tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post112736037771845155..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: King Benjamin's Speech and Parallels to Ancient Farewell AddressesJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127627839775349852005-09-25T00:57:00.000-05:002005-09-25T00:57:00.000-05:00BYU Gestapo: "About the sword thing, why are you ...<I>BYU Gestapo: "About the sword thing, why are you comfortable with an ambigious translation? You are all arguing that we are NOT talking about swords here, so why is okay for them to be called swords?</I><BR/><BR/><I>I'm</I> not arguing that we're not talking about swords here, and I'm not contending that the translation is "ambiguous."<BR/><BR/>The Spaniards called Aztec <I>macuahuitls</I> "swords." The Spanish conquistadores saw Aztec warriors sever horses' heads from their bodies with a single swipe of Aztec <I>macahuitls</I> -- or so their chronicles claim, and I have no reason to disbelieve them -- and saw their friends cut in half by them. It seems to me that the conquistadores, who hadn't merely seen swords in movies like <I>The Princess Bride</I> but actually used swords for a living and relied upon swords to preserve their lives and came from a country famous for its manufacture of swords (e.g., Toledo blades), speak with a certain degree of authority on the question of whether pre-Columbian Indians had "swords."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127617399872409482005-09-24T22:03:00.000-05:002005-09-24T22:03:00.000-05:00Lucy Mack Smith is well regarded by historians bot...Lucy Mack Smith is well regarded by historians both of the faithful and non-faithful categories as being very consistent in her version of history.<BR/><BR/>She has been corroborated many times in what she has said, and among all the people involved in Mormon history, she is one of the most accurate.<BR/><BR/>I'll quote her exactly, she says, "[Joseph] would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them."<BR/><BR/>Joseph obviously displayed vivid knowlege of the culture and the life behind the Book of Mormon. <BR/><BR/>Also, if you think you can discredit Mother Smith, I submit that you'll have a hard time of it. <BR/><BR/>An article in the Ensign titled "Lucy Mack Smith: Woman of Great Faith" says the following: "Her History of Joseph Smith relates not only brief biographies of her parents, brothers, and sisters, as well as the Prophet and her own family, but it is also an exciting, witty, poignant, and spiritually thrilling literary gem, shining in the dusty archives of history."<BR/><BR/>When I took Church History Ronald Esplin at BYU he extolled Lucy Mack Smith for her reliable history. At the time at least, he was the chairman for the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History. <BR/><BR/>You don't get more "PRO" than that.<BR/><BR/>About the sword thing, why are you comfortable with an ambigious translation? You are all arguing that we are NOT talking about swords here, so why is okay for them to be called swords?<BR/><BR/>Honestly it matters little to the larger picture of Mormonism, but I don't see why it's okay to accept ambiguity as a defense against what people have to say about the BOM.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127613045026695982005-09-24T20:50:00.000-05:002005-09-24T20:50:00.000-05:00Where did Joseph claim to have intimate knowledge ...Where did Joseph claim to have intimate knowledge of Nephite life? Apart from his mother's much later statement that he told a lot of stories about ancient Americans, I'm not aware of any reason to believe that he knew many details. And what's wrong with calling sharp sword-like weapons "swords"? The Spaniards did that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127605426466882992005-09-24T18:43:00.000-05:002005-09-24T18:43:00.000-05:00BYU Gestapo: "About the battlefield archeology, t...<I>BYU Gestapo: "About the battlefield archeology, that there is no battlefield yet found to study is the whole point. The premise of my argument was that if the Nephites existed you would find the evidence."</I><BR/><BR/>And my point, in turn, was that the Zapotecs, the Olmecs, the Maya, the Toltecs, and the Aztecs indisputably <I>did</I> exist, yet there is, to the best of my knowledge, no battlefield archaeology for them and no direct evidence of the major battles to which their chronicles refer.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU Gestapo: "I do not believe they did, so your characterization indeed illustrates what I think is the truth of the matter."</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. And the truth of the matter is this: Great civilizations have indisputably existed and have beyond question fought major battles, yet their battlefields remain unknown.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU Gestapo: "There isn't much about mesoamerican warfare written compared to other subjects to be frank.</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely as I said.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU Gestapo: "So if anyone has read Hassig's work I'd love to hear your take on it and what light it might shed on what we know about MesoAmerican warfare thus far."</I><BR/><BR/>It's a very good book. And, as it happens, (unless I'm mistaken) it's referenced fairly frequently in the FARMS volume <I>Warfare in the Book of Mormon</I>, edited by Stephen Ricks and a historian of premodern warfare by the name of William Hamblin.<BR/><BR/><I>Why didn't he introduce new vocabulary if the word sword was inadequate?</I><BR/><BR/>Who says that the word <I>sword</I> was "inadequate"? The Spanish conquistadores, professional swordsmen who actually fought against <I>macuahuitl</I>-wielding Indians, called the <I>macuahuitl</I> a sword.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127599411237457622005-09-24T17:03:00.000-05:002005-09-24T17:03:00.000-05:00Daniel Peterson said: But, as I say, I'm not a spe...<I> Daniel Peterson said: But, as I say, I'm not a specialist. Perhaps there is an entire subdiscipline of Mesoamerican military history and battlefield studies of which I'm unaware. Perhaps BYU Gestapo can direct me to the relevant literature.</I><BR/><BR/>But as I say, nor am I. But I have tried to search the literature. <BR/><BR/>About the battlefield archeology, that there is no battlefield yet found to study is the whole point. The premise of my argument was that <I>if</I> the Nephites existed you would find the evidence. I do not believe they did, so your characterization indeed illustrates what I think is the truth of the matter.<BR/><BR/>There isn't much about mesoamerican warfare written compared to other subjects to be frank. <BR/><BR/>But from what I've read things operated more like competition between multiple city/states, not the putative, simpler, two sided version that prevailed before the final Nephite battle. This would make more sense if you were not finding singularly massive battlefield sites.<BR/><BR/>A book that has been recommended to me, but that I have yet to read is: "War and Society in Ancient MesoAmerica," by Ross Hassig. I've read somewhat superficially the ideas he presents, I know that he focuses a lot on the military strategies used, how transportation and logistics played a role in strategy, as well as the cultural motivations for sacrificing captives to name a few. He argues against religion being the primary motive for warfare for example. <BR/><BR/>I don't know of anyone who has a copy, and I'm not willing to drop $50.00 bucks yet...hehe.<BR/><BR/>So if anyone has read Hassig's work I'd love to hear your take on it and what light it might shed on what we know about MesoAmerican warfare thus far.<BR/><BR/>To Cory:<BR/><BR/>I have to agree with Jeff's argument that common themes run all across literature, regardless of culture. Indeed, at our core, we are all human and have very similar life experiences. The literature reflects that. <BR/><BR/>I do believe other literature such as "View of the Hebrews" did contribute thematic elements to the Book of Mormon, but those commonalities are more obvious and IMO more important than the sword issue.<BR/><BR/>What you should really be asking is, why couldn't Joseph describe what he saw better? He claimed to have intimate knowledge of Nephite life. He would tell his family stories of their cites and culture in great deal according to his mother. He would have seen the "swords" we're talking about. <BR/><BR/>Why didn't he introduce new vocabulary if the word sword was inadequate? He spoke of Cumoms and cureloms, why didn't he say, "macuahuitl" and tell his family it resembled a cudgle with stone flakes? <BR/><BR/>It's the inconsistency that get's me. Was the BOM translated by our all powerful God or not? If it was, we shouldn't have to make so many excuses for the weakness of the translation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127597073168443892005-09-24T16:24:00.000-05:002005-09-24T16:24:00.000-05:00Corey, my man, chill out. I have read Homer. Many ...Corey, my man, chill out. I have read Homer. Many of us have. What's up with this "Heaven forfend that you would actually read the books. Looks like the extent of your scholarship is limited to what a key word searches... again, disapointing"? <BR/><BR/>As for the search, I was addressing a specific issue that demanded a search. You made the claim that there are many references to blood-stained swords in Homer's writings. I didn't recall such references - it's been a while since I read Homer, I'll admit - so to quickly ascertain the validity of your claim, I did a search of the full text. Not just "key words" from the Internet, but a full-text search of the actual words in the books. And guess what? You're wrong. Completely wrong, as far as I can tell. Can you provide any support from alternate translations to conjure up blood-stained swords in Homer as a source for Alma 24? I may be the one who is wrong due to a faulty search of something, so I await your evidence from Homer.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, it seems like searching for the alleged phrases or words to determine if they are actually in Homer is pretty sound scholarship. What am I missing? Your response to my simple inquiry seems rather ad hominem, but you're welcome to provide some documentation from Homer that I perhaps missed. Bring on the scholarship, my man! <BR/><BR/>Of course there are parallels between Homer and the Book of Mormon - ditto for the Bible, Joyce's Ulysses, Huckleberry Finn, Tale of Two Cities, the Bhagavad Gita, and several of Kafka's works (I used to be a Kafka addict, but am over that, fortunately - I think Joyce's absurd Finnegan's Wake helped me be a little more skeptical about the philosophical value of some great writers whom I still may enjoy). Great literature, whether fictional or historical, abounds in parallels and common themes. It's part of life, part of humanity. It doesn't mean that every writer has been plagiarizing other writers all along. <BR/><BR/>I've read all those works and many more without having to shelter my faith from the great literature of the world. Frankly, the strongest parallels I've seen between the Book of Mormon and any non-scriptural work is with Whitman's Leaves of Grass, as I've documented at length. But since Whitman's works came after 1830, it simply illustrates how easy it is for parallels to be found without pointing to derivation. <BR/><BR/>To claim that the Book of Mormon is somehow derived from Homer overlooks the nature of parallels in literature. It's not your original hypothesis - I forget who first threw that out to the anti-community, perhaps the Tanners? - but it suggests that its inventor may not have read the Book of Mormon, at least not carefully, certainly not seriously. I bet you have read Homer, but I still don't know where you got the blood-stained sword passages - they don't seem to be in Homer after all.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127587609146287212005-09-24T13:46:00.000-05:002005-09-24T13:46:00.000-05:00I find it quite interesting that Homer's work is b...I find it quite interesting that Homer's work is being compared to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has the stance that it is a true record of actual people that actually lived on the earth. The Iliad is a fictional book written by Homer which he never claimed was a record of true events. It's a fictional book being compared to a non-fiction book. This is not an apples-to-apples comparison.<BR/><BR/>Second, I was one who believed that you (Cory) were a true seeker of truth with real questions. I even felt bad for the type of responses you got from others in this blog. I thought you may have been <I>influenced</I> by anti-mormon literature which caused you to ask the questions to know the answers, but I didn't think you were really against the Church. In my opinion, your last post revealed your true beliefs and intentions when you said, "When Joseph Smith concocted the grand malarcky..." This is not the type of statement that would come from a sincere seeker of truth or one sincerely investigating the Church. It was a well-formed and calloused statement of belief. In this light, it sounds a bit like a wolf in sheep clothing.<BR/><BR/>For me, if I think that something is completely false like you do Joseph Smith, the BofM, and the Church, I just leave it alone and seek after what I know to be true. The LDS Church teaches us to have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost and remain worthy of it, be married for eternity and treat our relationships in similar light, give to the poor, search after our ancestors, pay our way as missionaries to take truth to others, etc. None of these things are evil or have bad intentions. The scriptures teach that contention is of the devil. Even if you void the Book of Mormon and only believe in the Bible, this teaching is still found and valid. Since you believe this teaching of Christ, I question whose motives you are carrying out.<BR/><BR/>Last of all, I too have read the Iliad and the Book of Mormon and find no similarities between the two. Sure, there are people in both, some wars, etc., but if you say that the Book of Mormon was influenced by the Iliad, you've obviously never read the Book of Mormon or the Iliad. You’ve merely read an anti-mormon attack that sounded good and used it as your own ammunition. I fear that too many of us look to others for answers and completely neglect our own ability to receive divine answers from God. If we were to spend as much time reading the scriptures and praying with real intent to know the truth, we would be truly taught from above. The most repeated promise in the scriptures is to ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened. I think if the Lord tells us this over and over again, He really means it. Again, while others may help us learn, let us not neglect our own right to answers through the Spirit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127584256785199852005-09-24T12:50:00.000-05:002005-09-24T12:50:00.000-05:00Having just read "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" (bo...Having just read "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" (both translated by Samuel Butler), I looked at my paper copies and did a keyword search online. <BR/><BR/>Butler's translations do not contain any swords that are bloodstained. In the Iliad: armor, yes, fearful serpent, yes, "shapely thighs and your legs down to your fair ancles" yes, spoils, lots. But no swords that are stained. <BR/><BR/>In the Odyssey there are no stained anythings, spoils, armor, or swords. Swords and blood, yes, but not swords stained with blood.<BR/><BR/>What editions are you looking in? I wonder if there is some sort of difference in translation? <BR/><BR/>Here are online versions of The Iliad and The Odyssey<BR/>http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/iliad10.txt<BR/><BR/>http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/dyssy10.txt<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I'm also re-reading the Book of Mormon. I see very little influence between the works of Homer as translated by Butler and the Book of Mormon, but I shall certainly keep a sharp look out for them in my future readings.<BR/><BR/>Of course, Butler did his translation after Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon, perhaps Joseph was infulenced by a different translation? If so, I would be intrested in which one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127583032576252942005-09-24T12:30:00.000-05:002005-09-24T12:30:00.000-05:00So it seems that, after all, "cb" (aka "Cory Brenn...So it seems that, after all, "cb" (aka "Cory Brenner") may well have been the fraud and poseur that some sensed he was from the beginning.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing wrong with doing a computer word search through the <I>Iliad</I> and the <I>Odyssey</I>, of course. Though such a search doesn't substitute for re-reading them, it's a heck of a lot quicker. And it doesn't mean that one hasn't read them, merely that one hasn't <I>memorized</I> them. I've read them, for example, several times, and substantial portions of them in Greek. But, off hand, I can't think of whether or not there are references in them (or in any translation of them) to stained swords. That wasn't a major focus of any of my readings, and I doubt that it would be a primary emphasis of <I>any</I> normal reader.<BR/><BR/>I wonder how recently cb/Cory/Andy/Chris has read the two epics, and how well he would do on an examination on their contents. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that he's simply regurgitating an argument that I've seen certain other anti-Mormons make on this matter. If cb/Cory/Andy/Chris will supply the specific book and line references, we can examine them.<BR/><BR/>How wearisomely familiar it all becomes.<BR/><BR/>There's one new thing, though: Is cb/Cory/Andy/Chris really suggesting that Joseph Smith was influenced by Homer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127581033871006372005-09-24T11:57:00.000-05:002005-09-24T11:57:00.000-05:00Heaven forfend that you would actually read the b...Heaven forfend that you would actually read the books. Looks like the extent of your scholarship is limited to what a key word searches... again, disapointing.<BR/><BR/>You want to do a keyword search on stains instead of reading the text? Can you imagine why I mentioned it? Thousands of people really believed every word of it. When Joseph Smith concocted the grand malarcky, he was equally influenced by the King James Bible and Homer... <BR/><BR/>I know why you may never read the Iliad or the Odyssey... it would mean that your faith in the BOM would be smashed because you would see the influence immediately. You can not miss it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127580980324297052005-09-24T11:56:00.000-05:002005-09-24T11:56:00.000-05:00BYU Gestapo: "There should be evidence of war all...<I>BYU Gestapo: "There should be evidence of war all throughout the territory were the Nephites resided."</I><BR/><BR/>Leaving aside the question of the Nephites, there should be evidence of war throughout the territory where the Olmecs, the Maya, the Toltecs, and the Aztecs resided. Nobody maintains that Mesoamerica was uninhabited before the Conquest -- there was a <I>Conquest</I>, after all, which suggests that somebody was conquered -- and, for decades now, nobody has seriously maintained that these societies were not warlike to an unusual degree. (Archaeologists once actually thought of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica as a kind of agrarian Quaker commune; they were literally overlooking massive quantities of evidence to the contrary.)<BR/><BR/>I'm not a Mesoamericanist, but I'm unaware of any archaeological study of <I>any</I> battlefield in pre-Columbian America -- Nephite, Toltec, Maya, Aztec, Zapotec, or other -- nor even an <I>identification</I> of such a battlefield. Yet there is evidence (in artistic representations and in a relative few artifacts) of weapons, and considerable glyphic and circumstantial evidence for frequent extraordinarily violent and bloody wars. (See, for example, Linda Schele, Mary Ellen Miller, and Justin Miller, <I>The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art</I>.)<BR/><BR/>But, as I say, I'm not a specialist. Perhaps there is an entire subdiscipline of Mesoamerican military history and battlefield studies of which I'm unaware. Perhaps BYU Gestapo can direct me to the relevant literature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127576561106541762005-09-24T10:42:00.000-05:002005-09-24T10:42:00.000-05:00One more thing: Corey challenged a minor point abo...One more thing: Corey challenged a minor point about swords in the Book of Mormon. The issue deals with the possible relationship between the reference to swords "stained" with blood in Alma 24 (when converted Lamanites bury their swords) and Mesoamerican swords with wooden shafts and obsidian blades, with wood being easily stained with blood, whereas metal swords aren't likely to stain. Corey stated that the Iliad and Odyssey have abundant references to blood-stained swords (of metal). It's a trivial issue, but when I went to <A HREF="http://www.online-literature.com/homer/iliad/" REL="nofollow">an online search engine for the Iliad</A> and searched for the term "stain", I found references to blood-stained dust, blood-stained bodies, and blood-stained bounty, but not blood-stained swords. Turning to the Odyssey, the word "stain" does not have any hits at all using the <A HREF="http://www.online-literature.com/homer/odyssey/" REL="nofollow">full-text search engine</A> for it. I also looked at hits for "sword" and saw nothing that corresponded with blood-stained swords. Now the term "blood-stained swords" is a popular one and it certainly could have come from other sources. I'm just puzzled over the reference to Homer, though I suppose it has been a popular "source" to explain away the epic nature of the Book of Mormon.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127570490569257982005-09-24T09:01:00.000-05:002005-09-24T09:01:00.000-05:00Unstable and untrue accusations about my intention...Unstable and untrue accusations about my intentions, character and fiction about my history aside... this part of the conversation was the most illuminating. <BR/><BR/>The silliest thing I read was of course: "[God might] alter someone's DNA and cause objects to disintegrate into atoms or dissipate entirely."<BR/><BR/>And he would do this because...??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127546101930287732005-09-24T02:15:00.000-05:002005-09-24T02:15:00.000-05:00Final note, and then off to bed for me... hehe.The...Final note, and then off to bed for me... hehe.<BR/><BR/>The "point" of the sword is relevant because the <I>macuahuitl </I>, as they are depicted by the drawings the descriptions of the Spanish don't have points. Small thing, I totally concede, but all of us here have argued over smaller... :PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127545858749013702005-09-24T02:10:00.000-05:002005-09-24T02:10:00.000-05:00I'm not confusing the two battles. I know the Jar...I'm not confusing the two battles. I know the Jaredite battle description says things like, "thousands fell by the sword," and "And it came to pass that when they had all fallen by the sword," but that isn't what I was referring to.<BR/><BR/>I'm just speaking to the size of the NEPHITE/LAMANITE battle by the hill "Cumorah" (ie; Mormon 6)and that it's size alone would make it unreasonable for us to find no evidence. <BR/><BR/>A big caveat that I fully recognize is that no one would know exactly where to start looking. <BR/><BR/>But with a battle that large, and if you adhere to the Meso-American geography concept, I find it unreasonable that we haven't found even hints of an event like that.<BR/><BR/>Also remember that before Cumorah there are many other battles alluded to, "[the Nephites] began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun." <BR/><BR/>So it is also fair to say we wouldn't be confined to one hill, or a particular location. There should be evidence of war all throughout the territory were the Nephites resided.<BR/><BR/>As far as the "after battle party" I'm hard pressed to believe that "scavenging" is enough to remove all trace of what happened. <BR/><BR/>The Lamanites would have already had their own weapons to carry, so unless the Nephites had better weapons, they wouldn't have had much motive. Gold, money, jewels etc... of course would be targets. <BR/><BR/>But if you're a footman, are you going to lay on a superflous 10-20 lb weapon on your back? I sure wouldn't. Doesn't matter if it was obsidian or steel, both are going to be relatively heavy. Think of carrying around multiple flakes of thick glass on a club.<BR/><BR/><BR/>It's true, that over time others who came to the scene might have more interest, I totally agree with that. But with hundreds of thousands of people you're not going to get everything.<BR/><BR/>In addition, and this is a point I haven't really touched thus far, what about the bodies? Were they ALL burned? Buried? Who is going to touch bones, or decaying flesh? <BR/><BR/>I would submit, that it would be very difficult indeed to remove all trace of hundreds and thousands of bodies. Besides, what motivation would exist to do so in the first place?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>One last note to Dr. Peterson, it's interesting that you brought Obsidian, it made me remember a technique I had read about; Obsidian Hydration dating. Its a specialized technique that relies on the absorption of water into the surface of the obsidian after its been flaked. <BR/><BR/>Not only does it accurately pinpoint time, but it also indicates conditions of climate such as humidity (obviously), as well as a geochemical analysis generally can show the source of the Obsidian.<BR/><BR/>Has anyone thought to pinpoint the locations were these <I>macuahuitl </I> were made and perhaps connect those areas with Nephite territory?<BR/><BR/>That's really not a loaded question at all, I think it'd be an interesting bit of research.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127543766440761292005-09-24T01:36:00.000-05:002005-09-24T01:36:00.000-05:00Actually, there were 23 "ten thousands" on the Nep...Actually, there were 23 "ten thousands" on the Nephite side at the final battle.<BR/><BR/>So how many people really fought and died in those units?<BR/><BR/>I don't know. Nor do you.<BR/><BR/>Ideally, a quorum of deacons contains twelve deacons, a quorum of teachers contains twenty-four teachers, a quorum of priests contains forty-eight priests, and a quorum of elders contains ninety-six elders (Doctrine and Covenants 107:85-89). Yet I've never, to my knowledge, lived in or visited a ward that had such numbers.<BR/><BR/>A U.S. Army division, I'm told, can be as small as about 4,000 or as large as about 15,000. A Roman centurion commanded a "century" of soldiers, which means "one hundred." But, as I recall, a "century" was seldom actually at full strength or anywhere near full strength.<BR/><BR/>The "ten thousands" referred to by the Book of Mormon may have actually been ten thousand in strength or, if precedent holds, they could have been as small as fourth to a third of that. One can even easily imagine a commander wishing his enemy to believe that each claimed "ten thousand" was actually ten thousand when in fact it was much smaller, for the sake of "psychological warfare" (much the way various animals seek to make themselves look larger when confronted by a predator or a rival).<BR/><BR/>Which means that the final battle might have involved 230,000 troops -- surely all available men of even remotely military age, in a final battle to the death -- or it may have involved somewhere around 60,000.<BR/><BR/>Still a very large battle, but not as big as some might picture it.<BR/><BR/>It's possible, of course, that all the Nephite swords, or at least a substantial proportion of them, were metal. But I know of no reason to believe that. A report from very early history, about swords prepared by a person with demonstrated metallurgical skill for a small group of kinsmen, doesn't go very far toward demonstrating mass production of such swords several centuries later. And even in the case of the scalping of Zerahemnah (Alma 44:12-15), it isn't at all clear to me how the act of laying something upon the point of the weapon demonstrates that the weapon was made of metal or looked like a Hollywood sword. But even if we were to assume precisely that, the fact that the soldier who used the weapon was in such close proximity to a parlay between the supreme Nephite commander and the supreme Lamanite commander suggests that he was likely a person of elite status (possibly akin), so that his sword might have been atypical.<BR/><BR/>We simply aren't in a position to answer such questions. Shaky ground upon which to reject the Book of Mormon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127541907988055012005-09-24T01:05:00.000-05:002005-09-24T01:05:00.000-05:00(continued)And since the final Nephite-Lamanite ba...(continued)<BR/><BR/>And since the final Nephite-Lamanite battle <I>did</I> have a decisive winner, they could immediately scavenge the battlefield for all enemy weapons.<BR/><BR/>It's only been 142 years since the battle of Gettysburg. It's been 2600 years since the Jaredite battle, and 1600 since the final Nephite-Lamanite battle. Plenty of time for things to be scavenged, buried over time, or decomposed.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127541551850444412005-09-24T00:59:00.000-05:002005-09-24T00:59:00.000-05:00BYU, Aren't you still conflating the two big bat...BYU,<BR/> Aren't you still conflating the two big battles?<BR/><BR/> It was the final Jaredite battle, circa 600 BC, that supposedly had the "steel" swords. And the reasoning goes that since everyone but one was killed, then everyone else's swords should have remained in the field. <BR/><BR/> However, that left another 1000 years of Nephite-Lamanite history (600 BC until 400 AD) for the Jaredite battle remains to be scavenged, and another 1100 years (400 AD to 1500 AD) before white Europeans arrived on the scene.<BR/><BR/> I don't think the final Nephite versus Lamanite battle specifically mentioned <I>steel</I> swords. There's nothing in the Book of Mormon dictating that we accept that Mormon/Moroni's battle was conducted with steel swords.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127540827999055142005-09-24T00:47:00.000-05:002005-09-24T00:47:00.000-05:00Whoops, I meant to write "Gidgiddonah, Lamah, Gilg...Whoops, I meant to write "Gidgiddonah, Lamah, Gilgal" in that last paragraph... it must be past my bedtime...lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127539126073504592005-09-24T00:18:00.000-05:002005-09-24T00:18:00.000-05:00It kind of makes you wonder why they're called "Cl...<I>It kind of makes you wonder why they're called "Clovis points," doesn't it? Named after a particular town in New Mexico? Maybe it's an advertising gimmick.</I><BR/><BR/>That could actually make sense because you also have "Folsom [New Mexico] points" and "Plano (Texas?) Points." <BR/><BR/>The Southwest regions must be competing for sure... :P <BR/><BR/>Of course Clovis points are found all over North America, not just in New Mexico. They have been found even as far south as Panama.<BR/><BR/>(***Note*** I use Plano liberally there in jest, there isn't an connection to Plano Texas, it's to describe Plain dwelling peoples mostly located in what's now Minnesota if I'm not mistaken.)<BR/><BR/>To me the "blades of Obsidian" hypothesis is inadequate because the BOM speaks of Laban's sword having a sheath at least, which was said to be the pattern at for swords at least in the beginning, as well as the scalping incident mentioned and that scalp being put on a "point." <BR/><BR/>I know those are arguments you've heard before Dr. Peterson, but I still align myself to the belief that what's being described is the more commonly envisioned design for a sword.<BR/><BR/>Besides, whether there are swords, scimitars, Clovis points on sticks... :P Cory's question is why don't we see any indication yet of a battle on the scale the BOM describes. <BR/><BR/>Also, I don't believe the text gives us any reason to believe that metal didn't make up a signifigant portion of the weapons used. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure we can all agree that they had a form of metallurgy technology back even to Nephi. I mean, the plates WERE golden right? Even if the metallic items used contributed to only 10% of the weaponry, it would be very signifigant.<BR/><BR/>I DO give you that since we don't know the exact location it's conceivable that a site like that could still be found.<BR/><BR/>But considering the extent of research done in Meso-America, if that is the location of the Book of Mormon, a battle of that size surely couldn't have been missed at this point. <BR/><BR/>Jeff, I know you argue the opposite. Perhaps LDS oriented studies are sparse, but anyone in the field would certainly be interested in a find like that, regardless of the interpretation of what it meant.<BR/><BR/>Also Jeff, I wanted to bring up a couple of things about what you said: <I>" Tens of thousands were killed in the Nephite battle"</I><BR/><BR/>The point may be moot despite the exact number, as long as we agree the number was large, but like you said, we need to <I>"Make sure you're testing a reasonable hypothesis based on the actual text."</I><BR/><BR/>Mormon describes himself and his ten thousand as well as other captains and their ten thousand. Gidgiddonah, Gidgiddonah, Gilgal and on to 21 total including Mormon's group. That's 210,000 just on the Nephite side. No number is mention for the Lamanites, but we can assume it was large, Mormon mentions that, "...every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers." Also the Lamanites won, so it's a safe assumption that they were larger than the Nephites.<BR/><BR/>Even the arrow that killed Zelph remained when Zion's camp found him. So whatever the weapons used, it's logical that we'd find something. (and yes...I have read the FARMS article on Zelph just to get that out of the way... :P)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127535396280151492005-09-23T23:16:00.000-05:002005-09-23T23:16:00.000-05:00BYU Gestapo: "Spread throughout America are finds...<I>BYU Gestapo: "Spread throughout America are finds of what are called 'Clovis Points,' a particular design of stone spearhead that dates back past 10,000 ago."</I><BR/><BR/>It kind of makes you wonder why they're called "<I>Clovis</I> points," doesn't it? Named after a particular town in New Mexico? Maybe it's an advertising gimmick.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU Gestapo: "Those are found in abundance. It shouldn't be hard to find swords."</I><BR/><BR/>That depends. If you insist on these swords being exactly like the ones you've seen in the movies, none have been found. On the other hand, if they're like the swords that the professional swordsmen known as the Conquistadors encountered and described, made out of wood, with blades of obsidian, they were widely reported but tend not to survive in a very wet climate. It depends upon your expectations.<BR/><BR/><I>BYU Gestapo: "everyone thought they 'had me pinned' when someone from a different blog (named Brenden McPherson)posted some comments of mine without crediting me. The posters here immediately jumped on it and accused me of misrepresentation." </I><BR/><BR/>On perfectly reasonable grounds, it must be said. The inference was logically justifiable, though it turned out that one of its premises was false.<BR/><BR/> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127534603392697152005-09-23T23:03:00.000-05:002005-09-23T23:03:00.000-05:00Thanks, BYU Gestapo, for your comments and analysi...Thanks, BYU Gestapo, for your comments and analysis, and the helpful tone. I think there is a risk that we can mistake identities and judge incorrectly, and I'm sorry if someone really looking for answers has been offended by my comments and by the comments of others. We aren't trying to shout down questions, but sometimes we do have to distinguish between sincere and insincere queries - dealing with the latter can just be a futile exercise. <BR/><BR/>So if Corey is a real member confused over the great Nephite battle, let me make a couple minor comments. Some of Corey's description appears to be confusing the much earlier Jaredite civil war with the Nephite battle. Tens of thousands were killed in the Nephite battle, possibly in Veracruz State in Mexico, where the large hill named Vigia is a popular and plausible canidate for ancient Cumorah. If a battle did occur there with ancient clubs and wooden swords and other weapons, what should we find there now? Can we frame a reasonable hypothesis and test it? Based on benchmarking from other known battle sites of that era, and considering the possibilities of ancient looting of the dead (recycling weapons), etc., how many obsidian blades should we expect to find per acre? How many tooth or bone remnants? <BR/><BR/>I'm all for doing extensive testing of the Vigia hypothesis. But given the paucity of archaeological investigations in that region and Mesoamerica in general, it seems dangerous to leave the Church because the issue is unsettled. And it's also dangerous to leave because we can't find support for a mental image we might have of Roman-style armies clashing with stainless steel swords and leaving their imperishable metal weapons all over the ground as an obvious memorial to a great battle. <BR/><BR/>Make sure you're testing a reasonable hypothesis based on the actual text, not the paintings of Arnold Friberg that tend to color the imagination of many members of the Church. (But I love those paintings anyway! Wish I had arms like Nephi's.)<BR/><BR/>Corey, keep reading and studying.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127534220992804382005-09-23T22:57:00.000-05:002005-09-23T22:57:00.000-05:00BYU, I thought the steel sword thing has been ad...BYU,<BR/> <BR/> I thought the steel sword thing has been addressed. There are several possibilities:<BR/><BR/>1. "Steel" could be any <I>alloyed</I> metal, not necessarily carbonized iron, as per the dictionary of JS's day, and common King James usage.<BR/><BR/>2. "Steel" could also mean any <I>hardened metal</I>.<BR/><BR/>3. "Steel" could be iron taken from meteoric deposits, and then carbonized in a crude blacksmith shop.<BR/><BR/>4. Since the great Jaredite battle took place some time prior to 600 BC, there were about 2100 years from that time until the arrival of the Europeans for the steel swords to either disintegrate from rust or be picked up and gleaned and recycled into whatever by subsequent civilizations. What does happen to "carbonized iron" over a period of 2100 years?<BR/><BR/>5. It's been shown that the Olmecs did indeed have carbonized iron implements.<BR/><BR/>6. The Cumorah of the Jaredite battle might not be the same Cumorah of Mormon/Moroni's battle. Those swords might be buried under the jungle floor somewhere in Central or South America, if they haven't disintegrated between 600 BC and today.<BR/><BR/>7. They could have been buried or swallowed up by earthquakes during the "great upheavals" preceeding the Lord's death.<BR/><BR/>8. And my "pet theory", is since our God can create planets, raise the dead, heal the sick, part the sea, multiply loaves and fishes, and rise up from the dead himself, he certainly has the ability to alter someone's DNA and cause objects to disintegrate into atoms or dissipate entirely.<BR/><BR/>As others have said, accepting the Book of Mormon is a matter of faith and testimony. Physical evidence giving absolute proof of it is not required. Assuming the existance of a God who uses both small means and grand miracles to achieve his purposes (among which is to "confound the wise"), literally anything is possible. And people who seek faith don't have to let the lack of physical proof negate their faith.<BR/><BR/>The whole cycle of anti/pro LDS argument seems like this:<BR/><BR/>1. A doubter/accuser says: "Explain this!"<BR/><BR/>2. Farms/Fair/et al do one of 5 things:<BR/> a) Show that the accusation is a half truth, or taken out of context.<BR/> b) Show that the accusation is an outright lie.<BR/> c) Agree that the accusation is true, but show how it's a good thing, not a bad thing.<BR/> d) Agree that the accusation is true, that it was a bad thing, that it shouldn't have happened. But it was the fault, sin, mistake, error of that individual; and that either further light and knowledge has been received (line upon line, precept upon precept), or that steps have been taken to prevent the bad thing from happening again.<BR/> e) Illustrate that other evidence, not in consideration by the accusers, demonstrates plausibility or brings resolution to the conflict; or that a different interpretion of the scriptures can satisfy the accusation.<BR/><BR/>The pattern just keeps getting repeated. The new accusations and new responses keep following the pattern of all the old accusations/responses that have been put to bed, such as ancient writing on metal plates, barley, horses, etc. Just as all the old accusations have been answered to my satisfaction, I have <I>faith</I> that the new ones will too. <BR/><BR/>I like Jeff's answers on his FAQ and Book of Mormon Evidence pages. He links to good stuff, a lot from non-LDS sources.<BR/><BR/>The fact that you and others don't accept FARMS/FAIR/Lindsay/et al's responses doesn't bother me.<BR/><BR/>The fact that FARMS/FAIR/Lindsay/et al haven't yet addressed every nit-picking accusation does bother me either. I'm content to say "Gee, I don't know" every once in a while.<BR/><BR/>I don't know why, but Egyptologists have found ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt. No record of a Jospeh. No record of a Moses being a son or adopted son of a Pharoah. The Egyptians were fastidious record keepers but there's no record of the Hebrews being there or their leaving. Should we go around denouncing Judaism and Christianity over it?<BR/><BR/>The miraculous experiences and testimonies upon which I base my faith don't require me to know how to respond to every challenge.<BR/><BR/>There are four things that I mention in a previous comment that I should say I don't have faith in because I <I>know</I> them. But it's a subjective knowledge, it's not something I can put on a plate and serve to others. But that's the nature of spiritual matters. We can't detect, measure, or record them with physical devices as they are spiritually discerned.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I would suggest not requesting name-removal unless you intend on publicly working or widely speaking against the church. Something does happen upon name-removal and one tends to sink faster, at least I did. And unlike in the past, one gets only one rebaptism now.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127528251069768592005-09-23T21:17:00.000-05:002005-09-23T21:17:00.000-05:00Cory,It's too bad you've gotten the responses that...Cory,<BR/><BR/>It's too bad you've gotten the responses that you have. Frankly, nobody has yet given a good explanation to you IMO.<BR/><BR/>Spread throughout America are finds of what are called "Clovis Points," a particular design of stone spearhead that dates back past 10,000 ago. Those are found in abundance. It shouldn't be hard to find swords.<BR/><BR/>Also, to this day you can find lead balls on the field of Gettysburg, and that's just on the surface. My buddy brought me one back that he had found when he visited Pennsylvania some years ago.<BR/><BR/>Also, you should realize that your experience is not new. Somewhat like your situation, everyone thought they "had me pinned" when someone from a different blog (named Brenden McPherson)posted some comments of mine without crediting me. The posters here immediately jumped on it and accused me of misrepresentation. <BR/><BR/>You can read it for yourself on the "facing the Shotgun," topic.<BR/><BR/>I will say however, and I say this as one you should consider as an "exmo," your inquiry doesn't smack of a neophyte investigator. <BR/><BR/>At a minimum you've spent some time studying alternate takes on Mormonism. <BR/><BR/>It's no reason to go to all the fuss about you posting on the board. If it were me I'd answer your question and move on. But your question IMO has no good answer, at least not one thats going to be entertained in this forum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1127525983901866152005-09-23T20:39:00.000-05:002005-09-23T20:39:00.000-05:00Sorry jeff I didn't read the site that I just link...Sorry jeff I didn't read the site that I just linked to... YOu should delete my comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com