LDS II: The Mormons

[halleyscomet]

Have a scone for breakfast to honor the "True Scotsman" concept!
But I do agree that Skyrider44's amd Janadele's arguments haven't been helping the LDS cause any. It would be nice to at least be able to consider better responses to the questions that have been asked, if these hypothetic responses exist.

I had to do the research myself, but I found, for example, that Mormon apologists write off the references to "Steel" as being a reference to something "strengthened" made of bronze. Since "To steel" something was a phrase for strengthening something used in Smith's lifetime, and the KJV makes the error of translating reference to copper and bronze as steel, that argument has some legitimacy to it.

So why would God dictate "bronze" as "steel" when telling Smith what the plates meant? Why not? The KJV was the dominant English language translation so making the BoM familiar to KJV readers would be a wise move to encourage converts.

Crikey. I'm doing a better job defending the Book of Mormon than SkyRider44 ever did, and I'm firmly convinced it's a crock of bovine excrement. Oh well, if we're all "really" serving God if we know it or not, then perhaps I CHOSE to be born into a life that would result in me being skeptical so I could deliberately and methodically examine and challenge the arguments about the BoM. I set myself up to become the next great Mormon apologist coming to it by means of a firm conviction that Smith was a sexual predator and con man!



Clearly, Jesus and I did some complex plotting in my pre-existence.

(What a scheming Jesus might look like)

 

[JaysonR]

I had to do the research myself, but I found, for example, that Mormon apologists write off the references to "Steel" as being a reference to something "strengthened" made of bronze. Since "To steel" something was a phrase for strengthening something used in Smith's lifetime, and the KJV makes the error of translating reference to copper and bronze as steel, that argument has some legitimacy to it.

Unfortunately for the apologists, that doesn't help even if that were to be the intended meaning.

Firstly, until roughly no earlier than 900 CE (and that's being generous) mixing of metals was practically non-existent. All work was pretty much done with what came out of the ground.
Secondly, even the metal work that did begin during this period did not accomplish a caliber one could cite as employing "strengthening" - they were focused on color; to the point of overly valuing arsenic for its impact upon brightening metals.
The most common metal to be mixed with another was tin; not exactly a metal picked for strength, but is picked for its amplification in aesthetics and brightening.
Thirdly, swords are simply not a weapon found - unless we start sliding around what that term means as well to odd manners, and if we do that then we're basically throwing out the description in the text almost entirely.

And Fourthly, this is the best one in my opinion:
"to steel" something was not an idiom in 19th century America referring to "strengthening" something.

The reason why is that makes little sense at all to a Smith.
Steel isn't something you add to something to strengthen that other material.
Steel is made of Iron and Carbon and it is the Carbon which strengthens the Iron and produces what we call Steel - a strengthened bit of Iron via Carbon infusion.

Any local metal worker can tell you this - hell, a Jeweler can tell you this.
Just ask any random Jeweler if they could please strengthen your ring by adding steel and see what reaction they give you.

Steel is not like carbon or tin, or some easily manipulated raw mineral - it's not an additive with +5 Strength or some concept of that form.

The re-explanation is actually worse than the original text!
The original text could at least just hold that "we haven't found the evidence yet" or something of that kind, but the re-explanation produces even worse issues.

 

[slyjoe]

From the link:

Two posters on this forum(JREF/ISF) are claiming to be members of the LDS Church. I do not believe them. I have not created an account on the forums myself because I see no value in joining the debate there. It goes in circles, like arguing with a toddler. Skyrider44 and Janadele, whom many think are the same person with two different accounts, pretend to be there to answer questions about the LDS church and her tenants. When a questions is asked, they evade, refuse to answer or respond with insults. Instead of righteous anger at sin, they respond with egomaniac self importance. From their attitudes you would think they were claiming to have translated the golden plates themselves. The questions being asked by the atheists are good ones. They deserve answers. Skyrider44 and Janadele are not giving them. They are presenting the worst possible face of Christian faith. If they are not doing it intentionally, then Satan is manipulating fools to do it for him.

Looks like even the Mormons don't want Jan and Sky.

So, questions are sinful?

And, to get something useful out of this thread after many pages of nothing, what IS the difference between "mormon" and "LDS mormon"?

 

[tsig]

I had to do the research myself, but I found, for example, that Mormon apologists write off the references to "Steel" as being a reference to something "strengthened" made of bronze. Since "To steel" something was a phrase for strengthening something used in Smith's lifetime, and the KJV makes the error of translating reference to copper and bronze as steel, that argument has some legitimacy to it.
So why would God dictate "bronze" as "steel" when telling Smith what the plates meant? Why not? The KJV was the dominant English language translation so making the BoM familiar to KJV readers would be a wise move to encourage converts.

Crikey. I'm doing a better job defending the Book of Mormon than SkyRider44 ever did, and I'm firmly convinced it's a crock of bovine excrement. Oh well, if we're all "really" serving God if we know it or not, then perhaps I CHOSE to be born into a life that would result in me being skeptical so I could deliberately and methodically examine and challenge the arguments about the BoM. I set myself up to become the next great Mormon apologist coming to it by means of a firm conviction that Smith was a sexual predator and con man!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/636945249a68ea64ee.gif[/qimg]

Clearly, Jesus and I did some complex plotting in my pre-existence.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6369453469a1b1969c.jpg[/qimg](What a scheming Jesus might look like)

Not when you consider that Joe was not translating but reading the word from a piece of parchment that materialized in his hat.

We might consider that Joe just threw in a word when he didn't understand what he was reading but then god proofread it as it was being written down.

 

[JaysonR]

Slyjoe:
Mormon is a parent class with sub-divisions below it - the most common, or largest, is the LDS; which is different than Fundamentalist Mormon sects - which is why the LDS really stresses that their members specifically refer to their religion as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS for short, and not just "Mormon".

Note: This pedantic labeling isn't really needed as something around 99% of all Mormons are LDS so it is HIGHLY unlikely that anyone will be bumping into one of those other small sects that follow a different version of the doctrine (typically still following polygamy or some such - some it's about who was the rightful subsequent leader after Smith, etc... these are all incredibly localized and tiny - you kind of have to go looking for them to "bump" into them).
Mostly the want for distinction is media stigma; the LDS really wants to stay far away from any popular media image based off of the other smaller sects, especially those still practicing polygamy.
So the note about being "LDS" and not some other Mormon faction is not very needed practically in a layperson's interactions - it is more a press and media image issue that provokes the LDS administration to speak of this difference so much more than other divisions of Christianity bother with.

 

[slyjoe]

Thanks for the reply.

There are FLDS in Northern Arizona - Warren Jeffs' old stomping grounds before prison.

I guess where I am FLDS is used to distinguish the minority, and mormon generally refers to LDS.

 

[JaysonR]

Thanks for the reply.

There are FLDS in Northern Arizona - Warren Jeffs' old stomping grounds before prison.

I guess where I am FLDS is used to distinguish the minority, and mormon generally refers to LDS.

That makes sense.

 

[Pup]

And Fourthly, this is the best one in my opinion:
"to steel" something was not an idiom in 19th century America referring to "strengthening" something.

To be fair, I'd argue that it was, similarly to how we'd say today "he steeled himself for the onslaught" to mean "he braced himself..."

From Walker's Dictionary at http://books.google.com/books?pg=PT...MmYE-_msATw54HYBA&id=PzVWAAAAYAAJ&output=html "To steel v.a. To point or edge with steel: to make hard or firm."

The idea of pointing or edging with steel would seem to refer to the early 19th century practice of adding steel (literally) along the cutting edge of an axe, for example, while making the rest of cheaper, weaker iron. Here's a modern description of how to do it, the best I could find easily with illustrations.

The last part of the definition, though, would apparently be what the Mormon apologists are focusing on. Here's a random usage from the early 19th century, showing the metaphoric sense of "strengthened": http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA...MDEDKvnsAT46YDoBg&id=WC4QAAAAYAAJ&output=html

"These men whom nature had not sufficiently steeled to be above all the chances of fate and fortune, appeared shook, and lost their gaiety, and their good humour; and dreamed but of misfortunes and catastrophes;..."

Now, I actually agree that that's a pretty desperate interpretation, because the metaphoric usage hasn't changed between the early 19th century and today. (At least I'd easily understand the concept of "being steeled" or "steeling oneself" for something difficult--is that unusual for most modern people?). So in my opinion there's no magic code to read the words in an early 19th century context. Steel still means the same thing then as now, and if it doesn't immediately make sense as a metaphoric kind of strengthening in today's language, it wouldn't then either.

 

[JaysonR]

Right; which was my meaning that it was not a serviceable idiom - no one discussing actual metallurgy used the metaphorical personification of steel as an idiom for a process of metal work with other metals.

It's just not possible as the intention in the context of its use.

 

[halleyscomet]

Right; which was my meaning that it was not a serviceable idiom - no one discussing actual metallurgy used the metaphorical personification of steel as an idiom for a process of metal work with other metals.

It's just not possible as the intention in the context of its use.

I'll pass this along to the Mormon in question. I look forward to his response.

 

[Pup]

Halleyscomet, I'm also very curious what he says.

What causes the biggest problem is that the usage of the word is as a noun. If it was something like Nephi's bow was steeled to make it stronger than any other, I'd be arguing right along with the apologists that it might not be referring to the metal steel.

But here are the six references to steel in the Book of Mormon, according to lds.org's search engine. All of them use steel as a noun. Nephi 5:15 includes steel right along with other metals, as does Jarom 1:18. There's just no logical reason steel would be metaphoric for a strengthening process but those other metals wouldn't be.

Nephi 16:18
18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

1 Nephi 4:9
9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

2 Nephi 5:15
15 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.

Ether 7:9
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.

Jarom 1:8
8 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.

 

[JaysonR]

Pup,

Exactly!
All uses are in application of metal works, not metaphores of metal properties to non-metal subjects.

Further, 1 Nephi 4:9, specifically, is technically a critical issue for accuracy, as that is clearly a sword and only a sword. "Blade" is described separate from "hilt".
No one can propose this describes macuahuitls.

Also...there is an error of absence as well, for no weapons are discussed as being made of obsidian or chert; common material used to make the teeth and cutting edges on weapons in the region.

 

[Pup]

But here are the six references to steel in the Book of Mormon...

Did you know that in the Book of Mormon, six is actually five? LOL!

It's too late to edit, so I just wanted to note that that was my mistake, and none of my references was missing. There were actually only five, not six, hits for "steel" at lds.org.

 

[Craig4]

I'm having a really hard time coming up with an explanation for the steel that does not mean literal steel. Maybe I could see one reference to the bow, but the full discussion of a bow made of steel and a sword with a gold hilt and steel blade seems to mean a literal steel blade. Yeah, not much help for the apologists there.

 

[bruto]

So basically, the Mormon apologists are saying that when they speak of silver, gold, brass, iron, copper and steel, they are talking about a metal, a metal, a metal, a metal, and a metaphor. Of course. What else could they possibly have meant?

 

[Slowvehicle]

So basically, the Mormon apologists are saying that when they speak of silver, gold, brass, iron, copper and steel, they are talking about a metal, a metal, a metal, a metal, and a metaphor. Of course. What else could they possibly have meant?

A metal, a metal, a metal, a metal, and a tapir?

 

[bruto]

A metal, a metal, a metal, a metal, and a tapir?

Well, when you need precision measurement, nothing will do but a steel tapir.

 

[Craig4]

Well, when you need precision measurement, nothing will do but a steel tapir.

I suspect that most properly constructed tapirs will resist being steeled.

 

[halleyscomet]

So basically, the Mormon apologists are saying that when they speak of silver, gold, brass, iron, copper and steel, they are talking about a metal, a metal, a metal, a metal, and a metaphor. Of course. What else could they possibly have meant?

No, no, no.

The BoM is referring to a vague metal, a vague metal, a vague metal, a vague metal, a vague metal, and a process by which wood is reinforced with bands of a vague metal.

BoM to modern translator:

Silver: A shiny metal colored metal
Gold: A dull yellow metal (Probably actual gold, because we know the Aztecs mined it and the Spanish killed them off for it)
Brass: A shiny yellow metal (Probably polished copper, or copper contaminated with another substance that made it shiny)
Iron: A dull metal colored metal (Probably actual iron)
Copper: A dull reddish metal (Probably actual copper)
Steel: Wood or other material reinforced with bands of a vague metal

 

[halleyscomet]

I heard back from the FLDS Mormon about our recent discussion regarding "steel." To recap: He's taken a melange of the apologetic on this topic, including my own ramblings, and used it as the basis for a booklet he plans to publish. He gave the rough draft of the booklet a trial run as a sermon this past Sunday. I've emailed him about our recent debunking of the "'Steel' just means 'reinforced'" claim. Below is his reply:

The sermon was well received. The arguments are compelling to the faithful but I can see gentiles still have objections, as they always do. Thank you for telling me about these arguments. My book is not a work of evangelism but one of study. It is written for the faithful. I will withhold publication until I am satisfied I have a response satisfactory to Mormon ears. I do not expect to have an answer that will sway a "skeptic" as by their very nature their hearts are closed. I must, however, forewarn the faithful of their arguments and give them the shield necessary with which to defend their souls.

I see this as conceding the Mormon apologetic defending the BoM mentions of "steel" as bovine excrement, while expressing the need to extract more bovine excrement to slather on our recent discussion.