We know that the translator/redactor took editorial licenses liberally in the text (that is, the text of the Book of Ether is a text written by Moroni, not some translation literal or otherwise of an earlier text)
"We know" sounds pretty confident. Is this a common argument? It has always been my understanding that the book of Ether was translated from a Jaredite text. Is there some textual clue that suggests otherwise?
The story is that it is an abridged text that Moroni included on the Book of Mormon plates, based on 24 plates discovered by the people of Limhi during King Mosiah's time.
What I find interesting is this entry from FAIR regarding some of the events recounted in Ether:
Another possibility is that Ether 7.9 is a "mythical" text, a recollection of an ancient heroic "golden age" when men had weapons of steel or iron.
A slippery slope down hill to declaring all of the Book of Mormon a "mythical" text?
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
skippy the dead wrote:The story is that it is an abridged text that Moroni included on the Book of Mormon plates, based on 24 plates discovered by the people of Limhi during King Mosiah's time.
What I find interesting is this entry from FAIR regarding some of the events recounted in Ether:
Another possibility is that Ether 7.9 is a "mythical" text, a recollection of an ancient heroic "golden age" when men had weapons of steel or iron.
A slippery slope down hill to declaring all of the Book of Mormon a "mythical" text?
That's hysterical. I have never heard that before. Yep, let's just explain away every anachronism as mythical text from a later redactor. Unbelievable. Great find, skippy.
Hmm, let's see. We have a society that hasn't ever invented smelted iron or manufactured steel, and they have an ancient, mythical "golden age" story of a glorious past where men had weapons of iron and steel?
Does this actually make sense to anybody?
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:Hmm, let's see. We have a society that hasn't ever invented smelted iron or manufactured steel, and they have an ancient, mythical "golden age" story of a glorious past where men had weapons of iron and steel?
Another possibility is that Ether 7.9 is a "mythical" text, a recollection of an ancient heroic "golden age" when men had weapons of steel or iron.
A slippery slope down hill to declaring all of the Book of Mormon a "mythical" text?
That's what I thought Ben was getting at, but maybe I'm misreading him.
As a sidenote, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel probably was not composed until some time during or after the Exile. True, it is based on the earlier Sumerian myth of Enmerkar. But the Sumerian myth has the various languages get united rather than the other way around. Making Ether mythical thus may problematic in its own way.
Not that it's more problematic than suggesting that there was a real Tower of Babel, of course.
Hey, it's a great idea. Translation artifacts on top of translation artifacts means you can make the Book of Mormon "mean" whatever you want.
In the end, all this has the end result of making the Book of Mormon totally unreliable as a text that conveys any sort of accurate information about the Book of Mormon peoples and their culture. So why do these same believers assume the Book of Mormon conveys any sort of accurate theological information, either? Considering how much Mormon theology tends to contradict the Book of Mormon, maybe those same believers don't actually believe that at all.
In seriousness, though, I have thought for a while that eventually apologists would declare the story of the Jaredites largely myth. It really is the only sane thing to do.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:Hey, it's a great idea. Translation artifacts on top of translation artifacts means you can make the Book of Mormon "mean" whatever you want.
In the end, all this has the end result of making the Book of Mormon totally unreliable as a text that conveys any sort of accurate information about the Book of Mormon peoples and their culture. So why do these same believers assume the Book of Mormon conveys any sort of accurate theological information, either? Considering how much Mormon theology tends to contradict the Book of Mormon, maybe those same believers don't actually believe that at all.
You have to remember that Ben is a postmodernist, so no text can be said to be "reliable" in terms of conveying meaning or information. It's just a text.
You have to remember that Ben is a postmodernist, so no text can be said to be "reliable" in terms of conveying meaning or information. It's just a text.
Yes, I know, but there is just no way church leaders or mainstream Mormons would ever agree with his position.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
You have to remember that Ben is a postmodernist, so no text can be said to be "reliable" in terms of conveying meaning or information. It's just a text.
Yes, I know, but there is just no way church leaders or mainstream Mormons would ever agree with his position.
I agree, but that is how he manages to make it work.
I'm often reminded of Terry Eagleton's statement that the great thing about postmodernism is that it allows you to drive a wagon train through everyone else's beliefs without the inconvenience of putting forth any of your own.
That reminds me of one or two apologists, I have to say.