Interpreter apologists wrestle with Nephi’s transoceanic vessel

[Physics Guy]

Storytelling is different from writing modern history. ...

It just may be that the story of Nephi building a ship was written with other goals in mind than accurately describing how to build a sea-going vessel to those who might find themselves on the run, traveling in the wilderness. Those aspects of the story that are not salient in light of the author's larger purpose are not mentioned.

Okay, but the story does mention having to find ore, and bang rocks together and make bellows out of skins to make a fire hot enough to melt the ore, to make metal tools for building a vessel. These details could have been omitted entirely, if the goal were only to tell the larger-purpose story of Nephi building a ship under God's instruction to cross the ocean.

No coherent story is told through these awkward details; they're introduced but then abandoned perfunctorily without ever having gone anywhere. You can include excessive but accurate detail and make a good history that is not a good story, or cut to the chase and make a good story that isn't good history. Raising issues like ore and hot fire, but then never doing anything with them that is either informative or interesting, is not good as either story or history.

The only effect these details achieve in the story is to double down on the literal claim that this ship-building really did happen with real metal tools made from scratch. Like a forged manuscript that literally stammers with pages of reduplicated syll-syll-syllables written out fully like that, just to reinforce its claim to have been written by the Emperor Claudius, this is a text which is dishonest in itself, even apart from its author.

[Shulem]

A prophet's responsibility is to call repentance to those in whom they come into contact with and to invite them to come unto Christ. The fact that Smith's story mentions no such thing at Bountiful is all the evidence we need that the prophet did not fill that role at that time. They were alone.

You are making up silly requirements, and that undermines your argument.

The argument I make for what's in the text and what's not in the text is not silly. It is a logical and reasonable assessment. And it fits the doctrinal profile of a prophet's duty according to Smith.

[Moksha]

However, an Interpreter CGI recreation would be fun, especially if they added tail fins and outboard motors to the ship. Stops along the way in Shangri La, Honahlee, and the Canary Islands before landing at Smith's Point on the Delmarva Penninsula would be exciting.

Don't forget a noble tapir on top of the prow (or in a stroke of foreshadowing Joseph, the Prophet of Latter-days).

[Kishkumen]

The argument I make for what's in the text and what's not in the text is not silly. It is a logical and reasonable assessment. And it fits the doctrinal profile of a prophet's duty according to Smith.

No, it really is silly to look at a text written almost 200 years ago and judge the believability of its stories by what you assume should have been included in them, when you don't even bother to contextualize it among works of the same genre.

[Kishkumen]

Okay, but the story does mention having to find ore, and bang rocks together and make bellows out of skins to make a fire hot enough to melt the ore, to make metal tools for building a vessel. These details could have been omitted entirely, if the goal were only to tell the larger-purpose story of Nephi building a ship under God's instruction to cross the ocean.

No coherent story is told through these awkward details; they're introduced but then abandoned perfunctorily without ever having gone anywhere. You can include excessive but accurate detail and make a good history that is not a good story, or cut to the chase and make a good story that isn't good history. Raising issues like ore and hot fire, but then never doing anything with them that is either informative or interesting, is not good as either story or history.

The only effect these details achieve in the story is to double down on the literal claim that this ship-building really did happen with real metal tools made from scratch. Like a forged manuscript that literally stammers with pages of reduplicated syll-syll-syllables written out fully like that, just to reinforce its claim to have been written by the Emperor Claudius, this is a text which is dishonest in itself, even apart from its author.

Seriously, you are guilty of exactly the same error that Shulem is making, only you are doing it in a more eloquent and thoughtful way. The question one should always first ask is why the author did what they did, not assume that they should have done what you consider to be good storytelling or good history.

Go look at Caesar's account of building a bridge across the Rhine and then examine all of the scholarship that has gone into figuring out whether his account is accurate, to what extent it is just literary, what its purpose is, etc. If you look into it, you will see that a lot of scholarly effort has been poured into figuring those things out. And, here's the thing, we know that Caesar lived and he had a bridge built across the Rhine.

If, with all we do know about Caesar, so much effort could be put into interrogating the whys and wherefores of this account of a bridge, then I imagine a similar amount of effort could and probably should be expended figuring out why this account of shipbuilding in the Book of Mormon is as it is. That work does not begin with shot in the dark assumptions you or Shulem have about what should or should not be in it. That's a waste of time and effort.

[Shulem]

That work does not begin with shot in the dark assumptions you or Shulem have about what should or should not be in it. That's a waste of time and effort.

I beg to differ. And I tend to think that the more people out there in the world who learn about these matters, the less will be baptized into the church because they will see the Book of Mormon as a fraudulent story that *was* presented as a historical and genuine record.

[Shulem]

Seriously, you are guilty of exactly the same error that Shulem is making, only you are doing it in a more eloquent and thoughtful way.

OMFG.

Whatever.

[Kishkumen]

The only effect these details achieve in the story is to double down on the literal claim that this ship-building really did happen with real metal tools made from scratch.

I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around how asinine this statement is. Consider the following:

The Book of Mormon is obviously written in the Biblical tradition.

The most famous travel myth aside from the Exodus (which the Book of Mormon refers too repeatedly) is Noah building an ark on the command of God to survive the flood.

The Book of Mormon has two similar stories: Nephi constructing a ship, and the Jaredites building barges.

Both episodes are miracle tales. The Jaredite version is more obviously miraculous (vision of God), but both are miraculous.

Metalwork is a preoccupation of the text, because, hey, the book itself is supposedly made of metal plates.

Smith operated in an environment in which there is a certain mystique to finding precious metals and working with metals. Oh, gee, I wonder why he focuses on Nephi working with metal!?!?!?!

This preoccupation comes out of the treasure digging and bogus making operations that were clearly a big topic of interest at the time.

The possibility that the mention of metal working in this account is *only* for the purposes of verisimilitude is fairly low.

[Kishkumen]

I beg to differ. And I tend to think that the more people out there in the world who learn about these matters, the less will be baptized into the church because they will see the Book of Mormon as a fraudulent story that *was* presented as a historical and genuine record.

So, in other words, you don't care about the actual value of what you do outside of dissuading people from getting baptized in the LDS Church.

Thank you for your candor.

[Kishkumen]

OMFG.

Whatever.

Is that supposed to be an improvement on your eloquence and thoughtfulness?