The Nahom Follies

[_Chap]

MG - we can stop arguing when you are prepared to sign up to a statement more or less equivalent to the following:

"(a) I agree that the story of Nephi's ship-building as narrated in the Book of Mormon, if regarded as a story of what ordinary people could have accomplished by the means likely to have been at their disposal under the specified circumstances, and absent miraculous intervention, is highly implausible.

(b) I, however, hold that the deity I believe in intervened and gave assistance that made Nephi and his companions able to build an ocean-going ship. That deity made possible what would have been more or less impossible without his aid."

I just want to see you separate those two clauses. It's the way you keep sliding from one to the other and fuzzing the boundary that I find displeasing to my perhaps overly fastidious sensibility.

So - didn't I get your position right? Is there anything in either of those two statements that you take exception to?

[_I have a question]

I am not so locked into scriptural 'exactness' that I can not allow for Lehi and Co. to have carried some tools along with them.

In other words, you'll believe whatever you want about the narrative of the Book of Mormon regardless of what the narrative of the Book of Mormon actually says.

Umm...no. I don't believe that Lehi and Co. ran into any Pink Unicorns on the way to Bountiful. The narrative doesn't say that there wasn't. So can't we implicitly surmise that there might have indeed been Pink Unicorns?

You are making my point and confirming my assessment.

MG: Do you think this phrase was included to explicitly point out that no tools were taken?

IHAQ: No, I think the phrase was given (by God, word for word) to explain that Lehi & Co. took nothing with them at all except for food, tents and each other.

I didn't realize that you believed the Book of Mormon was/is the word of God.

Regards,
MG

I don't.
But you do.
The word of God (which was given verbatim, word for word) is that Lehi & Co didn't take anything with them other than provisions and tents. You are mingling scripture with the philosophies of Mentalgymnast, a very slippy and dangerous slope indeed.....

Do you believe that Lehi & Co could have built that boat without tools and without readily available timber because God supernaturally (miraculously) provided both? (Which would be the only explanation were the wording of the Book of Mormon to be considered correct and accurate).

[_Elphaba]

You're a nice fanatic, MG. But I wouldn't trust you with any kind of real responsibility. I don't think you're capable of learning.

I agree.

Almost every time I read a thread MG participates in, I end up feeling like I've just read something by a more intelligent and polite version of "whyme." I do think MG is sincere when he says he's willing to consider different explanations and perspectives to claims the LDS Church makes, but in my opinion, I don't think he's actually capable of doing so. I say that because, in many threads, I've observed MG state he's open to changing his mind, or different words to that effect, about the Church's position under discussion, only to watch him reject all logically and methodically laid-out rebuttals that clearly prove the Church's position wrong. in my opinion, this demonstrates he is, as you say "[in]capable of learning," and thus, just as intractable as whyme when it comes to the Church. He's just more (a whole lot more) polite about it.

Elphaba

[_Zub Zool oan]

I would add a couple of thread-derailing thoughts, though.

I have had similar conversations with many a person; Mormons, Christians, athetists, and a sprinkling of new-age or McEastern religion practitioners. And across the spectrum I've found that this is likely a more authentic point of view when that person has determined the most substantial thing they've learned to that point was real tolerance for other's views. It seems to be the touch-stone that reveals whether such thinking is another way of saying, "What I believe to be true is true...for me. And I therefore assume the right to hold all other views contained within this assigned worldview. You believe what you want." or "We all see through a glass, darkly. Therefore, where my belief crosses over into your right to live your beliefs it ceases to be justified. There, I will not follow it that far."

Marriage equality doesn't seem to be an issue with you, which I respect and it points to your view honestly being one gained from experience rather than convenience. What gets tricky, for me anyway, is accepting that even tolerance may be wrong or built on a flawed foundation. Hell, I suspect it has had negative evolutionary value through most of human history so when we read of the rise of nationalism, see lines of social divisions widening in chasms, and failures to find common ground in even the most obvious circumstances where all parties would have been better off if not having won outright...maybe it's not "truth" in a real sense.

The question then rises up: Are potentially self-destructive ideals worth pursuing? Is it meaningful to believe strongly in the higher value of pluralism and informed democratic social orders when it seems it's unrealistic that they can outcompete the other alternatives in the market place of ideas? Does believing they have higher value than the alternatives mean I'm using the wrong metrics?

In some ways, I think we share some things in common. Just not Mormonism. :)

Wonderful post Honor and thank you MG for your usual measured, thoughtful and considerate discussion. I know very many people around me in some conservative families, in-laws, friends etc. that vastly outnumber those of us in my area who are left of center, that would agree with many of your general ideas and views and are in a variety of faith groups other than the LDS. The strongest and most active seem more attracted by the good they feel from service to others. Hellfire and brimstone - even a little, is quite off putting for almost all, except maybe Jehovah's Witnesses and other really hard absolutists who seem to need to be constantly told they are more elect and special than the rest. If you can't invent, discover, synthesize or change something through research, intellect and lot's of hard work, then join a group that tells you, you are more special than anyone else because you have managed to select just the right combination of beliefs which is the magic key to be elevated higher than the rest of us salmon just trying to make our way up the river. It is all about tribe.

I think the last paragraph/question that Honor writes here is a lot to consider. This business of ideas we consider in pluralism and how or whether they are destructive or not brings up many factors about how societies change and adapt. What kinds of things bring societies down? Will gay marriage crash western civilization? Will it destroy the social foundations? Are all these questions relevant and the rigidness desired by more conservative elements of society are exaggerated like their threat assessment of many things or is the largest decider things very directly or closely related to economics? How the money flows seems so often to be the determining factor - or perhaps in the case of some of the ideas from feminists, they can pat themselves on the back for being very progressive and relevant, but it (advances in the status of women), has to do with some very down to earth things like capabilities that came into existence because of science and innovations?

[_Chap]

...
Do you believe that Lehi & Co could have built that boat without tools and without readily available timber because God supernaturally (miraculously) provided both? (Which would be the only explanation were the wording of the Book of Mormon to be considered correct and accurate).

That is essentially the question I want answering, though again I would split it into two:


1. Do you agree that if we take the words of the Book of Mormon in their ordinary and plain sense, it seems unlikely that Nephi would have had available (so far as non-supernatural means are concerned) the tools and other material resources he would have needed to build an ocean-going boat?

2. Assuming (1) is the case, do you believe that Nephi actually did build an ocean-going boat, and that this was made possible by divine intervention supplying the tools and materials he needed?

I just want to get things clear.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG - we can stop arguing when you are prepared to sign up to a statement more or less equivalent to the following:

"(a) I agree that the story of Nephi's ship-building as narrated in the Book of Mormon, if regarded as a story of what ordinary people could have accomplished by the means likely to have been at their disposal under the specified circumstances, and absent miraculous intervention, is highly implausible.

(b) I, however, hold that the deity I believe in intervened and gave assistance that made Nephi and his companions able to build an ocean-going ship. That deity made possible what would have been more or less impossible without his aid."

I just want to see you separate those two clauses. It's the way you keep sliding from one to the other and fuzzing the boundary that I find displeasing to my perhaps overly fastidious sensibility.

So - didn't I get your position right? Is there anything in either of those two statements that you take exception to?

I'm Ok if you separate the two. On number one I'd also include everything that happened from the time Lehi and Co. left Jerusalem to the arrival at Bountiful.

But, yeah, close enough.

There is a scripture in the modern day canon that says that to God all things are spiritual even when we see it as purely physical/temporal. I think that there was an interrelationship between God and Lehi and Co. that allowed for their individual effort and creativity and God's help. It was a physical effort, indeed, but there was a spiritual component also. Nephi wasn't on his own. And like you say, if God wasn't involved at all I think that it may have been highly unlikely that Nephi could have done what he did...especially if the design/build of the ship was beyond the standard at that time.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Do you believe that Lehi & Co could have built that boat without tools and without readily available timber...

No.

...because God supernaturally (miraculously) provided both?

I don't think God "supernaturally"...beyond the natural means/ways of what we can observe...provided the tools or lumber. Although, again, I'm open to the possibility that Nephi did receive some kind of help along the way as the ship was built and launched.

(Which would be the only explanation were the wording of the Book of Mormon to be considered correct and accurate).

So you are saying that Lehi and Co. when they left Jerusalem did not take along "provisions"? What are provisions if not those things necessary for the journey...like tools and implements? Was there anything on the journey that may have required tools/implements? If so, wouldn't they taken these "provisions" along with them?

What tools/implements would be critical for Nephi to have at the very outset when they reached Bountiful...on the assumption that he was then able to extract the ore needed to make ship building tools, etc.?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Provisions- a supply of necessaries or materials; a stock or store. The term is centuries old. Before ships would sail from Europe to the New World, they had to be "provisioned" with food, rope, weapons and instruments.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

And might I add, tools/implements.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

Provisions- a supply of necessaries or materials; a stock or store. The term is centuries old. Before ships would sail from Europe to the New World, they had to be "provisioned" with food, rope, weapons and instruments.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

And might I add, tools/implements.

Regards,
MG

No, he doesn't have tools until later on when he makes them out of all that ore he finds...

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/17?lang=eng

And I said: Lord, whither shall I go that I may find ore to molten, that I may make tools to construct the ship after the manner which thou hast shown unto me?

10 And it came to pass that the Lord told me whither I should go to find ore, that I might make tools.

11 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make a bellows wherewith to blow the fire, of the skins of beasts; and after I had made a bellows, that I might have wherewith to blow the fire, I did smite two stones together that I might make fire.

It's worth noting that this finding of ore, the molten process, the making of the tools, the chopping of the trees and the construction of the boat took Nephi and the petulant Laman and Lemuel two to three years.

*this is the point where you say the Book of Mormon meant he made "more tools"

[_mentalgymnast]

Earlier someone had questioned how Nephi could/would have carried an anvil along on the journey to Bountiful. Whether he did or didn't, I don't know. But when we're discussing Nephi's use of an anvil this might be a bit of information to factor in:

Anvil shape has evolved greatly since the earliest anvil-like objects. These primitive objects used for anvils were typically made of stone, often just a slab of rock. The first metal anvils were made of bronze, then wrought iron, and, finally, steel, which is the material of choice today for anvils, though cast iron is also used in low-end anvils (cast iron is quite brittle for this particular use and absorbs more of the hammer blow’s energy than steel does, so it is not preferred).

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php ... orking-on/

Another site to look at:

http://www.metalsmith.org/pub/mtlsmith/ ... -anvil.htm

I don't think that an anvil needs to be the 'stick in the mud' that some would like/want it to be. I would imagine that Nephi, being the creative person that he was, would have been able to 'make do' and then make a more technologically advanced anvil as time went on and materials became available.

He may not have had to carry one along with him across the desert...although if they did pack one along, they may have considered it to be a necessary "provision" as part of their stores/supplies. What would be the weight of a 'mini' anvil?

Didn't Nephi have what was referred to, correctly or incorrectly, as a "steel" bow...and it broke? He fixed it, right? How did he go about doing that?

Regards,
MG