The Book of Mormon references several seminal events from the Bible. These events, standing alone, could be taken as metaphors or myths, but given the Book of Mormon reference, does it force believing LDS to accept these biblical events as literal?
Some Examples
Adam and Eve, the Garden, etc
2 Nephi 2:19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.
Tower of Babel, how many languages came to be
Title Page of Book of Mormon: 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
Moses, leading Children of Israel out of captivity, Parting of the Red Sea
Helaman 8:11 Therefore he was constrained to speak more unto them saying: Behold, my brethren, have ye not read that God gave power unto one man, even Moses, to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea, and they parted hither and thither, insomuch that the Israelites, who were our fathers, came through upon dry ground, and the waters closed upon the armies of the Egyptians and swallowed them up?
Noah, the world wide flood
Alma 10:22 Yea, and I say unto you that if it were not for the prayers of the righteous, who are now in the land, that ye would even now be visited with utter destruction; yet it would not be by flood, as were the people in the days of Noah, but it would be by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword.
I’m sure there are many more. What ones can you think of? The bigger question is does a believing Mormon have to take the above items literally since they are referenced in the Book of Mormon as actual events, or it there another way to read the Book of Mormon that lets us have a non-literal reading of the Bible?
Wheat & Tares 
It suggests that the people who wrote the book of Mormon thought these were literal historical events. That’s all.
Question 2: No. Each of your examples can be read as a report of the then current belief of the writer or abridger/editor based upon stories received from the pre-existing record. Nothing compels us to think those prophets infallible in their apparent literalism. How about simply reading the Book of Mormon as a record similar to a compilation of general conference talks and the “History of the Church” made by general authorities/prophets who, over the years, sometimes even contradict each other and who did not all “read” the scriptural record “literally” the same way?
I think it all works better when one thinks of Adam and Eve as real people, and so forth with the other narratives. I choose to accept the scripture stories as real. For example, I really believe that Christ died on a cross and was resurrected — I willingly accept these as facts, even though there is no evidence and even though I would appear to some others as more sophisticated if I said it was all a myth.
ji – Do you believe the reason there are so many languages on the planet is because of the tower of babel episode? It totally get seeing Christ’s lived ministry and death as non-myth, but I generally don’t understand seeing all the origin stories as real, when we have such a good understanding of the nature of origin stories side-by-side with and understanding of how language (and genetics) develops. Out of curiosity, how do you work that? (Although I suppose, answering my own question, it could be that one doubts the validity of science in these matters…?)
Like JR said, just because something is referenced in later scripture is not good enough evidence by itself that the event is, in fact, historical. There are several examples to throw that idea in question. Peter Enns provided a good one once of Paul referencing a Jewish belief that a rock followed the Israelites through the wilderness (because Moses got water from a rock two separate times, so someone made an assumption was it was the same rock, and the idea stuck). It was a common belief at the time of Christ, but being in scripture doesn’t necessarily make the claim true.
Come on ji. In order for me to believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus, I also have to believe in a literal Zelph? As we prepare to study the Old Testament next year it might helpful to realize that there are many people who might have a different perspective and that is okay. Check out what Ben Spackman had to say. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/12/16/commentary-many-mormons-have-forgotten-that-evolution-isnt-a-satanic-heresy/
Joseph Smith and early Church leaders were all literalists so the stories have specific meaning and are meant to be taken literally within the framework of the Restoration. If Adam isn’t real, how does Michael (aka Adam) visit Joseph? How does Moses visit if he wasn’t real? How is Adam’s altar identified by Joseph if Adam didn’t exist? The list goes on, so if one doesn’t accept those things as literal, it puts the Restoration and Joseph on tenuous ground.
I do not think those things are literal but that belief places me in some conflict with the literalistic teachings of Church leaders, including foundational Restoration claims. I’m okay with the conflict because I simply don’t believe a lot of the literalist claims. That means I don’t believe today’s claims built on those literalist beliefs, but I think that’s okay. That is how early Church members saw the world and how God would have communicated with them. I don’t have to see through that same lens.
As far as the question of language is concerned, I have a hard time believing that 6-7,000 languages were created at the Tower of Babel. That’s because of language drift and language families. However, we’ve found no observable links between major language families such as Sino-Tibetan, Semitic, Indo-European, and Bantu, along with language isolates such as Basque. The seemingly irreconcilable differences between these families suggest at least the possibility of some catastrophic event resulting in separate languages.
Also, the Book of Mormon definitely espouses literalism on the question of biblical authorship, with references to the books of Moses and Isaiah himself as the single author of his book.
I agree with most of the comments, that scriptural mention of events in a literal way is more likely just their literal perception of those events, as told by their forefathers through the generations, rather than a confirmation that those things deeeefinitely happened literally.
But I am pretty curious about who this post is talking about—how many people believe that events in the Bible are figurative but insist that everything mentioned in the BoM is literal? If person is already taking science seriously enough to believe that the creation, the flood, and so forth are probably just metaphors, wouldn’t that person be also pretty open to the non-historicity of the BoM given the evidence against it? (Horses, DNA comparison of Native Americans with modern Hebrews, etc.)
Note that I’m somewhat new around here so not totally sure of the extent of people in the community holding dear the BoM’s historicity. I don’t mean to ruffle any feathers. Just wondering how many people really fall into the cross-section of “the Bible is figurative but everything in the BoM is totally literal.”
Jamp, this community has a relatively wide spectrum of belief, leaning more progressive. In speaking of the wider Mormon community, though, I’d say there’s a good chunk of members who are open to the bible being figurative (especially when it comes to evolution), but will hold firm on a 100% literal take on the Book of Mormon (it being the “most correct book”). I’d predict that the vast majority of members (1) don’t care/worry about it, or (2) just accept everything in the scriptures at face value. But even among more educated members, my feeling is it is still considered fringe to not take the Book of Mormon literally. That’s why you get apologetics utilizing science to show evidence for the Book of Mormon, no matter how weak it seems to outsiders.
Growing up we were always taught the scripture stories were literal. As time has gone by we’ve learned many things through science that give pause to literal interpretations. Glory, I just don’t know what’s literal and what’s allegorical. In pondering it, I’ve come to feel that —for me — I figure some day that will all be sorted out in their proper actualities, but the morals of the stories and the truths and hidden treasures of knowledge therein are for real and are literally worthy of trust. I trust in them even if I “don’t understand the meaning of all things.” I suspect there’ll come a day when I’ll be saying, “Oh, so that’s how that was!”
Lord, give me words to live by, whether literal, allegorical, musical, revelatory, aha moments…
The Bible often has multiple narratives.
For example, Noah’s grandson enters treaties and divides the land with other peoples who speak different languages—pre Tower of Babel.
There are a number of these.
Which literalist view is the right one?
ReTx,
Really, there is no difference between the Babel story and the resurrection story — there is ZERO scientific evidence for either one. So if one can discount (mythologize) one, he or she can do it to the other. So for me, it works better to think of these as real — that’s a choice I have made.
Regarding Babel, I don’t think that English and French and Urdu and Chinese and so forth were created there — but something happened there. I’m comfortable believing that our modern languages have evolved fro whatever came out of Babel.
I’m also not a rabid anti-evolutionist, except to the degree that evolutionists insist on the absence of our God in any part of the process and deny any possibility of truth in the scripture stories.
It works better for me to think of Adam and Eve as real people. That proposition can neither be proven nor disproven by modern science. It’s a matter of faith and choice.
I do allow that there may be some hyperbole or moralizing in some of the scripture stories — but this does not negate the possibility of a reality behind the stories.
I have 2 comments: 1-I don’t think ancient people thought the same way about literalism that we do, so whether Nephi thought it was literal the same way we do was not germane to Nephi’s discussion of it.
2-If I talk about a novel such as Les Miserables, Tale of Two Cities, or To Kill a Mockingbird, someone may mistake my discussion of those books as thinking I believed them literally. The point is that whether Nephi believed Noah, or Tower of Babel, or Moses was real or not does not detract from the fact that he or I can discuss a story and learn something very valuable. It doesn’t really matter if stories are literal or not. I believe Pres Kimball was so moved by the story of Les Miserables that he considered it almost scripture. While one could loosely call it historical fiction, there are some wonderful stories about forgiveness. It doesn’t really matter if Les Miserables has the history right or wrong, one can still benefit from the morals of that story. Nephi likely could have done the same thing with Moses or Noah or Babel.
RxTx. I think your rhetoric has displaced your common sense. “ZERO “ evidence ! Surely you have heard of the Shroud of Turin , You May be skeptical of whether it is actually the burial cloth of Christ and ,giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suppose you could argue even if it is authentic it doesn’t prove he was resurrected. ,but certainly it is some proof even if not convincing (to you ) proof . I should point out that the majority opinion of the group of scientists who work on it ,particularly after the D N A sample was shown to be defective is that it was convincing evidence of the resurrection. I am loath to argue this with you but think it is my duty not to let egregiously erroneous statements remain unchallenged
Bellamy,
You err in directing your comment to RxTx — I wrote the statement that offended you. You further err in changing “ZERO scientific evidence” to “ZERO evidence” — no one here has said that there is zero evidence, and I have already affirmed that I believe in a literal resurrection.
Interesting that the Tower of Babel has been brought up so much. I thought the Book of Mormon itself kind of implied the dividing of languages was a gradual process, although I guess it would still be pretty fast by modern linguistic standards.
As far as what’s literal and what’s not, I imagine once we get to the other side, or when the truth of all things is revealed, we’ll find it’s kind of a mixed bag. Even so, we may see some of those “less than literal” events in a new light that make them pretty amazing in their own right.
I’ll admit I generally go more literal myself, especially when the Book of Mormon is involved, but have often found that my thinking, reasoning, and imagination as to what constitutes “literal” is sometimes at odds with others.
Ha! I read Bellamy’s comment directed at me and went, ‘Huh?’ what the heck did I say??
The dating on the Shroud of Turin is over a 1000 years off, so I don’t know that it’s really the best way to prove Christ existed. There are much better proofs, although since I’m not arguing against Him existing, I’ll let it be.
ji – I can respect that you are making a choice to 100% believe. The aspect that interests me the most is the recognition that it is a choice.
I feel that exact same way. I have no idea if I believe in a literal resurrection or not. I don’t have any empirical proof one way or another. The gospels of the new testament are problematic in that they were oral stories for years before they were written down and the written down versions are going to reflect the ideologies and biases of the writers, but not necessarily historical accuracy. So Jesus existed. He lived and changed people and created a movement toward God. The scriptures are representational of that movement and I take them as learning tools to make that movement happen within myself. From a practical perspective, I’m happy to take them literally although with the recognition that the choice to do so is a practical one and one of moral sentiment (it feels right) not because I have any empirical evidence.
We choose the narrative we will believe in and choose the people who are speaking the narrative to follow, but no one knows what really happened. At the end of the day, I choose to live in uncertainty. I find grace there for some reason I don’t understand.
But for me, that doesn’t extend so much to the older stories/myths/narratives of the old testament. I don’t see it as an all-or-nothing choice. I guess I don’t understand what bad thing happens if we admit that the Tower of Babel likely never existed or that the human race came from three (or was it seven, I can’t remember) women/families/bloodlines out of Africa 200,000 years ago. The stories themselves still have teach power.
Through my eyes (and my own life experience) it has been such a relief to my reasoning self – and perhaps to my soul – to finally reach the conclusion the the B of M is not a historical, litural document. But rather, I consider it to be a faith based allegory; which can teach lessons and be uplifting at times. Honestly, I receive the same “lifting of spirit by reading “The Lord of the Rings” and hearing about the sacrifices made by Frodo, Sam, Aragorn and others. I kinda/sorta pity the church leader who still attemps to declare from the pulpit that the B of M is “true and the most correct book on earth”. In my mind, scientific fact cannot support (in any way) this kind of statement.
I look at it this way. What difference does it make if they are literal, figurative, or some combination of both. It is always about what we are to learn from it. I know that a lot of people depend on these events being real, but if there is no proof, then you are relying on faith alone. So I worry more about what the lesson is, not the literalness of it.
The Biblical event which came to mind for me comes from First Nephi 11:33, where Nephi sees Christ not only die, but sees him crucified. Literal? Figurative? Does it matter?
I was born and raised LDS in the mid 70s to mid 90s. There was no mistaking my parents, local, and general leaders wanted me to hold the Book of Mormon as literal and historical, and the most correct book on Earth. Today, I regard the Book of Mormon as a work of early 19th Century American Literature.
Does a believing Mormon have to take the book literally? I suppose it comes down to what they want to get out of it, and how the text relates to their notions of salvation and exaltation. But in the LDS Church I experienced as a youth, and as I and my companions preached it in the mission field, metaphorical reading was simply incorrect and even spiritually risky.
However, if a believing reader takes a non-literal approach, it’s possible that the Biblical references could remain significant. The OP’s examples are all Old Testament, and three out of four are from Genesis. They all highlight iconic and miraculous events. That says something. To me, it says, read the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price next.
Jeff – Yes, that goes right along with how I see it. It kind of doesn’t matter and the goal is not to pull ‘Truth’ out of stories that may themselves not be entirely truthful, but rather see how individuals are changed as they study the stories. Some of that journey is about figuring out what stories are true and which are not, but the answer is less important that the impact of the journey, especially as there are no 100% answers.
Eli — I’m very curious about your statement:
> Interesting that the Tower of Babel has been brought up so much. I thought the Book of Mormon itself kind of implied the dividing of languages was a gradual process, although I guess it would still be pretty fast by modern linguistic standards.
(Not sure if that’s the right way to make a block-quote formatted comment … I think last time it didn’t work properly.) Where in the Book of Mormon is this implied? It sounds quite familiar but I can’t think of any passages that would actually relate.
jamp,
Ether 1:34-37 was basically what I was referring to. Jared asked his brother to ask the Lord not to confound their language, as well as the language of their friends. This implies that it’s already started happening to others, but has not yet happened to them. I guess that doesn’t necessarily imply that the confounding of the individual speaker wasn’t instantaneous , but it does imply that the entire population did not change all at once. For me personally, after reading it as a gradual (a relative word in this case) change throughout the population, it doesn’t seem like a stretch to believe it was gradual in other aspects as well. It was obviously an observable phenomenon to Jared and his brother, but I think it’s very possible their eyes and ears (physical and spiritual) were more open to things the general population could have easily missed and been unaware of.
Many have already pointed out further complications that domino from literalism. I would like to add a few more.
The Mormon Adan was in a Missouri garden of Eden and needs a world wide flood to float him into the middle east. The tower of Babel is only a short time after the flood and a short time before the Jaredites arrive somewhere in America, so there is no time for a large population to develop in America into which all those middle east genes to get diluted out .The literal gathering of Israel is not possible since there are no known large populations of the lost tribes anywhere on earth, they are lost as in wiped out as a group with an identity.
Joseph of Egypt married an Egyptian woman. But the Egyptians were descended from Ham and were not to have the Priesthood in their lineage. All those like me with patriarchial blessings declaring them literal descendants of Ephraim son of Joseph are ineligible to hold the Priesthood before 1978, That would include Joseph Smith and many of the early church founding fathers.
The beat goes on.
Would it not be simpler and most likely correct to recognize that the works we call “the scriptures” are a mixture of literary genres? That is obviously true of the Old Testament. Can God and inspired authors speak to humans through a variety of genres?
Do all scriptural forms fit conveniently into the fiction (poetry) and non-fiction (history) categories? Or do we see more of a mixture (historical fiction, or nonfictional works not strictly history) in many books of scripture?