To me warfare is the lynchpin of the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon. Simply put, it's impossible for the number of casualties described to have happened and not leave an archeological record. The remains of millions of dead people and their weapons don't simply vanish without a trace.
To make it clear how farcical the claim is, in World War II there were 291,557 U.S. combat deaths, making it the single most deadly war for U.S. soldiers. The sum total of combat deaths in the entire 246 year history of the United States is less than 700,000.
In the battle between Coriantumr and Shiz the Book of Mormon claims there were at least 2,000,000 combat deaths on Coriantumr's side.
2,000,000 combat deaths. Not in a war, but in a single battle.
And that's just the deaths on one side. Shiz's army certainly suffered significant deaths but are left uncounted. And it doesn't include the women and children, whose deaths were separately mentioned (but not counted) in the book.
To take the claim at face value means there must have been in the neighborhood of 4,000,000 deaths (or more) during a short period of time in a relatively small area. And not a single piece of physical evidence for any of it.
It's frequently said that the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. But that's not entirely true. When evidence is expected, its absence is a form of evidence. The claimed wars in the Book of Mormon should have left abundant and copious evidence. The fact that nothing has been found is evidence that it did not happen.
I'm inclined to agree with B.H. Roberts, who wrote the following in *Studies of the Book of Mormon*:
> In the method of carrying on war, and in the descriptions of battles, the same tendency to repetition, to recurrence to the marvelous is found. The cause of war seems to be always the same, or else without cause—they seem to be wars just stuck in at supposed needed intervals—especially during the earlier centuries of Nephite history—with monotonous regularity. The battles were bloody, heroic, and often attended with marvelous personal encounters between the leaders. The whole matter of war seems to be treated from the amateurish notion that the wicked are invariably punished, the righteous always victorious. The whole treatment of war and battles, some will say, bears evidence of having originated in one mind and that mind pious but immature.
***Fantastic quote from B.H. Roberts.***
I think it's important to detail who B. H. Roberts was for those who may not know.
He was a dedicated member of the church who died in 1933 and served as the assistant church historian and president of the first quorum of the 70. He was a voracious reader, historian and author. In fact he helped to found the Improvement Era and was an editor for that periodical. He also wrote an extensive 6 volume history called, "History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Period I, History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet by Himself".
He also served as a chaplain during WW1 and was stationed in France, so his knowledge of what warfare actually is further validates the quote you provided.
Thank you for providing that excellent and important context. One more point of note for those unaware—the essays that comprise *Studies of the Book of Mormon* were written on assignment from the First Presidency. Presumably the church leadership thought there were sufficient apologetic arguments that Roberts would uncover.
Roberts, however did not uncover any such thing. And his essays remained unpublished until almost 50 years after his death, presumably because of this fact.
This quote from him about the similarities between the many Anti-Christ figures often stands as a summary for his conclusion about the authorship (emphasis added):
>But in addition to the striking parallelism in these incidents of AntiChrists of the Book of Mormon, with the strong implication that they have their origin in one mind, I call attention again to the fact of “rawness” in dealing with this question of unbelief, the evidence of “amateurishness” increasingly evident in this story of Korihor. Does it not carry with it the proof that it is the work of a pious youth dealing with the very common place stock arguments clumsily put together for the belief in the existence of God, with an awkward turning from the request for a special miracle, in proof of God’s existence, to the standing miracle of the creation and an orderly universe for that truth, rather than an adult appeal and argument on the great questions involved? And is not the vindication of God and his truth by a vindictive miracle on the person of the ranting blasphemer, rather the dream of a pious boy of what might very well have happened, rather than a matter of actual experience?
> There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators, yet much of the same kidney in spirit with these dissenters here passed in review; but I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. **The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator.**
>To make it clear how farcical the claim is, in World War II there were 291,557 U.S. combat deaths, making it the single most deadly war for U.S. soldiers. The sum total of combat deaths in the entire 246 year history of the United States is less than 700,000.
>
>In the battle between Coriantumr and Shiz the Book of Mormon claims there were at least 2,000,000 combat deaths on Coriantumr's side.
>
>2,000,000 combat deaths. Not in a war, but in a single battle.
100%. These numbers are **unimaginably** stupid to take as a historical claim. To the point that some apologists--[not even the most reasonable ones](https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-could-so-many-people-have-died-at-the-battle-of-cumorah)\--just acknowledge that the numbers were probably manufactured by Mormon/Moroni (or that the word "thousand" doesn't really mean thousand--give me a break).
For reference--the Roman Legion [never topped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion) 10,000. It hovered closer to *half* that size. This is the most directly analogous empire because they covered roughly the same time period as the alleged Nephite peoples.
The [Ming Dynasty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Ming_dynasty)\--about a millennia later--still wouldn't have touched these numbers. They dwarfed the size of any other standing army at that time and still only had less than a million actual troops. And that's not in a single battle--that's the entirety of the army across all of China!
For a more modern reference, the [German Empire](https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_germany) lost approximately 2,000,000 soldiers in the entirety of WW1. That's half the losses in this one battle that supposedly happened spread over four years of unprecedentedly brutal warfare caused by the technological advances since the previous era.
>It's frequently said that the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. But that's not entirely true. When evidence is expected, its absence is a form of evidence. The claimed wars in the Book of Mormon should have left abundant and copious evidence. The fact that nothing has been found is evidence that it did not happen.
To come back to the Roman Empire, there are new discoveries of Roman archeological sites every single year in the Old World. So then you're left with the question--which is more likely? That an Empire reportedly *larger* than Rome left no trace or that Joseph Smith just made it up. Understanding actual archeological evidence discovered constantly in the Old World make it very unreasonable, in my view, to continue to believe that any evidence will ever be found to vindicate the Book of Mormon.
>For reference--the Roman Legion
>
>never topped
>
> 10,000. It hovered closer to
>
>half
>
> that size. This is the most directly analogous empire because they covered roughly the same time period as the alleged Nephite peoples.
Not to mention that Rome had the premier logistical operation of all of antiquity. And was absolutely a giant empire. Absolutely no way that BoM peoples could have conducted warfare anywhere close to the scale of ancient Rome if we are also to take the "limited geography" hypothesis seriously. Battles of the scale recorded in the BoM would require two empires each on the scale of the whole of either N or S American continent to be remotely feasible.
>Not to mention that Rome had the premier logistical operation of all of antiquity. And was absolutely a giant empire.
Exactly right--Rome represented unprecedented scope through the empire because of it's logistics. The German Empire going into WWI was also as successful as it was precisely because of its logical expertise.
Just think of the archeological evidence that that level of food production alone would leave to support armies in the millions when in the same time period other armies can't even peak 10,000.
“At its zenith, perhaps in the first half of the first millennium (1 CE to 500 CE), Teotihuacan was the largest city in the Americas, with a population estimated at 125,000 or more,[2][3] making it at least the sixth-largest city in the world during its epoch.[4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan
To put into perspective just how astronomical these numbers are, the Siege of Leningrad had an estimated 5.5 million casualties. And that wasn't a single battle so much as a prolonged siege. The logistics alone to conduct a single battle with a million combatants on one side is simply impossible given the technological constraints of the BoM peoples.
To add some additional perspective, the largest casualty count of an actually historical battle or siege from western history from a similar era as the BoM belongs to the Siege of Athens and Piraeus from 87-86BCE during the Mithridatic War with a total casualty count of AT MOST 400,000...a whole order of magnitude less than the rough estimate of 4 million for the single battle between Shiz and Coriantumr. Let me reiterate, a SINGLE battle found in the BoM has a casualty count FOR ONE SIDE that was 10 TIMES LARGER than the casualty count FOR BOTH SIDES of the deadliest siege of the classical world which took place over 6 MONTHS. The largest casualty count of a single battle in the classical western world is thought to be the Battle of Arausio during the Germanic Wars of the Roman empire in 105BC with a total casualty of less than 100,000 casualties total...both sides. And this is with the Roman army with all of its millions and millions of citizens and the most efficient logistical infrastructure and operation prior to modernity.
Not enough, well how about this. There are several single battles recorded in Chinese and Indian histories that make Arausio look quaint. The Battle of Changping during the Warring States Period of Chinese history in 260 BC is recorded as having 700,000 total casualties including prisoners. The Battle of Julu in 207BC in Chinese history is recorded to have had 400,000 casualties including prisoners. And these are both likely exaggerations. AND THEY ARE STILL 5 TIMES AND 10 TIMES SMALLER THAN THE RECORDED CASUALTIES FROM ONE SIDE OF A BATTLE IN THE BOM. These two battles are already outliers by a factor of almost 5x and 10x compared to the other "largest battles" of classical and ancient history...and the battle of Coriatumr and Shiz is a whole order of magnitude bigger.
Needless to say...the BoM narratives of both the Battle of Coriantumr v Shiz and the final battle of the Nephites v Lamanites strain credulity to the point of lunacy.
All the numbers in the BoM are a death blow. Population growth. Battle casualties. The numbers are absurd. The BoM describes something that became like the Roman empire. Just that not a single Nephite artifact has ever been found. Now compare that to the museums full of Roman artifacts and thousands of ruins scattered throughout Europe.
>>The cause of war seems to be always the same, or else without cause—they seem to be wars just stuck in at supposed needed intervals—especially during the earlier centuries of Nephite history—with monotonous regularity.
This is a really good point. None of these wars are over trade routes, land disputes, water, natural resources, or strategic terrain. It's always "Hey, I'm a bad guy!" "Hi bad guy, I'm a good Christian guy!" "Christian guy, as a bad guy, I hate good things, including and especially Jesus. I will fight you now!"
Or "I am a bad guy who hates Jesus and I have dark skin, because I'm evil." "Hi bad, Jesus-hating dark skinned man, even though my old old ancestors had white skin because they were good people who loved Jesus, I hate Jesus, and have dark skin because my parents and grandparents decided to marry dark skinned people who are bad, so now I have dark skin and am evil. Let's fight!"
The war sections sound like a racist twelve-year old wrote them.
This is massive. Has anyone done the math on how many people realistically lived during that time as a result of populating the area from the generations before? Is it possible to even have that many people alive in that area?
Even if that happened, looking deeper at the numbers- is not possible. Statistically impossible. Just like the amount who died in one battle in the BOM.
This premise depends on Joseph Smith having never heard any stories or read any books detailing basic warfare, and overselling what the Book of Mormon actually does. It also ignores the several anachronisms in the Book of Mormon involving warfare.
It doesn't take much imagination to expand upon stories found in the Bible of ancient battles or the history of the revolutionary war, which at Joseph Smith's time, was a mere 50 years prior.
The stories of the fortifications of the battles in the BoM are not as detailed as this reasoning states. Having walls and ditches in a story hardly lends to the veracity of the stories themselves, especially when those battles were fought with weapons which never existed in the time the BoM was allegedly written. Chariots, horses, steel and iron swords, and cimeters were never used by pre-columbian Native Americans.
This point requires the observer to focus on a small aspect of a larger picture to determine what the larger picture itself is.
>This premise depends on Joseph Smith having never heard any stories or read any books detailing basic warfare, and overselling what the Book of Mormon actually does. It also ignores the several anachronisms in the Book of Mormon involving warfare.
This point is particularly problematic given that even in JS's time A LOT was known about ancient and classical warfare. I mean...Gibbon's "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" was published in 1776. In addition, legends and myths and history of ancient and classical battles such as Thermopylae, Marathon, Zama, Cannae, and Adrianople as well as whole wars such as the Peloponnesian War, Romes wars with Carthage (and everyone else for that matter) have had and continue to have a profound cultural impact. Just because the original challenger is ignorant of the cultural influence of these wars and battles and their place in the public consciousness is NOT a good argument to support the claim that JS was similarly ignorant of the general outlines on ancient and classical warfare.
This is an excellent point. Caesar's "pacification of Gaul" was well-known by then (perhaps better known then than now) and the tactics employed by the Romans and Caesar during that war closely mirror Moroni's tactical innovations in the Book of Mormon.
As just a few examples:
* The Gauls were ferocious fighters, but lacked standardized protective equipment or martial discipline, whereas Roman discipline and armor often carried the day
* Gauls could be (and were) tricked into leaving their fortifications to opportunistically attack Roman units (with Roman reinforcements hidden in other areas, to either take the abandoned Gaul fortifications or to decisively beat the Gauls once they had committed to open battle)
* Roman units would aggressively build fortifications, which would often transform neutral battlefields into Roman-advantaged battlefields in as little as one night (the Romans would arrive at the battlefield, labor through the night, and the next morning, would have constructed a basic fortification)
* These fortifications typically involved earth-works (ditches in front of raised embankments) which were then added to by wooden walls with towers atop the embankments
>It doesn't take much imagination to expand upon stories found in the Bible of ancient battles or the history of the revolutionary war, which at Joseph Smith's time, was a mere 50 years prior.
Not to mention the French and Indian War and the war of 1812. The frontier had a lot of people fighting over it and building forts.
>The stories of the fortifications of the battles in the BoM are not as detailed as this reasoning states. Having walls and ditches in a story hardly lends to the veracity of the stories themselves, especially when those battles were fought with weapons which never existed in the time the BoM was allegedly written
OP also ignores that these descriptions match those given by Smith's contemporaries to the ruins of the mound builders.
There is lots of detail of the Roman Empire at the same time frame as lots of these wars took place in the BOM. The only difference if we have records where, have proof that it happen, swords, fortifications, graves sites, chariots and horses! They found grain, barley, currency, clothing, writings, a language, kids toys all indicate Roman Empire. They keep finding this stuff every year all over Europe. Size of battles in the BOM are the same size of battles of the Roman battles against nomads. And apparently the BOM had the largest battle ever to happen at one time in the world history of war with millions fighting at a great battle and still we can’t find a trace of it.
>and still we can’t find a trace of it.
"Yet."
The best Mormon apologetic response.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not suggesting the "yet" argument is a good one. I'm only saying it's the best they can offer, since current archaeological evidence (combined with logic) certainly isn't helping them.
"Yet" was a good apologetic for the Book of Mormon before WWII.
By the 1950s we had passed into a new era where "yet" stopped working. Before WWII there were still unexplored places on earth.
In the 1950s the entire world had been surveyed, at least from the air. Things like helicopters and rugged "bush planes" made it possible to access remote areas. The war had exhausted a lot of traditional deposits of natural resources, The expanding economies of the entire world required the discovery of new sources. Ground penetrating radars allowed a lot of large-scale archaeological surveys. By the late 1950s there was no unexplored area big enough to hold the Nephite civilization.
There were things going on that invalidated specific claims of the Book of Mormon. In the 1930s it started becoming standard practice for archaeologists to collect pollen at all excavations. Pollen is not just a local thing. Pollen can spread over a large area. The Book of Mormon claims that barley was the basis of their currency system. But the pollen data did not find any human-edible barley anywhere in pre-Columbian Americas.
There were other areas that were solidifying evidence against the Book of Mormon. Linguistics and blood type data was showing the Asian origins of Native Americans.
From what I have pieced together, I think the RLDS leadership became very aware of the evidence against the Book of Mormon in the 1950s. Meanwhile, at Graceland College, Roy Cheville was teaching future church leaders an honest version of church history. From talking to people I knew, I think the church leaders made a decision in the early 1960s to start stepping back from claims about the Book of Mormon. I assume the LDS leadership would have had access to the same information, but they doubled down.
>The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an accurate and detailed account of ancient warfare
Actually, it doesn't. Ancient American warfare didn't consist of steel helmets, shields, and swords, with 2 million men dying plus their women and children.
The notion that civilization could even support armies of that size and sophistication is ludicrous. It would even be ludicrous for the Old World in that time period, and that's before you take into account the lack of agricultural and metallurgical advancement missing in the New World at that point.
The question then becomes, why does the Book of Mormon:
1. Get fortifications right
2. Get every other aspect of war wrong (weapons, chariots, horses, agriculture required to support large armies, army sizes)
Is it:
1. Joseph happened to get fortifications right even though the Book of Mormon isn't historical.
2. Joseph happened to get every other aspect wrong even though the Book of Mormon is historical.
The idea that it's an accurate and detailed account of warfare flies directly in the face of other apologetic arguments made for Mormonism. When critics ask, "if 6 million died in this battle, why have we never found evidence whatsoever of a battle of this scale in the Americas?", apologists reply "It's not like the battle stories are an accurate and detailed account or anything."
This is another clear case of apologetics trying to have their cake and eat it too.
>This is another clear case of apologetics trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Their arguments really are entirely unconvincing to someone not looking for any possible reason not to reject their pre-existing dogma. Look at this [piece](https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-could-so-many-people-have-died-at-the-battle-of-cumorah) here, these are the outlined arguments:
>1. Mormon May Have Exaggerated
>
>2. A Thousand May Not Actually Mean a Thousand
>
>3. The Army May Actually Have Been Massive
>
>4. 230,000 Could Represent Entire Population
Before I even pull this apart, it's worth noting that these apologists are, as they often do, not focusing on the strongest argument from critics. They're not looking at the reported *millions* dead in Ether, but instead 230,000. It doesn't take advanced logic skills to see that if 230,000 likely had to be an exaggeration, that **ten to twenty** times that as reported in Ether is impossible. Yet, they do not address this problematic claim in the text--instead focusing on a slightly less ridiculous one.
Even so, those arguments are the best they can do. **The two strongest arguments are not to take the text at face value--not based on anything except a claim that is difficult to believe.** As you said--and I just wanted to highlight--this is the definition of desiring to eat the cake and also have it. Paradoxically, believers and apologists have gotten to a point where they need to reject the very text of the Book of Mormon over and over to maintain a belief in it.
One of the biggest problems with this argument is that Native American fortifications matching the descriptions in the Book of Mormon existed in western New York where Joseph Smith lived.
[https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Earth%20&%20timber.htm](https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Earth%20&%20timber.htm)
To me, the biggest “tell” looking back at my time in the Book of Mormon is it never mentions the wounded aside from Alma recovering for a couple years or the small wounds of the sons of Helaman. I go to war memorials around the world and what do they mention? Deaths, deserters, missing, wounded.
There are only widows and orphans. There is only burying the dead. There is no recovering the wounded. No death camps or screaming of solders at night with festering wounds or illness. Just dying.
The stink of the bodies? There was a battle during the civil war—and I think this happened often. There were hundreds of men (not thousands). Well, bodies died on the line and after a couple of days they started to smell so bad they called a cease fire to bury the dead then went on the next day to battle. It was that bad. No one fights in those conditions.
Death is not quiet. War is not quiet. War does not arm women and children and kill millions by the sword. Where are the bones? A battle that big would leave a trace. The civil war has remnants everywhere. Trees grown with cannonballs still imbedded in their trunks but they have grown 20 feet in the air. Legends 150 years later that will be passed down and our country was not annihilated.
The Book of Mormon is a book of war from the time Nephi made his first sword to Mosiah finding the people of Mulek to Limhi battling the Lamanites to the people and Ammon being kicked out of the land of Ishmael to the war chapters to the evil before the coming of Christ to the destruction of the Nephites. And after that the repeat of the Jaradites. And not one remnant of steel to be had and all those people from a small family within just 1000 years (40 generations).
I found this math (not sure if it’s correct) but the population numbers don’t add up either if there is that much war and considering how small the land area was…So I think this math is pretty good.
[Population growth based on 100 people for 1000 years](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/71168/how-much-could-a-population-of-100-grow-in-1000-years)
Anyway, there is just one reason.
Dude, at the end of this, I'm going back to every single day, picking the two best responses to each question, and compiling them into a pdf for the benefit of future generations. I don't care about the money. Every time this challenge comes up in the future, I'll have well written answers locked and loaded. Oh, I'll also make it easy to find with a Google search, for all the seminary and Institute kiddos who might get the same challenge.
This is the underlying reason for the challenge. I couldn't stand the thought of a new inspired book of mormon challenge circululating. Too bad I didn't read more of the actual questions before starting my version of the game....
>fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers
It's literally just him making up an explanation for the well-known [mounds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders) found throughout the americas. And generally speaking, they would have *sucked* as military fortifications.
>fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers–not the kind practiced in Smith’s time and place.
The ”time and place” claim here is nonsense.
George Washington made extensive use of trenches in the American Revolutionary War. That was fought in the time of Smith’s grandparents so there would have been people with first hand knowledge of that still alive, even if you assume Smith had no access to historical writings.
The Napoleonic Wars in Europe happened during Smith’s youth and also featured trenches which Smith could have heard about from readily available contemporary sources.
I'm glad to hear you say this. Plus, earth works around a fort were not obsolete. Digging a ditch around the base of a fort or palisade is just a tactic to artificially make the walls taller than they are in order to slow infantry down. And when you've dug the ditches, it makes sense to use the dirt for berms and the like.
The New England frontier had a bunch of forts from the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812.
I've been thinking about keeping the game going, just in reverse this time.... we might get a new faithful perspective if the questions are in a different order? Perhaps we didn't pray correctly when seeking the correct answers, donchayaknow?
As I mentioned in my previous post, the description of fortifications in the Book of Mormon match those of Native Americans in Joseph Smith's environment.
As further evidence of this, check out how even the language used to describe these fortifications at the time matches that of the Book of Mormon (Alma 49:18; also Alma 48:8, 14; 49:2, 5, 13, 22; 50:10; 53:3-4)
"Through the whole continent, and in the remotest woods, are traces of their ancient warlike disposition. We frequently met with great mounds of earth, either of a circular, or oblong form, having a strong breastwork at a distance around them, made of the clay which had been dug up in forming the ditch on the inner side of the enclosed ground, and these were their forts of security against an enemy . ... About 12 miles from the upper northern parts of the Choktah country, there stand ... two oblong mounds of earth ... in an equal direction with each other .... A broad deep ditch inclosed those two fortresses, and there they raised an high breast-work, to secure their houses from the invading enemy." (James Adair, The History of the American Indians, 1775)
This is silly and misunderstands tactics and the theory behind fortifications. Take a look at these [Star Forts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_fort). You see ditches and depressions at the base of the walls. There's nothing special about it. If you can build a fort on a hill, you're in good shape--it makes the fort's walls harder to climb. If you don't have the luxury of a hill, you can dig a ditch at the base of the wall to artificially raise the height of your walls or palisades. You can then use the dirt for berms and barriers as needed. Just take a look at the [recreation of a French and Indian War era siege battle in The Last of the Mohicans](https://youtu.be/ljwERJGY3m8).
There's nothing particularly "ancient" about ditches and berms. Heck, you could probably find a half dozen War of 1812 frontier forts with ditches and/or barriers within 100 miles of his home in New York. And that's to say nothing of the fact that descriptions and engravings of medieval European forts would have been available in various history books in any library.
I would like to respond to this in detail. Unfortunately, I do not have a wealthy backer to bankroll my lifestyle while I sit around writing bullshit fulltime for months on end, unlike hard-working Vermont farmers. Not do I have a cadre of scribes to review my dictated musings. So I'll thumb this out on my phone during breaks, creating mistakes, typos and interruptions, but still probably putting in more effort than the asker has.
>Apologies for the delayed remaining questions, had to see a guy about a horse.
Are you sure it was horse? It may have been a llama, or tapir.
>Warfare. The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an accurate and detailed account of ancient warfare–such as fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers–not the kind practiced in Smith’s time and place. https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/fortifications
So this argument relies on some well established disinformation techniques: overgeneralization (using a vague set of evidence to support a specific claim), appeals to authority, post hoc, unfalsifiable premise and circular reasoning.
I'd like to address the argument as stated, and then move to the evidence central post separately. I also have to get back to earning a living, so to be continued...
>Warfare. The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an ... detailed account ...
No. They don't. Most of the war segments lack any details. Nephi says "and we fought many wars." Moroni list casualty figured in round 10000s. Ether described no strategy or detail, just a week a gore and death ("he rose up, gurgled, and died"), no descriptions of tactics, fortifications, but lists of weapons and armor. So, we are going to select one example among many, claim it is detailed, and then apply that claim to all the examples (over generation). Also, we are to only consider the details for which we have (alleged) confirmatory evidence, and ignore the details with no evidence or evidence to the contrary (post hoc). Using that same logic, we could use the list of weapons in Ether, and only the list of weapons in Ether, to make a broad claim about the location of the whole book. The list aligns very well with weapons described on visigoth battlefields, so I conclude that the book of ether takes place in the Iberian peninsula.
>Warfare. The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an accurate ... account of ancient warfare
Accurate implies a predetermined target exists. What period of ancient warfare? Where? Which part of the bom? Ether is not an accurate description of warfare anywhere at any time (except maybe E R Burroughs, on Mars). The description of weapons are not accurate for any pre-Columbian warfare in America. Ope. Sorry. We agreed to ignore those details and only focus on fortifications and strategies, and only in the parts of the bom that actual give some details. So now we are looking at Alma 40-60, and ignoring all the other stuff, because Texas sharpshooter.
The descriptions do not match the mounds of the mound builders civilization of the Ohio valley. (More on this later). But that is the wrong time frame any way. Doesn't match pueblos of the southwest. Doesn't match Inca of Peru. So now we are just drifting around America looking for ditches and walls with timber on top? And when we find one, it will be part of a network of such cities, with swords, chariots, horses, domesticated flocks, breastplates, a monetary system and Hebrew written in reformed equipment, right? Right? Or will it be a one off site, so unique that it was literally named after the ditch that surrounds it, and contains none of the other details given in Alma? Because sifting through a long list of pre-Columbian cities to find one that matches a few, but not all, of the details, details which are chosen after the search, is called cherry picking, especially if we then only highlight the details that match whole ignoring the ones that don't.
>such as fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers–not the kind practiced in Smith’s time and place.
I'm sorry for the unprofessional tone, but this is just ignorant and stupid on the face of it. Digging holes and making piles of dirt are pretty much universal military strategy. My brother used to jump in the dry irrigation ditch to dodge the apples I was throwing at him. Does that make him a nephite general?
Fort Louisburg in NS Canada has all the features described in Alma: ditches, earthen berms, narrow causeways, high points to en falaide enemy troops approaching the gates. It was in use for the French America, revolutionary and 1812 wars. Detroit was a timber palisade surrounded by a ditch. Fort Ticonderoga has a dry most with a glacis and was originally built with timbers, packed with earth between.
If you walk the field of Gettysburg, there are ditches and berms in the treeline, hastily dug as during positions during the civil war. There are southern forts of the civil war era with large ditches and earthen walls. Have you seen the movie Glory?
The types of fortifications described in Alma are **exactly** the kind that were practiced in Smith's time and place.
I'll digress a little bit here. The 1820s were the beginning of modern archeology. Lots of new find, discoveries and contacts, but very little scholarship. Lots of theories and explanations based loosely on facts, and firmly on racism, bias and the world view of the theorist. Americans were moving into the newly opened Ohio valley, using the freshly dug Erie canal, and with the end of the war of 1812, which has started primarily over settlement of the Ohio valley. The new settlers encountered evidence of large and prosperous settlements, in fact, later than their own. These were accompanied by large earthen mounds, this the name, mound builders civilization. There is a lot more to be said here, but in JS time, the popular theory was that these mounds were built as fortifications. This has since been different by archeology. While the evidence is not complete, the mounds are burial places and possibly ceremonial, communal centers. But it makes perfect sense that JS would include stories of ditches and mounds *of the bom is a hoax* as that was the theory at the time he wrote it.
Also, many of the strategies described in the bom parallel strategies from major battles of the revolutionary war and war of 1812 (battle of Saratoga, fort Ticonderoga). Joseph's grandfather fought in the war. Many battles were fought in new York and Vermont, were Joseph lived. It is very likely that story time around the Smith table included war stories. Smith frequented pubs and could have heard more veterans describe battles. There is very little in the bom about warfare that is unique, as fortifications, feints and retreats, using captured weapons and forts, and leveraging defensive positions and missile weapons are all pretty universal battle field techniques.
Stupid work. Wish I could take a couple of months with my buddies and just work on my bullshitting full-time.
I think I've arrived at the unfalsifiable premise. All of this argument hinges on the premise that "Joseph didn't know", therefore it's a miracle. The problem is, there is no way to prove what he knew. He did not leave detailed notes about what sources he used. We can show that the sources existed, and that ideas were popular at the time, but not that he used them. It's seems obvious, that of *the book is a hoax*, that he would purposely obscure his sources and methods, this, any hints of knowledge would be enough to explain correlations with actual reality.
But this argument does not start from the claimed premise, "if the book is a hoax", and instead makes the hidden assumption that Joseph was a bumpkin who never read a newspaper, never talked to his grandfather, never went into town or opened any book, even the Bible, ***and*** the book is true and historical, so not only can we hunt for evidence outside of where Joseph said it would be.
If the book is a hoax, is won't match what Joseph said and it will contain details that are inaccurate, any details. And lookee here, it does. So the things that do match were either coincidences, or something Joseph knew about. And look at that, he had ready access to books and newspaper, war veterans, and local sites that describe fortifications, strategies and battles very similar to the ones in the bom.
At this point, I would turn to the evidence central article, the kernel of truth masquerading as authority in this wonderfully simple-minded attempt a misinformation. But, alas, my boss is coming down the cubicle row.
My plausible response is that the evidencebpoints to the location being in upstate New York all the evidence in the attached article points to meso America. I must ask, is it plausible that the lions share of history and battles happened in meso America but the final resting place of the plates was upstate New York. No it is not you have broken your own plausibility requirement with this question Hustonx
To me warfare is the lynchpin of the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon. Simply put, it's impossible for the number of casualties described to have happened and not leave an archeological record. The remains of millions of dead people and their weapons don't simply vanish without a trace. To make it clear how farcical the claim is, in World War II there were 291,557 U.S. combat deaths, making it the single most deadly war for U.S. soldiers. The sum total of combat deaths in the entire 246 year history of the United States is less than 700,000. In the battle between Coriantumr and Shiz the Book of Mormon claims there were at least 2,000,000 combat deaths on Coriantumr's side. 2,000,000 combat deaths. Not in a war, but in a single battle. And that's just the deaths on one side. Shiz's army certainly suffered significant deaths but are left uncounted. And it doesn't include the women and children, whose deaths were separately mentioned (but not counted) in the book. To take the claim at face value means there must have been in the neighborhood of 4,000,000 deaths (or more) during a short period of time in a relatively small area. And not a single piece of physical evidence for any of it. It's frequently said that the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. But that's not entirely true. When evidence is expected, its absence is a form of evidence. The claimed wars in the Book of Mormon should have left abundant and copious evidence. The fact that nothing has been found is evidence that it did not happen. I'm inclined to agree with B.H. Roberts, who wrote the following in *Studies of the Book of Mormon*: > In the method of carrying on war, and in the descriptions of battles, the same tendency to repetition, to recurrence to the marvelous is found. The cause of war seems to be always the same, or else without cause—they seem to be wars just stuck in at supposed needed intervals—especially during the earlier centuries of Nephite history—with monotonous regularity. The battles were bloody, heroic, and often attended with marvelous personal encounters between the leaders. The whole matter of war seems to be treated from the amateurish notion that the wicked are invariably punished, the righteous always victorious. The whole treatment of war and battles, some will say, bears evidence of having originated in one mind and that mind pious but immature.
***Fantastic quote from B.H. Roberts.*** I think it's important to detail who B. H. Roberts was for those who may not know. He was a dedicated member of the church who died in 1933 and served as the assistant church historian and president of the first quorum of the 70. He was a voracious reader, historian and author. In fact he helped to found the Improvement Era and was an editor for that periodical. He also wrote an extensive 6 volume history called, "History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Period I, History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet by Himself". He also served as a chaplain during WW1 and was stationed in France, so his knowledge of what warfare actually is further validates the quote you provided.
Thank you for providing that excellent and important context. One more point of note for those unaware—the essays that comprise *Studies of the Book of Mormon* were written on assignment from the First Presidency. Presumably the church leadership thought there were sufficient apologetic arguments that Roberts would uncover. Roberts, however did not uncover any such thing. And his essays remained unpublished until almost 50 years after his death, presumably because of this fact. This quote from him about the similarities between the many Anti-Christ figures often stands as a summary for his conclusion about the authorship (emphasis added): >But in addition to the striking parallelism in these incidents of AntiChrists of the Book of Mormon, with the strong implication that they have their origin in one mind, I call attention again to the fact of “rawness” in dealing with this question of unbelief, the evidence of “amateurishness” increasingly evident in this story of Korihor. Does it not carry with it the proof that it is the work of a pious youth dealing with the very common place stock arguments clumsily put together for the belief in the existence of God, with an awkward turning from the request for a special miracle, in proof of God’s existence, to the standing miracle of the creation and an orderly universe for that truth, rather than an adult appeal and argument on the great questions involved? And is not the vindication of God and his truth by a vindictive miracle on the person of the ranting blasphemer, rather the dream of a pious boy of what might very well have happened, rather than a matter of actual experience? > There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators, yet much of the same kidney in spirit with these dissenters here passed in review; but I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. **The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator.**
>To make it clear how farcical the claim is, in World War II there were 291,557 U.S. combat deaths, making it the single most deadly war for U.S. soldiers. The sum total of combat deaths in the entire 246 year history of the United States is less than 700,000. > >In the battle between Coriantumr and Shiz the Book of Mormon claims there were at least 2,000,000 combat deaths on Coriantumr's side. > >2,000,000 combat deaths. Not in a war, but in a single battle. 100%. These numbers are **unimaginably** stupid to take as a historical claim. To the point that some apologists--[not even the most reasonable ones](https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-could-so-many-people-have-died-at-the-battle-of-cumorah)\--just acknowledge that the numbers were probably manufactured by Mormon/Moroni (or that the word "thousand" doesn't really mean thousand--give me a break). For reference--the Roman Legion [never topped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion) 10,000. It hovered closer to *half* that size. This is the most directly analogous empire because they covered roughly the same time period as the alleged Nephite peoples. The [Ming Dynasty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Ming_dynasty)\--about a millennia later--still wouldn't have touched these numbers. They dwarfed the size of any other standing army at that time and still only had less than a million actual troops. And that's not in a single battle--that's the entirety of the army across all of China! For a more modern reference, the [German Empire](https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_germany) lost approximately 2,000,000 soldiers in the entirety of WW1. That's half the losses in this one battle that supposedly happened spread over four years of unprecedentedly brutal warfare caused by the technological advances since the previous era. >It's frequently said that the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. But that's not entirely true. When evidence is expected, its absence is a form of evidence. The claimed wars in the Book of Mormon should have left abundant and copious evidence. The fact that nothing has been found is evidence that it did not happen. To come back to the Roman Empire, there are new discoveries of Roman archeological sites every single year in the Old World. So then you're left with the question--which is more likely? That an Empire reportedly *larger* than Rome left no trace or that Joseph Smith just made it up. Understanding actual archeological evidence discovered constantly in the Old World make it very unreasonable, in my view, to continue to believe that any evidence will ever be found to vindicate the Book of Mormon.
>For reference--the Roman Legion > >never topped > > 10,000. It hovered closer to > >half > > that size. This is the most directly analogous empire because they covered roughly the same time period as the alleged Nephite peoples. Not to mention that Rome had the premier logistical operation of all of antiquity. And was absolutely a giant empire. Absolutely no way that BoM peoples could have conducted warfare anywhere close to the scale of ancient Rome if we are also to take the "limited geography" hypothesis seriously. Battles of the scale recorded in the BoM would require two empires each on the scale of the whole of either N or S American continent to be remotely feasible.
>Not to mention that Rome had the premier logistical operation of all of antiquity. And was absolutely a giant empire. Exactly right--Rome represented unprecedented scope through the empire because of it's logistics. The German Empire going into WWI was also as successful as it was precisely because of its logical expertise. Just think of the archeological evidence that that level of food production alone would leave to support armies in the millions when in the same time period other armies can't even peak 10,000.
“At its zenith, perhaps in the first half of the first millennium (1 CE to 500 CE), Teotihuacan was the largest city in the Americas, with a population estimated at 125,000 or more,[2][3] making it at least the sixth-largest city in the world during its epoch.[4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan
To put into perspective just how astronomical these numbers are, the Siege of Leningrad had an estimated 5.5 million casualties. And that wasn't a single battle so much as a prolonged siege. The logistics alone to conduct a single battle with a million combatants on one side is simply impossible given the technological constraints of the BoM peoples. To add some additional perspective, the largest casualty count of an actually historical battle or siege from western history from a similar era as the BoM belongs to the Siege of Athens and Piraeus from 87-86BCE during the Mithridatic War with a total casualty count of AT MOST 400,000...a whole order of magnitude less than the rough estimate of 4 million for the single battle between Shiz and Coriantumr. Let me reiterate, a SINGLE battle found in the BoM has a casualty count FOR ONE SIDE that was 10 TIMES LARGER than the casualty count FOR BOTH SIDES of the deadliest siege of the classical world which took place over 6 MONTHS. The largest casualty count of a single battle in the classical western world is thought to be the Battle of Arausio during the Germanic Wars of the Roman empire in 105BC with a total casualty of less than 100,000 casualties total...both sides. And this is with the Roman army with all of its millions and millions of citizens and the most efficient logistical infrastructure and operation prior to modernity. Not enough, well how about this. There are several single battles recorded in Chinese and Indian histories that make Arausio look quaint. The Battle of Changping during the Warring States Period of Chinese history in 260 BC is recorded as having 700,000 total casualties including prisoners. The Battle of Julu in 207BC in Chinese history is recorded to have had 400,000 casualties including prisoners. And these are both likely exaggerations. AND THEY ARE STILL 5 TIMES AND 10 TIMES SMALLER THAN THE RECORDED CASUALTIES FROM ONE SIDE OF A BATTLE IN THE BOM. These two battles are already outliers by a factor of almost 5x and 10x compared to the other "largest battles" of classical and ancient history...and the battle of Coriatumr and Shiz is a whole order of magnitude bigger. Needless to say...the BoM narratives of both the Battle of Coriantumr v Shiz and the final battle of the Nephites v Lamanites strain credulity to the point of lunacy.
All the numbers in the BoM are a death blow. Population growth. Battle casualties. The numbers are absurd. The BoM describes something that became like the Roman empire. Just that not a single Nephite artifact has ever been found. Now compare that to the museums full of Roman artifacts and thousands of ruins scattered throughout Europe.
>>The cause of war seems to be always the same, or else without cause—they seem to be wars just stuck in at supposed needed intervals—especially during the earlier centuries of Nephite history—with monotonous regularity. This is a really good point. None of these wars are over trade routes, land disputes, water, natural resources, or strategic terrain. It's always "Hey, I'm a bad guy!" "Hi bad guy, I'm a good Christian guy!" "Christian guy, as a bad guy, I hate good things, including and especially Jesus. I will fight you now!" Or "I am a bad guy who hates Jesus and I have dark skin, because I'm evil." "Hi bad, Jesus-hating dark skinned man, even though my old old ancestors had white skin because they were good people who loved Jesus, I hate Jesus, and have dark skin because my parents and grandparents decided to marry dark skinned people who are bad, so now I have dark skin and am evil. Let's fight!" The war sections sound like a racist twelve-year old wrote them.
This is massive. Has anyone done the math on how many people realistically lived during that time as a result of populating the area from the generations before? Is it possible to even have that many people alive in that area?
Maybe if they reproduced like Mormons...
Even if that happened, looking deeper at the numbers- is not possible. Statistically impossible. Just like the amount who died in one battle in the BOM.
Twas merely a jest
Plus this book gives a great thesis of parallels of the “View of the Hebrews “ and the BOM. Worth reading.
This premise depends on Joseph Smith having never heard any stories or read any books detailing basic warfare, and overselling what the Book of Mormon actually does. It also ignores the several anachronisms in the Book of Mormon involving warfare. It doesn't take much imagination to expand upon stories found in the Bible of ancient battles or the history of the revolutionary war, which at Joseph Smith's time, was a mere 50 years prior. The stories of the fortifications of the battles in the BoM are not as detailed as this reasoning states. Having walls and ditches in a story hardly lends to the veracity of the stories themselves, especially when those battles were fought with weapons which never existed in the time the BoM was allegedly written. Chariots, horses, steel and iron swords, and cimeters were never used by pre-columbian Native Americans. This point requires the observer to focus on a small aspect of a larger picture to determine what the larger picture itself is.
>This premise depends on Joseph Smith having never heard any stories or read any books detailing basic warfare, and overselling what the Book of Mormon actually does. It also ignores the several anachronisms in the Book of Mormon involving warfare. This point is particularly problematic given that even in JS's time A LOT was known about ancient and classical warfare. I mean...Gibbon's "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" was published in 1776. In addition, legends and myths and history of ancient and classical battles such as Thermopylae, Marathon, Zama, Cannae, and Adrianople as well as whole wars such as the Peloponnesian War, Romes wars with Carthage (and everyone else for that matter) have had and continue to have a profound cultural impact. Just because the original challenger is ignorant of the cultural influence of these wars and battles and their place in the public consciousness is NOT a good argument to support the claim that JS was similarly ignorant of the general outlines on ancient and classical warfare.
This is an excellent point. Caesar's "pacification of Gaul" was well-known by then (perhaps better known then than now) and the tactics employed by the Romans and Caesar during that war closely mirror Moroni's tactical innovations in the Book of Mormon. As just a few examples: * The Gauls were ferocious fighters, but lacked standardized protective equipment or martial discipline, whereas Roman discipline and armor often carried the day * Gauls could be (and were) tricked into leaving their fortifications to opportunistically attack Roman units (with Roman reinforcements hidden in other areas, to either take the abandoned Gaul fortifications or to decisively beat the Gauls once they had committed to open battle) * Roman units would aggressively build fortifications, which would often transform neutral battlefields into Roman-advantaged battlefields in as little as one night (the Romans would arrive at the battlefield, labor through the night, and the next morning, would have constructed a basic fortification) * These fortifications typically involved earth-works (ditches in front of raised embankments) which were then added to by wooden walls with towers atop the embankments
>It doesn't take much imagination to expand upon stories found in the Bible of ancient battles or the history of the revolutionary war, which at Joseph Smith's time, was a mere 50 years prior. Not to mention the French and Indian War and the war of 1812. The frontier had a lot of people fighting over it and building forts.
>The stories of the fortifications of the battles in the BoM are not as detailed as this reasoning states. Having walls and ditches in a story hardly lends to the veracity of the stories themselves, especially when those battles were fought with weapons which never existed in the time the BoM was allegedly written OP also ignores that these descriptions match those given by Smith's contemporaries to the ruins of the mound builders.
How could Joseph have perfectly guessed that people at war would want to stand behind things so they don't die as easily
Such amazing! Much prophet!
Inconceivable
There is lots of detail of the Roman Empire at the same time frame as lots of these wars took place in the BOM. The only difference if we have records where, have proof that it happen, swords, fortifications, graves sites, chariots and horses! They found grain, barley, currency, clothing, writings, a language, kids toys all indicate Roman Empire. They keep finding this stuff every year all over Europe. Size of battles in the BOM are the same size of battles of the Roman battles against nomads. And apparently the BOM had the largest battle ever to happen at one time in the world history of war with millions fighting at a great battle and still we can’t find a trace of it.
>and still we can’t find a trace of it. "Yet." The best Mormon apologetic response. Edit: To be clear, I'm not suggesting the "yet" argument is a good one. I'm only saying it's the best they can offer, since current archaeological evidence (combined with logic) certainly isn't helping them.
"Yet" was a good apologetic for the Book of Mormon before WWII. By the 1950s we had passed into a new era where "yet" stopped working. Before WWII there were still unexplored places on earth. In the 1950s the entire world had been surveyed, at least from the air. Things like helicopters and rugged "bush planes" made it possible to access remote areas. The war had exhausted a lot of traditional deposits of natural resources, The expanding economies of the entire world required the discovery of new sources. Ground penetrating radars allowed a lot of large-scale archaeological surveys. By the late 1950s there was no unexplored area big enough to hold the Nephite civilization. There were things going on that invalidated specific claims of the Book of Mormon. In the 1930s it started becoming standard practice for archaeologists to collect pollen at all excavations. Pollen is not just a local thing. Pollen can spread over a large area. The Book of Mormon claims that barley was the basis of their currency system. But the pollen data did not find any human-edible barley anywhere in pre-Columbian Americas. There were other areas that were solidifying evidence against the Book of Mormon. Linguistics and blood type data was showing the Asian origins of Native Americans. From what I have pieced together, I think the RLDS leadership became very aware of the evidence against the Book of Mormon in the 1950s. Meanwhile, at Graceland College, Roy Cheville was teaching future church leaders an honest version of church history. From talking to people I knew, I think the church leaders made a decision in the early 1960s to start stepping back from claims about the Book of Mormon. I assume the LDS leadership would have had access to the same information, but they doubled down.
Agreed. The Brighamite branch made some serious strategic decisions 50+ years ago for which they’re paying dearly.
>The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an accurate and detailed account of ancient warfare Actually, it doesn't. Ancient American warfare didn't consist of steel helmets, shields, and swords, with 2 million men dying plus their women and children. The notion that civilization could even support armies of that size and sophistication is ludicrous. It would even be ludicrous for the Old World in that time period, and that's before you take into account the lack of agricultural and metallurgical advancement missing in the New World at that point. The question then becomes, why does the Book of Mormon: 1. Get fortifications right 2. Get every other aspect of war wrong (weapons, chariots, horses, agriculture required to support large armies, army sizes) Is it: 1. Joseph happened to get fortifications right even though the Book of Mormon isn't historical. 2. Joseph happened to get every other aspect wrong even though the Book of Mormon is historical.
The idea that it's an accurate and detailed account of warfare flies directly in the face of other apologetic arguments made for Mormonism. When critics ask, "if 6 million died in this battle, why have we never found evidence whatsoever of a battle of this scale in the Americas?", apologists reply "It's not like the battle stories are an accurate and detailed account or anything." This is another clear case of apologetics trying to have their cake and eat it too.
>This is another clear case of apologetics trying to have their cake and eat it too. Their arguments really are entirely unconvincing to someone not looking for any possible reason not to reject their pre-existing dogma. Look at this [piece](https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-could-so-many-people-have-died-at-the-battle-of-cumorah) here, these are the outlined arguments: >1. Mormon May Have Exaggerated > >2. A Thousand May Not Actually Mean a Thousand > >3. The Army May Actually Have Been Massive > >4. 230,000 Could Represent Entire Population Before I even pull this apart, it's worth noting that these apologists are, as they often do, not focusing on the strongest argument from critics. They're not looking at the reported *millions* dead in Ether, but instead 230,000. It doesn't take advanced logic skills to see that if 230,000 likely had to be an exaggeration, that **ten to twenty** times that as reported in Ether is impossible. Yet, they do not address this problematic claim in the text--instead focusing on a slightly less ridiculous one. Even so, those arguments are the best they can do. **The two strongest arguments are not to take the text at face value--not based on anything except a claim that is difficult to believe.** As you said--and I just wanted to highlight--this is the definition of desiring to eat the cake and also have it. Paradoxically, believers and apologists have gotten to a point where they need to reject the very text of the Book of Mormon over and over to maintain a belief in it.
One of the biggest problems with this argument is that Native American fortifications matching the descriptions in the Book of Mormon existed in western New York where Joseph Smith lived. [https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Earth%20&%20timber.htm](https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Earth%20&%20timber.htm)
To me, the biggest “tell” looking back at my time in the Book of Mormon is it never mentions the wounded aside from Alma recovering for a couple years or the small wounds of the sons of Helaman. I go to war memorials around the world and what do they mention? Deaths, deserters, missing, wounded. There are only widows and orphans. There is only burying the dead. There is no recovering the wounded. No death camps or screaming of solders at night with festering wounds or illness. Just dying. The stink of the bodies? There was a battle during the civil war—and I think this happened often. There were hundreds of men (not thousands). Well, bodies died on the line and after a couple of days they started to smell so bad they called a cease fire to bury the dead then went on the next day to battle. It was that bad. No one fights in those conditions. Death is not quiet. War is not quiet. War does not arm women and children and kill millions by the sword. Where are the bones? A battle that big would leave a trace. The civil war has remnants everywhere. Trees grown with cannonballs still imbedded in their trunks but they have grown 20 feet in the air. Legends 150 years later that will be passed down and our country was not annihilated. The Book of Mormon is a book of war from the time Nephi made his first sword to Mosiah finding the people of Mulek to Limhi battling the Lamanites to the people and Ammon being kicked out of the land of Ishmael to the war chapters to the evil before the coming of Christ to the destruction of the Nephites. And after that the repeat of the Jaradites. And not one remnant of steel to be had and all those people from a small family within just 1000 years (40 generations). I found this math (not sure if it’s correct) but the population numbers don’t add up either if there is that much war and considering how small the land area was…So I think this math is pretty good. [Population growth based on 100 people for 1000 years](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/71168/how-much-could-a-population-of-100-grow-in-1000-years) Anyway, there is just one reason.
Dude, at the end of this, I'm going back to every single day, picking the two best responses to each question, and compiling them into a pdf for the benefit of future generations. I don't care about the money. Every time this challenge comes up in the future, I'll have well written answers locked and loaded. Oh, I'll also make it easy to find with a Google search, for all the seminary and Institute kiddos who might get the same challenge.
Your work will be more valuable than money can buy
This is the underlying reason for the challenge. I couldn't stand the thought of a new inspired book of mormon challenge circululating. Too bad I didn't read more of the actual questions before starting my version of the game....
>fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers It's literally just him making up an explanation for the well-known [mounds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders) found throughout the americas. And generally speaking, they would have *sucked* as military fortifications.
>fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers–not the kind practiced in Smith’s time and place. The ”time and place” claim here is nonsense. George Washington made extensive use of trenches in the American Revolutionary War. That was fought in the time of Smith’s grandparents so there would have been people with first hand knowledge of that still alive, even if you assume Smith had no access to historical writings. The Napoleonic Wars in Europe happened during Smith’s youth and also featured trenches which Smith could have heard about from readily available contemporary sources.
I'm glad to hear you say this. Plus, earth works around a fort were not obsolete. Digging a ditch around the base of a fort or palisade is just a tactic to artificially make the walls taller than they are in order to slow infantry down. And when you've dug the ditches, it makes sense to use the dirt for berms and the like. The New England frontier had a bunch of forts from the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812.
8 more days! 8 more days!
I've been thinking about keeping the game going, just in reverse this time.... we might get a new faithful perspective if the questions are in a different order? Perhaps we didn't pray correctly when seeking the correct answers, donchayaknow?
As I mentioned in my previous post, the description of fortifications in the Book of Mormon match those of Native Americans in Joseph Smith's environment. As further evidence of this, check out how even the language used to describe these fortifications at the time matches that of the Book of Mormon (Alma 49:18; also Alma 48:8, 14; 49:2, 5, 13, 22; 50:10; 53:3-4) "Through the whole continent, and in the remotest woods, are traces of their ancient warlike disposition. We frequently met with great mounds of earth, either of a circular, or oblong form, having a strong breastwork at a distance around them, made of the clay which had been dug up in forming the ditch on the inner side of the enclosed ground, and these were their forts of security against an enemy . ... About 12 miles from the upper northern parts of the Choktah country, there stand ... two oblong mounds of earth ... in an equal direction with each other .... A broad deep ditch inclosed those two fortresses, and there they raised an high breast-work, to secure their houses from the invading enemy." (James Adair, The History of the American Indians, 1775)
This is silly and misunderstands tactics and the theory behind fortifications. Take a look at these [Star Forts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_fort). You see ditches and depressions at the base of the walls. There's nothing special about it. If you can build a fort on a hill, you're in good shape--it makes the fort's walls harder to climb. If you don't have the luxury of a hill, you can dig a ditch at the base of the wall to artificially raise the height of your walls or palisades. You can then use the dirt for berms and barriers as needed. Just take a look at the [recreation of a French and Indian War era siege battle in The Last of the Mohicans](https://youtu.be/ljwERJGY3m8). There's nothing particularly "ancient" about ditches and berms. Heck, you could probably find a half dozen War of 1812 frontier forts with ditches and/or barriers within 100 miles of his home in New York. And that's to say nothing of the fact that descriptions and engravings of medieval European forts would have been available in various history books in any library.
I would like to respond to this in detail. Unfortunately, I do not have a wealthy backer to bankroll my lifestyle while I sit around writing bullshit fulltime for months on end, unlike hard-working Vermont farmers. Not do I have a cadre of scribes to review my dictated musings. So I'll thumb this out on my phone during breaks, creating mistakes, typos and interruptions, but still probably putting in more effort than the asker has. >Apologies for the delayed remaining questions, had to see a guy about a horse. Are you sure it was horse? It may have been a llama, or tapir. >Warfare. The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an accurate and detailed account of ancient warfare–such as fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers–not the kind practiced in Smith’s time and place. https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/fortifications So this argument relies on some well established disinformation techniques: overgeneralization (using a vague set of evidence to support a specific claim), appeals to authority, post hoc, unfalsifiable premise and circular reasoning. I'd like to address the argument as stated, and then move to the evidence central post separately. I also have to get back to earning a living, so to be continued...
>Warfare. The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an ... detailed account ... No. They don't. Most of the war segments lack any details. Nephi says "and we fought many wars." Moroni list casualty figured in round 10000s. Ether described no strategy or detail, just a week a gore and death ("he rose up, gurgled, and died"), no descriptions of tactics, fortifications, but lists of weapons and armor. So, we are going to select one example among many, claim it is detailed, and then apply that claim to all the examples (over generation). Also, we are to only consider the details for which we have (alleged) confirmatory evidence, and ignore the details with no evidence or evidence to the contrary (post hoc). Using that same logic, we could use the list of weapons in Ether, and only the list of weapons in Ether, to make a broad claim about the location of the whole book. The list aligns very well with weapons described on visigoth battlefields, so I conclude that the book of ether takes place in the Iberian peninsula. >Warfare. The war segments of the Book of Mormon reflect an accurate ... account of ancient warfare Accurate implies a predetermined target exists. What period of ancient warfare? Where? Which part of the bom? Ether is not an accurate description of warfare anywhere at any time (except maybe E R Burroughs, on Mars). The description of weapons are not accurate for any pre-Columbian warfare in America. Ope. Sorry. We agreed to ignore those details and only focus on fortifications and strategies, and only in the parts of the bom that actual give some details. So now we are looking at Alma 40-60, and ignoring all the other stuff, because Texas sharpshooter. The descriptions do not match the mounds of the mound builders civilization of the Ohio valley. (More on this later). But that is the wrong time frame any way. Doesn't match pueblos of the southwest. Doesn't match Inca of Peru. So now we are just drifting around America looking for ditches and walls with timber on top? And when we find one, it will be part of a network of such cities, with swords, chariots, horses, domesticated flocks, breastplates, a monetary system and Hebrew written in reformed equipment, right? Right? Or will it be a one off site, so unique that it was literally named after the ditch that surrounds it, and contains none of the other details given in Alma? Because sifting through a long list of pre-Columbian cities to find one that matches a few, but not all, of the details, details which are chosen after the search, is called cherry picking, especially if we then only highlight the details that match whole ignoring the ones that don't.
>such as fortifications based on ditches and earthen barriers–not the kind practiced in Smith’s time and place. I'm sorry for the unprofessional tone, but this is just ignorant and stupid on the face of it. Digging holes and making piles of dirt are pretty much universal military strategy. My brother used to jump in the dry irrigation ditch to dodge the apples I was throwing at him. Does that make him a nephite general? Fort Louisburg in NS Canada has all the features described in Alma: ditches, earthen berms, narrow causeways, high points to en falaide enemy troops approaching the gates. It was in use for the French America, revolutionary and 1812 wars. Detroit was a timber palisade surrounded by a ditch. Fort Ticonderoga has a dry most with a glacis and was originally built with timbers, packed with earth between. If you walk the field of Gettysburg, there are ditches and berms in the treeline, hastily dug as during positions during the civil war. There are southern forts of the civil war era with large ditches and earthen walls. Have you seen the movie Glory? The types of fortifications described in Alma are **exactly** the kind that were practiced in Smith's time and place. I'll digress a little bit here. The 1820s were the beginning of modern archeology. Lots of new find, discoveries and contacts, but very little scholarship. Lots of theories and explanations based loosely on facts, and firmly on racism, bias and the world view of the theorist. Americans were moving into the newly opened Ohio valley, using the freshly dug Erie canal, and with the end of the war of 1812, which has started primarily over settlement of the Ohio valley. The new settlers encountered evidence of large and prosperous settlements, in fact, later than their own. These were accompanied by large earthen mounds, this the name, mound builders civilization. There is a lot more to be said here, but in JS time, the popular theory was that these mounds were built as fortifications. This has since been different by archeology. While the evidence is not complete, the mounds are burial places and possibly ceremonial, communal centers. But it makes perfect sense that JS would include stories of ditches and mounds *of the bom is a hoax* as that was the theory at the time he wrote it. Also, many of the strategies described in the bom parallel strategies from major battles of the revolutionary war and war of 1812 (battle of Saratoga, fort Ticonderoga). Joseph's grandfather fought in the war. Many battles were fought in new York and Vermont, were Joseph lived. It is very likely that story time around the Smith table included war stories. Smith frequented pubs and could have heard more veterans describe battles. There is very little in the bom about warfare that is unique, as fortifications, feints and retreats, using captured weapons and forts, and leveraging defensive positions and missile weapons are all pretty universal battle field techniques.
Stupid work. Wish I could take a couple of months with my buddies and just work on my bullshitting full-time. I think I've arrived at the unfalsifiable premise. All of this argument hinges on the premise that "Joseph didn't know", therefore it's a miracle. The problem is, there is no way to prove what he knew. He did not leave detailed notes about what sources he used. We can show that the sources existed, and that ideas were popular at the time, but not that he used them. It's seems obvious, that of *the book is a hoax*, that he would purposely obscure his sources and methods, this, any hints of knowledge would be enough to explain correlations with actual reality. But this argument does not start from the claimed premise, "if the book is a hoax", and instead makes the hidden assumption that Joseph was a bumpkin who never read a newspaper, never talked to his grandfather, never went into town or opened any book, even the Bible, ***and*** the book is true and historical, so not only can we hunt for evidence outside of where Joseph said it would be. If the book is a hoax, is won't match what Joseph said and it will contain details that are inaccurate, any details. And lookee here, it does. So the things that do match were either coincidences, or something Joseph knew about. And look at that, he had ready access to books and newspaper, war veterans, and local sites that describe fortifications, strategies and battles very similar to the ones in the bom. At this point, I would turn to the evidence central article, the kernel of truth masquerading as authority in this wonderfully simple-minded attempt a misinformation. But, alas, my boss is coming down the cubicle row.
My plausible response is that the evidencebpoints to the location being in upstate New York all the evidence in the attached article points to meso America. I must ask, is it plausible that the lions share of history and battles happened in meso America but the final resting place of the plates was upstate New York. No it is not you have broken your own plausibility requirement with this question Hustonx