Mahonri's Watercraft

[WalkerW]

I read that earlier today, very well done. I would have said so on your blog, but couldn't find where to comment,if at all.

Thanks, Allen. If you go to the very bottom of the post, you'll see "View Comments." Click on that and you'll see what comments have been posted and be able to comment yourself.

[WalkerW]

I ask this in all seriousness. What is the distinction between the details provided in the Biblical creation or Flood "myths" and the Beowulf "myth" ?

Not sure what you mean.

[WalkerW]

I'll take a stab at the Beowulf/Creation distinction:

The Exodus, the Flood, Nephite voyage, Jaredite voyage, and so forth all contain creation imagery as found in Genesis 1-3. This fits Eliade's concept of the "eternal return." It is my view that modern temple worship continues this ancient view with its creation drama/rituals.

I'm not versed enough in Beowulf-like legends to comment, but I'm sure it is quite similar (though evolved somewhat). Beowulf seems to portray an archetypal hero rather than an event.

Edited March 5, 2012 by WalkerW

[blackstrap]

There are specific details about the Ark,size shape,wood used,etc.

There are specific details about the great hall,grundel,his lair etc.

Can it be said that such details carry no weight in judging the veracity of the main story in either case? Is it all just "decoration"?

[WalkerW]

There are specific details about the Ark,size shape,wood used,etc.

There are specific details about the great hall,grundel,his lair etc.

Can it be said that such details carry no weight in judging the veracity of the main story in either case? Is it all just "decoration"?

The type of details for the ark, tabernacle, and Solomon's temple (and, in my view, the Jaredite barges) lead scholars to believe they are contextually related. It is temple (and, consequently, creation) imagery.

[WalkerW]

I have another blog post that touches on a similar theme.

Edited March 5, 2012 by WalkerW

[zerinus]

I am not your mother.

When you have decided to remove the large chip on your shoulder, let us know, and we might have a useful discussion.

Edited March 5, 2012 by zerinus

[cdowis]

del

Edited March 5, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Mariner doesn't understand myth.

Just curious, is it possible that the early part of Ether, the journey account, is based in oral tradition. Myths tend to relate heroic events, which are missing from Ether. There was ample opportunity for threatening events with the barges, for example.

[Mariner]

Mariner doesn't understand myth.

Everything to him is literal. For him, a myth is a "fictional account" and therefore that makes the BOM "fiction"

Been there, tried that.

Oh, I understand myth alright.

I also understand blatant fraud.

And the overwhelming consensus opinion of qualified non-LDS observers who have considered the Book of Mormon, especially as it includes the Book of Ether, is that it constitutes the latter. IMHO, the responses on this thread would not cause a knowledgeable non-LDS observer to question that consensus.

[altersteve]

IMHO, the responses on this thread would not cause a knowledgeable non-LDS observer to question that consensus.

That's why causing "non-LDS observer to question that consensus" is the Holy Ghost's job.

[zerinus]

Oh, I understand myth alright.

I also understand blatant fraud.

And the overwhelming consensus opinion of qualified non-LDS observers who have considered the Book of Mormon, especially as it includes the Book of Ether, is that it constitutes the latter. IMHO, the responses on this thread would not cause a knowledgeable non-LDS observer to question that consensus.

"When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, . . . wherefore their wisdom is foolishness, and it profiteth them not." (2 Nephi 9:28.)

[WalkerW]

Just curious, is it possible that the early part of Ether, the journey account, is based in oral tradition. Myths tend to relate heroic events, which are missing from Ether. There was ample opportunity for threatening events with the barges, for example.

Adam never struck me as doing anything heroic.

[LeSellers]

Adam never struck me as doing anything heroic.

Off topic, please do not ...

However, Adam, as the Temple scene illustrates, just prior to his "partaking", made a heroic, selfless choice.

We also see him, after some 930 years, calling his )righteous) posterity together and blessing them, and prophesying to them.

And, in the face of a determined onslaught of satanic forces, he did have a large and largely righteous posterity. That alone is heroic.

Now, let us return to our regularly scheduled bickering about floor-mounted air-holes, balsa wood, and mid-journey layovers.

Lehi

[WalkerW]

Oh, I understand myth alright.

I also understand blatant fraud.

And the overwhelming consensus opinion of qualified non-LDS observers who have considered the Book of Mormon, especially as it includes the Book of Ether, is that it constitutes the latter. IMHO, the responses on this thread would not cause a knowledgeable non-LDS observer to question that consensus.

I still find the creation imagery within the Jaredite voyage to be impressive and in line with ancient patterns.

There are qualified non-LDS observers who do not share my sentiments. But the amount of qualified non-LDS observers who have actually studied the Book of Mormon thoroughly along with the scholarship that has accompanied it over the last few decades is relatively few. The same goes for qualified LDS observers. I am thinking that this will change, however, and quite soon. The amount of scholarly works on Mormon topics and history published through places like Oxford in the past few years I think is just the beginning.

While not convincing to everyone, I find articles like Val Larsen, "Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16:1 (2007) not only fascinating, but excellent evidence of antiquity.

[WalkerW]

Off topic, please do not ...

However, Adam, as the Temple scene illustrates, just prior to his "partaking", made a heroic, selfless choice.

We also see him, after some 930 years, calling his )righteous) posterity together and blessing them, and prophesying to them.

And, in the face of a determined onslaught of satanic forces, he did have a large and largely righteous posterity. That alone is heroic.

Now, let us return to our regularly scheduled bickering about floor-mounted air-holes, balsa wood, and mid-journey layovers.

Lehi

I'm talking more so about the creation myth itself, not necessarily his entire life. In LDS and some Jewish traditions, Adam was quite heroic in his choice. He was, afterall, the first High Priest. But I don't know if that would satisfy cdowis. One could say the brother of Jared's leadership up to the barges was heroic in some sense.

Nonetheless, it is not an Achilles-like myth, but a Creation-like myth.

[zerinus]

Just curious, is it possible that the early part of Ether, the journey account, is based in oral tradition. . . .

No.

[volgadon]

There are specific details about the Ark,size shape,wood used,etc.

There are specific details about the great hall,grundel,his lair etc.

Can it be said that such details carry no weight in judging the veracity of the main story in either case? Is it all just "decoration"?

Do the specific details in Beowulf echo the specific details in the Genesis account of the creation?

[mfbukowski]

Just curious, is it possible that the early part of Ether, the journey account, is based in oral tradition. Myths tend to relate heroic events, which are missing from Ether. There was ample opportunity for threatening events with the barges, for example.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I have said from the beginning that in my view it isn't literal. I still want him to tell me if light is a particle or a wave or explain string theory without using metaphors.

Of course Mariner thinks that "not literal" = "fraud".

Definitely an interesting stance. Not consistent, but interesting.

[zerinus]

Of course Mariner thinks that "not literal" = "fraud".

Is not Mariner who said that, It was Gordon B. Hinckley who said that.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, I understand myth alright.

I also understand blatant fraud.

And the overwhelming consensus opinion of qualified non-LDS observers who have considered the Book of Mormon, especially as it includes the Book of Ether, is that it constitutes the latter. IMHO, the responses on this thread would not cause a knowledgeable non-LDS observer to question that consensus.

Golly did those same guys take a vote on the Bible too? It is a well known fact that religious people always adjust their religious beliefs according to the "overwhelming consensus opinion" of non-believers.

Now THERE is a strong argument for you!

[mfbukowski]

Is not Mariner who said that, It was Gordon B. Hinckley who said that.

IF he actually said that, which I strongly doubt, he was wrong in my opinion.

I don't think that he meant that everyone who does not take certain portions of the scriptures- or all of them for that matter, and interpret them that way, are committing fraud.

That would mean that if you don't believe in a global flood, and teach it, you should be excommunicated for committing "fraud".

I really think you are mistaken about that.

Edited March 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

IF he actually said that, which I strongly doubt, he was wrong in my opinion.

I don't think that he meant that everyone who does not take certain portions of the scriptures- or all of them for that matter, and interpret them that way, are committing fraud.

That would mean that if you don't believe in a global flood, and teach it, you should be excommunicated for committing "fraud".

I really think you are mistaken about that.

The quote was given somewhere in one of these threads, I can't remember where it was. Perhaps somebody else can remember it and give a reference. I think it was in the interview he gave to the PBS documentary reporter.

Edited March 6, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

The quote was given somewhere in one of these threads, I can't remember where it was. Perhaps somebody else can remember it and give a reference. I think it was in the interview he gave to the Time Magazine.

Whatever. It doesn't matter to me- it's wrong, or out of context or something.

[zerinus]

Okay, I found it. This is the quote:

Q. Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

A. Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

Edited March 6, 2012 by zerinus