Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

The words "horse" cannot be viewed as anachronistic in a couple of places. First, in the quotes of Isaiah (which contain the word "horse") and second in the writings of Nephi and Jacob who could have had real experiences with real horses - but more importantly - who both had the word "horse" in their working vocabulary. It is therefore not the word "horse" which is anachronistic but a conceptual identification of the meaning of the word "horse"

It

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt,

Anachronisms have more weight than your speculations about a mistranslated original text and lost sources. Without more historical support, you don

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

I have only urged caution with disputed texts, not the assumption that it

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

It

[Mark Beesley]

I have assumed there were no horses in Mesoamerica from 600 BC to 400 AD. Until there is credible evidence recognized by scholarly consensus, it is a reasonable assumption. If the day comes that this is no longer the case, then

[Marvelous]

There is no evidence of pre-Columbian horses in North America. That doesn't mean such evidence won't be found, but it is unlikely.

As a believer, I assume you are inclined to believe that evidence will eventually turn up. This is a way to maintain your faith in the face of contrary evidence, but this is not a promising approach to uncovering truth.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is no evidence of pre-Columbian horses in North America.

Actually, as John Sorenson has shown, there is such evidence. The question is whether it will hold up to further scrutiny, and, after that, what exactly it may mean.

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt,

I have only urged caution with disputed texts, not the assumption that it

[Brant Gardner]

Dan:

It is clear that we won't communicate on this issue. I dont' see any point in repeating the same things we have gone over before.

[cdowis]

>We agree that one tests the BOM by assuming it is ancient. We agree that using this method has expose anachronisms and other historical problems. We disagree what to do with these problems.

The problem is that we have a mixed bag. On the one side we may have anachronisms -- steel, but we also have unexpected evidence on the other hand.

And you are dismissive of that evidence for the BOM while allowing only what you call anachronisms. =Your method= of dismissing evidence while accepting only the anachronisms can lead only to one conclusion.

Here is the issue

[cougarfan]

I think one has to believe the BoM was translated in such a way as to allow Joseph (and each of us) to understand the witness of Christ within what (to Joseph) would have been a culture completely out of place with his experience.

It seems very likely to me that a people who had experienced horses, upon arrival in a new land without horses, would use the term to describe animals that performed similar purposes.

All attacks on the BoM from a historocity viewpoint cannot trump my personal witness of the BoM. How do I know the BoM is true? 1) The Holy Ghost witnessed to me, 2) The BoM has never steered me wrong, and 3) the fruits of the book are Godly.

[Calm]

would use the term to describe animals that performed similar purposes.

Change this to "describe animals that were expected to perform similar purposes" and I think it would be more correct.

[why me]

I think one has to believe the BoM was translated in such a way as to allow Joseph (and each of us) to understand the witness of Christ within what (to Joseph) would have been a culture completely out of place with his experience.

It seems very likely to me that a people who had experienced horses, upon arrival in a new land without horses, would use the term to describe animals that performed similar purposes.

All attacks on the BoM from a historocity viewpoint cannot trump my personal witness of the BoM. How do I know the BoM is true? 1) The Holy Ghost witnessed to me, 2) The BoM has never steered me wrong, and 3) the fruits of the book are Godly.

I tend to agree with you but I do believe that your post will get no recognition from the critics.

That is just the way it is.

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt,

It is clear that we won't communicate on this issue. I dont' see any point in repeating the same things we have gone over before.

Sigh! Just when I thought we were getting down to significant issues.

[Mortimer]

There is no evidence of pre-Columbian horses in North America.

Actually, as John Sorenson has shown, there is such evidence. The question is whether it will hold up to further scrutiny, and, after that, what exactly it may mean.

I live close to the Brea tarpits. Love seeing the horse they pulled out of there, on display!

Mort

[Confidential Informant]

Brandt,

It is clear that we won't communicate on this issue. I dont' see any point in repeating the same things we have gone over before.

Sigh! Just when I thought we were getting down to significant issues.

Dan,

Might I nicely point out that his name is "Brant" not "Brandt".

Just a friendly reminder.

C.I.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

>We agree that one tests the BOM by assuming it is ancient. We agree that using this method has expose anachronisms and other historical problems. We disagree what to do with these problems.

The problem is that we have a mixed bag. On the one side we may have anachronisms -- steel, but we also have unexpected evidence on the other hand.

However, there is no positive connection to Mesoamerica. No matter how many or impressive positive correlations might be, one solid negative evidence renders them meaningless.

And you are dismissive of that evidence for the BOM while allowing only what you call anachronisms. =Your method= of dismissing evidence while accepting only the anachronisms can lead only to one conclusion.

Anachronisms are extremely important in dating documents. Since the BOM is of disputed authenticity, we can

[Dan Vogel]

Dan,

Might I nicely point out that his name is "Brant" not "Brandt".

Just a friendly reminder. 

Ooops!

Thanks CI.

Sorry about that Brant. I Germanized your name unconsciously, I guess.

[Dan Vogel]

Cougarfan,

I think one has to believe the BoM was translated in such a way as to allow Joseph (and each of us) to understand the witness of Christ within what (to Joseph) would have been a culture completely out of place with his experience.

It seems very likely to me that a people who had experienced horses, upon arrival in a new land without horses, would use the term to describe animals that performed similar purposes.

All attacks on the BoM from a historocity viewpoint cannot trump my personal witness of the BoM. How do I know the BoM is true? 1) The Holy Ghost witnessed to me, 2) The BoM has never steered me wrong, and 3) the fruits of the book are Godly.

I suggest that the BOM

[Mighty Curelom]

It bears repeating that the anachronisms don't exist in a vacuum. Brant says we should look at the BoM in its entirety, and he's exactly right. If the only problem with the BoM was that it used the word "horse," perhaps we could chalk it up as an anomaly and move on. Instead, there are many anachronisms, and--very importantly--the anachronisms form a consistent pattern; they can inevitably be traced to 19th century misconceptions. And not only are the anachronisms related to 19th century misconceptions, the foundational premise upon which the entire narrative rests is based on the 19th c. misconception that native americans descended from Semitic emigrants. Add to that Korihor's Enlightenment ideas, impossible population numbers, proto-democratic elections, more usage of the word "liberty" than the Federalist Papers, and extremely unlikely parallels to Joseph's own life: "slippery treasures" relating to Joseph's own money digging escapades, and even a character that is "mighty in speaking but not mighty in writing"--just as Joseph described his own abilities.

And you also have to look outside the book of Mormon. The Book of Abraham is just as important in determining the historicity of the BoM as the BoM itself. When a forger is caught forging one document, all his documents are suspect, and in the case of the book of Abraham, there couldn't be more proof that a document isn't what its originator claimed it to be.

The BoM absolutely reeks of Joseph's 19th century milieu. Nephites riding in horse-driven chariots and fighting in multi-million man battles with steel swords and shields, raising European crops and farm animals, discoursing on freedom of religion and infant baptism (before Jesus was even born), and quoting KJV scriptures that wouldn't be written for centuries to come; how can anyone look at this and see an ancient Mesoamerican origin?

[charity]

MC, your shotgun blast is a hoot. I won't address all of real chuckles. Just some.

1. There is not one passage in the Book of Mormon that talks about people riding in horse pulled chariots. You have made a leap there.

2. The ideas about freedom and liberty have been demonstrated to be so far away from Revolutionary era America as to be a real credible evidence that Joseph Smith was not writing his own ideas.

3. Mighty in speaking but not in writing? So if Joseph was writing the document, how does that apply since the Book of Mormon is a brilliantly written document?

4. The Book of Abraham has not been proven a forgery/fraud, etc. In fact there are so many parallels to ancient documents which were not even discovered until after its printing that this is also becoming credible evidence that Joseph Smith could not have written it himself.

You really ought to read up a little more. That list was just this side of silly.

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

It

[Bernard Gui]

QUOTE

It isn't used to ride. It isn't used in warfare. It plays a minor part in the text. If it wasn't for the artwork of certain artists, we wouldn't even view the horse as being particularly relevant.

QUOTE DAN V.

What do you expect? It

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

I won

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

In which method was the BoM translated? If the words appeared before him and would not go away until they were written down correctly, as the first hand witnesses to the BoM story relate, then how would these problems even exist? Translation hurdles exist in other documents, such as the Bible, because men have to actually known at least two languages. Then they have to deal with the problems of customs and era related issues that would not be the same in their current era.

My point being, if JS did actually write the BoM from "Gold plates" , then it was 100% a God given translation, he didn't learn reformed Egyption as a second language. So...do you believe that God would just give Joseph words that are clearly misleading to a text?

My question to you Brant is, how was the BoM translated, and how does that translate into anachronisms and other clear problems with the BoM as a translation from and by God?

Mark

John 1:12