Jaredite Steel?

[Benjamin McGuire]

John W writes:

When did I suggest that it was verbatim? If I did, I will certainly retract that statement, as that is not my estimation of the text. As I said to Chris Smith, Moroni himself tells us that he is at the very least giving an edited version of the Jaredite story.

I'm just curious as to why Moroni would have inserted apparent smelting and "steel" into his retelling of the story. I've just never heard anyone argue that before.

I think at this point, we run into language issues.

The challenge is that Moroni is telling the story. We don't know what is on the gold plates (either set). We just have Joseph Smith's translation. And since the narrative comes from the time of Moroni, that's as far back as you can assert that the anachronism exists. So while you may not believe there is a plausible reason or need to see Moroni adding to the story, since Moroni is either using a translation or is creating a translation of an older text and then using that as a basis for his descriptions of a history, there is way, way too much Moroni in there for me to accept in any shape or form the idea that this represents an anachronism in a Jaredite record. In other words, you are making assumptions about the text that are not consistent with what the text says about itself. They may even seem logical to you, but that doesn't change the fact that they are external assumptions.

At the same time, have you considered that YOU are reading more into this language than should be considered to have been intended? How much of your own world view and your own understanding of the language of the English Book of Mormon is influencing your reading of the text in a way that might be quite foreign to the intentions of Moroni - its author?

[John Williams]

John W writes:I think at this point, we run into language issues.

The challenge is that Moroni is telling the story. We don't know what is on the gold plates (either set). We just have Joseph Smith's translation. And since the narrative comes from the time of Moroni, that's as far back as you can assert that the anachronism exists. So while you may not believe there is a plausible reason or need to see Moroni adding to the story, since Moroni is either using a translation or is creating a translation of an older text and then using that as a basis for his descriptions of a history, there is way, way too much Moroni in there for me to accept in any shape or form the idea that this represents an anachronism in a Jaredite record. In other words, you are making assumptions about the text that are not consistent with what the text says about itself. They may even seem logical to you, but that doesn't change the fact that they are external assumptions.

At the same time, have you considered that YOU are reading more into this language than should be considered to have been intended? How much of your own world view and your own understanding of the language of the English Book of Mormon is influencing your reading of the text in a way that might be quite foreign to the intentions of Moroni - its author?

Of course we read into the text. It can't be helped. And what makes matters worse is that we can never get to authorial intent, anyway.

In the end, all we have is the text itself, and this particular event strikes me as odd, given what I know about the time period of both the author and the editor/translator.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the clarification. While I doubt that the record is supposed to be so thoroughgoing a Moroni production as you're suggesting, you make some good points and I can certainly see where you're coming from. I suppose I have to concede that if one uses this argument in combination with the steel-is-actually-steeled-copper argument then you get BoM metallurgy back into the realm of plausibility again, even if some of the rationalizations along the way seem unlikely.

Best,

-Chris

[Zakuska]

John W writes:I think at this point, we run into language issues.

The challenge is that Moroni is telling the story. We don't know what is on the gold plates (either set). We just have Joseph Smith's translation. And since the narrative comes from the time of Moroni, that's as far back as you can assert that the anachronism exists. So while you may not believe there is a plausible reason or need to see Moroni adding to the story, since Moroni is either using a translation or is creating a translation of an older text and then using that as a basis for his descriptions of a history, there is way, way too much Moroni in there for me to accept in any shape or form the idea that this represents an anachronism in a Jaredite record. In other words, you are making assumptions about the text that are not consistent with what the text says about itself. They may even seem logical to you, but that doesn't change the fact that they are external assumptions.

At the same time, have you considered that YOU are reading more into this language than should be considered to have been intended? How much of your own world view and your own understanding of the language of the English Book of Mormon is influencing your reading of the text in a way that might be quite foreign to the intentions of Moroni - its author?

But Benjamin... Moroni was a Prophet of God... dontcha know... prophets of God don't make mistakes when recording innerrant scriptures.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris -

The principle is the same as certain issues with the Biblical text. There are two completely different descriptions of the boundaries of Israel (or the boundaries that Israel should have occupied had it actually conquered all of Palestine). In one, they match up quite will with the boundaries that existed when the area fell under the sway of Egypt. In the other, the boundaries match up nicely with the Babylonian political lines. In a sense both are anachronistic - but the anachronism is dealt with by dealing with the time frame in which the text was written.

For the Book of Ether (and this is more true of the Book of Ether than any other part of the Book of Mormon), the chronology of the contents are problematic in the sense that while it may be describing things that occured in the distant past, it wasn't written in the distant past, and while some of the material may be ancient material (relative to the rest of it), in order to claim that it is anachronistic, it has to be shown to be anachronistic by the standards of the time period when it was produced, and not for the time period that it alleges to describe. And while it might be nice to assert that we can determine that this piece or that piece of the text is untouched and original, without describing some formal method for doing so, it is unreasonable and unwarranted to make such assumptions.

Now, this doesn't mean that the text might be anachronistic for the time period of its alleged authorship (which may be where the discussion of copper comes in), but these are two entirely different subjects and shouldn't be lumped together. If we aren't going to take the text seriously, it doesn't really matter - and that is what it feels like John W. is doing - not treating the text as we would any other text in terms of looking at its content and its composition strategy.

While I agree that in general we cannot get to the intentions of the author, I believe that there are things within a text which can only be discussed in terms of the author's intent - like rhetorical strategies, and so we can talk about what may or may not be the author's intention in this fashion.

[Chris Smith]

Now, this doesn't mean that the text might be anachronistic for the time period of its alleged authorship (which may be where the discussion of copper comes in), but these are two entirely different subjects and shouldn't be lumped together.

My point was that, according to our current knowledge, each of these arguments only gets us halfway. While they perhaps shouldn't always be lumped together, it seems to me that if we're arguing for the plausibility of the BoM then in the final analysis they do need to be lumped together, and their respective improbabilities compounded by the lumping.

But I agree with you that it's important to treat the BoM like any other text, and I understand your anachronism principle.

[Benjamin McGuire]

My point was that, according to our current knowledge, each of these arguments only gets us halfway. While they perhaps shouldn't always be lumped together, it seems to me that if we're arguing for the plausibility of the BoM then in the final analysis they do need to be lumped together, and their respective improbabilities compounded by the lumping.

But I agree with you that it's important to treat the BoM like any other text, and I understand your anachronism principle.

And I don't agree with you that they are "halfway" arguments. That in fact the issue of whether the Jaredites metalurgical knowledge is being described here is an entirely different argument (and not one of an anachronism or not). Just as the question of whether or not the treatment of wicked kings in Ether is a Jaredite treatment or a Nephite treatment. Does that make sense? It is only our preoccupation with the historicity of the text that makes us want to see these issues bundled together, but in reality, they are not, and should not be.

[Chris Smith]

And I don't agree with you that they are "halfway" arguments. That in fact the issue of whether the Jaredites metalurgical knowledge is being described here is an entirely different argument (and not one of an anachronism or not). Just as the question of whether or not the treatment of wicked kings in Ether is a Jaredite treatment or a Nephite treatment. Does that make sense? It is only our preoccupation with the historicity of the text that makes us want to see these issues bundled together, but in reality, they are not, and should not be.

Ben,

The evidence you have provided suggests that Moroni is interpolating large sections of text into the Jaredite record, and even that he is substantially revising the record itself due to spatial or rhetorical considerations. But it doesn't demonstrate with any degree of certainty that the "molting" described in Ether was introduced into the record by Moroni. The most compelling reason, IMO, to conclude that he did so is that it is required for BoM historicity. And since there's no more evidence for Mesoamerican steel smelting in the time of Moroni than there is for the time of Ether, for your argument to even get off the ground we have to provide another "half", whether it be steeled copper or something else entirely. The only reason to suggest that steel means steeled copper, as in the case of your proposed Jaredite interpolation, would be to defend the Book of Mormon. So the way I see it, these considerations really are not independent either of each other or of the larger context of the debate over historicity. If the Book of Mormon isn't historical, then the question of whether Moroni translated or interpolated this passage is entirely moot.

Since I personally am approaching the Book of Mormon with questions of historicity in mind, I can't separate these arguments. Maybe, if you have some other goal in mind, you can. But I can't. For my purposes, it only makes sense to compound the improbabilities inherent in these two (frankly ad hoc) hypotheses, and to understand the result in the context of the larger debate over BoM historicity.

-Chris

[SolarPowered]

Benjamin,

You make some interesting points. To paraphrase and perhaps extend upon what you said, it seems likely that Moroni probably knew roughly as much about Jaredite metalworking technology as we know about Nephite metalworking technology. In other words, practically nothing at all. What we know about Nephite technology is what is written in the Book of Mormon; what Moroni knew about Jaredite technology is whatever was written on the 24 plates.

It is entirely possible that Moroni's digest version of Shule's swordmaking is at substantial variance from what a Jaredite who was an expert on the subject might have written.

For that matter, given that it appears that Jaredite metalworking faded out rather quickly, it is likely that Ether didn't know much about what Shule did, either. So Ether's record could well have been somewhat erroneous.

To address this question from a radically different direction, I have over the course of my life been involved in a number of newsworthy events. I have found that newspaper and journal reports of events that I have been a part of are universally about 50% in error. It's probably not rational to expect that those who kept the records that ended up in our scriptures were perfect, when today's journalists across-the-board have such a high error rate.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris writes:

The evidence you have provided suggests that Moroni is interpolating large sections of text into the Jaredite record, and even that he is substantially revising the record itself due to spatial or rhetorical considerations.

It doesn't suggest this. This is what the text claims to be doing.

But it doesn't demonstrate with any degree of certainty that the "molting" described in Ether was introduced into the record by Moroni. The most compelling reason, IMO, to conclude that he did so is that it is required for BoM historicity.

The problem I have with this Chris, is that despite what you said earlier, you aren't treating the Book of Mormon like any other text. The moment that you do so, this issue changes dramatically. For me, for example, the issue of BOM historicity does NOT alter the way that I read the text. I read the text in a fashion that is consistent with the way that I read all texts (and I have read a great many of them). As I pointed out, there are other issues which deal with other 'anachronisms' in the Ether material which are not so glaring or obvious (the treatment of kings is an ideal example) that are also best explained with the model of authorship which I forward, and which the text itself forwards.

And since there's no more evidence for Mesoamerican steel smelting in the time of Moroni than there is for the time of Ether, for your argument to even get off the ground we have to provide another "half", whether it be steeled copper or something else entirely.

You might notice (if you go back and read my comments) that I simply haven't addressed this point. Because, as far as reading the text goes, it is completely irrelevant. Where John W has issues isn't with the question of an anachronism, but the dating of that anachronism via the text. In fact, his entire premise for this thread was that he had found a reason to push the dating of steel back much earlier than the Nephites:

This is more problematic. John Sorenson dates the Jaredite civilization between "about 3100 B.C." and "not earlier, and not much later, than 580 B.C" (see The Years of the Jaredites).

You simply cannot assign the anachronism the date he would like to because the text doesn't support such a dating. Whether or not we then have to deal with the issue as an anchronism at a different date isn't really relevant to my position.

The only reason to suggest that steel means steeled copper, as in the case of your proposed Jaredite interpolation, would be to defend the Book of Mormon.

But I haven't made this suggestion. Others have in an entirely different discussion.

If the Book of Mormon isn't historical, then the question of whether Moroni translated or interpolated this passage is entirely moot.

This is true. But this relies as much on assumption as anything else.

Since I personally am approaching the Book of Mormon with questions of historicity in mind, I can't separate these arguments.

In not being able to separate these issues, you aren't really going to be able to work with the text either. The text was written as a history. It wasn't written with the objective in mind to answer this question of historicity (it may be assumed). So if you only look at the text with this kind of interpretational purpose in mind, you are going to misread the text over and over again.

For my purposes, it only makes sense to compound the improbabilities inherent in these two (frankly ad hoc) hypotheses, and to understand the result in the context of the larger debate over BoM historicity.

And I think that clearly you have monumental philosophical problems (perhaps insurmountable) for whatever method you undertake to read the text. You couldn't get to the historicity of the Bible in this fashion either ... since you would have to presume that when it speaks of earlier events and texts that it must be incorporating them accurately and wholesale, without change and so the anachronisms which occur within the text must be original and thus the text cannot be historical. Do you see the problem? At some point, if you want to seriously investigate the text, you have to take at face value what it says about itself.

Let me try and explain this in another way. In a sense, you are making assumptions about the historicity before you even approach the text. If the text is historical, then my issues about the Book of Ether should be taken at face value, and the question of anachronism needs to be addressed in the context of Moroni and not the Jaredites (it doesn't eliminate the anachronism, but it does put it into a temporal context). If it is not historical, then its all a moot point. My explanation of the Book of Ether doesn't contribute one way or the other to the question of historicity. But if you want to suggest that something is anachronous, then you have to address within the limitations of the text. We cannot, for example, give the same weight to talking about a steel sword from Jerusalem circa 600 BC as an anachronism as a description of a meso-American metalsmithing culture from 200 years later. The argument for the one is much weaker. Nor should we assert that references to a steel sword from Jerusalem circa 600 BC should be taken as anachronistic within a meso-American culture (since it doesn't originate there). Less emphasis then is placed on the issue of Laban's sword than on the ideas that the Nephites (and Jaredites) were engaged in smelting iron. The same principle applies here. The question of whether or not the Book of Ether acurately describes itself as a creation of Moroni's drawn in part from earlier records doesn't help answer the question of historicity. And it is not an ad hoc interpretation of the text (if we presume historicity) - because the text itself leads us to this conclusion in a rather final way. How can it be an ad hoc interpretation under these circumstances? Is there some reason to believe that Moroni was not involved at all with the production of the text (assuming that the text is a historical work)? You are so concerned with the question of historicity and the suggestion that all explanations of the text are geared towards defending that hypothesis that you lose sight of the fact that the text still needs to be interpreted and not just explained for those of us that are believers.

If you really are concerned with the question of historicity, the first step is to eliminate the problems that I bring up by moving the authorship of Ether (as I have) forward to Moroni, and then dealing with any anachronisms within that context. Anything else you do involves creating a speculative history of the sources of Moroni's record. And this is a pretty shaky ground to start from. I see you fabricating problems for the text not incorporating them into your assessment.

Ben