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

[_Quasimodo]

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.

I'm getting lazy in my old age. I should answer your comments point by point, but I'm hoping this shorter post will work.

I think you agree that there is no evidence of iron smelting in the pre-Columbian Americas. Steel is an amalgam of carbon and iron that is much more complicated to manufacture. No iron, no steel.

The only person (as far as I know) that originally claimed that civilizations in the pre-Columbian Americas made steel is Joseph Smith in his Book of Mormon. His claims were made because he also claimed that God told him.

Thousands of archaeological excavations have been completed and many more are still in progress. Still, no iron. There is no hint from any other source other than Joseph Smith (who's honesty may well be doubted) that Iron was produced.

Since there is only one dubious source that claims iron was made and thousands of scientific studies that refute it, don't you think it's reasonable to believe that no such technology existed?

[_Tobin]

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.

I'm getting lazy in my old age. I should answer your comments point by point, but I'm hoping this shorter post will work.

I think you agree that there is no evidence of iron smelting in the pre-Columbian Americas. Steel is an amalgam of carbon and iron that is much more complicated to manufacture. No iron, no steel.

The only person (as far as I know) that originally claimed that civilizations in the pre-Columbian Americas made steel is Joseph Smith in his Book of Mormon. His claims were made because he also claimed that God told him.

Thousands of archaeological excavations have been completed and many more are still in progress. Still, no iron. There is no hint from any other source other than Joseph Smith (who's honesty may well be doubted) that Iron was produced.

Since there is only one dubious source that claims iron was made and thousands of scientific studies that refute it, don't you think it's reasonable to believe that no such technology existed?

Actually, I pretty much agree with what you said and is a very strong argument vs the arguments I've seen from Runtu and Themis (who I've been bickering with just for the heck of it). The position that the Book of Mormon MUST describe an iron age is a weak argument and something I don't take seriously. There is simply no reason to believe that interpretation of the text is any more valid than the view that iron was rare and the craft was specialized. Even in the case of the Jaredites, it can be simply explained away as having taken place over a very long time since the civilization was much older. No, the reason I like your argument and think it is strong is precisely because there is no evidence of iron working what-so-ever. And unless, and until such a discovery is made. It is a MAJOR problem.

[_Themis]

Denial inspite of having been provided proof of ceramics created in 1000BC using high heat kilns at 900C. Now who is lying?

Interesting that we bring up high heat technology. It's hard to believe you did not understand that this meant temperatures hot enough to melt iron. You bring up the Olmec and ceramics, and what temperatures they used to produce them, which is about 600 degrees less then what is needed for iron, and then say we are lying. LOL

Your position that the text describes an iron age despite the lack of any archeological evidence is disingenuous at best.

Not at all. My position is the text describes iron use, and uses words to indicate more then a rarity that you want to believe. This makes the text anachronistic no matter how you slice it, since no iron or high heat technology to melt iron has ever been found. This is the point of the thread you still seem to miss.

[_Themis]

The only person (as far as I know) that originally claimed that civilizations in the pre-Columbian Americas made steel is Joseph Smith in his Book of Mormon. His claims were made because he also claimed that God told him.

I believe there are sources, or people who believed many of the things we find in the Book of Mormon, including the use of steel.

This is one possible source

Haywood, John, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, Nashville, 1823.

[_Tobin]

And that's in degrees Centigrade, or almost 1100 degrees Fahrenheit short of the temperature needed to melt iron.

The problem I have with your and Themis's arguments Runtu are that they are shallow and weak. You fail on almost any level to make them compelling, unlike Quasimodo. Your arguments against the Book of Mormon goes as follows:

1) You interpret the text (mind you this is a religious text open to interpretation) as stating that there must have been an iron age.
The reason that argument is transparently weak is that there is simply no reason to state that your interpretation of a religious text is any better than anyone else's.

2) You state the Olmec's didn't possess knowledge of high heat technology.
When it is pointed out to you that they had high heat kilns, you backpetal and say: oh - those kilns weren't hot enough to melt iron. The reason that is just as shallow and weak as the argument above is due to the fact that you fail to grasp the concept that the ancient Greeks of 2000BC did not have kilns any hotter than those of the Olmecs. The missing element is a few adaptations, chief among them being bellows. Now, interestingly enough, the Book of Mormon states that Nephi made what? Bellows.

You would be far better off not adopting silly and shallow positions in the first place and doing what Quasimodo does. A strong argument is the lack of evidence of any iron works period. Unless and until ANY such instances are found, even one, (and it needs to be more compelling than small beads and small iron-ore/magnetite mirrors), the Book of Mormon has a major problem.

That being said, if you doubt you are correct, and are worried that one day that they might find such an instance. Then I could see why you feel the need to promote the weak arguments above since you would need them to backpetal to in such a case.

[_Quasimodo]

The only person (as far as I know) that originally claimed that civilizations in the pre-Columbian Americas made steel is Joseph Smith in his Book of Mormon. His claims were made because he also claimed that God told him.

I believe there are sources, or people who believed many of the things we find in the Book of Mormon, including the use of steel.

This is one possible source

Haywood, John, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, Nashville, 1823.

Thanks, Themis.

I had a very quick scan of the above book (available on line). I love this sort of thing. I'll read more as I have time.

It seems to be more of a scholarly work (for it's time) so I'm guessing that if does contain speculations about Native American technology, Mr. Haywood was putting forth postulations more than claiming them as truths. I'll find out more (I'm sure) as I read along.

I know that there were several published books from those times that contained similar ideas, but my point was meant to say that Joseph Smith (as far as I know) was the only one that claimed that steel and other "undiscovered" items and life forms did exist in the pre-Columbian Americas. He claimed it was true, beyond doubt and from the mouth of God. Gospel in the most real sense.

This puts the words of Joseph Smith and the entire Book of Mormon in serious doubt if none of those items can be found in reliable, dateable layers.

If steel scimitars and chariot wheels do show up one day, we all may have to join (or rejoin) the Mormon church. I don't think it's the way to bet, though.

[_Themis]

The problem I have with your and Themis's arguments Runtu are that they are shallow and weak. You fail on almost any level to make them compelling, unlike Quasimodo. Your arguments against the Book of Mormon goes as follows:

I am unaware of where Quasimodo' argument differs from ours.

1) You interpret the text (mind you this is a religious text open to interpretation) as stating that there must have been an iron age.
The reason that argument is transparently weak is that there is simply no reason to state that your interpretation of a religious text is any better than anyone else's.

You have already been shown that some interpretations are better, based on the actual text, while yours is not based on the text at all. This is the main problem we are having here. Yours is being driven by assumption A.

2) You state the Olmec's didn't possess knowledge of high heat technology.

And you provided some sources that support just that. Don't play games here. It's hard to believe you thought high heat as brought up in this thread did not mean temperatures high enough to melt iron.

When it is pointed out to you that they had high heat kilns, you backpetal and say: oh - those kilns weren't hot enough to melt iron.

How can we back peddle, when all that is going on here is you redefining what we meant by high heat technology that i suspect you already knew.

The reason that is just as shallow and weak as the argument above is due to the fact that you fail to grasp the concept that the ancient Greeks of 2000BC did not have kilns any hotter than those of the Olmecs. The missing element is a few adaptations, chief among them being bellows. Now, interestingly enough, the Book of Mormon states that Nephi made what? Bellows.

Bellows make a huge difference, but they are not the only thing that makes a difference. Runtu already brought up the Olmec using an open pit method, which would not be as good as other methods. It is still irrelevant to the Olmec leaving any traces of evidnece to date that shows they could make hotter temperatures to make iron and other materials.

You would be far better off not adopting silly and shallow positions in the first place and doing what Quasimodo does. A strong argument is the lack of evidence of any iron works period. Unless and until ANY such instances are found, even one, (and it needs to be more compelling than small beads and small iron-ore/magnetite mirrors), the Book of Mormon has a major problem.

Our position is there is a lack of any iron smelting going on. Iron beads and mirrors where not created from smelting. You seem to still confuse what the issue is here, which is what the text describes compared to what we see on the ground. You can hope they will find this evdience one day, but until then, the text remains anachronistic in regards to iron and steel.

That being said, if you doubt you are correct, and are worried that one day that they might find such an instance. Then I could see why you feel the need to promote the weak arguments above since you would need them to backpetal to in such a case.

LOL You don't really understand much do you. I would be happy to find lots of evidence to support Joesph's claims. It would make life simpler. I suspect Runtu would have similar feelings. The problems is it has become so unlikely due to so much evidence against, and little for. This really has only gotten worse despite the claims of some apologists.

[_Themis]

Thanks, Themis.

I had a very quick scan of the above book (available on line). I love this sort of thing. I'll read more as I have time.

It seems to be more of a scholarly work (for it's time) so I'm guessing that if does contain speculations about Native American technology, Mr. Haywood was putting forth postulations more than claiming them as truths. I'll find out more (I'm sure) as I read along.

There may be more, but I haven't spent much time looking for it. Perhaps if others read this they can share any they may know about. What I find interesting is just how much of the Book of Mormon was already being believed and discussed in his own time. View of the Hebrew is very bad for the Book of Mormon, as it shows many things thought to be unique to the Book of Mormon story line share similar sources. I am not aware though that VotH was meant to be anything more then fiction.

I know that there were several published books from those times that contained similar ideas, but my point was meant to say that Joseph Smith (as far as I know) was the only one that claimed that steel and other "undiscovered" items and life forms did exist in the pre-Columbian Americas. He claimed it was true, beyond doubt and from the mouth of God. Gospel in the most real sense.

I agree. I think many may have believed some of the claims they made about ancients peoples of the Americas, but the books written were almost always meant to be fiction.

This puts the words of Joseph Smith and the entire Book of Mormon in serious doubt if none of those items can be found in reliable, dateable layers.

If steel scimitars and chariot wheels do show up one day, we all may have to join (or rejoin) the Mormon church. I don't think it's the way to bet, though.

Possibly. While some anachronisms provide evidence against the Book of Mormon, finding them does not of necessity provide evidence for the Book of Mormon. Steel would be an example. I think if they found gold or brass plates containing what appears to be some kind of Hebrew, Egyptian, christian beliefs, that this would be quite good evidence in support of the Book of Mormon.

[_Quasimodo]

There may be more, but I haven't spent much time looking for it. Perhaps if others read this they can share any they may know about. What I find interesting is just how much of the Book of Mormon was already being believed and discussed in his own time. View of the Hebrew is very bad for the Book of Mormon, as it shows many things thought to be unique to the Book of Mormon story line share similar sources. I am not aware though that VotH was meant to be anything more then fiction.

Themis, I have to thank you again for pointing out this book. I'm having great fun reading it. While it was published in 1823, it looks like it was an exploration and consequent journal by Haywood that was made in 1768 when Tennessee was still part of Great Briton.

Much of the area he describes is in an area of TN where I lived for some years.

If anyone else wants to have a look, here's a link:

http://www.archive.org/stream/naturalaborigina00hayw#page/n9/mode/2up

It's available as a PDF, but I'm viewing the lovely, yellow stained, scanned pages of a very old book. Too bad the aroma that comes with old books can't be piped through the internet.

[_Equality]

I don't understand why he's so unwilling to engage the evidence. You and I have laid out our argument rather clearly, and what he responds with has nothing to do with it. I think this may be an exercise in futility.

Sounds like you are describing Hugh Nibley. Oh, wait, I shouldn't have said that; he'll likely take it as a compliment.