Subject:

Subject:	Sorenson metal footnote on smelting – Book of Mormon apologetics
Date:	May 13 21:42 2005
Author:	Trixie

Since perusing different apologetic BoM sites on the internet, and having various conversations with apologists defending the historicity of the BoM, I gradually realized that one Sorenson footnote, in particular, was a popular support for the idea that smelting may have existed prior to the generally accepted appr. 900 AD date. Sorenson’s statement read, from An Ancient Setting for the Book of Mormon, p.284:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The possibility that smelted iron either has been or may yet be found is enhanced by a find at Teotihuacan. A pottery vessel dating to about AD 300, and apparently used for smelting, contained a “metallic-looking” mass. Analyzed chemically, it proved to contain copper and iron. Linee, the same Swedish archaeologist who made that find, accepted a piece of iron found in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca, as probably refined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two attached footnotes to this paragraph read:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigvald Linne, Mexican Highland Cultures, Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Publication 7, ns (Stockholm, 1942), p. 132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigvald Linne, Zapotecan Antiquities, Ehthnographical Museum of Sweden, Publication 4, ns (Stockholm, 1938), p. 75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since becoming interested in Mesoamerican history, I’ve read over a dozen books on the subject, as well as many FARMS articles and other websites. While this certainly does not constitute expertise, it does give me a general level of background knowledge concerning basic scholarly claims made about the topic. Consistently, these texts do not support the idea of the early smelting the BoM would require. So I was intrigued by this oft-mentioned reference, particularly given the dates of these articles. Surely, if real evidence of smelting had been discovered in 1938 and 1942, some scholar, somewhere, would have been interested enough to follow up on it. Yet I could find nothing. I became convinced that it was necessary to go to the original source, to read Linne’s statement in context. At least that would give me some additional clues and details to follow up.

However, I had some difficulties locating the articles. I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that they were articles in a scholarly periodical, and proceeded to attempt to find copies online, with no luck. So I began looking for books. I did locate a text on Amazon with a similar name, but the dates of the research – 1934-35 – misled me into concluding it was the wrong research. I did find an original text, for three hundred dollars, obviously out of my budget. So I felt stymied.

So I asked Brant Gardener, who at times participated on another board and with whom I’d had conversations, if he could provide more context for the statement. He informed me had had never read the article, either. Each time I found the reference on the internet, it was the same quotation, over and over, pulled directly from Sorenson. I began to suspect no one had read the original article.

Now, I do not mean to suggest it is necessary to find the original sources for each and every claim made (in BoM apologetics or any other field), but when a particularly unusual or controversial claim is made, or one that appears to outright contradict other statements by scholars in the field, I think it is a good idea to at least try to look at the original source. I certainly have turned to the Journal of Discourses and History of the Church many times in doing just that.

This reference was offered again by a poster on another board, recently, and I expressed, again, concern that no one offering the reference had actually read the original article. Someone referred me to Amazon for both texts, and while I couldn’t locate the Zapotecan source, I did go ahead and order the book I originally doubted was the correct source. I am delighted to state that I was wrong in that assumption, and it is, indeed, the correct text. Mine is a recently republished edition, 2003, but no changes have been made to the original, with the exception of a new introduction.

Of course I immediately turned to the page 132, but the only statement I could find that bore any similarity to Sorenson’s claim was this listing for burial site 1.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal resembling substance, small, irregular shaped pieces. Analysis has shown them to contain copper and iron, but no zinc, tin or antimony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was not convinced this was the actual reference. For one thing, it’s not a pottery vessel. It’s not described as such and is not listed with the pottery vessels. It is smack in the middle of the list of small pieces of minerals, bones, teeth, shell. It was hard for me to see how “small irregular shaped pieces” could be Sorenson’s pottery vessel, “apparently used for smelting”. I decided before drawing any conclusions that I would have to read the entire section on this particular Teotihuacan dig. There is no doubt this is the correct dig, but I thought perhaps the numbering of the pages had changed with republication. So I proceeded to read the entire section, of about 110 pages. Some portions I read twice, to make sure I hadn’t overlooked something the first time.

Now I feel comfortable making this assertion. This statement of Linne’s, on page 132, is, indeed, Sorenson’s source:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal resembling substance, small, irregular shaped pieces. Analysis has shown them to contain copper and iron, but no zinc, tin or antimony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I truly do not understand how Sorenson understood this to be a pottery vessel apparently used for smelting.

One thing should be pointed out for those new to the subject – the controversial point, in regards to BoM apologetics, is not that metals existed in the BoM time periods. Yes, metal existed and the Mesoamericans worked with those metals. But they worked with the natural outgrowths of these metals – they did not have the technology to create the controlled, intense heat needed for smelting. They fashioned items such as mirrors used in religious ceremonies. The linguistic evidence for the existence of METALS is irrelevant. It is the process of smelting that is contested. Hence, the importance of the Linne reference.

What makes it even more unlikely that Sorenson used Linne’s reference correctly is this statement Linne made just a few pages later, p 147.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of peculiar character are a rounded object, fig.236, and fragments of a circular plate, both from Burial 1. The latter, which has the appearance of rusty iron, may have been a mirror. Analysis has shown both of them to contain a large proportion of sulphur and iron, and they are undoubtedly iron pyrite (FeS2). There can be no doubt that certain pre-Spanish objects described as being of iron are nothing but pyrite. Weathering has made them look rusty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: upon request, I provided more context.

This was a dig of the Tlamimilolpa House Ruin in Teotihuacan. At the beginning of the section, Linne spends some time describing the actual site and how they proceeded. Then he lists the objects excavated therein. 13 graves were discovered below the floors of different rooms, and the object in question was discovered in Burial site 1, the earliest of said graves. He first lists approximately sixteen different types of pottery vessels, bowls, dishes, jars, lids, miniature vessels. He then lists beads and figurine fragments. Next he lists obsidian knives and tools. Then he moves into listing the mineral type objects. This is the area of the list wherein this item occurs. To provide more context, I will list the objects that preceded and followed the items in question. Again, this is page 132, just like his notation lists. It is the only possible connection – anything else would be an even weaker connection.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 object of pyrite, rounded and highly polished, fig. 236. Analysis reveals a high percentage of iron and sulphur: specific gravity 4.88

1 piece of pyrite, of rectangular shape and with one side slightly convex and polished; 1.3 x 0.9x 0.1 cm. Was no doubt originally set in the eye of a mask of the typeshown in pls. 3-5.

Metallic-resembling substance, small, irregular shaped pieces. Analysis has shown them to contain copper and iron, but no zinc, tin, or antimony.

2 bone implements, short and tapering, though not sharp-pointed. Have possibly been used for flaking off knives from obsidian blocks. Figs. 248, 254.

1 thin, flat bone object with a blunt point and a hole pierced for a suspension cord or the like, fig. 249
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He then proceeds to list teeth and shells.

After listing all the objects, he writes some notes and draws some conclusions. Under the heading “Tools and ornaments of obsidian, stone, and mica”, he made the statement I already quoted, but here is the entire paragraph, from p 146.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of peculiar character are a rounded object, fig. 236, and fragments of a circular plate, both from Burial 1. The latter, which has the appearance of rusty iron, may have been a mirror. Analysis has shown both of them to contain a large proportion of sulphur and iron, and they are undoubtedly iron pyrite. There can be no doubt that certain pre-Spanish objects described as being of iron are nothing but pyrite. Weathering has made them look rusty. The diameter of the flat disc is 6 cm, which roughly corresponds to the average size of the Mexican pyrite mirrors included in Nordenskiold’s study of convex and concave mirrors in America. Unfortunately the surface is so badly weathered that it is impossible to determine the way in which it is ground. Nordenskiold has, however, found that the majority of pre-Spanish mirrors – all of them from Mexico, Ecuador, and the Peruvian coast – are convex and consist of pyrite. In Musee de l’Homme, Paris, there is one which forms part of Charnay’s collection and is stated to have come from Teotihuacan. Nordenskiold further adduces a Mexican picture-writing in which among other things is seen a man using a mirror. The picture-writing in question is said to originate from Cholula. Mirrors were naturally in great demand as an article of trade and even formed part of the barter goods with which the great raft that Bartolome Ruiz in 1526 encountered off the coast of Ecuador was loaded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The metallic looking substance, itself, was not significant enough to warrant any kind of mention in the comments.

Under the pottery section, this is listed:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 bowls with flat bottom, curving sides and exceedingly rudimentary feet, fig. 203. They are black, polished, and with a surface of almost metallic luster. One of them is ornamented with incised curved lines, fig. 217
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s the only other thing I could find that mentions anything about metallic looking, and this is clearly not actual metal. But it is a bowl!!!

Dan Peterson posted and said that he brought this up to a friend last night who asked Dr. Sorenson about it. Dr. Sorenson admitted that the footnote lacked certain clarifications, and he stated something about receiving more information privately from an excavator of the site (apparently not Linne). Dan chalks it up to an oversight.

My problem with this "oversight" is that as recently as 1995, Sorenson repeated the exact same information without bothering to add any clarification.

Buyer, beware, as usual.

Subject:	Re: Sorenson metal footnote - BoM apologetics
Date:	May 13 22:24
Author:	Mulva

Dan Peterson is trying to imply that it's all a big to-do about nothing. What he doesn't understand (or the point he's trying to evade) is that this isn't an isolated incident. Mormon apologetics is rife with "creative" interpretations of source material. Nibley is/was notorious for drowning readers in a sea of endnotes with the expectation that no one would ever have the time or spend the effort researching and verifying his sources, which often turned out to be just as specious as the Sorenson footnote in question.

This is just another example of the unethical and deceitful methods Mormon apologists resort to in defending the indefensible.

Subject:	Link to Ancient Metallurgy Research Group
Date:	May 14 00:06
Author:	javanorm

http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/resgrp/amrg/Rievaulx02/Rievaulx.htm

Subject:	The link gives an idea...
Date:	May 14 01:56
Author:	RogerV

,,, of just how much work was required to produce a small quantity of poor-quality iron. It would have required HUNDREDS of these small iron furnaces or "bloomeries" to produce weapons for armies of the size described in the BoM.

The blast furnace, capable of creating temperatures high enough to melt iron into liquid form did not exist before the late Middle Ages.

Subject:

Amazing - 1250 kilos of clay just for one little furnace AND 3 tons of wood to make the charcoal. !

Subject:

No evidence has ever been found in the Americas of indestructible slag for the time period of the Book of Mormon. Slag does not disappear. It is permanent. Slag is unlike the “slippery” treasures in the Book of Mormon.

Subject:	Yet another example of the quality of BoM apologetics – tapirs used as draft animals
Date:	Jul 16 08:48 2005
Author:	Trixie

Some of you may remember my hobby is mesoamerican studies and BoM apologetics. I hunted down two Sorenson footnotes he (and just about every internet mormon apologist) uses to support the existence of smelting during the BoM period and posted about them here. One was completely botched, the reference didn't even mention what sorenson claimed it did. The second did mention what Sorenson claimed, but Sorenson ignored the dating, which was, at the VERY earliest, 750 AD, and still wasn't clear evidence of smelting.

A poster (on the board-that-shall-not-be-named but has the letter z in it) named Matt recently posted a picture of the evidence for early bows and arrows that sorenson used. Not only did Sorenson mess up the reference, but the picture isn't of a bow and arrow at all - it looks like a human figure holding a stick.

Now here's the latest joke.

Most of you know that one explanation for "horse" that FARMs and Sorenson have offered is tapirs. In this FARMs article, support was offered for the idea of domesticating tapirs and using them as draft animals, in the manner of a horse. I was suspicious of this quote, because every book I've read about mesoamerica makes it plain that there was NO draft animal for use.

So I went on a footnote hunt, and it wasn't easy. Here's what I posted about it on the other board.

It took me a while and a bit more money than I intended to spend (the shipping cost more than the used book), but I finally obtained the tapir reference I’ve been searching for.

As most of you probably know, one FARMs argument is that the BoM horse was really a tapir. One article even refers to farmers using tapirs to plough their fields. Here is the FARMs reference.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=249&table=review#note128

The tapir is considered by zoologists to be a kind of horse in unevolved form. Although the Central American tapir, the largest of the New World species, can weigh up to 300 kilos, it can move rather quickly at a gallop and can jump vertical fences or walls by rising on its hind legs and leaping up. Zoologist Hans Krieg notes, "Whenever I saw a tapir, it reminded me of an animal similar to a horse or a donkey. The movements as well as the shape of the animal, especially the high neck with the small brush mane, even the expression on the face is much more like a horse's." The tapir can also be domesticated quite easily if captured when young. Young tapirs who have lost their mothers are easily tamed and can be fed from a bowl. They like to be petted and will often let children ride on their backs. When the Spanish arrived in the Yucatan, the Maya called European horses and donkeys tzimin, meaning "tapir," because, according to one early observer, "they say they resemble them greatly." After the spread of horses, tapir were still called tzimin-kaax, which means literally "forest horse." Some observers have felt that the tapir more accurately resembles an ass. In fact, among many native Americans today, the tapir is called anteburro, which means "once an ass." In Brazil some farmers have actually used the tapir to pull ploughs, suggesting potential as a draft animal. So tapirs could certainly have been used in ways similar to horses.

Footnote given: 128 Fr?drich and Thenius, "Tapirs," 29.

The actual source is an article by Fradich and Thenius called Tapirs in the old series Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia, Volume 13, Mammals IV, page 29. Here is the entire paragraph. I am going to highlight the sections that I believe discredit the use of this source to support the possibility that the tapir was the BoM horse.

In all places in their South American habitat* where the land is being cultivated, the number of tapirs decreases steadily. The South American Indians kill them for their skin, their meat, or both. They use poisoned arrows and occasionally chase them with dogs. When pursued, the animals plunge into the water. Then they will be killed from a boat with spears and knives. However, the tapir population is not really endangered by the hunting Indians. Furthermore, some Indian tribes prohibit the killing of tapirs for religious reasons. Their main enemies are the white or half-white settlers who in most cases kill these harmless vegetarians “just for the fun of it”. In the villages, one often finds young orphan tapirs whose mothers have been killed. They become as tame as dogs within a few days. They like to be petted and even let the children ride on their backs. In spite of these characteristics, which are suitable for domestication, there have been few attempts to actually domesticate tapirs. According to several reports, only in the last century have the German-Brazilian settlers in Santa Caterina occasionally tamed tapirs. On remote farms, they have even used them to pull their ploughs.

Is it or is it not misleading to omit these sentences from the FARMs article?

In spite of these characteristics, which are suitable for domestication, there have been few attempts to actually domesticate tapirs. According to several reports, only in the last century have the German-Brazilian settlers in Santa Caterina occasionally tamed tapirs.

These sentences provide the context for understanding the next statement about ploughs - which is the statement FARMs used, without adding the context.

(btw, on the other board, no believer has answered my question about whether or not it was misleading to omit this context)

*note, the tapir being referenced here, the Lowland Tapir, Tapirus terrestris, is slightly different than the tapir in Mesoamerica, Tapirus Bairdi, Baird’s tapir)

Subject:	I watched a show on PBS the other night
Date:	Jul 16 19:41
Author:	Mulva

Called something like "guns, germs and steel." The thesis of this particular episode was that human cultural progress was directly related to geography; more specifically, to the kinds of plants and animals available for human use. The argument is that civilization arose amid a confluence of particularly useful plants and animals, and that tribes that did not possess these resources were retarded in their progress.

The culture described in the Book of Mormon includes the very plant and animal resources that led to advanced human civilization in the old world--wheat and large domesticated animals. The availability of animals large enough and tame enough to be used for farm work (horses, oxen, etc.) was a crucial component in the rise of civilization.

The question is--if these crucial resources were available to BoM peoples, why didn't their society advance the way european culture did? If the BoM was true, we should have seen the same steady cultural and technological progress in the Americas as occured in the old world.

But we don't. We see the same level of cultural and technological advancement as other primitive societies with similar geological resources.

Subject:	the book
Date:	Jul 17 09:49
Author:	Trixie

Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel is one of the best books I've ever read. My boyfriend borrowed it from me to read and it was hard to let it go because I use it as a reference book so often. He won the Pulitzer Prize for the book. It's a must read.

I have made this very point you're making on the two apologist boards I posted on in the past - the Z board and the F board. It's not just fossils that let us know what sort of animals a culture had access to - it's their very evolution. Their response is normally to point out that Mesoamerica is very mountainous, and horses would not be as useful in that geography. Or that as a maize based society, horses would not have the same impact on their agriculture. Or they scour the internet for a critical review of Diamond (which insinuate he's being racist, which I think means they haven't read the book, the truth is the COMPLETE opposite).

The rebuttals to these comments are that Mesoamerica is actually a geographically diverse area, some of which is plains (and even Sorenson notes what good use of horses the Spaniards made in those areas). And regarding the agriculture, it is true that Mesoamerica was able to sustain a large population on maize, but the horse has OTHER impacts, most notably on warfare and the spread of the horse culture.

I was already long out of the church by the time I read Diamond's book, so it didn't affect my view of the BoM. I know two believers who have read it. One says that it correlates fine with the BoM. !!!!! The other says Diamond is overrated and it's not a good book.

There are just some "true believers" who are going to continue to find ways to believe no matter what evidence is presented that undermines the claims of the BoM. Although I will debate those types, it isn't in the hopes of changing their minds, but rather in the hopes of helpingn doubting lurkers, who deserve better information that the manure they get from FARMs.

Subject:	Excellent detective work, Trixie! I wonder if FARMS realizes...
Date:	Jul 16 21:03
Author:	Timmy Teaboy

how dishonestly manipulative they are with this stuff or if they are actually fooling themselves.

Some other comments:

Linguistic Sleight of Hand

It's also noteworthy how they play sleight of hand with terminology too, as in this passage:

"After the spread of horses, tapir were still called tzimin-kaax, which means literally "forest horse."

Note that in the paragraph from whence this came, the FARMS author had just explained that "tzimin" was the native word for tapir and was used also to refer to Spanish horses due to a lack of another word for horse. But then in the above-quoted sentence, the FARMS author has decided now that "tzimin" is to be translated as horse, rather than tapir. It would have been more accurate to say that "tzimin-kaax" means literally "forest tapir" as a way of distinguishing from the Spanish horses. To say that it means literally "forest horse" is to completely ignore that the "tzimin" was primarily, first and foremost, the word denoting the native tapirs, the use of the word to denote horses was likely a limited add-on among a limited group of natives. To imply that forever after "tzimin" was to be translated as "horse" seems unjustified and manipulative.

Chariots and Battle Horses

After all is said and done, the FARMS author accomplishes nothing. The Book of Mormon refers to horses in the context of a civilization that had chariots and in which military leaders rode upon horses. An animal that is capable only of giving rides to small children in a primitive petting zoo just doesn't fit the bill, no matter how hard you try (unless the Nephites were all midgets).

The Tapir Was Known in Joseph Smith's Time

Since Joseph Smith was supposedly getting his translation, word-for-word, through the power and gift of God, why couldn't he get the translation correct for tapir? The animal and the designation of the animal as a "tapir" had already been decided before Joe Smith was even born.

http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/lowland/pix-art/tta0002.htm

This only reinforces my opinion that most FARMS authors skirt around the heart of any problem, produce a lot of smoke and fog on small and trivial issues and then unilaterally declare universal victory over all skeptical arguments.

Subject:	Re: Yet another example of the quality of BoM apologetics
Date:	Jul 16 21:15
Author:	Bosom Burn

I did my mission thing in Brazil four decades ago. My last landlord was a former German Nazi who had emigrated to Brazil after WW2. Guess what? He had a pet tapir in the backyard, too small to pull a plough, but not too small to sit on Gordie's lap.

This proves positively that Germans were living in the Americas along with the Asians when good ole Father Lehi docked along some still unidentified narrow neck of land.

I am still waiting for F.A.R.M.S. to demonstrate, in actual practice, how a team of tapirs can be trained to pull its fully-loaded, faith promoting manure spreader.

How appropriate is the name F.A.R.M.S., they stink.

11. Horses - Book of Mormon	27. A Mormon Letter to FARMS
28. Reformed Egyptian	53. Cureloms
51. Horses, FARMS and Book of Mormon	86. Book of Mormon a Missionary Tool?
67. Lamanites and DNA	111 Dallin H. Oaks and the Book of Mormon
175 BofM - Any Value Left to Ex-Mormons?	323 How Boring is the Book of Mormon?
330 Captain Kidd, Joseph Smith and Moroni, Camora Island	333 Is FARMS Credible?
378 Rigdon and the Origin of the Book of Mormon	388 What is Limited Geography Theory?
389 Joseph Smith as Sole Author?	391 Mormon Apologetics and DNA
398 Another Look at Mormon Apologists