Which 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.

Though I wouldn’t typically read this sentence with my “does-this-verse-accurately-depict-a-historical-event” detector on, having turned that detector on, I would say that I wouldn’t expect that the verse is historically accurate (given my view on the nature of God and my assumptions about the derivations of different human languages).
However, note that this sentence may be historically accurate from the perspective of someone who views reality and the way events have occurred as being caused by God. For that reader, verse 33 could be another way of restating this assertion:

Jared and his family migrated here after humans dispersed into multiple geographic locations and developed different languages.

I have also seen the flood story taught and discussed both ways. In fact I myself as a TBM am agnostic about the flood story. Church courts are not going to be called cause Sister Smith thinks the Noah story is a myth and openly says so. Come on now lets be more charitable.

I had alread read the Sunstone magazine to which you referred before I found this website and found it very enlightening and interesting. I would have been more impressed and encouraged by it, though, if it had appeared in the Church’s Official magazine, The Ensign, or at least acknowledged and endorsed by it.

I can understand your wondering how a non-literal approach to the Noah’s flood would be received in a current Gospel Doctrine class. While each ward is different, let me add to your database on that issue that I have been in many classes (in several different wards) where either the teacher or a class member raised the possibility of the Flood as myth or expressly taught it that way. In a couple of occasions (not all) some class members expressed discomfort with that interpretation and encouraged a more literal approach. But, there was never any hint that anyone might have felt this was an issue for which a “court” was remotely relevant. See BYU professor Duane Jefferies article, “Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship And Mormon Traditions” for further data points. The article in pdf format is at http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/134/134-27-45.pdf.

Besides, I said initially that the fact that the BoM accepts the literal historicity of Noah’s Flood and The Tower of Babel was not the only reason I find it impossible to take the BoM seriously, though it remains a major one.

You agreed that there may be GAs that wouldn’t like your views about mythos and scripture but that you know a few who would accept such a view. If so, doesn’t this lack of unanimity among GAs concerning doctrinal matters itself call into question the reliability of claims of divine inspiration? Or do you deny that these are truly doctrinal matters? Do you think that a Sunday School Gospel Doctrine teacher who expressed such views in class or who acknowledged that the story of Noah’s Flood should not be taken literally would not be dismissed and called before a Church court and tried and excommunicated for preaching false doctrine?