Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Nietzsche]

This thread is SOLELY about the historical claims put forth by the Mormon branch of Christianity. Not what kind of person Smith was, not whether he was a prophet or a charlatan, not about whether Mormonism is 'really' Christian, not Mormon theology regarding blacks or polygamy, not their metaphysical theology, ect. You wanna discuss those things, **** off to somewhere else, it is completely meaningless here. This is purely about Mormon claims regarding Mesoamerica, and the historical claims laid out in the Book of Mormon and the LDS church in general. What kind of person or such Smith was, Mormonism's place in Christianity and such are utterly irrelevant to that. I also don't want discussions on the plausibility of a boat built by ancient Hebrews making it around India, through the Singapore strait & Indonesia, and across one of the widest & most barren(as in without landmasses) parts of the Pacific Ocean.


So let's begin with Iron, specifically iron-working, as I feel this is without question the most important of them. The era the Book of Mormon claims Lehi was contemporary with is around 600BCE, specifically the reign of Zedekiah. This is not merely within the Iron Age. This is close to the end of the Iron Age in the Near-East. To put that into some perspective, it's only a hundred years(give or take) before the Battle of Thermopylae.

The first real use of iron as weapons was the Assyrians, who despite having been repeatedly thrashed by their neighbours, became nigh-invulnerable But it wasn't really iron. What they had managed to create(without realizing) was in fact steel. Iron itself isn't that much stronger than bronze, and it's far harder to work. But given how metalworking was done back then, each time the iron was melted down and reforged it got more & more carbon added into it, and once it passed the 2% threshold it became steel. And steel? Steel is orders of magnitude harder & stronger than bronze. However, for the sake of the thread, I will continue to refer to it as iron, as this is what contemporaries believed it to be.

Twenty men with iron(even if it's low-quality) weapons and armour can destroy a far, far larger force with relative ease, because the bronze weapons will break themselves against the iron. This allowed the Assyrians to conquer the whole of the Middle East. To give some perspective, I've made this quick map;

On the left is Assyria roughly in 1000BCE(roughly). On the right is the Assyrian Empire of 900BCE(roughly). The only change? They were now using iron. It simply cannot be overstated how overhwelmingly massive an advantage this gives a civilization.

Now, I think we've got a rough idea of how much a game-changer that iron is, so let's move on to contemporary Mesoamerica. There are roughly four societies we're interested in;

The Olmec, the Zapotec, the Teotihuacan Civilization, and the youngest of the four, the Mayans. They were well-developed cultures & peoples(the Maya less so but only due to their relative youth), with their own traditions and their own technologies. But none of them, NONE of them, had Metallurgy until 600CE. That is 1,200 years after the Hebrews were supposed to have arrived. Twelve CENTURIES. And I am not talking about Iron-working. This is Metallurgy at all. They still used wood & stone for tools & weapons.

If a band of Ancient Israelites made it to Mesoamerica, they would've conquered & dominated the indigenous peoples without any manner of serious effort. Even if they somehow found a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, the Mesoamericans would've been changed forever by their visit. Specifically they would have metallurgy. But they didn't.

Why?

 

[Mycroft]

I would have thought the answer quite simple: The Israelites never went to Mesoamerica. If they had, more than just metallurgy would have been affected. Religion, architecture, society, etc. would have all been influenced by Jewish and Israeli culture by many orders of magnitude more than it currently is. In fact, the first Jew (both by birth and religion) didn't arrive on the American continent until 1621,

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Didn't need iron cos they had Gold n lots of it .

 

[Nietzsche]

I would have thought the answer quite simple: The Israelites never went to Mesoamerica. If they had, more than just metallurgy would have been affected. Religion, architecture, society, etc. would have all been influenced by Jewish and Israeli culture by many orders of magnitude more than it currently is. In fact, the first Jew (both by birth and religion) didn't arrive on the American continent until 1621,

I am aware. However, I am interested in responses from those who believe it did happen, and specifically, why we don't see what I mentioned.

Didn't need iron cos they had Gold n lots of it .

...I don't think you understand. Until the late 1800s gold only had two purposes. One was decorative and the other was to denote wealth. Why use gold for that? Because it's rare thereby making it hard to fake, it can also be shaped with little to no heat and thus relatively inexpensive to craft, and the fact it was useless for things like weapons, armour, construction and so on meant you weren't wasting other resources. No one is going to make a literal-gold-sword.

Iron however, has nigh-limitless practical uses.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Is possible to defeat the sword with stone age weapons is lots of factors to consider.
Is possible none of the band was a smithy again is many reasons why this could be.

 

[Nietzsche]

Is possible to defeat the sword with stone age weapons is lots of factors to consider

Possible? Yes. Likely? Nope!

Is possible none of the band was a smithy again is many reasons why this could be.

If they didn't bring a blacksmith with them to a new ****ing continent, they might be the single most stupid group of people to ever live.

 

[Mycroft]

I am aware. However, I am interested in responses from those who believe it did happen, and specifically, why we don't see what I mentioned..

Lol, I don't think you'll find answers very forthcoming. I don't think these things are properly thought through when they're being, ah, written.

 

[Iti oj]

why would they need metal when they had god?

 

[Nietzsche]

why would they need metal when they had god?

I kind of expect more. Maybe it's wrong of me to do so, but **** it, I expect the world to make sense goddamn it.

 

[Iti oj]

I kind of expect more. Maybe it's wrong of me to do so, but **** it, I expect the world to make sense goddamn it.

imo it does make sense with out god .

 

[columbus]

it does make sense with out god .

I believe that is checkmate.

Tom

 

[Kirran]

it does make sense with out god .

Matter of opinion

And, more importantly, a matter of the interpretation of the concept of 'God'.

 

[Iti oj]

Matter of opinion

And, more importantly, a matter of the interpretation of the concept of 'God'.

i edited in 'imo'

to the other comment I will remain silent .

 

[columbus]

I kind of expect more. Maybe it's wrong of me to do so, but **** it, I expect the world to make sense goddamn it.

You demand that it make sense to you, on your terms.

But the fact is the world is run by clever apes. Most of them value comfortable fiction over inconvenient truth.
That's a fact.
Tom

 

[rrosskopf]

This thread is SOLELY about the historical claims put forth by the Mormon branch of Christianity. Not what kind of person Smith was, not whether he was a prophet or a charlatan, not about whether Mormonism is 'really' Christian, not Mormon theology regarding blacks or polygamy, not their metaphysical theology, ect. You wanna discuss those things, **** off to somewhere else, it is completely meaningless here. This is purely about Mormon claims regarding Mesoamerica, and the historical claims laid out in the Book of Mormon and the LDS church in general. What kind of person or such Smith was, Mormonism's place in Christianity and such are utterly irrelevant to that. I also don't want discussions on the plausibility of a boat built by ancient Hebrews making it around India, through the Singapore strait & Indonesia, and across one of the widest & most barren(as in without landmasses) parts of the Pacific Ocean.


So let's begin with Iron, specifically iron-working, as I feel this is without question the most important of them. The era the Book of Mormon claims Lehi was contemporary with is around 600BCE, specifically the reign of Zedekiah. This is not merely within the Iron Age. This is close to the end of the Iron Age in the Near-East. To put that into some perspective, it's only a hundred years(give or take) before the Battle of Thermopylae.

The first real use of iron as weapons was the Assyrians, who despite having been repeatedly thrashed by their neighbours, became nigh-invulnerable But it wasn't really iron. What they had managed to create(without realizing) was in fact steel. Iron itself isn't that much stronger than bronze, and it's far harder to work. But given how metalworking was done back then, each time the iron was melted down and reforged it got more & more carbon added into it, and once it passed the 2% threshold it became steel. And steel? Steel is orders of magnitude harder & stronger than bronze. However, for the sake of the thread, I will continue to refer to it as iron, as this is what contemporaries believed it to be.

Twenty men with iron(even if it's low-quality) weapons and armour can destroy a far, far larger force with relative ease, because the bronze weapons will break themselves against the iron. This allowed the Assyrians to conquer the whole of the Middle East. To give some perspective, I've made this quick map;

On the left is Assyria roughly in 1000BCE(roughly). On the right is the Assyrian Empire of 900BCE(roughly). The only change? They were now using iron. It simply cannot be overstated how overhwelmingly massive an advantage this gives a civilization.

Now, I think we've got a rough idea of how much a game-changer that iron is, so let's move on to contemporary Mesoamerica. There are roughly four societies we're interested in;

The Olmec, the Zapotec, the Teotihuacan Civilization, and the youngest of the four, the Mayans. They were well-developed cultures & peoples(the Maya less so but only due to their relative youth), with their own traditions and their own technologies. But none of them, NONE of them, had Metallurgy until 600CE. That is 1,200 years after the Hebrews were supposed to have arrived. Twelve CENTURIES. And I am not talking about Iron-working. This is Metallurgy at all. They still used wood & stone for tools & weapons.

If a band of Ancient Israelites made it to Mesoamerica, they would've conquered & dominated the indigenous peoples without any manner of serious effort. Even if they somehow found a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, the Mesoamericans would've been changed forever by their visit. Specifically they would have metallurgy. But they didn't.

Why?

Metalurgy was often a secret passed on through families. We are given no indication in the Book of Mormon that the non-Nephites knew metallurgy, and the Nephites were very zenophobic through most of their history. Nor do we know how extensive the Nephite civilization actually was; the reported size is tiny, geographically. Nor were the Nephites involved in wars of domination - they were usually content to flee before a greater force, and fight if they thought they could maintain their land.

No where in the Book of Mormon are we given a landmark that would incontrovertibly tell us how to adjust the Nephite map to our own. There are several different camps, with the Mesoamerican camp being currently the most popular. Some equate the Nephites with the Moundbuilders, who had very advanced metallurgy skills, and whose rise and fall mirrors that of the Nephite nation. Others look to South America, whose natives also had strong metallurgical skills during the eras in question.

A third possibility is Nicaragua. There was a strong trade of metal objects coming up from South America until the inhabitants of Nicaragua were wiped out, presumably through armed conflict. Trade then stopped completely between South America and Mesoamerica. Again, the dates are close enough to the dates of the Nephite Civilization to invite conjecture, and very little is known of this population. Perhaps the biggest coincidence that connects the natives of Nicaragua and the Nephites is the destruction of many cities mentioned in 3rd Nephi, chapter 11. Although it is called a storm in 3rd Nephi, it is clear that it was much more than a storm. There were tremendous thunderings, and thick darkness covered the land such that fires could not be lit. The earth shook violently, and cities were submerged, buried or burned. The entire face of the land was changed. It all sounds fantastic, but there was a geologic event in Nicaragua that could explain all of it. It is the only prospect, of which I am aware. It sounds like an eye witness description of the eruption of the volcano known as Apoyeque. It erupted around the time of Christ with one of the largest eruptions known to human history. It did indeed change the face of the land of Nicaragua. A similar eruption in Idonesia did cause 3 days of darkness, from the volumes of ash that entered the atmosphere. Fires could not be lit on nearby islands when Vesuvius erupted. The description in 3rd Nephi matches what we know of such events in detail.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Didn't need iron cos they had Gold n lots of it .

This is real life, not Minecraft.

 

[Nietzsche]

Metalurgy was often a secret passed on through families. We are given no indication in the Book of Mormon that the non-Nephites knew metallurgy,

Then my next question is why they weren't made into slaves for a superior culture.

and the Nephites were very zenophobic through most of their history. Nor do we know how extensive the Nephite civilization actually was; the reported size is tiny, geographically. Nor were the Nephites involved in wars of domination - they were usually content to flee before a greater force, and fight if they thought they could maintain their land.

So? Tiny xenophobic cultures have had their advances pilfered all across history. You don't think the Romans, Chinese and such came up with all their advances on their own, do you? Allow me to dispel this notion. They took the spoils of war, however small, back to their capitals and centers of trade where it would be studied and eventually no matter how comparatively primitive a people may be someone will figure out how to reproduce it, and once that's done the knowledge will spread, because humans can't keep secrets for ****.

No where in the Book of Mormon are we given a landmark that would incontrovertibly tell us how to adjust the Nephite map to our own. There are several different camps, with the Mesoamerican camp being currently the most popular. Some equate the Nephites with the Moundbuilders, who had very advanced metallurgy skills, and whose rise and fall mirrors that of the Nephite nation. Others look to South America, whose natives also had strong metallurgical skills during the eras in question.

Except the Mound Builders lived in Eastern North America. How do you get there from Nowhere, Iron-Age Arabia? You've got two routes you can take. One takes you along the African coastline around the Cape of Good Hope(as in that's what you'll need to cross it) and the other goes through the Pacific, and then you either land on the western coast and trek across massively uneven terrain with less supplies than the Donner Party(going the opposite way) or you go around the tip of South America(which, no, they aren't doing, if I read that in a fantasy novel with high-magic I'd still call bull****) and then back up South America into the Caribbean and then up the Mississippi river.

That is a pretty long way. You're not making that journey in a single generation, or even two.

A third possibility is Nicaragua. There was a strong trade of metal objects coming up from South America until the inhabitants of Nicaragua were wiped out, presumably through armed conflict. Trade then stopped completely between South America and Mesoamerica. Again, the dates are close enough to the dates of the Nephite Civilization to invite conjecture, and very little is known of this population. Perhaps the biggest coincidence that connects the natives of Nicaragua and the Nephites is the destruction of many cities mentioned in 3rd Nephi, chapter 11. Although it is called a storm in 3rd Nephi, it is clear that it was much more than a storm. There were tremendous thunderings, and thick darkness covered the land such that fires could not be lit. The earth shook violently, and cities were submerged, buried or burned. The entire face of the land was changed. It all sounds fantastic, but there was a geologic event in Nicaragua that could explain all of it. It is the only prospect, of which I am aware. It sounds like an eye witness description of the eruption of the volcano known as Apoyeque. It erupted around the time of Christ with one of the largest eruptions known to human history. It did indeed change the face of the land of Nicaragua. A similar eruption in Idonesia did cause 3 days of darkness, from the volumes of ash that entered the atmosphere. Fires could not be lit on nearby islands when Vesuvius erupted. The description in 3rd Nephi matches what we know of such events in detail.

It also matches every known description of a large volcanic eruption we've ever had. As far as a trade of metal from South America...Metallurgy only appears in Mesoamerica in 6-800CE. That's a long time after the events in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Skwim]

So let's begin with Iron, specifically iron-working, as I feel this is without question the most important of them. The era the Book of Mormon claims Lehi was contemporary with is around 600BCE, specifically the reign of Zedekiah. This is not merely within the Iron Age. This is close to the end of the Iron Age in the Near-East. To put that into some perspective, it's only a hundred years(give or take) before the Battle of Thermopylae.

The first real use of iron as weapons was the Assyrians, who despite having been repeatedly thrashed by their neighbours, became nigh-invulnerable But it wasn't really iron. What they had managed to create(without realizing) was in fact steel. Iron itself isn't that much stronger than bronze, and it's far harder to work. But given how metalworking was done back then, each time the iron was melted down and reforged it got more & more carbon added into it, and once it passed the 2% threshold it became steel. And steel? Steel is orders of magnitude harder & stronger than bronze. However, for the sake of the thread, I will continue to refer to it as iron, as this is what contemporaries believed it to be.

A few notes.

Iron with 2% carbon would be incredibly brittle, too brittle to be of much value in any battle. To be regarded as steel Iron must have a minimum of 0.15% carbon in it. Low-carbon steel has 0.15 to 0.30% carbon, medium-carbon steel has 0.30-0.60% carbon, high-carbon steel has 0.60-0.90% carbon, and very high carbon-steel has 0.90-1.5% carbon. Steels with more than 1.25% carbon are very brittle.
As for hardness, on the Rockwell B-hardness scale bronze comes in at 42 and steel at 60; steel being 43% harder than bronze. The other aspect of strength, is its modulus of elasticity, the ratio of the unit stress to unit strain within the elastic limit without fracture. Bronze is rated at 13,000,000 , while low-carbon steel is 30,000,000 (the lower the number the more elastic it is--it will deform more before breaking). So, while steel is considerably harder than bronze (42% more) bronze has a greater tendency to deform when struck. That said, steel's hardness is still the decisive factor here, and why bronze swords and such would lose out to those of steel.

If a band of Ancient Israelites made it to Mesoamerica, they would've conquered & dominated the indigenous peoples without any manner of serious effort. Even if they somehow found a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, the Mesoamericans would've been changed forever by their visit. Specifically they would have metallurgy. But they didn't.

Why?

My guess would be they didn't know where to find the iron, copper and tin ores. And, were never shown how to smelt them.

 

[Nietzsche]

A few notes.

Iron with 2% carbon would be incredibly brittle, too brittle to be of much value in any battle. To be regarded as steel Iron must have a minimum of 0.15% carbon in it. Low-carbon steel has 0.15 to 0.30% carbon, medium-carbon steel has 0.30-0.60% carbon, high-carbon steel has 0.60-0.90% carbon, and very high carbon-steel has 0.90-1.5% carbon. Steels with more than 1.25% carbon are very brittle.
As for hardness, on the Rockwell B-hardness scale bronze comes in at 42 and steel at 60; steel being 43% harder than bronze. The other aspect of strength, is its modulus of elasticity, the ratio of the unit stress to unit strain within the elastic limit without fracture. Bronze is rated at 13,000,000 , while low-carbon steel is 30,000,000 (the lower the number the more elastic it is--it will deform more before breaking). So, while steel is considerably harder than bronze (42% more) bronze has a greater tendency to deform when struck. That said, steel's hardness is still the decisive factor here, and why bronze swords and such would lose out to those of steel.

However,

"The earliest known production of steel is a piece of ironware excavated from an archaeological site in Anatolia (Kaman-Kalehoyuk) and is about 4,000 years old."
source​

So if you're talking about some event that took place around 600BCE, or even up to 2,000 BC, the weapons would not have been made of steel.

I appreciate your point here, as there's nothing to argue, but my point remains the same, whether it was high-quality iron or extremely poor quality steel. They both soundly trump anything made of bronze.

 

[Sapiens]

If you examine 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 it is obvious that there is no rational basis. If you similarly examine all the support from all these disciplines for the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America you find them to be few and far between and they are, often as not, modified by phrases such as "could have" and "possibly." In any case, the claims never display robust consistency but rather demand reliance on anecdotes or singular observations that the Mormons attempt to inflate to generalities. For example, when the zoologist say that horses and elephants were extinct in North America the Mormon apologists try to conjure up a world where horses and elephants were widespread citing rare and singular bone finds that may, indeed, represent tiny relic remnant groups of such animals. The Mormons want to pretend that evidence that a tiny surviving herd of horses or mastodons falsifies what is know of the Pleistocene extinction and make likely the claims of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't wash.