lostindc Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Disclaimer, I am not saying the BOM is true or false in this post. When one attempts to map the BOM what exactly is the difference compared to mapping Middle Earth in Lord of the Rings or something similar? Both books are nearly impossible to map because one is a fiction (Lord of the Rings) and the other has yet to have any locations discovered in the Americas. Without a map spot/geocode, how can one attempt to map the Book of Mormon? Why even try? It's not like we can build a shapefile focused on the geocodes surrounding the Book of Mormon because we don't know the location. No location = no different than attempting to map Middle Earth in terms of making some maps.
snowflake Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 2 hours ago, lostindc said: Disclaimer, I am not saying the BOM is true or false in this post. When one attempts to map the BOM what exactly is the difference compared to mapping Middle Earth in Lord of the Rings or something similar? Both books are nearly impossible to map because one is a fiction (Lord of the Rings) and the other has yet to have any locations discovered in the Americas. Without a map spot/geocode, how can one attempt to map the Book of Mormon? Why even try? It's not like we can build a shapefile focused on the geocodes surrounding the Book of Mormon because we don't know the location. No location = no different than attempting to map Middle Earth in terms of making some maps. You could start at the Hill Cumorah in New York? That's the one place in the BOM we know existed right?
bluebell Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, snowflake said: You could start at the Hill Cumorah in New York? That's the one place in the BOM we know existed right? Not necessarily. There are many people who believe in the idea of two different hill cumorahs, one being named after the other. Kind of like how there are two different Portlands or two different Romes. There are also people who believe that God miraculously moved the plates from the actual Hill Cumorah to a location which became known as the Hill Cumorah because it's where the plates were found. 1
smac97 Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 2 hours ago, lostindc said: Disclaimer, I am not saying the BOM is true or false in this post. When one attempts to map the BOM what exactly is the difference compared to mapping Middle Earth in Lord of the Rings or something similar? The former is alleged to reflect actual historical people and historical events in actual places somewhere in the Americas, whereas the latter is ubiquitously acknowledged as fictional and arising from the imagination of J.R.R. Tolkien. 2 hours ago, lostindc said: Both books are nearly impossible to map because one is a fiction (Lord of the Rings) and the other has yet to have any locations discovered in the Americas. Are you familiar with efforts by LDS scholars to map The Book of Mormon? To place it in a proposed geographical space? If so, what is your assessment of these efforts? If not, what is the value of having a discussion about this issue when there is so much scholarship already available about it? Shouldn't we at least review those materials first? 2 hours ago, lostindc said: Without a map spot/geocode, how can one attempt to map the Book of Mormon? Why even try? It's not like we can build a shapefile focused on the geocodes surrounding the Book of Mormon because we don't know the location. You seem to be rather absolutist in your thinking. Perhaps you could try exploring extant scholarship on this issue before jumping to the conclusion (quity prematurely, I think), that we shouldn't "even try" to study this issue. 2 hours ago, lostindc said: No location = no different than attempting to map Middle Earth in terms of making some maps. There is a world of difference. Again, I encourage you to study the extant scholarship on this issue. Thanks, -Smac 2
lostindc Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 37 minutes ago, snowflake said: You could start at the Hill Cumorah in New York? That's the one place in the BOM we know existed right? One hill or two hills? 1
Marmonboy Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 The generally accepted opinion, at least by reputable LDS scholars, is that the hill in NY was named by early members of the Church after the original hill, wherever it is located. Nobody knows how the plates got there, whether by some divine means or by Moroni hauling them up there himself post-apocalypse. So, two hills. 3
Oliver_Cowdery Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, bluebell said: Not necessarily. There are many people who believe in the idea of two different hill cumorahs, one being named after the other. Kind of like how there are two different Portlands or two different Romes. There are also people who believe that God miraculously moved the plates from the actual Hill Cumorah to a location which became known as the Hill Cumorah because it's where the plates were found. Do people really believe those explanations in their hearts? I always kind of figured people just throw those explanations as a possibility to demonstrate how the BoM story could still possibly be literally correct. Once someone accepts those explanations as a belief it really starts to feel like motived reasoning. It reminds me of the bible apologists who speculated that the City of Tyre must refer to two different islands in order to rescue their literal interpretation of one of the prophecies found in the New Testament. That kind of thing originally was proposed as a defense of belief that somehow gets transformed into something students get taught as being part of the canonized story. In my seminary experience the two Hill Cumorah thing was always presented as fact. Its wasn't until later that I figured out it was just idle speculation. Once one starts accepting speculation without a good reason then one has to consider accepting more speculation like: Laminates eating horses Laminates riding deer Steel weapons rusting away chariots without wheels carrying "horse" meat being pulled by men Copper plates Peccaries as pigs Mammoths Wooden windows being dashed to pieces Sheep herders herding deer wood and obsidian swords Non-round hunks of precious metal in various denominations used for trade which can totally not be called coins white skinned Native Americans Samuel the Laminate standing on a mound of dirt pyramids as look out towers Two hill Cumorahs henequen used for silk Fields of amaranth that are white and ready to harvest Olive Vineyards And herds of animals traveling in wooden barges Edited December 9, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery 3
lostindc Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: The former is alleged to reflect actual historical people and historical events in actual places somewhere in the Americas, whereas the latter is ubiquitously acknowledged as fictional and arising from the imagination of J.R.R. Tolkien. Are you familiar with efforts by LDS scholars to map The Book of Mormon? To place it in a proposed geographical space? If so, what is your assessment of these efforts? If not, what is the value of having a discussion about this issue when there is so much scholarship already available about it? Shouldn't we at least review those materials first? You seem to be rather absolutist in your thinking. Perhaps you could try exploring extant scholarship on this issue before jumping to the conclusion (quity prematurely, I think), that we shouldn't "even try" to study this issue. There is a world of difference. Again, I encourage you to study the extant scholarship on this issue. Thanks, -Smac The scholarship of those attempting to map the BOM is absolutely frightening. I don't think these people could tell the difference between a centerline shapefile vs an address parcel shapefile. Obviously the folks mapping the BOM have very little interest in actual geography and more interest in apologetics. I don't think you can find a legitimate non-Mormon geographer in the United States that would take the mapping of the BOM seriously. You can't map something like the BOM until you actually know it's location. No location, no coordinates, equals a map that is as reliable and useful as a map of middle earth. Until a location in the Americas from the BOM times is found, then any theory is possible.
bluebell Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Just now, Oliver_Cowdery said: Do people really believe those explanations in their hearts? I always kind of figured people just throw those explanations as a possibility to demonstrate how the BoM story could still possibly be literally correct. Once someone accepts those explanations as a belief it really starts to feel like motives reasoning. It reminds me of the bible apologist who speculated that there must be two The City of Tyre must refer to two different islands in order to rescue their literal interpretation of one of the prophecies found in the New Testament. That kind of thing appear to be a defense of belief that somehow gets transformed into something students get taught as being part of the canonized story. In seminary the two Hill Cumorah was always present as fact. Its wasn't until later that I figured out it was just idle speculation. Once one starts accepting speculation then one has to consider accepting speculation like: Laminates eating horses Laminates riding deer Steel weapons rusting away chariots without wheels carrying "horse" meat being pulled by men Copper plates Peccaries as pigs Mammoths Wooden windows being dashed to pieces Sheep herders herding deer wood and obsidian swords Non-round hunks of precious metal in various denominations used for trade which can totally not be called coins white skinned Native Americans Samuel the Laminate standing on a mound of dirt pyramids as look out towers Two hill Cumorahs henequen used for silk Fields of amaranth that are white and ready to harvest Olive Vineyards And herds of animals exiting from wooden barges The people I know sincerely believe they are valid possibilities, if that's what you are asking. 1
smac97 Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, lostindc said: The scholarship of those attempting to map the BOM is absolutely frightening. "Scholarship" about geography is "frightening?" And only that, but "absolutely" frightening? Next up for the resident Precious Snowflake Types: "Scholarship Regarding Botany and The Book of Mormon: The Night Terrors Return!" It will leaf you "absolutely frightened"! I'm trying to treat you and your inquiries seriously, but statements like yours above make that difficult. Quote I don't think these people could tell the difference between a centerline shapefile vs an address parcel shapefile. What people? To whom are you referring? To what scholarship are you referring? Quote Obviously the folks mapping the BOM have very little interest in actual geography and more interest in apologetics. Why don't we first clarify who these "folks" are? And then let's identify their scholarship. And then you can explain your assessment of that scholarship, including whatever flaws you have identified in it. Quote I don't think you can find a legitimate non-Mormon geographer in the United States that would take the mapping of the BOM seriously. Let's put that aside for the moment, shall we? Scholarship can and should be evaluated, should it not? Or are you so prejudiced that you would refuse to consider, say, scholarship about ancient Judaism by a Jewish author solely on the basis that the author is Jewish? With respect, you seem to be coming across as something of a provocateur. You ask questions, which is great. But then you refuse to engage scholarship which is directly relevant to the issues you are raising. Quote You can't map something like the BOM until you actually know it's location. You are typifying the methodological errors which William Hamblin identified 23 years ago in his excellent article, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." Have you read this article? If so, what are your thoughts about it? If not, please read it and then come back with your thoughts. Quote No location, no coordinates, equals a map that is as reliable and useful as a map of middle earth. Your statements seem to increasingly reflect not a desire to learn and discuss, but to accuse and antagonize. Quote Until a location in the Americas from the BOM times is found, then any theory is possible. With respect, I will not engage in substantive discussion with you about this topic. You are plainly ignorant of the relevant scholarship. And based on your above comments you appear unwilling to engage that scholarship. We all have ways we can and should improve in our learning. But determined, willful ignorance is not the way to go. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 8, 2016 by smac97 4
Calm Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 lost, what would a BoM geography look like that you would find acceptable. Specific detail please, not just vague statements that leave us guessing what you really want.
Oliver_Cowdery Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, bluebell said: The people I know sincerely believe they are valid possibilities, if that's what you are asking. Sometimes I wonder what effect apologetics is having on the church. The problem happens when the people stop seeing those explanations as possibilities and start accepting them as part of the narrative. On plenty of occasions I've listened as a teacher will teach an apologetic theory as if evidence for it is to be found in the scriptures somewhere. There is this weird tipping point that happens in Mormon apologetics. Sometimes an apologetic theory gets treated like it has some backing in evidence or prophetic revelation when in fact it has neither. Take for example that the idea that the Laminates were a small group of people living among a larger group of people that migrated from Asian and diluted the Laminate DNA to the point where a 600 B.C. migration of the Israel to American can not be detected in native american DNA. I guess that is a possible explanation for the lack of DNA. But for the past few years I noticed a number of Mormons no longer state that as being a possible explanation. Some are now teaching that idea as if it was supported in some way other then just being speculation. Edited December 8, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery
bluebell Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said: Sometimes I wonder what effect apologetics is having on the church. The problem happens when the people stop seeing those explanations as possibilities and start accepting them as part of the narrative. On plenty of occasions I've listened as a teacher will teach an apologetic theory as if evidence for it is to be found in the scriptures somewhere. There is this weird tipping point that happens in Mormon apologetics. Sometimes an apologetic theory gets treated like it has some backing in evidence or prophetic revelation when in fact it has neither. Take for example that the idea that the Laminates were a small group of people living among a larger group of people that migrated from Asian and diluted the Laminate DNA to the point where a 600 B.C. migration of the Israel to American can not be detected in native american DNA. I guess that is a possible explanation for the lack of DNA. But for the past few years I noticed a number of Mormons no longer state that as being a possible explanation. Some are now teaching that as if it was support in some way other then just being speculation. This doesn't only happen within Mormonism. I have a degree in history and a lot of the time speculation and possibilities are treated as fact. Historians (people with masters degrees and Ph. D's) have been known to almost come to blows defending an interpretation of historical evidence that another historian disagrees with, when in reality neither can be proven. So I don't know that we can blame apologetics for this. 2
Kevin Christensen Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 Tolkien actually drew maps. Mormon and Moroni provided texts that Joseph Smith translated, and that a wide range of people have dealt with in different ways. (See Sorenson's Sourcebook, for instance.) Some people have worked harder and longer than others, and have produced better work than others. One issue, is that "paradigms provide not only maps, but some of the directions for map-making" that is, there is significant issue with self-referential standards. And there are ambiguities in the language which leaves open different possibilities for interpretation. However, there is a way around that, which involves asking "which paradigm is better" and which problems are more significant to have solved. There are some very good candidate locations. I remain impressed by Sorenson's work, having read Ancient American Setting when it first came out in 1985, and found it a huge leap forward. And there have been people like John Clarke offering his tests, Larry Poulson bringing in 3D satellite mapping and such. Superficial readers focus on superficial issues. Close and careful readers acknowledge that we've got a jigsaw puzzle with well over 500 pieces that need to be assembled from the Book of Mormon itself before any external correlation can be attempted. And a good correlation will have the effect of casting unexpected light on the text. Good work: http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/index.html And another somewhat different though also Mesoamerican Model: http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2012/07/book-of-mormon-model.html Fretting over Two Hill Cumorahs is just as silly as fretting over four Nephis, two Bountifuls, two Jerusalems, two Mormons, a Joseph of Egypt, Joseph husband of Mary, Joseph Smith Senior, Joseph Smith Jr., Joseph Smith III, Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith. Names travel, but if I pay attention to context, I can navigate meanings without being confused. I certainly don't confuse Bountiful Utah where I grew up with the Bountiful where Nephi built a ship nor with the Bountiful in 3 Nephi. It was enlightening to me when I went to England in 1973 that many English words had different meanings, such as boots, bonnet, biscuits, chips, lifts and such. Consequently, I'm not nearly as fussed as those who seem to think that the meaning of words emanates from objects, and should, like the speed of light, be the same to all observers. Words are social conventions, and translated words can quite reasonably reflect some tension between the different societies and mind sets involved. Close and careful reading ought to remove some things from the list of problems. For instance, if the Book of Mormon never describes anyone riding any animal, and never spells out what the animals in Ammon's flocks were, then such things ought not be listed as problems. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 4
churchistrue Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 3 hours ago, lostindc said: Disclaimer, I am not saying the BOM is true or false in this post. When one attempts to map the BOM what exactly is the difference compared to mapping Middle Earth in Lord of the Rings or something similar? Both books are nearly impossible to map because one is a fiction (Lord of the Rings) and the other has yet to have any locations discovered in the Americas. Without a map spot/geocode, how can one attempt to map the Book of Mormon? Why even try? It's not like we can build a shapefile focused on the geocodes surrounding the Book of Mormon because we don't know the location. No location = no different than attempting to map Middle Earth in terms of making some maps. You take the geographical statements know the BOM and map them out. You have relative locations and some estimates on distance. You have permanent markers like rivers and lakes and seas. You then look at actual maps to see if there's a fit. I'm not a believer I'm BOM historicity, but I don't get the angst here. 1
lostindc Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Scholarship" about geography is "frightening?" And only that, but "absolutely" frightening? I'm trying to treat you and your inquiries seriously, but statements like this make that difficult. What people? To whom are you referring? To what scholarship are you referring? Why don't we first clarify who these "folks" are? And then let's identify their scholarship. And then you can explain your assessment of that scholarship, including whatever flaws you have identified in it. Let's put that aside for the moment, shall we? Scholarship can and should be evaluated, should it not? Or are you so prejudiced that you would refuse to consider, say, scholarship about ancient Judaism by a Jewish author solely on the basis that the author is Jewish? With respect, you seem to be coming across as something of a provocateur. You ask questions, which is great. But then you refuse to engage scholarship which is directly relevant to the issues you are raising. You are typifying the methodological errors which William Hamblin identified 23 years ago in his excellent article, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." Have you read this article? If so, what are your thoughts about it? If not, please read it and then come back with your thoughts. Your statements seem to increasingly reflect not a desire to learn and discuss, but to accuse and antagonize. With respect, I will not engage in substantive discussion with you about this topic. You are plainly ignorant of the relevant scholarship. And based on your above comments you appear unwilling to engage that scholarship. We all have ways we can and should improve in our learning. But determined, willful ignorance is not the way to go. Thanks, -Smac Bill and I discussed this a number of years ago, maybe on this very board. Did you read Bill's text? I doubt you did. If so, you might realize that Bill doesn't build a serious case as to why the BOM should be mapped, rather he focuses more on attacking the messengers and building a case as to why reconstructing ancient geographies is something to be taken serious (I don't argue otherwise in terms of mapping ancient geographies with verifiable places). This is the conclusion to Bill's text, Quote he important question is: why do non-Mormon scholars reject the Book of Mormon? The answer is complex, but two points should be emphasized. First, acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon logically necessitates acceptance of Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims. Thus, any scholar who even- tually came to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be logically compelled to become a Latter-day Saint. He would thereby cease to be a non-Mormon who accepts the his- toricity of the Book of Mormon. Secondly, and more impor- tantly, most non-Mormons do not take the Book of Mormon se- riously enough even to read it, let alone give it the careful study required to make an informed judgment. They simply dismiss it out of hand. This has been the approach taken by anti-Mormons such as Wilson, and it is the reason why Wilson’s criticisms can also be dismissed out of hand. Is this real life? Do you want me to accept that as justification for why BOM geography should be taken seriously? Bill is obviously not a geographer. I taught various geography classes at a notable university (research and professional time too) so I have a fair idea what I am discussing. You throwing a temper tantrum doesn't hinder my questions and concerns. Again, how do you map a place that you cannot locate?
lostindc Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 25 minutes ago, Calm said: lost, what would a BoM geography look like that you would find acceptable. Specific detail please, not just vague statements that leave us guessing what you really want. BOM geography is acceptable as it is now but it can't be taken seriously until we at least discover one place in the Americas during BOM time. Then we can map.
Bob Crockett Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 57 minutes ago, smac97 said: Have you read this article? If so, what are your thoughts about it? If not, please read it and then come back with your thoughts. I have. Lots of problems. Have a paper ready for publication on the point although it is too convoluted for reviewing editors and probably the reading public. I will try and post it up.
pogi Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said: Do people really believe those explanations in their hearts? I always kind of figured people just throw those explanations as a possibility to demonstrate how the BoM story could still possibly be literally correct. The Book of Mormon never states that Moroni buried the Gold plates in the hill Cumorah (which some theorize to be in Mesoamerica). The scripture states that Mormon buried them in the hill Cumorah with the other plates, afterwhich Moroni received the plates and wandered around for some time and buried them "in the earth". Joseph Smith did not name the hill cumorah in New York. It was just a hill. It was later named by members of the church who theorized that it must have been the same hill as mentioned in the scripture (even though there is no good reason from the text to believe that, nor is there good reason to believe that the plates were returned to the hill Cumorah mentioned in the scripture). Edited December 8, 2016 by pogi 2
Bob Crockett Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, pogi said: The Book of Mormon never states that Moroni buried the Gold plates in the hill Cumorah (which some theorize to be in Mesoamerica). The scripture states that Mormon buried them in the hill Cumorah with the other plates, afterwhich Moroni received the plates and wandered around for some time and buried them "in the earth". Joseph Smith did not name the hill cumorah in New York. It was just a hill. It was later named by members of the church who theorized that it must have been the same hill as mentioned in the scripture (even though there is no good reason from the text to believe that, nor is there good reason to believe that the plates were returned to the hill Cumorah mentioned in the scripture). As the Joseph Smith papers project shows, Joseph Smith included in the official history of the church Oliver Cowdery's discussion of the NY Hill Cumorah as constituting the ancient Hill. That's enough for me -- officialdomness. Then, when the First Presidency announced the purchase of the Hill Cumorah, they explained its history; you can guess what I'd tell you. Shocking, crazy stuff, I'd say. Edited December 9, 2016 by Bob Crockett 2
JAHS Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 1 hour ago, pogi said: The Book of Mormon never states that Moroni buried the Gold plates in the hill Cumorah (which some theorize to be in Mesoamerica). The scripture states that Mormon buried them in the hill Cumorah with the other plates, afterwhich Moroni received the plates and wandered around for some time and buried them "in the earth". Joseph Smith did not name the hill cumorah in New York. It was just a hill. It was later named by members of the church who theorized that it must have been the same hill as mentioned in the scripture (even though there is no good reason from the text to believe that, nor is there good reason to believe that the plates were returned to the hill Cumorah mentioned in the scripture). Yes. I believe the plates that Moroni had were not the same ones Mormon had and Moroni could have traveled for many years before putting the ones he had in the hill we cal cumorah today. Mormon said, "therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni." (Mormon 6:6)
JAHS Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 Here's an attempt I made several years ago to map at least the relative positions of places in the Book of Mormon lands. I really did not find any textual or geographical contradictions as I was making it. 1
Glenn101 Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said: Once one starts accepting speculation without a good reason then one has to consider accepting more speculation like: Laminates riding deer Mayan woman woman riding a deer. http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/maya/saddle.htm 3
Ouagadougou Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 6 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said: And herds of animals traveling in wooden barges "Many say that religious faith and reason are essentially incompatible -- that theological faith and sensible reason function as largely separate modes of mental and emotional behavior. LDS people, though, very often say that the Mormon faith is unusually reasonable and sensible. Is it? As a test, let's consider the Jaredites and their ocean-going barges, described in Ether of the Book of Mormon. If you've read it, did you do it with the "eye of faith," or with the "eye of reason" (and common sense)? The LDS eye of faith normally reads this account unfazed. But what if we read it with the eye of reason and common sense? What if we read it as if we were jury members evaluating a witness's testimony? Shall we give it a try? First, calmly think about what your own planning would entail if you were told that you and some friends would have to hand-build small, submersible boats in which you and your family would be taking a year-long ocean voyage, accompanied by flocks and herds of animals. Would you want to be confined to the inside of a small submersible boat for a year without planning how to care for and live with flocks and herds of animals on board, and related supplies -- for over eleven months? I don't know how acquainted you are with construction engineering, especially forms of shipbuilding. While I lived in Annapolis, Maryland (teaching at the US Naval Academy), I visited shipbuilding companies and studied the history of various historical shipbuilding techniques. I've also looked into Thor Heyerdahl's Kon Tiki and Ra construction as well as whaling ships at Mystic Seaport, the ex-whaling town in Connecticut, and so on. Ocean-going craft must be carefully designed and strongly built. As we pay close attention to Ether 2 and 6 in the Book of Mormon, we need to keep in mind that the Jaredite ships are described as built following the direct personal instructions of God himself. The LDS church has always taught that the Lord of the Jaredites' Old Testament times was Jehovah, the same deity described as having created the earth and all of the plants and animals, employing all the intelligent planning and management that that necessarily implies. In Ether 2, note the order of procedure: FIRST, for a water voyage prior to the ocean crossing itself, the Lord had instructed Jared and his brother to build boats in which, according to the account, their families and friends "did cross many waters," (2:6) carrying with them "seeds of every kind," flocks ("male and female, of every kind"), "fowls of the air", "swarms of bees," and "fish of the waters." (2:1-3) According to the account, this boat trip was accomplished successfully. NEXT, four years later, the Lord again ordered the men to build similar boats "after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built" (2:16), this time for an ocean crossing of nearly one year's duration. These boats, similar to the ones built four years earlier, are described as "small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water" (2:16), with structural integrity such that they were "exceeding tight," top and bottom, entirely leakproof and air-tight ("tight like unto a dish") (2:17) because they were going to be "many times buried in the depths of the sea" (6:6) by "mountain waves" (2:24) during many violent storms. To be both (a) light ("like a fowl upon the water"), and (b) able to carry flocks and herds with food supplies for a year, the construction would obviously have to be carefully planned and organized because of the known challenges of combining lightness with strength (which still applies: boats, airplanes, bicycles and helmets, race cars, even suitcases, etc.). Following the Lord's specifications, the workmen built each boat with just onetight-fitting door, and no window or other opening. Construction of all eight boats was completed, per the Lord's personal instructions ("I have made the barges according as thou [the Lord] hast directed me." 2:18). NEXT, the Brother of Jared looked at the finished boats and wondered for the first time, Whoa! How will we breathe in these things? Specifically, quoting him: ". . . I have made the barges as thou hast directed me. And behold, O Lord, we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish." (2:19) It was only then, that is, that he noticed that the boats were air-tight. (He also noticed they were totally dark inside: "O Lord, in them there is no light; whither shall we steer?" (2:19) Now let's pause to consider: How do the eyes of faith and reason interpret this account? The LDS eye of faith typically accepts the story unfazed. But consider the following "Eye of Reason and Common Sense" questions: 1. Is it reasonable that men smart enough to build such watertight and airtight boats, following divine instructions, would do all the planning, material gathering and construction, and finish all eight before the question of breathing and seeing occurred to any of them? At that time (Tower of Babel period), working with hand tools, such a large project would have required at least months of labor. How could they not have noticed this problem for months? Remember that these shipbuilders were experienced. They had already built very similar people/animal/cargo-carrying boats just four years earlier. 2. Stated most succinctly, how could shipbuilders build eight air-tight boats without noticing that they were air-tight? Visualize men walking around inside boats "tight like unto a dish," with only one door that was to be kept closed at sea. Can you imagine them finishing all of the inside walls on all eight boats before noticing that it's suffocating in there? 3. And what about seeing? Is it sensible that the workmen could have finished all eight interiors without noticing that there was insufficient light to see -- no windows? How could they have worked inside without seeing? When asked about the light problem, note that the Lord answered with a question: "What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces." (2:23) 4. "Dashed in pieces?" Dashable (shatterable) windows were not invented until thousands of years later, by a different civilization. How would Jared's brother have been able to understand the Lord's reply? Why would a deity have said something that would have had no meaning for Jared's brother? 5. How many boats would you have to finish before noticing no air and no light? Could you finish all eight boats before that dawned on you? Especially if you had built several similar boats and traveled in one of them four years earlier? 6. Is it sensible to finish even one before noticing? Do you know any carpenter who would do that? 7. Would the Lord himself not think of the need to breathe and to see, and then wait until the end to be asked about these life-or-death issues? 8. Would a person of common sense build even a mountain cabin, finishing all walls inside and out, before thinking to make a window hole, without thinking about breathing and seeing inside? 9. Is it sensible that all of these shipbuilders, described as previously experienced in carrying flocks and herds of animals inside of boats, waited until the end to realize, Oh, wait! We forgot that our animals will need to breathe in here. And we need to see in order to feed them and clean up. Despite the common-sense requirements of structural integrity of ships that will be on the ocean carrying flocks and herds of animals and their feed for a year, all boats are finished, and then, as an afterthought, holes are hacked into that finished structure, one in the top and one in the bottom (because when it flops upside down in stormy seas, the bottom becomes the top).(2:20) 10. Wouldn't the Lord think that the sensible time to plan and build windows for air and light was during construction, not waiting to hack holes after finishing all boats, as a "whoops!" reaction? Would a sensible deity or human do that? 11. Is this not similar to teaching a work crew how to build automobiles for an extremely long trip without mentioning steering? Then, AFTER all the cars are built, the chief builder asks, "We have built all of the cars exactly as you have directed, but how shall we steer, for the wheels and axles are built so that they do not turn?" And the master planner replies, "Well, you can just make a hole in the dashboard and stick in a steering wheel. Then, when you need to steer, just turn the wheel." 12. Is it fair to ask how this differs from the following? Mormon elders, after following the Lord's exact instructions on building and painting the Celestial Room in the Salt Lake Temple, discovering that they've painted themselves into a remote corner, pray, "We have done as thou hast instructed us, oh Lord, but thy instructions have resulted in our painting ourselves into a corner." What would you think if the answer were, "Behold, ye shall make a hole in the granite temple wall, and after ye have escaped, ye shall stop the hole." Does the following improve the faith/reason problem, or worsen it? "When thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air." (2:20) 13.If you were taking your family on a car trip, would you tell them, "Wait until you notice you're suffering for lack of air, THEN open the window." Isn't it the case that people who need air often don't notice it until too late, because oxygen shortage has caused them to pass out? Don't we read that people who suffocate often don't know it's happening? Pilots at altitude undergoing oxygen deprivation experience the same hazard. Their awareness drops below the level needed to know they lack "air." 14. How is the Jaredite level of planning and knowledge different from that of men described in current news articles, who carelessly suffocate illegal aliens by transporting them in unventilated trucks? (And that problem occurs in just a few days, not a year.) If we ask ourselves whether the following is sensibly reasonable, what is the answer?. "They did lay snares and catch fowls of the air." (Also see 6:4: "fowl that they should carry with them") Birds are the first animals to die from inadequate oxygen, canaries in coal mines being a famous example. 15.How were the birds to notify Jared that they "suffered for air?" For the reasoning person, it gets worse. People and animals obviously keep breathing at night, while sleeping. 16. What if they "suffer for air" while everyone is asleep? Is that a good time to need to "unstop the hole?" 17. Did the Jaredites have "Hole Unstoppers" on guard while everyone else slept? Did the unstopper continually check to be sure that sleeping people and animals, especially birds, were still breathing? How well does the eye of reason and common sense fare with the following problem? " . . . unstop the hole . . . " Also, "thou shalt make a hole in the top and also in the bottom." (2:20) Note that it says the hole, that is, a hole, as in one hole. (The hole at the bottom clearly doesn't count except when the ship flops upside down in high seas.) Now picture in your mind traveling with flocks of flatulent sheep and herds of flatulent goats and cattle) in a boat with ONE functioning air hole. 18. What about air movement for ventilation? 19. How would air enter and exit the same single hole supplying the entire barge/boat? There's a related problem: Air doesn't readily enter a closed space. Why not? Because the space is already full of air -- In the Jaredites' case, warmer, body-heated air that exerts greater-than-outside pressure thus resisting incoming air. People taking car-trips with kids partially open at least two windows for air movement. 20.In these Jaredite boats, reported as designed by the highest divine intelligence, why is there no cross ventilation for three hundred and forty-four days? The eye of reason tries to visualize people and animals struggling to vent their body gases and heat through just one hole. Now let's apply the eye of reason to general animal care: 21. How much does even one goat, sheep or cow eat in a year? These are grazing animal, but they can't graze on the ocean; and they don't eat fish. Their grasses and grains have to be stored on board. A goat eats 2 - 3 pounds/day. Even a pony eats about 8 pounds/day. Let's sensibly use 3 pounds X 344 days. That's 1,032 pounds of feed per animal. That's a lot of bulky weight to lash down to prevent it crashing around when the ships roll, and even flip upside down. 22. How do you fit 1,000 pounds of feed per animal in the small boats, along with people, flocks and herds of animals, and birds? 23. And how about carrying a year's supply of drinking water for each person and animal? They couldn't drink ocean water, and in boats of the type described they couldn't gather significant rain water. How could they load and carry sufficient fresh water? Even the most illiterate people have learned how important ventilation is for food items, especially without refrigeration. People and animals exhale moisture with every breath. The numerous animals couldn't be taken outside to urinate and defecate. Such a year-long, high-moisture, low-ventilation environment breeds bacteria, yeast, fungus and molds, and rots food. 24. So, what about food spoilage? Could it get worse? The voyagers are reported to have sung praises to the Lord day and night. (6:9) 25. How likely does day-and-night singing and praising seem after months of close confinement in small boats with urinating, defecating, flatulent flocks, herds and fowls, with only one air hole per drum-tight boat? Could it get worse? Ether describes heavy seas (" . . . they were many times buried in the depths of the sea, because of the mountain waves which broke upon them" 6:6). So these boats were crashing around under water, occasionally flipping upside down (thus the need for a hole in the bottom which could be opened as an air hole when the boat flopped over). 26. Can you visualize adults, children, flocks and herds, rocking, tossing and flipping over, traveling that way for a year? Could you ride for 344 days and nights with your children on a boat, repeatedly buried in the depths of the sea with flocks and herds crashing over each other, with urine-soaked "litter box" material spilling into their food as the ship flopped upside down? 27. How would you pour all the urine and feces out of one hole -- for a year? Could reason and common sense be additionally battered? " . . . fierceness of the wind . . . the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters; and thus they were driven forth before the wind." (6:6 - This testifies to three major factors: (a) wind force, (b) wind constancy, (c) wind direction. "And thus they were driven forth, three hundred and forty and four days upon the water." 28. If the wind was (a) constant, (b) strong, (c) always toward the promised land, how could this force require 344 days? But wait! Could the shape of the boats, the front and back "ends thereof were peaked" (2:17), have presented insufficient flat surface at the back for the wind to blow against, causing the trip to last longer? 29.But then why would an intelligent divine designer choose such an inefficient shape? Could it get worse for the sensible eye of reason?. " . . . terrible tempests which were caused by the fierceness of the wind." (6:6) 30. Beyond the fact that a tempest is not caused by a fierce wind, but rather IS a fierce wind, why would an intelligent deity think that so much wrenchingly violent motion, even overturning stored goods, animals, their bedding and feed, be an intelligent thing to do? 31. Wouldn't an exhorbitant amount of water in the flocks' and herds' drinking containers be lost as the boats pitched, rolled and flipped over? 32.How did the Jaredites mop and dry this constant sloshing spillage for a year? 33. How could they have carried enough fresh water to offset the constant sloshing spillage? 34. Could you keep your family food and belongings together with that kind of flailing around? Were the people and animals secured by ropes (analogous to seatbelts)? Today, even seatbelted people in slow-speed vehicle rollovers are often seriously injured. But at least their vehicles then stop. Ocean storms, though, last for hours or days. The Jaredites and their animals would have been thrown around (a) many times longer and (b) in a vastly larger interior than in a car rollover. The sliding and falling collisions of people, animals, food and water supplies would often have gone on for hours or days at a time. And if tied down, in a rollover they'd have been left hanging from the ceiling. The food supplies, and especially the water supplies, would have had to be lashed down to prevent lethally crushing slides into people and animals. 35. But then, when the boat turned upside down, how did the people access the food and water, which would now be secured to the ceiling? 36. How would the Jaredites have been able to prevent or deal with orthopedic injuries and concussions as animals and people crashed into each other? 37. When the boats were upside down, did the people and animals just walk around on what had been the ceiling, outside of pens? "And thus they were driven forth, three hundred and forty and four days upon the water. And they did land upon the shore of the promised land." (6:11,12) That is, the account directly implies that all the boats landed at approximately the same time. 38. Is it sensible that after 344 days of such violent tossing and sloshing, the boats would have arrived on essentially the same day? How could eight ocean-going vessels tossed by violent storms maintain near-identical speeds, remaining near each other over such an extremely long time period? 39. Would the "eye of reason" perceive the ocean trip in Ether to be a fitting example of famed LDS general authority and historian Elder B.H. Roberts' notable assessment of the Book of Mormon "as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency " ? (Studies of the Book of Mormon, p. 251) The eye of faith apparently does not perceive the Jaredite ocean voyage to be a nutty fictitious story. 40. How does the eye of sensible reason see it? It seems to me that all 40 of the above questions are honestly, fairly and sensibly stated." http://packham.n4m.org/ships.htm 3
canard78 Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 11 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said: Do people really believe those explanations in their hearts? I always kind of figured people just throw those explanations as a possibility to demonstrate how the BoM story could still possibly be literally correct. Once someone accepts those explanations as a belief it really starts to feel like motived reasoning. It reminds me of the bible apologist who speculated that the City of Tyre must refer to two different islands in order to rescue their literal interpretation of one of the prophecies found in the New Testament. That kind of thing originally was proposed as a defense of belief that somehow gets transformed into something students get taught as being part of the canonized story. In my seminary experience the two Hill Cumorah thing was always presented as fact. Its wasn't until later that I figured out it was just idle speculation. Once one starts accepting speculation without a good reason then one has to consider accepting more speculation like: Laminates eating horses Laminates riding deer Steel weapons rusting away chariots without wheels carrying "horse" meat being pulled by men Copper plates Peccaries as pigs Mammoths Wooden windows being dashed to pieces Sheep herders herding deer wood and obsidian swords Non-round hunks of precious metal in various denominations used for trade which can totally not be called coins white skinned Native Americans Samuel the Laminate standing on a mound of dirt pyramids as look out towers Two hill Cumorahs henequen used for silk Fields of amaranth that are white and ready to harvest Olive Vineyards And herds of animals traveling in wooden barges Can I just point out that it's LamAnites eating horses? "Laminates eating horses" sounds like a very strange office supplies fetish. What next? Will we discover the Book of Mormon has a character who "photocopies leaping hamsters" or "staples dancing elephants?" .... Carry on... 3
Recommended Posts