A supplementary podcast to this letter can be read here.
The CES Letter lists “events/claims that science has discredited” including the Tower of Babel, a global flood 4,500 years ago, and Noah’s Ark being the origin of all modern human and animal life. It frames these as Church doctrines that have been falsified by the findings of modern science, leading to the conclusion that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not true. I will share some personal thoughts on this critique based on my experience as a Latter-day Saint and a scholar of the Old Testament.
To set the stage, we should be clear that the various branches of modern science, as well as academic fields like history, archaeology, and anthropology, are all pretty much united in concluding that the evidence speaks against a literal reading of much of Genesis 1–11. There’s widespread agreement among scientists, for example, that the earth is much, much more than 6,000 years old and that a global flood did not cover every landmass. Linguists generally concur, too, that the development of human languages is too complex to trace back to a relatively recent single origin(1). Whether you agree with all that or not, and for better or for worse, it is the current scientific consensus. What may be less well known is that there are believing Bible scholars, including Latter-day Saint scholars in good standing, who share these views.
The CES Letter approaches this simplistically, reasoning that unless Genesis 1–11 is literally true, the gospel of Jesus Christ is not true. But this approach is not well informed about biblical studies or the other fields that bear on these important questions and concerns. The CES Letter assumes that the way to read Genesis is black and white, all or nothing, literally true or false, and therefore can be proven or disproven based on modern science. Those ways of thinking would be foreign to the ancient author(s) of Genesis and do not consider how believing scholars read these ancient texts in light of their modern faith.
Now, if you’re the kind of person who is comfortable disagreeing with scientists (perhaps because you have serious concerns about their secular assumptions and approaches), there’s a good chance you aren’t bothered by the CES Letter’s dismissal of Noah’s flood. On the other hand, if you are more inclined to accept scientific consensus as fairly authoritative, you may be struggling to reconcile that with Genesis 1–11, as well as with statements from Church leaders who have viewed those chapters as literal history(2). Since the first group isn’t as troubled by the scientific consensus, this letter is addressed to my fellow seekers in the second group.
Genesis in Context
To make sense of the Old Testament we must learn to read it on its own terms. It was written by and for ancient Near Eastern peoples whose basic understandings of almost everything differed dramatically from ours. Their cosmology—their concept of the physical world—is foreign to us, and our current understanding of the universe would be foreign to them.
So a serious study of the Old Testament begins by learning from the ancient authors how they thought rather than by imposing our reasoning and assumptions on them. This often requires assistance from scholars who are deeply immersed in the literature of ancient Israel and their Near Eastern neighbors, scholars who “live” in that world long enough, through years of study, to recognize patterns in how ancient people thought. Becoming aware of this scholarship helps us identify and interrogate our modern assumptions about what the text “should” say and how it’s “supposed to” work. For example, we tend to assume that Genesis starts off with the really essential stuff (Creation! the Fall! the Flood!) and then gets less important from there. Biblical scholars think, however, that the ancient author(s) of Genesis actually designed the book with Genesis 1–11 as a prologue to the main story that begins in Genesis 12 with the origins of the house of Israel(3).
Another common assumption is that biblical cosmology is “supposed to” match how we understand the universe (the earth is a sphere, it moves around the sun, etc.). The fact is that the Old Testament consistently depicts something else entirely: a flat earth placed inside a giant air bubble surrounded by a universe of chaotic water that is held back by the land beneath us and a solid dome set above us. The sun, meanwhile, rotates around inside the dome (called “the firmament” in the King James Version)(4). This cosmology is at play in the narration of Noah’s flood, where the water doesn’t come from simple rain (as we tend to picture it)—the flood results from the chaos waters seeping in from both above and below the giant air bubble(5). The assumption that everything in these stories “should” match modern science can lead defenders of the Bible to either dismiss science or reinterpret the Bible to make sure everything “fits,”(6) and it can lead critics of the Bible to claim that the Bible failed to “get it right” and is therefore worthless.
There’s another way to think about biblical cosmology, however, that doesn’t require either of these reactions because it doesn’t assume that biblical descriptions and modern science should match up. The Lord described an important principle of revelation in His preface to the Doctrine and Covenants: “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). In other words, when God speaks, He modulates His message to accommodate for our mortal weakness and the limitations of human language and culture. This is akin to parents teaching toddlers in ways that are not technically accurate or complete but that are adapted to their capacities, and that lead them to be able to accommodate more truth as they grow, or as they “come to understanding.” If God didn’t communicate like this, He would not be understood. An article on the Church website explains that “revelation comes line upon line” and that “God speaks to us according to our understanding.” It continues:
All human beings are shaped by culture: the beliefs, customs, languages, and values we share. Cultures vary greatly from place to place and over time. God’s willingness to deliver revelation that speaks to us within our cultures and according to our understanding is a beautiful truth of the Restoration. Remembering this can help us approach the scriptures and the words of past prophets with humility. God spoke to the ancient Israelites according to their ancient near-Eastern understanding. He spoke to Joseph Smith using symbols and language from his 1800s American culture. And God communicates to us today according to our own limited capacity in ways we can understand.(7)
I take this to mean that I should expect differences in how God explains Himself across time and across cultures. As I understand it, Genesis 1 was meant to communicate some very important and very beautiful truths centering on who God is, who we are, and what is our relationship to Him(8). God could communicate those truths using the Israelites’ existing ancient near Eastern cosmology as a vehicle, and doing so made those truths a lot more understandable than if He had tried to shoehorn in a modern cosmology that would have been completely incomprehensible to them(9). Describing the Flood using their existing view of the cosmos similarly avoided causing them a great deal of confusion(10). I suppose God could have corrected their cosmology if He had thought it was important, but it doesn’t seem like He thought that was a priority.
To be clear, none of this means that God didn’t actually Create the world or that Noah and the Flood didn’t really happen. Noah, for example, is described as a historical figure in several revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, so I accept that he really lived and experienced a flood, whatever that looked like(11). But the ancient vocabulary and ancient cosmological frameworks that are used in Genesis to tell the stories of the Creation and the Flood were designed to make those events meaningful and comprehensible to their original ancient audiences, so those narrations are not equipped to transpose some of that information into our modern frameworks. For instance, because Genesis 7 pictures the earth so differently than I picture the earth, I can’t easily use Genesis 7 to answer my questions about how much of the earth was flooded.
Personally, this occasional limitation in ancient scripture doesn’t bother me. The Lord has instructed us to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118), and combining the “how” of science with the “why” of scripture is one way of doing that.
Modern Teachings about the Bible
Even if we get comfortable with the idea that God revealed biblical scripture in a way that made sense to ancient people, we may still have questions about similar ideas being taught in a latter-day setting. The book of Ether, for example, opens with the confounding of languages that occurred at the great tower from Genesis 11 (Ether 1:33)(12). It also refers to the ark of Noah (Ether 6:7) and alludes to the Flood (Ether 13:2). I would point out that just because the book of Ether refers to known biblical stories, that does not necessarily mean it endorses every aspect of those stories as told in the Bible. And even if its author, Moroni, did understand those stories to have occurred exactly as told in Genesis, that still would not create a theological problem: if we allow that God didn’t believe it necessary to update every ancient framework or to correct every mistaken notion for the biblical authors, there’s no reason to think He wasn’t being just as patient with Book of Mormon authors as well. Moroni himself told us that if we find “faults” in the Book of Mormon, we should classify those as “the mistakes of men” without giving up on “the things of God” that permeate the record (Book of Mormon title page).
What about when leaders from Church history have repeated ideas from Genesis that science doesn’t support? You can find various examples if you dig around. Joseph Fielding Smith thought the earth is only 6,000 years old(13). Mark E. Petersen defended the Flood as a global event(14). Bruce R. McConkie accepted the position that all modern languages descend from what happened at Babel(15). Maybe they were right and maybe they were wrong, but even if you believe those ideas are wrong, it does not follow that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is false. Neither the scriptures nor Church leaders, past or present, have ever said that being called of God means someone is infallible(16). “Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son,” President Jeffrey R. Holland taught, “imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.(17)” Good, honest, inspired people have been making human errors in judgment for as long as there have been humans, and this has never destroyed God’s work. God very rarely steps in to correct minor missteps with lightning bolts; instead, He lets us work many things out for ourselves as we wrestle with complexity and receive additional light and truth(18).
That’s why I’m personally comfortable being part of a church in which members and leaders sometimes believe and teach things that are wrong. I really can’t imagine it being any other way without God completely stripping away our agency. And in the end, these mortal missteps do not keep the Church from accomplishing what Christ established it to do. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf explained that “there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes,” but he also testified that “this is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.(19)” I have a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are called by God. When I wrestle with the complexities surrounding fallible leaders, that testimony from the Spirit is the benchmark that guides my discipleship.
Conclusion
Until that “perfect day” when we understand all things in the full brightness of God’s light (Doctrine and Covenants 50:24), there will always be some limitations reconciling human knowledge with scriptural and prophetic teachings. There may be some things that we come to see as non-literal or non-historical as we better understand the ancient context in which they were given and as we gather more data in the present. But even as we employ that interpretation in some cases, we should be sure we aren’t making current scientific acceptance the bar that every doctrine has to clear. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, physical resurrection from the dead, revelation, God’s power to heal, the appearance of angels—these and other core beliefs are presently beyond scientific explanation, but disciples of Jesus Christ testify of them in the past, experience them in the present, and hope for them in the future. The Book of Mormon teaches that, despite how much we may assume that we’ll feel more settled if only we could get more certain knowledge, the real key to claiming the joyful fruits of the gospel is not more knowledge. It is more faith(20).
Sincerely,
Dr. Joshua M. Sears
The idea that all languages go back to what happened at the Tower of Babel is a traditional interpretation of Genesis 11, but we should note that the biblical text itself does not necessarily claim that these events affected all people all over the world. Genesis 11 does refer to “the whole earth” and “all the earth” in the King James translation (vv. 1, 4, 8, 9), but the Hebrew term ’erets usually just means “land,” as in “the land of Egypt” or “the land of Israel.” There’s also nothing in the text requiring that the group mentioned in Genesis 11:2 constitute all humans everywhere.
On the intersection of religion and modern science, see Jamie L. Jensen and Seth M. Bybee, Let’s Talk About Science and Religion (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023).
See Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, 3 vols. (New York: Norton, 2019), 1:6–9.
For more detail on the Israelites’ cosmology, see John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009).
See Temper Longman III and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018).
One example of Bible readers trying to make the biblical and scientific data “fit” is when we propose that “day” not be interpreted as a 24-hour day but instead a period of indefinite length, potentially millions of years. However, the Hebrew term, when expressed the way Genesis 1 expresses it, always means a 24-hour day elsewhere in the Old Testament. See Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 86–91. In the story of the Flood, one common way of making Genesis and science “fit” is to propose that “earth” not be interpreted as the whole planet but instead a smaller region, a “land.” While the Hebrew term can be read this way (see note 1), this still doesn’t solve the bigger issue of the Flood narrative assuming that the earth is surrounded on all sides by a universe of water that is flooding into the air bubble we live in.
“Recognize That Revelation Is a Process,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/seeking-answers-test/s05-recognize-revelation.
Biblical scholars have observed that while people today tend to be interested in the material origins of Creation, the Israelites were more focused on the functional aspects of Creation, meaning they were less interested in where “stuff” came from than how God ordered that stuff to bless humanity. John Walton compares this to the difference between describing the material origins of a house (what lumber was used, how the plumbing was installed, what style of roofing was incorporated) vs describing how that house has been turned into a home (what each room is used for, how the parents nurture their children there, what memories of family togetherness are created). See his interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7BbdUpf1KE&t=1s.
See Joshua M. Sears, “From Biology Major to Religion Professor: Personal Reflections on Evolution,” BYU Studies 63.1 (2024): 71–94, https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/from-biology-major-to-religion-professor/, particularly “Understanding What Genesis Is (and Is Not) Doing” on pp. 78–87. I also discuss the cosmology of Genesis 1 in a two-part episode of the podcast Follow Him, available at https://youtu.be/VqigA9clNSs and https://youtu.be/oFC8w124HE4, with a transcript available at https://followhim.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Genesis-1-3-Moses-2-3-Abraham-4-5-Dr.-Joshua-Sears-followHIM-Podcast-ENGLISH.pdf.
On some of the doctrinal lessons from the Flood narrative, see Aaron P. Schade, “The Rainbow as a Token in Genesis: Covenants and Promises in the Flood Story,” in From Creation to Sinai: The Old Testament through the Lens of the Restoration, ed. Daniel L. Belnap and Aaron P. Schade (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 115–61, https://rsc.byu.edu/creation-sinai/rainbow-token-genesis.
See Doctrine and Covenants 84:14–15; 107:52; 133:54; 138:41.
For an excellent analysis of the narrative of the great tower, see George A. Pierce and Krystal V. L. Pierce, “The Tower of Babel, the Jaredites, and the Nature of God,” in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick, Book of Mormon Academy (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022), 81–105, https://rsc.byu.edu/they-shall-grow-together/tower-babel-jaredites-nature-god.
See Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 460–66; and Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957–1966), 5:112–17.
See Mark E. Petersen, Noah and the Flood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1982). One commonly repeated justification for a global flood is the idea that this immersion functioned as the baptism of the earth. On the history of this idea, which was initially taken from nineteenth-century Protestants, see Paul Y. Hoskisson and Stephen O. Smoot, “Was Noah’s Flood the Baptism of the Earth?,” in Let Us Reason Together: Essays in Honor of the Life’s Work of Robert L. Millet, ed. J. Spencer Fluhman and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016), 163–88, https://rsc.byu.edu/let-us-reason-together/was-noahs-flood-baptism-earth.
See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 430.
See the discussions in Terryl Givens and Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 59–82; Patrick Q. Mason, Planted: Belief and Belonging in an Age of Doubt, Living Faith (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 99–116; Robert L. Millet, Whatever Happened to Faith? (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 59–62, 65–72; Anthony Sweat, Seekers Wanted: The Skills You Need for the Faith You Want (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 115–33; David B. Ostler, Bridges: Ministering to Those Who Question (Salt Lake City: Kofford, 2019), 53–54; S. Michael Wilcox, Holding On: Impulses to Leave and Strategies to Stay (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 53–63; W. Paul Reeve, Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023), 120–26; and Sheri Dew, Prophets See Around Corners (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023), 28–41.
Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Lord, I Believe,’” April 2013 general conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe.
See J. Devn Cornish, “What Do We Mean When We Say the Church Is True?,” Liahona, June 2024, 16–21, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/06/06-what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-the-church-is-true.
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” October 2013 general conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us.
See Joseph M. Spencer, “Is Not This Real?,” BYU Studies Quarterly 58.2 (2019): 1–18, https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/is-not-this-real/.
Biography:
Joshua Sears grew up in Southern California and served in the Chile Osorno Mission. He received a BA in ancient Near Eastern studies from BYU, where he taught at the Missionary Training Center and volunteered as an EMT. He received an MA from The Ohio State University and a PhD in Hebrew Bible at The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include Israelite prophecy, marriage and families in the ancient world, and the publication history of Latter-day Saint scripture. He has presented at regional and national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature, BYU Education Week, the Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and the Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. His wife, Alice, is from Hong Kong and plays in Bells at Temple Square; they live in Lindon, Utah, with their five children.
Fair Use Notice:
The CES Letters may make use of copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright holder. This constitutes a “fair use” and any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is offered publicly and without profit, to the public uses or the internet for comment and nonprofit educational and informational purposes. Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. In such cases, fair use is permitted.
No copyright(s) is/are claimed.
The content is broadcasted for study, research, and educational purposes.
The broadcaster gains no profit from broadcasted content. This falls under “Fair Use” guidelines: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html.
Note:
The CES Letters is not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The opinions expressed represent the views of the author alone.
Comments