charity wrote:Gosh, I never heard of any society that had lesser technology than an earlier society. (Place the wide eyed, innocent looking smilie here.) Uh, wait. How about Britain, AFTER the Romans left? They didn't get back to central heating until early in the 20th century.
Oh, sethbag, were you being sarcastic and I missed it?
Except that wasn't the point. The statement suggested that later Nephites erroneously attributed steel smelting capabilities to the Jaredites as part of their mythology. Seth simply pointed out that since the Nephites did not have steel smelting capabilities either, it would seem strange for them to attribute a technology they'd never heard of before.
I think many societies which have lost technological capabilities notice there is something they aren't able to do any more. YOu think the less capable Brits didn't notice the ruins of buildings they could not longer construct?
You're still not getting it. The "mythology" bit in the OP insinuates that the Jaredites never actually had steel at all - it was only Nephite mythology. But the Nephites never had steel, so how would they even know about steel to put it into their mythology? This isn't the case of looking at buildings one doesn't know how to build anymore, this is about describing a technology in one's mythology that one actually has no prior knowledge of. It's not the same thing at all.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:You're still not getting it. The "mythology" bit in the OP insinuates that the Jaredites never actually had steel at all - it was only Nephite mythology. But the Nephites never had steel, so how would they even know about steel to put it into their mythology? This isn't the case of looking at buildings one doesn't know how to build anymore, this is about describing a technology in one's mythology that one actually has no prior knowledge of. It's not the same thing at all.
I tried explaining that twice to no avail. That really is the most bizarre theory I have ever heard to explain a Book of Mormon anachronism.
I don't think anyone here is accurately reflecting my views.
If the Book of Mormon is a historical text, does anyone want to contest the notion that Moroni is the author of the Book of Ether? Even without parsing every part, it is patently obvious that Moroni is not merely translated, but adding commentary and editorial notes. The first verse of Chapter 6 reads:
And now I, Moroni, proceed to give the record of Jared and his brother.
If he is only just now giving the record, what has he been giving for the first 5 chapters? And why the need (if its just a translation) to keep inserting himself into the text (as in Chapter 8: "And now I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that they are had among all people, and they are had among the Lamanites. ")
To everyone who wants to suggest that the Book of Ether is simply a translation of a Jaredite record, I recommend actually reading the text with the view in mind of trying to distinguish between ancient record material and Moroni material, and I think everyone will see what I am talking about. I think it just makes it less clear that we can place anachronisms in the Book of Ether into the time of the Jaredites as opposed to the time of Moroni when the text of the Book of Ether was actually written ... unless of course anyone here wants to come up with a process by which we can tell what was original Jaredite material and what should be attributable to Moroni ...