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

[_Tobin]

Therefore the excuse for you to believe what ever, no matter how illogical.

Excuse me? I think you are speaking of yourself there buddy.

You do know the text supplies numbers, or did you forget this.

Oh really, the Book of Mormon is a census now too. I must have missed that part.

I take that as an admission as no. You had already said as much anyways, but then you are inconsistent in this thread.

Not being able to recognized that you deal in absolutes and logical fallacies is not my problem. It is yours.

I did not say soft, only malleable. It does require a very high temperature to melt that was not present. You didn't even realize you were saying this with some of your links. :)

Have you ever tried to shape solid iron? You have got to be kidding me.

...assumption A.

This must be your new thing to whine about.

LOL Can't deal with the evidence presented now. Too funny. Bellows are mentioned and they make a big difference. Remember we are not arguing that the text is an ancient one, so we don't need to reinterpret the text or the evidence on the ground to fit a preconceived solution(Assumption A)

Ah, I see you finally agree they did have high heat and you have moved on to missing bellows now. Congratulations. At least that is progress, even though you disppointingly end up whining in the end.

Oh it now needs more emphasis for you . LOL I said look up molten in the index. They would need this knowledge.

It's your theory that the text states there was an iron age. You seem to missing some parts there buddy.

LOLOLOLOL Oh I see, now we are arguing that the text is more then a religious one. Some people don't know when to admit they are wrong.

It is you that is arguing the text is more than a religious text. I was just asking you to point out where it describes this complicated mining complex at.

[_Runtu]

You have got to be kidding. Do you really think just making a fire is somehow high heat. Did you really think this when we talked about high heat?

Like I said, clearly he/she's not interesting in discussing things. I'm beginning to think this might be an exmo sockpuppet.

[_Quasimodo]

Celts count! No rust, though.

Celts don't count. They just lie there. And they may have been purely a ceremonial item used in burials. I certainly am unaware of the burial traditions of the Olmecs and it may have been that burying iron weapons (due to the difficulty in crafting them), would have been unthinkable.

Celts do count. That same celt is called a tomahawk in North American Hollywood jargon. Weapons.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions in an effort to protect your beliefs. Wouldn't it be better to accept the facts as they are and use that as a starting point to understand the true history of the Americas?

Personally, I would rather admit I don't know then twist the facts to fit a preconceived assumption.

[_Buffalo]

It's your theory that the text states there was an iron age. You seem to missing some parts there buddy.

The Book of Mormon states it explicitly. However, as you yourself has acknowledge, the archeological evidence doesn't bare that claim out.

[_Tobin]

Celts do count. That same celt is called a tomahawk in North American Hollywood jargon. Weapons.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions in an effort to protect your beliefs. Wouldn't it be better to accept the facts as they are and use that as a starting point to understand the true history of the Americas?

Personally, I would rather admit I don't know then twist the facts to fit a preconceived assumption.

As I've said before, I believe I can provide reasonable explanations about why certain things you'd assume would be there are not there. There is a difference between that and those reasons being compelling, simple (I'm very much about simple - complicated things tend to be untrue) or persuasive. As I said before, I believe the Book of Mormon to be true because of my experience with God. It isn't that I'm very in love with it, nor do I very much like various aspects of Mormonism and positions that have taken or do take. I also do not expect anyone else to believe that unless they feel compelled by God to do so.

[_Themis]

You have got to be kidding. Do you really think just making a fire is somehow high heat. Did you really think this when we talked about high heat?

Like I said, clearly he/she's not interesting in discussing things. I'm beginning to think this might be an exmo sockpuppet.

The thought had occurred to me, but the amount he is posting makes me wonder who would want to take the time.

[_Tobin]

Like I said, clearly he/she's not interesting in discussing things. I'm beginning to think this might be an exmo sockpuppet.

When I get my own TV commercials, I'll let you know. I'm interested in presenting the position as reasonably as possible. You may not like it. Tough.

[_Themis]

Have you ever tried to shape solid iron? You have got to be kidding me.

No one is saying it was easy. WE are not also talking about solid iron except maybe with Meteoric iron.

This must be your new thing to whine about.

LOL that's the best you can come up with. I notice you haven't disagreed with it. :)

Ah, I see you finally agree they did have high heat and you have moved on to missing bellows now. Congratulations. At least that is progress, even though you disppointingly end up whining in the end.

So now you are going to openly lie. Nice going. I guess when you haven't got a good argument, one has to lie and make insults like whining.

It's your theory that the text states there was an iron age. You seem to missing some parts there buddy.

The only thing missing is iron smelting in Meso-America. As to the iron age, you would have to give us your definition of it. I only showed the text brings up iron use numerous times. This is the point of the thread, that the text is anachronistic. You still seem to miss that.

It is you that is arguing the text is more than a religious text.

We both know I didn't. I even agreed with you that it was primarily a religious text.

I was just asking you to point out where it describes this complicated mining complex at.

Which is a straw-man. I showed they would need this knowledge with the text. You were the one who now suggested the primarily religious text should be giving details of how they got the iron ore. LOL

This would have required a vast network of mining. Certainly the Book of Mormon wouldn't have ignored such a major endeavor.

[_Quasimodo]

As I've said before, I believe I can provide reasonable explanations about why certain things you'd assume would be there are not there.

You're providing explanations of why the proofs of the things you believe can't be found?

Better just to stick to the facts. I imagine that I could find "explanations" of why there is no proof of fairies, but I wouldn't expect anyone to believe them.

There is a difference between that and those reasons being compelling, simple (I'm very much about simple - complicated things tend to be untrue) or persuasive.

If those reasons are not compelling, why promote them? We definitively disagree here. I've found that simple answers to complex questions are usually wrong.

As I said before, I believe the Book of Mormon to be true because of my experience with God. It isn't that I'm very in love with it, nor do I very much like various aspects of Mormonism and positions that have taken or do take. I also do not expect anyone else to believe that unless they feel compelled by God to do so.

Fair enough. Your experience with God can only be your experience. But, since your not that in love with the Book of Mormon and you're clearly taking a beating on this thread factually, maybe you should reconsider if God meant you to be a Mormon or if he was warning you against it.

[_Tobin]

You're providing explanations of why the proofs of the things you believe can't be found? Better just to stick to the facts. I imagine that I could find "explanations" of why there is no proof of fairies, but I wouldn't expect anyone to believe them.

The fact is, there is no evidence of iron weapons buried in Olmec burials sites. The assumption is that there should have been weapons buried if they existed. I don't know if that assumption is valid either.

If those reasons are not compelling, why promote them? We definitively disagree here. I've found that simple answers to complex questions are usually wrong.

Reasons do not have to be compelling, convienent, or simple to be true. It is just rare that they are.

Fair enough. Your experience with God can only be your experience. But, since your not that in love with the Book of Mormon and you're clearly taking a beating on this thread factually, maybe you should reconsider if God meant you to be a Mormon or if he was warning you against it.

If I didn't wish to respond, I could simply choose not to. I mostly do it for fun and see how well the ideas stand-up under as storm of criticism. I'm the only one in this thread promoting a possible way the Book of Mormon could survive the mention of iron in a non-iron age mesoamerica. Did I expect it would be convienent, easy, or that thee facts would line up in my favor? Hardly. If it were the case that iron-age materials were easily found in mesoamerica, these guys wouldn't be discussing the topic in the first place.