Both Gold, Silver and Copper

In a comment received a while back, there was a question in some reader’s minds that a certain terminology did not have any underlying significance, and as one put it: “I've always disagreed with Del's “one-way” interpretation of the ore verse. It's not at all clear to me (although it is to Del) that the 3 ores *must* be combined. However, rules of English grammar demand no such interpretation. Del might be right, but from the syntax it can also just be interpreted as a list. Again, multiple interpretations are possible” Tyrus.

Response: First, let me respond to the English grammar part of the comment above. The way this is written, “And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper” (1 Nephi 18:25), is totally improper English. The word “both” in 1828 as it does today, means “two.” In fact, today’s Oxford Dictionary lists the meaning of “both” as taken from Middle English (from Old Norse) báthir as: 1) used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together; 2) used before the first of two alternatives to emphasize that the statement being made applies to each (the other alternative being introduced by “and”). And Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language states that “both” means “two.” Therefore, English grammar does demand some type of explanation or interpretation, since it is incorrect as it stands—three items on the list following "both." Therefore, we are left with the choices of 1) accept that Joseph Smith, or the Spirit, or Mormon made a mistake; or 2) Decide why it was so written and the reason behind it. Also, the “syntax” (grammar sentence construction) cannot just be interpreted as a list, since grammatically it is incorrect. So it can be interpreted as an “incorrect” list, which brings us back to choice #1 above, which in my way of thinking is totally unacceptable. Thus, what would three following "both" mean?
    Secondly, in answer directly to the comment that “it is clear to Del.” Perhaps an explanation as to why it is clear might be of help. The statement in question has to do with gold, silver and copper, and in the 47 places in the Book of Mormon where gold, silver, etc., is mentioned, only once is gold, silver and copper combined. In 17 cases, Nephi, Jacob and Jarom mention gold, silver and precious ores—only one of these combines gold, silver and copper in a geological terminology that suggests they are of a single ore (1 Nephi 18:25); Mormon mentions gold with other ores 25 times, but never with silver and copper. Moroni mentioned gold 5 times, but also never with silver and copper. Therefore, only once are the three ores mentioned, and not only are they mentioned in the geologic term of a single ore, but that location is only indicated in one, unique area (area of first landing) of which Nephi leaves and the record never touches on again. The single ore concept is not a matter of opinion grabbed from a “cloud” and run up a flagpole to see if anyone salutes it, but is a term that is consistent with geologically stating that very fact. It is also mentioned just once, and in a location never again visited in the scriptural record, and in a place we know today to have several such mines that have found gold and silver and copper in single ore—while not unusual, it does not exist that way in very many places in the Western Hemisphere according to current mining maps.
    It is also interesting that the terminology used, and only in this one case does he qualify these ores, as “both” (a term meaning two) and then follow with three ores, which is, again, a geological terminology, of “both gold and silver and copper” which means literally, both “gold and silver” and “copper,” a very unusual manner of speaking outside the geological world.

In all other cases the ores are merely listed as in the case of a list of numerous items. Nephi, himself, uses the several terms elsewhere as anyone of us normally would, without combining ores, when he said, “wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores” (2 Nephi 5:18). But in this one particular case, the gold and silver are combined, and the copper is separated, which we have explained several times from a geologic or smithing point of view—to a professional who works with these ores, it is common practice to combine precious metals and list them separately from non-precious metals when found in a single ore.
    By the way, in using “of this, and of that” speaking in terms of the multiple us of the word “of” is strictly Hebrew, where in English, we would say, gold, silver, copper,” not “of gold, of silver, of copper.” So it can be suggested that the translation here of these items is strictly according to how they were written.

In its purist form, the goldsmith works with gold, the brightsmith or silversmith works with silver, or a metallurgist works with both along with other metals; and a brownsmith or coppersmith works with copper. As an example, while a goldsmith specializes in gold, he also is a metalworker, meaning he may well work with other precious metals in addition to gold. I have two close friends (who are brothers) who have fashioned several special-design rings for my wife in their jewelry business—working with gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, jewels and stones.
    While metalsmith is a term meaning one who works with all or most metals, the term has loosely been used in archaeology to describe those who worked ancient with both precious and non-precious metals. As an example, the metallurgy connected with ancient Peru involved several different precious and non-precious metals.
    For those of you who think I have only one way of looking at something, I might suggest that when I arrive at a conclusion, it is after months, sometimes years studying the process of meaning as well as the arts involved, such as, in this case, the smiths involved, those who work with precious metals; geologists who work in the fields of discovery of precious metals and other ores, etc. With today’s resources, there are any number of sources easily available for a treasure trove of information and knowledge. Within my family and close circle of related contacts, I have professionals in geology, goldsmithing, silversmithing, wordsmithing, international banking and monetary funding, medical doctors, construction, building (stonework), psychology, inventor, agriculture, attorney, etc., all of which have been used over the years in study and field work of my writing. I am not suggesting I know any more than the next guy, but I do suggest that when I state a view on this or any other area, it is well thought out, well documented by either experts or professionals in the field, and supported by numerous points.
    My problem is in people who come up with a flippant or off the cuff comments or opinions not backed up by anything other than their personal view. While all people have the right to have any opinion or view they choose, it might be wise to have an opinion based upon more than an unsupported thought. We get letters and comments all the time, some from people who have spent next to two seconds coming up with their belief, comment or disagreement. It is difficult, sometimes, to respond to comments that are hardly even thought out, when the information they are disagreeing with has been considered from numerous views by at least several people over sometimes many years, those who make their living and professions in the field, and those who have actually worked with and done the things being described.
    Don’t get me wrong, I welcome any and all comments and early-on with this blog made a pledge to answer any and all questions.

So, on this comment or difference of opinion, we come down to the bottom line, which is that we are back again to the two choices, that either Joseph Smith, the Spirit or Nephi made a very obvious mistake in grammar; or that the list as given is correct and decide why it is correct. For me, I will never choose the former until all the possibilities of the latter have been investigated.
    It might also be of interest to note that native copper was man’s first copper ore. Native copper is often alloyed with gold, silver, lead and mercury. Copper is widely distributed in nature. The metal is easily oxidizable and also easily reduced. It therefore occurs both as native copper and in its numerous compounds. Native copper is commonly, if not always, of secondary origin, either deposited from solution or formed by the reduction of some solid compound. Pseudomorphs of copper after cuprite are well known. W. S. Yeats has described pseudomorphs of copper after azurite from Grant County, New Mexico. W. Lindgren states that the vein of metallic copper at Clifton, Arizona, appear to have been derived from Chalcocite. The greatest known deposits of metallic copper are found in the Lake Superior region. The largest single mass of native copper ever found was discovered in the Minnesota mine, Michigan, in February, 1857. It was 45 ft. long, 22 ft. wide and 8 ft. thick. It weighed 420 tons. It was 90 per cent, pure copper and contained an appreciable amount of silver.

The Elqui-Coquimbo Mine in Chile (where Lehi landed) is a large Copper mine with gold and silver
    Silver and gold are often produced as a bi-product of copper refining” (Tom Chandler, Handy & Harman, Production Metallurgy and Management 1974-1980), and that generally speaking, because of the low profit margins now in copper (which is pretty low-grade these days), the byproduct of gold and silver within the copper ore pays for the smelting and allows for a profit. And, also, thanks to the introduction of pyritic smelting, low-grade pyritic-copper ores are profitable to mine even if they do not have gold or silver combined. In addition, complex ores of copper, lead, and zinc sulfides are more costly to treat, but this expense may be more than made up for by their gold and silver contents. Sulfide ores of copper are almost invariably leached near the surface, except where the former surface material has been removed by rapid erosion or glaciation. Many copper ores, however, contain other metals that are not so easily leached as copper. As a result, many valuable deposits of copper sulfide ore have been discovered by downward exploitation of oxidized gold and silver ores. In regions where copper ores abound areas richly stained with iron are generally considered worthy of exploration in a search for copper. On the other hand, deposits of copper have been found below outcrops that show very little iron oxide. These outcrops, however, are generally silicified and kaolinized. Most of the large copper sulfide deposits in the United States show three zones: a leached zone near the surface, an enriched zone below the leached zone, and a zone of lower-grade primary ore below the enriched zone. In the unaltered primary portion of the ore body the copper compounds are mainly sulfides, but arsenides and antimonides are also known. In the leached goethite gossan zone the copper occurs as carbonates, sulfates, silicates, oxides, native, and more rarely as phosphates, arsenates, antimonates and vanadates.
    The point is, there not only is a science to precious and non-precious metals, but a way of listing and speaking about them. Mormon's description of "both gold and silver and copper" is correct only from a metallurgy point of view. In any other way, the sentence is improper grammar.