Steel in America during the time of the Book of Mormon

[_why me]

You guys seem to misunderstand. I posted two websites that may be of interest to grandpa75. Nothing more. I thought that he needed to bone up on some material out there so he can reach his own conclusions. Now what grandpa thinks is up to him. I offered no commentary about the websites. But I did say the book stands tall in the saddle. And that is true. And so what is the problem? I see no problem. I was being nice to grandpa.

However, the critics were out in force picking through flesh. Lets let grandpa read some of the material and see what happens. Perhaps he will have a good take on it.

Now the vultures can go back to their cage and rest a while...every so often I will feed you until grandpa comes back.

I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is why you would post links to two websites containing bad apologetics for grampa75 to "bone up on." If you're going to post subpar apologetics, you should expect some of us to take issue with it.

I understand. But it is all a matter of opinion. As far as steel is concerned there will be a lot of guessing going on with some explanations offered. I am not that concerned with it. The Book of Mormon is an enigma. How it came into being and the story behind it, plus the critic reasoning behind the book's publication make it all very interesting for me. I cannot explain it away so easy as many of you can. But I do find it all fascinating: Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the characters surrounding the book, the early church, the early saints, the struggles and tribuations, the gentiles...etc. It is all quite amazing.

Steel is one of those things that it difficult to explain. But then again, the book itself is based on faith and not evidence. I know that Marg will deride me on that sentence but that is the way it is. If there was conclusive evidence, the critics will not be critics...they would be a part of the lds church. But I haven't found any of the critic stories convincing in how the book came into being. Sidney Ridgon as author as been challenged by Dan quite well. And I just can't buy into Dan idea. And so, I am left with Joseph Smith's story. Nothing more, with steel and all.

[_why me]

You guys seem to misunderstand. I posted two websites that may be of interest to grandpa75. Nothing more. I thought that he needed to bone up on some material out there so he can reach his own conclusions. Now what grandpa thinks is up to him. I offered no commentary about the websites. But I did say the book stands tall in the saddle. And that is true. And so what is the problem? I see no problem. I was being nice to grandpa.

However, the critics were out in force picking through flesh. Lets let grandpa read some of the material and see what happens. Perhaps he will have a good take on it.

Now the vultures can go back to their cage and rest a while...every so often I will feed you until grandpa comes back.

The problem is, whyme, you were offering him websites which only mislead him. They do not substantiate the case gramps75 is attempting to make. They only expose him to ridicule if he attempts to use their arguments. That is the problem.

The book can hardly 'stand tall in the saddle' when what is offered in its defense is such misleading apologetic material such as this.

Grampa75 will weigh in soon and he will let us all know what he thinks. I gave him something to read. He will make his own judgement on it.

[_Who Knows]

Steel is one of those things that it difficult to explain. But then again, the book itself is based on faith and not evidence. I know that Marg will deride me on that sentence but that is the way it is. If there was conclusive evidence, the critics will not be critics...they would be a part of the lds church. But I haven't found any of the critic stories convincing in how the book came into being. Sidney Ridgon as author as been challenged by Dan quite well. And I just can't buy into Dan idea. And so, I am left with Joseph Smith's story. Nothing more, with steel and all.

Sorry in advance for derailing...

Why Me, I'm just curious, are you like this with everything in life? I mean, do you generally believe things because of faith? Do you generally believe things because they have not been proven wrong?

[_Mercury]

I understand. But it is all a matter of opinion.

No, its a matter of scolarship and opinion is not scolarship. Its opinion.

Why is it that whenever apologists, with paint brush in hand, paint themselves into a corner their only retort is that everything is relative and difference of opinion is a valid settlement when in reality there is only one answer.

Bifurcation of ones mind is a coping mechanism mopologists are good at. Too bad for them that their the ones with the gaping holes in their logic, their testimonies their only tool used to hold onto assinine beliefs.

[_Mercury]

Steel is one of those things that it difficult to explain. But then again, the book itself is based on faith and not evidence. I know that Marg will deride me on that sentence but that is the way it is. If there was conclusive evidence, the critics will not be critics...they would be a part of the lds church. But I haven't found any of the critic stories convincing in how the book came into being. Sidney Ridgon as author as been challenged by Dan quite well. And I just can't buy into Dan idea. And so, I am left with Joseph Smith's story. Nothing more, with steel and all.

Sorry in advance for derailing...

Why Me, I'm just curious, are you like this with everything in life? I mean, do you generally believe things because of faith? Do you generally believe things because they have not been proven wrong?

I think its more complicated than that. the Mormon claims have been, time and time again proven wrong. Their reply is a constant refrain centered around a "difference of opinion".

[_Runtu]

I understand. But it is all a matter of opinion. As far as steel is concerned there will be a lot of guessing going on with some explanations offered. I am not that concerned with it. The Book of Mormon is an enigma. How it came into being and the story behind it, plus the critic reasoning behind the book's publication make it all very interesting for me. I cannot explain it away so easy as many of you can. But I do find it all fascinating: Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the characters surrounding the book, the early church, the early saints, the struggles and tribuations, the gentiles...etc. It is all quite amazing.

Steel is one of those things that it difficult to explain. But then again, the book itself is based on faith and not evidence. I know that Marg will deride me on that sentence but that is the way it is. If there was conclusive evidence, the critics will not be critics...they would be a part of the lds church. But I haven't found any of the critic stories convincing in how the book came into being. Sidney Ridgon as author as been challenged by Dan quite well. And I just can't buy into Dan idea. And so, I am left with Joseph Smith's story. Nothing more, with steel and all.

If it's all about faith and speculation, why did you feel the need to inject poor-quality apologetics into the discussion? Speculation is one thing, but the tortured rationalizations and distortions in the stuff you linked are something else entirely.

It's strange to me that you keep telling us that it's all just guessing, but when a demonstrable, obvious anachronism (such as steel) is shown, you tell us that it's not important and instead we should focus on faith, not evidence. If you don't believe there's any evidence worth talking about, please don't offer any, especially stuff as weak as what you've linked to.

[_beastie]

This is what I find just maddening about Book of Mormon apologetics. Some very educated apologists write some very misleading things for believers - knowing that the vast majority of believers do not possess an adequate background knowledge on the subject to make an informed decision about what they are reading. I have grown to believe some of these educated apologists know very well that is what they are doing, but feel it is justified. I'm just guessing here, obviously, but I've had too many conversations on these topics to think differently at this point. I believe the apologists truly believe the Book of Mormon is "true" and that eventually evidence will be found to support it, so it's ok, morally, to overstate the strength of the current apologia in order to help people keep believing in the meantime.

I think it is patronizing and insulting. It's a way of someone who is more informed making a decision on the part of the less informed person about what information the less informed person "needs" to know.

With that frustration vented, a couple of points.

There is no dispute, at least among non-LDS Mesoamerican scholars, that there is absolutely no evidence for metallurgy during the Book of Mormon time period. When pushed to the wall, most LDS Mesoamerican scholars acknowledge that point. I say "most" to make the exception for Sorenson, who has produced incredibly misleading material that people still refer to today for support. Many of his so-called references have been thoroughly debunked by other people with access to the information. I debunked two of his most important metallurgy references myself.

There is no way that apologists can make the metallurgy problem disappear by invoking “translation errors” or “translation artifacts” for two reasons. One is that there were actual Nephite artifacts supposedly seen and handled by nineteenth century individuals, aside from the gold plates. Second is that the process is described in the Book of Mormon, not simply a word indicating metal. All the linguistic evidence offered by apologists must be disregarded due to this fact. The linguistic evidence refers to items made by simple metal-working, not metallurgy.

Even some of the “saves” turn out to be dead-ends, although don’t expect most apologists to confess this. Take, for instance, the attempt to pretend the word “sword” in the Book of Mormon referred to the macuahuitl or the atlatl. What apologists won’t tell you is that neither of these items, while known in Mesoamerica, were used in the correct time frame. They came from a later, post-BoM period in ancient Meosamerica. The same is true for the tumbaga “out” some apologists try to use. That wasn’t in use in Mesoamerica before around 900 AD, either, but don’t expect them to tell you that when they invoke it to explain why the gold plates didn’t weigh as much as real gold plates would.

Once again, I went into this in excruciating detail on my essay here:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... Metallurgy

[_beastie]

I also echo what others have said to whyme - it's most emphatically not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of either accepting the information that those who have spend decades studying ancient Mesoamerica and working in the field provide on the subject, or out-and-out rejecting it in the hopes that one day, future evidence will support the existence of metallurgy in ancient Mesoamerica.

People have the right to reject information, no matter how well substantiated it is. They just don't have the right to make up facts to justify that rejection.

[_Fortigurn]

But it is all a matter of opinion.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

As far as steel is concerned there will be a lot of guessing going on with some explanations offered.

There is no guessing among those who are actually remotely familiar with this field. If guesswork is all Mormon apologists have to offer, then this only exposes a weakness in the Book of Mormon.

Steel is one of those things that it difficult to explain.

I'm glad you acknowledge this.

But then again, the book itself is based on faith and not evidence.

If this were true, then:

* Smith would never have offered the plates and personal witnesses of the plates as evidence

* Smith would never have attempted to support the Book of Mormon with the Kinderhook plates and the Book of Abraham

* The LDS church wouldn't have spent all the thousands of dollars it has on archaeology, in attempts to find physical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon

From the day it was first penned, the Book of Mormon has always made an explicit appeal to hard physical evidence. Nothing has changed.

[_why me]

I understand. But it is all a matter of opinion.

No, its a matter of scolarship and opinion is not scolarship. Its opinion.

Why is it that whenever apologists, with paint brush in hand, paint themselves into a corner their only retort is that everything is relative and difference of opinion is a valid settlement when in reality there is only one answer.

Bifurcation of ones mind is a coping mechanism mopologists are good at. Too bad for them that their the ones with the gaping holes in their logic, their testimonies their only tool used to hold onto assinine beliefs.

I didn't paint myself into a corner. I only posted two websites for grandpa to read. That is all. I did not take part in this debate at all. But I did give my opinion on it and that is the way I feel about it.

Unfortunately, grandpa forgot he posted on this thread and went to greener pastures. That happens sometimes. It would have been nice to get his take on it. And if you read my posts to grandpa it was only some advice that I gave him. And it was good advice. I made no judgement about the sites that I posted.