Steel In The Book Of Mormon

[Verum]

With so many problems for you why do you waste your time on this site? I am really interested to no why someone would waste thier time on something they neither believe or care about.

ERayR... wow, thanks for the warm welcome.

I care very much about the BOM. I am fully active, and continue to read the BOM and be moved by it. By expressing all of the problems for me concerning the BOM by no means assumes that I disbelieve or "don't care" about the BOM. What I actually said was that all of these problems for my own sanity and integrity cause me to be AGNOSTIC to the idea the BOM is a historical text, meaning that I have a difficult time claiming either way that it is a true historical account or not. My hope is that it is historical, but at this stage in my testimony it is difficult for my own integrity to have conviction that it is. I've come for encouragement.

I am on this site because I know there are a lot of smart people who have thought through these issues and can provide insight. My post was a plea for a more convincing explanation of things that are causing some significant cognitive dissonance for me from a community of people who are generally aware of all the issues and can still come down on the side of faith. I apologize if my post seemed "anti" but it reflects my frustration with all the mental gymnastics I have in justifying it as a literal, historical text. I am not doubting, however, its divinity or ability work a might change in the hearts of many. I always thought by investigating more in the historicity of the BOM that it would only reinforce what I at one time "knew" to be true, but I have become frustrated in that pursuit (and it was probably naive of me to think that it would be any different ). My original post was just a reflection of that feeling of discouragement. I was hoping that the BOM WAS as literal as I once believed it to be.

I am a little disappointed in some of the comments that I assumed that I don't care to seek guidance, or that I already have my own conclusions, or that I don't care about the BOM. I came here for quite opposite reasons.

[Zakuska]

Welcome to the board.

[mfbukowski]

Here are some good old boys making steel using Roman (and other cultures) primitive methods.

As you can see, once one knows how to do it, making the furnace etc is a lot of work, but not impossible by any means. If for example Nephi really did know how to do this- making steel would not be a problem. Remember steel is carbonized iron- surely the steel would not be as good as modern steel but certainly it would easily qualify for the term "steel" just as Roman and Japanese steel does- made by similar methods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius

By the time of the Roman Republic, which flourished during the Iron Age, the classical world was well-acquainted with steel and the steel-making process. Pure iron is relatively soft, but pure iron is never found in nature. Natural iron ore contains various impurities in solid solution, which harden the reduced metal by producing irregular-shaped metallic crystals.

The Chalybes of the Caucasus region were metallurgists for Iron-Age Europe and they had found that increasing carbon content produced harder steel. In Roman times ore was reduced in a bloomery furnace, as the blast furnace had not yet been invented, at least in western society. The temperature did not become high enough to actually melt the metal. The resulting pieces were called blooms, which were further worked to remove slag inclusions from its porous surface.

A recent metallurgical study of two Etruria swords, one in the form of a Greek kopis from 7th century BC Vetulonia, and one in the form of a gladius Hispaniensis from 4th century BC Chiusa, gives some insight concerning the manufacture of Roman swords.[14] The Chiusa sword comes from Romanized Etruria; thus, regardless of the names of the forms (which the authors do not identify), the authors believe the process was continuous from the Etruscans to the Romans.

[mfbukowski]

For me, there is no "top anachronism" in the Book of Mormon. I don't see one more problematic than the other. I struggle with the mental gymnastics required to explain all of them as a whole. In addition, when you combine that with problems of an undiscovered and unproven geography, language, and culture, how can anyone assert truthfulness of its historicity? Apologists responses to me are basically the following:

Steel was not really "steel", or yet to be discovered

Horses were not really "horses", or yet to be discovered

Wine = not literally "wine"

Swine = not literally "swine"

barley = not literally barley

elephants = not literally an "elephant ,or yet to be discovered

millions or thousands of soldiers = not literally a "million"

Gold = not "gold"

cattle = not litterally cattle (buffalo)

goat = not a "goat" but possibly a deer?

charriot = not literally a "chariot"

ETC.

Because so many things are being reinterpreted as being less literal, what other choice do I have but to be completely agnostic to the literalness of Book of Mormon in terms of its likelihood of being a literal history of an ancient american civilization? Perhaps someone can help me out on this one...

I suggest you read this:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf

[cdowis]

Like I said in the discussion on Michael Coe, sometimes the biggest mistake people make with the Book of Mormon is thinking that the Book of Mormon means what it says.

It is the purview of apologists to figure out the many ways in which the English words of the Book of Mormon can mean something different than what they say. And given enough creativity and willingness to believe, all things are possible.

I can only point out what the book says, what it doesn't say, and what those words mean in the English it is written in. I will leave it to others to explain all the things it might mean if only it used different words.

You really mean, that they assume it is 19th century fiction, and when words and phrases, when the BOM does not "say" something that matches that assumption, they get upset and confused. Apologists treat it as an ancient document, coming from an ancient middle east culture, translated by an individual from the 19th century.

You gripe and complain because we treat it as a factual document, rather than contrived fiction.

Edited September 26, 2011 by cdowis

[ERayR]

ERayR... wow, thanks for the warm welcome.

I care very much about the BOM. I am fully active, and continue to read the BOM and be moved by it. By expressing all of the problems for me concerning the BOM by no means assumes that I disbelieve or "don't care" about the BOM. What I actually said was that all of these problems for my own sanity and integrity cause me to be AGNOSTIC to the idea the BOM is a historical text, meaning that I have a difficult time claiming either way that it is a true historical account or not. My hope is that it is historical, but at this stage in my testimony it is difficult for my own integrity to have conviction that it is. I've come for encouragement.

I am on this site because I know there are a lot of smart people who have thought through these issues and can provide insight. My post was a plea for a more convincing explanation of things that are causing some significant cognitive dissonance for me from a community of people who are generally aware of all the issues and can still come down on the side of faith. I apologize if my post seemed "anti" but it reflects my frustration with all the mental gymnastics I have in justifying it as a literal, historical text. I am not doubting, however, its divinity or ability work a might change in the hearts of many. I always thought by investigating more in the historicity of the BOM that it would only reinforce what I at one time "knew" to be true, but I have become frustrated in that pursuit (and it was probably naive of me to think that it would be any different ). My original post was just a reflection of that feeling of discouragement. I was hoping that the BOM WAS as literal as I once believed it to be.

I am a little disappointed in some of the comments that I assumed that I don't care to seek guidance, or that I already have my own conclusions, or that I don't care about the BOM. I came here for quite opposite reasons.

Sorry about that I had been posting on a couple of other threads and they carried into my answer here. Probably because your post contained the typical anti laundry list and statement of agnosticism toward the BOM.

I can assure you that the BOM is literal but contains figurative parts the same as the Bible. Historocity will not prove the BOM nor should it. Like all of God's dealings with mortals the first step is faith. After that the evidences (and there are many) for the BOM will be revealed as you develop the ability to receive personal revelation (communion) through the power of the Holy Ghost.

If you have lost your faith the first step is to go back and plant the seed again. Read and study the assurances of God's love for you and when that comes through you are back to what the BOM is all about.

I wish you well and pray that you can regain an assurance that the BOM is real and that many of those problems you perceive are problems of communication between civilizations centuries apart and differences in language and expression.

Edited September 26, 2011 by ERayR

[Calm]

I am a little disappointed in some of the comments that I assumed that I don't care to seek guidance, or that I already have my own conclusions, or that I don't care about the BOM. I came here for quite opposite reasons.

If you haven't done so, I would invest in Brant Gardner's works (his 6? volume about the BoM text as well as his latest book on the translation method) for a serious, very, very informed and well structured analysis of the Book of Mormon, warts and all.

[Verum]

Thanks for the info Eray, I am not offended so no worries...iIam sure I came off pretty abrasive for an initial post anyway. I will check out Brant Gardner. I also enjoyed the article in dialogue that mfbukowski referenced. It is difficult to wrap my brain around it all being literal in terms of historicity, but I am hopeful.

Can prayer or a spiritual experience reveal literal, historical truths or facts? I am not sure, but I know the Spirit can reveal true principles and divine guidance. .

After reading The Peacemaker, I learned that an allegorical book can still have a profound affect on peoples lives.That book changed how I viewed the atonement, as well as how I view my marriage. Does the Book of Mormon have to be a literal account for it to maintain its meaning and impact? Is salvation dependent on receiving a witness of its literal historicity? I am still sorting those out.

[altersteve]

Can prayer or a spiritual experience reveal literal, historical truths or facts? I am not sure, but I know the Spirit can reveal true principles and divine guidance. .

The Holy Ghost testifies of all truth. As Moroni wrote, by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. That would include facts of history if it is God's will for it to be so.

[Stargazer]

"Steel" was originally a verb (to harden, strengthen), and we still use it so today: "He steeled his will against her wiles."

In its past participle, it became an adjective; often, but not always, modifying "iron": steeled iron). (Even today, metalworkers call it "iron", because that's what it is: ironworkers.) Steel was any hardened metal. As shown above, "bronze" (hardened copper), was called "steel" in the English Bible.

Since the language of the Book of Mormon was Hebrew, and since we cannot tell exactly what metal Nephi, et al., referred when Joseph translated "steel", it is far from unreasonable to understand that what the Book of Mormon means when we read "steel" may be any metal alloy that is harder or stronger than its primary element. It may very well be iron, or it could be copper, the two most likely candidates, but there are others, as well, that could be what he had in mind. (I'm not a metallurgist, but I read about one, once.)

Lehi

And not just metal. The idea of Nephi being able to pull a bow made totally out of steel is ludicrous. Imagine yourself, even if you were a bodybuilder, being able to pull a bow made out the metal that your car's leaf springs are made out of.

Nephi's bow is most likely to have been made out of wood, as a base, and then reinforced with horn, sinew, and other resilient "springy" materials. This is the "composite bow" and they have been in use for millenia. Nephi's bow was probably one of these.

[ERayR]

Thanks for the info Eray, I am not offended so no worries...iIam sure I came off pretty abrasive for an initial post anyway. I will check out Brant Gardner. I also enjoyed the article in dialogue that mfbukowski referenced. It is difficult to wrap my brain around it all being literal in terms of historicity, but I am hopeful.

Can prayer or a spiritual experience reveal literal, historical truths or facts? I am not sure, but I know the Spirit can reveal true principles and divine guidance. .

The spiritual experience helps to put things in perspective. After receiving that spiritual witness (however it comes, a blinding flash or still small voice) you won't automaticall accept the straw man attacks of the detractors.

[Rivers]

For me, there is no "top anachronism" in the Book of Mormon. I don't see one more problematic than the other. I struggle with the mental gymnastics required to explain all of them as a whole. In addition, when you combine that with problems of an undiscovered and unproven geography, language, and culture, how can anyone assert truthfulness of its historicity? Apologists responses to me are basically the following:

Steel was not really "steel", or yet to be discovered

Horses were not really "horses", or yet to be discovered

Wine = not literally "wine"

Swine = not literally "swine"

barley = not literally barley

elephants = not literally an "elephant ,or yet to be discovered

millions or thousands of soldiers = not literally a "million"

Gold = not "gold"

cattle = not litterally cattle (buffalo)

goat = not a "goat" but possibly a deer?

charriot = not literally a "chariot"

ETC.

Because so many things are being reinterpreted as being less literal, what other choice do I have but to be completely agnostic to the literalness of Book of Mormon in terms of its likelihood of being a literal history of an ancient american civilization? Perhaps someone can help me out on this one...

What sort of responses to these problems are you expecting?

[ebeddoulos]

Nephi, a prophet of the Book of Mormon states that there were swords and bows made of steel.

“And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.” (1 Nephi 16:18)

Nephi made it quite plain that the steel articles were valuable and prized as “the most precious”.

“And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.” (1 Nephi 4:9)

Once they had landed in the land of promise, Nephi stated that he taught his people to work in, among other things, iron and steel.

“And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.” (2 Nephi 5:15)

Defining exactly what these metals are, proved to be difficult, especially for late 19^th - 21^st century metallurgists. “Steel” was originally a verb. In 1806, Webster defined the verb as: “make hard, harden.”

“Steel, v.t. to edge with steel, make hard, harden” (Noah Webster, “A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language”, Connecticut: Sidney’s Press, [1806], pg. 291, Facsimile Edition, New York, NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., [1970])

It is still used the same way today as it was in Shakespeare's time:

“O God of battles, steel my soldiers hearts.” (Henry V, Act IV Scene 1)

“I steeled myself to focus only on the present yet remain alert to what might come next." (Nicholas Sparks, Dear John)

The ancients used the noun “steel” to signify any hardened metal. Even the translators of the King James called bronze or brass “steel.” There is a very strong possibility that the writers of Book of Mormon also used the term to mean any metal or metal alloy that is harder than its basic, principal element.

“Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?” (Jeremiah 15:12 - KJV)

“Can one break iron, even iron from the north, and brass?” (Jeremiah 15:12 - ASV)

“Can a man break iron – iron from the north – or bronze?” (Jeremiah 15:12 - NIV)

Ask a modern metalugist to define steel and you will get something to the effect that in its molten state steel is a pourable iron alloy having a greater carbon content than wrought iron but less than pig iron. This definition did not come about until well after the invention of the Bessemer process in 1850s and the Holley-Howe Fusion-Carbon debates of the 1870s.

“By 1880 the debate over the method to classify steel had ended, and the once problematic categories of "iron" and "steel" were stable. "Steel" was a pourable fluid from the Bessemer, open- hearth, or crucible process; wrought "iron" was a spongy product of the puddling, boiling, or so-called direct process. Both were subject to chemical standards. Economic, technological, and sociological factors together shaped a metallurgy based on the fusion classification (for defining "steel" and "iron") with a strong chemical component (for classifying the varieties of "steel").” (Thomas J Misa, “A Nation of Steel”, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, [1995], pg. 38)

In spite of these difficulties, many critics try to hold the Book of Mormon to this post 1880’s definition.

Half a century later in the late 1920s, Alpheus Hyatt Verrill wrote an article for a popular magazine of the time called The World’s Work. In it he informed the readers how he explored a pre-Columbian ruin in Panama that he called the Pompeii of Ancient America.

He described his discovery of a chisel-shaped implement made of iron or possibly steel which he had found over five feet below the surface of the ground within a compact mass of semi-fossilized carbon packed in the midst of prehistoric pottery.

“If in a country like Egypt, where flowers are perfectly preserved in burials thousands of years old, only one iron implement has been discovered, what chances of finding iron tools would we have in a tropical land, where burials were in the earth?

Indeed, less than two years ago, I was scoffed at for suggesting that an entirely new and unknown culture of great antiquity had existed in Panama, but we now have undeniable proofs of the fact.

Moreover, at a depth of five and one-half feet below the surface, at the temple site, among broken pottery and embedded in charcoal, I found a steel or hardened iron implement. The greater portion is almost completely destroyed by corrosion, but the chisel-shaped end is in good condition. It is so hard that it is scarcely touched by a file and will scratch glass, and with such an implement it would be a simple matter to cut and carve the hardest stone.

No doubt many will discredit this, or will claim that the implement is modern and found its way beneath the surface via some hole or crevice, or will claim that some junk-collecting snake or centipede carried the object to its resting place in a compact mass of semi-fossilized carbon packed in the midst of prehistoric pottery. But how can they explain the evidence of tool marks on much of the stone work? Not the irregular indentations which might be, and very likely were made by pecking with a stone hammer, but clearly cut delicate lines and chisel marks.” (A. Hyatt Verrill, “The Pompeii of Ancient America” The World’s Work, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company, [January 1927], Vol 53, No. 3, pg. 286-287)

He said that “It is so hard that it is scarcely touched by a file and will scratch glass.” This was a reference to the Mohs hardness scale which places his instrument well within the range of steel.

“An Austrian geologist, Frederich Mohs, devised a relative hardness scale for 10 minerals. He arbitrarily assigned a hardness value of 10 to diamond, the hardest mineral known, and lesser values to other minerals. Relative harness is easily determined by the use of Mohs hardness scale. Quartz will scratch fluorite but cannot be scratched by fluorite, Gypsom can be scratched by a fingernail and so on.”

Mineral Hardness

Diamond 10

Corundum 9

Topaz 8

Quartz 7

Orthoclase 6

Apatite 5

Fluorite 4

Calcite 3

Gypson 2

Talc 1

Hardness of some common objects

Steel File(6½)

Glass (5½-6)

Copper Penny (3)

Fingernail (2½)

(James S. Monroe & Reed Wicander, “Physical Geology”, Belmont, CA: Thompson-Brooks/Cole, [2005], pg. 51)

Mr. Verrill knew his find would be controversial but over time, additional discoveries have been made to corroborate his discovery.

Among the first archaeological clues that ancient Americans worked iron were the Olmec mirrors. These were highly polished concave mirrors capable of igniting fire as well as reflecting images.

“The Formative Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica created unique, superbly crafted concave mirrors from iron ore minerals. Words and photographs cannot convey a real feel for the technical quality and artistic power of these mirrors – they possess a remarkable appeal for both the eye and the mind. Of several dozen known examples, unfortunately only a few have been found in archaeological context.” (John B. Carlson, “Olmec Concave Iron-ore Mirrors: The Aesthetics of a Lithic Technology and the Lord of the Mirror”, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, [1981], pg. 117)

It was recently discovered that these same ancient Americans left behind tons of “perforated iron cubes” manufactured from iron ore. Their use has yet to be determined and speculations range from whistles to a form of money.

“The Olmecs also participated to an unusual degree in the exchange of prestige goods. Literally tons of iron ore in the form of perforated iron cubes and polished mirrors were imported from Chiapas and Oaxaca to San Lorenzo (Agrinnier 1984; Coe and Diehl 1980a; Cyphers and DiCastro 1996; Pires-Ferreira 1976b), and iron ore mirrors later were interred with high-ranking individuals at La Venta (Drucker et al. 1959).”(Christopher A. Pool, “Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica”, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, [2007], pg. 10)

Smelting technology at pre-columbian sites has recently been discovered. Professor Dorothy Hosler from MIT has excavated “the badly eroded remains of a furnace that consisted of worked stone, copper ore, slag, prehispanic potsherds, and two features that look like very small furnaces or crucibles.” She calls this an “unambiguously prehispanic copper smelting site”.

“The research money provided by FAMSI was used to excavate Las Fundiciones, the only unambiguously prehispanic copper smelting site yet identified in Mesoamerica. The site is located at 1400 meters above sea level in the Sierra Madre del Sur in Guerrero. In previous work, I had documented Mesoamerican copper fabrication methods, metals and alloys, the chronological sequencing of these developments, relations among South American and Mesoamerican metallurgy, and the overall sumptuary emphasis of this technology. What we have lacked is evidence regarding metals production technology (smelting regimes, mining techniques, metals processing regimes, etc.) and the identity of the peoples responsible for these activities. We excavated the badly eroded remains of a furnace that consisted of worked stone, copper ore, slag, prehispanic potsherds, and two features that look like very small furnaces or crucibles.” (Dorothy Hosler, “Excavations at the Copper Smelting Site of El Manchon,Guerro, Mexico”, Chrystal River, FL: FAMSI, [2004], pg. 1)

An analysis of slag from another Mexican smelting site revealed a “very efficient … well-developed and sophisticated smelting method” which produced high enough temperature to partially mix iron with the copper.

“Preliminary results indicate the use of chalcopyrite (CuFeS₂), a sulfidic ore, for copper extraction at the site. In addition, the partial mixing of iron with copper observed in metal prills, indicates the production of a high smelting temperature, and points towards a very efficient, highly-reductive environment. A high reduction environment requires a well-developed and sophisticated smelting method. This rules out the possibility of the use of crucibles and lung-powered blow pipes, and suggests instead, the use of a formal furnace operated by bellows. Alternatively, this high-oxygen environment could have been the result of the use of some type of wind-powered furnace.” (Blanca E. Maldonado, et al, “Tarascan Copper Metallurgy at the Site of Itziparatzico, Michoacan, Mexico”, Chrystal River, FL: FAMSI, [2005], pg. 6)

As modern archaeology has shown, the ancient Americans mined ore, smelted metals and fabricated goods using a variety of metal working technologies. As noted by Alpheus Hyatt Verrill, some of these items gave every appearance of being iron or steel.

Edited September 27, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[cinepro]

You really mean, that they assume it is 19th century fiction, and when words and phrases, when the BOM does not "say" something that matches that assumption, they get upset and confused. Apologists treat it as an ancient document, coming from an ancient middle east culture, translated by an individual from the 19th century.

In 1829, Joseph Smith didn't read Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew, so he wasn't the individual who "translated" the Book of Mormon.

As for whether "steel" is used as an adjective, noun or verb, I have provided the actual instances of "steel" in the Book of Mormon in post #7, so we can see for ourselves which is most likely.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the info Eray, I am not offended so no worries...iIam sure I came off pretty abrasive for an initial post anyway. I will check out Brant Gardner. I also enjoyed the article in dialogue that mfbukowski referenced. It is difficult to wrap my brain around it all being literal in terms of historicity, but I am hopeful.

Can prayer or a spiritual experience reveal literal, historical truths or facts? I am not sure, but I know the Spirit can reveal true principles and divine guidance. .

After reading The Peacemaker, I learned that an allegorical book can still have a profound affect on peoples lives.That book changed how I viewed the atonement, as well as how I view my marriage. Does the Book of Mormon have to be a literal account for it to maintain its meaning and impact? Is salvation dependent on receiving a witness of its literal historicity? I am still sorting those out.

I think it is important to differentiate between what we can know scientifically, or objectively, and what we can know subjectively. I have thought about this a great deal and it would probably take many many posts to discuss it in detail, but what is important is to think of the BOM the way we think of the Bible, except realize that it is newer and its archaeology is just beginning.

There are many who think that perhaps the BOM represents the history of a family- 30 or so people who came to this hemisphere, who ultimately lived amid Mayan culture much as we LDS today live in the larger world culture as a subculture, and the BOM is essentially a journal of their experiences.

One of the main proponents of this point of view is a guy named Mark Wright who posts here under the name hashbaz- you might look up his posts under both names and see what he has to say- you could probably even just PM him and discuss it with him- he is a very nice guy.

But back to the bible- think about a little of what we know historically and archaeologically about the human person named Jesus of Nazareth, and how little is know about him- he could nearly be a legendary figure who never existed if you want to believe that. But the reality is that no amount of archaeology or scientific study will show you that this person Jesus was the Son of God and savior of the world- the only way you can decide that is by the spirit- you can only know it in your heart. It is not possible to make a scientific objective determination that this is the case- all those Bible stories could just be myths.

But you CAN know spiritually- and that is the only way you can REALLY know.

The most important things in life- how you think about things, and how you put together your personal value system, your preferences and how you make decisions about who to marry, about which church to join, about everything important in your life - all of those decisions are "subjective" and unscientific. Science may factor into your beliefs- but you do not pick who to marry for example for scientific reasons.

I think the only way we can know the "truth" of anything like religion is not through science at all- it is practically irrelevant to religion. You must be able to follow the spirit- that is the final answer to every thing in this realm. On the other hand, don't look to religion for scientific answers- the earth was not created in 6 days, for me, evolution is a scientific fact, etc. Each realm has different answers for different purposes in your life.

Science gives "facts"- religion teaches about morality and what is important to give your life meaning. Science does not deal with morals or meanings- it teaches how things work, not why.

You don't use a pair of pliers when a hammer is called for, or a saw to solder copper piping. Each discipline has its own purpose- and the problem arises when we confuse what science does with what religion does.

And yes, people do that all the time, and think that the Bible can tell us about history or science, for example. It can't. But similarly, science can't tell us why we are here, or make sense about the bigger issues of our lives.

So examine all the evidence on both sides- but keep it all in perspective- and understand the difference between what is important about life and what makes things work. Science tells us what makes things work- that's about all it's good for.

But religion can give our lives meaning and tell us why we are here and what life is about. Science doesn't even try to take on those questions.

[mfbukowski]

And not just metal. The idea of Nephi being able to pull a bow made totally out of steel is ludicrous. Imagine yourself, even if you were a bodybuilder, being able to pull a bow made out the metal that your car's leaf springs are made out of.

Nephi's bow is most likely to have been made out of wood, as a base, and then reinforced with horn, sinew, and other resilient "springy" materials. This is the "composite bow" and they have been in use for millenia. Nephi's bow was probably one of these.

Guess again. I meant that nicely of course

http://ldsdoctrine.b...rmon-steel.html

That said, Pinker still believes the KJV reference to steel is a mistranslation but this conclusion is based on the assumption that steel technology was now known in Israel from 1000 BC to 600 BC. Pinker’s explanation is likely partly correct. But it doesn’t account for the double convex “snake-like” bow breaking. Pictures of ancient steel bows are all double or biconvex. So, in my view, the Bible could be referring to both a steel and double convex bow at the same time. Steel would be likely to break because carbon inclusions in the iron metal which give it its hardness, springiness, and memory, can also result in micro-fractures which can, over time, result in a critical failure and breakage. This is why Nephi's steel bow in the Book of Mormon was said to have "broken" while the wooden bows of his brothers had "lost their spring."

http://i34.photobuck...g/steel-bow.jpg

Edited September 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Questing Beast]

I think it is important to differentiate between what we can know scientifically, or objectively, and what we can know subjectively. I have thought about this a great deal and it would probably take many many posts to discuss it in detail, but what is important is to think of the BOM the way we think of the Bible, except realize that it is newer and its archaeology is just beginning.

Verum's incomplete list of BofM "problems" is itself problematic. I used to try and keep track of "the list" too. But in recent years that exercise has become redundant.

It was precisely the problems with the Bible that caused my original difficulties: the fact that the OT is not a literal history, but rather a concocted, revised "Hebrew" version of a lost history; the evident recent dating of the OT to the 7th century BCE, written for the first time at that time, with no empirical evidence to show an Israelite occupation of Canaan, or the existence of Moses or even Abraham: No temple built by Solomon, only a single reference to "the house of David" to prove outside the Bible itself that king David ever lived, etc.

Isaiah is authored by no less than two eponymous writers two hundred years apart. My missionary Bible (pre LDS 1981 edition) contains this: "Chs. 40-66 are now usually ascribed to an unknown prophet, who lived in Babylon during the Exile." (Now, of course, since the 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures, all such problematic references to a "second or even a third Isaiah" have quietly been dropped; yet outside the LDS paradigm, their existence is almost a consensus among biblical scholars and students.) The problem with a "second Isaiah" is purely a BofM problem: how could Nephi quote an Isaiah passage from the "Brass Plates" which wasn't even in the OT until a generation after the Lehites arrived in the Western Hemisphere?

And so it went, decade following decade, for me, until I simply accepted that the Bible was no literal history. I stopped trying to make the BofM verify the Bible. And soon after that, the BofM followed suit: it is no literal history of anything. For years, I toyed with the idea that some "American" writer/prophet reworked his traditional history with fictitious names, both characters and places, into a narrative of faith-promoting cause and effect: like the OT, pounding home the lesson: "Follow the Lord our God or be destroyed". The repetitive cyclic motion of Nephite civilization, through the "pride cycle" of prosperity, pride, wickedness, destruction, being humbled, repentant, returning to righteousness, and regaining prosperity, only to drop back into pride, etc., was the motivation of the writer of the BofM: he wanted to illustrate and warn against turning to wickedness.

But if his purpose is to convince through fictitious history, then Mormons are increasingly going to be disabused of the present notion/belief that the BofM is literal history.

There are many who think that perhaps the BOM represents the history of a family- 30 or so people who came to this hemisphere, who ultimately lived amid Mayan culture much as we LDS today live in the larger world culture as a subculture, and the BOM is essentially a journal of their experiences.

None of that twisting and turning to "make it fit" would be necessary if the BofM were in fact grounded in physical evidence. But as irrefutable evidence is not there, ever more inventive paradigms for the book's historicity must be found.

But back to the bible- think about a little of what we know historically and archaeologically about the human person named Jesus of Nazareth, and how little is know about him- he could nearly be a legendary figure who never existed if you want to believe that. But the reality is that no amount of archaeology or scientific study will show you that this person Jesus was the Son of God and savior of the world- the only way you can decide that is by the spirit- you can only know it in your heart. It is not possible to make a scientific objective determination that this is the case- all those Bible stories could just be myths.

Yes. And the BofM is supposed to substantiate the reality, the historicity of Jesus Christ; it is supposed to be extra-biblical, empirical evidence of his literal existence. It was the BofM that made me believe the Bible.

But you CAN know spiritually- and that is the only way you can REALLY know.

No. That is the only way to really BELIEVE. And if belief never comes with enough power to convince, then the intellectual path is the only other option.

The most important things in life- how you think about things, and how you put together your personal value system, your preferences and how you make decisions about who to marry, about which church to join, about everything important in your life - all of those decisions are "subjective" and unscientific. Science may factor into your beliefs- but you do not pick who to marry for example for scientific reasons.

The most important things to know, values, morals, ethics, life-determining decisions like who to marry, are not entirely subjective. "Science" plays a role in every informed decision we ever make. You don't go off half-cocked and marry someone, and expect that it will work out simply because you FELT good about it. We all know the saying: "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

I think the only way we can know the "truth" of anything like religion is not through science at all- it is practically irrelevant to religion. You must be able to follow the spirit- that is the final answer to every thing in this realm. On the other hand, don't look to religion for scientific answers- the earth was not created in 6 days, for me, evolution is a scientific fact, etc. Each realm has different answers for different purposes in your life.

Answers must not be contradictory. Your "science" (your empirical senses) must not refute your religion (your metaphysical "sense"); and visa versa. One cannot live in the continual, mounting presence of dichotomy, indefinitely:

Science gives "facts"- religion teaches about morality and what is important to give your life meaning. Science does not deal with morals or meanings- it teaches how things work, not why.

When the scriptural basis for believing in religious morals is presented as an empirically literal work of literature, and physical evidence either is lacking or refutes the assertion of the scriptural work to be literal history, then "we" have a problem. "We", as in the majority of rational thinking people, NEED what we believe in to be real, not made up.

You don't use a pair of pliers when a hammer is called for, or a saw to solder copper piping. Each discipline has its own purpose- and the problem arises when we confuse what science does with what religion does.

"We" (the majority of rational thinking people) do not confuse what science does with what religion does. The problem originates from earlier generations - Joseph Smith's generation being the inheritors of the earlier problem, and perpetuating it - claiming that the Bible is literal history: God's word in verity and truth, absolute and accurate, as far as men can transmit what they know as accurately and truthfully as they know how. Then along comes biblical archeology, on the heels of rising evolutionary theory and the attack of science upon religion. And what do we get out of biblical archeology? A consensus that the Bible is NOT literal history in any intellectual sense of the word: it is lacking in provenance for enormous swathes of its textual claims; and what IS supported by any empirical evidence at all is questionable on many fronts: dating, context, attribution, agenda, etc.

And yes, people do that all the time, and think that the Bible can tell us about history or science, for example. It can't. But similarly, science can't tell us why we are here, or make sense about the bigger issues of our lives.

Science doesn't; but scientists do that all the time, as people concerned about what is right and wrong. Scientists, lacking a belief in God, will tell you that the need to do what is right is an evolutionary development along with our sapience; such that society results, which strengthens the species along "civilized" lines. That is how evolution developed sapient beings (us) into survivalists. Moral sense is as biologically mandated by evolution as religion is invented by the sapience to explain "why". Science, now, largely makes religion redundant to most scientists. They can participate in religion to help those still dependent on it: but the scientist who accepts that his/her sense of morality is genetic is no less inclined to follow that sense than a religious person is. If this were not true, most scientists would eschew the difficulty of marriage and family, and would become hedonists and humanists like Korihor. Yet very, very few individuals go to that extent to deny God. Most people religious and non religious (even irreligious) do not turn into predators like Korihor: they remain dependable neighbors and citizens, concerned to make the world a better place for their children and the rest of the rising generation.

So examine all the evidence on both sides- but keep it all in perspective- and understand the difference between what is important about life and what makes things work. Science tells us what makes things work- that's about all it's good for.

That is an understatement if I ever heard one. Knowing what makes things work is foundational to understanding tools and how to invent them. To depend on religion in a physical world is asking for annihilation through stupidity.

But religion can give our lives meaning and tell us why we are here and what life is about. Science doesn't even try to take on those questions.

CAN give life meaning, is right. A sense of meaning or purpose in life does not depend on religion, any of them. I know, because my "religion" is atheistic, so far as dogmatic explanations of "God" are concerned. As I believe that I AM "God" manifesting as this puny mortal; and I include every particle of the universe in exactly the same mold or paradigm ("God" manifesting), you might think that I can get away with doing whatever I like, so far as moral injunctions are concerned: No God, no moral injunctions, I can do whatever I want! But guess what? When I stopped believing in Mormonism, at the same instant that I accepted this as a fact, I also accepted that there is NO religion on the planet that is "God's religion", exclusionary of all others: and there never has been such a religion. All of them are man-made. That means that "God" made all of them, AS men seeking answers in this venue of mortality. That means that our sense of the moral and ethical cuts across all religious boundaries.

The most fortunate people are those who do not need religion at all in order to convince them to be good. They simply want to be good. This is most people most of the time, from the "beginning" to now. As evidence for this belief, I point out the statistics on religious activity: the vast majority of people are not involved in any regular way with religion. And are they all wicked? Are most of them wicked? Not remotely. The small fluctuations in religious activity do not result in any correlation with crime statistics.

But religion is deemed, by those who feel a need to control, to be an effective tool (or even weapon) to make certain kinds of people behave. So an end justifies the means entered into the evolution of religion: "lying for God" was resorted to, in order to put a sufficient scare into the independent and rebellious among society, such that they might fear the judgment of God; and worse, so that the society - once sufficiently taken over and controlled by the dominant religion (e.g. Islam today in some countries) - can actually punish the perceived rebellious and independent in our midst. Witch trials, crusades against Cathars, the Inquisition, are all examples of religion in control run amok. Who needs that?

So religion is man-made; which is "God" making things through us; which is the definition of free will; which explains the chaos! That's my theory, and I have been testing it for over seven years: And I am sticking to it until or unless "God" shows me to be in error....

[Questing Beast]

Guess again. I meant that nicely of course

http://ldsdoctrine.b...rmon-steel.html

"...Steel would be likely to break because carbon inclusions in the iron metal which give it its hardness, springiness, and memory, can also result in micro-fractures which can, over time, result in a critical failure and breakage. This is why Nephi's steel bow in the Book of Mormon was said to have "broken" while the wooden bows of his brothers had "lost their spring.""

http://i34.photobuck...g/steel-bow.jpg

I can chime in here with actual knowledge. The "composite" bow referred to achieved its full development centuries ago on the steppes of Asia. It is a two year process to create such a bow. The materials and laminate require curing.

One thing about composite and simple bows (made from a single piece of wood), is that they continue to increase in spring/stiffness as they age. This results in the very last shot that they make, before they break, being the strongest!

They do NOT "lose their spring", as Nephi's brothers' bows are said to have done. But an imperfectly made steel bow can either fracture or go soft, i.e. lose its temper. The BofM does not say that the other bows than Nephi's were wood. And to "lose their spring", they would have to not be made of wood, either as simple or composite bows. They would have to be steel bows as well.

(Incidentally: I have had an aluminum-steel alloy prod (the bow in a crossbow) break on me. It simply fractured as I hauled the string back to reload; and the left limb buzzed past my ear, bruised my upper arm in the process, and landed c. 20 feet behind me. Medieval steel prods of enormous draw weight were, of course, prone to the same failure; with proportional danger imposed upon the marksman....)

[Verum]

What sort of responses to these problems are you expecting?

Here's what I struggle with...on the one hand, we have evidences of Joseph being such as careful and wise translator who modified the translation to better articulate the true meaning of the text (ex: adieu ), but on the other hand, left many other words unchanged and seemingly literal allowing for reinterpretation of their meaning later (steel not literally "steel"). What sort of response to these problems was I expecting? I was hoping that that the book is as literal as I believe it to be. I think that the more evidences we find that cause us to reinterpret the words as something less than literal, the more problematic it is to either treat it as a literal, historical text, or to firmly believe in Joseph's ability to translate the "most correct book" as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

I am hoping for more literal supporting evidence of the Nephite/Lamanite existence in ancient America similar to what has been discovered on the arabian peninsula supporting the description of Lehi's journey through Nahom and Bountiful, and less 19th century parellells combined with all the anachronisms. I have the same issue with the Bible as well....but I guess its not held to as high of a standard the Book of Mormon given how it was brought to light.

I know that as research moves forward, more and more things are coming to light that may support the literal nature of the BOM. So why not emphasize hope in more evidences instead of reinterpreting so much of it? I enjoy seeing some of the arguments on here that some of you have made that postulate that steel could have actually been created in Nehpi's day... because that strengthens both the literal nature of the BOM as well as Joseph's ability to translate it. If the primary argument is that steel was not literally steel but instead a metal alloy of some sort, then that weakens the BOM literal nature and Joseph's ability to translate (why didn't he just say "metal" swords instead of "steel"?)

[ERayR]

I know that as research moves forward, more and more things are coming to light that may support the literal nature of the BOM. So why not emphasize hope in more evidences instead of reinterpreting so much of it?

Because the message of the Book of Mormon is of our hope in Christ and not in the hope of the evidences of its historocity.

[mfbukowski]

Verum's incomplete list of BofM "problems" is itself problematic. I used to try and keep track of "the list" too. But in recent years that exercise has become redundant.

Since your post was so lengthy, I suppose I should respond for any newbies around. But it is the same old stuff we always differ on. It's getting old to repeat the same old stuff.

Yet if I don't, it leaves you unopposed. Sigh.

Time to do my duty, yet again.

Inspired writings are not designed to be scientifically historical and are inspired. That means they take a message from God, stir it through the prophets experiences, language, memories, feelings, background and all that is in his very human mind, and then the prophet writes something which may express his understanding of history which may or may not be "correct" in a different context or not. I mean the Koran has a very different account of Adam and Abraham than the Bible does. Which is "historically correct"? Who knows, and who cares? How can anything be resolved by even discussing it? All these things are unknowable.

Scriptural choices include the Bible, the Zoroastrian Avesta, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon, and many many others. The only way one can decide which of these, if any, is in fact inspired or not is by the spirit. No amount of allegedly "rational" argumentation can decide religious truth or falsity.

You can study archaeology til the cows come home and it will not prove that God exists or doesn't or that Jesus was the Christ, or whether or not Gabriel actually visited Mohammad and gave him the Koran, or if Buddha was actually a prince who sat under a Bodhi tree, or if Krishna was actually an avatar of Vishnu who had blue skin and wrote the Bhagavad Gita.

Yet billions take these books to be "scripture". Are they all stupid? Do we really need to assume that to adopt your point of view?

I would suggest that there are millions who take these things literally and millions more who are believers who do not take them literally.

If you want to criticize everything as if it was meant to be taken literally, be my guest, but in my opinion, there are billions who do not take religious belief literally, and find their own reasons for their understandings of the universe and our relation to it.

In Mormon parlance, I am saying that only the spirit can tell you which is right. And yes (snore.....) people get different answers to different prayers. God leads us and directs us to the path which will best serve our needs- in my opinion- and then after we pass on, our quest will continue.

Mormonism is one of the few religions which teach the principle that the redemption of the dead, and the ability to discover truth continues after death. That is one of the reasons I am Mormon, and that fact accounts for many many paths leading to one truth.

God leads us to the path which works for us- for now, but later we will know more about the afterlife and be more able to see the truth.

I don't care if you believe that or not- that is what I believe.

There.

I did my duty. No need to repeat it again for this thread. YAY!

[mfbukowski]

3. Trade with South America could very well fulfill their needs for steel.

An excellent point, which I missed earlier!

[Verum]

Inspired writings are not designed to be scientifically historical and are inspired. That means they take a message from God, stir it through the prophets experiences, language, memories, feelings, background and all that is in his very human mind, and then the prophet writes something which may express his understanding of history which may or may not be "correct" in a different context or not. I mean the Koran has a very different account of Adam and Abraham than the Bible does. Which is "historically correct"? Who knows, and who cares? How can anything be resolved by even discussing it? All these things are unknowable.

This is basically what I have been saying. I feel that I am able to receive witness through the Spirit that the BOM is inspired as is given by God for ME to follow. I may not be able to KNOW whether it is historical fact, because as you said, without the evidence, all these things are unknowable, but I can KNOW through the Spirit that it is from God and that learning from its precepts can draw me closer to God than that of any other book...

[Questing Beast]

Since your post was so lengthy, I suppose I should respond for any newbies around. But it is the same old stuff we always differ on. It's getting old to repeat the same old stuff.

Yet if I don't, it leaves you unopposed. Sigh.

Time to do my duty, yet again.

I am not trying to make life difficult. And I am not feeling in opposition to anyone. I am sharing some of my thoughts and experience trying to make sense out of dogmatic, organized religion: how important is it really? and why should anyone assume that there even is one way? or that salvation/redemption is even required, especially dogmatically so?

Inspired writings are not designed to be scientifically historical and are inspired. That means they take a message from God, stir it through the prophets experiences, language, memories, feelings, background and all that is in his very human mind, and then the prophet writes something which may express his understanding of history which may or may not be "correct" in a different context or not. I mean the Koran has a very different account of Adam and Abraham than the Bible does. Which is "historically correct"? Who knows, and who cares? How can anything be resolved by even discussing it? All these things are unknowable.

Then we agree? But you emphasized, and I addressed this assertion of yours, that we KNOW by our feelings. i.e. revelation from "God", what is true and what is untrue.

Scriptural choices include the Bible, the Zoroastrian Avesta, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon, and many many others. The only way one can decide which of these, if any, is in fact inspired or not is by the spirit. No amount of allegedly "rational" argumentation can decide religious truth or falsity.

My point exactly. I have repeated myself: "There is no tie-breaker when discussing/advancing/promoting/arguing an exclusive religious dogma."

You can study archaeology til the cows come home and it will not prove that God exists or doesn't or that Jesus was the Christ, or whether or not Gabriel actually visited Mohammad and gave him the Koran, or if Buddha was actually a prince who sat under a Bodhi tree, or if Krishna was actually an avatar of Vishnu who had blue skin and wrote the Bhagavad Gita.

Yet the LDS faith is dependent on empirical truths as asserted. We can reference any number of general conference addresses where GAs have emphatically declared the first vision, the BofM and all the claims to revelations to be literally true.

Yet billions take these books to be "scripture". Are they all stupid? Do we really need to assume that to adopt your point of view?

I have never believed or asserted that anyone believing in scripture is stupid, or that they need to adopt my point of view.

I would suggest that there are millions who take these things literally and millions more who are believers who do not take them literally.

If you want to criticize everything as if it was meant to be taken literally, be my guest, but in my opinion, there are billions who do not take religious belief literally, and find their own reasons for their understandings of the universe and our relation to it.

In Mormon history, it is all taken literally. Mormons have a rare problem with literalness. This I recognized early on.

In Mormon parlance, I am saying that only the spirit can tell you which is right. And yes (snore.....) people get different answers to different prayers. God leads us and directs us to the path which will best serve our needs- in my opinion- and then after we pass on, our quest will continue.

Even within the Church, this is true. I am a witness of it. My "path" is not along orthodox lines. And I doubt that anyone else is destined to follow a path that millions follow without variation.

Mormonism is one of the few religions which teach the principle that the redemption of the dead, and the ability to discover truth continues after death. That is one of the reasons I am Mormon, and that fact accounts for many many paths leading to one truth.

God leads us to the path which works for us- for now, but later we will know more about the afterlife and be more able to see the truth.

I don't care if you believe that or not- that is what I believe.

There.

I did my duty. No need to repeat it again for this thread. YAY!

I happen to accept that our understanding of "salvation/redemption" is colored by thousands of years of religious evolution. In fact, I do believe that "God" relates individually to each of us; that no dogmatic, organized religion is for every person, and that religions in the afterlife remain here, on Earth where they were born and have no relevancy to immortals. All that religions contain are impressions of an infinite existence: which is the reason why religions overlap so much in their concepts for "God" and the afterlife.

Learning never ends for immortals. I believe in universal success in discovering Joy, no matter how long it takes some of us to figure it out. This concept is the only one I know of that approaches the charity that "God" must possess: the fact that I hold such a concept must mean that it is accessible to mortals (or the immortals that we truly are, even while confined here for a while): and the concept of universal charity must mean that "God" is infinitely more charitable than I can ever be. Where, then, is the need for "salvation/redemption" as taught in religions? that would damn all souls for eternity if they do not follow suit? I cannot see it. So the doctrine of a "second chance" in the spirit world is a feeble shadow of the truth that I hold in its place; the spirit world has an end; immortality does not; and learning Joy through experiencing its opposite conditions must be a never-ending process. Because "God" is pure, infinite Joy, and we will always remain finite beings, hungering to know ever-more about the Existence that "God" Is. Anything less than including everyone makes "God" into a lesser "God": a capricious, finite being who sorrows over the "lost ones": a concept that I cannot worship at all. I am more charitable than that! And "God", as I said, is infinitely more charitable than I will ever be....

[mfbukowski]

This is basically what I have been saying. I feel that I am able to receive witness through the Spirit that the BOM is inspired as is given by God for ME to follow. I may not be able to KNOW whether it is historical fact, because as you said, without the evidence, all these things are unknowable, but I can KNOW through the Spirit that it is from God and that learning from its precepts can draw me closer to God than that of any other book...

I totally agree.

The key is "unknowable". That doesn't mean evidence proves it wrong or right or that it CAN prove it wrong or right- unknowable means just that- no one knows and no one can know.

Except by the spirit of course- which is true of all scripture. So who is "right"? We won't know until we get taught on the other side- or we will be too dead to worry about it! For now, we have to go by faith.