Steering Nephi’s Ship

When steering a modern motor boat, cabin cruiser, yacht, fishing boat or trawler, you have as much leeway or turning radius as you do in a car—that is, you can make sharp right or left turns, turn in a tight circle, and make constant adjustments to the wheel as you motor your way across waves, down channels, or maneuver into docking. 

Granted, you cannot throw it in reverse and back up any distance or stop on a dime as a car, but the idea of going wherever you want is pretty much ingrained in today’s part-time seamen, holiday fishermen or weekend boaters. However, the problem with many power-driven, pleasure craft sailors is in understanding how limited a person is in a wind-powered sailboat, especially in a ship like Nephi’s that was “driven forth before the wind”—meaning the wind was pushing the vessel forward as opposed to angling the sail so one can move or head nearly into the wind (close hauled or angle of attack).
    In such sailboats where the sale is maneuvered (angle to the wind is changeable), those on board are constantly trimming the vessel, since sail trim controls the ship’s available power and effort to maximize efficient use of that energy in a constantly changing environment (changing speed, changing direction, changing wind gusts) since the boat’s apparent wind angle is also always shifting, moving forward when accelerating and backward when slowing.

Being able to trim the sail and angle it is to the wind allows modern sailing boats to move within 22º of heading directly into the wind

    Most of the trimmer's work is to position a clew in space using the sheets, halyard, jib track, traveler, cunningham, outhaul and vang. The trimmer moves it inboard or outboard with a sheet or the traveler; aft or forward with an outhaul or a jib fairlead; and up or down with a sheet or a vang.
    Obviously, this type of sailing would not have been within the capability of Lehi’s “Landlubber” party, no matter how much on-the-job training they could have undergone before setting sail. And just as obviously, the idea of moving sails about to allow for close hauling or sailing into the wind would not have been possible for Nephi nor his crew, according to his own description. Thus, the ship the Lord had Nephi build was one that, as Nephi tells us, “was driven forth before the wind” (1 Nephi 18:8,9).
    In this case, all the crew had to do was more or less keep the ship before the wind, a task that fell to Nephi, who “steered the ship” toward the Land of Promise, or as Nephi put it when he was untied, “that I, Nephi, did guide the ship, that we sailed again towards the promised land” (1 Nephi 18:22). This was because when the brothers took hold of Nephi and tied him up, “they knew not whither they should steer the ship” (1 Nephi 18:13).

Reefing or taking in a sail, which provides less sail for the wind to catch

    For the most part, however, what was needed, once in the mainstream of the winds and currents, was simply to hold on, with probably an occasional need to reef (take in one or more sails, or shorten sail by tying in one or more reefs) from time to time—no doubt a frightening experience for the brothers and sons of Ishmael as well as their wives, who evidently had no faith in the Lord.
    These currents in the south of the Indian Ocean build until in the Southern Ocean they move rapidly, up to twenty-five knots, in currents that are also moving swiftly, allowing wooden ships under sail to reach speeds of 14 to 17 knots in this Southern Ocean, mostly averaging 16 knots, and as high as 20 to 22 knots during the age of sail when most ships sailing the Atlantic or Pacific oceans were reaching only 5 to 7 knots.
    Obviously, Nepih’s ship could be steered, but not just anywhere, for the ship was running free (moving with the wind behind it), i.e., being blown forward. Thus, any steering would have been in making minor corrections or simply keeping the ship moving in the direction the currents flowed. When running free, if the ship veered enough to move out of the wind, the sails would fluff and no longer draw, or billow (full or be filled with wind), but shake.

Nephi needed to steer the ship between the two fast-moving eastbound currents to pick up the Southern Ocean

    Thus, Nephi’s job in steering, following directions of the Liahona, would be to keep the ship “steered” properly so the vessel had forward momentum with the wind behind and sailing with the current, probably keeping in in the midst or middle of the current. However, when it came time to move from the southeast moving gyre of the Indian Ocean, into the east flowing current (West Wind Drift) of the Southern Ocean, Nephi would have needed to move to the outside (starboard or right hand side) of the current so the vessel would move between the two eastbound currents into the Southern Ocean.
    By comparison, it can be likened to moving from one lane to another on the freeway—you are steering the car, but you are moving in the same direction—or, in the case of the example above, you move onto an off-ramp and onto a parallel running freeway. That is, you need to steer to keep moving forward in the right direction, but you are not just turning the wheel any direction you want.
    Thus, Nephi’s ship could be and needed to be steered—as an example, say you are on a cross-country freeway, driving in the slow (right hand) lane. You need to keep going forward, because that is where the road goes (like the wind pushing you along the fast-moving ocean current). However, you are very limited as to how much you can use the steering wheel, i.e., you can:

Top: The freeway is a path through a city or across the country, much like an ocean current is a path across the seas; Bottom Left: In a cross country drive, there is nowhere to go but where the road takes you; Bottom Right: You can steer off to the side onto another path, like moving from the Indian Ocean Gyre into the Southern Ocean current

1. Keep the car steady (especially necessary if you encounter heavy wind bursts or a cross current wind);
2. Steer into the other lane (to the left);
3. Steer back into the slow lane (to the right);
4. Steer off the pavement onto the shoulder (to eventually stop);
5. Steer off the road and into the field, but your progress would be stopped quickly (unless you are driving an off-road vehicle).
    The point is, sailing in a ship “driven forth before the wind” as Nephi tells us, is much like that—you can make side-to-side steering corrections within a short band width or forward tract, but nothing more. If you steer outside the current and into the wind, you are quickly stalled (becalmed), until you turn back into the wind and current. Nephi’s ship could be steered, but only on a minimal level because it could only go where the winds blew it and the currents flowed to carry it along. This means, and we have written about this and described it numerous times—his ship could only go where the winds and ocean currents took it. It could not just go anywhere someone wants it to go.
    It is a simple concept, but one many theorists fail to grasp because it does not validate their own ideas of where they need Lehi to travel, such as eastward to Indonesia, then out into the Pacific and island-hop across the ocean to Mesoamerica.
    The point is, just because Nephi’s ship had steering capability, does not mean it could defy the type of vessel and its capability that Nephi describes, i.e., “it was driven forth before the wind.” We need to be careful about how we skip past important descriptions and information in the scriptural record in our haste to prove our point of view and theories on where Lehi landed and the Nephites settled. If we truly want to know where Lehi landed, we need to follow the winds and currents that pushed his ship across the sea toward the Western Hemisphere from the Bountiful (the Arabian Peninsula).

Location of the Land of Promise – Part II

Continuing from the previous post, which ended with a critic’s comment that all ruins in South America and Mesoamerica were pre-flood. In fact, his exact words were: “What you are mistaking as Nephite building is actually pre flood. Pyramids were made pre flood on every continent.”
     Pre-flood? When the Spanish arrived in Cuzco in 1532, they were amazed at the newness of the boulders, walls, temple and fortress built on the hill overlooking the city. When asking the Inca who built it, the Inca said they didn’t know, but that it had been done very anciently. In addition, there are numerous mud-brick structures in Peru that had they been pre-flood, would have been washed away through disintegration from the flood waters, i.e., mud would have dissolved under water for that length of time.

If these ruins had been pre-Flood, meaning they were submerged beneath billions of tons of ocean water for nearly a year would have dissolved the mud-formed bricks into a mud pile; however, note the fine shape and detail that remains

    Mud brick does not disintegrate in rains, even mild water flooding from rains, since, in part, overhanging roofs reflect the water in runoff and the bricks are not saturated by rains. In addition, mud brick building was done in the southwest, within desert type arid climates and extremely dry, waterless areas. For a long time now, such mud brick houses have been built on water-proof foundations and raised stone bases and definitely not in flood plains. The first foot or so of the walls are of water resistant material—which rules out concrete which absorbs water. In fact, in ancient Egypt, mud brick houses along the river often crumbled away when the Nile rose and soaked the soil. And in Mesopotamia, archaeologists are frequently frustrated by finding indications of settlements for the period prior to the discovery of firing the bricks, for the very reason that even in that arid region the ruins have tended to "melt" back into the earth.

Again, mud brick detail so exact, would never have survived being inundated in ocean water for a year where it sucks up the water and eventually collapses into a mud slick

    Consequently, to think that mud brick buildings would survive a total flood inundating the mud brick site for months on end would survive at all, let alone with extreme detail still visible in the bricks is totally without merit. It also shows that this individual, like most critics, lacks knowledge of such construction and what is involved.
    It is often found that critics throw out what sounds to them like valid arguments without any research on their part to know that what they are saying is, indeed, a valid rationale. Often, as this one shows, they are not.

Very clear cut images in the mud brick facing of the largest adobe city in the Americas. Note the fine, sharp images that never would have survived being submerged in year-long flood water for so long a time—obviously, these are post-Flood buildings

    This critic went on to say: “If you believe the Book of Mormon then the land that the United States is on is the promised land. South America is not the promised land and neither is Mexico.” That is going to come as quite a surprise to several former Presidents and Church and other leaders who have claimed otherwise.
    As an example, Orson Hyde, referring to the Land of Promise said, “There shall no king be raised upon this land; and whosever seeketh to raise up a king on this land shall perish. This land means both North and South America, and also the families of islands that geographically and naturally belong and adhere to the same” (“Celebrating American Independence,” Salt Lake City, July 4, 1853, Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, 16, pp108,109). In addition, B.H. Roberts said, “these two American continents [North and South]. These continents are a promised land” (B.H. Roberts, History of the Church, p552fn)
    A North and South America Promised Land was also taught by several modern Prophets and leaders like Wilford Woodruff, who said, “This land, North and South America, is the land of Zion; it is a choice land—the land that was given by promise from old father Jacob to his grandson and his descendants, the land on which the Zion of God should be established in the latter days.” Journal of Discourses, 12 January 1873, 15, p279); and by Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “This is our need today—to plant the standard of liberty among our people throughout the Americas… the struggle for liberty is a continuing one—it is with us in a very real sense today right here on this choice land of the Americas” (Conference Report, October 1962, pp14–15), and also “To the peoples who should inhabit this blessed land of the Americas, the Western Hemisphere, an ancient prophet uttered this significant promise and solemn warning” (Conference Report, October 1944, p128). And J. Reuben Clark said it was here on this hemisphere is found the Land of Promise and Zion would be built (Conference Report June 9, 1940).

However, this critic went on to say: “Joseph Smith never said that any other place than where he stood was sacred.” Yet, it was Joseph Smith who said, “…speaking of the Land of Zion, it consists of all N[orth] & S[outh] America but that any place where the Saints gather is Zion which every righteous man will build up for a place of safety for his children…The redemption of Zion is the redemption of all N[orth] & S[outh] America.” (Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, edited by Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Smith’s July 19, 1840 Discourse,” Brigham Young University Studies 19:3, Spring 1979, p. 392).
    And finally, Orson Pratt said, “The Lord brought a nation to this great western hemisphere, called the Jaredites…and among the promises given was the promise that this great western hemisphere should be given to them and to those that were worthy…and had all this western hemisphere promised to him and his righteous seed” (Journal of Discourses, August 1, 1880, p329).
    Obviously, numerous other remarks have been stated, both in Conference, and regional meetings, especially in Latin America, where Church leaders have repeatedly said that the Land of Promise covers both North and South America. For Heartland, Great Lakes, and Eastern U.S. theorists to keep claiming otherwise is an affront to the brethren who have repeatedly said otherwise.
    This critic also said, “The Book of Mormon happened in the Eastern United States. The narrow neck was near Niagara Falls. it fits perfectly. Quit looking in the wrong places.”

We have written so much about the eastern U.S. and how it does not match a single scriptural reference from the Book of Mormon. Saying something fits perfectly is one thing, showing it does by scriptural references is quite another. As an example, when Jacob said they were on an island in the midst of the sea over which they traveled, that is in no way a fit to the Great Lakes area, since sailing a vessel to the Great Lakes area in 600 B.C. was impossible as we have pointed out here numerous times. Neither the Mississippi River nor the Ohio River were navigatable at any time by deep ocean sailing vessels, nor was the St. Lawrence River, again, as we have pointed out, until the Corps of Engineers dredged these rivers, built bypasses to rapids and locks to move ships from one elevation to another.
    To this critic and others, saying it does is hardly an argument in its favor.

Location of the Land of Promise – Part I

Recently an outspoken critic decided to take a pot shot at our work and wrote: “Quit looking in the wrong places. Jews made bricks. They did not build megalithic structures like the pyramids” (Mike H). It is always interesting to hear from people, and in many cases to see how limited is their knowledge on what they choose to sound off on. One trip to Jerusalem would show even the most uninformed that the Jews worked with stone based on the ancient construction that still exists in many parts of the city and region.

Top Left: An abandoned house outside Jerusalem that long pre-dates Lehi; Top Right: A house in Jerusalem that dates to Lehi’s time—both houses were made of stone, not bricks or much-bricks. Bottom: The wall around Jerusalem that dates back over 2000 years, all made of stone, and the remnants of the earlier wall at the base, now crumbled, was also of stone

    The point is, based not only on numerous buildings and houses still extant, and more being discovered each year as the city renovates first one area, then another, there are found all around Jerusalem and inside the city, numerous stone quarries, and that the permanent buildings, including private houses, were built of stone cut form these quarries—especially Solomon’s Temple and his palace as recent excavations there have shown.
    For any intelligent person to claim that the Jews or any group of people anciently built with bricks (anciently these were mud mixed with straw and left to bake in the sun), those edifices did not weather well (though better than wood) as can be seen in Andean Peru at many sites that were mud-brick built.

Three examples of sun-dried adobe-brick major constructions in Andean Peru that have deteriorated back into their dirt state. You do not find this anywhere in Israel, especially Jerusalem, even of ancient buildings because they built with stone

    On the other hand, when you build with stone, it lasts for a very long time, and sites of ancient stone buildings are found nearly in every country, but not in North America, where early settlers used sticks and thatched roofs, and later wood, while in the southwest, where there was limited wood, they built with adobe bricks, the latter edifices lasting much longer than those of middle and eastern U.S. When the Hebrew/Jews settled in Jerusalem, they built their temple and public buildings, including the king’s palaces, out of stone quarried in the Jerusalem area. In fact, many of these quarries that are limestone have come to call such stone "Jerusalem Stone."

Left: A limestone quarry still operating in Jerusalem; Right: Jerusalem stone quarry (limestone, dolomite and dolomitic)—both these quarries were in operation in ancient times

    Yet, this critic of excellent work done to the Lord would have the Nephites living in squalor within tiny barely usable huts that Lehi and his ancestors had not seen backward for ten generations or more—yet that is all that people of the North American eastern United States area (Heartland, Great Lakes and eastern U.S. theorists) could manage to build until long after the time of the Nephites.

Hopewell and Adena style houses and structures they built during the period of the Nephites

    Nor were their public buildings of any greater achievement—descendants of David and Solomon, whose palaces and temple were one of the achievements of the age, built with stone and overlaid with wood from Lebanon and gold, these stick huts were the best the children of God could accomplish for Elohim? I find it absolutely insulting and terribly degrading to the great achievements of Nephi and the early Nephites that their temple, built like Solomon’s, could not be better than what evidence of the eastern U.S. shows us of the period of time of the Nephites.

Hopewell and Adena type long huts or meeting places where the tribes could congregate and serious business of the tribe be conducted

    What, then did Nephi teach his people to build when he said, “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.

What ever happened to common sense and intellectual honesty? No one can, without any degree of integrity whatsoever, claim that Nephi and his people built huts of sticks and thatched roofs when Nephi had just built a ship without any prior experience that was capable of sailing across the great ocean depths, being constantly battered by the forces of waves and currents and then be only able to build stick huts for their permanent quarters—and a temple to God out of twigs and hides.

Compare Solomon’s temple, which Nephi would have seen numerous times and entered, to the public buildings of the ancient North Americas. Now does anyone really believe that Nephi would have settled for such a structure to dedicate to the Lord?

    The critic went on to blatantly claim: “They had nothing to do with Peru. They didn't do anything in Mexico or Guatemala either.” Now how on earth would this person know that? Certainly not a single structure in ancient North America shows any sign of an advanced civilization, which Lehi, Nephi, Sam, and Zoram belonged to when they were in Jerusalem, dating back to at least David, some 400 years before Lehi left Jerusalem. Is there any evidence of an advanced civilization with some four hundred years behind them anywhere in North America at the time of the Nephites? With all the archaeology digs that have been done, and all the claims made over the “mound builders,” and all the archaeology and anthropology studies that have been done as a result, one would think that some semblance of an advanced civilization and culture would have been found if one had existed.
    But none has.
    The most advanced people anyone has found is on the one hand the Adena/Hopewell Indians (the Mound Builders) and the Iroquois-Six Nation Indians on the other hand. Neither group has advanced beyond the savage or early settler stage, neither had swords, neither knew steel metallurgy, neither had a strong religious background, neither had built up the land, organized its people beyond very early stages (though the Iroquois had advanced beyond the Adena-Hopewell in this), and neither had built roads to any degree, let alone highways as Mormon wrote: “there were many highways cast up, and many roads made, which led from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place” (3 Nephi 68), let alone major city complexes like the city of Nephi, the city of Zarahemla, and the city of Bountiful, and none had temple or temple worship in their history.
    Nor has anyone found, after over 300 years in this land, defensive walls built of stone—as Mormon wrote: “and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8). That doesn’t meant a few stones piled on top of one another in a few places—it means a defensive wall, designed to keep an attacking enemy force from getting over it, around it, or through it and there is not a single piece of evidence that anywhere in North America until the Colonial period, were any type of defenses ever built with such design.

When the Spanish arrived, they considered these walls around Sacsayhuaman in peru to be impregnable (at that time they were over one-third higher than now)

    It just simply insults one’s intelligence for people to make wild, unfounded, undocumented, and non-factual statements of the Land of Promise being in North America when not a single solid evidence has been found that ties it in with the Book of Mormon Land of Promise descriptions Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni had written about.

Rather than making such ill-informed statements like: “They were never there,” and that the “Pyramids were made pre flood on every continent,” as this critic has stated, without having any idea what he or she is talking about, they and we would be better served if they spent  some time in researching information about those subjects they are criticizing rather than giving their knee-jerk reactions to something evidently far beyond their level of knowledge.

2nd Nephi Code Video: Is This How Lehi Reached the Land of Promise?

This is our second video. Please take a look at it and if you enjoy the video please "like it," and subscribe to our You-Tube Channel and  share with your friends and family. And, if you are interested, let us know what you think of our video since we have plans for more. Thank you.

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part XI

Continuing this last article from the previous posts regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. Also continuing with the comments of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography, that are meant to lessen and even question the meaning of the use of metal terminology in the scriptural record. 
    As mentioned in the previous article, adding more carbon improves the wearability of the sword as well as durability, and an effective sword blade has to be hard enough to hold an edge along a length which can range from 18” to more than 36”. At the same time it must be strong enough and flexible enough that it can absorb massive shocks at just about any point along its length and not crack or break. Finally, it should be balanced along its length so that it can be wielded effectively.
    Today, and over the past few centuries, swordsmiths discovered that iron sand (with little or no sulfur and phosphorus) heated together with coal (carbon) made the steel that is called in Japan “tamahagane,” which allows the sword to have strength and the ability to hold a sharp edge, as well as to cause the sword to tend toward bending without breaking rather than flex, which deforms or misaligns the  blade when under stress. Japanese sword smiths also learned what is called shita-kitae, which is the folding eight to sixteen times, either transversely or longitudinally, during the heating and shaping process to improve the grain pattern.

Depending on the amount of carbon introduced, this process forms either the very hard steel for the edge, called hagane, or the slightly less hardenable spring steel, called kawagane, which is often used for the sides and the back.
    These modern techniques, of course, would not have been known to the Nephites, unless the Lord specifically showed Nephi how to do so, but they still understood the mixing of carbon and iron to create steel—a superior blade that was stronger and tougher than anything else made at the time. It is also possible that in the Nephites time, once the blade had been heat treated, a sword would be ground with progressively finer abrasives, typically different types of rock, and polished and sharpened until the sword’s desired finish was achieved.
    It is important to understand when trying to write about or understand matters of the past, how things were done—of course they were different, and of course their techniques were less advanced (in most, but not all cases), but the point is they achieved effective results in what they did. That is, their swords were effective and valued weapons—not as good as those that can be made today, but certainly highly usuable for the purpose to which they were designed and made.
    Stated differently, the Nephites and the Jaredites before them had “steel.” Perhaps not like our steel today, but steel nonetheless, i.e., iron alloyed with carbon, which produced a harder and tougher sword blade than anything known before it. For Sorenson, Hamblin, or any other so-called “theorist” to try and lessen that fact, which is so clearly written in the scriptural record, is of no valued service in our better understanding what was written for our benefit.
    Sorenson concludes his thought with (p282): “In short, we remain largely ignorant about the technical procedures employed by the Book of Mormon craftsmen, but there is no reason from the text to think they were very sophisticated technologically.” Why would Sorenson take this tact, because he has an agenda in mind, as he then states: “It sounds as if they were within the modest range of skill common in later Mesoamerica.”
    The problem, once again, is when theorists try to lessen the importance or accuracy of statements in the scriptural record so they more closely are aligned with their own values, thinking and models. As an example, the Book of Mormon describes the use of ores, steel and precious metals from earliest Jaredite times down through the entire Nephite period, a total of about 2500 years. One would think, therefore that any location determined to be the Land of Promise would today show considerable evidence of metallurgy being used in that area from earliest times.

However, since Mesoamerican does not have any evidence of metallurgy before 600 A.D, the Mesoamerican theorist must do something to offset that obvious blight on their model and the easiest way to do that is simply to alter the meaning of the scriptural record. Thus, like-minded people with letters after their name team up to build a case for the Mesoamerican model by combining their attacks on the scriptural record—albeit not critical attacks, but attacks nonetheless that attempt to change the very meaning and fiber of the scriptural record so it is more aligned with their own views and theories.
    Some examples are Sorenson changing a clearly-stated north-south land orientation to  one that runs east and west so he can use his model of Mesoamerica as his Land of Promise. McKane claiming there were Nephites and Lamanites living to the west of the West Sea when Jacob makes it clear they sailed across the ocean or sea and landed on an island in that sea, which Mormon clearly states is along the west sea coast. Or Joseph Allen claiming there was a narrow neck of land and a different location for a narrow passage into the Land Northward when Mormon clearly states that except for the narrow neck of land, the entire Land Southward was surrounded by water.
    The point is, when the scriptural record claims metallurgy was practiced extensively in the Land of Promise and no metallurgy has been found or verified in Mesoamerica during Nephite or Jaredite times, then people of conscience should look elsewhere for the Land of Promise; however, they simply refuse to do that, even though to the south of Mesoamerica, where scientists repeatedly tell us metallurgy began as early as 2000 B.C. (early Jaredite times), and numerous metal artifacts have been found in an environment that supports the completely supports Book of Mormon claims, they refuse to even acknowledge its existence.
    Instead, they challenge the meaning and intent of the scriptural record. As Hamblin adds in his article: “Furthermore, Near Eastern peoples used hematite, magnetite and meteoritic iron, along with other types of iron ore. Did they have different words for what we in modern scientific English would consider different types of iron? As far as I am aware, they did not.” He then goes on to give an essay on where the word “iron” came from, quoting early Egyptian usage of comparable words, then concludes: “Thus, anti-Mormons insist that the Book of Mormon must be evaluated on the basis of modern metallurgical terminology and science, which has categories and distinctions completely foreign to ancient peoples such as the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews, who had a single term covering what now is divided into many different categories.”
    Without going into this in detail, the question begs itself, “So what?” What difference does it make that Hebrew has one word meaning “iron,” “barzel” בַּרְזֶל, which in all 76 occurrences in the King James Version, is translated simply as “iron.”

After all, no one is saying that Laban’s sword was equivalent to the best modern steel swords made today, or by other world swordsmiths, such as the famed Japanese makers of the Katana Samurai blades from Longquan in the remote green mountains of Qinxi near the Ou River, where magnificent swords have been made for 2600 years.
    Rather than cloud the issue, let’s stay on target. The Book of Mormon scriptural record mentions that both the Jaredites and Nephites had steel. What kind of steel is not mentioned nor implied, and is immaterial, since steel is simply iron alloyed with carbon. And since the steel was in connection with swords, we know that the steel was tougher and stronger than mere iron. Nothing more than that is stated nor necessary. But the point is, steel and metallurgy has been found in Andean Peru and Ecuador in South America during the Nephite period—not in Mesoamerica. Not in the Great Lakes. Not in the Heartland. Not in the Eastern U.S. Not in the Malay Peninsula. Not in Baja California. Only in Peru and Ecuador in South America. Which should be a significant fact to the serious and intellectually honest researcher.

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part X

Continuing from the previous post regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. Also continuing with the comments of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography, that are meant to lessen and even question the meaning of the use of metal terminology in the scriptural record.    Also continuing with John L. Sorenson’s continued questioning of the scriptural record as to the meaning of working ore in the Book of Mormon and his desire to lessen its importance and the methods used, in order to justify why metallurgy has never been found in Mesoamerica before 900 A.D. One can only wonder why when evidence of metallurgy is found in numerous areas nearly 3,000 years earlier than Mesoamerica, including South America.

A lead and wood artifact discovered in a roughly 6,000-year-old grave in a desert cave is the oldest evidence of smelted lead on record in the Levant. The artifact, which looks like an ancient short sword, suggests that people in Israel's northern Negev desert learned how to smelt lead during the Late Chalcolithic, a period known for copper work but not lead work, said Naama Yahalom-Mack, the study's lead researcher said, who is a postdoctoral student of archaeology with a specialty in metallurgy at the Institute of Earth Sciences and the Institute of Archaeology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Moreover, an analysis of the lead suggests that it came from Anatolia (in modern-day Turkey), which is part of the Levant, or the area encompassing the eastern Mediterranean. The artifact was likely a valuable tool, given that it shows signs of wear and was placed in a grave alongside the remains of an individual in the cave.

Lead was being smelted in the Lavant in 4000 B.C.

    Researchers discovered the artifact in Ashalim Cave, a sprawling underground cavern that's been on archaeologists' radar since the 1970s. In 2012, the Israel Cave Research Center remapped the cave, and called in a team of archaeologists when they discovered artifacts.
    Archaeologists Mika Ullman and Uri Davidovich led the archaeological survey and studied the mazelike rooms, including the one used for a burial chamber. The chamber was so small and low that they had to get down on their stomachs and wiggle forward to see the secluded space. It was there that they found the lead artifact.
    Lead doesn't tend to occur naturally in the Negev desert, so after discovering the artifact, the researchers studied its isotopes (variations of an element) to determine its origin. An analysis showed that the artifact "was made of almost pure metallic lead, likely smelted from lead ores originating in the Taurus (mountain) range in Anatolia," the researchers wrote in the study. It might be that the finished artifact was brought from Anatolia, or maybe the raw materials made their way to the southern Levant, where the object was assembled, the researchers suggested. "In this respect, it fits very well with what we know about the Chalcolithic culture, which was a highly developed culture with amazing abilities in art and craft," Yahalom-Mack said, adding: “People from the Chalcolithic period also carved ivory and used a sophisticated method known as ‘lost-wax casting’ to fashion metal objects.”

Researchers stand before entrance to cave where artifacts were found in Israel

There are a few examples of lead work during the Late Chalcolithic, but none has been studied as thoroughly as the new artifact. For instance, archaeologists have found two lead objects dating to before the fourth millennium B.C. in northern Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia. The point is, of course, that in the region of Lehi, both smelting ore and lost-wax casting, were both well-known long before Lehi’s time, and smelting was also found in Mesopotamia at the time of the Jaredites—and both showed up in ancient Peru/Ecuador during the time of the Nephites, and smelting at the time of the Jaredites; in fact, it is claimed that these two skills or groups were not associated with one another and learned separately, again suggesting the Jaredites and Lehites  brought the skill of smelting to the Land of Promise separately and without involvement with one another.
    In addition, in 1982, Arne Espelund, a professor emeritus and a mining engineer at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, was part of the research team that discovered the 2000-year-old iron production facility at Heglesvollen in Levanger in Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. The researchers found a total of 96 tonnes of slag and four ovens and dug out one of them. They learned that iron production was gathered in marshes in the springtime, and smelting took place in autumn. After the iron was reduced, slag remained. Today, of course, it is the slag heaps that are found since slag did not have much value then, nor does it now except as fill for road surfaces. Thus, hard evidence of smelting an metallurgical.

Such large slag heaps have been found in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Austria and Catalonia. It is estimated that a farm would use two-and-a-half to five pounds of iron per year until the Middle Ages—not much compared to the 1000 pounds of iron we use annually now, but still impressive. A similar dating period is also found for metallurgy in the Americas, in Andean Peru and Ecuador.
    Sorenson states (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, p282): “Processing ore gets almost no attention in the Book of Mormon. Only a single time are we unmistakably told of smelting (Ether 7:9). One possible Nephite reference to processing states that they did “work all kinds of ore, and did refine it” (Helaman 6:11).”
    By way of explanation for those unfamiliar with metallurgy: smelting makes use of heat and a chemical reducing agent to decompose the ore, driving off other elements as gases or slag and leaving just the metal base behind. The reducing agent is commonly a source of carbon such as coke, or in earlier times, charcoal.

On the other hand, refining consists of purifying an impure metal. It is distinguished from other processes such as smelting and calcining (heating to high temperatures in air or oxygen) in that those two involve a chemical change to the raw material, whereas in refining, the final material is usually identical chemically to the original one, only it is purer—the process used are of many types including pyrometallurgical (thermal treatment of metal ore) and hydrometallurgical (aqueous chemistry, including leaching, compound recovery and solution concentration).
    The word refine, used by Joseph Smith in his first 1829 translation, which is the process of reducing impurities in the ore, such as while making steel sword blades, the natural impurities of iron are eliminated—the more impurities reduced, the stronger (able to withstand great force or pressure) and tougher (long-lasting, heavy-duty) the steel.
    To better understand steel, it is an alloy, i.e., a melding of two or more different ingredients, basically iron and carbon for tool steel. The addition of carbon to the iron makes the metal much stronger and much tougher—a necessity for a sword blade. It is also important to know that the amount of carbon added makes a big difference, since just a small amount of carbon added significantly improves the strength of steel, and this continues up to about .65% of added carbon where maximum strength is achieved.

Adding more carbon continues to improve the wearability and durability of the steel all the way up to around 1.5% carbon added. So this adding of carbon to the steel in this range creates something typically called plain carbon steels and blacksmiths will work within this range of about .4% to 1.5%.
(See the final post on “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part XI,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part IX

Continuing from the previous post regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. Also continuing with the comments of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography, that are meant to lessen and even question the meaning of the use of metal terminology in the scriptural record, and discussing William Hamblin’s apologetic comments about the scriptural record.

William Hamblin continues with his attack on the use of “steel” in the Book of Mormon and our acceptance of this simple word. He states: “An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
    However, in an excellent piece by Aron Pinker entitled “On the meaning of קשת נחושה,” he states that the phrase קשת נחושה in 2 Samuel 22:35; Psalms 18:35 and Job 20:24, has been routinely translated in modern times as “bronze or brass bow.” However, though the modern New King James Version has “bronze bow,” the original King James Version as well as the earlier Webster’s Dictionary had “bow of steel.” At the same time, some Jewish medieval commentators take קשת נחושה as “bronze bow,” and some consider נחושה a metaphor for strength, i.e. “strong bow, hard to pull bow.”

A brass bow made as a decoration and relates to myth and storied legend—no real brass bow has ever been found or known

    The problem is, there can be no question that the phrase קשת נחושה cannot mean “a bow made of brass or bronze.” Neither of these materials are practical for construction of a bow’s body, which has to be light and pliable (M.H. Pope, Job. AB 15. New York: Doubleday, New York, 1986, p153). For the same reason the phrase cannot mean “brass or bronze plated bow” or “arc composite bound and/or inlaid with bronze” (F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “A royal song of thanksgiving: 2 Sam 22, Ps 18a.” JBL 72 no 1, 1953, p31), since metal plating of the body, even of an ornamental kind, such as bronze, brass, or copper, would undermine its pliability, increase its weight, and hamper aiming without adding any advantages. Perhaps, some ceremonial bows or bows used for ritual purposes were of this kind ( R. De Vaux, Institutions de l’Ancien Testament. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, Paris, France, 1961, p53). However, neither a brass, or copper bow nor a metal plated bow that was used for warfare has ever been found in any archeological excavations, though it would have had a better chance for preservation than the wood based bow. 
    In addition, the phrase קשת נחושה cannot mean “strong bow, hard to pull bow” either, but could mean “solid” or “robust” (B. Couroyer, “L’arc d’airain.” RB 72, 1965, p513). After all, iron and bronze are often used in the Hebrew Bible as symbols of strength (Job 40:18, Deuteronomy 33:25, Jeremiah 15:12, Amos 1:3); however, it is difficult to see how a metaphor based on a known impracticality of making brass or bronze bows could convey a meaningful concept of unusual strength.
    Pinker suggests that enigmatic שבעות מטות in Habakuk 3:9a is symbolically the Lord’s composite bow made of seven strips. Such a bow would be an exaggeration of the practical composite bow, which had only a few strips.

Steel bows were known to Ancient Israel from 1000 to 600 B.C.

        Since it seems prudent to reject both “bronze or brass bow” and “strong bow, hard to pull, what is then the meaning of the phrase? Several have suggested numerous meanings, but all seem to fall short. Perhaps we should use the original King James Version translation as “bow of steel.”
    Despite such widespread disagreement with his conclusions, Hamblin goes on to write: “At any rate, it is clear we should not necessarily presume that Book of Mormon steel is related to modern steel. Once again, it is necessary to examine these issues in their original linguistic, textual and cultural context to understand what the text is saying.”
    Of course, we have done that, using Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, of which language in New England Joseph Smith would have been quite familiar when he translated the Plates in 1829, and which definition we have previously given in this series of articles.
    Hamblin goes on to write “In Ether we find the word “steel” used only once (Ether 7:9), only a few generations after Jared. It does not say how many swords were made.” Yet, we understand that after making these swords, Shule (son of Kib) took the swords he had made and armed his followers who then attacked his brother, Corihor, who had rebelled against his father and captured the kingdom and took captive his father. To do this, he would have had to have a large following, so while we may not know how many swords were made, it would have been sufficient to arm his “army” that they overturned the kingdom and restored his father to the throne (Ether 7:5-9).
    Seemingly not understanding the scriptural record, Hamblin adds, “Anti-Mormons often assert that this necessitates a large-scale iron and steel industry. This interpretation is not required by the text. Ether does not make this claim in any explicit form. This is a classic example of the fallacy of hyper-skepticism. Considering a counter-example will help to illustrate the absurdity of this fallacy.”

Hammering iron into a steel blade

    The point of this is not to suggest a large industry, but a large-scale production of swords, that would have had to have been in the hundreds, given the numbers of the Jaredite kingdom at the time. How that was done is not stated, but you don’t make hundreds of swords over a fire on a hill somewhere, but through a concentrated and well organized production effort.
    Hamblin then goes on to write about finding a steel dagger in an ancient tomb and extrapolating this one find into the massive existence of daggers among the ancient people of that time.  He then sums up with, “Thus, the assumption that a single reference to “steel swords” in Ether necessitates that all Jaredite soldiers in all ages had “steel swords” would, if consistently applied to the Near East, likewise require that [this] example of an iron dagger means that all soldiers in the Near East in all ages would have to also have iron daggers. But this was not the case. Critics employing the hyper-skepticism fallacy ignore the concept of elite weapons vs. common weapons and the issue of transformation of weapon types through time.”
    He then goes on to state that while the king or an elite leader had a steel dagger, his troops would not have had steel weapons. This seems a little odd, since any kind or elite leader would want to arm his army with the best possible weapons so that any war they fought, they would be both superior and defeat their enemy--this would be specific in quality, capability and endurance of the weapon, though not in its fineness of decoraton or embellishment (such as jewels or certain type handle material). For a leader to withhold superiority in weapons so that he alone had a good sword or weapon simply does not make sense, no matter how cleverly a word game is played by so-called "experts."
    Hamblin then claims: “Why should we reject the possibility of a very rare royal metal weapons in Book of Mormon times when most of the commoners used stone weapons? To reject this possibility is blatant anti-Mormon special pleading.” To understand his meaning we have to realize that he is telling us that while the man Shule, who was building a fighting force and arming them sufficiently that they could overthrow the kingdom, which would have been heavily armed and protected by the followers and army of a usurper (Corihor), that he made one sword of steel, and armed his followers with stone weapons?
    Really?
    Wouldn’t it make more sense that if you were planning an attack against a superior force that you would want to arm your men with the best weapons possible?
    The trouble with trying to change the meaning of the scriptural record, even well-meaning members get themselves into trouble with reality since their changes have to go so far afield that reality and reason end up taking a back seat and in the end exposing the silliness of the apologetic attempt.

The scriptural record tells us: “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” (Ether 7:9, emphasis added).
    We do the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon a tremendous disservice, as well as the members who read what we write, when we try to change the meaning and understanding of the clear and simple language that Joseph Smith used to translate the Plates—words, by the way that were approved by the Spirit as has been pointed out!
    Steel is steel! It may not be the purest steel, nor the exact steel we are capable of refining today, but it was nonetheless steel, i.e., iron alloyed with carbon. 
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part IX,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain