07.13
The Book of Mormon is a purported history of several ancient American peoples. Foremost among them are the Nephites and the Lamanites. Their histories make up the bulk of the Book of Mormon. But Lehi and his group were not the first to discover America in 600 BC. That was accomplished by an earlier Book of Mormon peoples: the Jaredites.
The Jaredites are said to have existed between 2700 BC, when they traveled to America, and 600 BC, when they succumbed to civil war. This post, though, will only examine the Jaredites’ implausible journey to America, because its bizarre and anachronistic details are evidences against the Book of Mormon’s historicity.
Jared and his family lived during the time of the Tower of Babel, where Yahweh confounded the languages of every peoples and scattered them across the world. Because Jared and his family were righteous, god let them retain their language and promised to lead them to “a land which is choice above all the earth.” (Ether 2:7)
(Let’s ignore the fact for now that the Book of Mormon presents the Tower of Babel story as a literal, historical event that occurred around 2700 BC. I may revisit that issue in a later post.)
The Lord directed the brother of Jared to build barges to take him and his family on a year-long voyage to America. They would also take aboard a variety of creatures (sound familiar?)—”their flocks,” “fowls of the air,” “fish of the waters,” and even “swarms of bees.”
The barges were to be “small,” “light,” and “exceedingly tight…like unto a dish” (Ether 2:16-17). It was important for the barges to be watertight, because the Lord warned that they would often be “buried in the depths of the sea” (Ether 6:6). These Jaredite vessels, then, were effectively the first submersible vessels.
The brother of Jared built the barges according to the Lord’s instructions, but they left much to be desired. He asked the Lord about some apparent architectural oversights:
“And behold, O Lord, in them there is no light; whither shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish.” (Ether 2:19)
It’s odd that he didn’t raise those concerns before or during the barges’ construction. Lighting, steering, and airflow are not exactly trivial details in shipbuilding. In any case, the Lord had a plan to address these problems.
About oxygen: “Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood.” (Ether 2:20)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but one hole wouldn’t have provided enough air for an entire barge. Closed spaces (such as watertight vessels) don’t draw in a lot of air, because they’re already full of it. And due to the body temperatures of the Jaredites and the animals, the barges would be full of high-pressure warm air trying to exit the hole such that fresh air could not enter.
About light: “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; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.” (Ether 2:23)
The Lord instead provided the Jaredites with sixteen glowing “white and clear, even as transparent glass” stones to light up the vessels (Ether 3:1).
There are dozens of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, but dashable windows and transparent glass are my personal favorites. Glass itself isn’t anything new. It naturally occurs from volcanic eruptions, lightning strikes, etc. And man-made glass was used for jewelry and pottery in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. But transparent window glass was a Roman invention circa 100 AD. It strains credulity to believe that the Jaredites beat the Romans to this technology by nearly three millenia.
Lastly, about steering: “And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind.” (Ether 6:5)
This is a rather lazy solution on the Lord’s part, as was his answer to the light problem. If you’re just going to give the Jaredites magically glowing stones, and then magically blow them toward America, why even bother with the two holes for air? Why not magically provide them with air, too? Better yet, why not spare them the hassle of building barges in the first place? Simply teleport them to America or something. That shouldn’t be too hard for a god to do.
I’ve only articulated a few of the reasons why the Jaredites’ voyage to America is unbelievable. One might also reasonably wonder, for example, whether these small barges could have held a years-worth of food for the Jaredites and their animals/birds/fish/bees. Dr. Kent Ponder gives this and other problems better treatment than I can. Check out his article, “Jaredite Ship-Building Technology.”
What I always wondered is how the people and animals and bees and food and water storage survived if they were constantly being turned upside down which necessitated two air-holes, one in the top and one in the bottom.
I also always thought this was weird, “…neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.”
The Lord will give a reason for no windows, but re: fire, it’s just “because I said so”, not, “for your ships are of wood and would surely be burnt up were ye to go by the light of fire.” or something. Just an indicator of a bad author who wasn’t really all that imaginative.
About the 2nd hole thing, a more plausible explanation is that the bottom hole was to dump waste. However transporting live fish & bees would still be a nightmare even if the boats aren’t flipped over.
The second hole, though, was stopping water. It couldn’t have been used as a waste dump.
Ether 2:20 “And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood.”
I always figured this meant that both holes were for air, and the only reason a hole would have a “flood” of water come in is if the barge flipped, at which point they would stop up one hole and open the other.
Seriously. If God can hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, surely he can hie them to America without much hassle.
The thing about bees really gets me. Bees need a fairly large range to fly over. Honeybees out looking for nectar can fly several miles to find good flowers. Unless the flowers were right next to their bee houses (grown without natural sunlight, of course) bees would be roaming all over their boat and making tons of mischief.
Also, carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen, so if their using up all the oxygen in the air, the air will become denser, and simply opening a hole in the top would probably not draw enough fresh air to supply a ton of people and animals and whatever. On top of the high pressure thing that Jon mentions.
You’d need either a pump or some kind of oxygen machine. Out of curiosity, does anyone know how modern nuclear subs recycle their air?
re: oxygen creation and CO2 scrubbers on submarines http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080401173625AAdYtiQ
google is your friend
I find the Jaredite story quite interesting. The scientific questions are legitimate concerns. I think it is still useful to keep the story in its context. While I think this may have been possible literally with A LOT of help from god, it is important to recognize that this story has been through several cultures, language, and storytellers. Since learning another language, the problems with translation, never mind the issues inherit with a game of scriptural telephone became very evident to me. I find that scripture is often held to a higher scrutiny than proven historical documents. This is a legitimate argument against those who believe scripture is infallible, but Mormons recognize that scripture is not 100% perfect. It is entirely possible to believe in God and the Book of Mormon without necessarily accepting this story as entirely literal.
That being said, several of your arguments are problematic.
Lost/Rediscovered Technology
There are numerous instances, especially when a civilization falls or is entirely wiped out, of lost tech. Just because it was discovered later, even much later, does not mean it didn’t exist before. (further, history is constantly being updated with sometimes radical changes in the level of tech to match new discoveries). The materials and tech is fairly low for glass creation. Especially since thinness and exceptional purity were not necessarily requirements. (I doubt that they had glass or windows as we define them, or even glass tech, but if they were found, historians would rewrite history, these are not definitive proofs, just speculations based on weak logic, and lack of evidence)
Further, I think the largest problem with the window/glass issue is translation and terminology. Sure it could be an error in the narrative written by Joseph smith, or it could be a problem with translation, or carrying over similar terms. Either way, not really a solid reason to prefer one over the other.
Airflow. You actually made a valid point. Hot air would rise, just because there is only one hole doesn’t mean it would become a heat reservoir with no air escaping. You simply can’t have hot air exiting and no air entering. The hole would actually act as both entry and exit, as air exited, the resulting forces from the vacuum inside would suck fresh air inside around the edges. Further, air flow across the top of the hole horizontally could provide additional airflow. Fluid mixtures exhibit forces of diffusion that attempt to stabilize any difference in composition. Lastly, life actually doesn’t require very much oxygen. We use only a small percentage of oxygen inhaled. The main problem comes in a closed system with no source of replenishment. Multiple holes would accomplish this much better, but it really doesn’t take very much to make a sustainable system.
Order of events, “they didn’t ask until later” is silly as this is not a direct testimony, and order of events should not be looked at so scrutinizingly. Prolly tongue in cheek though so no big deal.
The “why not” arguments are something I see quit often from atheists. These arguments are not very solid logically and tend to bother me personally. “Why not” assumes that God has no other reasons why not to do something, which places an illogical claim on god’s intentions. Just because I didn’t do something that was in my power, or didn’t do something to the fullest extent possible, or just because you don’t understand my purpose or intention, isn’t a good enough reason to assume that I didn’t do it at all. Why doesn’t God give them all wings, or completely defy all rules of nature, physics etc is a poor response and one that was mirrored sarcastically in the comments. Maybe God is restrained to some point in the laws of physics, maybe god is just a masochist and wanted them to suffer, or maybe he wanted them to struggle for their own well being. Who knows? That info isn’t given to us.
There are several valid arguments and problems with the story, but these weren’t. Not my favorite post.
How is this story not in context? The LdS church still insists that the Book of Mormon is historical fact. The facts presented here in Ether (as well as the whole of the BoM) are ludicrously improbable often to the point of impossibility.
You’re engaging in classic apologetics where you side step the ridiculousness of the claims, and try to create possible scenarios where it’s not totally impossible for the LdS church to be true, kinda, if you squint really hard and ignore all the stuff that’s too hard to explain away. The entire Book of Mormon is filled to overflowing with anachronisms. Sure it’s possible that God inspired JS to translate the BoM not quite correctly, or that Mormon or Moroni got it wrong somehow, but you’re ignoring the most obvious and likely conclusion – it’s all a bunch of crap. Joseph or whoever wrote the Book of Mormon wasn’t knowledgeable enough about history or certain discoveries hadn’t been made then to know that their book didn’t make sense.
“While I think this may have been possible literally with A LOT of help from god, it is important to recognize that this story has been through several cultures, language, and storytellers.”
1) No, it actually hasn’t, and there’s no actual proof of that claim.
2) Goddidit! is never a good explanation for anything. It’s possible that there is a god who did what you think he did, but he also did it in a way where he left no evidence of his existence or meddling, and also created totally natural explanations for every supernatural thing he’s supposed to have done. Seems highly unlikely.
3) Arguing that god’s ways are unfathomable so we should never criticise them or expect him to behave in a logical or reasonable way isn’t a very good argument for why some god and religion are true and/or real. Again, yes it’s possible that some god asks nearly impossible things of ancient peoples and for some unfathomable reason can’t, in his all-powerful and all-knowingness miraculously help them, but isn’t it far more reasonable that the reason why gods seem to be restricted to obeying the same natural laws which humans are stuck obeying is because gods are just a product of the human imagination? That there actually are no gods and everything obeys natural laws precisely because there is no supernatural? It’s possible that every time someone/thing supernatural intervenes in the natural world they leave not a shred of evidence, but it’s not plausible. It’s also an unfalsifiable claim, which makes it inherently ridiculous anyhow.
Your argument seems to me to be 1) God did it 2) Don’t ask any questions or criticise the claims 3) That’s all the info we have, so suck it. Also no more questions or criticisms. 4) You can speculate (fact-free) on why it/god doesn’t really make sense, unless you start speculating that it’s all a made-up farce, and then you’re just being unfair. Also, see rules 1-3.
“It is entirely possible to believe in God and the Book of Mormon without necessarily accepting this story as entirely literal.”
Of course. The arguments I present here aren’t intended to disprove god or even the Book of Mormon. I understand that some Mormons don’t take every detail in the Jaredite story to be literal or historical, but the fact is that many Mormons do. I appreciate that you take a more skeptical and nuanced view, James. All I’m doing is trying to encourage other Mormons to do the same.
“Since learning another language, the problems with translation, never mind the issues inherit with a game of scriptural telephone became very evident to me.”
True. How, then, can you trust any verse of the Book of Mormon? What criteria do you use to differentiate correctly translated verses from incorrectly translated ones?
“There are numerous instances, especially when a civilization falls or is entirely wiped out, of lost tech. Just because it was discovered later, even much later, does not mean it didn’t exist before.”
That’s a possibility, granted, but a highly improbable one. Your argument is just too easy. I mean, had the Book of Mormon mentioned iPods, you could have made the same defense (that iPod technology was merely lost and rediscovered). Though of course it would be impressive had the BoM actually mentioned iPods, because Smith wouldn’t have known about them ha ha. But you get my point.
Transparent glass technology may not seem complex, but it was apparently complex enough to escape the discovery of any known civilization until the Romans. I’m not a glass expert though, so I don’t know how feasible it would have been for transparent glass to exist in 2700 BC. But even you admit that it’s more likely that Smith got this detail wrong than it is for the Jaredites to have actually had transparent glass.
“Just because I didn’t do something that was in my power, or didn’t do something to the fullest extent possible, or just because you don’t understand my purpose or intention, isn’t a good enough reason to assume that I didn’t do it at all.”
You’re reading too much into my argument. I didn’t argue that because we don’t understand why god did something, god couldn’t have done that something. But when you read about the design of the Jaredite barges, is your first thought, “This could only be the handiwork of god!” No, you attribute this Jaredite story to a “error in the narrative” or a “mistranslation.” And that’s the point of my “why nots.” It’s to identify the dissonance between how we think a god would act and how the book of Ether reports god did act.
Just some quick replies.
@ Craig
I wasn’t trying to engage in apologetics or sidestep the legitimate problems. I was first trying to point out problems with the near straw man arguments many use. IE, this ridiculous story can’t possibly be literal true, therefore nothing of the like happened. As I mentioned, historians are often much more lenient.
“The LdS church still insists that the Book of Mormon is historical fact”
Yes but not to the point of having to defend it as being 100% literal. There will be problems, Mormon admits as much, and any rational member has to acknowledge this as well.
“1) No, it actually hasn’t, and there’s no actual proof of that claim.”
This is of course from an assumption that it did happen. IF the BoM was a historical document, THEN Ether would have been passed through (at least) 3 languages and 3 cultures spanning centuries, and thus shouldn’t be taken to be entirely literal. This isn’t apologetics or proof, it’s merely a reasonable framework within which to discuss its validity. A discussion of this nature has to on some level assume its true in order to establish logical bounds to test its validity. Several of the points made here operated on the assumption that it was more like a first hand testimony. The discussion can’t be had in these terms if we expect a logical conclusion.
2) Sure, i dislike the God did it argument. My point was that from my belief god could have done it however he wanted to, but that I thought it was probably something more reasonable. I tend to think god operates withing the bounds of the laws of nature etc. So yeah, I agree, playing the god card can be super lame. The point is that the god did it arguments, while being frustrating and “unlikely” are still possible. That applies to a ton of annoying arguments. See Descarte’s demon or general epistemology, or brain in a vat, or what have you. The limits on what we can know absolutely mean that things like fairies demons or Gods etc, are possible, even if not very likely.
3) “Arguing that god’s ways are unfathomable so we should never criticize them or expect him to behave in a logical or reasonable way isn’t a very good argument for why some god and religion are true and/or real.” I wasn’t doing this, or at least that wasn’t my intention. I think Mormonism diminishes the appeal to leadership authority, and requires members to think critically, and receive personal confirmation. I was pointing out that several of the arguments tended to presuppose things that had no warrant, and were thus weak arguments.
I think you once again misinterpreted my argument. I am beginning to think its a problem with the way I talk since this keeps happening. There are legitimate arguments raised in this post. I acknowledge that. I pointed out areas where I thought argumentation was weak from a logical standpoint.
I don’t understand how in a scientific or mathematical discussion, pointing out possible alternative explanations, or verifying warrants and links to test validity of an argument is the foundation of peer review. But as soon as it enters a religious context, I am practicing apologetics. I also don’t understand how atheists operate in a zone of near 100% confidence in claims, without the epistemological backing to really support any of it. Its unlikely god exists, thus he doesn’t. Or we have no evidence of it, thus it doesn’t exist. Both are poor arguments. The first is an irrational leap, the second over extends the conclusion of lack of evidence.
@ Jon
“How, then, can you trust any verse of the Book of Mormon?”
God has promised that the spiritual message of the book is true, something that I have received confirmation of. Similar to the Bible, there is a lot of spiritual truth there for me. Further, almost everything is flawed, science, history, Wikipedia, etc. Doesn’t mean that nothing can be trusted, just take it with a grain of salt. Thats what I tend to do with the historical side of the BoM. If it really did happen that way, cool. If it wasn’t that way, meh. If it never happened, there I have bit more of a problem. But I value the BoM for its spiritual aspect, and its influence on me.
Yeah I get the Tech point. And I don’t mean to be a weasel. Just that you can’t base an argument on they didn’t have it because it wasn’t discovered until later. Because there are numerous examples to contradict this logic. Instead I think it has to be based on “no evidence of” or a rational explanation of why it wasn’t possible ie. availability of materials etc. The ipod is obviously much higher tech and thus much much more unlikely.
I think the real problem with this, is that the two phrases “windows”, and “like unto glass”, aren’t directly related and don’t mean they were referring to glass windows. There are different types of window coverings which could be dashed in. The use of the word glass is more problematic. I am not sure where I stand, but thats why I pointed out problems with translation. When the Greeks saw a Hippopotamus they called it river horse. The term obviously was a descriptor, not to be taken literally. This is not apologetics, just analysis of the wording. In this sense the word glass seems to be used in a similar descriptive sense, so we should take that into account. There still are problems like what else could it have been? But I was just trying to frame the discussion.
“It’s to identify the dissonance between how we think a god would act and how the book of Ether reports god did act.”
My point was that assumptions that we think to know how a god would act, have little or no warrant. Who’s to say any of us have an accurate idea of how a god creature would act. So it seems silly to me to say “This is how I think he should have acted, he didn’t, why not? thus he probably doesn’t exist.”
Thanks for the clarifications, James. I disagree with you on only a few points.
You’re right that there are other dashable windows besides glass windows. Windows with wood coverings could be dashed, technically. But the only kind of dashable windows that make sense in context are transparent glass windows, because remember god was discussing various ways to address the lack of light in the barges. Wood covered windows (while dashable) wouldn’t let any light in.
“Who’s to say any of us have an accurate idea of how a god creature would act.”
So when theists say god is good, there aren’t expectations associated with that word? Wouldn’t you expect that a good god wouldn’t, say, condone rape? If that isn’t an expectation, then why even attribute the characteristic “good” to god?
“So it seems silly to me to say “This is how I think he should have acted, he didn’t, why not? thus he probably doesn’t exist.””
That’s still a mischaracterization of my argument. This has nothing to do with god’s existence. At issue is whether the Jaredites’ barges and their journey bear the fingerprint of an immensely intelligent and powerful deity. I of course answer in the negative.
[...] to set the conversational agenda? How real is race? Was the Liahona just a compass? And what about those Jaredite Barges? Hate mail: good or bad? Apostates: everybody knows they’re miserable, right? Should we go [...]