Posts
The Buoyant Jaredites
I was recently reading the account of the Jaredites and their preparation to cross the sea, and came upon a passage that seems like a nice little case study in the intersection of scriptural interpretation and science. Most people probably pass right over it in their reading, and it doesn't have the mountain of commentary associated with other passages, so perhaps we can approach it with a little more objectivity.
The Jaredites were commanded to build barges which are described as "tight like unto a dish" and "light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water." From further description, they don't seem to be the kinds of barges we think of; they seem more like contained boats, similar to submarines. Later, during the discussion about how to light them, God says (Ether 2:24),
For behold, ye shall be as a whale in the midst of the sea; for the mountain waves shall dash upon you. Nevertheless, I will bring you up again out of the depths of the sea; for the winds have gone forth out of my mouth, and also the rains and the floods have I sent forth.Archimedes is given credit for having first articulated the principles of buoyancy, and today we would say it is just a result of density and gravity. If the weight of the volume of water displaced by an object is greater than the weight of the object, then the object will float. Or, more simply, if something is less dense than water, it will float--no divine intervention needed. Further, the barges were already described as light on the water, which suggests that they floated, plain and simple. Yet, here we have God speaking as though his direct intervention is needed to bring the barges back to the surface. So is this literal or figurative? On what basis should we decide?
If they notice the sentence at all, most people probably just consider it a figure of speech. Floating is an ordinary phenomenon that we observe on a regular basis, and the idea of submarines coming to the surface is familiar to us. Also, the second part of the sentence speaks of wind coming out of God's mouth, which is also taken to be figurative because (i) we understand the cause of wind and (ii) the picture of God blowing on the earth like a birthday cake just strikes us as silly. But we might imagine some zealous defender of scripture assuring us that God chooses his words carefully, says what he means, and that therefore his intervention really was needed to bring the barges back up. This defender might concede that the wind coming out of God's mouth is an obvious metaphor, but still insist that the first part is literal and challenge us to explain why God would take credit for something he didn't actually do.
The non-literal nature of the sentence might be explained by one or more of the following:
- God sometimes uses metaphors and figures of speech. He expects us to be smart enough to understand that. Get over it.
- God adapted his explanation to the level of Jaredite understanding. In ancient Near Eastern culture the sea was associated with chaos and monsters, and both the sea and the wind were ruled by gods. God adopted their cultural background in his communication with them.
- God didn't really say what is attributed to him. Ancient writers embellished the dialogue in a way that reflects ancient conceptions of the sea and wind. Revealed texts are not necessarily precise transcriptions of God's words.
- God simply meant that he would protect them and intervene if necessary.
The approach one takes to this verse is influenced by culture, experience, assumptions about God, prophets, and scripture, and some quick mental calculus to determine how the answer affects the integrity of these. Most of the decision probably occurs unconsciously and reflexively.
How one interprets this verse is probably inconsequential. However, if I am right in my guess that most people don't think that God literally had to pull those barges out of the water, then maybe this verse can be useful in discussions of scriptural literalism and science.
9 comments:
“for the winds have gone forth out of my mouth”
When I read that phrase I don’t think of God causing wind by blowing. I think of Him speaking the command, “Let there be a great wind to propel my people to the promised land.”
I think it is particularly merciful that the Lord told the brother of Jared this ahead of time because the account says that the wind did never cease to blow toward the promised land, and because it never stopped, the whole long journey had to have been one big storm for them. Because the brother of Jared was told this ahead of time, instead of reacting with fear, all his people continually praised the Lord.
Imagine, perhaps, that the barges might have been covered with water for long periods of time. Then imagine the people within those sealed vessels growing fearful that they might suffocate. No doubt they would pray for help in getting to the surface in a timely manner.
It may not be a question of why God would promise his help in delivering them to the surface when the inherent design of the vessel would bring them to the top automatically. Rather, it was probably a promise of safety -- as the Jaredites would surely intuit that things may not always go as planned on such a dangerous journey.
Jack
Thank you, Jared*, this really could be a useful illustration for the purpose you outline. It would be more effective, I think, in a small group discussion than in, say, Gospel Doctrine, because the very first thing that would happen is that rather than actually hearing you, they would instead immediately begin bearing their testimonies as to the truthfulness of their style of interpretation. But for a small group of people interested in discussion and not merely reaction, this will be useful. Thanks -- I'm always looking for methods and illustrations to help me be a better teacher.
Michaela,
I wonder if there was already a cyclone or hurricane in the works that God co-opted for his purposes.
For as seasick as I would be, I doubt I would be feeling the mercy.
Jack,
Later the text does say that when they were submerged that they prayed and were brought back up. I think I would be praying too, knowledge of buoyancy notwithstanding.
Another option I didn't think of until now is that the words attributed to God were written after the fact, with their experience in hindsight.
Ardis,
Yes, I had small group or one-on-one conversations in mind. But it might be useful in a large group--if someone was getting too dogmatic, you might bring up this scripture and leave it as food for thought.
The scriptures say what God would do (bring the barges back up), but they don't say how He would do it, and they don't say how long it would take God to do it. For the "how" we turn to science, and your comments about buoyancy are appropriate for that.
God, I believe, works through natural laws. God instructs the Jaredites how to build barges that are buoyant. People who believe in God will say He brought the barges up. People who don't believe in God will say natural laws brought the barges up. People like me will say both. God brought the barges up, because He instructed the people to build barges that are buoyant (if we assign the "what" or the "why" of things to God and the "how" of things to science, a lot of the mysteries in the scriptures make sense).
I like the phrase "tight like unto a dish". I remember wood shop in high school and what it takes to make a dish from wood.
When I had my Jeep engine rebuilt, I was very excited that the oil leak that had been there for nearly 15 years was totally gone. My facebook status that day? "The bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish." =:)
In some ways I would call this post "the powering down of G-d." To paraphrase, He couldn't really have done these magnificent things because they can be explained by science. In case your wondering why Evolution is still not accepted by many religious Mormons, its because of the ideas expressed here. Science explains [fill in the blank] that is really metaphorical in the scriptures, ergo it isn't divine. My own idea is that like light in (and Evolution), He speaks and things happen in controlled independence.
By the way, as is his ways, Hugh Nibley extensively talked about this scene in his Book of Mormon lectures. Of course, he didn't touch science like he did historical examples and texts. His conclusion was that the boats were unique, but not unheard of in the ancient world; at least in stories left behind if not in archeology.
Jettboy,
You'll almost never find me saying that God can't do something.
I once considered the attractive concept that the southern oscillation which causes the El Nino weather anomaly would be a handy tool for this migration. At the equator, typhoons and hurricanes (in the southern and northern hemispheres, respectively) would combine to create a terrific eastward force to propel a protective craft to South America. A nifty by-product arises in form of a sub-surface current named Kelvin waves that move across the Pacific in rather rapid fashion and in the direction indicated. Nothing is to be considered insignificant when used by divine hands.
Post a Comment