Ancient Hilted Sword Made Of Iron Lined With Steel Found In Oman

[Tiki]

Actually, this Oman find is very late, steel was being produced by the high culture and civilization in ancient South Arabia already by 1100 B.C., and you can read about it in Gus Van Beek, Hajar Bin Humeid: Investigations at a Pre-Islamic Site in South Arabia.

What is far more interesting is the spectacular steel-bladed and gold-hilted dagger found in King Tut’s 18th dynasty tomb, which is not only of the same type as the sword described for Laban (I Nephi 4:9) nearly a millennium later, but may also have been an import.

As for Mesoamerican iron, the Olmec (Jaredites?) were mining it and processing it centuries before the arrival of Clan Lehi. They used it to make highly polished haematite iron mirrors (perforated to be worn around the neck), and for other objects (tons of perforated iron cubes have been found in Olmec sites), but especially interesting is the magnetite compass "pointer" found by Michael Coe at the Early Formative Olmec site of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán (Fuson 1969:508-510, Coe in Sharer & Grove 1989:79; Lowe 1989:44 [fig 4.6 item n],53-54; Coe & Diehl 1980:244-245 figs 251, 255). Coe told Fuson that this pointer was

a flattened, oblong piece that is perfectly squared on all faces, and with a longitudinal groove extending along one surface. The object was made with such great care that it appears to be machined (Fuson 1969:508).

Coe succesfully tested the pointer on a cork mat in a plastic bowl of water, and also suggested that the Olmec may have suspended magnetite mirrors on string for the same purpose. Fuson notes that the pointer could as easily have been floated on liquid mercury as a compass – mercury was available and extensively used in ancient Mesoamerica (Fuson 1969:508-510; cf. Baity 1973:443; Carlson 1981:117-147).

Surface outcroppings of magnetite (lodestone) and other workable iron ores (ilmenite and hematite) were readily available in Oaxaca (Flannery 1976:40,58-60,317-325), where San Jose Mogoté seems to have been the primary center for the processing of such ores into elite exchange objects. It is not hard to imagine that such surface ore could be heated into a bloom (in an oven with bellows) and then beaten and quenched until a sword was formed. That is the way the great Viking and Japanese swordsmiths did it.

Did the Coe Compass Test point true North? Or the false LGT North?

Apparently, the successful test pointed true north.

Isn't it amazing that a discussion on early steel steel swords, leads to iron, leads to an iron oxide called Magnetite, leads to ancient Mesoamerica compasses which disproves the LGT directions, which disproves the "Lehites" did not know true north because the narrow neck of land in the LGT runs east-west?

Edited June 14, 2014 by Tiki

[omni]

 

As for Mesoamerican iron, the Olmec (Jaredites?) were mining it and processing it centuries before the arrival of Clan Lehi.  They used it to make highly polished haematite iron mirrors (perforated to be worn around the neck), and for other objects (tons of perforated iron cubes have been found in Olmec sites), but especially interesting is the magnetite compass "pointer"  found by Michael Coe at the Early Formative Olmec site of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán (Fuson 1969:508-510, Coe in Sharer & Grove 1989:79; Lowe 1989:44 [fig 4.6 item n],53-54; Coe & Diehl 1980:244-245 figs 251, 255).  Coe told Fuson that this pointer was

 

a flattened, oblong piece that is perfectly squared on all faces, and with a longitudinal groove extending along one surface.  The object was made with such great care that it appears to be machined (Fuson 1969:508).

 

Coe succesfully tested the pointer on a cork mat in a plastic bowl of water, and also suggested that the Olmec may have suspended magnetite mirrors on string for the same purpose.  Fuson notes that the pointer could as easily have been floated on liquid mercury as a compass – mercury was available and extensively used in ancient Mesoamerica (Fuson 1969:508-510; cf. Baity 1973:443; Carlson 1981:117-147).

 

 

 

This Coe fellow sounds like he really knows his stuff, I wonder what his views on the BoM are?

 

 

Surface outcroppings of magnetite (lodestone) and other workable iron ores (ilmenite and hematite) were readily available in Oaxaca (Flannery 1976:40,58-60,317-325), where San Jose Mogoté seems to have been the primary center for the processing of such ores into elite exchange objects.  It is not hard to imagine that such surface ore could be heated into a bloom (in an oven with bellows) and then beaten and quenched until a sword was formed.  That is the way the great Viking and Japanese swordsmiths did it.

 

 

 

And yet we have no evidence of this occurring in the Pre-Columbian Americas, nor of the existence of iron swords.  

[rodheadlee]

Did the Coe Compass Test point true North? Or the false LGT North?

Apparently, the successful test pointed true north.

Isn't it amazing that a discussion on early steel steel swords, leads to iron, leads to an iron oxide called Magnetite, leads to ancient Mesoamerica compasses which disproves the LGT directions, which disproves the "Lehites" did not know true north because the narrow neck of land in the LGT runs east-west?

A compass won't point to true north, it points to magnetic north. The variance in that area is 7 degrees East with an annual change of 4 minutes west. The variance in my present location is 15 degrees east. The variance is 0 near Key West, Florida.

Edited June 14, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Ron Beron]

Anciently steel was well understood by even Mesoamerican peoples in the form of steel meteorites.  While the ancient Egyptians, et al, understood the smelting process the people of the New World did not.

[thesometimesaint]

A compass won't point to true north, it points to magnetic north. The variance in that area is 7 degrees East with an annual change of 4 minutes west. The variance in my present location is 15 degrees east. The variance is 0 near Key West, Florida.

 

Out where I live it's 23 degrees variance

[Robert F. Smith]

I would suggest that we're both wrong. I've never made steel. I don't know if you have. I've just pounded some iron on a smith's anvil, making a belt buckle, during a Viking history excursion, hardly scratching the surface (pun intended).

Steel was made many thousands of years ago, that is not the issue. Who knew the technology and where that knowledge existed is an issue. Iron and steel products have been documented from many Asian sources. New world sources are debatable.

Here are some sources for your appraisal:

 

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

Concurrent with the transition from bronze to iron was the discovery of carburization, the process of adding carbon to wrought iron. While the iron bloom contained some carbon, the subsequent hot-working oxidized most of it. Smiths in the Middle East discovered that wrought iron could be turned into a much harder product by heating the shaped piece in a bed of charcoal for some time, and then quenching it in water or oil. This procedure turned the outer layers of the piece into steel, an alloy of iron and iron carbides, which was harder and less brittle than the bronze it began to replace.

---------------------------   

 

Here is a lesson on how it is done from an expert, Professor Richard Cowen (Univ. of California at Davis), “Essays on Geology, History, and People,” at chapter 5, online at http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/115CH5.html , 

 

"Iron that has a tiny amount of carbon in it (about 0.1%, only 1 part in 1000) has properties that are significantly different from ordinary iron. Most important, it is harder, so will take a better edge. As a smith hammers a piece of wrought iron, to shape it, it must be maintained at a relatively high temperature so that it is soft. In charcoal-fired forges, working with relatively high-quality smelted iron ingots, carbon and carbon monoxide are in contact with iron at relatively high temperatures. In these conditions, with a smith hammering away at the wrought iron, the immediate surface of the iron combines with a small percentage of the carbon (the iron is carburized) to form a new iron-carbon alloy, steel. If the smith hammers away at it until there is 1% of carbon in the iron, he makes a mild steel that is stronger than the best bronze.

 

"If the smith is shaping a thick object from a slab of wrought iron (say a hammer head) he will not need much forging time, so any steel he produces will make only a thin hard jacket over the object. But suppose that a smith is making a sword. He is hammering pieces of wrought iron to form a long, thin shape. This will need a lot of hammering, and re-heating, and more hammering. The forging makes a skin of steel over the entire sword. But as the smith forms the edges of the sword, the entire thickness of the edge is "steeled." Suppose the smith is making a sword for an officer: he is likely to forge it for longer, to make a more perfect shape and a sharper edge. The extra forging would also make a better steel than a sword that was finished more crudely. Chemically, the smith does not know what he has done, but in practical terms, he can recognize that longer forging makes a better sword. And an experienced officer would certainly know a superior sword when he wielded one!

 

"What's more, longer forging makes a sword that is not only sharper, but harder, less likely to bend in a battle. (When the Romans invaded Britain, they found that the Britons would sometimes have to step back out of the battle line to straighten their swords!) Smiths could expect that if they forged swords for a long time, they would produce even better weapons, though at extra cost in time, energy, and fuel. At first this was true: an alloy containing between 0.2% and 1% carbon is the hardest of the steels. Wayland Smith's most famous sword Fafnir was made by forging it three times, breaking it into pieces between each stage.

 

"So far, this is intuitive: whatever it takes to add carbon to iron, more of it adds hardness. But now the trouble begins. If iron is alloyed with more than 1% carbon, properties change yet again. High-carbon iron is harder still than steel, but it also becomes brittle. One can imagine ancient smiths finding this out with some relief: there came a point where more forging was counter-productive. Even so, one hears more about swords breaking in battle than one does about them bending: clearly, at some point in sword-making, smiths erred toward strength and hardness at the cost of making swords too brittle (and I shall return to this problem later). As a result, the forging process in the Western World did not lead to the discovery of iron alloys with much higher carbon."

-------------------------------   

For an excellent, practical overview, see “Secrets of the Samurai Sword,” Nova, Oct 9, 2007, PBS-TV, online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-samurai-sword.html .

--------------------------   

and “Secrets of the Viking Sword,” Nova (Night/WGBH, 2012), online at http://video.pbs.org/video/2284159044 ,

The greatest sword ever made was the Viking “Ulfberht” of about 900 to 1000 years ago, a clean, high-carbon slag-free steel (crucible steel) created in an oven closed at the top, vented at bottom side, and heated with bellows to about 3,000 degrees F.  No known technology would enable the creation of a similar sword for another 800 years after the technology was lost.

 

The Vikings likely got the technology (and perhaps the raw material) from north Iran via the Volga trade route which they regularly used.  Such technology was already being used in Central Asia to make Damascus steel.

-----------------------------------------------------------   

I'm sure that you noticed, bcuzbcuz, that Nephi mentions bellows (I Nephi 17:11), and could easily have taken Old World technology with him to the New World.  As pointed out in the Nova piece on Viking steel, such technology can also be lost.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Zakuska]

Anciently steel was well understood by even Mesoamerican peoples in the form of steel meteorites.  While the ancient Egyptians, et al, understood the smelting process the people of the New World did not.

Not true. Many peoples of the Americas understood smelting of metal. I linked this earlier.

To date "no one has found evidence that points to the use of melting, smelting and casting in prehistoric eastern North America."[3] In South America the case is quite different. Indigenous South Americans had full metallurgy with smelting and various metals being purposely alloyed.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America

[Robert F. Smith]

Did the Coe Compass Test point true North? Or the false LGT North?

Apparently, the successful test pointed true north.

Isn't it amazing that a discussion on early steel steel swords, leads to iron, leads to an iron oxide called Magnetite, leads to ancient Mesoamerica compasses which disproves the LGT directions, which disproves the "Lehites" did not know true north because the narrow neck of land in the LGT runs east-west?

A compass won't point to true north, it points to magnetic north. The variance in that area is 7 degrees East with an annual change of 4 minutes west. The variance in my present location is 15 degrees east. The variance is 0 near Key West, Florida.

Thanks, rod,

And such variances change over time, based on movements by the molten core within the Earth.

 

The other point which Tiki missed is that the Olmec compass (the earliest known compass in the world) was created centuries before Clan Lehi arrived in the New World.  There is no evidence that such technology was used by later Mesoamerican peoples, nor that Clan Lehi was familiar with it -- it was likely lost with Olmec (Jaredite?) civilization.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

This Coe fellow sounds like he really knows his stuff, I wonder what his views on the BoM are?

Mike Coe is a great scholar, now in retirement. You might try reading some of his books. They are excellent and authoritative. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Book of Mormon, he forgets everything he has ever written on Mesoamerica, as in this case on the amazing Olmec magnetite pointer, which appears to have been machined!!

 

Also, Coe is a believer in diffusion to Mesoamerica of some aspects of Asian cultures in pre-Columbian times.  Many important scholars share this view.  Too bad that Coe did not take the Book of Mormon seriously enough to give it a fair and intelligent evaluation -- see J. L. Sorenson in Interpreter, 1 (2012):91-109, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/ .

  

 

And yet we have no evidence of this occurring in the Pre-Columbian Americas, nor of the existence of iron swords.

As pointed out by Zakuska, you are misinformed.

 

However, in the very tropical environment of Mesoamerica, given the rarity of steel swords in general, it would be amazing if one survived.  Doubly so since Mesoamerican archeology is still in its infancy.

[Zakuska]

Tikis link up at the top of this page even links to copper swords and simutars found in lake michigan area and dating to BOM times.

[Zakuska]

http://copperculture.homestead.com

Many cooper tools. Knifes daggers. some of the knifes reach short sword length.

[omni]

Mike Coe is a great scholar, now in retirement. You might try reading some of his books. They are excellent and authoritative. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Book of Mormon, he forgets everything he has ever written on Mesoamerica, as in this case on the amazing Olmec magnetite pointer, which appears to have been machined!!

 

Also, Coe is a believer in diffusion to Mesoamerica of some aspects of Asian cultures in pre-Columbian times.  Many important scholars share this view.  Too bad that Coe did not take the Book of Mormon seriously enough to give it a fair and intelligent evaluation -- see J. L. Sorenson in Interpreter, 1 (2012):91-109, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/ .

  

 

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.  As with Robert Ritner, these men are leading experts in their respective fields, but once they use this expertise in analyzing the BoM and BoA they seem to forget everything.  Both of these scholars would have nothing to lose and much to gain (exaltation) with an objective study of these books of scripture .  Yet when they do this, they come to the overwhelming conclusion these books are not what the church claims them to be.

 

 

As pointed out by Zakuska, you are misinformed.

 

 

I looked at Zakuska's links and was unable to find anything indicating Pre-Columbian steel and iron swords, but feel free to point out where I missed it.

[Calm]

with an objective study of these books of scripture .  Yet when they do this,

CFR please that Coe did an objective study of the BoM.  How much time did he spend reading it, looking at the scholarship done on it, etc.

 

Sorenson responded to an interview that Coe did about the BoM with Dehlin listing about ¼ of the interview, IIRC, and all the mistakes he made in it.  He stopped because he felt he had demonstrated sufficiently that Coe didn't know what he was talking about when it came to the BoM.  I will try and find the link.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

Edited June 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[omni]

CFR please that Coe did an objective study of the BoM.  How much time did he spend reading it, looking at the scholarship done on it, etc.

 

Sorenson responded to an interview that Coe did about the BoM with Dehlin listing about ¼ of the interview, IIRC, and all the mistakes he made in it.  He stopped because he felt he had demonstrated sufficiently that Coe didn't know what he was talking about when it came to the BoM.  I will try and find the link.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

 

In the interview with Dehlin, Coe states he's had a fascination with Mormonism for decades after being introduced to it through his uncle (who was not LDS) and an LDS colleague of his.  During this time he not only had a fascination in Mormonism, but a respect for it and believed it was something "worthy of serious study".  When asked to do the dialogue article on BoM archaeology, he states he "did a lot of reseach" in order to give it the proper respect.  Coe has many friends and LDS colleagues in anthropology/archeology and seems to be very familiar with the BoM scholarship.

[nosmelone]

I've listened to that interview numerous times and he isn't as familiar with the Book of Mormon as he would like to pretend he is.  If it wasn't for Dehlin spoon feeding him questions (unlike he did for Brant Gardner...questioning everything Brant said) than I would guess that Coe couldn't have read the Book of Mormon all the way through once (maybe twice) in his lifetime.

[Tiki]

Thanks, rod,

And such variances change over time, based on movements by the molten core within the Earth.

 

The other point which Tiki missed is that the Olmec compass (the earliest known compass in the world) was created centuries before Clan Lehi arrived in the New World.  There is no evidence that such technology was used by later Mesoamerican peoples, nor that Clan Lehi was familiar with it -- it was likely lost with Olmec (Jaredite?) civilization.

"Clan" Lehi was not familiar with the technology. And it was most likely lost with a question mark centuries before "Clan" Lehi arrived? Those are interesting responses.

First you ignore that "Clan" Lehi was promised a land give to him and his descendants, but claim when his "Clan" arrived, his land of promise reserved by The Lord was already given to other "Clans" who were there centuries before. I'm not one to make a liar out of the Creator of The Universe and all things in it, but let's proceed with your implied premise that the God we pray to is a liar.

If the knowledge of hematite being used as a compass was lost among the "Clans" who stole Lehi's reservation, why would it be so difficult for a people who worked in iron to "re-discover" it? Western Civilization was able to independent of any Mesoamerica "Clans."

Your other claim that "Clan" Lehi was not familiar with compasses is incorrect. Lehi was given a compass with two spindles, one pointing the direction that Lehi should travel. And Nephi stated it pointed "nearly eastward," at one time, when they crossed the Arabian peninsula. This is evident that "Clan" Lehi knew their cardinal directions.

So if "Clan" Lehi arrived in the Land of Promise already populated by a people who had been their centuries earlier because the Lord is a liar, then "Clan" Lehi (who arrived with Laban's steel sword) would have known the alleged narrow neck of land did not run North-South.

[bcuzbcuz]

And Nephi stated it pointed "nearly eastward," at one time, when they crossed the Arabian peninsula. This is evident that "Clan" Lehi knew their cardinal directions.

No, what it shows is that Joseph Smith knew his cardinal directions. What the actual record, on the gold plates, shows, we don't know. But Joseph "translated" it as ¨nearly eastward¨.

[nealr]

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.  As with Robert Ritner, these men are leading experts in their respective fields, but once they use this expertise in analyzing the BoM and BoA they seem to forget everything.  Both of these scholars would have nothing to lose and much to gain (exaltation) with an objective study of these books of scripture .  Yet when they do this, they come to the overwhelming conclusion these books are not what the church claims them to be.

 

 

 

I looked at Zakuska's links and was unable to find anything indicating Pre-Columbian steel and iron swords, but feel free to point out where I missed it.

 

Nothing to loose? No reputation at stake? No cherished ideological beliefs to forsake? Nothing like that at all? Both are secularists, so I doubt they see a lot to gain in the Mormon concept of "exaltation." Meanwhile, being non-believers in any kind of divine things (angels, revelatory translation, etc.), they clearly have predispositions against the BoM and BoA being ancient--since logically, if they are, that means angles and revelation (and therefore, God) are all real. 

 

The fact is that there are theological implications that cannot be disentangled from the questions of the Book of Mormon's historicity (or the Book of Abraham's). Of course, those implications impact the biases of Mormon scholars looking into the question (I've never seen anyone else claim otherwise). What baffles me is that so many seem to think that non-Mormons are somehow unaffected by those implications, or above them and the biases they create. 

[nealr]

In the interview with Dehlin, Coe states he's had a fascination with Mormonism for decades after being introduced to it through his uncle (who was not LDS) and an LDS colleague of his.  During this time he not only had a fascination in Mormonism, but a respect for it and believed it was something "worthy of serious study".  When asked to do the dialogue article on BoM archaeology, he states he "did a lot of reseach" in order to give it the proper respect.  Coe has many friends and LDS colleagues in anthropology/archeology and seems to be very familiar with the BoM scholarship.

 

Anyone who has read LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon extensively can clearly see (or hear) in that podcast that Coe is painfully unfamiliar with it. He may have done a lot reading for his Dialogue article, but that was published in 1973. The watershed decade for Book of Mormon scholarship in a Mesoamerican setting? The 1980s. And, again, the interview with Dehlin betrays no awareness or at least serious engagement of that scholarship from the '80s onward. 

[USU78]

 And, again, the interview with Dehlin betrays no awareness or at least serious engagement of that scholarship from the '80s onward. 

 

Which leads us to an interesting question:  is this by design; by ignorance; by laziness?

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................   

If the knowledge of hematite being used as a compass was lost among the "Clans" who stole Lehi's reservation, why would it be so difficult for a people who worked in iron to "re-discover" it? Western Civilization was able to independent of any Mesoamerica "Clans."

Magnetite is the magnetic form of iron which occurs naturally and was used for magnetic compasses. In the Old World, Thales of Miletus was familiar with its properties, but it did not come into common use in Europe until much later.  Hematite is not magnetic.

 

Your other claim that "Clan" Lehi was not familiar with compasses is incorrect. Lehi was given a compass with two spindles, one pointing the direction that Lehi should travel. And Nephi stated it pointed "nearly eastward," at one time, when they crossed the Arabian peninsula. This is evident that "Clan" Lehi knew their cardinal directions.

------------------------------------------------

It is not clear what type of compass the liahona might have been, but magnetism seems not to have been part of its function. It worked by faith, and even had revelatory words appear on its surface.

 

As for cardinal directions, anyone can tell where the sun rises and sets, and where the North Star is.  That is no great secret.  What you might try to do is to understand (anthropologically) how various ancient peoples actually used directionality.

[Robert F. Smith]

Which leads us to an interesting question:  is this by design; by ignorance; by laziness?

Dehlin himself has declared that he deliberately avoids reading books by people he interviews, so that the encounter will be fresh and spontaneous.  Also, as a result of his being a psychologist, he is more interested in studying how people think and react, rather than in anything having to do with the real world.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................................

Coe . . . seems to be very familiar with the BoM scholarship.

Sounds like something Dehlin might say, but then Dehlin knows nothing of Book of Mormon scholarship and is proud of it.  Coe seems to know even less.

 

So, omni, how much do you know about BofM scholarship?  Enough to make a fair evaluation of someone else's knowledge?

[omni]

Nothing to loose? No reputation at stake? 

 

They would put their reputation at risk by being a member of the church?  I certainly wouldn't say that, but if it's true then that doesn't bode well for the reputation of BYU's departments of anthropology and Asian and Near Eastern languages.

 

No cherished ideological beliefs to forsake? Nothing like that at all? 

 

 

I suppose, but doesn't everybody do that to a degree when they convert to a new religion or way of thinking?  Hundreds of thousands manage to forsake their ideological beliefs every year and convert to the church.  What we don't see in those conversions are respected Egyptologists and American archeologists.  It would be unfair to expect all or even most to convert, but we should expect some, right?  

 

Certainly out of curiosity one would expect at least a few to take interest in the claims of a worldwide religion that can be tested within their expertise.  Should we not expect BYU archeologists to at least occasionally talk to their colleagues at secular universities and mention a few of the hits or parallels they see within Mesoamerican/Olmec/Native American cultures and the BoM?  I can't imagine there aren't any of these conversations occurring which are leading to further study by the non-Mormon scholars.

 

Why aren't BYU Egyptologists accompanied by a pair of missionaries at every Egyptological conference?  These should be golden contacts if there ever were any and would be a huge boost to the missionary effort!  We have verifiable proof Joseph could translate the then unknown language of ancient Egyptian with the rediscovery of the papyri, yet once again, where are the converts?  Instead, when the experts in these fields analyze the data we get this book by Robert Ritner or statements such as this  from the Smithsonian Institute.  Or these from other experts.

 

 

 

"Archeologists and others scholars have longed probed the hemisphere's past, and the Society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." - National Geographic Society

 

 

 

"Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, ... nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon... is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere. - 1973

 

I haven't changed my views about the Book of Mormon since my 1973 article. I have seen no archaeological evidence before or since that date which would convince me that it is anything but a fanciful creation by an unusually gifted individual living in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century. - Michael Coe

 

[omni]

 

The fact is that there are theological implications that cannot be disentangled from the questions of the Book of Mormon's historicity (or the Book of Abraham's). Of course, those implications impact the biases of Mormon scholars looking into the question (I've never seen anyone else claim otherwise). What baffles me is that so many seem to think that non-Mormons are somehow unaffected by those implications, or above them and the biases they create. 

 

No doubt everyone has their biases, but if the evidence was truly there (and they felt the Holy Ghost testify of the truthfulness) why wouldn't you expect at least some of these experts to overcome their biases and convert?