Michael R. Ash: Is the Tower of Babel historical or mythological?

[thesometimesaint]

HiJolly:

Agreed.

[Jason]

Caesar decided to tax "all the world"? REALLY?

Which is quite different then saying "Jared and Mahonri didn't really have to worry about having their words confounded, or not understanding their friends. All that business about God sparing them and allowing them to continue to understand each other is later myth that the Jaredites or Nephites added to the account after the fact."

[volgadon]

Which is quite different then saying "Jared and Mahonri didn't really have to worry about having their words confounded, or not understanding their friends. All that business about God sparing them and allowing them to continue to understand each other is later myth that the Jaredites or Nephites added to the account after the fact."

Which argument is quite different to Ash's.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

I think we run into trouble whenever we take Scripture TOO literally. I'm fine with there being Jared and his brother, and God confusing the peoples tongue's around them. However I have no reason to believe that the entire world spoke one language, and that God confused them to make all other languages.

[Jason]

Jason:

I think we run into trouble whenever we take Scripture TOO literally. I'm fine with there being Jared and his brother, and God confusing the peoples tongue's around them. However I have no reason to believe that the entire world spoke one language, and that God confused them to make all other languages.

So one world tongue is too much, but suddenly not understanding your brother and your friends is a-okay?

How do you know when you're taking the scriptures just literally enough?

[mfbukowski]

Do I? Why...so I can make things make sense? Compromise my beliefs? If not true I could use my money and time elsewhere.

No, I did not by any means means to compromise your beliefs. My point is that your understanding of historic truth, especially of events so long ago, may be inadequate. It is impossible to tell scientifically - ie: by rational study, if such events ever really happened. But that does not mean they did not happen! Either way, it is not provable, or falsifiable- so why worry? Accept it for what it is, and go by your testimony.

You have no problem accepting the Book of Mormon on your testimony alone- why not accept the Tower of Babel and the rest of the bible on the same basis?

[The_Monk]

"I believe the Noah's Ark Story

[semlogo]

So one world tongue is too much, but suddenly not understanding your brother and your friends is a-okay?

How do you know when you're taking the scriptures just literally enough?

The scriptures that don't match up with reality make for a good indication that you can't take them literally.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

There are in the Church essentially two ways to determine that.

1. We are all required to Ask God. We just have to be willing to abide by that answer. The down side is that we(individually) can not impose our answer on anyone else.

2. When the Lord has spoken through the Church on the subject. I know of nothing in the canon and formal statements by the First Presidency, agreed to by the Quorum of the Twelve, the 1st Quorum of Seventy, and ratified in General Conference by the general membership of the Church, that mandates that I take the Tower of Babel literally.

I am willing to concede that it is possible that that is literally how God did it. But that opens up even more questions than it answers for me.

[mfbukowski]

Yes Pa Pa you and I are "Chapel Mormons" who are despised by some here as foolish "old men" but I would rather cling to my foolish notions of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie than the drivel of what I term "New age Mormons" that must re-write history to satisfy our enemies and the critics and the Anti-Mormon hounds of hell.

As a converted atheist and a somewhat modified "post modernist" please allow me the freedom to understand the gospel in my way, just as I allow you to understand it your way.

Or would you prefer folks like me to leave the church? Tolerance cuts both ways.

[Anijen]

Moroni wrote the Title Page of the BoM, which reiterates the reality of the Tower.

Moroni did have Ether's record, not a bad copy. He also had the interpreters. He was also the one who wrote the huge sealed portion from the same record, twice as large as the present BoM.

The only folks who have to deny he had those plates are the LGT folks, to fit into their modern mold.

Sevenbak I have to agree with Nack and the Monk, Moroni used the abridged record of Ether he did not have the 24 plates but spoke of the 24 plates abridged. Here is how the seminary manual speaks of Ether;

THE BOOK OF ETHER

When Mormon abridged the account of the discovery and translation of the book of Ether, he wrote,

[mfbukowski]

He hit the mark.

There is no middle ground. Either it happened or it didn't. Either the prophets from both sides of the world wrote about it, or they didn't.

Jared and his families experienced it first hand, and the Lord preserved the record for our day.

Either they lied or they didn't.

That is not the issue.

The issue is how do you KNOW "what happened"? It can only be by the spirit! So if the spirit verifies "it is true" to both sides, please allow those of us who do not think God needs to speak through a donkey our own interpretation of what "truth" means in that context.

There's room enough for both literal and non-literal interpretations!

[The_Monk]

I would rather cling to my foolish notions of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie

And I'll cling to my B.H. Roberts, David. O. McKay, James E. Talmage, John Widtsoe, and Reuben J. Clark

[Jason]

There are in the Church essentially two ways to determine that.

1. We are all required to Ask God. We just have to be willing to abide by that answer. The down side is that we(individually) can not impose our answer on anyone else.

Of course.

2. When the Lord has spoken through the Church on the subject. I know of nothing in the canon and formal statements by the First Presidency, agreed to by the Quorum of the Twelve, the 1st Quorum of Seventy, and ratified in General Conference by the general membership of the Church, that mandates that I take the Tower of Babel literally.

Well, perhaps not in so many words, but it is a rather important part of the Jaredite record, isn't it? It is, after all, given as Mahonri's motive for moving the Jaredites to the Americas in the first place.

I am willing to concede that it is possible that that is literally how God did it. But that opens up even more questions than it answers for me.

Sometimes the more complex explanation is in fact the more correct one.

[mfbukowski]

At risk of sounding like a board nanny, let's please move along. The arguing amongst those who essentially agree serves only to weaken the credibility of and distract from their real shared point

Sorry- just saw this and I agree, as usual!

[Lightbearer]

More light and knowledge has been brought forth to the world that helps us better ocntextualize the scriptures, understand their context, and draw a few degrees closer to their original understandning.

That all depends on the source of that "light and knowledge" and as far as the original understanding, it is manifestly impossible to understand revelation without revelation!

That in no way undermines the specific personal individual directions the Spirit can take you when you read the words. I'm pretty sure that some of the great revelations of the Restoration came from Joseph asking a question based on a misunderstanding of a scriptural passage. That doesn't negate the original intent of the passage - or mean that his misinterpretation is superior!

Sometimes this is true, sometime it (the teachings and traditions of men) does undermine entirely the correct understanding. The Jews had great scholarship and great learning on their side yet they failed to recognize their Messiah when He came among them. So scholarship or learning can help us, in finding truth, but it also can handicap us from recognizing truth when we are told by tradition or the teachings of men that it does not mean what the prophets teach us it means.

However, I do feel that when the Lord asks us to study the words of Isaiah, he means it - and not just be content with tradition that has been built around it. Yes, it means seek with the spirit. Yes, it means people without any historical knowledge can find great treasures. But it means those of us who do have the tools, resources, and desire to more closely approach the Isaiah of history by understanding his culture and language can also be enlightened by the spirit as well. the Lord doesn't discourage or punish seeking greater light and knowledge.

Yes he wants us to study Isaiah by study and also by faith. I wonder what that really means? Does it mean we should reject something as myth because the teachings of men says we should?

The Spirit isn't limited to teaching those who don't have tools, and prayerfully and diligently use them. "To be learned is good if one hearkens to the counsel of God." - I find it the height of arrogance to assume that those who apply knowledge that has come to light to better understand the scriptures are somehow less in tune with the Spirit, and cannot also be granted personal spiritual insight that differs from the original text and context.

Nobody said that a person who is learned cannot follow the spirit, but it must be understood that the spirit speaks the truth and lies not, therefore the spirit will not confirm that which is in error. We learn from the spirit line upon line and often we do not receive it all at once, we try to accept the best scholarship we can find, but that does not mean scholarship can or should supplant or trump revelation from the spirit or what is deemed doctrinally correct by the Church. It is consistently stated that we do not believe the prophet is infallible or that the scriptures are inerrant, but rarely do we remember that the wisdom of men is just as fallible if not more so.

Joseph Smith wanted to learn more, so he attempted to learn Hebrew. He wasn't content with just letting the spirt tell him everything, and remain in intellectual ignorance. He knew as he studied, he would be given more questions he could ask, which would result in more revelation. This even led to Joseph revising his previous understanding - based on scholarship and revelation combined.

Joseph wanted to learn Hebrew because he felt it important for his own understanding, but he did not depend on that learning for revelation nor did it replace revelation.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Ignorance Is Bliss is a doctrine of the Church.

Do you realize how arrogant this sounds? You do not think God can teach those who are ignorant? When is learning ever bad?:

(2 Nephi 9:28) "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."

To be learned is good if they hearken to the counsels of God. But when it opposes the counsel of God and tries to undermine it, it is not hearkening to it.

[volgadon]

Myth has to do with function. The birth, atonement, death and resurrection of Christ is a myth- but one that I believe truly did happen.

[semlogo]

To be learned is good if they hearken to the counsels of God. But when it opposes the counsel of God and tries to undermine it, it is not hearkening to it.

Red herring. That scripture is talking about learned people who disobey commandments, not learned people who interpret OT stories differently than you.

[ttribe]

To be learned is good if they hearken to the counsels of God. But when it opposes the counsel of God and tries to undermine it, it is not hearkening to it.

Talk about a misuse of scripture for dogmatic purposes.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

The standard within the Church is that if the Lord has not explained the meaning of a revelation. Then we are free to assign any meaning to it we choose. Thus we as individual members can accept or reject any particular explanation of the Genesis account that does not oppose what the Church has said.

I believe there is a more important reason to get the Jaredites over to the New World. It gets their records into the hands of the Nephites, and thus into the hands of JS.

[bu11fr0g]

Babel was real. This is another case of the need for the BoM, in testifying of the truthfulness of the Bible, and those who don't believe it.

Either we believe the BoM, the words of Ether, or we don't.

Either we believe the Bible, or we don't.

Either we believe the words of Joseph Smith, or we don't.

In the Wentworth Letter, from which we get the Articles of Faith, the Standard of Truth, and much more, he reiterates the reality of the Tower of Babel.

"...Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim, I translated the record by the gift and power of God. In this important and interesting book, the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times, has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel..."

It think that that Joseph Smith was under the mistaken assumption that the Lamanites were the ancestors of the American Natives that lived very close to him in Palmyra. I have heard it attributed to Orson Scott Card that the people believed that this was the truth but they were incorrect.

Similarly, Joseph Smith could believe that the Jaredites came directly from the Tower of Babel based upon what he had translated, but have been incorrect in his interpretation of what the book of Ether really meant and described.

"do or don't " usually doesn't work to well. Does anyone believe that Joseph Smith's words were never wrong and that he was infallible? He didn't believe this himself.

[Anijen]

Lightbearer; To be learned is good if they hearken to the counsels of God. But when it opposes the counsel of God and tries to undermine it, it is not hearkening to it.

I don't think he is opposing the council of God at all. and being learned does not oppose it ether. Now I think I see your point, is it perhaps when some are learned they think they know better? That they don't have to rely on God? I can see that and often do see a mindset like this where men become full of pride but I don't see that in Nack or the Monks post. In fact the Monk quoted other apostles who disagreed with other apostles and I don't think either of the general authorities regardless of whose side you choose opposes God.

After rereading this I oppose this post and surely I could have written it better...

ugh

[bu11fr0g]

"For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an

[The_Monk]

It is a very dangerous justification for one's beliefs.

How so?

I don't see that the title page reference by Moroni is probative. As Elder Widtsoe said, "when inspired writers deal with historical incidents, they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation." Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, (1960):127

I don't see anything suggesting that God said, "BTW, Moroni, that Babel thing is all historical."

[bu11fr0g]

How so?

I don't see that the title page reference by Moroni is probative. As Elder Widtsoe said, "when inspired writers deal with historical incidents, they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation." Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, (1960):127

I don't see anything suggesting that God said, "BTW, Moroni, that Babel thing is all historical."

It is dangerous to base one's beliefs on an associate professor at BYU's untempered writing in the Ensign over ten years ago.