Glass & Steel in the Book of Mormon, why a problem?

[cacheman]

This tells me you have not done any real study on this outside of fair and farms.

For some reason this reminded me of a history class I took at BYU on pre-Conquest Latin America (one of my majors was Latin American Studies; the other was English). We studied the Olmecs, Toltecs, Maya, Inca, Aztecs, and other groups in depth. At the beginning of the semester, the professor said (I'm quoting from memory), "Some of you may be here hoping to discuss the Nephites and Lamanites and how they fit into the history. We are not going to discuss that, as it has nothing to do with the history of the peoples of ancient America." When a student asked about evidence of Nephites and Lamanites, he said, "There isn't any. Anyone who says there is evidence of them is lying."

I ran into this professor recently at the pharmacy. I asked him about that statement, and he said he still stands by it, as "nothing has changed."

[_Themis]

This is a side-show, an irrelevant distraction to the original question, which was about steel and glass in the Book of Mormon and whether it's an anachronism or not.

I think glass is only mentioned once, although with the Jaredites, but steel and iron are mentioned a number of times. The problem here is we have a number of arm chair apologists who use apologetic arguments as fact without questioning whether they are really accurate.

[_Themis]

For some reason this reminded me of a history class I took at BYU on pre-Conquest Latin America (one of my majors was Latin American Studies; the other was English). We studied the Olmecs, Toltecs, Maya, Inca, Aztecs, and other groups in depth. At the beginning of the semester, the professor said (I'm quoting from memory), "Some of you may be here hoping to discuss the Nephites and Lamanites and how they fit into the history. We are not going to discuss that, as it has nothing to do with the history of the peoples of ancient America." When a student asked about evidence of Nephites and Lamanites, he said, "There isn't any. Anyone who says there is evidence of them is lying."

I ran into this professor recently at the pharmacy. I asked him about that statement, and he said he still stands by it, as "nothing has changed."

I remember taking a university course on the Maya(not at BYU), as at the time was working on getting a degree in archeology(that changed to a different degree later :)), and was hoping to see evidence that matched what we read in the Book of Mormon. Just a little disappointing. I didn't stop believing though.

[_Runtu]

I remember taking a university course on the Maya(not at BYU), as at the time was working on getting a degree in archeology(that changed to a different degree later :)), and was hoping to see evidence that matched what we read in the Book of Mormon. Just a little disappointing. I didn't stop believing though.

Nor did I. As I've said multiple times to Tobin, the problems in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with my loss of faith.

[_Tobin]

Themis, please deal with what I wrote. You rely on hearsay, or misstate my position as there being two hill Cumorahs when I said no such thing, or you refuse to deal with a very logical position that if the Mormon civilization was in Central America the hill Cumorah must be near there, or lastly - you take a very shallow position of saying you've heard these arguments before so you don't need to deal with them. All I have to say to that is, "Yawn!".

[_Tobin]

You realize, of course, that the entire First Vision account is hearsay, right? Do you reject the scriptures as hearsay?

Of course it is hearsay. So, you need to talk to God and get a first hand account to know if it is true. As I've said again and again, there is no point to Mormonism without speaking with God about it.

[_Tobin]

Strange that he would know so much about the peoples who inhabited the Americas but not know where they lived, even though he sure didn't have any trouble identifying individuals by name when their skeletons were found, as well as knowing exactly the geographical extent to which they were known by others (Zelph). Here is what his mother said about Joseph's knowledge of the peoples who inhabited the Americas anciently:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." (History of the Prophet Joseph, 1901 edition, Salt Lake City, Utah. Published under the sanction and direction of the late President Joseph F. Smith).

So, he knew all of that but was clueless about where they lived? Odd.

It isn't strange at all. What knowledge Jospeh Smith had came most directly from translating the Book of Mormon with the help of God. I've never done that so I can't tell you how it works or how much information is conveyed or how it was modified so he could relate to the information. Also, many urban legends have grown up around Joseph Smith saying such-and-such and there are plenty of second-hand accounts (hearsay) which I don't give any credence either. Also, I just don't discount that Joseph Smith thought he knew a lot more than he really did. After all, he was a human being, not God, and subject to many of our failings. To simply rely on his word without context, meaning, underlying knowledge, and checking with the source is foolhardy since he was often wrong about a great many things.

[_Themis]

Themis, please deal with what I wrote. You rely on hearsay, or misstate my position as there being two hill Cumorahs when I said no such thing,

Fair and farms are the ones who come up with two Cumorah's.

or you refuse to deal with a very logical position that if the Mormon civilization was in Central America the hill Cumorah must be near there,

I have dealt with it. WE have just shown that Joseph did not present any LGT. This thread is talking about some of those issues, like steel and iron being anachronistic. You come into the discussion repeating apologetic arguments you have read without actually checking to see if they are accurate. Steel disappearing due to a wet climate is one of them. Another is the macuahuitl which did not appear till well after Book of Mormon times. You don,t even try to confirm what runtu and others say, but dismiss it without evidence.

or lastly - you take a very shallow position of saying you've heard these arguments before so you don't need to deal with them. All I have to say to that is, "Yawn!".

We have already tried to show you with evidence, both on the ground and what the text says.

Lets go back to the OP with steel and iron. This is anachronistic since we see no steel or iron use. The text tells us they made all manner of them, both the Jaredites and Lehi's group.

[_Tobin]

Fair and farms are the ones who come up with two Cumorah's.

And it is NOT my position. There is ONE hill Cumorah and it isn't in NY.

I have dealt with it. WE have just shown that Joseph did not present any LGT. This thread is talking about some of those issues, like steel and iron being anachronistic. You come into the discussion repeating apologetic arguments you have read without actually checking to see if they are accurate. Steel disappearing due to a wet climate is one of them. Another is the macuahuitl which did not appear till well after Book of Mormon times. You don,t even try to confirm what runtu and others say, but dismiss it without evidence...

As I've stated, knowledge of steel production was highly specialized and the weapons were rare in the Nephite civilization (and worldwide). It wasn't common until the iron age. The position that the Nephites had an iron age is absurd and the archeological evidence supports this because there is NO evidence of an iron age. You and Runtu both know this so stop arguing that there must have been one. Also, as I've said, we do not know when the macuahuitl appeared (we only have a depiction dating from 870 AD and stating that is the date it appeared is absurd). But, even IF it did, we know there were plenty of weapons in use before then and wood and obsidian are commonly had and these types of weapons have been in use and development for a very long time in mesoamerica. How do we know that? Because we have depictions of these types of weapons dating all the way back to the 6th century BC on stela.

[_Runtu]

As I've stated, knowledge of steel production was highly specialized and the weapons were rare in the Nephite civilization (and worldwide). It wasn't common until the iron age. The position that the Nephites had an iron age is absurd and the archeological evidence supports this because there is NO evidence of an iron age. You and Runtu both know this so stop arguing that there must have been one.

Quit misrepresenting my position. There was no iron age in the Americas during the time of the Nephites. That is what makes the text anachronistic, because it clearly describes the widespread use of high-heat smelting technologies in making weapons and tools. What you are doing is ignoring the text because you know it doesn't match the reality on the ground.

Also, as I've said, we do not know when the macuahuitl appeared (we only have a depiction dating from 870 AD and stating that is the date it appeared is absurd). But, even IF it did, we know there were plenty of weapons in use before then and wood and obsidian are commonly had and these types of weapons have been in use and development for a very long time in mesoamerica. How do we know that? Because we have depictions of these types of weapons dating all the way back to the 6th century BC on stela.

Again, the use of weapons is not the anachronism. But you already knew that.