What do you find odd about the Book of Mormon?

[_Maxrep]

Pop quiz:

help me find that one incredibly long verse in the Book of Mormon, that is a single sentence, or in other words, there are no periods in this sentence in which I speak of and the words never stop, insomuch that when you reacheth the end of the sentence or the end of the three hundred words that have been strung together with out the aid of periods, the reader will have forgotten what comprised the starting of the sentence, to the confounding of their understanding.

[_the road to hana]

Pop quiz:

help me find that one incredibly long verse in the Book of Mormon, that is a single sentence, or in other words, there are no periods in this sentence in which I speak of and the words never stop, insomuch that when you reacheth the end of the sentence or the end of the three hundred words that have been strung together with out the aid of periods, the reader will have forgotten what comprised the starting of the sentence, to the confounding of their understanding.

Mosiah 7:21-22 works pretty well for that purpose.

21 And ye all are witnesses this day, that Zeniff, who was made king over this people, he being over-zealous to inherit the land of his fathers, therefore being deceived by the cunning and craftiness of king Laman, who having entered into a treaty with king Zeniff, and having yielded up into his hands the possessions of a part of the land, or even the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom; and the land round about—
22 And all this he did, for the sole purpose of bringing this people into subjection or into bondage. And behold, we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind, and one half of the increase of our flocks and our herds; and even one half of all we have or possess the king of the Lamanites doth exact of us, or our lives.

It's no coincidence that the next line is, "Now, is not this grievous to be borne?"

[_John Larsen]

Something that I have always found odd is that in many of these massive battles, it comes down to just two standing, both of them being the kings or generals. This seems very unrealistic to me. In most warfare that I am aware of, the side that is loosing will usually retreat to avoid unnecessary losses. Kind of a live to fight another day.

I also find the the Jaradite crossing unbelievable.

Prior to the invention of the machine gun, the fighting in most battles lasted less than 2 minutes. A charge would only last until the enemy line was broken and they began to retreat. The idea of 2 armies fighting toe to toe to the point of destruction is a fiction.

[_guy sajer]

Something that I have always found odd is that in many of these massive battles, it comes down to just two standing, both of them being the kings or generals. This seems very unrealistic to me. In most warfare that I am aware of, the side that is loosing will usually retreat to avoid unnecessary losses. Kind of a live to fight another day.

I also find the the Jaradite crossing unbelievable.

Prior to the invention of the machine gun, the fighting in most battles lasted less than 2 minutes. A charge would only last until the enemy line was broken and they began to retreat. The idea of 2 armies fighting toe to toe to the point of destruction is a fiction.

I've read a commentator on ancient Greek style of warfare, the phalanx, who said something like "the typical battle was slightly more deadly than a rubgy scrum."

Most of the casualties in this type of warfare occured after the one side started retreating, and the winning side killed or injured the retreaters, many of them in the back.

[_Scottie]

One is Nephi making a ship. I've taken up amateur luthiery, and made two violins from scratch, and am starting a third, and a cello. It was hard enough to make these tiny little violins with commercialy-produced tools, professionally-harvested woods, books to read from, brains to pick on the internet, and so forth. Just imagine for a moment how much more complex building a freaking ship would be. I mean, even building just a 10-foot rowboat using the planking method, or lapstrake, or whatever other traditional boat-building methods there are, took untold hours and training by master shipwrights.

The notion that Nephi, land-lubber extraordinaire, actually mined his own ore, smelted it and made metal tools, then harvested enough wood, and of sufficient quality, season it properly, and then was able to carve the pieces just right, fit them together just right, and make it all tight enough that with just some minimal caulking with, say, pitch, would have been seaworthy enough to sail from freaking the Red Sea all the way around the world to the Americas is just beyond belief. Not to mention they would have required many casks and barrels in which to store fresh water (that's a very long journey), tons of food, and so forth. Just the aquisition of the tools, wood, and skills necessary to have created all the necessary barrels and casks would have been beyond him in the time allowed. I suppose they could have used clay jars for it all instead, assuming weight was not a problem. And don't forget that it says they brought seeds and stuff with them to plant crops when they got there.

I have a book written by a guy named George Sturt, called "The Wheelwright's Shop", where he describes the experience necessary, which is all but extinct nowadays, even to just pick out the right trees to harvest, not to mention how to prepare it for seasoning, season it for a period of years, and then how to saw out the planks and other lumber necessary to build wagons, just the knowledge and skill with wood harvesting and seasoning itself would have been far beyond Nephi, not to mention all the other disciplines required to mine ore, make tools, build the ship, fit it out (he'd need rope and sales, and a rigging plan, and a knowledge of splicing, knots, lashing, and so forth that he wouldn't have had as well), is almost mind-boggling.

There's a reason why ship and boat-building were revolutionary inventions back when they initially came about, and that it took thousands of years to evolve from the simplest craft to, say, the "state of the art" in wooden ship building reached by, say, the mid-19th century.

I'm not convinced that anyone on Earth was building "blue water" ocean-going vessels in 600 BC, that would have been capable of going all the way around the world in the way described.

Oh yeah, but we know it's possible, because all God had to do was show Nephi how to do it. Which he did. ;-)

Question: does anyone recall offhand how long the Book of Mormon says it took for Nephi to build his ship? I would argue that however long that was, it wouldn't have even been enough time for Joseph to have harvested the wood, prepared it for seasoning, and then seasoned it, much less anything else of all the required activities and accomplishments.

Doesn't the huge storm they went through when Nephi was bound cause even bigger problems?

[_Runtu]

You know, seth, you can't prove it didn't happen any more than I can prove it did happen. So who is a wishful thinker? Only I have a better position than you do. Your position is shrinking. Mine is expanding. Every new discovery adds to my position, and there is nothing that can add to yours, as we push you further and further into a corner.

No offense, but are you channeling "why me"? When you have to resort to "you can't prove it didn't happen," that's as good as waving a white flag, shouting "I give up," and sulking away.

There are no discoveries adding to your position. Every time you point to these discoveries, it ends up being the kind of wishful thinking we got in Lundquist's "Olishem" article.

The only one pushed into a corner presently is you with your rather outlandish claims.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Something that I have always found odd is that in many of these massive battles, it comes down to just two standing, both of them being the kings or generals.

Yes. It certainly has a Homeric quality to it.

This seems very unrealistic to me. In most warfare that I am aware of, the side that is loosing will usually retreat to avoid unnecessary losses. Kind of a live to fight another day.

Yes. Total annihilation of a force is extremely extremely rare in military history, and usually was an example of total lack of military intelligence by the command or very very brilliant encirclement tactics.

The logistics of the Book of Mormon armies are strange in itself.

-How many soldiers are we talking about (millions right?)?
-How far did they march to fight?
-What type of military tactics did they use?
-What types of formations?
-How did they transport the food necessary to feed hundreds of thousands of soldiers?
-What type of command structure did their army use?
-Were they infantry?

-Did they use calvary (leaving aside the issue of horses)?
--For scouting purposes or also in battle?
--Did the calvary fight with swords or lances?
--Did they use stirrups on their saddles?
--Did they have saddles?
--Did they take multiple horses on campaign (in case any died?)


and so on and so forth-I got a million questions about the military aspects of the Book of Mormon alone.

Does anyone know of any writings that focus on the military aspects (logistics/numbers/casualties) of the Book of Mormon?

[_Abinadi's Fire]

The implications of this verse, when seen in light of some other verses in the book, has troubled me for quite some time:

Ether 8:7 And now Jared became exceedingly sorrowful because of the loss of the kingdom, for he had set his heart upon the kingdom and upon the glory of the world.

It's more creepy than odd, though.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Most of the casualties in this type of warfare occured after the one side started retreating, and the winning side killed or injured the retreaters, many of them in the back.

This is mostly true.

Some battles did occur in the ancient world where mass slaughter occurred during the battle proper. (For examples look at Roman vs Gallic battles where the Gauls thought that it was dishonorable to leave a field of defeat alive, so they would continue frontal attacks and die against the veteran Romans until many tens of thousands were dead--they eventually learned to live to fight another day.)

[_Doctor Steuss]

The thing I find the most odd about its content is how so few people, who either believe in it or criticize it, have actually read it.

I have come to the conclusion that the content is magical and can bring about strong opinions (pro or con) without ever being read.