Iron as a Decoration

[beastie]

I did not misunderstood your point I was making a counterpoint. Nephi also said he made a temple after the manner of Solomon but that doesn't mean he used the same materials. I still think a macuahuitl is a manner of a sword not a club it slices not bashes, it was described by Cortez's own men as a very sharp sword.

Of course youâ??re free to interpret the BoM however you want; everyone has opinions. It is my opinion, however, that you are engaging in wanton disregard of what the BoM actually says on the subject (see also the Ether verse John shared).

Besides, itâ??s hard for me to see what youâ??re achieving by this tactic. I donâ??t think youâ??ve gained anything. No matter what swords were made of, the text of the BoM plus the Nephite artifacts Joseph and others described force the conclusion that the Nephites possessed the skill of metallurgy.

See the following exchange I had with Brant on the Mesoamerican currency thread:

I stated:

We agree on a couple of points: the BoM, and the artifacts early Mormons associated with the BoM, exclude the possible use of translation artifacts, and that the needed evidence would be evidence of metallurgy and the more frequent use of gold and silver in Mesoamerica. Currently that evidence is not present.

Brantâ??s reply:

We are in general agreement. I suspect that there are some phrases using "gold and silver" in the Book of Mormon that may be idiomatic translations, but other than my suspicions, there isn't anything solid to use to conclude that. So, the presence of physical metal plates requires that there are instances of working "gold" in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explained as a translation artifact. It is also correct that there is no current accepted evidence for metallurgy that early in Mesoamerica.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...p;hl=metallurgy

Note to sevenbak: I suggest you take Brant seriously when he states that â??there is no current accepted evidence for metallurgy that early in Mesoamerica.â?

In regards to the macuahuitl, whether or not it could be considered a sword or a club depends upon the time period and region. The sword like macuahuitl that the Spanish encountered was used in a later than the BoM time frame. The club-like macuahuitl was the weapon used earlier in Mesoamerican history.

I read it and she appears to be your twin. The warriors the Spaniards met had macuahuitls which were described as swords. They had them prior to the Spanish conquest. From this we determine that at some prior time they were made after a manner of a sword, to say there was none in BoM times because of the following image is speculative.

You completely ignored the information she shared about the different types of macuahuitls and the time periods in which they were used.

From Mathenyâ??s essay:

There was a sword-like weapon present in Mesoamerica and other areas of the New World at the time of the Spanish conquest but there are problems making it fit into a Limited Tehuantepec Book of Mormon scene. One must be willing to accept that the swords mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not of metal even though the only type of material ever specified for swords is metal. But perhaps ultimately more difficult is the necessity of assuming that swords similar to the wooden swords in use during the Postclassic period also existed during the Middle and Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods. One also must assume that these weapons were present in the proper areas during those time periods. There is very little evidence from the archaeological record to support these latter two assumptions.

One of the problems involved in assessing when the macuahuitl came on the scene in Mesoamerica is the inconsistent way in which the term has been applied by scholars. The term has been applied to the sword-like Aztec weapons and to others similar to them in use at the [p.294] time of the conquest. That these weapons have some points of similarity to Old World metal swords has been noted. But scholars also have applied the term "macuahuitl" to several types of weapons which are more like war clubs with an area of inset flint or obsidian blades near the top (Follett 1932, 386, Fig. 16). In his discussion of Aztec arms and armor, Hassig notes that he can find no depictions of the typical Aztec macuahuitl predating the Postclassic period, although several Early Postclassic depictions from Chich

[beastie]

This opens a big hole for beastie.When conquering armies bury the dead of the enemy they usually rob the dead of their precious metals and possessions. We wouldn't see ritualized burials of honor with metal objects of adornment.

I see. So after the metal objects were stolen by the conquering armies, what happened to the metal objects at that point? Did they evaporate? Simply transferring ownership of the metal objects doesn't magically mean that there can be no reasonable expectation to find those metal objects.

Your highlighting was what was smug.Also... Is Global = Hemespherical?

I see again. So Clark stating:

"If you believe in a global geography, you're basically done, toasted, game over."

wasn't smug, but my repeating what he said in bold to call attention to the pertinent section was.

This makes about as much sense as you using artifacts from Japan and China as a BoM "bull's eye!"

What in the text warrants "forging of metal"? Nephi "molted" metal from a rock but even forged metal can be hammered into shape after the fact.

What do you imagine Nephi was doing when he molted metal out of hill?

[Zakuska]

I see. So after the metal objects were stolen by the conquering armies, what happened to the metal objects at that point? Did they evaporate? Simply transferring ownership of the metal objects doesn't magically mean that there can be no reasonable expectation to find those metal objects.

Of course they didn't evaporate... Silly. The conquering Warrior used it to kill other warriors and so on and so on. Thats what the text says the Nephites did with the Jaredite weapons. Metal implements tend to get used and reused and sometimes get smithed into something else completely.

What do you imagine Nephi was doing when he molted metal out of hill?

Probably the same thing the Borther of Jared was doing when he "motled" sixteen white stones out of a rock.

Ether 3: 1

1 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord, saying.

Did tBoJ forge glass too?

"Motlen" is a prety ambiguous term in the BOM which encompassed the processes of several industries. What we can observe from the text is that he melted something and fashioned it into something else. It doesn't necesarily preclude melting something and hammering it into shape. Nor does it necessitate us interpreting it as forging.

[beastie]

Of course they didn't evaporate... Silly. The conquering Warrior used it to kill other warriors and so on and so on. Then he was finally killed and that warrior stold the stolen sword. So on and son on. Metal implements tend to get used and reused and sometimes get smithed into something else completely.

The point is, zak, that transferring ownership or even changing the shape of the material doesn't alter the nature of the material, nor does it provide some excuse for not finding that same material. Even if someone else used it, reused it, or altered its shape, eventually it still ends up in the hands of archaeologists. (or a certain percentage will)

Probably the same thing the Borther of Jared was doing when he "motlen" sixteen white stones out of a rock.

Ether 3: 1

1 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord, saying.

Did tBoJ forge glass too?

"Motlen" is a prety ambiguous term in the BOM which encompassed the processes of several industries. What we can observe from the text is that he melted something and fashioned it into somthing else. It doesn't necesarily preclude melting something and hammering it into shape.

So tell me what the BoJ and Nephi were doing.

mol

[Anijen]

Beastie,

why are you trying to always give us your resume? It will not change my opinion if you have read 1000 books and researched 10,000 hours I would not budge. Besides I agree with you basically on the metallurgy that as of yet there is no solid evidence of metalurgy in Mesoamerica during the pre classic or classic era. I think you are stretching your educated guess on the macuahuitl. Because there is not a pre classic codex showing a macuahuitl as a sword does not mean there absolutely wasn't any. The BoM states they had all manner of weapons. There have been sites [classic era] (graves that have obsidian found with the warrior) the sword/macuahuitl decayed over the years because for the very reason it was made of wood. Perhaps it was even stained with blood. The image I presented from your link does not make me think of a club but more of a scepter for royalty. Besides if they had clubs with obsidian edges were they too dumb to think of a slicing weapon, I don't think so. It is obvious to the researcher of the Spanish conquest that the warriors were extremely skilled with the macuahuitl and used them in the manners swords are used. The diaries I have read do not state a bashing method but a experienced slicing method they knew from experience what it could do to a large animal so they didnt bash the horse but decapitated the poor animal.

I am happy you feel you were complimented with my assertion that you were her twin. You both write very well, have facts, but are so biased, speculating, hypothesizing and then declare it as fact and flippantly brush off criticism and then denounce their scholarly work.

Let me tell you about myself I am disabled and work at my computer much of the day. Most of my time is spent reading history which is my forte. I especially enjoy American History (United States) and Church history. Though I feel very qualified, I do not have a PhD and therefore do not feel like I am a expert but like you I feel confident in my studies. I also hope not to come across as condescending. I usually edit about 95% of my post and they take too much of my time to write. I currently own my own business which I have made accommodating for my handicap (sitting at a desk). I love collecting books. I have Bachelor Degree in Psychology working on Masters (not psychology) at the moment I have a great friend who is a Professor of Sociology/Anthropology She has given me a list of books to read over the years. I am happy to say I have read most and perused all of the following;

Arnold, Dean A. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process

Barber, Elizabeth Wayland Women's Work

Benedict, Ruth The Chrysanthemum and the Sword

Braziller, George The Blood of Kings

Campbell, Joseph The Hero with a Thousand Faces

Daniel, Glyn A Short History of Archaeology

Davies, Nigel The Toltec's

Davis, Simon J. M. The Archaeology of Animals

Diamond, Jared Guns, Germs, and Steel

Donnan, Christopher B. and C. William Clewlow, Jr., Ethnoarchaeology

Dorson, Richard M. Folklore and Folklife

Drinkard, Joel F., Jr., Gerald L. Mattingly, J. Maxwell Miller, editors

Eliade, Mercea The Sacred and the Profane

Evans, John G. An Introduction to Environmental Archaeology

Fagan, Brian Time Detectives

Fathy, Hassan Architecture for the Poor

Fernea, Elizabeth Warnock Guests of the Sheik

Fouts, Roger Next of Kin

Gimbutus, Marija The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe

Glueck, Nelson The Other Side of Jordan

Hall, Edward T. The Silent Language

The Dance of Life

The Hidden Dimension

Beyond Culture

Hodder, Ian Reading the Past

Hoffman, Michael A. Egypt Before the Pharaohs

Horne, Lee Village Spaces

Ibn Khaldun al-Muqaddimah

Joukowsky, Martha A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology

Kehoe, Alice Beck North American Indians

Kemp, Barry J. Ancient Egypt

Kent, Susan Analyzing Activity Areas

Lessa, William A. and Evon Z Vogt, editors Reader in Comparative Religion

Levine, Lawrence W. Black Culture and Black Consciousness

Levi-Straus, Claude The Naked Man

Longacre, William Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology

Malinowski, Bronislaw Argonauts of the West Pacific

Mallory, J. P. In Search of Indo-Europeans

Matson, Frederick R. Ceramics and Man

Maxwell, Gavin People of the Reeds

Mellaart, James The Neolithic of the Near East

Molnar, Stephan Human Variation

Neumann, Erik The Great Mother

Orton, Clive, Paul Tyers and Alan Vince Pottery in Archaeology

Prag, John and Richard Neave Making Faces

Renfrew, Colin Archaeology and Language

Rice, Prudence M. Pottery Analysis

Rice, Prudence M., editor Pots and Potters

Roberts, Charlotte and Keith Manchester The Archaeology of Disease

Robinson, Andrew The Story of Writing

Rosen, Arlene Miller Cities of Clay

Schiffer, Michael b. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise Before Writing

Senner, Wayne M., editor The Origins of Writing

Shepard, Anna O. Pottery for the Archaeologist

Soustelle, Jacques The Olmecs

Spindler, George and Louise, editors Case Studies in Anthropology

Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall The Harmless People

Warrior Herdsmen

Tufte, Edward R. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

Turnbull, Colin M. The Mountain People

Ucko, Peter J., editor The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals

Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy Sabloff A History of American Archaeology

Weiner, Jonathan Beak of the Finch

currently on order;

Breaking the Maya code Micheal Coe (I have read this once but loaned it out it was never returned.)

A Forest of Kings Freidel

Reading the Maya Glyphs Micheal Coe- Mark Van Stone

How to read Maya Glyphs John Montgomery

And many more (too many to mention) books by Nibley, Sorenson, etc LDS apologetic books.

Now I hope I am not being too smug

Anijen

[Zakuska]

The point is, zak, that transferring ownership or even changing the shape of the material doesn't alter the nature of the material, nor does it provide some excuse for not finding that same material. Even if someone else used it, reused it, or altered its shape, eventually it still ends up in the hands of archaeologists. (or a certain percentage will)

So tell me what the BoJ and Nephi were doing.

mol

[beastie]

As I clearly stated, I gave you my â??resumeâ? to refute your charge that I have been â??flippantâ? with the work of Gardner, Sorenson, and Clark. The fact is that I have taken their work more seriously than the vast majority of critics.

Thatâ??s an impressive reading list. I applaud your desire to learn more about ancient Mesoamerica. It is truly fascinating, particularly when you consider how long their society worked.

Iâ??m going to focus on one sentence in your reply in particular:

You both write very well, have facts, but are so biased, speculating, hypothesizing and then declare it as fact and flippantly brush off criticism and then denounce their scholarly work.

On this thread, you stated that your belief in the BoM as an ancient historical document is not based on archaeological evidence, but on a spiritual witness. That is bias. On this thread, you have speculated and hypothesized that the sword-like macuahuitl existed in the preclassic and early classic period without any evidence. On this thread, your fellow believers have engaged in not only unwarranted speculation, but have offered evidences that are grossly inadequate. Yet you remain silent in the face of that fact â?? that is bias.

I criticize the portions of the work of Gardner, Sorenson, and Clark that deserves criticism. What should have I done when I discovered that Sorensonâ??s references did not match his claims for them? Remain silent? Is that the only way to not appear â??flippantâ? to you?

[beastie]

molten

MOLTEN, pp. of melt. Melted.

1. a. Made of melted metal; as a molten image.

Once again, I am at a loss to figure out how this helps your case.

[Zakuska]

Once again, I am at a loss to figure out how this helps your case.

Glass even in its solid state is still a liquid. Thats why windows that are 100 years old are thicker at the botton than they are at the top.

Taffy is a liquid.

Iron bars that come out of the furnace are still a liquid, until they cool enough.

What degree was Nephi's metal "Melted" Beastie? The text does not say.

Was it like Taffy and then worked into shape? or was it more like water, that was poured into a mold and let cool. "MOLTEN" does not necesitate being pour into a mold.

Even your own definition speaks of "MOLTEN COALS" are you saying they did this on Braquettes?

[beastie]

Glass even in its solid state is still a liquid. Thats why windows that are 100 years old are thicker at the botton than they are at the top.

Taffy is a liquid.

Iron bars that come out of the furnace are still a liquid, until they cool enough.

What degree was Nephi's metal "Melted" Beastie? The text does not say.

Was it like Taffy and then worked into shape? or was it more like water, that was poured into a mold and let cool. "MOLTEN" does not necesitate being pour into a mold.

Even your own definition speaks of "MOLTEN COALS" are you saying they did this on Braquettes?

What difference could it possibly make to your argument whether or not the metal was heated to the point of being liquid or being taffy? Either way, something was being done to the metal that required the ability to control intense heat - a technology that ancient a Mesoamericans did not possess during the BoM time period.

We're not talking about coals, zak. We're talking about metal, and what Nephi and the BoJ did to that metal.

[Zakuska]

What difference could it possibly make to your argument whether or not the metal was heated to the point of being liquid or being taffy? Either way, something was being done to the metal that required the ability to control intense heat - a technology that ancient a Mesoamericans did not possess during the BoM time period.

We're not talking about coals, zak. We're talking about metal, and what Nephi and the BoJ did to that metal.

Because Taffy Metal doesn't require quite as much temperature control as say white hot liquid metal poured into a popsicle mold.

You already have admited that they did work with metals to make things such as mirrors. Thats not that big of a leap to jump to say black smitthing to create some of the copper axe heads they all had.

[beastie]

Because Taffy Metal doesn't require quite as much temperature control as say white hot liquid metal poured into a popsicle mold.

You already have admited that they did work with metals to make things such as mirrors. Thats not that big of a leap to jump to say black smitthing to create some of the copper axe heads they all had.

It is a big leap, zak - a leap that requires the ability to control heat at high temperatures.

[Anijen]

I guess I am going to bow out of this thread and say we agree that we do not agree. I leave the debate to Zakuska. I apologize to consiglieri for hijacking his good thread. May you;

Listen to your conviction, even if they seem absurd to your reason.

Proverb From the Ancient Egyptian Temples from the inner temple

[Zakuska]

It is a big leap, zak - a leap that requires the ability to control heat at high temperatures.

Again... what High temperatures does it take to black smith? And why are you requiring the Nephites to rival Detroit in steel production?

[John Williams]

Again... what High temperatures does it take to black smith?

Is there any evidence of blacksmithing in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times?

[John Williams]

John, I can't think of any way I might prove this to your satisfaction, but I'd be willing to bet large sums of money (if I had them) that the reason I believe is actually radically different to the reason you once believed.

You mean you believe for a reason different from having a testimony? You believe without having had what you consider a spiritual witness?

If so, maybe it is radically different from the reasons I believed.

[Zakuska]

Is there any evidence of blacksmithing in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times?

Much more than just Smithing...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41178

[John Larsen]

Much more than just Smithing...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41178

Zak, you need to go check that thread. Beastie is eating your lunch again.

[John Larsen]

You mean you believe for a reason different from having a testimony? You believe without having had what you consider a spiritual witness?

If so, maybe it is radically different from the reasons I believed.

You see Runtu, you must understand that your testimony was not valid as a member, which was made apparent by your eventual apostasy. That is the beautiful thing about relying on mystical experience, it is very easy to dismiss all other such experience that doesn't conform to your own.

[beastie]

Yes, I strongly encourage interested readers to check out zak's new thread. So far, out of eleven sources, we've been able to check on six of them. None of those six offered the evidence zak's linked article claims, ie, evidence of preclassic or early classic metallurgy.

[gtaggart]

<snip> I happen to think that if people are truly investigating the claims of LGT that they have a right to certain information that is very pertinent, such as, for example, the problematic nature of Sorenson’s sources. They have a right to know that when Sorenson and Gardner talk about “linguistic evidence” for metal, that the linguistic evidence is nothing more than references to metal materials, with which they were familiar through meteorite iron and outcrops of other metal. There is no linguistic evidence to point to knowledge of the process of metallurgy. <snip>

Beastie,

I know you've written about this elsewhere. Would you mind expanding on this and citing your source(s)? Thanks.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You mean you believe for a reason different from having a testimony? You believe without having had what you consider a spiritual witness?

If so, maybe it is radically different from the reasons I believed.

It depends, John, on what you mean by 'testimony.'

For example, I read about the horrific experience your daughter had. (I'm exceedingly glad both that you raised such a brave, clever daughter and that she was safe! I also hope your entire family has recovered from the trauma as much as possible at this point!) I don't know what kind of legal follow-on has occurred since the intruder was caught, but, if there is to be a trial, I'm guessing ************ will be called upon to give her testimony--a best-faith account of what she personally witnessed/experienced that day. You may also be asked to give your testimony concerning the call she made to you whilst she was hiding in the downstairs bathroom.

If that's what you mean by 'testimony,' then I know what you're talking about.

But other things you've written have led me to guess that's not what you mean by 'testimony' in this context. For example, I have a hard time understanding how a phone call from a friend some years in future might lead ****** to decide that *********** didn't really break into your house whilst she was home sick last year or you to decide that she didn't really call you that day and ask if there was supposed to be someone in the house.

Yet that is exactly what you claim happened to your 'testimony' of 'Mormonism.'

And that's what leads me to suspect that our reasons for belief must differ. Because I really have personally witnessed/experienced certain things, and I'm as likely to lose my testimony of those things as your brave, beautiful daughter is to lose her testimony of what happened to her the day a burglar broke into your home.

Moreover, contrary to John Larsen's snide assertion above, my point is not to dismiss your personal experience. Universalising my personal experiences, projecting them onto you, and then claiming you were either evil or foolish for turning against them would constitute a dismissal of your experience, and I'm consciously trying to avoid that very behaviour. I'm convinced it's both more honest and more charitable simply to conclude that our experiences (and therefore reasons for belief) have been very different.

[beastie]

beastie

<snip> I happen to think that if people are truly investigating the claims of LGT that they have a right to certain information that is very pertinent, such as, for example, the problematic nature of Sorenson’s sources. They have a right to know that when Sorenson and Gardner talk about “linguistic evidence” for metal, that the linguistic evidence is nothing more than references to metal materials, with which they were familiar through meteorite iron and outcrops of other metal. There is no linguistic evidence to point to knowledge of the process of metallurgy. <snip>

Gtaggart’s request:

Beastie,

I know you've written about this elsewhere. Would you mind expanding on this and citing your source(s)? Thanks.

First, see post 19 on this thread. I quoted a section from my website about the linguistic evidence. I will continue from my website where that left off, and then share a few links that demonstrate Brant Gardner’s references to linguistic evidence.

Dr. Sorenson, like other Book of Mormon scholars, attempts to make an argument based on the idea that the absence of evidence does not equate evidence of absence. Again, from his rebuttal essay:

“She makes much of the fact that metal processing sites are known in the civilized portions of the Old World (p. 284). But as recently as fifty years ago the same lack of narrowly "archaeological" evidences for metal processing prevailed in the eastern hemisphere as for Mesoamerica now. But vastly more archaeology has been done in the central portions of the Old World—probably more in a single year than gets done in a decade in Mesoamerica. Experts have looked more, and they have found more (there was no doubt more to be found anyhow). Eventually many more "traces of such ancient metallurgy" will be found in Mesoamerica, for, as the names witness, some metal obviously was in early use.47

Sorenson then proceeds to talk about lack of evidence not being evidence of absence (see my website if you want to read more)

For ease of reference, I’m going to repeat part of what I shared on post 19, from Sorenson’s rebuttal essay:

“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?”

Here’s an example of Brant referring to linguistic evidence:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=16949&st=0

Brant

This is a classic case of absence of evidence. While it is currently correct that we don't see the evidence of metallurgy this early, that doesn't mean that the absence is conclusive. There are clear linguistic recontructions for words for metal that date back to Olmec times. Why have a word for something that doesn't exist?

Now I’m going to pull out direct statements from Gardner and Sorenson to demonstrate why I believe they are being fundamentally misleading:

Eventually many more "traces of such ancient metallurgy" will be found in Mesoamerica, for, as the names witness, some metal obviously was in early use.

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.

By "evidence" she means physical remains, ignoring the names for metals.

There are clear linguistic recontructions for words for metal that date back to Olmec times. Why have a word for something that doesn't exist?

Even aside from Stan Larson demonstrating Sorenson’s misuse of his sources (again), which I shared on post 19, my point is simple:

We know that metal existed in ancient Mesoamerica. We know that, from the Olmec period onward, ancient Mesoamericans worked with meteorite iron ore and outcrops of certain metals, such as gold. Sorenson’s statement that “That date extends back to the time of the Jaredites, for which so far we have not a single specimen of actual metal” was flatly incorrect. We have many specimens of iron ore mirrors (which Zak has attempted to use as evidence of adornment of buildings with iron). Those specimens were known when Sorenson wrote Ancient American Setting, because Sorenson used, or rather misused, a source that contained references to an iron ore mirror (one of his Linne references). Aside from his erroneous assertion about not having a “single specimen of actual metal”, this statement of his was in response to Matheny’s statement:

"No evidence has been found that metallurgy was practiced by the Olmec civilization"

Notice the shift in topic. Matheny is discussing the lack of evidence of metallurgy. In response, Sorenson (and Gardner) respond that “words for metal existed.”

How does the fact that words exist to describe the material with which, say, the iron ore mirror was fashioned provide some sort of evidence that the technology of metallurgy existed?

The answer is obvious: it doesn’t. It is very misleading to refer to linguistic evidence as some sort of support for metallurgy, when all Sorenson and Gardner are referring to are words for metal.

As I stated on my website and on post 19 of this thread, the only linguistic evidence that would be persuasive would be connected vocabulary related to the process of metallurgy – not words that simply name “metal”.

Metal does not equate metallurgy.

BTW, Brant is aware that I believe he is being misleading on this account. I attempted to discuss the issue with him on ZLMB:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/9076

I’m going to try to find the early ZLMB thread on the topic as well, but that may take a while as ezboard has a useless search function.

[gtaggart]

beastie

Gtaggartâ??s request:

First, see post 19 on this thread. I quoted a section from my website about the linguistic evidence. I will continue from my website where that left off, and then share a few links that demonstrate Brant Gardnerâ??s references to linguistic evidence.

Dr. Sorenson, like other Book of Mormon scholars, attempts to make an argument based on the idea that the absence of evidence does not equate evidence of absence. Again, from his rebuttal essay:

Sorenson then proceeds to talk about lack of evidence not being evidence of absence (see my website if you want to read more)

For ease of reference, Iâ??m going to repeat part of what I shared on post 19, from Sorensonâ??s rebuttal essay:

Hereâ??s an example of Brant referring to linguistic evidence:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=16949&st=0

Brant

Now Iâ??m going to pull out direct statements from Gardner and Sorenson to demonstrate why I believe they are being fundamentally misleading:

Even aside from Stan Larson demonstrating Sorensonâ??s misuse of his sources (again), which I shared on post 19, my point is simple:

We know that metal existed in ancient Mesoamerica. We know that, from the Olmec period onward, ancient Mesoamericans worked with meteorite iron ore and outcrops of certain metals, such as gold. Sorensonâ??s statement that â??That date extends back to the time of the Jaredites, for which so far we have not a single specimen of actual metalâ? was flatly incorrect. We have many specimens of iron ore mirrors (which Zak has attempted to use as evidence of adornment of buildings with iron). Those specimens were known when Sorenson wrote Ancient American Setting, because Sorenson used, or rather misused, a source that contained references to an iron ore mirror (one of his Linne references). Aside from his erroneous assertion about not having a â??single specimen of actual metalâ?, this statement of his was in response to Mathenyâ??s statement:

"No evidence has been found that metallurgy was practiced by the Olmec civilization"

Notice the shift in topic. Matheny is discussing the lack of evidence of metallurgy. In response, Sorenson (and Gardner) respond that â??words for metal existed.â?

How does the fact that words exist to describe the material with which, say, the iron ore mirror was fashioned provide some sort of evidence that the technology of metallurgy existed?

The answer is obvious: it doesnâ??t. It is very misleading to refer to linguistic evidence as some sort of support for metallurgy, when all Sorenson and Gardner are referring to are words for metal.

As I stated on my website and on post 19 of this thread, the only linguistic evidence that would be persuasive would be connected vocabulary related to the process of metallurgy â?? not words that simply name â??metalâ?.

Metal does not equate metallurgy.

BTW, Brant is aware that I believe he is being misleading on this account. I attempted to discuss the issue with him on ZLMB:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/9076

Iâ??m going to try to find the early ZLMB thread on the topic as well, but that may take a while as ezboard has a useless search function.

Thanks, but what I really meant to ask was can you support your assertion that "the linguistic evidence is nothing more than references to metal materials"? I understand that we have no actual evidence for metallurgy in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times. I understand that the word "metal" does not necessarily refer to "metallurgy." But I'm having a hard time understanding how you support that assertion with the quotes and such that you laid out above. Please advise.

[beastie]

Thanks, but what I really meant to ask was can you support your assertion that "the linguistic evidence is nothing more than references to metal materials"? I understand that we have no actual evidence for metallurgy in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times. I understand that the word "metal" does not necessarily refer to "metallurgy." But I'm having a hard time understanding how you support that assertion with the quotes and such that you laid out above. Please advise.

Simple. Sorenson and Gardner have never claimed that there's linguistic evidence for metallurgy. Look closely at their quotes. They always says there's linguistic evidence for metal.