Horses In The Book Of Mormon

[sean0scott]

Sean,

You are pretty good at distorting an argument,

Let's try this

1. LDS apologists imply that a horse in the book of Mormon could be a deer (in order to validate looking for archaeological evidence in Central America)

2. It is obvious to anyone who compares the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible that Joseph Smith copied portions of the Bible

3. Joseph Smith's obsession with 'it came to pass' supports this argument of Joseph Smith's plagiarism of the King James Bible

4. The Bible refers to horses and chariots

5. The Book of Mormon refers to horses and chariots

6. 1 Nephi 13 implies that the promised land is North America (validated by LDS commentaries)

7. Therefore, the conclusion, "Is it not desperate and deceptive to say Book of Mormon horses are 'Tapir'?

In Christ, RCM

RCM,

Flattery will get you nowhere

Let's address these premises then, to see what weight the conclusion carries.

1: We are not just "some" apologists on this here discussion board, so that claim may not apply generally.

2: One man's trash is another man's Obvious.

3: I couldn't help but notice you enumerated "literal" thousands of Book of Mormon it came to pass statements in your previous post. Are there "literally" thousands of it came to pass statements in the Bible? I only count around 700.

4: This is True.

5: This is true.

6: I can see how this is implied.

7. Your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Judging from your revamped version of your argument, my interpretation wasn't all that bad.

Are you trying to say that the word horses was stolen from the bible? You need to build a better mousetrap if you are trying to prove it via logic.

[maklelan]

Sean,

You are pretty good at distorting an argument,

Let's try this

1. LDS apologists imply that a horse in the book of Mormon could be a deer (in order to validate looking for archaeological evidence in Central America)

Let's be accurate. Some LDS apologists have suggested that.

2. It is obvious to anyone who compares the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible that Joseph Smith copied portions of the Bible

Until one looks closer and sees that over half of the verses explicitly stated to have been pulled from the Old Testament ar edistinct from their KJV counterpart.

3. Joseph Smith's obsession with 'it came to pass' supports this argument of Joseph Smith's plagiarism of the King James Bible

Actually the phrase in Hebrew is far more common than in the KJV. vayehi occurs 782 times in the Hebrew Bible, almost twice as many times as it is translated "and it came to pass" in the KJV. It's a very common Semitic literary element.

4. The Bible refers to horses and chariots

5. The Book of Mormon refers to horses and chariots

And there's archaeological evidence of both in the Americas. The chariots are preserved in clay children's toys. The argument has been promulgated that they're just toys and don't represent actual vehicles, since no full-sized examples are found, but full-sized examples would have been made of wood and other perishable materials that rarely ever survive in the Mesoamerican climate. Fired clay lasts forever.

6. 1 Nephi 13 implies that the promised land is North America (validated by LDS commentaries)

That's one interpretation, and it was a popular interpretation back before we knew much about the history of the Americas. No revelation was ever received on it, although Joseph Smith did once advocate a limited geography theory as a possible model.

7. Therefore, the conclusion, "Is it not desperate and deceptive to say Book of Mormon horses are 'Tapir'?

It's neither, but I think the evidence better supports the conclusion that horses were horses.

[ERayR]

Trespassers,

3 Nephi 3:22 talks about using chariots and horses to defend themselvesOf course the King James or Old English was the language of the early 1800's in America.

You don't think Joseph Smith relied heavily on the King James Bible in translating the Book of Mormon? Have you never noticed the literally thousands of 'it came to pass,' statements?

The Book of Moses, which Joseph Smith re-wrote is all in the same King James English

You think the original Book of Mormon plates were written in King James English??? Reformed Egyptian in King James English, please explain how that could be

In 1 Nephi 13, it talks about the 'Promised Land,' and LDS commentaries on 1 Nephi 13 recognize that the text refers to Columbus in verse 12, and the Puritans and Settlers in verses 13-16, and the Revolutionary War in verses 17-19.

I think it is desperation and deception to try and say the horses referred to in the Book of Mormon are really 'Tapir' or deer.

In Christ, RCM

[/quot

Wrong again! You are reading more into that verse than is there. Seems to be a common problem. All it says is that they took them and gathered to a place that had been previously selected for a defensive position. It gives no indication at all on how they were used. Please, if you are going to tell me what my scripture says, get it accurate.

[TrespassersW]

Trespassers,

3 Nephi 3:22 talks about using chariots and horses to defend themselves

Not quite. 3 Nephi 3:22 talks about them gathering their possessions (such as grain and flocks and cattle) together in one place in preparation to defend themselves. The horses are mentioned in conjunction with the cattle. Are they ever mentioned as being part of an actual battle?

Of course the King James or Old English was the language of the early 1800's in America.

I think we're just going to have to disagree about that. But more importantly, I wanted to know in what publication did the LDS Church make the argument that you referred to.

You don't think Joseph Smith relied heavily on the King James Bible in translating the Book of Mormon? Have you never noticed the literally thousands of 'it came to pass,' statements?

Where did I say anything about this?

The Book of Moses, which Joseph Smith re-wrote is all in the same King James English

Yes, it is. If you have a point here, it is lost on me, I'm afraid.

You think the original Book of Mormon plates were written in King James English??? Reformed Egyptian in King James English, please explain how that could be

No, I don't. What on earth would give you such a ridiculous idea?

You've obviously misunderstood my questions here. I don't believe that Nephites spoke King James English, nor do I think Joseph Smith did (I don't believe he went around saying "and it came to pass" in everyday speech). I think Joseph translated the language of the Nephites into English, and specifically into King James English because that was the appropriate language of scripture, as he saw it.

In 1 Nephi 13, it talks about the 'Promised Land,' and LDS commentaries on 1 Nephi 13 recognize that the text refers to Columbus in verse 12, and the Puritans and Settlers in verses 13-16, and the Revolutionary War in verses 17-19.

And what should that mean for archaeologists? Should we be looking for evidence of Columbus? Or the Revolutionary War? What do those things have to do with the Nephites? Where should we look for archaeological evidence of the Nephites?

I think it is desperation and deception to try and say the horses referred to in the Book of Mormon are really 'Tapir' or deer.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't really answer the questions I asked.

Where did the LDS Church make the claim that the Book of Mormon was written in "the language of the day"? I'd like to see the article so I can see if I agree with your assessment of the argument.

As for Ash's argument, you're free to agree with it or disagree with it. Though calling it "deceptive" or "desperate" is interesting. You are aware that the phenomenon he discusses--that of calling an unknown animal by the name of a known animal--is well known and has happened frequently throughout history, aren't you? While I personally disagree with Ash, I think calling his suggestion "desperate" is just a little bit funny. And smacks of a certain desperation itself.

[SolarPowered]

Isn't the LDS Church using double speak and confusion regarding hoses in the Book of Mormon?

I am not aware that "the LDS Church" has said anything at all regarding horses in the Book of Mormon. I issue a CFR (Call For References) for you to provide references that substantiate your assertion.

First, the LDS Church answers critics who say Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Bible, by saying Joseph Smith translated in the language of the day so people could clearly understand the Book of Mormon. So, it must be assumed that a horse is a horse as was known in 1830, especially in regards to chariots.

But, now the LDS Church is saying the horse referred to in the Book of Mormon is probably a 'Tapir' or deer like animal known in Central and South America, as is noted in an article from the FAIRLDS site 'Horses in the Book of Mormon' by Mike Ash.

Ash makes the following statement;

{First, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text--it's a nineteenth-century translation of an ancient text. When we, as modern readers, read texts from ancient or foreign cultures, we often misunderstand what the ancient or foreign author was attempting to convey. Some of the things that seem "plain" to us are not so "plain" upon further investigation or once we understand the culture that produced the text.}

Ash's statement contradicts the LDS Church's apologetics and defense regarding Joseph Smith's plagiarism of the King James Bible and King James language.

Why is the LDS Church even in Central and South America looking for archaeological evidence, when 1 Nephi 13 clearly refers to the United States as the promised land?

So, is a horse in the Book of Mormon, a horse or a 'Tapir' (deer)? Can deer be used to pull chariots in battle?

In Christ, RCM

To reiterate, the Church has not to my knowledge made any statements regarding horses in the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, a number of critics have made the assertion that, because they don't know about any horses (Equus caballus) in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus, that the Book of Mormon must therefore be a fraud.

A number of members of the Church have answered those charges by pointing out that there a several ways that the term "horse" might appear in an authentic text of this sort. Any of these mechanisms is sufficient to debunk the critic's arguments. These mechanisms include:

It is common for people who encounter an unknown species of animal to name it after an animal that they are familiar with. Of particular probative value are the following examples: The Greeks, upon encountering an animal that distantly resembles a horse and lives in the water, called it a "horse"; to wit, the "hippopotamus." Various native American races have called the European horse "deer", others call it "tapir." It is entirely plausible that Lehi's party applied the name "horse" to the deer, tapir, llama, or some other animal.

It is also common in translation that when a translator encounters a name for an animal for which he has no word to translate it to, he will translate it to some name of a similar animal that his reader will be familiar with. There are a number of examples of this in the King James Bible. It is quite plausible that the translator of the Book of Mormon chose the word "horse" to represent some large critter that had no name in the subset of the English language that he was familiar with.

Also, it is unproven that there were neither Equus caballus nor Equus equus in Nephite lands during the time that the Nephites were there. And indeed, there are a number of tantalizing indicators that suggest that there may have been such. These include old linguistic traces of a word for "horse", Indian traditions of having horses before the arrival of the White Man, and numerous cases where archaeologists have thrown away horse remains in precolumbian strata because "everyone knows that there weren't any horses here then, therefore these are modern contamination."

Obviously, the presence of actual precolumbian Equus remains would satisfy even the most skeptical critic.

RCM, do you find fault with any of these lines of argument?

[Alf O'Mega]

Sure, the "no horse myth" is still making the rounds. It will probably continue to do so for another decade or so, then it will finally give way to the pressure of the facts.

I propose a friendly wager, Brother Facto. (May I call you Ip?) If any article proposing a pre-Columbian North American origin for the mustang, pinto, or Appaloosa appears in a highly respected scientific journal like Science, Nature, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America by November 1, 2018, I'll travel to your location and buy you a steak. If you fail to produce any such qualifying article by that date, the terms reverse. (I think you'll be able to find me, don't you?)

It actually should be a fairly straightforward matter to demonstrate that a North American population of horses is genetically distant from Spanish breeds. This article, however, appears to lean the other way.

[Scottie]

RCM, no offense to you personally, you possibly don't know any better, but every thing you have raised here has been answered so many times, not only on these boards but in so many other places that you're bringing them up again is just sad. Please do some honest research for yourself rather than believe everything someone tells you. You'll be much happier in life if you do.

Correction here...

They have been addressed, which is a far cry from answered.

Sorry, but this is a little pet peeve of mine.

[caudicus]

The Book of Mormon, of course, takes place in a time when there were no horses in North America. Sure there were horses long long ago of a different sort, but they are not relevant to the argument. If there were horses in North America during the time we are discussing, they were likely to have been found many many places upon the arrival of the first Europeans since, ever since, they have done just fine in wild herds.

The language used in the Book of Mormon is a very separate argument, and, to me, just another of many many nails in the coffin for the LDS faith.

The problem you have with trying to confront people here about horses, steel, the Book of Abraham, Fanny Alger, the differing accounts of the First Vision, or even differing religious experiences, in general, you are not going to get an official answer.

There is no place where the contemporary church lets themselves be pinned down. They don't have an official stance on dinosaurs, the age of the earth, or moon quakers. Even if someone here gives you their opinion on it, it is not doctrine... it is a placebo so that other members can feel better about believing in the church and they can go on knowing that someone, somewhere has an explanation for these little problems. (Even if apologists work backwards from their conclusions to "prove" a point.)

So, no horses during the time period that matters, sorry LDS. Keep holding on that the years will generate something else... we discover new archeological evdience all of the time... and you can just ignore that no where has any *direct* evidence been found that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

[ERayR]

Correction here...

They have been addressed, which is a far cry from answered.

Sorry, but this is a little pet peeve of mine.

Scottie:

With all do respect they have been answered. It's just that they have not been answered the way you wanted or to your satisfaction.

Sorry, but this is a little pet peeve of mine.

[ERayR]

The Book of Mormon, of course, takes place in a time when there were no horses in North America. Sure there were horses long long ago of a different sort, but they are not relevant to the argument. If there were horses in North America during the time we are discussing, they were likely to have been found many many places upon the arrival of the first Europeans since, ever since, they have done just fine in wild herds.

The language used in the Book of Mormon is a very separate argument, and, to me, just another of many many nails in the coffin for the LDS faith.

The problem you have with trying to confront people here about horses, steel, the Book of Abraham, Fanny Alger, the differing accounts of the First Vision, or even differing religious experiences, in general, you are not going to get an official answer.

There is no place where the contemporary church lets themselves be pinned down. They don't have an official stance on dinosaurs, the age of the earth, or moon quakers. Even if someone here gives you their opinion on it, it is not doctrine... it is a placebo so that other members can feel better about believing in the church and they can go on knowing that someone, somewhere has an explanation for these little problems. (Even if apologists work backwards from their conclusions to "prove" a point.)

So, no horses during the time period that matters, sorry LDS. Keep holding on that the years will generate something else... we discover new archeological evdience all of the time... and you can just ignore that no where has any *direct* evidence been found that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

You have not been paying attention or you are being deliberatly obtuse. It has been shown on this thread that is far from a sure thing that there were no horses during BOM times. There very well could have been.

[Rommelator]

and you can just ignore that no where has any *direct* evidence been found that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

Can you say gradis dictum?

[SolarPowered]

Can you say gradis dictum?

No, but I can say "gratis dictum."

[caudicus]

You have not been paying attention or you are being deliberatly obtuse. It has been shown on this thread that is far from a sure thing that there were no horses during BOM times. There very well could have been.

You proved my point. You are here to create a placebo. How about you look up the definition of direct evidence and get back to me? Be sure to fully comprehend what is meant by direct evidence. While you are at it, why don't you explain clearly the timeline we are talking about here? Just so the kids at home can get a better picture.

[Rommelator]

No, but I can say "gratis dictum."

Ah, thanks for the correction!

[SolarPowered]

The Book of Mormon, of course, takes place in a time when there were no horses in North America. Sure there were horses long long ago of a different sort, but they are not relevant to the argument. If there were horses in North America during the time we are discussing, they were likely to have been found many many places upon the arrival of the first Europeans since, ever since, they have done just fine in wild herds.

...

So, no horses during the time period that matters, sorry LDS. Keep holding on that the years will generate something else... we discover new archeological evdience all of the time... and you can just ignore that no where has any *direct* evidence been found that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

OK, CFR. Please provide *direct* evidence that there were no horses in America during Book of Mormon times.

[ERayR]

You proved my point. You are here to create a placebo. How about you look up the definition of direct evidence and get back to me? Be sure to fully comprehend what is meant by direct evidence. While you are at it, why don't you explain clearly the timeline we are talking about here? Just so the kids at home can get a better picture.

You prove my point. Since you are defining direct evidence to be what you want it to be it can never be aquired if you don't want it to. This is accomplishing nothing I will bow out.

[RCM]

Hoses are documented in the Book of Mormon as being used in the first Nephite fire brigade. (1 Nephi 32:21)

They came in especially handy during the firestorm recorded in 3 Nephi 8.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri,

Please clarify your post, as your scripture reference of 1 Nephi 32:21 is non-existant

In Christ, RCM

[caudicus]

Don't you get it? The burden of proof is upon you. You are the one asserting something that seems obviously untrue.

However, I must ask... Why did horses not flourish in the wild until Europeans arrived? It seems ridiculous to think that this event caused a population explosion across two continents. Let us not forget that the natives had to trade and raid Europeans for their first horses even after there was a wild population.

The surprise of native americans is well documented when they saw Europeans riding horses. Why? because they had never seen them before.

The thing about the horse argument is that it is not going to prove your religion true, one way or the other. The problem lies within the insurmountable hurdles of truth that no Christian religion can clear.

If you look close, there are a great deal of problems that lie with the original inception of the Mormon church, but even these pale in comparison with the problems that arise with the very earliest forms of Christianity.

If the church is a restoration of Christianity as it originally appeared, then you are far, far from the mark. Ask yourself, what what Christianity like in 30AD? Horses in North America don't really matter, at that point.

[caudicus]

Oh yeah,

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact

this is different from CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, which requires other assumption(s) to suggest that something could be fact

[Bender]

SolarPowered Posted Today, 01:04 PM

OK, CFR. Please provide *direct* evidence that there were no horses in America during Book of Mormon times.

You mean lack of evidence. Ok here it is, ( ). If there were no horses you would simply see no evidence, which is why scientists don't think there were any horses due to this lack of horse remains after a certain period of time in the Americas. But they must be biased, Right?

[RCM]

Talk about distorting an argument!

1. Show me an LDS apologist who says that the horses in the Book of Mormon are deer or tapir. No one here has suggested that at all -- except for you! Straw man argument.

2. It is obvious that Joseph Smith and Mormon were working from similar references. But copying -- how do you explain the numerous differences?

3. How many times does "And it came to pass" really appear in the Bible?

4. The Bible refers to ships.

5. Charles Darwin refers to ships.

6. Obviously, using your logic, Darwin was plagiarizing from the Bible.

7. Is it not deceptive to insist that we say that the horses in the Book of Mormon are deer or tapir?

You are not in Christ. You are a liar, a deceiver, and a follower of the father of lies.

cjcampbell,

Go to your own LDS supported apologist site, FAIRLDS.org and see for yourself. The article is right there by Mike Ash

You don't think Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Bible? Have you ever looked at the apparatus at the bottom in your Book of Mormon?

The Biblical references are everywhere and that is only when the verses are so similar the LDS Church has to list the Biblical scripture.

3 Nephi 9:13-20 is a perfect example of the plagiarism Joseph Smith is guilty of. Look at the apparatus under the text

cjcampbell, my logic is based upon evidence, and the Book of Mormon is lacking in every area

In Christ, RCM

[SolarPowered]

Oh yeah,

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact

this is different from CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, which requires other assumption(s) to suggest that something could be fact

Yes, those would appear to be the correct definitions of those terms. Providing those definitions in no way answers the CFR.

As you have asked for *direct* (your asterisks) evidence of horses during Book of Mormon times, am I simply asking that you respect the same standard of evidence that you are requiring of us. Please provide *direct* evidence that there were no horses during Book of Mormon times.

This is the second time I've issued this CFR. Are you going to try to weasel out for a second time?

[RCM]

Some LDS apologists argue this, not all of them.

Obvious nothing. Who says he couldn't translate this way?

Did you miss my earlier post? Egyptian, Hebrew and Mayan all have phrases that can be translated as "and it came to pass". Joseph Smith did not have to copy from the KJV to get this phrase.

True.

Also true.

You are nit picking which LDS commentators say this. As I pointed out in a link in an earlier post, many other LDS commentators, including Prophets, have all identified the Land of Promise as being all of North and South America.

Although I have some reserve with this theory, it is not entirely implausible. We need not forget the ancient technique of "loan shifting" or people giving familiar titles to unfamiliar things. When the Greeks first entered Egypt, they saw a strange animal that swam in the water with four legs. Not knowing what else to call this creature, they called it the hippopotamus or, literally, "river horse". Now we all know that a Hippo is not a horse, but to the ancient Greeks that is all they could label it because they could not contextualize it in a different way.

Another example. When Marco Polo first say a rhinoceros, do you know what he called it? He called it a unicorn, since it had such a long, lovely horn coming out of its head. Again, we know that rhinos are not unicorns, but that is all Marco Polo could think of when he first saw this strange animal.

So, some argue, the same goes for the Nephites. When they first encountered the Tapir or the Deer, they did not know what to call it other than something they were familiar with; the horse. So they gave these strange creatures the title "horse" in order to contextualize it.

Rommelator,

Check your LDS commentaries on Nephi by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet

Your argument regarding the horse is ridiculous. Isn't the Book of Mormon supposed to be scripture, wasn't Joseph Smith supposed to be a prophet?

Your answer is in keeping with someone who tries to defend a document that has no historical evidence, and the Book of Mormon has no historical evidence prior to Joseph Smith.

In Christ, RCM

[Bender]

SolarPowered Posted Today, 01:30 PM

Please provide *direct* evidence that there were no horses during Book of Mormon times.

This is the second time I've issued this CFR. Are you going to try to weasel out for a second time?

If you would use a CFR properly maybe he could. How does one provide direct evidence of no evidence?

[jwhitlock]

The Book of Mormon, of course, takes place in a time when there were no horses in North America. Sure there were horses long long ago of a different sort, but they are not relevant to the argument. If there were horses in North America during the time we are discussing, they were likely to have been found many many places upon the arrival of the first Europeans since, ever since, they have done just fine in wild herds.

The language used in the Book of Mormon is a very separate argument, and, to me, just another of many many nails in the coffin for the LDS faith.

The problem you have with trying to confront people here about horses, steel, the Book of Abraham, Fanny Alger, the differing accounts of the First Vision, or even differing religious experiences, in general, you are not going to get an official answer.

There is no place where the contemporary church lets themselves be pinned down. They don't have an official stance on dinosaurs, the age of the earth, or moon quakers. Even if someone here gives you their opinion on it, it is not doctrine... it is a placebo so that other members can feel better about believing in the church and they can go on knowing that someone, somewhere has an explanation for these little problems. (Even if apologists work backwards from their conclusions to "prove" a point.)

So, no horses during the time period that matters, sorry LDS. Keep holding on that the years will generate something else... we discover new archeological evdience all of the time... and you can just ignore that no where has any *direct* evidence been found that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate.

Did you have anything significant to add to the discussion of horses, or were you just using this as a way of grandstanding an invalid slam against the Book of Mormon in general?

I suspect the latter.

Of course, you appear to be very much aware of the anti-Mormon truism that indicates if you yell loud enough about a lie, then people will start believing it despite evidence to the contrary. All you appear to be doing is hollering about the Book of Mormon being false, hoping to sow doubts in someone - contrary to the evidence being presented on this thread and elsewhere on this board.