Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Prestor John]

Not only did they evidently not breed, they also did not speak with the indigenous populations nor did the share any old world technologies. Taken as a whole that's a pretty damning indictment.

You have not shared any reasons to assume any of this.

If, as the Book of Mormon claims, there were Israelite migrations to the New World or to Mesoamerica, they have left essentially no trace.

That is not accurate. There are a plethora of “traces” and many of them have been shared with you in this thread.

You’d rather stare at that one grain of sand you take issue with and ignore the rest of the seashore. You just don’t want to see them.

The molecular research on Mesoamerican populations is in complete harmony with the Mesoamerican archaeological research. The lack of evidence of any Middle Eastern influence in Mesoamerica is telling given the example of the brief visits to the New World by Scandinavians that took place not long after the Book of Mormon period, that have been detected in North America.

And these Scandinavian colonies went through the same number of population depleting plagues, disasters and genocidal wars mentioned in the Book of Mormon and also what we know about the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica?

I don’t understand how you take issue with me and others quoting Mormon sources or Mormon-discovered evidences while you think it is fine to quote from such a biased anti-Mormon as Simon Southerton.

Well, anyways, let’s take a look at this quote here.

Ten centuries ago…

The Lehites arrived in the New World a few years after 600 B.C.E. and the Nephites were wiped out by approximately 420 C.E. The events of the Book of Mormon happened several centuries before this Scandinavian colonization, and they took place in an “evidence-destroying” environment. “Evidence-destroying” due to humidity/dense jungle and at least two war-driven enemies hell-bent on genocide and culture eradication (Lamanites and Spanish conquistadors).

…a handful of Norse sailors slipped into Newfoundland, established small colonies, traded with local natives, then sailed back into the fog of history…

Were these colonies completely wiped out in a genocidal war? If so, when? We know it did not take place over sixteen centuries ago, like the genocide of the Nephites. The Nephites were wiped out at least six centuries before these Scandinavians supposedly sailed to Newfoundland. Were their customs and religions abhorred by the natives and therefore completely eradicated? This would include cultural/religious art, language, documents, architecture, objects etc.

In spite of the small scale of their settlements and the brevity of their stay, unequivocal evidence of their presence has been found, including metalwork, buildings, and Norse inscriptions.

Were these evidences discovered in a humid tropical environment? Were there no buildings found in Mesoamerica? Was the Scandinavian language altered by the New World settlers? Did they reform the language? Was their language, culture, religion abhorred by the natives?

Just six centuries earlier, the Book of Mormon tells us, a climactic battle between fair-skinned Nephites and dark-skinned Lamanites ended a millennial dominion by a literate, Christian, Bronze Age civilization with a population numbering in the millions.

I don’t know about “dominion”, at least the Book of Mormon did not make any such claim. The Book of Mormon only claimed that the Nephites, at the peak of their civilization, inhabited a handful of lands. The exact geography and scale of these lands is not described, but it has been proven that advance civilizations did exist in Mesoamerica at the time the Book of Mormon events took place.

Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed.

“Decades of serious and honest scholarship” by whom? Who is he referring to here? Is he referring to just one person’s research? How much real time and effort has been given to examining the claims made in the Book of Mormon? Give it to me in man-hours. How much of the Mesoamerican jungle has actually been excavated? Give me an accurate percentage. Also, even though many members of the Church feel that Mesoamerica is the place where the events of the Book of Mormon took place, the Book of Mormon itself does not make that claim.

No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no wheeled chariots or horses to pull them, no swords or steel to make them.

The Book of Mormon claims that the original languages of the Lehites (and the people of Zarahemla) had either been altered or lost. There is no wonder that an exact “Semitic” match has not yet been found in Mesoamerica. Also, no one made the claim that anyone in Israel would be speaking these altered (reformed) languages. The Book of Mormon does not mention “wheeled chariots” or that “horses” pulled them. Many weapons of war have been found in Mesoamerica which can easily be described as “swords” or “sword-like” and the Book of Mormon never claimed that the Nephite people were all equipped with “steel” or other metal “swords”. It mentioned metal swords only a couple of times. How many metal weapons of war have we found in the Middle East dating from 600 B.C.E. to 400 C.E.?

They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes.

If the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica (which is the assumption made by Southerton) how could he claim that there was no “trace” of great civilizations left there?

(thanks to: http://signaturebooks.com/new-science-impacts-book-of-mormon-dna-studies/)

Quoting more from the anti-Mormon?

Do you have an unbiased source claiming that SNPs would ferret out a couple dozen ancient ancestors introduced into an indigenous population, in spite of many population depleting epidemics, disasters and genocidal wars?

I haven’t found anyone else expressing this extreme view.

 

[Prestor John]

I take [umbrage] at your unsupported claim that I make "ignorant assumptions." Please detail the false narrative you claim that I presented, or retract your base canard.

Ok.

List of Sapien’s false narratives about the claims of the Book of Mormon caused by willful ignorance:

1.) In post #339 you said, “Might that be because of the 3,000+ changes that were made in that. "most perfect" of revealed books.”

I immediately corrected you by sharing that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not say that the Book of Mormon was the “most perfect”, but rather the “most correct” book. This matter would have (should have) died then, if only you had admitted that you had erred, but instead you kept insisting that there was no difference between claiming that the book was “most perfect” or “most correct” (post #345, 362, 369, 373).

The reason that you won’t let the matter die is because all those “changes” made in the Book of Mormon are not damning to a book that is claimed to be “most correct”, but would be damning to a book that is claimed to be “perfect”.

By refusing to admit that there is no difference between the claims that the Book of Mormon is the “most perfect” or the “most correct” you are presenting a false narrative. Neither the Prophet nor the Church has claimed that the Book of Mormon is “perfect” or that it is above correction, but you are trying to claim that any and all corrections made should somehow disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon.

Finding an error in the Book of Mormon may disprove the false narrative that you have invented, but it does not disprove the actual claims of the Book of Mormon or the Church.

2.) Also in post #339 you spoke about the change to the Introduction to the Book of Mormon then you said, “Presto chango, one more critique gone, but not on the basis of evidence or argument, solely on the basis of "weaseling" out of the dispute.”

I immediately corrected you here as well by first letting you know that the Introduction was not a part of the original record nor had it been received by revelation. It had been written in 1981 by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. I also explained the true meaning of the word “principal” and that the change had been made years ago because that word confused everyone (member and non-member alike) into thinking that the Book of Mormon claimed that all the Native Americans descended from Israel, when neither the Book of Mormon nor the Church ever made that claim.

That should have ended the dispute right there, but then you claimed that I had attempted to “redefine” the word “principal” (when a quick perusal of any dictionary would confirm that I had done no such thing) and that I had been “tied up in knots” and was therefore proven wrong (post #345).

By applying a false definition to the word “principal” you are presenting a false narrative. It has never been the official position of the Church that all Native Americans descend from Israel. The Book of Mormon also did not make that claim. Do some leaders and members of the Church believe it? Yes they do, because they were also confused by the word “principal” (as you were) which prompted the Church to make the change to the Introduction a decade ago.

Therefore, not finding genetic evidence of Israelite lineage in these selected Native Americans may disprove the false narrative that you have invented, but it does not disprove the actual claims of the Book of Mormon or the Church.

3.) You have stated in various ways throughout this thread that Joseph Smith was a “liar”, “fraud” or “con-man” without effectively demonstrating how that was so. However, you have not only been begging the question in regards to your opinion about Joseph Smith, but you have also been guilty of a “genetic fallacy” when you use your unsupported opinion of Joseph Smith to disregard the claims made by the Book of Mormon and the Church.

An example of this can be found in post # 345 when you responded to my explanation that the writers of the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed that the book contained errors with, “Smith is rather low on the veracity scale, his demonstrable lies are legend.”

Even if the Prophet Joseph Smith had been “convicted” of being a con-man (he never was), why would that mean that he was lying about the claims of the Book of Mormon?

I like this other one you said in post #373, “You don't get it, the specific words of the con-man are not particularity relevant. My criticisms are based not on such foolishness but on (as [previously] stated and standing unrefuted), "... the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man"”

You are basically admitting that you don’t care about the actual claims made about the Book of Mormon. You don’t concern yourself with the actual claims made by Joseph Smith, the Church or the Book of Mormon because they are not “particularly relevant”, so you would rather focus on the false narratives about the “Mormon” claims, which you can so easily debunk.

Why quote a guy accurately anyway when everyone knows he is a liar, right? (Begging the question and genetic fallacy)

4.) Again in post #373, you said, “If he can't get the ordinary claims right, and since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Smith is hardly creditable, even if you ignore his history as a liar. However, if you grant that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance, then the only reasonable thing you can do is discount any suspicious claims that Smith advanced.”

This ties into what I said in #3, but it did lead me to understand that when examining the Book of Mormon, you refuse to consider it to be a translated work. This creates a false narrative because you are ignoring very relevant factors which are included in the process of translation. How the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon does not necessarily describe what we know as a “horse” today.

If you come in assuming that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith, and not an ancient record translated by him, then you are applying incorrect tests and standards to the text. You are ignoring relevant questions such as, “What creature could the Nephites have been describing that Joseph Smith translated to be “horse”?”

Joseph Smith and the Church claim that the Book of Mormon was translated into English from an ancient language by the gift and power of God. If you ignore these claims in your analysis you are then creating a false narrative, because you are changing a key attribute of the Book of Mormon before you even consider it, therefore automatically sabotaging your analysis.

It would be like assuming a biography was fiction before reading it, when you should really be first reading the biography as if it were an actual biography and then afterwards trying to prove that that which you don't agree with was fiction.

 

[Sapiens]

You have not shared any reasons to assume any of this.

That is not accurate. There are a plethora of “traces” and many of them have been shared with you in this thread.

A plethora of APOLOGETIC CLAIMS, but none that stand up to modern science. I do not need to provide reasons for evidence, the evidence (in this case the absence) suffices. There are no linguistic traces because there was no contact, there are no DNA traces because there was no gene exchange, etc.

You’d rather stare at that one grain of sand you take issue with and ignore the rest of the seashore. You just don’t want to see them.

You have that backwards. I see the entire beach and I say, "look at that white beach." You find one speck of black sand and say, "but it might have, could have, maybe was, a black sand beach." That's the difference between science and apologetics.

And these Scandinavian colonies went through the same number of population depleting plagues, disasters and genocidal wars mentioned in the Book of Mormon and also what we know about the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica?

None of that would have wiped out linguistic remains nor all DNA evidence ... sorry 'bout that.

I don’t understand how you take issue with me and others quoting Mormon sources or Mormon-discovered evidences while you think it is fine to quote from such a biased anti-Mormon as Simon Southerton.

It might be because Mormon apologetics are dishonest and there are no honest impartial Mormon sources or Mormon-discovered evidences. Sure, Southerton had his differences with the LDS church, but it was his science which predicated his split with the church.

Well, anyways, let’s take a look at this quote here.

The Lehites arrived in the New World a few years after 600 B.C.E. and the Nephites were wiped out by approximately 420 C.E. The events of the Book of Mormon happened several centuries before this Scandinavian colonization, and they took place in an “evidence-destroying” environment. “Evidence-destroying” due to humidity/dense jungle and at least two war-driven enemies hell-bent on genocide and culture eradication (Lamanites and Spanish conquistadors).

That would not effect language, technology changes, fauna or some DNA. It should be noted that early Spanish histories are unsupportive of most Mormon claims. Even Mormon anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy agrees that the substantial collection of Native American genetic markers now available are not consistent with any detectable presence of ancestors from the ancient Middle East.

Were these colonies completely wiped out in a genocidal war? If so, when? We know it did not take place over sixteen centuries ago, like the genocide of the Nephites. The Nephites were wiped out at least six centuries before these Scandinavians supposedly sailed to Newfoundland. Were their customs and religions abhorred by the natives and therefore completely eradicated? This would include cultural/religious art, language, documents, architecture, objects etc.

You're reaching for that black grain of sand again, this would have been the only war that ever destroyed the language modifications, technology changes, fauna and all DNA evidence.

Were these evidences discovered in a humid tropical environment? Were there no buildings found in Mesoamerica? Was the Scandinavian language altered by the New World settlers? Did they reform the language? Was their language, culture, religion abhorred by the natives?

That is an overworked old saw. You might want to skim: Language Contact and Change in the Americas: Studies in honor of Marianne Mithun edited by Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Diane M. Hintz, Carmen Jany; and/or A Millennium of Cultural Contact by Alistair Paterson

Besides, not all of Mesoamerica was humid jungle, much was dry plains ... ever been to Chichen Itza?

I don’t know about “dominion”, at least the Book of Mormon did not make any such claim. The Book of Mormon only claimed that the Nephites, at the peak of their civilization, inhabited a handful of lands. The exact geography and scale of these lands is not described, but it has been proven that advance civilizations did exist in Mesoamerica at the time the Book of Mormon events took place.

Advanced civilizations existed lots of places, that is not evidence of the truth of the BoM.

“Decades of serious and honest scholarship” by whom? Who is he referring to here? Is he referring to just one person’s research? How much real time and effort has been given to examining the claims made in the Book of Mormon? Give it to me in man-hours. How much of the Mesoamerican jungle has actually been excavated? Give me an accurate percentage. Also, even though many members of the Church feel that Mesoamerica is the place where the events of the Book of Mormon took place, the Book of Mormon itself does not make that claim.

Serious scholarship by the entire non-apologist science community, go figure the man-hours yourself. Virtually all of the Mesoamerican jungle has been examined by satellite using high resolution visual, IR, UV, and ground penetrating micro-wave. If your church members have decided that the failure to locate the things Smith lied about mean that they are elsewhere ... call me when you find them, I will not be holding my breath.

The Book of Mormon claims that the original languages of the Lehites (and the people of Zarahemla) had either been altered or lost. There is no wonder that an exact “Semitic” match has not yet been found in Mesoamerica.

Yet another overly-convenient "black grain" claim.

Also, no one made the claim that anyone in Israel would be speaking these altered (reformed) languages.

Red herring.

The Book of Mormon does not mention “wheeled chariots” or that “horses” pulled them.

Even FairMormon disagrees with you:

Question: In what context are chariots mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon mentions "chariots," which one assumes to be a wheeled vehicle. It is also claimed that no draft animals existed in the New World to pull such chariots. It should be remembered that chariots do not play a major role in the Book of Mormon. They are mentioned in the following contexts:

Quotations from Old World scriptures

• 2 Nephi 12:7 - citation from Isaiah
• 2 Nephi 15:28 - citation from Isaiah

Apocalyptic teachings in Old World style

• 3 Nephi 21:14 - Jesus speaks of "horses and chariots" in a symbolic and apocalyptic address

Used in conjunction with horses

• Alma 18:9 - Ammon feeds the Lamanite king's horses, which are associated with his "chariots."
• Alma 20:6 - Lamanite king uses horses and chariot for visit to neighboring kingdom
• 3 Nephi 3:22 - Nephites "had taken their horses, and their chariots" to a central fortified area for protection against robbers

(It should be noted that we are not told if these chariots served a purpose in riding, or if they were for transport of goods, or if they had a ceremonial function. One assumes some sort of practicality or ritual importance in war, since they brought chariots to the siege.)

Conspicuously absent is any role of the chariot in the many journeys recorded in the Book of Mormon. Nor do horses or chariots play any role in the many Nephite wars; this is in stark contrast to the Biblical account, in which the chariots of Egypt, Babylon, and the Philistines are feared super-weapons upon the plains of Israel.​

Many weapons of war have been found in Mesoamerica which can easily be described as “swords” or “sword-like” and the Book of Mormon never claimed that the Nephite people were all equipped with “steel” or other metal “swords”. It mentioned metal swords only a couple of times. How many metal weapons of war have we found in the Middle East dating from 600 B.C.E. to 400 C.E.?

Black sand apologetic again, maybe, might be, could be, etc. The fact remains that there were no iron based weapons in Mesoamerica.

If the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica (which is the assumption made by Southerton) how could he claim that there was no “trace” of great civilizations left there?

I'd disagree with him on the definition of the word "great," but that is a triviality.

Quoting more from the anti-Mormon?

It appears that anything that disagrees with you is simply "anti-Mormon" that is just another incarnation of the classic ad hominem. Try to focus on the logic of the argument, if you can.

Do you have an unbiased source claiming that SNPs would ferret out a couple dozen ancient ancestors introduced into an indigenous population, in spite of many population depleting epidemics, disasters and genocidal wars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism

I haven’t found anyone else expressing this extreme view.

Perhaps that is because you're wearing blinders and keeping your eyes shut?

 

[Sapiens]

Ok.
List of Sapien’s false narratives about the claims of the Book of Mormon caused by willful ignorance:

1.) In post #339 you said, “Might that be because of the 3,000+ changes that were made in that. "most perfect" of revealed books.”

I immediately corrected you by sharing that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not say that the Book of Mormon was the “most perfect”, but rather the “most correct” book. This matter would have (should have) died then, if only you had admitted that you had erred, but instead you kept insisting that there was no difference between claiming that the book was “most perfect” or “most correct” (post #345, 362, 369, 373).

The reason that you won’t let the matter die is because all those “changes” made in the Book of Mormon are not damning to a book that is claimed to be “most correct”, but would be damning to a book that is claimed to be “perfect”.

By refusing to admit that there is no difference between the claims that the Book of Mormon is the “most perfect” or the “most correct” you are presenting a false narrative. Neither the Prophet nor the Church has claimed that the Book of Mormon is “perfect” or that it is above correction, but you are trying to claim that any and all corrections made should somehow disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon.

Finding an error in the Book of Mormon may disprove the false narrative that you have invented, but it does not disprove the actual claims of the Book of Mormon or the Church.

We dealt with this long ago. Yes, I incorrectly used the word "perfect" rather than "correct." But that is irrelevant beyond proving that I am not "perfect" and am only usually "correct." The fact remains that the BoM is a palpable fraud containing many demonstrable errors and thus being neither "perfect" nor "correct."

2.) Also in post #339 you spoke about the change to the Introduction to the Book of Mormon then you said, “Presto chango, one more critique gone, but not on the basis of evidence or argument, solely on the basis of "weaseling" out of the dispute.”

I immediately corrected you here as well by first letting you know that the Introduction was not a part of the original record nor had it been received by revelation. It had been written in 1981 by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. I also explained the true meaning of the word “principal” and that the change had been made years ago because that word confused everyone (member and non-member alike) into thinking that the Book of Mormon claimed that all the Native Americans descended from Israel, when neither the Book of Mormon nor the Church ever made that claim.

That should have ended the dispute right there, but then you claimed that I had attempted to “redefine” the word “principal” (when a quick perusal of any dictionary would confirm that I had done no such thing) and that I had been “tied up in knots” and was therefore proven wrong (post #345).

By applying a false definition to the word “principal” you are presenting a false narrative. It has never been the official position of the Church that all Native Americans descend from Israel. The Book of Mormon also did not make that claim. Do some leaders and members of the Church believe it? Yes they do, because they were also confused by the word “principal” (as you were) which prompted the Church to make the change to the Introduction a decade ago.

Therefore, not finding genetic evidence of Israelite lineage in these selected Native Americans may disprove the false narrative that you have invented, but it does not disprove the actual claims of the Book of Mormon or the Church.

I am not going to admit into evidence an unsupported claim of "revelation." That's sheer foolishness.

Here, from the Desert News, a Mormon "Robert" writes: "When I was growing up in the LDS church they taught openly that Native American Indians were the direct ancestors of Lehi and North American is the setting. My wife being Navajo was taught by the church that the Book of Mormon was about her people. Joseph Smith confirms this in his history 1:34 when he said the golden plates "giving an account of the former inhabitants of THIS continent, and the source from whence they sprang" given to him by the angel Moroni (page 53 Joseph Smith-History). It is quite clear that Smith meant North America where he happened to be standing and former inhabitants were the American Indians as we know them today. After a 160 years of teaching what Joseph Smith claimed to be true and then to change Smiths story makes no sense unless the facts of today causes doubt in Smiths original story."

More black sand grain apologetics.

3.) You have stated in various ways throughout this thread that Joseph Smith was a “liar”, “fraud” or “con-man” without effectively demonstrating how that was so. However, you have not only been begging the question in regards to your opinion about Joseph Smith, but you have also been guilty of a “genetic fallacy” when you use your unsupported opinion of Joseph Smith to disregard the claims made by the Book of Mormon and the Church.

An example of this can be found in post # 345 when you responded to my explanation that the writers of the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed that the book contained errors with, “Smith is rather low on the veracity scale, his demonstrable lies are legend.”

Even if the Prophet Joseph Smith had been “convicted” of being a con-man (he never was), why would that mean that he was lying about the claims of the Book of Mormon?

If that were all there were to it, no, that would just be another ad hominem argument.

I like this other one you said in post #373, “You don't get it, the specific words of the con-man are not particularity relevant. My criticisms are based not on such foolishness but on (as [previously] stated and standing unrefuted), "... the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man"”

You are basically admitting that you don’t care about the actual claims made about the Book of Mormon. You don’t concern yourself with the actual claims made by Joseph Smith, the Church or the Book of Mormon because they are not “particularly relevant”, so you would rather focus on the false narratives about the “Mormon” claims, which you can so easily debunk.

No, I focus on the actual claims about demonstrable things, that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man. Smith's career as a con-artist is just icing on the cake.

Why quote a guy accurately anyway when everyone knows he is a liar, right? (Begging the question and genetic fallacy)

Because a cake without icing is not as much fun.

4.) Again in post #373, you said, “If he can't get the ordinary claims right, and since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Smith is hardly creditable, even if you ignore his history as a liar. However, if you grant that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance, then the only reasonable thing you can do is discount any suspicious claims that Smith advanced.”

This ties into what I said in #3, but it did lead me to understand that when examining the Book of Mormon, you refuse to consider it to be a translated work. This creates a false narrative because you are ignoring very relevant factors which are included in the process of translation. How the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon does not necessarily describe what we know as a “horse” today.

What crap. A horse is a horse, of course, of course, that is unless, of course the horse is from the BoM. Get off the black sand grain apologetics, they are unbecoming.

If you come in assuming that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith, and not an ancient record translated by him, then you are applying incorrect tests and standards to the text. You are ignoring relevant questions such as, “What creature could the Nephites have been describing that Joseph Smith translated to be “horse”?”

Oh! You want me to correct all his errors and try to reconcile his lies with reality. Not very damn likely.

Joseph Smith and the Church claim that the Book of Mormon was translated into English from an ancient language by the gift and power of God. If you ignore these claims in your analysis you are then creating a false narrative, because you are changing a key attribute of the Book of Mormon before you even consider it, therefore automatically sabotaging your analysis.

So ... high on the list of the gift and power of god is rampant miscommunication and mistranslation. That does not speak well for "most correct," now, does it? Can you spell, "self-fulfilling prophesy?"

It would be like assuming a biography was fiction before reading it, when you should really be first reading the biography as if it were an actual biography and then afterwards trying to prove that that which you don't agree with was fiction.

Why? An open mind is a good thing, but if it is to far open your brains can fall out.

The basic problem with Mormon apologetics is that the entire field confuses the concepts of possibility and probability and thus revels in the use of "weasel" words.

 

[Prestor John]

A plethora of APOLOGETIC CLAIMS, but none that stand up to modern science.

I have a need to clarify what the Book of Mormon actually claims because you and others like you keep creating false narratives.

Nothing you have shared disproves or even hinders the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

If I’m guilty of “apologetics” for doing that then so be it.

I do not need to provide reasons for evidence, the evidence (in this case the absence) suffices.

Ok. Let’s talk about this “lack” of evidence you are so hung up on. I want to specifically focus on the lack of iron and steel in the New World in this comment.

I want to break it down for you because the lack of iron and steel being used in the New World should not surprise anyone who has read the Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon records a lack of iron and steel being used in the New World.

Iron and steel are only mentioned a handful of times in the Book of Mormon. Most of those references were from Old World sources:

-Nephi’s younger brother Jacob quoted directly from Isaiah, which mentioned iron (2 Nephi 20:34).

-Nephi mentioned the iron rod that he saw in a dream while he dwelt in the valley of Lemuel (1 Nephi 8:19).

-Nephi also claimed that Laban’s sword as well as his bow were both made of steel (1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18).

All of these references of iron and steel were made from Old World sources.

The first New World source of both iron and steel in the Book of Mormon was mentioned by Nephi.

After the death of his father, Nephi claimed that the Lord warned him that his older brothers plotted to kill him and told him to flee. So Nephi, and all those who would go with him, left the land they had first settled (which had been designated as “the land of Lehi”) and journeyed to a new land which they called after Nephi (2 Nephi 5:1-8).

It was in this new land that Nephi first mentioned that he taught his people how to work in both iron and steel (2 Nephi 5:15). However, he only mentioned those metals as materials for construction or ornamentation, not for the forging of weapons. He specifically mentioned how they were used in “exceedingly fine” workmanship, such as the construction of the temple (2 Nephi 5:16).

Nephi did mention that he had made weapons of war. He even claimed to have used the sword of Laban (which was made of steel) as a template to make other swords to defend themselves against the Lamanites, but he did not claim that any of those weapons were forged from either iron or steel (2 Nephi 5:14).

The second New World source of both iron and steel was mentioned by Jarom, the grandson of Nephi’s younger brother Jacob. Jarom was the first Nephite to mention both iron and steel while they still dwelt in the land of Nephi. Again, they were only referenced as materials for construction, which he described as “fine workmanship”. He did mention that they had also made tools and weapons, but it is unclear if any of those made were of iron or steel (Jarom 1:8).

It is my opinion that, since the weapons described by Jarom were “arrows”, “quivers”, “darts” and “javelins”, that iron and steel were not used in their making. That’s just my opinion, but the record does not contradict it.

The Book of Omni claims that after a few centuries and while under the rule of a man named Mosiah, the Nephites were obliged to flee once again from the Lamanites. However, this time, their journey caused them to discover the land of Zarahemla and its people. Eventually, the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla united and became one people (Omni 1:12-19).

A generation later a group of Nephites, for some reason, wanted to leave the land of Zarahemla and return to the land of Nephi, which had been occupied by the Lamanites (Omni 1:27-29). The record of Zeniff claims that these Nephites journeyed to the land of Nephi and spoke with the king of the Lamanites, who allowed them to inherit the lands of Lehi-Nephi and Shilom (Mosiah 9:6-13).

I mention this because the next (and last) mention of iron being used among any group of Nephites was made in this land of Lehi-Nephi, and again, it was mentioned only as a material for construction or ornamentation and was described as a “precious thing” (Mosiah 11:8). Iron was used in the construction of the King Noah’s palace and the temple (Mosiah 11:9-10).

Those are the only references of the Nephites using iron and steel.

So, let’s summarize a few things:

1.) Most references of iron and steel found in the Book of Mormon came from Old World sources.

2.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron and steel only while they lived in the land of Nephi.

3.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites considered iron to be a “precious thing”.

4.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron and steel as a material for “exceedingly fine” construction or ornamentation.

5.) The Book of Mormon does not record that the Nephites ever used iron or steel to forge their weapons of war.

The Book of Mormon does also mention iron and steel being used among the Jaredites (2200~300 B.C.E), but again, their use was limited and mentioned only one time each.

Only one Jaredite, by the name of Shule, was ever mentioned making weapons out of steel from ore he had “molten” out of the hill Ephraim (Ether 7:8-10). Iron was also only mentioned one time, and like with the Nephites, it was mentioned as a material for construction or ornamentation (Ether 10:23).

Now that we understand the actual claims of the Book of Mormon are, what can we speculate about the use of iron and steel by the people of the Book of Mormon?

- Iron ore may have been scarce and could only be found in certain locations like the land of Nephi and the hill Ephraim.

- Since Nephi was the only person recorded to have had any experience locating and smelting ore (1 Nephi 17: 8-11) among the Lehites, the practice may not have outlived him long.

- The process of locating and smelting iron ore proved too difficult.

- There was no apparent need for iron or steel weapons.

I am inclined to believe that the last point has a lot of merit. I believe this because the Book of Mormon records that the Lamanites, the primary enemy of the Nephites, tended to go into battle wearing nothing but a loin-cloth (Enos 1:20; Mosiah 10:8).

Not only this, but it appears that the Lamanites also did not use iron to forge their weapons of war because the armor comprised of “thick clothing” worn by the Nephites became such a huge hindrance to them that they ended up losing despite the fact that they had superior numbers (Alma 43:19-21,38,44).

The Jaredite’s using iron to forge at least some of their weapons makes sense in light of what a group of wandering Nephites had found.

The Book of Mormon records that a group of Nephites had travelled from the land of Nephi in search of the land of Zarahemla, but instead they found the ruins of a Jaredite city where they discovered “large breastplates” made of brass and copper and also swords, the hilts of which were destroyed and the blades were “cankered with rust” (Mosiah 8:8-11)

If Jaredites were equipped with breastplates made of brass and copper, then they had a need to forge their weapons from iron, although the likelihood of those blades surviving until today is very unlikely, especially when they were already nothing but rust by the time the Nephites found them.

Anyways, the actual claims of the Book of Mormon concerning the Nephites using iron is that it was only used in the land of Nephi, it was considered a precious thing and it was only used for the construction and ornamentation of “exceedingly fine” workmanship.

Considering the scarcity of iron and the Lamanites pushing the Nephites out of the land of Nephi early on in their history and their despising of Nephite culture and religion, how long do you think the iron the Nephites used to adorn their palaces and temples survived?

The actual claims of the Book of Mormon concerning the Jaredites using iron is that it was used for construction and ornamentation, much like the Nephites and there was at least one instance of steel being “molten” out of the hill Ephraim. Evidence of Jaredite armor and weaponry were discovered by the Nephites, but have long since been destroyed.

Not finding any iron or steel swords in Mesoamerica is not damning to the actual claims of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Sapiens]

Let's focus on your summary:

1.) Most references of iron and steel found in the Book of Mormon came from Old World sources. (the weasel word "most" renders your statement meaningless).

2.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron and steel only while they lived in the land of Nephi.

Where was the "Land of Nephi?"

Nope, no Precolumbian iron or steel weapons found in the mythical "land of Nephi."

3.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites considered iron to be a “precious thing”.

I suspect you are referring to:

Mosiah 8: And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;

One might argue that it was not the material of which they were made, but rather the quality of the item(s) that made it(them) "precious." See how easy it is when you play the "weasel" word game?

In any case, there is no sign of iron or steel work, no sign of the excavation of iron ore, no sign of the required technological infrastructure, in short: you are promulgating a fable on the basis of extremely weak claims that lack any real evidence.

4.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron and steel as a material for “exceedingly fine” construction or ornamentation.

Would not items of “exceedingly fine” construction or ornamentation have been cared for and preserved? This argument runs counter to your premise.

5.) The Book of Mormon does not record that the Nephites ever used iron or steel to forge their weapons of war.

So what do we have? Here's the base from Chapter 7 of Ether: 9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

So the question is, "where there a sufficient number contained in 'those whom he had drawn away with him' to expect to find surviving artifacts or signs of the required infrastructure? It had to have been a large enough number to have engaged ...

But no! I have permitted myself to be drawn into absurdity, the attempt to use logical analysis of an illogical fairy tale to disprove said illogical fairy tale. Let's stick to facts.

The Smithsonian Institution writes:

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

 

[Sapiens]

Then we need to carefully look at the swirling debate going on in LDS-land:

Gregory A. Prince: called for those who still believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon to “grow up”. He and many LDS scholars including Greg Prince, believe that the Book of Mormon narrative is merely allegory. Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, Captain Moroni and other famous Book of Mormon characters never physically lived. They are likely figures of Joseph Smith’s imagination or perhaps the narrative should be considered a parable.

Greg Prince: "Many people act as if the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion only because we have placed in that position precariously and all that keeps it from toppling is our constant fussing. Quite to the contrary, it gained and maintains it’s position because over a period of nearly two centuries it has been the primary means by which people who have encountered Mormonism have converted to it. Not to the book itself, but through it to a better place of living. That position is independent of the book’s provenance and yet there are many who are willing to die on the hill of ancient historicity. To them I say, “grow up!” Science has already informed greatly on the issue of historicity and will continue to inform many great and important things. Relax and don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Richard Bushman: "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change."

Even prominent believers can't stomach the lies any more.

 

[Prestor John]

Let's focus on your summary:

Wow, this is so sad. I really wanted to go back and address the other things you said that I haven’t had a chance to address yet, but this latest comment of yours...what a steaming pile it is.

You have definitively proven that you not only don’t read my comments anymore, but you just can’t stop yourself from creating those false narratives I keep accusing you of making. You just have no idea what the actual claims of the Book of Mormon are. You actually don’t seem to know much of anything about what’s in the Book of Mormon.

I’ll get into how all that is down below.

However, I’m starting to feel that it’s all just a waste of time for me anyways. Unless you straighten out and fly right, this may be my last, or second to last, comment to you on this thread.

1.) Most references of iron and steel found in the Book of Mormon came from Old World sources. (the weasel word "most" renders your statement meaningless).

There is no reason for you to be so belligerent.

The relevance of pointing out if a reference to iron or steel among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon being either from the Old or New World is obvious.

The Book of Mormon references iron among the people of Nephi only four times. One was a description of the rod that Nephi saw in a dream that he had while he dwelt in the valley of Lemuel in the Middle East and another was a direct quote from the book of Isaiah.

This means that half of the references of iron among the Nephites recorded in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with the New World.

The Book of Mormon references steel among the people of Nephi only four times. Two of those were descriptions of Laban’s sword and Nephi’s bow, both of which originated from the Middle East.

This means that half of the references of steel among the Nephites recorded in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with the New World.

The fact that half of the references to iron or steel among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon were from Old World sources supports my argument that iron was scarce in the New World and rarely used by the Nephites.

The Book of Mormon does not support the idea that there were iron-clad armies of Nephites and Lamanites fighting with steel swords while riding horseback or upon wheeled chariots, which is a false narrative that you and others like you keep creating and then claiming to debunk.

That is NOT the actual claim concerning iron and steel among the Nephites made in the Book of Mormon.

2.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron and steel only while they lived in the land of Nephi.

Where was the "Land of Nephi?"

Nope, no Precolumbian iron or steel weapons found in the mythical "land of Nephi."

Your immaturity does not change the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

The fact that we do not know where the events of the Book of Mormon took place is not evidence that those events did not happen.

Evidences of Pre-Columbian smelting among the people of both North and South America have been discovered, which include copper and iron.

Interestingly enough, these metals seem to have been used only as ornamentation or as adornments by the ancient inhabitants of both North and South America, which is similar to what the Book of Mormon records the Nephites did with these metals.

3.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites considered iron to be a “precious thing”.

I suspect you are referring to:

Mosiah 8: And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;

One might argue that it was not the material of which they were made, but rather the quality of the item(s) that made it(them) "precious." See how easy it is when you play the "weasel" word game?

It is obvious to anyone free of bias that this verse is referencing a list of “precious things”, such as gold and silver. Do you not consider these to be precious metals?

Only the quality of the wood is mentioned, which was described as “fine work”, while all the other materials were listed as “precious things”.

The fact that iron, brass, copper and “ziff” (whatever that is) were listed with gold and silver is proof enough that those metals were also considered “precious” by the Nephites.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on this one verse alone to prove that the Nephites considered iron to be a precious metal.

As I mentioned in my last comment, Nephi mentioned that he made weapons of war,

“And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.” (2 Nephi 5:14)

Whatever material Nephi used to make these “swords” is not mentioned, however, in the very next verse Nephi recorded,

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

Notice that iron, copper, brass and steel are included in the same list as gold and silver and other “precious ores”, which further testify that the Nephites considered iron to be a precious metal.

I also mentioned in my last comment that Jarom, the grandson of Jacob (the younger brother of Nephi) mentioned that,

“And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.” (Jarom 1:8)

Notice that after Jarom claimed that the Nephites had become “exceedingly rich” he listed various materials as evidence of this apparent wealth, which included: iron, copper, brass and steel.

If you had actually read my earlier comment, and did not merely skim the summary points, you’d have known that the Book of Mormon records that iron and steel were considered precious metals among the Nephites, comparable to gold and silver and that they were used exclusively in the construction of “exceedingly fine” workmanship, such as palaces and temples.

I understand that “one” (meaning you) can attempt to play the “weasel word game”, but all that does is further support my claim that you and others like you continue to create false narratives about the claims of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon does not record there being hordes of iron-clad, steel-wielding Nephites standing upon horse-driven wheeled chariots.

In any case, there is no sign of iron or steel work, no sign of the excavation of iron ore, no sign of the required technological infrastructure, in short: you are promulgating a fable on the basis of extremely weak claims that lack any real evidence.

No sign of what? And where? What “signs” are you expecting to find? What “technological infrastructure” are you claiming there is no sign of?

All I am doing is clarifying what the actual claims of the Book of Mormon are.

The Book of Mormon does not describe an ancient people mass-producing iron armor and steel weapons to outfit their armies.

The Book of Mormon does not describe any massive mining operations laying low the land.

Again, you are just trying to burn a straw man. You are just creating another false narrative.

 

[Prestor John]

4.) The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron and steel as a material for “exceedingly fine” construction or ornamentation.

Would not items of “exceedingly fine” construction or ornamentation have been cared for and preserved? This argument runs counter to your premise.

If you had actually read my earlier comment you would have noticed that I had asked,

“Considering the scarcity of iron and the Lamanites pushing the Nephites out of the land of Nephi early on in their history and their despising of Nephite culture and religion, how long do you think the iron the Nephites used to adorn their palaces and temples survived?”

During the periods when the Book of Mormon records that the Nephites had used iron in the land of Nephi (and only in the land of Nephi) the Lamanites abhorred the Nephites.

Therefore, after the Nephites had been driven out of the land of Nephi (the only place where the Book of Mormon recorded they had used iron) the Lamanites occupied the land, which included their “exceedingly fine” palaces and temples.

So, to answer your question, “Yes, items of “exceedingly fine” construction or ornamentation would have had a need to be taken care of and preserved.”

Unfortunately, the Nephites were driven out of their “exceedingly fine” buildings and out of the land of Nephi, so they were unable to “take care of” or “preserve” anything that they had built in the land of Nephi. Those constructions and ornamentations fell into the hands of the Lamanites, who hated everything about the Nephites, their culture and religion.

There is no point in us continuing this discussion if you are unwilling to read my comments.

5.) The Book of Mormon does not record that the Nephites ever used iron or steel to forge their weapons of war.

So what do we have? Here's the base from Chapter 7 of Ether: 9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

So the question is, "where there a sufficient number contained in 'those whom he had drawn away with him' to expect to find surviving artifacts or signs of the required infrastructure? It had to have been a large enough number to have engaged ...

But no! I have permitted myself to be drawn into absurdity, the attempt to use logical analysis of an illogical fairy tale to disprove said illogical fairy tale. Let's stick to facts.

The only “facts” that you have proven in this comment are that you are woefully ignorant of what is written in the Book of Mormon and that you lack reading comprehension skills.

But do not worry, your friendly neighborhood Latter-Day Saint will save you from your ignorant self!

The book of Ether is a record of the Jaredite people who had come to the New World after the confounding of languages at the Tower of Babel. They arrived in the New World many centuries before the Lehites did.

We also do not know where the Jaredites dwelt, except that it was north of where the Nephites dwelt. I think you are getting your head wrapped around “iron-clad mean wielding steel weapons”. Did the verse you quote mention a full-scale battle? I bet you are imagining a city surrounded by a huge stone wall and catapults and guys riding atop flying dragons breathing fire. But, no, nothing like that. You are just creating a false narrative again.

Basically, the man who forged the steel swords out of what he had “molten” from the hill Ephraim (Shule) was not a Nephite.

Remember, my fifth summary point was, “The Book of Mormon does not record that the Nephites ever used iron or steel to forge their weapons of war.”

If you had actually read my earlier comment you would have had known that Shule was a Jaredite and not a Nephite because I said,

“The Book of Mormon does also mention iron and steel being used among the Jaredites (2200~300 B.C.E), but again, their use was limited and mentioned only one time each.

Only one Jaredite, by the name of Shule, was ever mentioned making weapons out of steel from ore he had “molten” out of the hill Ephraim (Ether 7:8-10).”

You see how you keep creating these false narratives that I have to clean up?

The Smithsonian Institution writes

Whatever the Smithsonian Institute has written does not change what the Book of Mormon has actually claimed.

Although, what they wrote has led me to wonder, how can anyone determine that there is no Israelite DNA among the Native Americans?

First off, do we even have a baseline? Do we have any Israelite DNA anywhere? Notice that I am not asking about Jewish or Hebrew DNA, or Israeli DNA, or Arab DNA or even Middle Eastern DNA.

The Nephites and Lamanites descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, both said tribes were carried away captive and scattered by the Assyrians.

So...where is the baseline? To whom are we comparing the Native Americans to in order to rule out that they could be descendants of either Ephraim or Manasseh?

Do you have a pure Ephraimite to test? Can you tell a Hebrew exactly which one of the Twelve Tribes he/she descends from?

Not only that, but the Middle East has been such an immigration hodgepodge since 600 B.C.E, so how can anyone honestly say that Native Americans not matching those in the Middle East can’t be descended from Lamanites?

I know your first instinct is to tell me that I don’t know anything about genetics and that the Book of Mormon is a fairytale (like you have been this entire conversation), but I don’t think that reaction would adequately address these questions and concerns.

Oh, and the little bit you shared from other members of the Church also do not change the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon or by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Since you are unwilling to read my comments, know nothing of the Book of Mormon, keep creating false narratives and can’t seem to stay on topic - should we call this quits?

I mean, you aren’t really gaining anything by continually proving me right about how ignorant and dishonest you are, so - seeya later? Maybe one more?

 

[Sapiens]

Wow, this is so sad. I really wanted to go back and address the other things you said that I haven’t had a chance to address yet, but this latest comment of yours...what a steaming pile it is.

As per usual you sling insults and make claims but fail to bother to try and actually make a case. I will take your statement at face value, that is to say, no information, no value.

You have definitively proven that you not only don’t read my comments anymore, but you just can’t stop yourself from creating those false narratives I keep accusing you of making. You just have no idea what
the actual claims of the Book of Mormon are. You actually don’t seem to know much of anything about what’s in the Book of Mormon.

That is your opinion and your claim, based on your presuppostions and desires, once again long on claims but absent data or reality.

I’ll get into how all that is down below

I am sure we all wait with bated breath ... will it be anything more than black sand grain weasel wording? I rather doubt it.

However, I’m starting to feel that it’s all just a waste of time for me anyways. Unless you straighten out and fly right, this may be my last, or second to last, comment to you on this thread.

Gee, please don't throw me in that briar patch Brear Fox.

There is no reason for you to be so belligerent.

There is no reason for you to make personal accusation, but that (and empty threats to quit) are oft the last refuge of those advancing what increasingly becomes obvious to be intellectually bankrupt arguments.

The relevance of pointing out if a reference to iron or steel among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon being either from the Old or New World is obvious.

The Book of Mormon references iron among the people of Nephi only four times. One was a description of the rod that Nephi saw in a dream that he had while he dwelt in the valley of Lemuel in the Middle East and another was a direct quote from the book of Isaiah.

This means that half of the references of iron among the Nephites recorded in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with the New World.

The Book of Mormon references steel among the people of Nephi only four times. Two of those were descriptions of Laban’s sword and Nephi’s bow, both of which originated from the Middle East.

This means that half of the references of steel among the Nephites recorded in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with the New World.

The fact that half of the references to iron or steel among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon were from Old World sources supports my argument that iron was scarce in the New World and rarely used by the Nephites.

So you admit to the fact that there are mentions of iron or steel, but now you want to quibble about the number of mentions, the continent referenced, and you want to make the fallacious argument that we can judge the metric tons of iron and/or steel based on the number of mentions rather than the context of the text. Sorry ... that dog doesn't hunt.

The Book of Mormon does not support the idea that there were iron-clad armies of Nephites and Lamanites fighting with steel swords while riding horseback or upon wheeled chariots, which is a false narrative that you and others like you keep creating and then claiming to debunk.

The BoM indeed does support that idea, and that was the universal inference up until it was learned that advancing such a position ran afoul of the truth (just as for
other technology anachronisms, historical anachronisms, biological anachronisms, linguistic anachronisms and those anachronisms transparently perpetuated from plagiarism of the King James's translation). How do you explain this painting that is representative of the earlier view:

That is NOT the actual claim concerning iron and steel among the Nephites made in the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps not the de jure claim, but defiantly the de facto and accepted inference claim up until the obvious difficulty in maintaining that (and many other) claim(s) necessitated the development of the field of Mormon Apologetics.

Your immaturity does not change the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Your personal insults do not change the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon, or even support your revisionist presentation of them. How do you explain this painting that is representative of the earlier view:

The fact that we do not know where the events of the Book of Mormon took place is not evidence that those events did not happen.

The fact that you have not the vaguest clue as to where in the world the alleged events occurred does little to support your contention that they did occur and that you are able to parse the text so precisely so as to discern the qualities and quantities of various metals that your mythical civilizations did or did not produce. Are you saying that this map is not true?

Evidences of Pre-Columbian smelting among the people of both North and South America have been discovered, which include copper and iron.

There you go with that single black grain of sand approach again.When you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar you just pretend you were just being helpful and cleaning out the crumbs.

Interestingly enough, these metals seem to have been used only as ornamentation or as adornments by the ancient inhabitants of both North and South America, which is similar to what the Book of Mormon records the Nephites did with these metals.

Well ... try to be honest, it might mirror what the BoM claims if the apologist revisionist reinterpretation were easier to swallow.

It is obvious to anyone free of bias that this verse is referencing a list of “precious things”, such as gold and silver. Do you not consider these to be precious metals?

Only the quality of the wood is mentioned, which was described as “fine work”, while all the other materials were listed as “precious things”.

The fact that iron, brass, copper and “ziff” (whatever that is) were listed with gold and silver is proof enough that those metals were also considered “precious” by the Nephites.

Oh, so only the "precious" is distributed to the list, but not the "fine work." Nice try, no cigar.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on this one verse alone to prove that the Nephites considered iron to be a precious metal.

I wonder if these passages were claimed to have the same significance back when this picture was promulgated:

or did that rationale have to await the development of Mormon Apologetics?

As I mentioned in my last comment, Nephi mentioned that he made weapons of war,

“And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.” (2 Nephi 5:14)

Whatever material Nephi used to make these “swords” is not mentioned, however, in the very next verse Nephi recorded,

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

Oh, so now the rare materials are in "great abundance." You can't have it both ways.

Notice that iron, copper, brass and steel are included in the same list as gold and silver and other “precious ores”, which further testify that the Nephites considered iron to be a precious metal.

If that had been the analysis from the start you might have a case, but clearly the original understanding (as illustrated by the pictures above) indicate that your views are naught but johnny-come-lately revisionism performed without even the usually requisite mea culpa of original error.

I also mentioned in my last comment that Jarom, the grandson of Jacob (the younger brother of Nephi) mentioned that,

“And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.” (Jarom 1:8)

Notice that after Jarom claimed that the Nephites had become “exceedingly rich” he listed various materials as evidence of this apparent wealth, which included: iron, copper, brass and steel.

... and none of the iron or steel or the infrastructure of its production can be detected today, even though there were "all manner of tools of every kind ..." Bloody unlikely.

 

[Sapiens]

If you had actually read my earlier comment, and did not merely skim the summary points, you’d have known that the Book of Mormon records that iron and steel were considered precious metals among the Nephites, comparable to gold and silver and that they were used exclusively in the construction of “exceedingly fine” workmanship, such as palaces and temples.

I read everything you wrote, just most of it was not worthy of comment since the destruction of your summary points was sufficient to collapse your house of cards.

I understand that “one” (meaning you) can attempt to play the “weasel word game”, but all that does is further support my claim that you and others like you continue to create false narratives about the claims of the Book of Mormon.

How does your use of weasel words to attempt to support the single black grain of sand claim create "false narratives?" All that it does is falsify your base claims ... and that is sufficient unto the day.

The Book of Mormon does not record there being hordes of iron-clad, steel-wielding Nephites standing upon horse-driven wheeled chariots.

That was the original understanding when it was not known to be in conflict with reality.

No sign of what? And where? What “signs” are you expecting to find? What “technological infrastructure” are you claiming there is no sign of?

Mines, roads, draft animals, metal armor, forges, anvils, hammers, tongs, etc.

All I am doing is clarifying what the actual claims of the Book of Mormon are.

No, all you are doing is advancing a new set of claims to cover up the now discredited old ones.

The Book of Mormon does not describe an ancient people mass-producing iron armor and steel weapons to outfit their armies.

For a hundred years, or so, it was thought to, but then the truth set in and there's been a whole lot of rather undignified apologetic scurrying to pretend that was not the case. Quick ... get me some new quotes!

The Book of Mormon does not describe any massive mining operations laying low the land.

For a hundred years, or so, it was thought to, but then the truth set in and there's been a whole lot of rather undignified apologetic scurrying to pretend that was not the case. Quick ... fetch me some new quotes that might, sometimes, work!

Again, you are just trying to burn a straw man. You are just creating another false narrative.

No need for me to do that, you Mormons have done if for me.

If you had actually read my earlier comment you would have noticed that I had asked,

“Considering the scarcity of iron and the Lamanites pushing the Nephites out of the land of Nephi early on in their history and their despising of Nephite culture and religion, how long do you think the iron the Nephites used to adorn their palaces and temples survived?”

During the periods when the Book of Mormon records that the Nephites had used iron in the land of Nephi (and only in the land of Nephi) the Lamanites abhorred the Nephites.

Therefore, after the Nephites had been driven out of the land of Nephi (the only place where the Book of Mormon recorded they had used iron) the Lamanites occupied the land, which included their “exceedingly fine” palaces and temples.

So, to answer your question, “Yes, items of “exceedingly fine” construction or ornamentation would have had a need to be taken care of and preserved.”

Unfortunately, the Nephites were driven out of their “exceedingly fine” buildings and out of the land of Nephi, so they were unable to “take care of” or “preserve” anything that they had built in the land of Nephi. Those constructions and ornamentations fell into the hands of the Lamanites, who hated everything about the Nephites, their culture and religion.

That would have been the first time in history that metallurgy (which would have resulted in far superior weaponry) had been rejected on any basis, not to mention one so flimsy as "cultural revulsion."

There is no point in us continuing this discussion if you are unwilling to read my comments.

Ah ... classic "out of ammo, out of luck." Bye.

The only “facts” that you have proven in this comment are that you are woefully ignorant of what is written in the Book of Mormon and that you lack reading comprehension skills.

No, I've "proven" a bunch of things, not the least of which is that you have trouble seeing apologia for what it is.

But do not worry, your friendly neighborhood Latter-Day Saint will save you from your ignorant self!

Ah ... the empty personal insult, once again.

The book of Ether is a record of the Jaredite people who had come to the New World after the confounding of languages at the Tower of Babel. They arrived in the New World many centuries before the Lehites did.

We also do not know where the Jaredites dwelt, except that it was north of where the Nephites dwelt. I think you are getting your head wrapped around “iron-clad mean wielding steel weapons”. Did the verse you quote mention a full-scale battle? I bet you are imagining a city surrounded by a huge stone wall and catapults and guys riding atop flying dragons breathing fire. But, no, nothing like that. You are just creating a false narrative again.

Basically, the man who forged the steel swords out of what he had “molten” from the hill Ephraim (Shule) was not a Nephite.

Remember, my fifth summary point was, “The Book of Mormon does not record that the Nephites ever used iron or steel to forge their weapons of war.”

If you had actually read my earlier comment you would have had known that Shule was a Jaredite and not a Nephite because I said,

“The Book of Mormon does also mention iron and steel being used among the Jaredites (2200~300 B.C.E), but again, their use was limited and mentioned only one time each.

Only one Jaredite, by the name of Shule, was ever mentioned making weapons out of steel from ore he had “molten” out of the hill Ephraim (Ether 7:8-10).”

You see how you keep creating these false narratives that I have to clean up?

If my interpretation is so wrong, how do you explain all those illustrations from Mormon publications that mirror precisely what I am inferring from reading the BoM while internationally ignoring the apologia?

Whatever the Smithsonian Institute has written does not change what the Book of Mormon has actually claimed.

Although, what they wrote has led me to wonder, how can anyone determine that there is no Israelite DNA among the Native Americans?

That's easy and was already covered ... or did you fail too read it?

First off, do we even have a baseline? Do we have any Israelite DNA anywhere? Notice that I am not asking about Jewish or Hebrew DNA, or Israeli DNA, or Arab DNA or even Middle Eastern DNA.

Once again: Native Americans are of Siberian and Polynesian. If the American Indians were of Hebrew descent, their DNA would correlate with Middle Eastern genetic markers, which it does not. This is not overly complicated, though there is more complex supporting evidence.

The Nephites and Lamanites descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, both said tribes were carried away captive and scattered by the Assyrians.

So...where is the baseline? To whom are we comparing the Native Americans to in order to rule out that they could be descendants of either Ephraim or Manasseh?

Do you have a pure Ephraimite to test? Can you tell a Hebrew exactly which one of the Twelve Tribes he/she descends from?

Not only that, but the Middle East has been such an immigration hodgepodge since 600 B.C.E, so how can anyone honestly say that Native Americans not matching those in the Middle East can’t be descended from Lamanites?

I know your first instinct is to tell me that I don’t know anything about genetics and that the Book of Mormon is a fairytale (like you have been this entire conversation), but I don’t think that reaction would adequately address these questions and concerns.

You know nothing about genetics (and appear to not what to learn), the BoM is a fairy-tale, your questions have been sufficiently covered to satisfy anyone not suffering from presuppostional willful misunderstanding.

Oh, and the little bit you shared from other members of the Church also do not change the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon or by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Change the lies told by Smith? Why no ... they do not. Demonstrate the lengths of that believers will go to, the revisionist claptrap that they will advance, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the reality of the lies ... now that's a whole 'nother story, the story being explored here, thus the relevance of the three quotes.

Since you are unwilling to read my comments, know nothing of the Book of Mormon, keep creating false narratives and can’t seem to stay on topic - should we call this quits?

You may retire from the field at any point that you are unable to hold your head up and continue.

I mean, you aren’t really gaining anything by continually proving me right about how ignorant and dishonest you are, so - seeya later? Maybe one more?

That's not for you or me to judge, that is for our other readers. I realize that you'd rather just play Pigeon Chess, but I do not consider that to be a respectable game.

 

[Prestor John]

As per usual you sling insults and make claims but fail to bother to try and actually make a case.

First off, there is nothing wrong with my claiming that your comment was a pile of waste. It was my opinion about what you had said and it was not any kind of personal attack against you.

Put your victim card back in the deck.

Secondly, how can you claim that my “insult” was “as per usual”? Yes, I have repeatedly claimed you have a bias and are ignorant of the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon (which are easily demonstrable), but that is no different than what you have said to me about various fields of science and the Book of Mormon being a “fairy tale”.

If you honestly feel that my claiming you have a bias and are ignorant of the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon are “insults”, then you are guilty of the same and it should be considered “as per usual” for yourself.

Which would make you a hypocrite as well for trying to negatively judge me for the same thing you do.

Lastly, how can you claim that I did not try to “actually make a case” when you quoted only the first sentence of my post? Did you not read my post again?

I will take your statement at face value, that is to say, no information, no value.

Did you not just accuse me of slinging about an “insult” when I claimed that your comment was a pile of waste?

How is your claim that my statement has “no information” or “no value” any different?

Again, you demonstrate yourself to be a hypocrite. You negatively judge me for the same behavior you display.

Are you coming apart at the seams?

That is your opinion and your claim, based on your [presuppositions] and desires, once again long on claims but absent data or reality.

Why do you keep jumping to conclusions? Your recent comment is the “data” that demonstrates that you did not actually read my comment. The “reality” is that you “skimmed” my comments.

How is my opinion that you do not know the actual claims of the Book of Mormon based on any presupposition or desire on my part?

The Book of Mormon is available for anyone to read and I have demonstrated that your claims about the Book of Mormon rely solely on assumptions made about the claims of the Book of Mormon and not on the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

The fact that you still believe that the Book of Mormon describes thousands of iron-clad armies of cavalry with steel weapons is evidence that you DO NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL CLAIMS MADE IN THE BOOK OF MORMON.

I am sure we all wait with bated breath ... will it be anything more than black sand grain weasel wording? I rather doubt it.

Clearing up the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon has been enough to dismantle your arguments.

Gee, please don't throw me in that briar patch Brear Fox.

I don’t know this reference and how could my leaving this thread be me throwing you anywhere?

There is no reason for you to make personal accusation, but that (and empty threats to quit) are oft the last refuge of those advancing what increasingly becomes obvious to be intellectually bankrupt arguments.

I do not consider my attempt to encourage you to not be belligerent as a “personal accusation” any more than I would consider your claims that I am ignorant of genetics a “personal accusation”. We both are sharing our opinions about what the other has said.

You were being belligerent to the point of misunderstanding the import of when and where iron and steel are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

If you are insulted by my claiming that you were being belligerent, then that means there is truth to that claim and the problem lies with you, not me. It makes more sense for you to cease being belligerent than it does for me to cease calling you out for it.

Also, I do not consider my informing you that I would leave if you continued to not read my comments to be any sort of “empty threat” or an indication that I have “intellectually bankrupt” arguments.

If you are not reading my comments, then what is the point in my writing them? Arguing with a wall is an exercise in futility and I believe myself wise for not wishing to continue to waste my time and effort on someone who won’t read what I have to say or consider what the Book of Mormon actually claims.

So you admit to the fact that there are mentions of iron or steel, but now you want to quibble about the number of mentions, the continent referenced, and you want to make the fallacious argument that we can judge the metric tons of iron and/or steel based on the number of mentions rather than the context of the text. Sorry ... that dog doesn't hunt.

I don’t understand.

When have I claimed that there were no mentions of iron or steel in the Book of Mormon?

Where in the Book of Mormon are “metric tons” of iron and steel discussed?

Where does the Book of Mormon claim the events recorded within it took place?

Understanding where the Nephites got iron and what they used it for are crucial to resolving certain concerns such as, “If the Nephites had iron and steel, why aren’t we finding all their armor and weapons that they used to outfit their massive armies?”

Understanding that the Book of Mormon never once mentioned the Nephites forging their armor or weapons out of iron or steel may help resolve that concern, don’t you think?

Also understanding that the Book of Mormon records that the Nephites considered iron and steel to be precious metals and used them exclusively in ornamentation and adornment of their palaces and temples would also help resolve that concern as well as demonstrate a parallel to what we now know about the practices of ancient Mesoamerican peoples.

Don’t forget that understanding the scarcity of iron and steel in the Nephite lands, as well as there being only the one land mentioned in the Book of Mormon where the Nephites smelted iron (which was occupied by the Lamanites early on in their history) helps us understand why it may be difficult to find any iron in Mesoamerica (even though we have found iron and steel being used as ornamentation and adornments by ancient Mesoamerican peoples).

The Book of Mormon does not record the Lamanites working in iron or steel, but it does mention that the Lamanites occupied the only land where iron and steel had been produced among the Nephites. It also mentioned that the Lamanites hated the culture and religion of the Nephites.

By knowing the actual claims of the Book of Mormon we can come to understand the “context of the text”, which is that the Nephites considered iron and steel to be precious metals and used them solely in ornamentation and adornment of specific buildings found only in the land of Nephi, which buildings were eventually occupied by their fierce enemies approximately 2,300 years ago.

The BoM indeed does support that idea, and that was the universal inference up until it was learned that advancing such a position ran afoul of the truth

If you are unable to quote where in the Book of Mormon the Nephite or Lamanites armies used cavalry, wheeled chariots, iron armor or steel weapons - then you cannot claim that the Book of Mormon supports those ideas.

Also, it is important to note, that the “inference” of these things was never “universal”. Was it widely accepted by many leaders and members of the Church? Sure. I grew up hearing those stories. I’ve seen the cartoons. I’ve seen the portraits. Samuel the Lamanite standing atop a huge stone wall comes to mind (even though the Book of Mormon never mentioned the building of stone walls).

But was it the official position of the Church? Has the Church officially come out and claimed where the events of the Book of Mormon took place? Or what metal the Nephites used to forge their weapons and armor? Or that a particular artist is the “spokesperson” of Nephite or Church history?

No. It has not and it will not.

Many people may have inferred many false things through their reading of the Book of Mormon, but that is not the same as saying that the Book of Mormon supports those inferences or that the Church officially accepted them.

The important thing to remember is that these inferences “ran afoul” of the truth discovered by science as well as the truth recorded in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon has not changed. Even though many people made false inferences about what they read, what the Book of Mormon actually claims does not contradict what has been proven to be true.

 

[Prestor John]

(just as for other technology anachronisms, historical anachronisms, biological anachronisms, linguistic anachronisms and those anachronisms transparently perpetuated from plagiarism of the King James's translation).

I notice you like making laundry lists of criticisms without sharing a specific example.

Give an example of each and I will debunk them.

How do you explain this painting that is representative of the earlier view:

Perhaps not the de jure claim, but [definitely] the de facto and accepted inference claim up until the obvious difficulty in maintaining that (and many other) claim(s) necessitated the development of the field of Mormon Apologetics.

I am going to address most of your comments involving pictures in this one comment.

Apologetics are double-edged. They do not only combat the false claims made by anti-Mormons, but also false claims made by leaders and members of the Church.

These paintings are obviously the artist’s portrayal of what he/she considered to be accurate Book of Mormon history based on his/her understanding of the text.

I have seen many portraits of the Nativity scene portrayed in deep snow or the Last Supper among Roman columns. That does not mean that the Bible claimed that Christ was born in December or that Jerusalem was decorated by Roman architecture. I have also seen portraits of Black and Asian Jesus which does not mean that the Bible claims he was either.

If the Book of Mormon does not support a particular inference or opinion, then you cannot claim that the Book of Mormon supports that particular inference or opinion.

This argument is one void of logic and reason.

Your personal insults do not change the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon, or even support your revisionist presentation of them.

Your rejection of the Book of Mormon without even considering what the book actually claims, demonstrates that you are not “fully developed” and it does not change the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

If neither the Church nor the Book of Mormon supports a particular inference, how can you claim that my presentation is a “revision”?

The Book of Mormon is there for all to read and it has not changed in light of the discovery of new scientific truth.

The fact that you have not the vaguest clue as to where in the world the alleged events occurred does little to support your contention that they did occur and that you are able to parse the text so precisely so as to discern the qualities and quantities of various metals that your mythical civilizations did or did not produce.

All I have is what is written in the Book of Mormon and that record disagrees with the false narratives you keep trying to sell.

Are you saying that this map is not true?

No, I do not personally believe this map to be accurate. I do not know if any of the many differing maps displaying the possible locations of the Book of Mormon sites are accurate.

I am inclined to believe, based on the amount of time it took Alma to journey from city to city in the Nephite lands during his ministry, that most of the events in the Book of Mormon took place in a very small geographic area and I believe that Mesoamerica is the most likely candidate.

My not knowing where the events took place does not mean that they did not happen.

There you go with that single black grain of sand approach again.When you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar you just pretend you were just being helpful and cleaning out the crumbs.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that there is no evidence of the smelting of iron and copper in North and South America both before and after the Book of Mormon times?

The Book of Mormon claims that these ores were scarce and that if found they were considered precious metals and used for ornamentation and adornment.

I didn’t place iron ornamentation and adornment pieces in ancient North and South America.

Mentioning that the Book of Mormon claims that these metals were there and that we have found them today is not the same as saying, “That proves the Book of Mormon is true!”

Finding a single black grain of sand supports the claim made in the Book of Mormon since that book also claimed that there would be only the single grain of black sand.

This is your attempt at presenting a false narrative about what I have said. I am merely sharing the facts of both what is found in the Book of Mormon and what has been found in North and South America.

Well ... try to be honest, it might mirror what the BoM claims if the apologist revisionist reinterpretation were easier to swallow.

Thank you for your honesty, but I still don’t understand this stance. Either the Book of Mormon records it or it does not. What people infer about the text is irrelevant to what it actually records.

If the Book of Mormon does not claim that the Nephites forged their armor and weapons out of iron then we cannot infer that the Book of Mormon claims that they did.

If the Book of Mormon records that iron and steel were rare and considered precious metals among the Nephites and that they were used for ornamentation and adornment, then we are sure that that is what the Book of Mormon claims.

Relying on the text does not make me a “revisionist”. Clarifying what the Book of Mormon has always said does not make me a “revisionist”. Considering that the Church never made any official claim to what the Nephite armies were equipped with or what they used iron for or where the events in the Book of Mormon took place - how am I a “revisionist”?

Rely on the text, not the inferences and assumptions made about the text.

Oh, so only the "precious" is distributed to the list, but not the "fine work." Nice try, no cigar.

Well, let’s take a look at the verse again:

“And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;”

I never said that the “fine work of wood” should not be considered among the “precious things”.

What I said was, “Only the quality of the wood is mentioned, which was described as “fine work”, while all the other materials were listed as “precious things”.”

Only the wood’s quality is described, while the quality of the gold, silver, iron, brass, ziff and copper are not, but they were still considered “precious things”.

I made this distinction to combat your argument which was that the use of the term “precious things” was in reference to the quality of all the materials, including the iron. When in fact the text only mentioned the quality of the wood. The quality of the other materials was not mentioned.

So, it is very possible that wood of “fine work” was considered a “precious thing” among the Nephites, yet it seems that the quality of the wood is the deciding factor in whether or not it was considered precious. While all the metals mentioned were considered “precious things” despite their quality.

You notice how I never said that the “fine work of wood” was not considered a “precious thing” by the Nephites? That was yet another false narrative that you tried to create and apply to what I had said.

Will you ever stop being so dishonest?

Oh, so now the rare materials are in "great abundance." You can't have it both ways.

Yet, the very next verse reads,

“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)

So either Nephi immediately contradicted himself or his comment about having a certain material in “great abundance” was in reference to something else other than “precious” construction materials.

Let’s take a look at what he said again,

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

It is my opinion, based on the wording of the text, that Nephi was claiming that the last item on the list (“precious ores”) were what he had in “great abundance”. It is clear that the previously mentioned materials were not to be included in what he referred to as “precious ores”, so we can only speculate as to what he was referring to.

 

[Prestor John]

If that had been the analysis from the start you might have a case, but clearly the original understanding (as illustrated by the pictures above) indicate that your views are naught but johnny-come-lately revisionism performed without even the usually requisite mea culpa of original error.

I find this to also be a position void of logic and reason.

Why aren’t leaders and members of the Church allowed to be wrong about the claims made in the Book of Mormon? Also, how does their error somehow affect the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon? Their error does not magically change what Nephi wrote or what the Nephites used to forge their weapons and armor, does it?

This idea that a person needs to be correct about claims made in the Book of Mormon from the start in order for the actual claims in the Book of Mormon to be considered makes no sense to me.

... and none of the iron or steel or the infrastructure of its production can be detected today, even though there were "all manner of tools of every kind ..." Bloody unlikely.

You expect to find it after their vicious enemy took their lands some 2,300 years ago?

The Book of Mormon does not mention the Nephites or Lamanites working in iron or steel afterward.

I read everything you wrote, just most of it was not worthy of comment since the destruction of your summary points was sufficient to collapse your house of cards.

That did not happen. All you did, yet again, was create false narratives and try to pass them off as my claims.

How does your use of weasel words to attempt to support the single black grain of sand claim create "false narratives?" All that it does is falsify your base claims ... and that is sufficient unto the day.

You keep trying to change what I say, but all I have to do is clarify what the Book of Mormon actually claims in order to combat your false narratives.

That was the original understanding when it was not known to be in conflict with reality.

Yes, the original understanding of many leaders and members conflicted with the reality recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Mines, roads, draft animals, metal armor, forges, anvils, hammers, tongs, etc.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that Mesoamerica is where the events of the Book of Mormon took place.

The Book of Mormon does not mention mining operations and we know that people do not need extensive mining operations in order to come across and use various ores. However, various Pre-Columbian open-pit mines have been discovered throughout Mexico and Mesoamerica.

Paved roads have been discovered in Mesoamerica. One such road has been discovered to reach a length of 300 km.

I don’t think any draft animals are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They mention animals in conjunction with travel, but it does not mention anyone riding those animals or that the animals were loaded with anything. That is just not a claim I’m willing to make.

The only metal armor mentioned was that Jaredite breastplate brought by certain Nephites to King Limhi which were described as being made from copper.

No, all you are doing is advancing a new set of claims to cover up the now discredited old ones.

These claims are the claims made in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has not changed. How can you describe them as a “new set of claims”? Those “old claims” have been discredited by the Book of Mormon since it was first printed.

For a hundred years, or so, it was thought to, but then the truth set in and there's been a whole lot of rather undignified apologetic scurrying to pretend that was not the case. Quick ... get me some new quotes!

Completely irrelevant. None of the false inferences made change the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Many “Christians” have and still believe that Jesus Christ was born in the winter, despite what the Bible has recorded to the contrary.

You would claim that that would somehow discredit the Bible or the “Christian” faith?

That would have been the first time in history that metallurgy (which would have resulted in far superior weaponry) had been rejected on any basis, not to mention one so flimsy as "cultural revulsion."

The Book of Mormon does not mention anyone in the Lamanite camp knowing anything about metallurgy. Just because the Lamanites inherited some iron and steel ornaments does not mean they had any notion of how to recreate or preserve them.

Think, for a second, about the other claims in the Book of Mormon. Were iron weapons needful? Didn’t the Lamanites wear simple loincloths? Didn’t the Nephites eventually wear armor made of only “thick cloth?”

If there was no means and no need to produce iron – how is it so farfetched that the Lamanites didn’t produce it?

Ah ... classic "out of ammo, out of luck." Bye.

How so? I have repeatedly claimed that it has been your unwillingness to read my comments that would cause me to leave.

Rather than running “out of ammo”, I am a marksman left without any targets. Where is the interest in that?

So, no, I want a discussion, not an exercise in futility.

No, I've "proven" a bunch of things, not the least of which is that you have trouble seeing apologia for what it is.

Nothing you have “proven” discredits the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps you and I are having two separate discussions about different things?

I am focusing on and talking about the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon, while you are focusing on and talking about false inferences made about claims made in the Book of Mormon as well as whatever false narratives you can come up with.

Ah ... the empty personal insult, once again.

There is nothing wrong with you being ignorant.

You can only become offended if there is truth in my claim that you are ignorant.

Also, don’t you claim that I am ignorant of genetics all the time? How is this any different? Aren’t you full of “empty personal insults” as well, hypocrite?

If my interpretation is so wrong, how do you explain all those illustrations from Mormon publications that mirror precisely what I am inferring from reading the BoM while internationally ignoring the apologia?

Read above. You are ignoring the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Once again: Native Americans are of Siberian and Polynesian. If the American Indians were of Hebrew descent, their DNA would correlate with Middle Eastern genetic markers, which it does not. This is not overly complicated, though there is more complex supporting evidence.

Not necessarily. The Bible records that the Ephraimites and Manassehites were captured and scattered by the Assyrians. Members of those tribes did not remain in the Middle East.

Since the tribes that the Nephites and Lamanites descended from did not remain in the Middle East, what is the purpose of comparing Native American DNA to Hebrew or Middle Eastern DNA?

Can you even tell the difference between an Ephraimite and a Jew?

You know nothing about genetics (and appear to not what to learn), the BoM is a fairy-tale, your questions have been sufficiently covered to satisfy anyone not suffering from presuppostional willful misunderstanding.

I’m going to respond as if I were you for a moment,

“Uh oh. Claiming that I “know nothing” of genetics is the same as claiming that I am “ignorant”. Oh no! Wah! I’m crying now from that “personal insult”. Wah! I’m so fragile and weak that I can’t stand under that kind of scrutiny! Wah! Victim card! I’m going to play my victim card! Wah! You’re so mean! Wah! Just what I should expect from a bully like you! Wah! Wah! WAH!”

Now, back to me,

No, I do not think that comparing today’s Native American with today’s Hebrew or Middle Eastern people discredits the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

That idea ignores relevant information contained in both the Bible and Book of Mormon about the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, from which the Lehites descended.

Change the lies told by Smith? Why no ... they do not. Demonstrate the lengths of that believers will go to, the revisionist claptrap that they will advance, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the reality of the lies ... now that's a whole 'nother story, the story being explored here, thus the relevance of the three quotes.

What the Prophet or the Book of Mormon has said has not changed.

What people assume or infer about what these sources said is a different matter.

It is not a revision because the Church has never had an official stance on these claims made in the Book of Mormon.

You may retire from the field at any point that you are unable to hold your head up and continue.

I’ll have no reason to leave if you actually read my comments.

That's not for you or me to judge, that is for our other readers. I realize that you'd rather just play Pigeon Chess, but I do not consider that to be a respectable game.

You understand that I am claiming that you are being this “pigeon”, don’t you?

You were the one not reading my comments. You were the one claiming that I am ignorant without sourcing any evidence of how that was so. You are the one relying on assumptions and inferences about the Book of Mormon, not the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Just because I may decide to leave first does not mean that you were not the pigeon ignoring my movements and crapping all over the board.

 

[Watchmen]

That's not for you or me to judge, that is for our other readers. I realize that you'd rather just play Pigeon Chess, but I do not consider that to be a respectable game.

As a reader who has been following this thread, it's clear Sapiens has got the best of Prestor John.

 

[Prestor John]

As a reader who has been following this thread, it's clear Sapiens has got the best of Prestor John.

It is not surprising that you would say this.

Afterall, you also did not seem to know the definition of the word "principal", and therefore applied a false understanding to the 1981 Introduction to the Book of Mormon.

You, like Sapiens, focus on the assumptions and inferences made about the claims made in the Book of Mormon and not the ACTUAL CLAIMS made in the Book of Mormon.

Would you mind sharing how you came to the conclusion that Sapiens got the "best" of me?

Aw, you are reminding me of all the disillusioned Hilary supporters out there who still can't accept that she has lost.

 

[Watchmen]

It is not surprising that you would say this.

Afterall, you also did not seem to know the definition of the word "principal", and therefore applied a false understanding to the 1981 Introduction to the Book of Mormon.

You, like Sapiens, focus on the assumptions and inferences made about the claims made in the Book of Mormon and not the ACTUAL CLAIMS made in the Book of Mormon.

Would you mind sharing how you came to the conclusion that Sapiens got the "best" of me?

Aw, you are reminding me of all the disillusioned Hilary supporters out there who still can't accept that she has lost.

Thank you for proving my point. The Church is constantly backtracking as the evidence demonstrates the Book of Mormon is false. You can't be more obtuse.

And I voted for Trump. And your the one throwing the tantrums like a Hillary supporter? Shall we have a "recount" to confirm all the ways Sapiens bested you?

 

[Prestor John]

Thank you for proving my point.

How do you believe this happened?

The Church is constantly backtracking as the evidence demonstrates the Book of Mormon is false.

First, since you are speaking of "the Church" as if it were a single entity, would you mind sharing any example of "the Church" "backtracking" on anything?

Bear in mind that "the Church" only speaks as a single entity when it releases an official declaration, such as The Living Christ or The Family.

So, in order for you to prove your point you'd first have to quote where "the Church" made an official declaration about the claims made in the Book of Mormon, such as metallurgy and geography, then you'd need to provide an official declaration of "the Church" "backtracking" from that first official declaration.

Second, as I have been telling Sapiens, no evidence has been found that demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is false. Sure, evidence has been found that may have discredited certain theories and opinions about the claims made in the Book of Mormon postulated by many, but not the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

The example that I provided, about iron and steel, clearly demonstrates that the Book of Mormon does not claim that the Nephites were equipped with iron armor and steel weapons. The Book of Mormon also clearly records that iron was scarce among the Nephites and that they considered it to be a precious metal. The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron only as ornamentation or adornment to certain buildings such as palaces and temples.

No evidence has been found that discredits these actual claims and, in fact, evidence has been found that supports them, assuming that the events in the Book of Mormon even took place in Mesoamerica, of course.

You can't be more obtuse.

If you are annoyed by the fact that you do not have any evidence to back up your claims, that is your problem, not mine.

And I voted for Trump.

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that you are disillusioned about the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

And [you're] the one throwing the tantrums like a Hillary supporter?

Would you mind sharing an example of me "throwing a tantrum"?

I don't see any evidence of me being angry or frustrated, so how can you accuse me of throwing a "tantrum"?

Shall we have a "recount" to confirm all the ways Sapiens bested you?

Yes, please.

 

[Watchmen]

How do you believe this happened?

First, since you are speaking of "the Church" as if it were a single entity, would you mind sharing any example of "the Church" "backtracking" on anything?

Bear in mind that "the Church" only speaks as a single entity when it releases an official declaration, such as The Living Christ or The Family.

So, in order for you to prove your point you'd first have to quote where "the Church" made an official declaration about the claims made in the Book of Mormon, such as metallurgy and geography, then you'd need to provide an official declaration of "the Church" "backtracking" from that first official declaration.

Second, as I have been telling Sapiens, no evidence has been found that demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is false. Sure, evidence has been found that may have discredited certain theories and opinions about the claims made in the Book of Mormon postulated by many, but not the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

The example that I provided, about iron and steel, clearly demonstrates that the Book of Mormon does not claim that the Nephites were equipped with iron armor and steel weapons. The Book of Mormon also clearly records that iron was scarce among the Nephites and that they considered it to be a precious metal. The Book of Mormon records that the Nephites used iron only as ornamentation or adornment to certain buildings such as palaces and temples.

No evidence has been found that discredits these actual claims and, in fact, evidence has been found that supports them, assuming that the events in the Book of Mormon even took place in Mesoamerica, of course.

If you are annoyed by the fact that you do not have any evidence to back up your claims, that is your problem, not mine.

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that you are disillusioned about the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Would you mind sharing an example of me "throwing a tantrum"?

I don't see any evidence of me being angry or frustrated, so how can you accuse me of throwing a "tantrum"?
Yes, please.

I'll keep it simple. The BoM title page went from "principal" ancestors to "among" the ancestors. I know all the apologists' explanations (I used to give them too), but the Church was flat out wrong and had to backtrack.

 

[Prestor John]

I'll keep it simple.

Good. I'd prefer to keep things simple.

The BoM title page went from "principal" ancestors to "among" the ancestors.

This is not accurate.

The title page of the Book of Mormon was written by Moroni and translated by Joseph Smith and was found on the last plate of the gold plates. It is considered revelation.

You meant to say that the Introduction to the Book of Mormon (which was not considered revelation) changed "principal" to "among".

The Introduction was written in 1981 by Elder Bruce R. McConkie.

I know all the apologists' explanations (I used to give them too), but the Church was flat out wrong and had to backtrack.

Could you please share what the definition of the word "principal" is?

As I said before, your argument is based on a false definition of that word. The word "principal" never meant "only" or "majority".

Neither the Church nor the Book of Mormon ever made the claim that all Native Americans descended from the Lamanites.

Changing that sentence of the Introduction does not change what was recorded in the Book of Mormon or the Church's stance on the Book of Mormon.

You cannot keep running with this old worn-out argument and stay honest. You just can't.