Wow, Joseph, the heavens are open again. God's talking to Joseph." And so it's almost like the fur, it's almost like a house where the first level of the house is that God spoke to Joseph. Joseph had special powers. And then all the prophets from then to now have special powers as well. So that's level one of the house. And then you build the second layer of the house, which is like all the ward buildings and the community, and the way of life, and the Mormon people, and the missions, and the temples. Let's just say that's all the second layer. It's the community. It's just all the things that we love. And what apologists want to do is they want to say, "Okay, well, if you want to, you can remove. It turns out that the entire first level is fraudulent and corrupt and is architecturally unsound, and we acknowledge that." And what they want to be able to do is give you the option of saying, "You could just remove that whole first level if you wanted to. But, but, you know, we believe that the, the second layer of the house, the second floor of the house, should still remain intact. And so just live on the second floor of the house." Even if we know we have to tear down the first level. And we all know what happens logically when you, when you tear down and remove the first level of a house, right? Yeah, the, the rest of the house comes down crumbling. But Fair wants you to say, "Well, don't think about that first level being rotted and corrupt and and being destroyed. Just continue living in the second level." Um, but, but that's again, then it brings for me, the "wise man build his house upon the rock" song. Do you want to build your life living on that second floor, knowing that that first floor is crumbling, has crumbled, or is going to crumble any minute? And the church saying, "Well, forget the fact that the story of the global flood invalidates literally everything about Mormonism. You can still be a member of good standing and enjoy the fruits of Mormonism." It's, it's a bait and switch that's disingenuous. And it ignores the, it's, it's almost insulting to the intelligence of modern members that they're like, "All this stuff is clearly not true. But, but these are not the droids you're looking for. Keep paying your tithing. Keep going to the temple. Keep obeying the current prophets, even though all that other stuff is obviously wrong." Right.

Well, I mean, it's, yeah, like I said, I just, I hate the approach because for me, again, and this is my perspective as being a convert, but when I left, be, when I stopped being an active member of the church, like I'm still an active, I'm still a member, just not active. And when I stopped going, I immediately fell back onto the beliefs I had, you know, from that Protestant background. And because that was comfortable to me. And, um, and I still found a lot of value in that. And obviously going through looking at the Bible stories, which I, I truly find to be just the most fascinating things because I've learned so much from like David Bokovoy's episodes with you, Bart Ehrman, even Dan McClellan on TikTok, who I think does a great job with it, as far as looking at just from like the, the scholarly consensus. When you listen to them, I find it to be so amazing to understand why they were written, in the perspective they were written, what the needs of the community were. But the point is, when you leave Mormonism, you can still fall back on another church that believes in the Hebrew Bible and still maintain a belief in God. Because, um, you do not, you know, again, the whole concept of God in the Bible does not need Mormonism at all. But Mormonism makes this value proposition that they're tied together. And if you walk away, you lose both. And, and that's where I get frustrated because the honest answer would be to say, "Hey, if you don't believe in a global flood, then all of a sudden we're going to have to admit the Book of Mormon is not historical. If that is a problem for you, and you still want to maintain a belief in God, you might want to look at another church." But instead, they're saying, "If that's a problem for you and you can't get over it, don't throw the baby out the bathwater." And I just, that, that, that's frustrating because they're tying them together when they're the ones tying them together. The Bible doesn't tie Mormonism to God. The Bible has nothing to do with Mormonism. God has nothing to do with Mormonism. And that's right. I'm frustrated because there are so many people that are struggling with belief. And yet, they're being told from all sides of the church, "If you walk away, you lose everything." I mean, Brad Wilcox made that clear in those talks that got him in trouble. And, um, it's just, it's not true. And obviously, there are a ton of of people who have left Mormonism who thrive elsewhere. But I do believe that with these stories we're talking about with regard to biblical scholarship, you can still find a lot of value and meaning in them, um, even if you don't take them as literally. You just can't do that with Mormonism because of the fact that they make them so literal. Totally. And, yeah, I Margie and I stayed Mormon for 13 years after we knew it wasn't true. So people can still stay in the church, Mormon church, even after they know it's all, or the truth claims are generally not true. Um, that's just a personal decision. But I, we just think it's important for people to know the truth. Because as we started this episode, so many important life, if you have a queer kid, if your kid's gay or transgender, if your kid's thinking about a mission, or if your daughter wants a career, uh, it's probably pretty significant, um, that, you know, the church's truth claims aren't accurate, and that the prophets, seers, and revelators really don't know what they're talking about a lot of the time. Because you, and your kids might make very different decisions if, if you know the truth.

Let's, uh, let's jump to another really insulting distraction by FairMormon, where for FairMormon basically says, "Don't worry about the global flood. Other religions get it wrong too." Yeah. And this is, you know, we kind of, kind of mentioned this already now, but it's just from, this is from FairMormon. They say, "Although this criticism can be directed at the LDS Church, it, it is really directed at anyone who believes in."

A literal reading of the Old and New Testament, LDS leaders have in the past taught the concept of a global flood. Based upon such a reading, we will continue to learn, to learn more, a lot of line upon line, as we create more effective ways to understand this issue.

And again, we've already, I've already mentioned this, but this impacts any religion that believes in the Old Testament. But Mormonism, uh, takes it, expands on it, cements it, changes it by putting Adam and Eve in Missouri, which puts Noah in Missouri. And so all of these things within Mormonism are different. So you cannot equate the belief of, say, you know, a Jewish believer and a, um, Catholic or just a mainstream Christian believer with Mormonism because Joseph Smith doesn't just double down, he doubles down, he triples down, you know, um, and he just keeps, like I said, hammering this down. There's no way around it.

And so, can I add something to that? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, it's not just that. It's that the argument of, "Other churches do it too," undermines the whole value proposition of Mormonism. Yes, we're supposed to do it right. Right. We have the prophecies and revelators that talk to God and, and we get it right. So to say that we're not any worse than the other guys, again, it's like wanting us to rip out the whole first floor of a house. Yeah. And apologists want to rip out the whole first floor of a house and they want the second floor to stand. But if we're just, if we're no worse or no better than the other guys, all of a sudden, the, the question is, why, why follow Mormon prophets, seers, and revelators at all? Yeah.

And that's like, you know, you said at the start of the episode, like, you know, our goal isn't to tear down Mormonism. And, and I know that from a believing perspective, if you watch these episodes, you're gonna say, well, you're tearing it down. And, you know, it's hard for me to argue with that because to me, when you look at the evidence, it is going to tear down the correlated Mormon narrative. So, yeah, I mean, in a lot of ways, I, when people say that to me, I'm like, well, it's not that I'm tearing it down because I believe if it's true, then you have nothing to fear watching this. It's just when you are exposed to the evidence and you're exposed to the, the ways that apologetics, like for example, with FAIR here, kind of, uh, I would say deflect and kind of use a little bit of deception, how they're, you know, trying to tie this to other churches, um, then, yeah, it's going to be problematic. Yeah.

And so I just, you know, I know people get really upset when you say, "I'm not trying to tear it down." It's just, to me, this is where the evidence leads. And so if the evidence tells you it's not true, it's not that I'm tearing it down, I'm just telling you what it is. And then at that point, in your head, you're tearing it down because you're understanding this is a problem. And so, yeah, um, you know, that, that's all I'd say. And then, you know, just to kind of start to wrap this up, but, um, this is again from FAIR Mormon and this is about how Noah got from Missouri to the Old World. And they say, "One limited flood explanation that has been proposed for this is that Noah built his ark and either went down the Mississippi River Valley or that he built his ark on the east coast of the North American continent."

"Another line of thought is that the placement of the Garden of Eden, or the placement of the Garden on the North American continent, was more of a symbolic act intended to sacralize the land, sacralize, sacralized the land, thus providing it with its own sacred history, similar to that of the Old World." The truth is, however, that the biblical description of the location of the Garden of Eden does not match up with existing Old World geography any more than it does with New World geography. And so, what I would say to this is, one, the reason that the geography, the Garden of Eden doesn't match up is because it's a mythical story that we talked about in the last one. There's also no records of talking serpents in the Old World or New World either. And so I'm not trying to be flipping, I'm just saying like, that, that's why.

And to claim that the Adam and Eve story was Joseph Smith basically making up a myth to give them, early members of the Mormon Church, a sacred history to, to basically rally around, um, it would have, if you had me, if you had said that, if FAIR Mormon goes back in time and they'll say, in 1842, they get up and say that Joseph Smith basically made this up as a symbolic act to give meaning to the land, they were at, you'd be on trial as an apostate. I mean, that is just like one of those things where they're only saying it because we know that human, humans are not beginning in Missouri. We know that. I mean, we know that from, from fossils, from migrations, you could go all sorts of ways. So for FAIR Mormon to say that it's just that, one is like, I'm like, really? You're gonna say that Joseph Smith was, was saying that to basically give meaning to the people that just, it goes against the fact that we have a prophet who's telling us real history. Yeah. Yeah.

And I'm just gonna say, we, we've been ranting a little bit towards the end, and I'm just gonna address that because there's a lot of people who are really loving this series. And a few episodes ago, I asked people to just let us know if they want us to just keep it really tight and really short and, and only just address the science, if they want, like Gerardo or Jen or or Nemo to come on. And overwhelmingly, the majority of the respondents are saying they really like the analysis. And I'm not, I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's what most of you have said. And so we just want you to know we're listening to your feedback here because I'm not, I'm not trying to just add color. I've, I have not thought deeply about any of these issues until Mike, this time with you. I've thought on the surface level. Yeah, these are just my honest reactions. I, and I, I just hope people are valuing this dialogue and this conversation back and forth.

The only other thing I want to say before we do the concluding slide is that if you watch these on YouTube, we're putting time codes on here. And YouTube lets you skip. And so if you're in a section and you feel like you've got the point and you want to move on to the next one, just use the YouTube feature and skip to the next point. And you can skip, uh, Mike and I or others kind of like, uh, analyzing and and and deconstructing each of these points. We want to have the best experience as possible. And since some of you just want the facts and others you feel you want the analysis, we're providing time codes in the YouTube description to to facilitate that. Yeah.

And the only thing I would add to that is just when we get to apologetics, we're going to talk more. Not because, I mean, a little bit, it's going to be ranting. It's just, you have to explain. For me, anyways, when I talk about apologetics, it's like, you got to explain their point, but then you have to explain like, what are the implications of their point? What becomes imbalanced by each apologetic? And that's why we do get a little bit more of a long-form conversation because it's a lot easier at the beginning of this episode for us to go through the slides a little quicker because we're talking about just basic scientific concepts of the flood. But now we're trying to, when we're looking about apologetics, and that's why we've got a little bit more lengthy here at the end, it's not because we're trying, I mean, I'm trying not to, um, to do this in a way that's, you know, going to come off as angry, but you have to explain this in more detail, um, to understand why when you read the FAIR Mormon responses, problems. Because a lot of people are going to read the FAIR Mormon response and say, "Okay, someone's smarter than me has thought about this, and I'm done." And I'm just trying to point out why they are using a lot of selective tactics in order to ignore what happens when you start to make these apologetics to the scriptures and Mormonism as we have them at face value. And so that's all I'd add to that. Totally.

And I'll just say as well that, you know, we, we have this long decade, multiple decade long history of like Mormon scholarship with Dialogue and Sunstone and Mormon History Journal, Mormon History. And, you know, lots of scholarship. And then we have lots of apologetics. And we have, you know, we have CES Letter and the, the, the essays on Mormon Stories about the truth claims. And we have Mormon Think and Letter From My Wife. What we know, what no one has ever done, what's historic about you, Mike, and what I think we're doing here in Mormon Stories, nobody's ever done a multi-part series, audio and visual, taking on each element of the church's truth claims in order, systematically. And not just laying out the facts and the evidence, but but giving its context and then discussing the implications. Nobody has ever done it, as far as I know. Like Radio Free Mormon and Bill Reel have done important stuff. Mormon Stories has done important stuff in this way. If It's On Thrones did your polygamy. But nobody has, nobody has ever done what, what, what we're doing, Mike. I don't mean to sound overly important, but but this has never been done before. And and it needs to be done. People need to be able to hear the evidence and then understand the problems with the evidence. And that's what we're doing is important. Again, it's like, we're not patting ourselves on the back. It's just, for me, doing it this way allows you. I'm patting you on the back. Well, thanks. Yeah.

But no, I mean, I wouldn't even do it. But it's just like, for me, and this is why doing this overview project was so helpful to me to put this in into some different perspective, which is to say, you know, a lot of times like what you guys have done, what Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon have done, um, they'll, they'll cover these really important topics with people who can again, run circles around me. But a lot of times, um, we, we talk about the these issues in an episode, and then the next episode might be something different. And by doing it this way, it's kind of forcing us to have to look at the previous episodes and we go to the next one. So it's kind of like watching a TV show for a season, and you've got these things are building. And so when we talk about these issues, they have common threads, they build upon each other. And that's why I think it's important to look at it this way because a lot of times we want to just look at one problem, walk away from it, go to another problem, away from it. But they're connected. And so when you look at one problem and then you go to the next, and then you go, holy cow, not only is that a problem, but it stems off of this first problem. And those are the ways I think that helps to understand again, I've said this a lot, but just how Joseph Smith was doing it. But also it shows his shortcomings because some of his shortcomings are also patterns that we see in the in these truth claims issues as well. And it's important to keep noting them as we go kind of in a linear timeline of these episodes so that people who are watching them can understand that they're not in isolation, they're actually all fitting together in a very natural way, which is a good thing when you're trying to figure it out. And to me, like I said, I've said before, it's kind of a satisfying feeling to be able to put it together, put the puzzle together, and have the pieces fit. But it does take a little bit of of getting, not necessarily like too deep in the weeds, but trying to spend time going over the implications because you have to understand the implications because they will fit into future episodes. They have fit in past episodes. And we just want people to understand that these all go into the bigger picture. And they're not just us kind of throwing something out now when we're not going to go back to it because we will kind of reference these episodes as we go because of the fact that they do fit into the pattern. Yeah.

And in that spirit, I'll also add to the show notes. What we're creating is a YouTube playlist. And what that allows you to do is we're going to have all these episodes in order in a single playlist. So what it gives you is literally, um, a link, a single link you can go to that's gonna allow you to start with episode one and just binge watch one to the next to the next to the next, all in one consolidated list. And we may even release this as its own podcast feed so that people can do that in audio form. And they don't have to jump in the Mormon Stories feed of four episodes and then the next one and then four episodes in the next one. We're probably gonna create its own podcast feed. All right. So let's conclude this discussion with your final slide about the global flood. Yeah.

And so basically, just to wrap up, you know, as we covered at the beginning, the global flood is an ideological myth, which is heavily based on earlier myths such as the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. As we cover, there's just so many parallels, you can't really ignore that. Um, and the problem is that Joseph cements these myths from Genesis as literal history by writing them directly into the scriptures and the revelations of Mormonism. Um, while apologetics would like to say that we can believe in a localized flood, it doesn't work well with the fact that we have Adam and Eve in Missouri, and then they would have to get to the Old World, which means there'd have to be a local flood in America that would carry them to the Old World. And then the Old World people believe the global flood. It's just, you start to get into that kind of compounded problem. And then again, just talking about how Joseph Smith uses a 19th-century worldview of the Bible. He's not even using the Old Testament as it was written. He's using it through the perspective of a 19th-century Christian, which leaves a lot of fingerprints, such as we talk about in the Book of Moses, when they talk about in the Book of Moses being baptized in the name of Jesus, which would, I mean, it's beyond anachronistic to have that in, um, you know, what was purported to be an ancient text at the time of the global flood. And so all of these things are showing us kind of the window into Joseph Smith's thinking when he's creating these scriptures. But at the same time, it's also giving us tangible and testable truth claims to test. And over time, as we've already discussed, between science and the text themselves, we can tell the truth claims of Mormonism do not hold up when it comes to the global flood. All right.

Well, today has been amazing. Every single one of these episodes for me, Mike, and I've been doing this, I don't know, 30 years in one way or another. Every one of these episodes is a, has been a mind blower for me. So I can't wait for the next one. What's the next one? So the next one's gonna be the Tower of Babel. So that'll be kind of building off of this because obviously it's gonna come right after this. And that will again, impact directly into the Book of Mormon. And, um, you know, we'll see kind of the same elements. Yeah. All right, Mike, thanks for everything you do. Thanks, everybody. You take care.

Thanks to everyone for listening and, uh, and and again, thanks for supporting us today on Mormon Stories Podcast. We couldn't do this without your support. We need your support to be able to continue. Uh, we lose donors every month. And it costs, it costs us to be able to do this. So if you want to see this continue, both for you and for future generations, please consider donating to this work. You can go to mormonstories.org, click on the donate button, become a monthly donor, whatever you can afford. We're tax deductible in the U.S. You can donate, deduct it from your taxes. Um, we're transparent in our finances, so you can see where the money goes. And a hundred percent of our, of the money is going to go to, uh, providing informed consent for Mormons and non-Mormons and everyone in the world about Mormonism, supporting Mormons in faith crisis, and then supporting transitioning Mormons, uh, away from the church, help them build a happy and a healthy life, um, outside of Mormonism, to find community and to prevent depression and anxiety and divorce and all the things that too often unfortunately accompany Mormon faith crises. So please support us if you can. Mormonstories.org, become a monthly donor, support the LDS Discussions Project. And please check out ldsdiscussions.com, this essay, which is at slash flood. Ldsdiscussions.com slash flood. This essay is there, plus so many more essays that we have covered or will cover. Plus, there's a whole deep dive into the book Saints, um, and so many other cool things. Please check that website out. Thanks, everyone. And we'll see you guys all again soon on another episode of Mormon Stories.