The Book of Mormon requires that the Tower of Babel was real

[VideoGameJunkie]

To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job.

[Buckeye]

The Lord could have told Joseph "you are not yet like Tevya" and that wouldn't have made Tevya real. It's quite possible to compare real people to fictional people, or real events to fictional events, in an attempt to convey something profound, while still not suggesting that the fictional elements are literally true. As another example, I can tell my children: "remember how Simba got his life together when he remembered his divine heritage; you should do the same" and I can tell my children this without suggesting that Simba was literally real.

As for the Tower of Babel and Moroni visits - those are stronger cases for literalness because the authors speaking of them clearly believed them to be literal. However, those events could still be fictional (though important) if the author was mistaken. As an example of this, Joseph also thought that he was literally translating the Egyptian papyri in writing the BOA, yet many faithful LDS scholars hold that he was mistaken in this literal belief and was merely using the papyri as a catalyst. If that can be true - if Joseph could mistake the literalness of his translation - then maybe the first vision, Moroni's visit, Elijah's visit, etc. were also divinely-providential events that Joseph mistook to be literal. So maybe we don't really have priesthood keys, but God allows us to childish believe in the fiction because it helps us to build eternal bonds.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for non-literal belief. I'm simply defending against the idea that non-literal belief is irrational or incoherent. Believing that Moroni's visit was a divinely-approved fiction is no more irrational that believing that Moroni is a real living being. There's simply no objective way to disprove either view.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Buckeye

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job.

A tower is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but the Tower of Babel is not.  The Book of Mormon does not require the two to be the same. 

[cinepro]

53 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

A tower is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but the Tower of Babel is not.  The Book of Mormon does not require the two to be the same. 

I guess we all have to figure out what kind of LDS we are...

 

Quote

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 “artful parable” and an “old tale.”¹¹ But Latter-day Saints accept the story as it is presented in Genesis. Further, we have the second witness of the Book of Mormon.

The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether “is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.” The book of Ether itself then tells of when “Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (Ether 1:33).

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

(emphasis added)

 

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I guess we all have to figure out what kind of LDS we are...

 

 

Nothing you've quoted mentions the name Babel.  A tower yes, but it doesn't say Babel.  That's an assumption.

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Nothing you've quoted mentions the name Babel.  A tower yes, but it doesn't say Babel.  That's an assumption.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that this might not be referring to the Biblical "Tower of Babel", but instead another tower that the people tried to build to heaven causing the Lord to confound their languages?

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng

Because it would be an honor to be present at the creation of a new apologetic theory.  ("The Two Babel Theory")

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that this might not be referring to the Biblical "Tower of Babel", but instead another tower that the people tried to build to heaven causing the Lord to confound their languages?

 

 

Because it would be an honor to be present at the creation of a new apologetic theory.  ("The Two Babel Theory")

I'm saying that the tower referred to in the Book of Mormon is not called the Tower of Babel in that book.  That's an assumption.  It may be the correct assumption, but it is still an assumption.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I'm saying that the tower referred to in the Book of Mormon is not called the Tower of Babel in that book.  That's an assumption.  It may be the correct assumption, but it is still an assumption.

By this logic, we can also say that it's just an "assumption" that the two personages in Joseph Smith's first vision are Heavenly Father and Jesus. They're never explicitly identified. JS-H doesn't require the two personages to be the Father and the Son.

This is literalism taken to absurd extremes.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Nevo

[VideoGameJunkie]

38 minutes ago, SpeakTheTruth said:

•  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tIQHvNhFlg What Mormons Actually Believe use your own common sense do these people believe what the bible teaches? This is simply a warning to anyone in the Mormon religion, according to the Bible, you would not enter heaven when you die. Repent to Jesus, turn from your sinful acts. Time is so short now a days.

  Teaching that God used to be a man? do you people actually believe what your saying?

  Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that person be condemned!

Then I guess I better bring cold sports drinks if I'm not going to heaven.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from.

True

Quote

Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament.

No.  Christ could be referring to a mythological story, just as if President Monson were to reference Zeus.
But Noah is real because Joseph Smith actually met him and also identified him as the angel Gabriel who Mary met.
 

Quote

Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel.

Sure.  Not sure anyone was doubting that.
 

Quote

 We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job.

Not if the Lord was referencing a myth story instead of a person.

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job.

I would think this would also apply to the Bible.  I think the stories are literal but how we interpret them or understand them may be off base.  For example I don't believe the tower was some tall skyscraper that they were building.  It would topple to the ground at some point and kill everyone below.  I take the tower to be a temple.  They took perhaps the temple endowment and other things and wanted to reproduce it in an unauthorized way.  The Lord protected the sanctity of it by confounding their languages to help prevent them from passing it on. 

[mfbukowski]

Sigh.  Another one?

Will we ever grow up?

Edited March 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

By this logic, we can also say that it's just an "assumption" that the two personages in Joseph Smith's first vision are Heavenly Father and Jesus. They're never explicitly identified. JS-H doesn't require the two personages to be the Father and the Son.

This is literalism taken to absurd extremes.

But by our understanding of the First Vision it is required that it was the Fathe and the Son who appeared to Joseph Smith.  If it turns out that is not the case then the foundation of the restoration would need to be rethought.

On the other hand, if the tower mentioned in the Book of Mormon turns out not to be the biblical Tower of Bable, very little changes.  It is not required by the book.

[The Nehor]

"I remember the Tower of Babel, all 37 feet of it, which I suppose was impressive at the time. And when it fell, they howled divine wrath. But come on, dried dung can only be stacked so high."

-Castiel, an angel

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that this might not be referring to the Biblical "Tower of Babel", but instead another tower that the people tried to build to heaven causing the Lord to confound their languages?

 

Quote

 

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng

 

 

Because it would be an honor to be present at the creation of a new apologetic theory.  ("The Two Babel Theory")

Actually I have mentioned this fact several times on this board in recent years, and it has nothing to do with an imagined "Two Babel Theory."  It is based on the simple fact that most biblical scholars consider the mention of the Tower of Babel in the Bible to be an anachronism since it appears to be a post-Exilic glosse in the Bible.  ksfisher is correct.  Not only does the BofM not mention the Tower of Babel, but the story is much more ancient than the Hebrews.  This is clear from the early story of the confusion of tongues^[1] (Genesis 11:1-9 [migdāl] and Ether 1:33-37), recalling the Sumerian “Golden Age” passage in which “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue (eme-aš-àm) gave praise,” to be followed shortly by the struggle between Enlil and Enki, lord of Eridu, who “changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”^[2]

---

^[1] Sumerian EME.BI.GILIM = Akkadian lišānšunu e-eg-ru (CAD, “E,” 42, citing UET, 1, 146, ili, 7, iv, 7 [Hammurabi]); S. N. Kramer, “The ‘Babel of Tongues’: A Sumerian Version,” in W. W. Hallo, ed., Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, AOS 53 (New Haven, 1968), 108-111 = JAOS, 88 (1968).

^[2] S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, rev. ed. (Harper & Row, 1961/reprint Univ. of Penn. Press, 1972), xiv,107 n. 2.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Once again you miss the point, cinepro.  There was certainly a great tower --  the Sumero-Akkadian construction of temple towers (ziggurats) is legendary, but careless reading of the BofM has often led people to erroneously imagine that it was the very Tower of Babel -- a very late form of it..
 

[Freedom]

Why is accepting that the tower event was real a problem?

[flameburns623]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job.

The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is infallible in faith and morals only and allows considerable leeway about the literal historicity of much within the Bible, particularly the very early stories found in Genesis. 

You'll find Catholics who take a very historical approach to the Bible, almost to the point of defending the Evangelical "plenary, verbal inspiration of every word of the original".

OTOH, many Catholics doubt the pure historicity of the Creation story, the Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, or even the accounts of Moses and the Israelitetes, or of the conflicts of Saul, David, and the early Davidic Kingdom.

The approach tends to be that there may be a "kernel of history" behind many of these tales. But the stories as we have them today are faith-enhanced and may in some cases be inspired parables with no historic basis at all.

Do some Latter-Day Saints take a similar approach to thr BoM?

Edited March 5, 2016 by flameburns623

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you miss the point, cinepro. There was certainly a great tower . . . but careless reading of the BofM has often led people to erroneously imagine that it was the very Tower of Babel -- a very late form of it.

Seriously, Robert?

• "Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered. . . . And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words. (Ether 1:33–34)
   
• "And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.  Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city." (Genesis 11:6–8)

Let's review the common elements: at the time of the great tower, the Lord confounds the language of the people so that they may not understand one another and the people are scattered upon the face of the earth. The allusion to the story in Genesis 11 could not be more clear. But to drive the point home, Ether 2:1 mentions that the Jaredites, upon leaving the great tower, went down into the valley of Nimrod, "being called after the mighty hunter" (cf. Genesis 10:8–9).

Even Grant Hardy—someone not generally given to "careless reading of the BofM"—identifies the great tower of Ether 1 with the tower of Babel: "In Ether, we learn that the people referred to by Mormon were descendents of Jared and his brother . . . who, together with their friends and families, had been led by God from the Tower of Babel to the Americas" (see Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide, 227).

Edited March 5, 2016 by Nevo

[thesometimesaint]

All that is required is that JS believed they were real.

[consiglieri]

Many ancient societies have origin stories rooted in mythic events.

I don't see why the Jaredites should be an exception.

Or the Nephites, for that matter.

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

... Will we ever grow up?

 "I'll never grow up, never grow u-up, never grow up!  Not me!"

(Sorry;   Couldn't resist!  Carry on!)

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Many ancient societies have origin stories rooted in mythic events.

I don't see why the Jaredites should be an exception.

Or the Nephites, for that matter.

Don't die of a heart attack or anything, but I'd give you a rep point ... if'n I could!

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is infallible in faith and morals only and allows considerable leeway about the literal historicity of much within the Bible, particularly the very early stories found in Genesis. 

You'll find Catholics who take a very historical approach to the Bible, almost to the point of defending the Evangelical "plenary, verbal inspiration of every word of the original".

OTOH, many Catholics doubt the pure historicity of the Creation story, the Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, or even the accounts of Moses and the Israelitetes, or of the conflicts of Saul, David, and the early Davidic Kingdom.

The approach tends to be that there may be a "kernel of history" behind many of these tales. But the stories as we have them today are faith-enhanced and may in some cases be inspired parables with no historic basis at all.

Do some Latter-Day Saints take a similar approach to thr BoM?

Here is how I have come to view the Bible. Everything in it has truth, but is not necessarily "factual" or "temporally literal." In other words YHWH used the people to teach lessons. 

So for instance when YHWH says about Eliakim, that He will fasten him as a nail in a sure place, is that literal? Did He crucify Eliakim or did Eliakim die a normal death as the son of the High Priest? Here He is using Eliakim as a figure for a future event. How do we know when YHWH is doing this?

How about the story of Adam and Eve? The Torah was given to Moses, and I believe it, but the stories which came from before Moses can be looked on as teaching things of spiritual importance rather than things of factual importance. For example, did Eve and Adam literally walk up to some physical tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil and eat some fruit, or did they learn they were naked before God by breaking a commandment, and learning of their guilt? I believe there was an Adam and an Eve, and that Adam is our spiritual father in the word to the extent that he is the first to receive the word from God. He is the first prophet, and the first to receive covenant. Before him there was no word, and "no man to till the ground." This leaves the possible interpretation that there was a man-creature before Adam created as man and woman per chapter 1 of Genesis in the physical sense. But the creation of man as spiritual being with life in the word was not possible until Adam. Adam and Eve blew it quickly, as we all do. But the story of Adam and Eve is quite important, and provides keys in the word. LDS call it the story of the spiritual creation. The physical creation is in Genesis 1.

The Book of Mormon is a factual book, but does use symbolism which is not intended to be interpreted as "literal" fact but "spiritual" fact. For instance the "skins" of darkness change when the "scales" fall from their eyes and they see truth once again. Here I believe "skins" is being used figuratively like "garments" are. No one takes the term "scales" literally, but people take the "skins" literally. While there probably was a literal change in appearance of the Lamanites, I believe the curse was change in their spiritual skin tone or countenance so that those of righteousness could discern it. I don't believe anyone's natural skin tone is going to change to a whiter color, but that their spiritual countenance will change to a white or pure countenance so as to be bearable for the spirit to dwell. The biblical precedence for this is found in Daniel that some will fall to try them and to make them white. The BoM precedent for it is found in 3 Nephi 19:25.

But as for Lehi and family, they were factual real people, and the events of the book did transpire - just not in Mesoamerica.

Edited March 5, 2016 by RevTestament

[CV75]

22 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job.

For those that struggle with such things, there is comfort in recognizing that the Lord's work is being fulfilled whether it is because these things happened, with these things happening, or as though these things had happened.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

To believe in the Book of Mormon we have to believe in the story of the Tower of Babel being literal because that's where the Jaredites came from. Also, Noah's Ark has to be real as well, because Jesus references it in the New Testament. The Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark story are sometimes referred to as not literal, but they have to be literal if we are to believe the Book of Mormon and New Testament Jesus. Also the Book of Mormon has to be literal because Joseph Smith claimed Moroni from the Book of Mormon appeared to him as an angel. This just shows that we have to be taking these stories we read as literal. Oh yeah, one more. We have to believe the story of Job because the Lord told Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail that he was not yet like Job.

Yeh, well once you have managed to separate the great tower from "Babel," and once you are able to acquaint yourself with the many much earlier flood stories from Mesopotamia, then you need to address what "literal" means.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk  . "Literal" does not necessarily mean "real."