Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Having the sword of Laban himself Mosiah could distinguish the difference between a club, a sword, and a cimetar. He also new the description for the parts of a sword as shown when he described what they found in some Jaredite ruins.Mosiah owns a sword, distinguishes between different types of swords, knows the difference between a club and a sword, he can identify parts of the sword, and he describes details of the blades deterioration. To pretend he is describing a macuahuitl seems very difficult.PhaedrusI am sure we have had this discussion before. First off we are not talking about clubs. And 2ndly We are not talking about a replica of Laban's sword. The words that Nephi chose are "like unto". That is quite the key into understanding the arguments.So no, looking at a macuahuitl as a sword esp in light of the early Spanish reports of this weapon are not "very difficult". In fact we have moved in the the realm of what most likely we are dealing with in the BoM.
mfbukowski Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 The Book of Mormon was "translated" in broad meanings not word by word. It is not a literal translation, nor is the Book of Abraham. All the scholarship in the world will not substitute for a testimony of that fact.
mfbukowski Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 I like Darren10 too, it's just unfortunate about his ears.
Cobalt-70 Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Macuahuitls aren't clubs. They are wooden swords with obsidian blades. I'm not however claiming that the refernces to cankered blades are macuahuitls.It is a club. A sword is a cutting and/or piercing weapon, while a club is a bashing weapon. The macuahuitl is clearly a bashing weapon, and therefore a club. If it were made in Europe, it would have been called a "mace" (a type of club with sharp protrusions).
Darren10 Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) I like Darren10 too, it's just unfortunate about his ears. Heh! It's a picture of me at my father-in-law's gun range (he's the head manager) in New Mexico. It was really cold that day and I only had a flannel and t-shirt on. Edited May 25, 2012 by Darren10
volgadon Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 It is a club. A sword is a cutting and/or piercing weapon, while a club is a bashing weapon. The macuahuitl is clearly a bashing weapon, and therefore a club. If it were made in Europe, it would have been called a "mace" (a type of club with sharp protrusions).The macuahuitl was not a bashing weapon. It was designed to slash and cut, hence the blades. This is also how the Spanish accounts describe their use. Also, the majority of European blades didn't keep an edge for long, so in effect they were used to bash. Does that make them a mace?There were maces, such as the cuauhololli and macuahuitzoctli, but they didn't have blades. 1
volgadon Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 One of the main uses of the macuahuitl was to maim warriors and sever their limbs. Not really something you do with a club. If you scroll up a page it describes the use of clubs.http://books.google.com/books?id=UHGP24ixzJwC&pg=PA19&dq=macuahuitl+horses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a9O_T8WaMYSniQLl4ryQCA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=macuahuitl%20horses&f=false 1
Darren10 Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) It is a club. A sword is a cutting and/or piercing weapon, while a club is a bashing weapon. The macuahuitl is clearly a bashing weapon, and therefore a club. If it were made in Europe, it would have been called a "mace" (a type of club with sharp protrusions).What's interesting about that is that over time simple words change meaning. For example, today "mace" means a cannister which shoots a burning chemical into a target's eyes. That's a far difference frm the traditional eaning of "mace".The purpose of adding obsidian on the club, would be to cut/penetrate an opponent's flesh during battle. Theat, I think that renders it beyond that of a simple club. There's no reason to conclude that a macuahuitl was not a "sword" in ancient America. Edited May 25, 2012 by Darren10
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 One of the main uses of the macuahuitl was to maim warriors and sever their limbs. Not really something you do with a club. If you scroll up a page it describes the use of clubs.http://books.google.... horses&f=falseIt is painfully obvious that this weapon is not a club and the only reason certain people say it is is to detract from the arguments being made. "Hey guys, if we can get this sword to be a club then the mormons don't have a valid argument." Sorry guys but your "club" argument fails on so many levels. This just is not an argument you guys are going to win.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) What's interesting about that is that over time simple words change meaning. For example, today "mace" means a cannister which shoots a burning chemical into a target's eyes. That's a far difference frm the traditional eaning of "mace".The purpose of adding obsidian on the club, would be to cut/penetrate an opponent's flesh during battle. Theat, I think that renders it beyond that of a simple club. There's no reason to conclude that a macuahuitl was not a "sword" in ancient America.Correct, its main purpose, according to ancient accounts, was to slash and cut not to bash. Hence it is not a club. It does not function as a club and it does not look like a club. Edited May 25, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Anijen Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) you can't decapitate somebody with one of those, as per Ether 15:30, According to historical records it can decapitate very well.and you can't die by "running upon" this club, as per Alma 57:33,If it can take a horse head clean off in one stroke I am sure a man running upon it, that it could do some deadly damage.and you can't chop people's arms off by its "edge" as per Alma 17:37 Yes they can. It also doesn't have a "hilt" as per Alma 44:12. It also doesn't have a "point" as per Alma 44:13. Many had points, and hilts were also made for them. Edited May 26, 2012 by Jeff Holt
Darren10 Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 It was really cold that day and I only had a flannel and t-shirt on.Pants and shoes too, of course.
Darren10 Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Jeff #36;I thought about posting that picture. I ran across it after I replied to the same post. Edited May 25, 2012 by Darren10
Thinking Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 I thought of all of the story of Laban and the sword of Laban before making my opost. In fact, I've thought about it long before making the post and when I first learned of the macuahuitl weapon. The Book of Mormon does not say that Nephi made swords out os steel like Laban's sword. Only "after the manner" of Laban's sword did Nephi make swords for his people for their protection. "After the manner" is a very broad definition. Even if he did use steel or some sort of metal (which would not surprise me), the lack of mentioning of "steel" in the Book of Mormon is indicative that "steel" may have once been used but lost over time. In fact, as far as the Nephites go, the Book of Jarom is the last mentioning of "steel" and that was very early on in their history. If this is true, then given the large areas of humid lands in Mesoamerica, I can understand why this would be the case.Do you know what the word redundant means?Nephi: This is Laban's sword. Notice the fine workmanship and the precious steel.Darren10: Wow!. That's a fine sword.Nephi: I will now teach you how to make a sword after the manner of Laban's sword.Darren10: Really? Will we use steel or wood?Nephi: What?Darren10: Will we use steel or wood?Nephi: Steel. Didn't I just say that?Darren10: No. You said that it would be made after the manner of Laban's sword. You didn't mention steel.Nephi: If I show you that Laban's sword is made of precious steel, then tell you that we will be making some just like...Darren10: You didn't say just like it you said after the manner.Nephi: What's the difference?Darren10: There's a huge difference. Just like means identical in every way. After the manner means that it doesn't have to be identical in every way.Nephi: So if I make a sword after the manner of Laban's sword, what things must be the same? Obviously not everything can be different.Darren10: That's a good question. Let me think. Well...yes, that's it! As long as it has a handle and something long attached to the handle, it can be called a sword after the manner of Laban's sword.Nephi: OK?And it came to pass... 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Also Alma 44:18 among others makes a distinction when the swords were sharp which seems to be an anomaly. The fact they take time to tell us when they are sharp. This tells me that the material in the swords was likely something dull or difficult to sharpen or keep sharp.The obsidian blades inserted into the Macuahuitl are many times sharper than the best steel ever made, including that used in scalpels. They cannot be sharpened with a file or similar abrasive device, but must be created by knapping with bone or stone tools. Warriors doubtless kept extra blades to be inserted in the Macuahuitl when any of the row of blades was damaged by striking a very hard (especially stone) surface.In the ancient Near East similar obsidian blades were put into wood or bone carriers and used as scythes for the harvest, but could also be used as weapons. One possible example is the jawbone of an *** described as the weapon used by Sampson to slay Philistines. It could have been a formidable sword if lined with obsidian blades. However, that was during the time of the Judges, before Israel had acquired the steel-making technology of the Philistines. Edited May 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) It also comes down to the meaning of steel and metal. Steel as we know it did not exist in the time of Joseph Smith, at least not widely.Steel is carburized iron and has been known and used by man since at least 3,500 + years ago. The village smithy known to Joseph Smith could make it, and no modern steel plant with coking ovens or Bessemer convertors or methods of alloying was required to make it. Steel can be and has been made in the small villages of Africa and of Southeast Asia -- back in the days before the White man came to exploit and enslave.At Nauvoo, the best blacksmith was Jonathan Browning, the father of the greatest gunsmith to have ever lived, and he was already designing steel guns in Ogden, Utah, in his early teens: His name was John Browning. Some of his steel weapons are still used by the military to this day. See http://en.wikipedia....i/John_Browning . That's right the greatest gunsmith in history was a Mormon, and a returned missionary at that. Edited May 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
mfbukowski Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Many had points, and hilts were also made for them. hilt/hilt/ Noun: The handle of a weapon or tool, esp. a sword, dagger, or knife. They had better have had a "hilt" (handle). It might be a tad uncomfortable holding them by the blades!
Darren10 Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Do you know what the word redundant means?Darren10: You didn't say just like it you said after the manner.Nephi: What's the difference?Darren10: There's a huge difference. Just like means identical in every way. After the manner means that it doesn't have to be identical in every way.Nephi: So if I make a sword after the manner of Laban's sword, what things must be the same? Obviously not everything can be different.Darren10: That's a good question. Let me think. Well...yes, that's it! As long as it has a handle and something long attached to the handle, it can be called a sword after the manner of Laban's sword.Nephi: OK?And it came to pass...Looks like Thinking is the new director of Broadway's Darren "after the manner of" Broadway's The Book of Mormon. The following passage from the [actual] Book of Mormon should clear up Thinking's, well "thinking" (redundancy intentional). relevant information placed in bold or red. Both my own doing: And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. (2 Nephi 5:16)In this passage the phrases "after the manner of" and "like unto" do not mean "exactly like", do they? In fact there's a specific qualifier Nephi uses to say "we did not construct the temple *exactly like* the Temple of Solomon" yet he still uses the terminologies "after the manner of" and "like unto".You're welcome. Now, alongside the writers of Southpark, please write a play that's actually useful for man's edification.
mfbukowski Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 As a weirdo who has actually made arrowheads and spear points out of obsidian, I can tell you they are sharper than steel- they are harder- more brittle, yes, but they will slice to the bone like nothing else. I have scars on my fingers to prove it.The reason "flint and steel" makes sparks is that the steel is abraded into fine particles by the flint and the molten metal flies through the air into tinder and starts a fire, or lights the gunpowder in a musket, etc.But actually obsidian knives are much better for cutting and skinning animals than steel ones- they just require a lot of skill to sharpen!
Darren10 Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 As a weirdo who has actually made arrowheads and spear points out of obsidian, I can tell you they are sharper than steel- they are harder- more brittle, yes, but they will slice to the bone like nothing else. I have scars on my fingers to prove it.That's a very cool hobby. (Assuming it's a hobby).
mfbukowski Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 That's a very cool hobby. (Assuming it's a hobby).It is a very cool hobby, and if we ever get back to the stone age I will be ready! My wife has always known I am basically a caveman anyway!
mfbukowski Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Steel is carburized iron and has been known and used by man since at least 3,500 + years ago. The village smithy known to Joseph Smith could make it, and no modern steel plant with coking ovens or Bessemer convertors or methods of alloying was required to make it. Steel can be and has been made in the small villages of Africa and of Southeast Asia -- back in the days before the White man came to exploit and enslave.At Nauvoo, the best blacksmith was Jonathan Browning, the father of the greatest gunsmith to have ever lived, and he was already designing steel guns in Ogden, Utah, in his early teens: His name was John Browning. Some of his steel weapons are still used by the military to this day. See http://en.wikipedia....i/John_Browning . That's right the greatest gunsmith in history was a Mormon, and a returned missionary at that.If Nephi had seen this done, he could have done it himself.You'all jest need to hang out wit some a dem good old boys like I do!
volgadon Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 They had better have had a "hilt" (handle). It might be a tad uncomfortable holding them by the blades!I wonder if cobalt hasn't gotten hilts mixed up with crossguards. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) The above guys used piped in oxygen- if they hadn't been lazy they could have used bellows.http://www.tidewaterforge.com/ Edited May 25, 2012 by mfbukowski
Darren10 Posted May 26, 2012 Posted May 26, 2012 My wife has always known I am basically a caveman anyway!Starting with the time you clubbed her and drug her by the hair back to your lair?
Recommended Posts