Three-days Of Darkness

[consiglieri]

Sounds similar.

Yes, it does sound similar, and thank you for the reference. Some differences present themselves, such as the lights in the homes of the children of Israel (but then, you would expect that with a bunch of Israel-Lights).

Why no lights in the Book of Mormon?

Why people being overcome by the darkness and perishing in the Book of Mormon?

I believe the Book of Mormon does attribute the destructions to the hand of God (who himself takes credit for it in a disarmingly revelatory moment), but I think it is still possible that God could be using natural means to effect his will.

Your suggestion that we just say it was a "miracle" and call it a day could strike one as resulting from a degree of discomfort at Joseph Smith coming so near the mark.

In other words, it is all "coincidence" or "found in Joseph Smith's environment" until Joseph gets too close; and then suddenly the tune becomes, "Why not just say it was a miracle?"

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scottie]

Cute, but completely avoiding the point. A child today is inundated with WWII references. A kid in upstate New York in 1829 doesn't have many geology references.

Sorry, but you have no idea how many references either of these 2 were "inundated" with. It is possible that the child heard very little about WWII and possible that JS heard a lot about volcanoes.

[Aquilifer]

Sorry, but you have no idea how many references either of these 2 were "inundated" with. It is possible that the child heard very little about WWII and possible that JS heard a lot about volcanoes.

No, I don't know the level of inundation, but if you want to argue that JS was more likely to have known about the effects of a Plinian eruption (without actually identifying what happened as a volcanic eruption, mind you) than a child in the last half of the 20th century would know about WWII references, knock yourself out.

[Scottie]

No, I don't know the level of inundation, but if you want to argue that JS was more likely to have known about the effects of a Plinian eruption (without actually identifying what happened as a volcanic eruption, mind you) than a child in the last half of the 20th century would know about WWII references, knock yourself out.

What, exactly, would he have to know??

1. Volcanoes create large amounts of ash that block out the sun.

2. Sometimes the effects of the CO2 make it so you can't light fires.

I'm not sure it's really that hard to believe he might have heard this somewhere. In fact, I'd say moreso than a child hearing minute details about the life of a soldier in WWII.

[emeliza]

What, exactly, would he have to know??

1. Volcanoes create large amounts of ash that block out the sun.

2. Sometimes the effects of the CO2 make it so you can't light fires.

I'm not sure it's really that hard to believe he might have heard this somewhere. In fact, I'd say moreso than a child hearing minute details about the life of a soldier in WWII.

Why would he even need to know that? The BoM doesn't mention it being a volcano anyway. That is just an idea of something it could have been. I don't believe the thought that it was a possible volcanic reaction came about until recently did it?

[Scottie]

Why would he even need to know that? The BoM doesn't mention it being a volcano anyway. That is just an idea of something it could have been. I don't believe the thought that it was a possible volcanic reaction came about until recently did it?

Yeah, I suppose you're right. This is all speculation.

[sleepyhead]

Cute, but completely avoiding the point. A child today is inundated with WWII references. A kid in upstate New York in 1829 doesn't have many geology references.

Hello aquilifer,

IN both instances there is the promoted explanation and then there are multiple secondary explanations with varying degrees of feasibility. With regards to the child remembering events in the life of another the promoted explanation which is that he was that individual in a previous life. The alternate explanations could be that the pilot had a secret diary that someone found, that the child learned all this during the preexistence, that the pilot is now a ghost and he is telling the boy all this, etc. etc. As someone who believes in reincarnation I choose to believe the promoted explanation. The promoted explanation for the book of mormon is that JS received it from an angel. There are alternate explanations with varying degrees of feasibility. He could have wrote it himself, he could have found the book, someone else could have written it for him, etc. etc. That is why I made the claim that they were similar.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, the link goes to "page cannot be found"

My error was probably copying and pasting the link directly from my previous post rather than going to the site itself and copying the link from there.

However, now that I try to do that, I get a "time out" error on the server. I assure you it worked yesterday. This is indeed frustrating.

Edit:

I tried it again and it's working fine now. Here's the link:

http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInf...amp;ProdID=1154

I'll go back and fix it in the earlier post.

[selek]

My error was probably copying and pasting the link directly from my previous post rather than going to the site itself and copying the link from there.

However, now that I try to do that, I get a "time out" error on the server. I assure you it worked yesterday. This is indeed frustrating.

I downloaded it from the original link in the post w/o any difficulty about 1800.

[Scott Lloyd]

I downloaded it from the original link in the post w/o any difficulty about 1800.

I just tried it again, and it works fine now. Apparently, the BYU Studies server was down for a while. Here, again, is the link:

http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInf...amp;ProdID=1154

I'll go back and fix it in my earlier post.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps. I'm often confused at efforts to link these sorts of things to natural events. Why bother? At some point in all of the explanations it always comes down to the Mysterious Hand of God causing it through some sort of miraculous means.

In this case (assuming the volcanic ash natural explanation is accepted) it comes with the sudden and complete disappearance of the darkness -- and therefore the alleged ash and its after-effects -- after three days.

Where do you get that there was "a sudden and complete disappearance of the darkness"?

And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen.

(3 Nephi 8:23)

To me this doesn't say complete removal of the darkness, only that it was possible to see some light after three days. There still could have been some lingering ash in the air for some time after that, even though it had started to dissipate.

[krose]

Yes, it does sound similar, and thank you for the reference. Some differences present themselves, such as the lights in the homes of the children of Israel (but then, you would expect that with a bunch of Israel-Lights).

Why no lights in the Book of Mormon?

Why people being overcome by the darkness and perishing in the Book of Mormon?

Your suggestion that we just say it was a "miracle" and call it a day could strike one as resulting from a degree of discomfort at Joseph Smith coming so near the mark.

In other words, it is all "coincidence" or "found in Joseph Smith's environment" until Joseph gets too close; and then suddenly the tune becomes, "Why not just say it was a miracle?"

No, no discomfort here, since I don't think this comes very close to any mark. About 30 years ago I would probably have reacted to your theory with something like, "Wow, that's amazing. How could he have known?" Now the reaction is a shrug and a "Not likely." Have I become jaded, or more experienced, educated and realistic? It probably depends on your bias. Certainly my current inclination is to read any BoM claim to evidence or legitimacy (and the book itself) with a great degree of skepticism.

My "just call it a miracle" reaction is one I experience any time I see someone positing a semi-natural explanation for something, such as a supernova or planet alignment to explain the "star of the east." It usually brings up more questions than it answers, and in attempting to address those questions, it eventually comes down to "God can do anything" anyway, so I don't see the point. It's not a sudden tune change for me.

What do you think?

It looks to me as if Smith was coming up with different descriptions of massive destruction (such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and cities sinking into the sea and into the earth), followed by feelings of despair (oppressive darkness and wailing). As part of that effort, he recalled the description in Egypt of a 3-day "thick" darkness that could "be felt," and embellished on it, adding the bit about how no fires could be started, to illustrate that the darkness was so oppressive.

So yes, I'd say that it is a coincidence that his description could possibly match a phenomenon that may be possible with volcanic ash. But I wouldn't call it a 'lucky' coincidence, because I don't see any advantage to the cause of a fire-proof darkness being ash. If the book actually said there was a volcano, you might have something.

[krose]

Where do you get that there was "a sudden and complete disappearance of the darkness"?

(3 Nephi 8:21)

To me this doesn't say complete removal of the darkness, only that it was possible to see some light after three days. There still could have been some lingering ash in the air for some time after that, even though it had started to dissipate.

"... and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land,..." - 10:9

I read this to imply that there was total darkness, then the darkness was gone. Did you ever think, from this text, that it might have been describing a gradual dissipation before this volcanic ash theory arose?

[Flyonthewall]

"... and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land,..." - 10:9

I read this to imply that there was total darkness, then the darkness was gone. Did you ever think, from this text, that it might have been describing a gradual dissipation before this volcanic ash theory arose?

I have always read it as a gradual dispersement...like flood waters receding. Not an instantaneous occurance. I was not aware that this was read any other way.

[cdowis]

disperse:

"to be dispelled; be scattered out of sight; vanish: The smoke dispersed into the sky."

[Scott Lloyd]

"... and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land,..." - 10:9

I read this to imply that there was total darkness, then the darkness was gone. Did you ever think, from this text, that it might have been describing a gradual dissipation before this volcanic ash theory arose?

I hadn't really thought about it that much. But I see nothing here that compels the conclusion that the darkness was immediately gone at the end of the three days. The term "dispersed" connotes a process that took some time and may well have begun after three days and lasted over several days or weeks. Otherwise, why not use a word that communicates immediacy, such as vanished?

[krose]

I have always read it as a gradual dispersement...like flood waters receding. Not an instantaneous occurance. I was not aware that this was read any other way.

Could be. I never saw it that way. I always saw it as follows: oppressive darkness with wailing, voice from above, silence, more wailing, then the light comes back the next morning. An hour or a few hours to disperse also works (not necessarily immediate).

I never would have thought of it as anything like the kind of gradual receding that would accompany a volcanic event. I would think that in such a circumstance, the change from darker to lighter would happen so gradually, over weeks or months, that a relatively clear dark-to-light boundary (three days of "no light seen" to "darkness dispersed") would not be definable. But I could be wrong. Thank Zeus, I haven't been near enough to a volcanic eruption to know first hand.

Too bad we can't go back to the manuscript to parse the original words used, huh? ;-)

[Scott Lloyd]

Could be. I never saw it that way. I always saw it as follows: oppressive darkness with wailing, voice from above, silence, more wailing, then the light comes back the next morning. An hour or a few hours to disperse also works (not necessarily immediate).

I never would have thought of it as anything like the kind of gradual receding that would accompany a volcanic event. I would think that in such a circumstance, the change from darker to lighter would happen so gradually, over weeks or months, that a relatively clear dark-to-light boundary (three days of "no light seen" to "darkness dispersed") would not be definable. But I could be wrong. Thank Zeus, I haven't been near enough to a volcanic eruption to know first hand.

Too bad we can't go back to the manuscript to parse the original words used, huh? ;-)

I just reviewed Kowallis's article (link provided earlier). He makes the point (on page 176, or page 41 of the PDF file) that thick darkness caused by ash fall is a common characteristic of almost all eyewitness reports of volcanic activity, and that such darkness "may last for a few hours or a few days."

In fact, a witness of the Mount Saint Helens eruption reported "total darkness by day for three days within 200 miles of the volcano."

There's quite a continuum between "total darkness" and (using your words) "sudden and complete disappearance of the darkness." And dispersal can be a relative term; it doesn't have to be understood as total and absolute.

Again, I recommend downloading and reading Kowallis's piece.

[Brant Gardner]

I always saw it as follows: oppressive darkness with wailing, voice from above, silence, more wailing, then the light comes back the next morning. An hour or a few hours to disperse also works (not necessarily immediate).

And therein is part of the difficulty. Without a firsthand knowledge of volcanic events, you are free to imagine based on words alone. However, even should you have been a geologist, you have to take into account the kind of record we have.

Too bad we can't go back to the manuscript to parse the original words used, huh?[/quote\

In this case, I doubt that the original words would help parse the event at all, since we have Mormon editing an account long after it was written. Mormon has been known to "improve" certain events to more clearly delineate his overall purpose.

That process is quite normal for ancient authors. Even those closer to the event will record them in terms that fit their worldview, which embraces (and encourages) the supernatural. Therefore, we expect that an ancient document would condense "gray" into black and white, and condense timeframes to make them sharper. Therefore, I would expect a description of a dispersal to emphasize the separation (and miraculous event) rather than a perhaps more scientific relation of the same thing.

We do the text a grave disservice when we attempt to read it as a very different kind of modern text.

[cdowis]

Remember that Mormon is giving a second-hand summary of one or more accounts, so the use of "dispel" was a general term to summarize the original records. We don't have the original eyewitness accounts.

I suspect that if the light "suddenly" appeared, he would have used a stronger term than "dispel".

Just my opinion.