A toppled tower

I'm not sure how long I believed in the literal existence of the Tower of Babel and all its linguistic consequences. I'm pretty sure I believed in it as a little kid, probably didn't believe in it as teen (because who's stupid enough to try to find God living in the sky when we all know he's near Kolob?), tried really hard to regain belief in it as a missionary, and gave up entirely after taking a few linguistics courses and an Old Testament one at BYU post-mission.

The story of the Tower is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it must have been quite an undertaking to intimidate God enough that he felt he had to stop construction (but not destroy the tower), and yet there is no solid archeological evidence for it. Secondly, it seems this story has more to do with Mesopotamian myth designed to explain where languages come from and teach us not to challenge God. And most importantly, we know damn well that the languages of the world definitely did not all spring into existence circa 2300 BC. The very idea is simply ludicrous.

Even without knowing the first thing about historical linguistics you can see that the oldest texts we've found include more than one language pre-2300 BC.

This is all very bad fucking news for Mormons. Why? Because The Book of Mormon requires a literal belief in the Tower of Babel, that's why. Read for yourself...

the Title Page

 the Introduction

and the story in Ether.

"Dear Heavenly Father, I know this story isn't true, 

but please tell me it's True. Thanks. Amen."

Predictably - because The Book of Mormon must be understood as a literal history - the LDS Church still insists on a literal understanding of the Tower of Babel story. It's totally moronic, but somehow we find a way to doubt. There has to be an explanation. Heavenly Father will explain everything after we've proven ourselves. We'd better keep doubting this doubt.

Follow the prophet

PROPHETS ARE WONDERFUL! FOLLOW THAT SHIT! WOOT WOOT!

Words of the prophets

One day I asked my brother if he knew why one of our siblings had left the Church. I couldn't understand how anyone could give up something as eternally important as God's "living church" "guided" by prophets and apostles. My brother wasn't exactly sure how it all came about but he recalled a few complaints about some things the early modern-day prophets had said and done. Like what? What could the prophets have possibly said or done to turn someone off the Church?

My brother responded rather non-nonchalantly about how Brigham Young had ordered the conversion or killing of some Utes at some point in time. I couldn't believe my brother could say that to me without a little more evident concern. It sounded a lot like the conversion method of the Spanish conquistadors, and I never thought much of their religious militancy. Did Brigham Young really view killing uninterested and uncooperative Native Americans as an acceptable policy? (The answer is yes.)

Of course there are number of other comments from the prophets that should give just about anyone pause. I already knew the Journal of Discourses was notorious for crazy shit prophets and apostles said in General Conference. I think everyone's favorite has to be Joseph's revelation of Quakers on the Moon followed by Brigham's declaration that the Sun has its own human inhabitants.

So how much of this kind of ridiculousness is acceptable from God's one true church? How can you maintain a belief in the prophetic-relevatory system when it produces so much utter trash? Are we expected to ignore all this stuff? Forgive the prophets for being mere mortals? Where do we draw the line between inspired word and lunacy? Do we take the prophets at their word or do we go with our gut? How long should we sustain someone or something (the Church in this case) when so much of what we get from that person or thing is not making us better, kinder, smarter people?