Ether, Snakes And Drought

[Olavarria]

Ether 9: 30, 31

30) And it came to pass that there began to be a great dearth upon the land, and the inhabitants began to be destroyed exceedingly fast because of the dearth, for there was no rain upon the face of the earth.

31) And there came forth poisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla.

Thought you all might find this interesting in light of the BoM.

http://www.aces.edu/department/extcomm/npa...ives/003045.php

[consiglieri]

That is interesting, Her Amun.

In other words, the snakes may not have magically appeared as an additional God-given curse to the drought, but became more voracious and seemingly plentiful due to the drought itself.

Nice connection.

Thanks for sharing!

--Consiglieri

[Olavarria]

I think that the BoM explains the why of the droughts and snakes whereas this article can help explain the how. Kinda of like Mexican volcanoes and the 3 Nephi cruxifiction catastrophy.

[cdowis]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Three_Bi...Snakes_999.html

[Uncertain]

Ether 9: 30, 31

30) And it came to pass that there began to be a great dearth upon the land, and the inhabitants began to be destroyed exceedingly fast because of the dearth, for there was no rain upon the face of the earth.

31) And there came forth poisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla.

Thought you all might find this interesting in light of the BoM.

http://www.aces.edu/department/extcomm/npa...ives/003045.php

Hi Her Amun,

Personally I find this particular apologetic unconvincing, Ether 9:30-33 reads:

"30 And it came to pass that there began to be a great dearth upon the land, and the inhabitants began to be destroyed exceedingly fast because of the dearth, for there was no rain upon the face of the earth.

31 And there came forth poisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla.

32 And it came to pass that there were many of them which did perish by the way; nevertheless, there were some which fled into the land southward.

33 And it came to pass that the Lord did cause the serpents that they should pursue them no more, but that they should hedge up the way that the people could not pass, that whoso should attempt to pass might fall by the poisonous serpents."

The drought could certainly account for the increased visibility of poisonous serpents. But it strains credibility that the snakes were sufficient to drive a large scale migration of people and animals in order to escape them. After all if you are making a purely naturalistic argument the drought did not increase the number of snakes only make them more visible. Therefore it is difficult to see how the same number of snakes that existed before the drought that did not lead to massive death and migration. Was somehow capable of causing whole scale fleeing of animals and people after the drought. Consider the examples given by both you and cdowis. Did the increased visibility of snakes cause wide scale fleeing of people and animals from the Southwest or Australia? Did the serpents hedge up the way such that the Southwest can no longer be occupied?

I think your best bet is to either view the whole incident as a supernatural miracle. Or reinterpret the account such that the migration of people and animals is due to some other cause maybe the drought for example. And the author incorrectly attributed the presence of snakes as the primary cause. Of course you still have to deal with the snakes hedging up the way such that formerly inhabitable land can no longer be occupied by large animals or humans. Personally I think the best option is simply view it as miracle that can not currently be explained by science similar to many others recorded in scripture.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Olavarria]

Hey, whats up

Personally I find this particular apologetic unconvincing

I'm not really going for any kind of apologetic here. I'm not trying to defend Ether's snakes anymore than Exodus's snakes. Niether need defense. The BoM explains the why of the droughts and snakes whereas this article can help explain the how.

I think your best bet is to either view the whole incident as a supernatural miracle. Or reinterpret the account such that the migration of people and animals is due to some other cause maybe the drought for example.

Perhaps we can to both. I don't think it is an "either, or" but possibly "both,and". Droughts making snakes more visible is probably only 1 part of a larger picture of the "how". Was this a supernormal occurence? Yes, God's hand was in it.

[Uncertain]

Hey, whats up

I'm not really going for any kind of apologetic here. I'm not trying to defend Ether's snakes anymore than Exodus's snakes. Niether need defense. The BoM explains the why of the droughts and snakes whereas this article can help explain the how.

I am not sure I follow. My understanding of your post was that you were attempting to show the account in Ether makes perfect sense using a naturalistic based argument. I was pointing out it does not. If you were not trying to make this argument then we have no quarrel. If your point was simply to show that the BOM associates drought with snakes and this is a valid association then I agree with you. I am not sure this association outweighs the more unbelievable aspects of this account.

Perhaps we can to both. I don't think it is an "either, or" but possibly "both,and". Droughts making snakes more visible is probably only 1 part of a larger picture.

Certainly as mentioned I personally think somewhere along the line you are going to have to invoke the supernatural to explain this account which is perfectly fine.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Avatar4321]

Hi Her Amun,

Personally I find this particular apologetic unconvincing, Ether 9:30-33 reads:

I can't say im particularly surprised. God could appear with Jesus Christ and people wouldnt believe it.

Now would anyone like to tell me how a farm boy in NY would accurately connect droughts with snakes appearing? Or is this another coincidence that we are supposed to ignore?

At what point do these facts stop being amazing coincidences and start convincing people?

[Uncertain]

I can't say im particularly surprised. God could appear with Jesus Christ and people wouldnt believe it.

Hi Avatar4321,

I did not flippantly dismiss Her Amun's post. I provided a reasoned argument why I found it unconvincing. If you have any comments concerning why my argument is flawed I would love to hear them. Sometimes people find an argument unconvincing because it really is flawed. (I am not necessarily including Her Amun's post in this category).

Now would anyone like to tell me how a farm boy in NY would accurately connect droughts with snakes appearing? Or is this another coincidence that we are supposed to ignore?

At what point do these facts stop being amazing coincidences and start convincing people?

Well herein lies the problem. Does the BOM correctly connect droughts and snakes absolutely. However there is much in the account that does not fit in the drought-snake scenario therefore this weakens the purported connection. For example the BOM in some instances seems to describe a democratic style of government. This is similar to 19th century systems of government. And hence could be used as evidence for modern origins. However the BOM's descriptions of democracy differs in many regards from how democracy is practiced today. The differences weaken the evidentiary strength of the parallel such that the similarities can probably be dismissed as coincidence. When evaluating how strong an "amazing-coincidence" is we must consider differences as well as similarities. The snake account in the BOM differs in many striking ways from from how snakes behavior in a drought therefore yes this does significantly reduce the evidentiary strength of the purported parallel.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[cdowis]

The drought could certainly account for the increased visibility of poisonous serpents. But it strains credibility that the snakes were sufficient to drive a large scale migration of people and animals in order to escape them. After all if you are making a purely naturalistic argument the drought did not increase the number of snakes only make them more visible.

Did you read my link?

"At least five people including a child have been bitten by deadly snakes this week as a ***relentless drought draws thousands** of slithering menaces **out of the Australian bush**, officials said Thursday. "

They are leaving their normal haunts, and going into habitable areas. Not just "visible" but competing with men and animals for space and water.

Read the article and tell us how this is a "supernatural" happening.

Ether tells us that snakes were inhabiting populated areas which forced the population to move because of the danger to BOTH men and animals. You may not believe this is possible, but it does indicate that this is more evidence for a relatively small physical area for the BOM rather than the entire western hemisphere. Towns and farms had to be abandoned, not an entire continent.

That is feasible for me.

[Uncertain]

Did you read my link?

"At least five people including a child have been bitten by deadly snakes this week as a ***relentless drought draws thousands** of slithering menaces **out of the Australian bush**, officials said Thursday. "

Hi cdowis,

I did indeed read the article. Clearly you are seeing something in the article I am not.

They are leaving their normal haunts, and going into habitable areas. Not just "visible" but competing with men and animals for space and water.

Read the article and tell us how this is a "supernatural" happening.

Ether tells us that snakes were inhabiting populated areas which forced the population to move because of the danger to BOTH men and animals. You may not believe this is possible, but it does indicate that this is more evidence for a relatively small physical area for the BOM rather than the entire western hemisphere. Towns and farms had to be abandoned, not an entire continent.

That is feasible for me.

Were towns and farms abandoned in Australia due to increased encounters with snakes? Were there large scale movements of flocks and people due to the snakes? Australia is big into sheep is there any hint in this article of altered patterns of sheep movements because of the snakes? Did the snakes hedge up the way such that any Australian who tried to pass would fall due to the poisonous serpents? How about the American southwest? Do we observe any of the above due to snake-people encounters becoming more frequent due to drought? Frankly the scale of what is described in the Australian article does not come anywhere close to what is described in Ether.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Cold Steel]

The drought could certainly account for the increased visibility of poisonous serpents, but it strains credibility that the snakes were sufficient to drive a large scale migration of people and animals in order to escape them.

I think this is a mere figure of speech. Obviously we get this image of animals stampeding north and south with angry snakes chasing them by the way it's worded, but what it's saying (and how I've always interpreted it) is that the snakes were so numerous in that area that they simply couldn't survive and thus the animals, and people, tended to avoid those areas.

This is one of the things that makes the Mesoamerican model so compelling. The poisonous snakes in that part of the world are incredibly poisonous (as are the spiders), that such a thing could not happen in the Great Lakes area. There also are places where snakes co-mingle, but again, mostly in tropical environs like Florida, Mesoamerica and Australia. No animal would venture into such areas where poisonous snakes were found in large numbers.

John Lund, in his book Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon: Is This the Place? tells the interesting story of Achitometl, governor of Culhuacan, who gave this same area (southward, towards the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) to the Mexicas (or Aztecs). Why? Because he feared them and hoped that the large numbers of poisonous snakes in the area would kill them off, eliminating a potential enemy (see page 49).

Quoting from a historical source:

This was not a gracious concession but was made in the hope that the plentiful snakes there would kill off all the Aztecs. When some time afterwards, Achitometl sent emissaries to see if this had in fact happened, they found instead the Aztecs roasting and eating the snakes. (Demetrio Sodi,

The Great Cultures of Mesoamerica

, 1988, p. 161)

Since the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the very spot where many Mesoamerican advocates place the "narrow neck of land," the story is amazingly consistent.

Just by way of culture, the Mesoamericans regarded the serpent as being both good and evil, Lund notes. The good serpents had feathers, allowing them to ascend to heaven. The serpents without feathers, however, were evil, having once had them and fell from grace, forfeiting their divine power. These were cursed to forever crawl along the ground and were no longer permitted in heaven. Both Quetzalcoatl and Kukulcan were associated with the feathered serpent. (page 186) Also interesting is Jesus mixing the two when he told his disciples, "Be ye wise as serpents but harmless as doves."

In most cultures, snakes are widely feared, almost instinctively. I had a friend who spotted a rattler going into a woodpile where he was vacationing. He took the entire woodpile apart until he found it and then he killed it. "I just couldn't sleep knowing it was there," he said.

He was European and not at all used to them.