Plates Of Brass Vs. Scrolls

[blackstrap]

If one take a drive down the west coast of Guatemala from Esquintla to the Mexican border, one will see mounds all along the way. These mounds are likely unexcavated ruins sitting out on a relatively flat coastal plain.There are dozens if not hundreds. When one jumps to the conclusion that pretty well everything has been revealed about the world of the Maya or Olmec culture and there is no evidence supporting the BoM , that is a leap of Grand Canyon proportions.

[MormonMason]

Indeed. There are so, so many sites that remain unexcavated, and many of those that have been have not been excavated meaningfully.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To quote Mark Knopfler, baloney again. Macuahuitls are indeed swords, and it is more than LDS who make that claim.

Oh no. Not this again.

QB has no credibility regarding this topic.

[volgadon]

What Spaniards said about Mesoamerican weapons has nothing to do with Joseph Smith's knowledge. The text clearly describes "swords" exactly the same way throughout Jaredite and Nephite "history". "Lost technology" is a maguffin of apologists. Because no evidence exists for metal swords, "swords" nevertheless require explaining, so voila! we have macuahuitls which work like a cutting sword. You know what? a sharpened steel mace cuts like the end of a sword too, but nobody would conflate it into a "sword" because of the damage type it can inflict. The macuhuitl is more like an obsidian ax; there is no point of balance like a sword, no guard for the hand, no use AS a sword, but it sure behaves like an ax. But this is just arguing semantics.

What is utterly lacking is any evidence for "heaps of earth" from the period, which is required in order to believe in Jaredite, and at the very least, the first two centuries of Nephite history, as metal-working technologies as asserted in the text....

Y

ou cannot dismiss the Spaniards in this case, they were professional men-at-arms, literally living and dying by the sword (no pun intended). They are expert witnesses for this matter. Also, do we say that their swords were not actually swords, but steel clubs because they couldn't keep an edge well?

[nealr]

What Spaniards said about Mesoamerican weapons has nothing to do with Joseph Smith's knowledge.

So, are you suggesting that Joseph Smith somehow knew what a macuahutl was and would have known not to call it a sword in translation? (Unlike the Spanish, who called it a sword because they didn't know what else to call it, and that is what it seemed like to them.) I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say with such a statement; in fact, I'm not sure that statement can make any kind of sense.

You are ignoring that point I made eariler, which is no matter how much you wish to insist that it best described as a "club" and not a "sword" cannot change, nor invalidate that others (and not just LDS) have felt otherwise. Your preference for club over sword does not prove that that is how Nephi or Joseph Smith would have seen it. Hence, this whole debate is pointless.

Edited March 22, 2013 by nealr

[Questing Beast]

No, they aren't. Heaps of earth go along with mining. The Olmecs mined in the years BCE and afterward. Heaps of earth have been found that are more than 10 meters high (keeping mind that these were found thousands of years after being cast upward onto the ground and many years of washing down, erosion, etc.).

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that heaps of earth are supposed to be slag heaps. I have seen late Mesoamerican (post Book of Mormon) copper slags. I have yet to see any of them as actual "heaps." Why expect heaps of slags in older times? Can you give us a good reason to expect massive hills of slags? Even the Book of Mormon does not mention anything that would require such a thing to be the case.

Here is what the Book of Mormon says about the "mighty heaps of earth" and how they resulted:

It was to dig up ore that caused the "mighty heaps of earth" to be raised, not pouring out of slags into heaps. We need to break down the false assumptions before attempting to weigh the contents of the text against the archaeological data. It is known that the Olmec were mining and casting up heaps of earth more than 10 meters in height during Book of Mormon times covering the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon. And, the Olmec were doing this to obtain ore.

What they got out of the varying kinds of ore is another question but it is an established fact that the Olmec were digging up "mighty heaps of earth" to obtain ore. I see zero reason why this cannot be applied to Book of Mormon peoples as well, if indeed they also were in the region.

It is like the "Book of Mormon people could not be using scimitars because they weren't invented until Arab times" argument. In point of fact, Middle Egyptian had a word for scimitar. When critics are faced with that fact, they then respond, "Well...but these weren't Nephite scimitars!" Always moving the goalposts are they...

Fact is, when ancient languages have in their vocabularies varying metals--even if there is zero archaeological evidence for metallurgy--these should be taken as evidence and at face value. Words for metals don't get into language vocabularies without the underlying culture having some contact with the real thing. It's time to cut the crap, Questing.

Granted, I had not heard/read about "heaps of earth" in Olmec times. That's a new detail. I am not even going to ask for a cfr.

And the Nephites/Lamanites did not use "Arab" scimitars. The word for the weapon is spelled cimeter. Along with "curloms and cumoms" or "ziff it gets no elucidation. I see no reason why Joseph Smith could not have equally used "macuahuitl" (in other words, just Anglicized a spelling for a foreign - to him - word) instead of sword. The macuahuitl is clearly not a sword in any European sense, and the Spaniards only referred to its cutting power as akin to that of a sword; they described the weapon distinctly because it was odd to them yet formidable as a fine, two-handed cutting sword. If some writers referred to it as an Aztec "sword" that was just laziness on their part. The distinction that makes a macuahuitl is not a modern one....

[MormonMason]

Granted, I had not heard/read about "heaps of earth" in Olmec times. That's a new detail. I am not even going to ask for a cfr.

Even if you did ask, I already provided references above in previous posts. These mining operations were quite large in Olmec times, and they were in the right period of time for people in the Book of Mormon to adopt the idea of mining and leaving behind large heaps of earth in the process.

And the Nephites/Lamanites did not use "Arab" scimitars. The word for the weapon is spelled cimeter. Along with "curloms and cumoms" or "ziff it gets no elucidation. I see no reason why Joseph Smith could not have equally used "macuahuitl" (in other words, just Anglicized a spelling for a foreign - to him - word) instead of sword. The macuahuitl is clearly not a sword in any European sense, and the Spaniards only referred to its cutting power as akin to that of a sword; they described the weapon distinctly because it was odd to them yet formidable as a fine, two-handed cutting sword. If some writers referred to it as an Aztec "sword" that was just laziness on their part. The distinction that makes a macuahuitl is not a modern one....

I never said that they used Arab scimitars. By the way, your entire argument about cimeters v. scimitars, with unknown Book of Mormon animals thrown in, is moot. In Joseph Smith's day, "cimeter" was one of the standard, dictionary ways to write "scimitar." Don't believe it? See Webster's 1806 Dictionary (the dictionary that contained vocabulary which Joseph Smith would have grown up with during his childhood). Look on pages 51 and 268 thereof.

And, yes, I have a hard copy of the original among my books at my home and electronic copies on my computers for reference when I am away. Like I said, we need to discard the assumptions before we can adequately discuss the text on its own terms.

You are assuming that the Nephites would have used the term macuahuitl. It is neither a Semitic nor an Egyptian term, both of which language types are the root of the underlying text of the Book of Mormon. Macuahuitl is an Aztec term (too late for the Book of Mormon period). We do not know what the Maya and the Olmec called them and we don't know what the Nephites called them other than "swords." But, it is a fact that the soldier of Moroni's sword was incapable of piercing a scalp like a metal sword would have been capable, which is why he picked it up to set it upon the top of the sword for display. We also know for fact that the swords of the Lamanites who became the people of Ammon were made of a substance that could be stained deeply by human blood, such as wood is one such substance.

And, Questing Beast, the Spaniard writers and others actually called the macuahuitl "sword." You need to read some of these writings within their own contexts, I see. But, transcultural exchanges exhibit these sorts of vocabulary anomalies in real life in modern times as well as in ancient times. The first time ancient Greeks saw an hippopotamus they called it a water horse. The name has stuck to the present day even though they most certainly are not horses and aren't even related to horses.

Again, we need to discard our modern assumptions before coming to the text on its own terms.

[Questing Beast]

Evidently you have spent a great deal of time and concentration upon "Book of Mormon studies". I went through a phase, mostly back in the 90's, where I read a number of books on BoM geography theories, Sorensen's book on that topic being the most plausible, and I took the FARMS "newsletter" for a year or two. So I actually read about literally stained "swords" and the circuitous logic about the "scalp episode", etc. If a macuahuitl will take the legs off a man or the head off a horse it will have zero trouble piercing a scalp. It's finding the rare example of a macuahuitl with an obsidian point that is the trouble. The typical weapon has no point at all. All macuahuitls have an "end". But the word in the BoM is not "end", so we have an uncommon version of the weapon referred to as having a "point". Anyway, it is all moot for everyone except BoM scholars and apologists. Critics are never convinced by arguing such minutia because the BoM has basic problems of a much greater depth than the spelling or choice of particular words. And we are both of us, I am confident, aware of the long list of objections that apologists defend fecklessly (if (re)conversion is the intended/anticipated conclusion), and critics bring up constantly, all to no purpose. You either believe the book on some level or you dismiss it. As I have said elsewhere (or possibly even here, I forget), scripture is no more history than secular history often is. Assertions pose as history, or as facts, when in fact people cannot leave the original facts alone, but manipulate them endlessly for their own purposes. The acquiring of a testimony via "the Spirit" does not depend on any such in-depth study. In fact it would occupy the entire life of the seeker and s/he would never do more than make a beginning into the physical evidence pro and con. If that is the route that God expects believers to take in order to actually "know" for themselves that the scripture is true, then God is not being reasonable. Yet many scholar types would have all of us believe that that is indeed what is expected in order to know anything beyond a reasonable doubt either way. I am not going there anymore. So you may forgive my participation in this topic as evidence of a moment of weakness and giving into an old habit of liking to raise issues and debate them. I thought that I was more or less over that where the BoM or any other scripture is concerned, but I guess as I said I had a moment of weakness. It won't be the last time....

Edited March 24, 2013 by Questing Beast

[MormonMason]

...

If a macuahuitl will take the legs off a man or the head off a horse it will have zero trouble piercing a scalp. It's finding the rare example of a macuahuitl with an obsidian point that is the trouble. The typical weapon has no point at all. All macuahuitls have an "end". But the word in the BoM is not "end", so we have an uncommon version of the weapon referred to as having a "point".

...

Yes, I have read extensively, and not just upon Book of Mormon subjects. I also just love to spend my time with my nose in ancient texts. I also love weapons both ancient and modern.

As to your argument above, no, even the macuahuitl with an obsidian point would have difficulty piercing the scalp on the ground. It would cut the scalp up--and even in half!--and prevent it from sticking on the blade thereby. Even with the point it would have required the soldier to pick the scalp up from the ground and lay it on the point.

A steel sword, on the other hand, would have allowed for the scalp to be picked up with the blade because the scalp would stretch around the tip of the blade while pushing it through into the ground, rather than being cut open like with an obsidian blade. Obsidian blades are far sharper than metal razors and they require minimum effort to cut through skin and flesh. A good obsidian blade would cut through skin of a scalp on the ground like a butter knife cutting through warm butter in an attempt to pick the stick of butter up with the tip of the knife.

[nealr]

Evidently you have spent a great deal of time and concentration upon "Book of Mormon studies".

This is, I think, generally why I find that believers who know about these issues tend to have a better grasp on them then critics do, in most cases. (At least, in my experience.) Most critics encountered the difficult information, spent a relatively brief time seeking out an answer they expected would come with some immediacy and/or simply trying to brush off the critical information. When they did not find the answers with relative ease and couldn't ignore it, they left the Church. Meanwhile, those who still believe usually approached the issues with a high degree of patience, realized they didn't need answers right away (the whole point of faith is to fill in for a time while the answers are still being processed), and have taken their time to really understand them.

The fact is the kind of in-depth understanding of the issues takes time, and there are no short-cuts. Even the brief answers you can find online, like in the FAIRWiki, are really only the tip of the iceberg. They will satisfy those with only a passing curiosity about something their co-worked said, or the like, but for those are a seriously troubled by an issue, they can only serve as starting point. If their doubts are ever to be satisfied, they must continue to seek out information that might help them process the issue and reach some conclusions.

You either believe the book on some level or you dismiss it. As I have said elsewhere (or possibly even here, I forget), scripture is no more history than secular history often is. Assertions pose as history, or as facts, when in fact people cannot leave the original facts alone, but manipulate them endlessly for their own purposes. The acquiring of a testimony via "the Spirit" does not depend on any such in-depth study. In fact it would occupy the entire life of the seeker and s/he would never do more than make a beginning into the physical evidence pro and con. If that is the route that God expects believers to take in order to actually "know" for themselves that the scripture is true, then God is not being reasonable. Yet many scholar types would have all of us believe that that is indeed what is expected in order to know anything beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

Now with this, I agree almost 100%. The only disagreement I have would be with bolded sentence. I don't think any LDS scholar thinks that what everyone should do. In fact, most if not all completely agree that the only way to really know is by the Spirit. But how many critics will give us a pass on all the issues if we just started responding that way? More importantly, how useful would such a response be to those in the midst of a faith crisis over, say, metals and swords in the Book of Mormon? Apologetics must exist because without it, many would think there is not a good response to the intellectual arguments of the critics. For many, the noxious weeds of critical arguments have made it difficult, if not possible, for the seed of faith to grow. Hence, the garden must weeded from time to time. The fact is, reasoned arguments are not needed to maintain faith, unless reasoned arguments have damaged faith. Then there must be a counterargument. At that point, it is true that if you are going to continue to believe, you must put in the time to understand the issues, weigh the evidence, and thoughtful ponder the arguments. It is a lot of effort, yes, but I for one think that eternal salvation is entirely worth it.

[Robert F. Smith]

"Polemics". A favorite word, I see. How about instead, a previous religious world view found to be unsupportable with evidence? I have read the BoM well over two dozen times, cover to cover, and innumerable times in part. This was not, I assure you, trying to disprove it. Since I have stopped trying to make it fit the real world of evidence "on the ground", I haven't read it again.

Maybe you just have a polemic personality, Beast. Just your nature, like the scorpion that promised not to sting the animal who carried it on his back across a river with the understanding that it wouldn't sting him.

Not only that aspect of your personality ought to give you pause, but the clear tendency you have to acquire false information about the natural world, and then to extrapolate via bad logic from that false data. Given those problems, it is hard to see how any amount of correct data and valid reasoning could influence you. Your rock hard belief system now in place will not allow any appraisals of new data because that causes serious cognitive dissonance.

The core "rub" against literal religious history is my complaint with secular history, all history: none of it is reliable. Coupled to my religious (cosmic scale) world view, I just don't see "God" doing "his work" one way, not the Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or "pagan" way: now, ALL of them, and none of them at all, yes, that I can accept. But not a singular dogmatic approach/gate into "the kingdom". If that is polemical, all I can reply with is that the word "polemics" is subjective to the weakness of observer bias and circular logic, which of course is the most fundamental kind of false logic. Are any immune? I doubt it....

Polemics are biased claims made by disputants to any debate in which winning is everything, and honesty means nothing. Similar to favoring a particular political party or candidate, or sports team, and opposing all others. I don't see reason or fact as an arbiter in such an emotional atmosphere. The same tends to apply to discussions of the Bible (did the Exodus or the Resurrection really happen?) and to religion in general, not to mention specific theologies, as much as it does to warfare over global warming. Reasoned and factual discussion is helpful, polemics are not.

[bcuzbcuz]

Olmec iron

Olmec stone

Ikea furniture bolt, nut and wrench.

Anybody else recognize the similarities???

Edited March 25, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[CASteinman]

Anybody else recognize the similarities???

They all have holes?

[CASteinman]

As I have said elsewhere (or possibly even here, I forget), scripture is no more history than secular history often is. Assertions pose as history, or as facts, when in fact people cannot leave the original facts alone, but manipulate them endlessly for their own purposes.

Do you realize you are making mere assertions posed as facts?

[Questing Beast]

...

As to your argument above, no, even the macuahuitl with an obsidian point would have difficulty piercing the scalp on the ground. It would cut the scalp up--and even in half!--and prevent it from sticking on the blade thereby. Even with the point it would have required the soldier to pick the scalp up from the ground and lay it on the point.

...

I mistook what you meant: I thought that for some mysterious reason you were distinguishing between an obsidian edge and a "steel" edge when doing the original damage, in other words cutting off the scalp in the first place.

Picking up the scalp and laying it across the "point", instead of simply spearing the scalp and raising it does not show what kind of weapon is being used. A "trophy" will be seized and displayed with pomp and circumstance, not casually pierced against the ground. See, the argument works both ways....

[Questing Beast]

... those who still believe usually approached the issues with a high degree of patience, realized they didn't need answers right away (the whole point of faith is to fill in for a time while the answers are still being processed), and have taken their time to really understand them.

... If their doubts are ever to be satisfied, they must continue to seek out information that might help them process the issue and reach some conclusions.

... The fact is, reasoned arguments are not needed to maintain faith, unless reasoned arguments have damaged faith. Then there must be a counterargument. At that point, it is true that if you are going to continue to believe, you must put in the time to understand the issues, weigh the evidence, and thoughtful ponder the arguments. It is a lot of effort, yes, but I for one think that eternal salvation is entirely worth it.

Some approach their faith with reason, fundamentally they cannot do it any other way, it's how their minds work. That is why you have two generalized "camps" of religious thought: the faithful and the doubting kind. The doubter isn't a disbeliever, he requires that evidence fit what he is trying to believe on faith. As you say, faith fills in for a time until answers are processed. If the answers do not fit the faithful paradigm the problem continues and deepens. Further study will likely reveal even deeper dichotomies between evidence and faith. Meanwhile, the faithful person never studies deeply enough to discover the depth of the dichotomy between uninformed, unthinking faith and reasoned approach with evidence. So the faithful person will continue on for life believing on a feeling alone, even refusing to examine that complex of feelings ("Testimony") because to do so would be an act of betrayal to their simple faith; a study of what they already "know" to be true would be seeking for a sign.

Some who study and wind up disbelieving the pat answer paradigm (faith promoting history) leave the Church and some stay, but their faith is altered from what it was. A further study of the evidence, no matter how much more is forthcoming, is not likely to change their thinking back to where it was before they studied the evidence, because where they are in their thinking is opened up too wide to admit a narrowing back to where they were before....

[Questing Beast]

Maybe you just have a polemic personality, Beast. Just your nature, like the scorpion that promised not to sting the animal who carried it on his back across a river with the understanding that it wouldn't sting him.

Not only that aspect of your personality ought to give you pause, but the clear tendency you have to acquire false information about the natural world, and then to extrapolate via bad logic from that false data. Given those problems, it is hard to see how any amount of correct data and valid reasoning could influence you. Your rock hard belief system now in place will not allow any appraisals of new data because that causes serious cognitive dissonance.

Polemics are biased claims made by disputants to any debate in which winning is everything, and honesty means nothing. Similar to favoring a particular political party or candidate, or sports team, and opposing all others. I don't see reason or fact as an arbiter in such an emotional atmosphere. The same tends to apply to discussions of the Bible (did the Exodus or the Resurrection really happen?) and to religion in general, not to mention specific theologies, as much as it does to warfare over global warming. Reasoned and factual discussion is helpful, polemics are not.

"Rock hard belief system", heh! I don't have one. That's ironic to read. Blame it on the textual approach to relating information, I suppose. Like the proverbial tip of the iceberg, text can't possibly be even a tenth of the total thought going on while the fingers are tapping away, so throwing judgmental words at the texter like "polemicist" is always going to be inaccurate to some degree. In this case, you are way off the mark about me and what I believe.

I throw in evidence when I see someone advancing a set of ideas, a paradigm, that appears to be denying or ignoring the evidence. E.g. the above brief exchange on mining and metalworking in the BoM. Even the "heaps of earth" hypothetically dated to Olmec/Jaredite times, although such existing heaps of earth and their supposed date of creation, by themselves, do not provide any great evidence of support for the BoM. And if the BoM stands or falls on the acquiring of an expanding body of such physical evidence, then the BoM is doomed; it will not convince any outsiders to investigate truth claims of the book. The Bible is under the same kind of critique, although it is an older argument and much more important than any similar exchange over the BoM. If the Bible does not stand up to scrutiny, and is altered beyond recognition into a man-made collection of early oral tales and later dogmatic ordering to support Judaism, then the BoM suffers each hit that the Bible takes, because the BoM stands or falls with the Bible....

[Questing Beast]

Do you realize you are making mere assertions posed as facts?

The fact I am pointing out is that history is unreliable because it all passes through the manipulative minds and hands of men. Go to the earliest writings of Mormon teachers and tell me that their "inspired" view of the history of the African Negro is historical, and then explain to me how any of them could possibly know what they assert about the "seed of Cain" being the line through which the "less valiant in the preexistence" are born into this world. Examples can be multiplied. Early views on the "cursed race" are manipulated and manipulative. Some people still entertain such views of "history" today.

Back in ancient times it appears that "history" was never the act of recording facts to preserve truth. It was always subjected to authority to write/say what got passed along. A much more recent example is William of Poitier's history of William the Conqueror. At the same time that history got advanced as the officially accepted version, a much different one, not a whit less agenda-based, was passed by or even suppressed because it did not show the new regime in as good a light. The next generation took its understanding from the sycophantic writings of Poitier, not the bishop of Amiens. And then we have the difficulty of deciding in our day if either work is actually genuine, or some elaborate hoax dropped in the libraries where they were discovered for the first time in the 19th century. Yet virtually all we know about the man history calls "William the Conqueror" depends on these doubtful documents. And the further back we go to examine history the less reliable it becomes, because more people have held the documents. E.g. Jewish Antiquities has no extant copy older than the 9th to 11th century CE. Earlier references to Josephus' work do not match up with existing copies, i.e. some references are missing altogether or their contents are different, indications that the text of Josephus was redacted incorrectly and interpolated, etc. To what extent can anyone rely on Josephus for any true picture of what occurred in Jewish history? His education was dependent upon already altered versions of the Old Testament, and his history was altered by later Christian and Jewish writers to include or omit what they wanted Josephus to say.

The short version of the conclusion to this problem of studying history is that it loses much if not all of its vaunted value, and becomes more of a hobby for like-minded fans of certain historical subjects and milieu. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" therefore becomes far less authoritative, since "which history are we talking about" must first be resolved, and there is no resolution....

Edited March 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[CASteinman]

The fact I am pointing out is that history is unreliable because it all passes through the manipulative minds and hands of men.

Well, I am sort of asking you if you aren't participating in that manipulation -- indeed that your account of things is at least as unreliable as anyone that you might quote.

[MormonMason]

I mistook what you meant: I thought that for some mysterious reason you were distinguishing between an obsidian edge and a "steel" edge when doing the original damage, in other words cutting off the scalp in the first place.

Picking up the scalp and laying it across the "point", instead of simply spearing the scalp and raising it does not show what kind of weapon is being used. A "trophy" will be seized and displayed with pomp and circumstance, not casually pierced against the ground. See, the argument works both ways....

No, actually it doesn't. Trophies, in Mesoamerica, were worn. The Book of Mormon nowhere says that he attached it to his clothing or wore it. It nowhere shows that he used pomp and circumstance to display it. He merely picked it up, set it on the point of his sword, and made a declaration that the enemy would fall in the like manner as did the scalp. So, it is most unlikely he considered it a trophy in any sense.

[Questing Beast]

Well, I am sort of asking you if you aren't participating in that manipulation -- indeed that your account of things is at least as unreliable as anyone that you might quote.

Inescapably! Only when you realize how screwed we all are, only then do you begin to learn on your own, with only "God" as the sifter of facts. It really does all boil down to what "feels right". You can be assaulted by an avalanche of "facts" that deny your paradigm of the truth, but if you are not convinced in your feelings ("a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still") you are not converted. I have arrived at the position where it won't matter if the entire world disagrees with what I feel is right, I will still follow what feels right.

All the rest, the so-called history, the precedent, the consensus, is tossed aside if it doesn't fit what feels right. Everyone is granted the same privilege. What we are all bound by is justice, which makes us equals. But what we think we know binds only ourselves. That is what we are judged by: how true to your feelings are you?...

[Questing Beast]

No, actually it doesn't. Trophies, in Mesoamerica, were worn. The Book of Mormon nowhere says that he attached it to his clothing or wore it. It nowhere shows that he used pomp and circumstance to display it. He merely picked it up, set it on the point of his sword, and made a declaration that the enemy would fall in the like manner as did the scalp. So, it is most unlikely he considered it a trophy in any sense.

We don't know what the scalp was used for afterward. Nothing is said. But he could hardly "wear it" the instant after picking it up. And I do see "pomp and circumstance" in the way the warrior displayed the scalp for the enemy. It was very ritualistic and dramatic. I can't see "spearing" the scalp in the dirt offering any such opportunity as picking it up, placing it on the end of the "sword" and holding it aloft. (back to you....)

[Sevenbak]

Ikea furniture bolt, nut and wrench.

Anybody else recognize the similarities???

That the Nephites built their cities and towns with cheap veneers and glue?

And used horse meat in their meatballs? Or would that be Tapir meat?

[CASteinman]

Inescapably! Only when you realize how screwed we all are, only then do you begin to learn on your own, with only "God" as the sifter of facts. It really does all boil down to what "feels right". You can be assaulted by an avalanche of "facts" that deny your paradigm of the truth, but if you are not convinced in your feelings ("a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still") you are not converted. I have arrived at the position where it won't matter if the entire world disagrees with what I feel is right, I will still follow what feels right.

All the rest, the so-called history, the precedent, the consensus, is tossed aside if it doesn't fit what feels right. Everyone is granted the same privilege. What we are all bound by is justice, which makes us equals. But what we think we know binds only ourselves. That is what we are judged by: how true to your feelings are you?...

Interesting.

[MormonMason]

We don't know what the scalp was used for afterward. Nothing is said. But he could hardly "wear it" the instant after picking it up. And I do see "pomp and circumstance" in the way the warrior displayed the scalp for the enemy. It was very ritualistic and dramatic. I can't see "spearing" the scalp in the dirt offering any such opportunity as picking it up, placing it on the end of the "sword" and holding it aloft. (back to you....)

Well, we will agree to disagree, apparently, but the scalp was placed on the point not pushed onto it. Say what you will but it looks more like something that indicates that it was not possible to pierce the scalp to get it onto the blade.

The good news is that while we disagree (because you are trying to play devil's advocate), it definitely shows that neither Joseph Smith nor any other modern author was the writer of that passage. A modern writer would have had the soldier spear it rather than pick it up with his hands, without any allusion to ritual and drama. That was the Mesoamerican way rather than the modern way.