Metal Swords?

[mfbukowski]

Sure I'm getting it.

Metal is a non-fundamental level of the Book of Mormon. But when it comes to defending metal as wood, we should equate it to the parables of the Savior.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. If you read the thread, I spent a lot of time defending metal as metal.

It really doesn't matter if it was wood or not though- the word "sword" is ambiguous.

Edited June 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Never mind- it's not worth the energy

[volgadon]

Sure I'm getting it.

Metal is a non-fundamental level of the Book of Mormon. But when it comes to defending metal as wood, we should equate it to the parables of the Savior.

Sword is not synonymous with metal. Metals are the most common materials used for swords, but other materials can be employed as long as the function is the same.

[volgadon]

Are you implying Joseph Smith's knowledge of one language, forced translation errors in the Book of Mormon?

Are you equating the translation process that Joseph Smith used, "by the gift and power of God," is the same as man's?

I see, you don't know another language.

[Robert F. Smith]

Which part of the Book of Mormon is non-fundamental?

I was thinking of those aspects which might call for special training or skills in ancient languages and math, such as Alma 11. Such is not essential to salvation, and for that one need only read and understand the plain meaning of the text.

The portions which the Holy Ghost won't testify of it truthfulness?

You know, the Secondary, Unimportant, Non-essential, Extra Subsidiary and Superfluous portions? To discover these non-fundamental levels, one has to be a scholar?

And then we can believe swords were of wood, etc? D&C 17:6

The Holy Spirit has the final word on such issues, of course, and that is what really matters.

So no one needs to make a mountain out of a molehill. However, if you have a legitimate question about whether your car needs care, you go to an auto mechanic. If it is your eyes, you go to an optomitrist or ophthamologist, Etc. You don't ask a yokel to explain rocket science.

But if an anthropologist shows you actual texts written by the Conquistadores describing the macuahuitl as a "sword," are you going to automatically reject it because it doesn't fit your preconceptions? Is that fair?

Edited June 19, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Has the Book of Mormon been translated into Hebrew? I'm not certain.

If it hasn't yet, maybe scholars could suggest removing all the non-fundamental levels.

After all, even Moroni said he didn't have plates "sufficiently large" for Hebrew. lol

Yes, the Book of Mormon has been translated into Hebrew several times, and translators try hard to render all parts of the book in an accurate manner.

I'm not sure I understand why any translator would follow your advice to remove some parts of the text.

[Robert F. Smith]

The lie that's being perpetuated is the Holy Ghost will only testify of the "fundamental levels" of the Book of Mormon.

CFR who told that lie.

The Rod of Iron is now a Rod of Wood.

CFR that someone is claiming that the rod of iron was made of wood.

The Nephites never knew of iron.

CFR who made that false statement. The Nephites knew both iron and steel.

That goes beyond the purpose of the title page.

So it takes scholars -fluent in Hebrew-and mesoamerica archaeology- to reveal that the swords were made of wood - because it all occurred in Mesoamerica based on a narrow neck of land there -which narrow neck of land is beyond the purpose of the title page. I love the circular reasoning - though only an arc of it was expressed.

I don't understand you here at all, unless you are basically saying that, if your automechanic says that you need a new catalytic convertor, you should kick him in the shins and talk about his circular logic. Is that what you mean to say?

Did you read D&C 17:6? Or does that limit the possibilities?

So help me out here: What are you trying to say? "As your Lord and God liveth, it is true." What part of "true" don't you understand?

[Cobalt-70]

Maybe I should start using Hebrew, since you don't seem to be listening even when I use English. Swords do not have to be of metal, so whence the lie?

You are forgetting the verses that do require swords to be metal. Ether 7:9, Mosiah 8:11, 2 Ne. 5:14.

Also, we haven't talked much about the requirement of Alma 24:12-15 that swords be "bright" unless they are stained with blood (obsidian is pretty dark), or the ability to "draw" the sword as from a scabbard (Alma 1:9, 20:16, Mos. 19:4), or that the sword be capable of scalping somebody (Alma 44:12), or the ability of the weapon to be useful in extended one-on-one combat (Alma 2:29), or to possess a piercing action (Alma 44:18), or the presence of a single "point" (Alma 44:13).

[Robert F. Smith]

You are forgetting the verses that do require swords to be metal. Ether 7:9, Mosiah 8:11, 2 Ne. 5:14.

Volgadon was quite correct to have insisted that "swords" can and have been made either of metal or obsidian, and that the Conquistadores actually described macuahuitls as "swords." By insisting that "swords" can only be of metal, you are rejecting ethnohistorical reality as described by generations of non-Mormon anthropologists and historians.

Ether 7:9 and Mosiah 8:11 may indeed refer to metal swords, possibly iron, and we know that the Olmec (=Jaredites) used tons of iron for various purposes. We have no examples of Olmec swords, but it was within the realm of possibility that they had some.

Certainly your citation of the Sword of Laban in II Nephi 5:14 refers to a sword of fine steel (carburized iron) with a gold hilt, and we know of specific examples of just such swords & daggers in the ancient Near East. That the Nephites could continue making steel swords is not a problem, since the technology and iron ore was certainly available to them. How long that technology continued among them is unknown, which is a question not possible to answer with so little excavation of Book of Mormon period sites in Mesoamerica.

Also, we haven't talked much about the requirement of Alma 24:12-15 that swords be "bright" unless they are stained with blood (obsidian is pretty dark), or the ability to "draw" the sword as from a scabbard (Alma 1:9, 20:16, Mos. 19:4), or that the sword be capable of scalping somebody (Alma 44:12), or the ability of the weapon to be useful in extended one-on-one combat (Alma 2:29), or to possess a piercing action (Alma 44:18), or the presence of a single "point" (Alma 44:13).

The macuahuitl, with its numerious bright-black obsidian blades shining and glinting in the sun could certainly have been used to fulfill all the descriptors in Alma, and could certainly be used to scalp someone through a glancing blow to the crown of a head. You need to bear in mind again that obsidian blades are much sharper than the very best steel. In addition, it would pose no problem at all for a nice obsidian point to be embedded at the tip of a macuahuitl. As for extended, one-on-one combat, the macuahuitl would weigh less that a steel sword, so what is your point? The Spanish invaders called them "swords," and we ought to remember that.

[mfbukowski]

Volgadon was quite correct to have insisted that "swords" can and have been made either of metal or obsidian, and that the Conquistadores actually described macuahuitls as "swords." By insisting that "swords" can only be of metal, you are rejecting ethnohistorical reality as described by generations of non-Mormon anthropologists and historians.

Ether 7:9 and Mosiah 8:11 may indeed refer to metal swords, possibly iron, and we know that the Olmec (=Jaredites) used tons of iron for various purposes. We have no examples of Olmec swords, but it was within the realm of possibility that they had some.

Certainly your citation of the Sword of Laban in II Nephi 5:14 refers to a sword of fine steel (carburized iron) with a gold hilt, and we know of specific examples of just such swords & daggers in the ancient Near East. That the Nephites could continue making steel swords is not a problem, since the technology and iron ore was certainly available to them. How long that technology continued among them is unknown, which is a question not possible to answer with so little excavation of Book of Mormon period sites in Mesoamerica.

The macuahuitl, with its numerious bright-black obsidian blades shining and glinting in the sun could certainly have been used to fulfill all the descriptors in Alma, and could certainly be used to scalp someone through a glancing blow to the crown of a head. You need to bear in mind again that obsidian blades are much sharper than the very best steel. In addition, it would pose no problem at all for a nice obsidian point to be embedded at the tip of a macuahuitl. As for extended, one-on-one combat, the macuahuitl would weigh less that a steel sword, so what is your point? The Spanish invaders called them "swords," and we ought to remember that.

How many times must we repeat the same thing?

Doesn't anyone actually read these threads?

[Nathair/|\]

You are forgetting the verses that do require swords to be metal. Ether 7:9, Mosiah 8:11, 2 Ne. 5:14.

Also, we haven't talked much about the requirement of Alma 24:12-15 that swords be "bright" unless they are stained with blood (obsidian is pretty dark), or the ability to "draw" the sword as from a scabbard (Alma 1:9, 20:16, Mos. 19:4), or that the sword be capable of scalping somebody (Alma 44:12), or the ability of the weapon to be useful in extended one-on-one combat (Alma 2:29), or to possess a piercing action (Alma 44:18), or the presence of a single "point" (Alma 44:13)

Why don't we try it (with all appropriate safety precautions of course)?

[bcuzbcuz]

How many times must we repeat the same thing?

Doesn't anyone actually read these threads?

When does "rock" not mean "rock"? When it means Peter, of course. When does "sword" not mean "sword"? When it is a "macuahuitl", of course.

No traces of any iron or steel swords have been found in North, Central or South America dating from pre-Columbian times. And the argument of their rusting away would seem to fill the bill. But if the blades were made of obsidian then there is no rust involved. Where are all the thousands of millions of obsidian chips from weapons manufacture or millions of pointed blade edges from macuahuitl weapons lost in battle?

[mfbukowski]

When does "rock" not mean "rock"? When it means Peter, of course. When does "sword" not mean "sword"? When it is a "macuahuitl", of course.

No traces of any iron or steel swords have been found in North, Central or South America dating from pre-Columbian times. And the argument of their rusting away would seem to fill the bill. But if the blades were made of obsidian then there is no rust involved. Where are all the thousands of millions of obsidian chips from weapons manufacture or millions of pointed blade edges from macuahuitl weapons lost in battle?

Are you serious?

Are you actually saying that there is no such thing as "Indian arrowheads"? (I use that term because it is so commonly used)

http://www.amazon.com/Pathways-Prismatic-Blades-Mesoamerican-Core-Blade/dp/0917956990

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

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=mesoamerican+obsidian+blades&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Nip&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=elXiT8vRHanQ2AXc2LCzCw&ved=0CGUQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=583

I could go on. There are only 300,000 hits when you google "Mesoamerican obsidian blades"

Edited June 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I especially like the video of the guy shaving with an obsidian blade. I have tried it, and cut myself!

http://bonvito.wordpress.com/tag/archaeology/

[Cobalt-70]

As for extended, one-on-one combat, the macuahuitl would weigh less that a steel sword, so what is your point? The Spanish invaders called them "swords," and we ought to remember that.

The point is that I don't think any conquistadores noticed two Aztec warriors thrusting and parrying against each other with their macuahuitls in hand-to-hand combat as if they were truly swords. These were offensive weapons. You try to parry a swing by another macuihuitl, and the brittle obsidian shards are probably going to break or embed themselves into the wood of your own weapon.

[Cobalt-70]

The macuahuitl, with its numerious bright-black obsidian blades shining and glinting in the sun could certainly have been used to fulfill all the descriptors in Alma, and could certainly be used to scalp someone through a glancing blow to the crown of a head. You need to bear in mind again that obsidian blades are much sharper than the very best steel. In addition, it would pose no problem at all for a nice obsidian point to be embedded at the tip of a macuahuitl. As for extended, one-on-one combat, the macuahuitl would weigh less that a steel sword, so what is your point? The Spanish invaders called them "swords," and we ought to remember that.

What about references to Nephites and Lamanites "drawing" their swords? The macuahuitls were not sheathed, nor probably could they be, realistically. It would be counterproductive to keep a spiked mace in a sheath because it would not slide out easily when needed.

At some point, rather than coming up with all these just-barely-almost-plausible explanations for how a macuahuitl "could" be the Book of Mormon swords, doesn't it just become easier to just accept that real metal, Roman-style swords were what Joseph Smith had in mind? It seems like the author of the Book of Mormon went through a lot of trouble to make them sound like traditional metal swords.

[mfbukowski]

What about references to Nephites and Lamanites "drawing" their swords? The macuahuitls were not sheathed, nor probably could they be, realistically. It would be counterproductive to keep a spiked mace in a sheath because it would not slide out easily when needed.

At some point, rather than coming up with all these just-barely-almost-plausible explanations for how a macuahuitl "could" be the Book of Mormon swords, doesn't it just become easier to just accept that real metal, Roman-style swords were what Joseph Smith had in mind? It seems like the author of the Book of Mormon went through a lot of trouble to make them sound like traditional metal swords.

No, the translator of the Book of Mormon used the terms he was familiar with. And as we have shown and discussed ad nauseum, those weapons could have been some kind of steel or carbonized iron OR they could have been macuahuitls, a word which, it is not likely, was in Joseph's vocabulary.

I don't know about anyone else but I think we have covered this more than enough.

Edited June 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[blackstrap]

I challenge anyone to hike through the wilds of Meso-america carrying an obsidian weapon for let's say 50 miles. Without some sort of sheath or covering, you(or your companions) will need a transfusion before the end of the journey.

[mfbukowski]

I challenge anyone to hike through the wilds of Meso-america carrying an obsidian weapon for let's say 50 miles. Without some sort of sheath or covering, you(or your companions) will need a transfusion before the end of the journey.

So you make a leather sheath. What's the big deal?

[Aliwe]

Sword is not synonymous with metal. Metals are the most common materials used for swords, but other materials can be employed as long as the function is the same.

As long as those other materials are extracted from the ground and can be molten. This disqualifies wood.

Ether 7:9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel...

[mfbukowski]

As long as those other materials are extracted from the ground and can be molten. This disqualifies wood.

Ether 7:9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel...

This has been covered. Did you read the thread?

[volgadon]

As long as those other materials are extracted from the ground and can be molten. This disqualifies wood.

Ether 7:9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel...

Please show me where I claimed that no swords in the BoM were steel/iron.

[mfbukowski]

Please show me where I claimed that no swords in the BoM were steel/iron.

One doesn't need to read carefully when one has ready-made answers to what she THINKS was said. She appears to be here to just throw out misconstrued Book of Mormon quotes she already has pre-canned.

[Cobalt-70]

So you make a leather sheath. What's the big deal?

Do you think you can construct a leather sheath from which the macuahuitl can reasonably be "drawn" in combat situations? Think about the jagged obsidian shards. It could be wrapped in leather, maybe, but then unwrapping it would not be "drawing." Besides, do any of the conquistadores describe macuahuitl scabbards?

[mfbukowski]

Do you think you can construct a leather sheath from which the macuahuitl can reasonably be "drawn" in combat situations? Think about the jagged obsidian shards. It could be wrapped in leather, maybe, but then unwrapping it would not be "drawing." Besides, do any of the conquistadores describe macuahuitl scabbards?

http://www.woodmanspaltool.com/

Of course. I own one of these tools (IT'S GREAT!) and it comes with a sheath (similar to those shown but not the same) which is essentially a folded piece of leather, closed on one side and the bottom, leaving one side completely open, except for a snap on the open side.

When you want to "draw" the tool, you unsnap one snap, and it is in your hand ready to go. Or you can carry it in the sheath with the snap open- because of it's shape, it is like an open envelope on your belt, so for a "quick draw" situation you just grab the handle and move the tool from the sheath- it is actually quicker that a full "draw" on a closed scabbard would be because you move the tool from the envelope horizontally- you do not have to pull it out along its full length bringing your hand into the air to expose the blade.

One sideways movement with your hand, and it practically falls out of the sheath.

Of course in those days one leather tie could substitute for today's snap. If you are walking a long way, you tie the one tie. If you are about to go into the battle, you untie the tie, and let it hang there in its open envelope ready for a quick draw.

Nothing to it.

E