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

[Rivers]

15 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Where does it say there was a single language spoken?

Gen. 11:1

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech"

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Where does it say there was a single language spoken?

I think Shirley Youjest said that.

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Gen. 11:1

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech"

Since ancient Hebrew did not have a word for planet, let alone any comprehension of planet, why would you assume this quote indicates all humans all over the world all spoke one language? 

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, Freedom said:

Since ancient Hebrew did not have a word for planet, let alone any comprehension of planet, why would you assume this quote indicates all humans all over the world all spoke one language? 

Maybe you should define what you meant when you asked

Quote

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

The OP uses the word "real" and "literal" interchangeably, and uses it in a modern setting. IOW he is asking how we view it today. Are you using it differently? Regardless of what the Hebrews understood (or misunderstood) about an 4000ish years ago, how do we view it today?

I am not arguing for a literal interpretation of the event but if I were it would  include a few basic components such as single language, approximate locale and world event. And if I were coming from a LDS POV of a literal event It would also have to include real Jaredites.

When you ask about what the problems are with this being a real event do you include all of these components in the story? I am not asking what you personally believe but what you think the story has to include as part of "real".

Edited March 7, 2016 by CA Steve

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There fixed it.

I have no idea what he meant by "we Latter-day Saints". I assure you I'm every bit as much a Latter-day Saint as any.

If you define "Latter-day Saint" as someone whose name is on the records of the Church, then sure.

If you define "Latter-day Saint" by degrees based on how much someone believes the teachings and doctrines from Church leaders, official Church publications and curriculum, then probably not.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, Freedom said:

Since ancient Hebrew did not have a word for planet, let alone any comprehension of planet, why would you assume this quote indicates all humans all over the world all spoke one language? 

Because that's what modern prophets and apostles (and one of the Church's foremost Hebrew and OT scholars) have told us, and we look to them to interpret the scriptures.

[Freedom]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Because that's what modern prophets and apostles (and one of the Church's foremost Hebrew and OT scholars) have told us, and we look to them to interpret the scriptures.

We look to official statements to interpret the scriptures, not the opinions of various and sundry church leaders or scholars. There is nothing in the scriptures about the tower and the changes in languages that suggests a global event. It was one group of people in one location. If you feel we should look to the brethren, then you should consider the opinions of all of them, not just the ones that supports your argument. Church leaders are not scholars, and their calling does not commission them to declare doctrine of their own accord. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I had a really weird dream about the Tower of Babel last night and in my dream the Tower of Babel was really just Heavenly Father and Jehovah playing Jenga and the tower fell when one of them lost. Did I mention I have weird dreams?

[Maedros]

On 3/4/2016 at 11:26 PM, ksfisher said:

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

It's a very good assumption though - what other tower could it refer to other than that of Babel where the tongues were confounded. We can't prove that beyond reasonable doubt but luckily we don't have to because what the Lord reveals 'has within it the evidence of its own authenticity'; we need but seek it.

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

If you define "Latter-day Saint" as someone whose name is on the records of the Church, then sure.

If you define "Latter-day Saint" by degrees based on how much someone believes the teachings and doctrines from Church leaders, official Church publications and curriculum, then probably not.

How I define it is even more strict than even the Church defines it. but I digress. Hugh Nibley was perhaps one of the better informed LDS that we had. He didn't believe the flood of Noah's time was global.

BTW Quit creating a false dilemma. There is nothing in our Scriptures that prevents a false interpretation of them. As Bruce R. McConkie so amply demonstrated.

[mnn727]

On 3/6/2016 at 2:49 PM, cinepro said:

Are you Mormon? Because pretty much every Christian believes that, so pretty much every unique LDS doctrine is an optional "appendage" to Christianity.

Am I a Mormon? Yes, are you asking because I believe what Joseph Smith said (quoted above)? Hard to believe you're doubting me for believing what the founding Prophet of this dispensation said.

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 9:58 AM, JLHPROF said:

Omnipotence is a false concept, along with omniscience and omnipresence.

I knew you were going to say that.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, consiglieri said:

I knew you were going to say that.

Of course I was.

They are completely nonsensical philosophical concepts.

[consiglieri]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Of course I was.

They are completely nonsensical philosophical concepts.

While I agree with you in principle, I don't want you to overlook the cleverly imbedded humor of my one-liner.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, consiglieri said:

While I agree with you in principle, I don't want you to overlook the cleverly imbedded humor of my one-liner.

...well, I don't think you are omniscient, but in the unlikely event you are, I am far more terrified by your omnipresence...

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, Freedom said:

We look to official statements to interpret the scriptures, not the opinions of various and sundry church leaders or scholars. There is nothing in the scriptures about the tower and the changes in languages that suggests a global event. It was one group of people in one location. If you feel we should look to the brethren, then you should consider the opinions of all of them, not just the ones that supports your argument. Church leaders are not scholars, and their calling does not commission them to declare doctrine of their own accord. 

Every statement ("official" or otherwise) about Noah's flood says it was global.  Ergo, the Tower of Babel was also a global event, since it happened only a few generations later.  If you can find a single statement by any Church leader or publication anywhere on the Church website or in any curriculum, or anywhere in the history of General Conference, that indicates even the slightest possibility that Noah's flood wasn't global, or that the Tower of Babel was global, then do share.

Here's a collection of the teachings I could find.  They're all global.

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

 

 

 

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

How I define it is even more strict than even the Church defines it. but I digress. Hugh Nibley was perhaps one of the better informed LDS that we had. He didn't believe the flood of Noah's time was global.

BTW Quit creating a false dilemma. There is nothing in our Scriptures that prevents a false interpretation of them. As Bruce R. McConkie so amply demonstrated.

 

I was just pointing out that your beliefs on this subject do not harmonize with the consistent and official teachings of Church leaders and curriculum over the decades, which seems to be Parry's point.  There are few things which are taught more clearly in the scriptures and more consistently by Church leaders and publications over the years than the global scope of Noah's flood.  I suspect the fact that there is doubt on this subject was an impetus for publishing Parry's article in the first place (in a year when the Old Testament would be studied in Gospel Doctrine).

And CFR that Nibley "didn't believe the flood of Noah's time was global."

[Kevin Christensen]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

I was just pointing out that your beliefs on this subject do not harmonize with the consistent and official teachings of Church leaders and curriculum over the decades, which seems to be Parry's point.  There are few things which are taught more clearly in the scriptures and more consistently by Church leaders and publications over the years than the global scope of Noah's flood.  I suspect the fact that there is doubt on this subject was an impetus for publishing Parry's article in the first place (in a year when the Old Testament would be studied in Gospel Doctrine).

And CFR that Nibley "didn't believe the flood of Noah's time was global."

Nibley's "Before Adam", published in CWHM Old Testament and Related Studies, 

"To recapitulate, religion has no plot. Science has no plot. This means that Joseph Smith is the only entry. He, at least, has given us a picture. But is it a convincing picture? The fact is, we have never looked at it closely! We have drawn back from that assignment, preferring to save a lot of trouble and take sides with the traditional schools."

"The stories of the garden of Eden and the Flood have always furnished unbelievers with their best ammunition against believers, because they are the easiest to visualize, popularize, and satirize of any Bible accounts. Everyone has seen a garden and been caught in a pouring rain. It requires no effort of imagination for a six-year-old to convert concise and straightforward Sunday-school recitals into the vivid images that will stay with him for the rest of his life. These stories retain the form of the nursery tales they assume in the imaginations of small children, to be defended by grownups who refuse to distinguish between childlike faith and thinking as a child when it is time to "put away childish things." (1 Corinthians 13:11.) It is equally easy and deceptive to fall into adolescent disillusionment and with one's emancipated teachers to smile tolerantly at the simple gullibility of bygone days, while passing stern moral judgment on the savage old God who damns Adam for eating the fruit he put in his way and, overreacting with impetuous violence, wipes out Noah's neighbors simply for making fun of his boat-building on a fine summer's day."

...

"So with Noah in the ark. From where he was, "the whole earth" (Genesis 8:9) was covered with water as far as he could see; after things had quieted down for 150 days and the ark ground to a halt, it was still three months before he could see any mountaintops. But what were conditions in other parts of the world? If Noah knew that, he would not have sent forth messenger birds to explore. The flood as he described it is what he saw of it. "He sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground." (Genesis 8:8.) Couldn't he see for himself? Not where the dove went. It was not until seven days later that he sent it out again; and after flying all day, the bird came back with a green leaf fetched from afar; "so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth." (Genesis 8:11.) Still he waited another seven days. When the dove did not return, Noah had his answer. In some distant place, trees were bearing and there was birdfood to be found. But not where Noah was. All that time he had not dared to open up."

"Note that the author does not fall into the literary trap of telling where the birds went and what they saw. That became a standard theme of early Oriental literature, faithfully reflected in the classical stories of the sea-eagle and the hoopoe. All Noah tells us is what he saw of the birds and the flood. The rain continued at least in spots, for there was that magnificent rainbow. Why do Christians insist on calling it the first rainbow, just because it is the first mentioned? Who says that water drops did not refract light until that day? Well, my old Sunday School teacher, for one, used to say it. The rainbow, like the sunrise, is strictly the product of a point of view, for which the beholder must stand in a particular place while it is raining in another particular place and the sun is in a third particular place, if he is to see it at all. It is a lesson in relativity."

...

"Speaking of Noah, God promised Enoch "that he [God] would call upon the children of Noah; and he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed [Enoch's through Noah] should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; and the Lord said: Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come." (Moses 7:51—53.) Methuselah boasted about his line as something special. (Moses 8:2—3.) Why special if it included the whole human race? These blessings have no meaning if all the people of the earth and all the nations are the seed of Noah and Enoch." 

And for the record, if all we had to do was grab on to whatever opinion came through official channels, and build our thinking or cynicism on that, according to personal preference, we wouldn't have the blunt warning in D&C around the errors that are going to be made manifest, or  Jesus making a very narrow definition of what constitutes "my doctrine" or Alma distinguishing between what he learned by revelation, but study, and by his own supposition, or would the D&C point us towards "the best books" rather than "approved and orthodox books." 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

[ksfisher]

49 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Every statement ("official" or otherwise) about Noah's flood says it was global.  Ergo, the Tower of Babel was also a global event, since it happened only a few generations later.  If you can find a single statement by any Church leader or publication anywhere on the Church website or in any curriculum, or anywhere in the history of General Conference, that indicates even the slightest possibility that Noah's flood wasn't global, or that the Tower of Babel was global, then do share.

Here's a collection of the teachings I could find.  They're all global.

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

 

 

 

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that 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. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].^[1]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Every statement ("official" or otherwise) about Noah's flood says it was global.  Ergo, the Tower of Babel was also a global event, since it happened only a few generations later.  If you can find a single statement by any Church leader or publication anywhere on the Church website or in any curriculum, or anywhere in the history of General Conference, that indicates even the slightest possibility that Noah's flood wasn't global, or that the Tower of Babel was global, then do share.

Here's a collection of the teachings I could find.  They're all global.

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

 

 

 

 

And in all this there is not a single official statement by the church. Yes, the current interpretation may be that the flood was global, but it is not our doctrine. The doctrine of the flood is only found in Genesis, and the doctrine of the tower is only found in genesis and Ether. Nothing in these two official doctrinal sources is a global event stated or required. You can post quotes from general conference all you want, but unless you are also willing to acknowledge that there are an abundance of contradictory statements in general conference and in our curriculum on a number of topics, there is not much to discuss. You do love the cherry pick and set up strawman arguments. 

[BCSpace]

On 3/7/2016 at 9:41 PM, cinepro said:

This theory was mentioned by Old Testament scholar Donald Parry in his Ensign article about different views of the flood. 

It does make you wonder what he meant when he said "we Latter-day Saints"...

 

 

I'm fully aware that my acceptance of a local Flood is contrary to official LDS doctrine.

[Nevo]

11 hours ago, Freedom said:

Yes, the current interpretation may be that the flood was global, but it is not our doctrine. The doctrine of the flood is only found in Genesis, and the doctrine of the tower is only found in genesis and Ether. Nothing in these two official doctrinal sources is a global event stated or required.

The "doctrine of the flood" is also found in Moses 7 and 1 and 2 Peter and it is clearly a global flood that is described. The Church's official position is described here, among other places.

I don't believe that there was a global flood, but that is what the Church teaches.

[cinepro]

20 hours ago, ksfisher said:

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that 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. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].^[1]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

You do realize that Widtsoe is arguing for a global flood, right?  His quote is commonly taken out of context to make it sound like he was saying something else, but he wasn't.  I'm not sure where it started (apparently the original article in the EoM was written by a geologist named Morris Petersen), but it is disingenuous (bordering on dishonest) for Fairmormon to present it as such, and they should be ashamed of themselves (do apologists feel shame anymore?)

Widtsoe's teachings on Noah's flood came in response to a question.  Namely, someone asked "Did the flood cover the highest mountains of the earth?"

Their concern was regarding how a flood could cover tall mountains; obviously the volume of water needed is problematic.

Now, how would someone who doesn't belive in a global flood respond to that?  Obviously, the answer is "No".  Simply put, you can say "No, because the flood didn't cover the entire planet.  Here's how we know that ....."

But that's not what Widtsoe said.   Widtsoe answers the question and tells the person one way that all the mountains (and land) on the entire planet could have been covered without violating the laws of logic (or common sense about how much water it would take).

The entire article is here:

http://scottwoodward.org/flood_wedon'tknowdetails.html

Here's the last three paragraphs from Widtsoe's article:

 

Quote

Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D&C 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331).

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood.

All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

(Emphasis added)

 

So when you see Widtsoe referenced by apologists regarding a global flood, I believe that is what the kids call an "epic fail".  As of right now (3/9/2016), that quote is still being misrepresented on the Fairmormon website (apparently based on a similar misrepresentation from the EoM?).  How long do you think it will take for this to get fixed?

 

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, Freedom said:

And in all this there is not a single official statement by the church. Yes, the current interpretation may be that the flood was global, but it is not our doctrine. The doctrine of the flood is only found in Genesis, and the doctrine of the tower is only found in genesis and Ether. Nothing in these two official doctrinal sources is a global event stated or required. You can post quotes from general conference all you want, but unless you are also willing to acknowledge that there are an abundance of contradictory statements in general conference and in our curriculum on a number of topics, there is not much to discuss. You do love the cherry pick and set up strawman arguments. 

Actually, it's quite clearly stated and required in the scriptures.   Both to the Prophets and Apostles, and at least one professor of Hebrew and the Old Testament.  It seems it's only the scientists who doubt.

If you can find a single "contradictory statement" in general conference or the curriculum regarding the global scope of Noah's flood or the reality of the Tower of Babel, please share.   As far as I can tell, I've picked all the cherries off the tree on this one and they all say the same thing.

This is also the opposite of a "strawman" argument (a "tin man" argument?)  Literally everything I have presented as an official Church teaching is based on numerous scriptures and the totally clear and consistent teachings of Church leaders, publications and curriculum.  You may not like what the Church teaches, but that doesn't make it a "strawman" for someone to point out that they do.

Edited March 9, 2016 by cinepro

[juliann]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

So when you see Widtsoe referenced by apologists regarding a global flood, I believe that is what the kids call an "epic fail".  As of right now (3/9/2016), that quote is still being misrepresented on the Fairmormon website (apparently based on a similar misrepresentation from the EoM?).  How long do you think it will take for this to get fixed?

Seriously? What should FM fix? The part where they use the Widstoe quote as an example of the early belief in a global flood? You haven't read the FM article, have you.  Fess up.

Now where do I complain about how long it takes the critics to fix their errors?