Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Tobin]

Tobin, is that you?

No. Why would I need a sock puppet?

[_beastie]

John Sorenson has been exposed for falsely representing his sources in significant ways several times. I caught him twice. Deanne Matheson and Stan Larson also caught him in significant distortions. His abuses of sources were always in the context of him making radical and generally unaccepted claims. He has a particular problem with his claims regarding metallurgy in the ancient world. I discuss these at length on my website:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/metallurgy.html

I swore off engaging in protracted and usually pointless discussions about the evidence for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica several years ago. It's just maddening. So this brief summary should not be interpreted as an invitation to engage in yet another pointless go round the mulberry bush, but may help those truly interested in the topic. Here are a few examples of Sorenson's incompetence and/or deliberate deception.

1. Sorenson argues that since Mesoamerican languages have the word for "metal", that means that they practiced metallurgy. From his essay Viva Zapato:

“In her treatment of metals (pp. 283-84), she gives no hint of recognition that words for "metal" existed in nearly all the Mesoamerican languages which linguists reconstruct as going back to Book of Mormon times. In An Ancient American Setting I had said, "comparative linguistics shows that metals must have been known, and presumably used, at least as early as 1286 B.C. That date extends back to the time of the Jaredites, for which so far we have not a single specimen of actual metal. Does it not seem likely that specimens are going to be found someday?"45 Instead of acknowledging this significant information, she gets hung up with a narrow view of archaeology, insisting that, "No evidence has been found that metallurgy was practiced by the Olmec civilization" (p. 288). By "evidence" she means physical remains, ignoring the names for metals.

She goes on, "[If metals were used by Book of Mormon peoples in Mesoamerica] somewhere there should be the mining localities and their associated tools, processing localities and the remains of the metal objects that were produced" (p. 288). Indeed there should be. Meanwhile, until archaeologists figure out how to find and identify those remains, there is the undeniable presence of a term for metal in the language widely considered that of the Olmecs, Proto-Mixe-Zoquean,46 as well as in all other major proto-languages of early Mesoamerica. Is linguistic evidence to be excluded from the study of archaeology when it is inconvenient? Shouldn't we be trying to shed maximum light instead of defend status quo interpretations?”

This is an extremely deceptive argument, since anyone who has any knowledge of Mesoamerican history knows that they did, indeed, use metal. They used metal to make mirrors ever since the time of the Olmec, and perhaps earlier.

Stan Larson addressed this in his book, The Quest for Gold Plates:

“Historical and comparative linguistics of various Mesoamerican languages sometimes suggests the existence of a word for metal during the period from ca. 2500 B.C. to A.D. 400. Citing a study which proposed a word for metal in the reconstructed Proto-Mixtecan language, Sorenson said that “the researchers were puzzled by the fact that a word for ‘metal’ seemed to have existed in the protolanguage at about 1000 B.C.” Sorenson misrepresented his source, since the linguists, Robert E. Longacre and Rene Millon, actually said:

The linguistic evaluation of a set provides the framework for its cultural evaluation, but however strong it may be linguistically this does not provide proof that the specific aspect of Proto-Mixtecan or Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan life it represents actually existed on that horizon…For example, one set, linguistically evaluated as solid, reconstructs in Proto-Mixtecan with the meaning of bell or perhaps metal…The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence. Examination of the set suggest that the original meaning may have been rattle but it is impossible to be certain of this.

Longacre and Millon explained that greater certainty is obtained when a group of related vocabulary terms describing a specific cultural practice is reconstructed for the protolanguage. The likelihood of the same “semantic shifts” having occurred in all of the words associated with such a practice is highly improbable. Longacre and Millon discussed six strong complexes of related terms: the Maize Complex, the Maguey Complex, the Agricultural Complex, the Masa Preparation Complex, the Weaving Complex, and the Palm Complex, but they referred again to the conjectured word for ‘metal’ in a list of six terms excluded for various reasons. This effort to determine vocabulary items in the Proto-Mixtecan language brought forth merely a conjectured word for either metal, or a bell, or a rattle, and not a group of related metallurgic terms. This certainly does not reveal names for many different kinds of metal, such as the numerous metals required by the Book of Mormon – (1) gold, (2) silver, (3) iron, (4) steel, (5) copper, (6) brass, and (7) an unknown substance named “ziff”.”

So, once again, what is needed is not a word that may mean “metal”, but rather a group of related words that would describe the advanced metallurgy contained in the Book of Mormon.

None of the metals used in ancient Mesoamerica were the product of metallurgy. They were all examples of the Mesoamericans using natural outcrops or metal from meteorites. We know that they would not have engaged in actual metallurgy because they did not have the ability to produce the heat required for that process. How can we be so certain of that? From their pottery. The pottery that is produced in controlled high heat, a kiln, is far different than the pottery that is produced without sustained high heat. Matheny addresses that in her essay If The Shoe Fits:

“Karen Bruhns has explored the issue of early metals in southern Mesoamerica in a well-researched article and remarks that the Maya had some access to metal objects from the Early Classic period onwards. After a review of the information available about these early metal objects, she concludes that the “only relatively certain statement that can be made is, with the possible exception of the Soconusco disks… all Classic period metal objects found in Mesoamerica are obviously southeastern in manufacture” (1989, 221). This means that these artifacts were not made in the Maya area or in another region of Mesoamerica but in lower Central America.

If these metal objects were available to the Maya by at least Early Classic times, then the obvious problem becomes explaining why the Maya did not begin producing their own metal artifacts given the availability of gold, silver, and copper in eastern Guatemala, western Honduras, and El Salvador. Bruhns suggests that the southern Mesaoamericans lacked adequate pyrotechnology to make the transition to successful metallurgy (1989, 224). Specifically they lacked the technological prowess to attain and maintain the necessary temperatures to smelt metal. The ceramics from the area were fired in poorly controlled open fires, which often resulted in fire-clouding and incompletely oxidized areas. Only by the Late Classic and Early Postclassic periods does evidence exist that the Maya had begun producing ceramic vessels in controlled firing situations, including kilns. The adoption of the Central American metallurgical technology occurred in the Maya area soon after the production of Plumbate pottery began. Plumbate pottery has a vitrified surface and, according to Bruhns, the “temperatures which produce the characteristic vitrification of Tohil Plumbate are precisely those which are appropriate for smelting.” (1986, 226)”

I will make this briefer by only further addressing the two problematic citations I personally discovered in Sorenson's work. He claimed, in Ancient America:

“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 footnotes Dr. Sorenson attaches to this information are:
“Sigvald Linne, Mexican Highland Cultures, Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Publication 7, ns (Stockholm, 1942), p. 132
Sigvald Linne, Zapotecan Antiquities, Ehthnographical Museum of Sweden, Publication 4, ns (Stockholm, 1938), p. 75”

I obtained Linne’s Mexican Highland Cultures text. This particular section 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. From page 132:

“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 states:

“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.”

Under the pottery section, this is listed:

“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”

As should be obvious, nothing in this passage supports Dr. Sorenson’s reference to a vessel used for smelting, with an analyzed residue at the bottom.

I attempted to reach Dr. Sorenson about this problem, and he answered me via Dan Peterson on the FAIR site. Due to FAIR’s copyright restrictions, I cannot copy his response, but will paraphrase it. Interested readers should be able to find the thread in the archives through the search function, under “Sorenson’s footnote”. (note: it is possible that this thread was deleted at some point by the administrators of the site.) Dr. Sorenson admitted that the referenced footnote was incorrect, and that he obtained the information through a private correspondence that he no longer has. He dismissed the concern over such a misuse of a source by saying it was a “tempest in a teapot”, and there were plenty of other references to support his assertions.

I was not able to personally obtain the second reference, but a friend accessed it at her library and kindly copied the pertinent section for me.

“Page 53 (first reference):
"In a grave-chamber situated in the present village were among other things found 20 bells and a number of tweezers of copper, part of a small, circular iron plate, a necklace consisting of small, perforated shells, and a rasping bone. The iron plate is no doubt to be counted among the most remarkable objects that have at any time been discovered in Mexico seeing there is nothing to indicate that it is of post-Columbian origin (cf. p. 75). Hitherto it has always been held as an axiom that iron was unknown to the Indians of ancient America. A clay vessel found in this grave was of Mixtecan type. In a neighbouring grave-chamber were, among other things, found a "metate" (grinding stone) with its "mano" (muller), and a large number of clay vessels referable to Period V."

Page 75-76:
"At the researches that were carried out in the excavation season 1934 - 35 at Mitla there was, as already mentioned, discovered a grave (No. 5) in which, among other things, was found a small iron plate.[28] The grave in question no doubt dates from the time when the Mixtecs were in possession. The chemist, connected with the Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional de Mexico, that analysed this object reports on it as follows:

Insolube .......................................... poquisimo
Fierro ............................................... bastante
Aluminio ......................................... poco
Azufre ............................................. bastante
Carbón ............................................ muy poco

"Unfortunately the above analysis cannot, however, be considered satisfactory. To the metallurgist, a quantitative analysis would have revealed the metod by which the iron was produced. The statement that the iron contained a considerable percentage of sulphur is not by itself of any very great value as it merely indicates that the metal was extracted by a primitive method."
_______

[28] Caso, Alfonso y Rubin de la Borbolla, D.F. (1936) Exploraciones en Mitla 1934-1935 (Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia, publicación no. 21, Mexico 1936).”

This source seems to actually give support to his assertion, except for one minor problem. Mitla was occupied by the Mixtecs in the wrong time period to fit the Book of Mormon.

“The word Mitla comes from the Náhuatl word Mictlan, meaning place of the dead or underworld.In the Zapotec language this place is called Lyobaa, meaning place of rest or burial place.

The Mitla archaeological site is located within the town of Mitla, officially San Pablo Villa de Mitla, at the northern end of town. The site is located in the Tlacolula Valley which is one of the three valleys that intersect at the archaeological site of Monte Albán to the west. Mitla is 48km east of Oaxaca, at an elevation of 4855' (1480 meters). From Oaxaca city, travel east of Hwy 190 and follow the signs to Mitla.

Mitla was inhabited in the Classic Period (100-650 AD), and possibly as early as 900 BC. It appears to have been at its peak occupation in the Post Classic Period (750-1521 AD). It was inhabited by the Zapotec people although it was under the control of the Mixtecs from about 1000 AD to 1200 AD and then fell to the Aztecs in 1494.”

http://www.tomzap.com/mitla.html

This is already well after the accepted time period for the introduction of metallurgy in Mesoamerica.

Stan Larson, in Quest for Gold Plates, made an additional observation about Dr. Sorenson’s list of evidence suggestive of early metallurgy, on page 198:

“In his annotated bibliography on Book of Mormon metals Sorenson classified each instance of metal in one of five groups as to the certainty of the identification, analysis, and dating. These range from “A” category, in which the item was uncovered by a professional archaeologist in a datable context, successively down to the fifth category, in which incomplete information made a reliable assessment difficult. Only two examples in Sorenson’s “A” category fall within Book of Mormon times. The first find, which contains iron and copper, is described as “a metal resembling substance, small, irregular shaped pieces”. It was found at Teotihuacan and is dated from A.D. 300 to 400. The second instance is a claw-shaped bead of the gold-copper alloy known at tumbaga, which was excavated at Altun Ha in northern Belize. David M. Pendergast, archaeologist at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, dated this metallic animal claw to “somewhat before A.D. 500,” which would place it after the Book of Mormon, but Sorenson initially stretched this to include the hundred year period from A.D. 400 to 500, and then lowered it further to A.D. 350 to 450. Both of these examples were found outside the area which Sorenson has proposed as Book of Mormon lands."

Deanne Matheny remarked concerning Sorenson’s bibliographic study on metals:

"The question that has again not been considered [by Sorenson] is whether the specimens were of local manufacture or represent trade pieces from lower Central America. The majority of the specimens date to Late Classic times falling outside of the Book of Mormon period. The few that are genuinely Early Classic or slightly earlier seem to be trade pieces not produced in the area. We are still left with virtually the entire span of time covered by Book of Mormon events with no metallurgy in the area chosen by Sorenson.

When metallurgy began in Mesoamerica during the Terminal Classic Period about the ninth century A.D, the tools and techniques were borrowed from Costa Rica and the Isthmus of Panama and ultimately from Andean South America. From the third century onwards various metal objects were imported as trade goods into Mesoamerica from this southeastern place of manufacture. There is no evidence of pre-Columbian metallurgical production in Mesoamerica before the ninth century A.D. Even though the use of metal is usually considered to be an important aspect in the growth of culture, all the civilizations in Mesoamerica developed without the use of metal. By the time metal appeared the culture was beginning to decline.”

Sorenson's use of sources to support the existence of horses during the Book of Mormon time period are equally problematic, and I discussed that on my horse page:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.html

Just do a page search for "Sorenson" and you'll find them.

After having been exposed to Sorenson's problematic research, any reasonable person will view his assertions with grave caution. Before taking anything he says seriously, one should do one's best to research the sources given. Caveat emptor!

[_Chap]

Tobin, is that you?

No. Why would I need a sock puppet?

If Tobin had a sock puppet, why would he tell us?

I know! We can ask God about it. That should please Tobin no end!

[_beastie]

Tobin, is that you?

No. Why would I need a sock puppet?

Oh, I know, I know!

Is the correct answer: because when posters get to know Tobin, the chances are high that they will put Tobin on ignore?

[_Chap]

After having been exposed to Sorenson's problematic research, any reasonable person will view his assertions with grave caution. Before taking anything he says seriously, one should do one's best to research the sources given. Caveat emptor!

Yes - but unless beastie had done the huge amount of work required to document the problems in Sorenson's work, it would all look very impressive, wouldn't it?

So kudos and thanks to beastie!

[_Runtu]

Sorenson's use of sources to support the existence of horses during the Book of Mormon time period are equally problematic, and I discussed that on my horse page:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.html

Just do a page search for "Sorenson" and you'll find them.

After having been exposed to Sorenson's problematic research, any reasonable person will view his assertions with grave caution. Before taking anything he says seriously, one should do one's best to research the sources given. Caveat emptor!

Thank you for reposting this. Your experience mirrors (no pun intended) mine when I've tracked down Sorensen's sources. The horse teeth find is particularly galling. The archaeologists who discovered the teeth mention that the teeth were fossilized, unlike everything else excavated at that level in the cenote; this of course suggests that the Mayans had found fossilized horse teeth, not that there were contemporaneous horses. Not only do the mopologists not mention this, but they mock the "critics" for coming up with a wild ad hoc explanation that these were fossilized teeth in a desperate attempt to wave off the discovery. Pathetic.

As others have mentioned, there's a reason Sorensen's books aren't peer-reviewed.

[_Tobin]

Oh, I know, I know!

Is the correct answer: because when posters get to know Tobin, the chances are high that they will put Tobin on ignore?

You are welcome to ignore me any time you wish beastie.

[_mcjathan]

As I understand it from other threads you are a professor of the classics, a thoroughly liberal arts field of study. With respect, perhaps the finer nuances of "the sciences" escapes you.

[Guest]

I posted a new thread so we don't continue derailing this one

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32450

[Guest]

The point of the Late War is NOT to disprove the Book of Mormon directly, because I think most people agree with you that writing in a style similar to the time and place is not a problem (although picking a hokey faux-bible style is a bit strange). The point of the Late War IS that it disproves one of the main apologetic arguments that tries to prove the Book of Mormon came from supernatural sources, because Joseph would have NO WAY of writing such things otherwise. Well, guess what? We just found a direct, easy way for Joseph to learn and incorporate a "Hebraic" style of writing.

though it's possible that Joseph Smith was directly or indirectly influenced by Late War as the Johnsons explore, i think the thing which Hunt's book shows us beyond all doubt is how easily the "Hebraic" style from the Bible can be imitated by someone without any special linguistic training (i.e. Joseph Smith didn't need to "learn" it from Late War or anywhere else).