Our good friends at Book of Mormon Central ("BMC," aka "Scripture Central" and "SC") are at it again. They've released #740 in their series of essays that they call "Kno-Whys."
We're going to spend some time on this one because it's a good example of several of the common rhetorical tactics BMC/SC uses to promote its ideology.
Essay #270 (and especially the last paragraph) is a long-winded way of repeating the fundamental editorial position of Scripture Central and Book of Mormon Central:
(i) the text of the Book of Mormon is wrong and unreliable to the extent it contradicts M2C;
(ii) we need to look to the M2C scholars at BMC/SC for guidance and direction; and
(iii) alternative faithful interpretations of the text are not permissible for purposes of comparison and education of the Latter-day Saints if they don't support M2C.
_____
We love our brothers and sisters at BMC/SC and we want BMC/SC to successfully fulfill its stated objectives "to illuminate and defend divine truth." We're also happy for people believing whatever they want. But we can all see that as long as BMC/SC operates only within its M2C* bubble, the organization will continue to produce content such as #740 that is counterproductive to these objectives.
[*M2C is the acronym for the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory of Book of Mormon geography and interpretation.]
 |
| Scripture Central's M2C bubble |
Most of these "Kno-Whys" are harmless enough. Some are insightful and useful. Some, though, are so problematic that when people send them to me for my reaction, they would be better named "No-wise." (See more examples at the end of this post.)
The BMC staff creates these "No-wise" inside their little M2C bubble, apparently unaware that the entire rest of the world is on the Internet, eager to make informed decisions by comparing and contrasting different perspectives. This includes Latter-day Saints who don't appreciate the tactics BMC uses to promote its M2C ideology.
No-wise #740, which you can see here, https://scripturecentral.org/book-of-mormon/knowhy/what-kinds-of-swords-did-book-of-mormon-peoples-use?, is designed to persuade readers to "see" Mesoamerica when they read the Book of Mormon. The No-wise turns the scriptures inside-out to promote the BMC narrative that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah/Ramah.
We'll discuss No-wise #740 in more detail below after we consider what BMC is doing with these essays.
_____
If it was a legitimate academic organization, BMC would follow the example of https://www.kno-why.com/, which declares its approach on its website:
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
But BMC takes the opposite approach.
Instead of transparency and collaboration, BMC believes in obfuscation and exclusion.
Someone looking at the self-appointed "Center" for Latter-day scripture ("Scripture Central") might think the organization represents and accommodates, or at least recognizes and respects, the views of all faithful Latter-day Saints. That's what a "Center" should be.
But many of us are disappointed that Scripture Central is merely an advocacy organization that spends millions of dollars to persuade Latter-day Saints that the prophets are wrong about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.
Like me, many Latter-day Saints wonder why BMC rejects transparency and collaboration. Since its inception several years ago, I've offered to work with BMC by providing editorial input, at my own expense, to help them improve their content and make it more inclusive.
They've always refused, even as recently as within the last week.
Instead, BMC exists in a Mesoamerican bubble, promoting M2C as the only permissible approach to the Book of Mormon.
BMC restricts its content to promote the specific views of a small group of like-minded academics whose insular worldview is reinforced by spending millions of dollars on marketing and content creation, all to create a narrative that competes with the legitimate, straightforward teachings of Church leaders and authentic historical sources.
This is easy to understand when we know the origin of BMC, which is merely a dba (doing business as) of Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, a long-time M2C advocacy group. http://bmaf.org/
 |
| BMAF logo depicting Mesoamerica |
From the BMC website: Is BMC a legitimate non-profit?
Yes. Book of Mormon Central (BMC) is a dba of Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, Inc., a Utah non-profit corporation organized in 2004. Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, Inc. (BMAF) is a 501 (c)(3) public charity whose final determination letter from the IRS was received in 2007.
If BMC pursued a policy of transparency and collaboration, they would encourage people to make informed decisions instead of promoting one narrative. They would pursue clarity, charity and understanding.
And BMC would welcome comparisons. People make informed decisions by comparing alternative perspectives. A good method is to apply the FAITH model of analysis (separating Facts from Assumptions and Inferences to create Theories that lead to overall Hypotheses).
The FAITH model clarifies the origins, rationales, and implications of multiple working hypotheses, empowering people to make informed decisions.
Instead of collaborating with other Latter-day Saints to develop and apply the FAITH model for the setting of the Book of Mormon, BMC relies on rhetorical tricks and obfuscation.
This latest no-wise is as good an example as any, so let's discuss it.
Original in blue, my comments in red.
______________
KnoWhy #740 | July 9, 2024
What Kinds of Swords Did Book of Mormon Peoples Use?
This is a reasonable question. So far, so good.
But now look at the illustration.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
BMC answers its question with an illustration "from the 16th century Florentine Codex." The entire No-wise #760 is an exercise in sophistry to persuade readers to promote M2C by ignoring the plain language of the text of the Book of Mormon.
This illustration reminds us that the basic message of BMC is a simple meme:
The illustration in No-wise #740 is followed by this passage:
“And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth.” Alma 24:17
This verse from Alma makes us all wonder, if the "swords" referred to in this passage were wooden sticks with small pieces of obsidian embedded in them, why didn't they just burn their sticks? Burying the weapons deep in the earth makes sense if they were difficult to replicate (such as metal swords), but not if anyone could pick up another stick, insert some obsidian, and start fighting again.
The Know
The Book of Mormon mentions swords 156 times in both literal and figurative senses.1
Wordcruncher tells us that "sword" and "swords" appear in this frequency, respectively: OT (393) (18) NT (31) (6) BM (115) (42) DC (17) (0) PGP (92) (0).
Footnote 1, like all the other footnotes in this No-wise, refers to members of the M2C citation cartel. I had stopped using that term because some people asked me to do so, but this No-wise is an example of the M2C bubble these experts inhabit; i.e., their citation cartel is an insular group that monotonously cites one another in a continuous loop.
Notice too that these "No-wise" are anonymous, suggesting that the author(s) are merely citing themselves!
Because the Book of Mormon is not available in its original language, its modern readers may envision a long, double-bladed metal weapon with a hilt, like those used by medieval European knights, when reading the English word sword.
Here, BMC starts by employing its common tactic of "finding" Mesoamerica in the text on the theory that Joseph Smith didn't translate the plates correctly. The No-wise makes the argument that the "swords" in the Book of Mormon were actually the wooden stick with embedded obsidian depicted in the included illustrations.
This is the same tactic that has generated the popular memes about tapirs; i.e., when Joseph translated the word "horse" he should have used the supposedly more accurate word "tapir" but he was too ignorant to do so.
[Notice how this tactic merges with the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) theory. According to M2Cers, (most of whom are also SITH sayers) SITH gave Joseph the "wrong word" because the stone didn't realize the text was a Mesoamerican Codex.]
The "English word sword" is also found in the English-language Bible. If modern readers envision "medieval European knights" because of the Arnold Friberg paintings, that's a legitimate problem to bring up.
But the Arnold Friberg paintings are problematic not only because of the European influence. They are equally, if not more, problematic because of the Mesoamerican influence.
Reasonably informed and thoughtful modern readers would recognize the Old Testament origins of the Book of Mormon people and thus would envision a sword in the Old Testament sense.
Such European-style metal swords have not been found in the ancient Americas, causing some critics to see Book of Mormon swords as an anachronism.2
Now the No-wise conflates the Friberg problem with the anti-Mormon argument "no evidence" problem. Instead of pointing out that the text does not specify "European-style metal swords," the No-wise embraces the anti-Mormon argument which ignores the Middle-Eastern origins of the Book of Mormon people.
Worse, the No-wise ignores the explanation in the text itself for why we don't see "European-style metal swords" in the ancient Americas; i.e., they were "cankered with rust," as we'll discuss below.
However, weapons that are in many ways functionally equivalent to swords and that have been called swords historically and in academic literature were used throughout pre-Columbian America.3
As one of multiple working hypotheses, we recognize that the "functionally equivalent" argument is not irrational. It makes sense that Joseph Smith would use his own vocabulary to translate the text "after the manner of his language." (D&C 1:24)
We can't tell how closely Joseph stuck to what was written on the plates. He said the Title Page was a literal translation, but he didn't say that about the rest of the text. Many so-called "anachronisms" would be expected if, as he said, Joseph translated the plates.
The "functionally equivalent" argument is elastic. It's one thing for Joseph to have converted an ancient text into the English language he knew and spoke. But it's something else entirely for Joseph to have mistranslated the text, such as by dictating "horse" when the original text said "tapir."
And, to be sure, "sword" is a somewhat generic term. But as we'll see, the English text uses terminology that fits the Middle-eastern origins of the people. To "see" Mesoamerica in the English text requires adding new language and ignoring the plain meaning of ordinary English.
The M2C scholars justify their revised translation of the text on the ground that Joseph (or SITH) did not correctly translate the plates. That it is not an irrational assumption. But it should be clearly identified as such as that everyone can compare it with the assumption that many Latter-day Saints still share; i.e., that the translation is correct.
The best candidate—among many—for Book of Mormon swords is probably something like the Aztec macuahuitl, also sometimes referred to more generally as a macana.4
This may be the "best candidate" according to John Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, which is basically M2C propaganda, replete with "correspondences" between Mayan civilization and Sorenson's interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Note 4 even suggests the Mayan language has Hebrew roots: "The Maya called the macuahuitl a hatzab, perhaps connected to the Hebrew hsb, meaning 'to hew.'”
The No-wise would be more useful if it identified multiple working hypotheses; i.e., what are the "many" candidates besides the macuahuitl?
Now, let's look at the how the No-wise describes this weapon.
It consisted of a flat stick of hard wood lined with obsidian or flint blades, positioned either in a straight or serrated fashion. These were referred to as swords (espadas) by the Spaniards and are still called swords by many modern scholars.5 Similarly, the Aztecs called the Spanish swords tepuzmacuauhuitl, meaning “metal macuahuitl.”6 Clearly, both of those cultures saw a similarity between the two weapons. The straight-bladed version of the macuahuitl is best known among the later Aztecs, but variations of the weapon can be traced back to early Book of Mormon times.7 Because these weapons broke down so rapidly, almost none survive today and so our knowledge must be gleaned primarily from inscriptions, artwork, and colonial accounts.8
This is all fine. People can believe whatever they want. But as this paragraph points out, "these weapons broke down so rapidly" that there would be little point in burying them deep in the ground.
The no-wise proceeds to use illustrations of "Mesoamerican codices show images of human heads and limbs being cut off by these weapons," which the no-wise claims "accords well with the Book of Mormon, which describes both arms and heads being sliced off by swords (see Alma 17:37–39; Ether 15:30–31)."
Of course, Nephi cut off Laban's head with Laban's own sword. David decapitated Goliath with his sword. John the Baptist was beheaded. Judith famously decapitated Holofernes.
None of these were done with Mesoamerican weapons.
...
Identifying the Book of Mormon sword with the macuahuitl raises a few questions but also answers many others.
Looked at from another perspective, the M2C interpretation raises many questions and answers none. We can all see that the Book of Mormon text never states or implies that the Nephites used wooden clubs lined with obsidian or flint. Instead, it refers to rust, hilts, drawing swords, etc.
For example, what might the word “hilt” refer to in Alma 44:12 and Ether 14:2 if we understand the swords to be macuahuitls?
The term "hilt" is nonbiblical. The common definition of "hilt" is in connection with a sword, such as this example from an 1822 Palmyra newspaper:
Western Farmer, Palmyra, NY, Wednesday, March 20th 1822
"one of the British demanded his watch and some other jewelry that he possessed at the same time; after he had received the plunder demanded, and laid his sword under his right arm, he stepped back one pace in the rear, seized his sword by the hilt, cut off five inches of his skull one way, and two and a half coming down in a point towards his forehead, and many of his brains flew out; he had there at that time neither sword nor pistol of his own, but fought with his adversaries own weapons, which he had got from him..."
The term "hilt" shows up three times in the Book of Mormon, all with the connotation of the ordinary use of the term:
And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, (1 Nephi 4:9)
as he raised his sword, behold, one of Moroni’s soldiers smote it even to the earth, and it broke by the hilt (Alma 44:12)
every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand (Ether 14:2)
The No-wise ignores the first use of the term because it unambiguously refers to Laban's steel sword.
For the other two verses, the No-wise offers this dubious explanation:
In this case, the hilt would simply refer to the unbladed portion of the weapon, and drawing a sword (like in Mosiah 19:4; Alma 1:9; 19:22; and 20:16) would mean raising it or pulling it from a bag, belt, or covering since sheaths did not seem to be used in the New World.15
We saw how Nephi explicitly "drew [Laban's sword] forth from the sheath thereof." All the other passages in the Book of Mormon are consistent with Nephi's usage of the term.
In the Old Testament, there are references to drawing a sword: "I will draw my sword," "will draw out a sword," "draw thy sword," "draw out a sword," "draw forth my sword out of his sheath," "draw their swords," etc. People "drew sword."
In a book that frequently quotes directly from the Old Testament, written by people whose origins were in the world of the Old Testament, the most plausible and rational way to interpret the text is through the lens of the Old Testament.
A useful "Kno-Why" would analyze the text by comparing the Old Testament worldview with a Mesoamerican worldview (and a North American worldview). But this No-wise offers only the M2C interpretation, which undermines its credibility.
One great strength of this identification is the Ammonites’ powerful concerns about stained swords (Alma 24:12–15). While this staining could simply be an idiom or figure of speech, wooden weapons literally absorb blood and become permanently stained unlike metal weapons, which can be easily wiped clean.16
This not only "could be" an idiom or figure of speech, it explicitly is:
"Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins." (Alma 24:13)
This passage is actually an argument in favor of metal swords. The people did not want to "stain our swords again," implying that they were once stained but then cleaned. Now they don't want to stain them again because they could no longer be washed bright (as they once were), but this time through the blood of Christ.
The metaphor wouldn't make sense if they were referring to wooden clubs because such clubs, once stained, could not be cleaned and stained again. The text would say, "stain our swords more" instead of "stain our swords again."
The figurative nature of this passage is obvious because no sword stained with blood is going to be literally washed bright through more blood.
Besides, metal weapons are stained by blood when it dries. To remove the stain on the sword after the blood dries takes effort (which helps the metaphor).
At the same time, obsidian blades could give Book of Mormon swords the shiny brightness they are described as having.17
Now the No-wise shifts its argument. First, it claims the wooden swords can be stained permanently. Now it claims they can be shiny because the obsidian can be wiped clean. The result: swords that are both stained and washed bright, thereby defeating the entire point of the metaphor.
Let's look at the actual verses:
And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.
16 And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved. (Alma 24:15–16)
Note: The Old Testament mentions the "bright sword and glittering spear" in Nahum 3:3.
Certainly, the Book of Mormon asserts that some metal swords were used. However, only a small fraction of Book of Mormon swords are specifically said to be made of metal.18
This transparent sophistry is typical of BMC/SC rhetoric. The No-wise doesn't quantify the references, yet it uses the phrase "small fraction" as if it had, thereby misleading readers.
We can all read the text and see that there are:
- explicit references to metal swords,
- implications of metal swords in the other references, and
- zero references to wooden swords or obsidian.
In other words, while the text specifically refers to metal swords and describes their use, there is not even a "small fraction" of references to wooden swords!
The sword of Laban is explicitly said to be steel, which is archaeologically attested in the ancient Near East in Nephi’s era.19 The only other explicitly metal swords in the Book of Mormon are the steel swords made by Shule a few generations after the Jaredite migration from Mesopotamia to the New World. The early Jaredites were familiar with metal working, but it is not stated how many steel swords Shule (a great-grandson of Jared) made and whether they were an early anomaly or somehow remained the norm in Jaredite culture.20
When a text refers naturally to an attribute of culture without remarking that it is an anomaly, we usually assume or infer that the attribute is not an anomaly.
Other passages hint at the possibility of other metal swords as well: for example, Nephi said that he made swords after the manner of Laban’s sword, weapon making is mentioned in conjunction with metallurgy several times, and Jaredite weapons whose blades were “cankered with rust” were discovered.21
The use of the term "hilt" with Laban's sword at least implies that the additional uses of the term "hilt" refer to similar metal swords.
Yet these statements can be interpreted in different ways. Nephi’s swords may have been stylistically modeled on Laban’s swords without being made of the same material. The mention of metallurgy and weaponry together only occurs a few times and could represent a limited and elite industry.22
Here we see how tenuous the M2C interpretation is. The "few" references to metallurgy and weaponry contrast with the complete absence of references to wooden swords or even obsidian.
Similarly, the discovery of Jaredite metal weaponry and armor was probably noted precisely because it was so rare.
This characterization makes no sense. First, the explorers brought the swords "for a testimony that the things they had said are true," not because the swords were a rare, unknown, curiosity.
Nothing in the text suggests or implies that swords were rare. To the contrary; the people knew exactly what they were.
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; (Mosiah 8:11)
They "brought swords," not mysterious, unknown objects made of unknown material. These swords were missing "hilts" that had perished, showing that the people knew what a hilt was. The swords had "blades." The blades were "cankered with rust," so we can all see that the people knew what rust was and what it did to the blades of swords.
The difference in archaeological evidence between dozens of metal swords and several million metal swords would be astronomical and could help explain why metal swords have not yet been discovered in ancient America.23
Here we see another straw man argument; i.e., the claim that there should be "several million metal swords."
Apparently that is based on the obviously false claim that two million people died at Cumorah, which contradicts the text (despite the ridiculous graphic in BYU Studies here:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/charting-the-book-of-mormon/chart-138-the-two-final-battles).
1 And it came to pass when Coriantumr had recovered of his wounds, he began to remember the words which Ether had spoken unto him.
2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.
(Ether 15:1–2)
Coriantumr's rumination took place years before the battle at Ramah/Cumorah. Whether he was reflecting on "two millions" who died during his lifetime, or he was thinking of the entire history of his people (the way we say over a million Americans have died in war since 1774), there is no requirement for "several million metal swords." If the "two millions" died over the entire Jaredite history, that amounts to a few thousand per year.
And they didn't all die by swords.
As modern translations show, the Biblical phrase "by the sword" is a figurative term meaning to "die in battle." Swords are only one weapon of war. Book of Mormon warriors had "their swords and their cimeters, their bows and their arrows, their stones and their slings" (Alma 43:20), all of which would kill people and all of which existed in ancient North America.
Which brings up the point about "why metal swords have not yet been discovered in ancient America." We've seen that the text provides an obvious explanation: the metal swords were "cankered with rust."
That should be all the explanation anyone needs; IOW, there is no need to "see" in the text any Mesoamerican wooden sticks with obsidian inserts.
Nevertheless, there are reports of the discovery of rusted remains of swords from ancient North American mound excavations, such as this one:
Out of a mound near the circle of the large fort at Circleville, was found the elkhorn handle of a small sword or long knife. Around the end where the blade had been inserted, was a ferule of silver; no iron was found, but an oxyde remained.
https://archive.org/details/naturalaborigina00hayw/page/342/mode/2up?q=sword
Another related this discovery:
Near the side of the human body was a plate of silver, the upper part of a sword scabbard, six inches long, two wide, weighing one ounce. Three longitudinal ridges were on it, which perhaps corresponded with the edges or ridges of the sword. It had been fastened to the scabbard by three or four rivets, the holes of which yet remain in the silver. Two or three pieces of a copper tube were also found, filled with rust. These compose the lower end of the scabbard, near the point of the sword. There is no sign of the sword itself, except this appearance of rust. Near the feet was a piece of copper weighing three ounces.
https://archive.org/details/naturalaborigina00hayw/page/346/mode/2up?q=sword
Many of the Book of Mormon weapons, including swords, daggers, and axes are also mentioned in the King James Version of the Old Testament. In the Old World, these weapons were indeed made with metal in many cases.24 However, we need not assume that Lehites or Jaredites continued to use Old World weaponry throughout their separate existences—these groups would likely have adapted to their new environments rapidly.
Maybe we "need not assume" Old World weaponry, but that doesn't mean we "need to assume" Mesoamerican weaponry to explain the text of the Book of Mormon. Multiple working hypotheses should be considered.
But if BMC/SC was a legitimate scholarly organization instead of an M2C advocacy group, this No-wise would inform readers by spelling out the various assumptions and inferences to enable and encourage people to make informed decisions instead of resorting to rhetorical tactics to obfuscate and confuse.
John L. Sorenson asserts, “Their eventual encounters with warfare likely involved largely experimental or borrowed measures in the new land since the record lacks any indication that the immigrant generation brought firsthand knowledge of warfare with them.”25
Again, one of multiple working hypotheses. Given Nephi's proficiency with Laban's sword, we can question Sorenson's assertion about the immigrants lacking "firsthand knowledge of warfare." The amount of Old Testament material in the text prompts us to reasonably assume that the immigrants learned a lot about warfare from the Hebrew record.
It is also likely that the English weaponry words used in the Book of Mormon translation are linguistic approximations since modern English-speaking people had no exactly similar weaponry to the Nephites.
Every reader can decide whether or not such an assumption is "likely," but Joseph could have easily translated the Nephite term as "wooden sword" or "wood and obsidian."
The functions of Nephite weapons, however, were probably similar to what English speakers would call swords, though their shape and composition could have varied quite widely. Even modern definitions of swords vary, with some emphasizing the function, some the shape, and others the composition.26 One study of the worldwide history of swords uses the broad term “hilted cutting weapon” and notes that “the nomenclature of ancient weapons is a controversial area.”27
That the No-wise relies on such tortured rhetoric to "find" Mesoamerican weaponry in Joseph's use of common English language is a good indication that no Mesoamerican weaponry was involved in the first place.
But again, BMC/SC owes it to its readers to provide useful comparisons of multiple working hypotheses instead of resorting to confusion and obfuscation to promote M2C.
The Why
Three points can be raised in light of this information. First, if it is indeed the case that the Ammonites were using razor-sharp, flint-studded wooden weapons, then the symbolism of these weapons’ representing the Ammonites’ complete forgiveness becomes all the more vivid because of the permanence of bloodstains indelibly left on wooden weapons.28
Scripture teaches that Jesus is the only means through which our sins may be forgiven, and so the imagery of Jesus removing permanent stains is beautiful and powerful. The Ammonites, former killers and murderers, proved to be some of the most penitent and zealous believers.29 Like them, if we will bury the swords of our spiritual rebellion or outright transgressions, we can know that our words and deeds, our swords and souls, can be found spotless and bright at the last day.
We've already seen how the symbolism works better with metal swords instead of this bizarre mixed metaphor of wood and obsidian.
Second, some readers of the Book of Mormon or Bible may be discouraged when unambiguous evidence has not yet surfaced for an aspect of Book of Mormon or biblical archaeology, but it is important to remember that true faith is not based upon material evidences. Neal A. Maxwell said,
All the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith. Believers must be patient during such unfolding.30
The text itself explains why we should not expect to find metal swords. To compound the problem of "no evidence" by reading Mesoamerica into the text is irresponsible and frames Joseph Smith (or SITH) as a poor translator.
The search for metal swords in the New World presents just that sort of opportunity to exercise faith. Absence of evidence is not unconditional evidence of absence, and archaeological discoveries that overturn previous anthropological paradigms occur regularly. If we are willing to allow that most Book of Mormon swords may have resembled hilted, bladed weapons from pre-Columbian America, the difficulties disappear considerably. Many difficulties for modern readers may result from forcing available evidence to fit preconceived notions instead of allowing scripture and available evidence to speak for themselves.
Instead of allowing the scripture to speak for itself, this No-wise claims the scripture was translated wrong, that we have to insert new terminology and impose new interpretations from the self-appointed experts at BMC/SC to understand the text, and that we should therefore defer to and depend upon these experts instead of the plain words of the text and the teachings of the prophets.
Now, look at the image they insert in the "Know" part of the No-wise, as if all the other M2C illustrations in this essay were not enough.
Third, it pays rich dividends to look more closely at the Book of Mormon and our assumptions about what it says. All readers do well to let both archaeology and scripture speak their case and then, after considering all available sources of knowledge and truth, decide how to interpret worldly data and apply divine statements. In the present case, concluding that most Book of Mormon swords are well understood as being similar to a macuahuitl exemplifies a faithful way to affirm the historicity of scripture while reckoning with archaeological evidence.
This No-wise has gone from claiming (contrary to the text) that only a "small fraction" of the swords in the text were made of metal, to now claiming that "most Book of Mormon swords are well understood" as being wooden sticks with obsidian blades.
Even in the spirit of multiple working hypotheses, that is a laughable assertion, particularly when there is not a single reference or hint of wooden swords anywhere in the text.
To repeat the opening of this post, this paragraph is a long-winded way of repeating the fundamental editorial position of Scripture Central and Book of Mormon Central:
(i) the text of the Book of Mormon is wrong and unreliable to the extent it contradicts M2C;
(ii) we need to look to the M2C scholars at BMC/SC for guidance and direction; and
(iii) alternative faithful interpretations of the text are not permissible for purposes of comparison and education of the Latter-day Saints if they don't support M2C.
_____________
Examples of common terminology.
Wayne Sentinel, published in Palmyra, New York on Tuesday, January 24th, 1826
The Brazilians continued advancing in a canter till within twenty yards, when they fired, but before they could throw their carbines over their shoulders and draw their swords, the Patriots, at full speed, were upon them, sword in hand.
Wayne Sentinel, published in Palmyra, New York on Friday, February 13th, 1829
The revolutions, or enterprises of different chiefs or parties, in Mexico, Colombia, Central America, Peru, Chili and Bueno Ayres, the new republics of the south, with the prodigal waste of human life and human happiness that have accompanied or followed them, should impress the people of the United States with a solemn sense of the benefits which they enjoy, in the existence of that invaluable moral power, which has, ever yet given that mastery to the ballot box which is obtained only by the sword in nearly all of the rest of the nations of the world....
The revolutions, however, in the south, bold up an awful lesson to certain persons in the United States proposing to "calculate the value of our union," and ready to draw the sword because of imaginary wrongs--unjustifiably, if ever they were real, and self-destructive. For, until the mass of the American people shall become corrupt, we esteem it impossible that a bad government can be long sustained.
Wayne Sentinel, published in Palmyra, New York on Friday, July 14th, 1826
Religious tyranny; no good man but shudders at its consequences, no brave man but draws his sword against it.
_____
For more examples of BMC's "no-wise," I've discussed a few here:
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/01/classic-post-3-letter-vii-and-no-wise.html
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/01/no-wise-497-land-of-promise.html
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/01/classic-post-1-no-wise-489-where-is.html
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/11/no-wise-489-where-is-hill-cumorah.html
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/07/no-wise-245.html
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/12/no-wise-493-artifacts.html
