Horses and Chariots -

[Dan Vogel]

Brant Gardner says:

Because they read it with a certain perspective, they come to certain conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me that they read "horse" and "chariot" just as Vogel does.

I guess they are unaware of Brant

[Greg Smith]

Your seeming assertion that skeptics avoid debunking mormon claims because the pro LDS evidence is so strong is strange, frankly.  Not even the professional apologists make that claim, as far as I understand.  They just claim that enough evidence is there that it is not an irrational belief.  They hardly claim the evidence is so overwhelming that anyone who bothers with it will walk away unable to refute it.

That is not my assertion.

I will say it again:

1) I believe the data can be read in both ways with good intent and honesty. I do not anticipate that this will change.

2) I do not believe the majority of evidences offered by the LDS have been addressed by secular publications (or religious ones, for that matter).

But, you seem to be appealing to the lack of response as evidence of inadequate evidence. That's circular reasoning.

It's also not typical of human nature, since there's nothing that people who consider themselves clever like better than demolishing some argument that is patently ridiculous. (Which may, I suppose, explain why I am so popular to have at parties....hmmm.....)

I don't know if the secularists are unable to refute the evidence. (I thought the Shoe Fits article showed a surprising failure to come to grips with Sorenson's arguments, for example, and rather transparently so.)

But please, spare us the rhetoric about how the Mormons have "an emotional stake" in the issue, but everyone else is just dispassionatately following "the evidence."

You have your own dog in this fight as well as I do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be debating on a Mormon apologetics board. :-) So, your emotional biases are just as likely to affect your reading of, say, "The Shoe Fits" as mine would.

And, the religious claims that are inextricably linked to the Book of Mormon make it hard to be neutral about such issues, one way or the other.

So far, they have not tried for the majority, as we both agree. But, if they haven't done something, it seems perverse to argue that they'd be able to if they wanted to...

Kind regards,

Greg

[beastie]

I never said I don't have a dog in this fight. When I talked about people without an emotional investment, I was talking about scholars unassociated with either mormonism or exmormonism, which is who you seem to imply should be tackling the BoM.

1) I believe the data can be read in both ways with good intent and honesty. I do not anticipate that this will change.

Of course. Good intent and honesty does not indicate the soundness of any given argument, however.

2) I do not believe the majority of evidences offered by the LDS have been addressed by secular publications (or religious ones, for that matter).

I'm talking solely about the BoM on this thread. You are correct that the evidences offered by BoM defenders have not been addressed by secular publications in the Mesoamerica studies, as far as I know. I have stated the reasons why I believe this is so, and it has nothing to do with how difficult it would be to refute the evidences offered by LDS.

I don't know if the secularists are unable to refute the evidence. (I thought the Shoe Fits article showed a surprising failure to come to grips with Sorenson's arguments, for example, and rather transparently so.)

Please share specifics to back this assertion.

So far, they have not tried for the majority, as we both agree. But, if they haven't done something, it seems perverse to argue that they'd be able to if they wanted to...

I don't recall seeing the claims of the Heaven's Gate group being addressed by scholars in a serious manner prior to their mass suicide. Would it be equally perverse to argue that they would have been able to if they had wanted to?

Back to an earlier point offered as evidence, the deforestation of Teotihuacan - it has bothered me for a while that even if one accepts the presentism argued by Brant, teh time frame is still off for massive deforestation. Teotihuacan was at its peak of power in 400 AD. It did not begin its decline till a century or more later. Just how many years would Teotihuacan have been able to thrive had it already entirely deforested the area by Mormon's time period?

[beastie]

Oh, and I forgot to offer another source of information for CI, who seems to think it impossible that JS would understand the concept of deforestation at all -

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/dev/eras/era6.htm

Many historians agree that the period 1400-1800 marks the beginning of the modern era. At the level of the human species as a whole, the most striking aspect of this period was the enormous extension of networks of communication and exchange that linked individuals and societies more and more tightly. Every region of the world became intricately connected to every other region, a development we call the Great World Convergence. Also in this era the world

[charity]

I love this. To the Manchester Lending Library, or Joseph's huge library hidden in the straw of the family barn, now add a volume on Global Convergence.

[Greg Smith]

I never said I don't have a dog in this fight.  When I talked about people without an emotional investment, I was talking about scholars unassociated with either mormonism or exmormonism, which is who you seem to imply should be tackling the BoM.

But this is precisely the point -- EVERYONE has a dog in the Book of Mormon fight, because accepting its legitimacy as an ancient document virutally requires accepting the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, Joseph as a prophet, the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS as the sole authorized holder of priesthood keys, etc.

You may not have noticed, but most people (especially those in academia) have pretty strong feelings about God, Christianity, etc. (to say nothing of things like modern prophets--ooh boy...). Sure, their stance is painted as "detached objectivity," but hopefully that sort of thinking went out with the positivists.

The problem is, of course, that no one can be completely objective about the Book of Mormon. This is, I think, intentional. :-) But, at least I admit my biases; too many others want to pretend they don't have any.

If the Book of Mormon is true, they need to repent, change their lives, suffer societal scorn, admit they were wrong about God, etc.

====

Of course. Good intent and honesty does not indicate the soundness of any given argument, however.

Absolutely--and, that sword cuts both ways. I'm merely saying, I don't assume anyone who disagrees with my view of the matter is dishonest or deceived. The same courtesy, however, is generally not extended to me. :-)

You are correct that the evidences offered by BoM defenders have not been addressed by secular publications in the Mesoamerica studies, as far as I know

And yet, somehow you know they are wrong without anyone going to the bother. Cool. :-) The circularity continues (Cue the Byrds: Turn, turn, turn....)

I will have to dig out the "Shoe" article and reread it--it impressed me so little, that my memory of specifics is hazy. But, you've already said that Sorenson didn't acquit himself well in your view, so I doubt anything I say will change that.

Kind regards,

Greg

[exegete]

Hi Tyler,

A few clarifications are in order.

You wrote:

Most scholars believe that when the BOM speaks of horses, it actually means horses.

Not exactly. While some LDS apologetic scholars (including John Sorenson) do allow that BoMor horses could be of the equus variety, they are quick to note that "horse" might well be an Old World culture-based misnomer for a New World horse-like mammal, such as a deer, tapir, or even a llama. It is this latter argument that John Clark roundly rejects.

You also wrote:

NWAF has been disbanded, and is no more.

Disbanded or not, John Clark is still identified as director of the foundation (e.g., see his bio in the latest BYU Studies 44.4 [2005]: 317 [actually published in 2006]).

Hi Brant,

You've lost me with this remark:

You have the basic information correct, but overreach the conclusion. The key statement Clark made was the way the archaeologists have approached the Book of Mormon. They read it as the wrong kind of book. Because they read it with a certain perspective, they come to certain conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me that they read "horse" and "chariot" just as Vogel does.

Good grief, Brant

[grego]

So, I guess I'm still waiting to see why tapirs can't be horses, or horses tapirs, as Ben McGuire and Sorenson point out.

I was just thinking...

Where did the Greek "hippopotamus" come from? Do Latin and Chinese keep the same "river horse"? If so, didn't THEY know the hippo wasn't a horse? Why didn't they give it a new name, or name it closer to what they thought it was?

Also, perhaps one would be so keen to explain how come a giraffe is a "long-necked deer" and a koala is a "no-tail bear" in Chinese. Come on, get real!! A deer?? And which bears do have big tails that koala's don't? So, does this prove that Chinese is false?

And, why is "wilderness" translated as "deserto" in the Italian Book of Mormon? Wait, my E-->I dictionary gives that translation. But my I-->E dictionary (the other half) says "deserto" means only "desert", and says nothing about "wilderness". What?? Obviously not the same... So is it the English, the Italian, or the dictionary that's WRONG?

Hey, STILL waiting on beastie's reply to KJV translators and unicorn/ ox, and all those other mythical/ mystical creatures.

(Sorry if I got anyone wrong in the following quotes--let me know if I did, please)

Marvelous wrote:

Does it not seem strange that the Lord didn't help Joseph clarify these issues? This was an inspired work, after all. Surely the Omnipotent would have anticipated our confusion and consternation.

Is it possible that Joseph (or Mormon) inserted the word "horse" for "tapir", and the like? Yes! Is that the best explanation for all the information we have? I don't think so.

Yes, yes. Frankly, I think this is the crux of the argument.

Marvelous wrote:

When you combine the apparent anachronisms with curiously large population figures, New England religious issues of Joseph's time, the paucity of supportive archaeological evidence, the dearth of Hebrew DNA, and Joseph's own statements concerning the historicity of his work, I think it is most likely the product of his 19th century American mind.

"Apparent" is nice. Thank you. For population, look at the thread from a month or two ago about that.

rockyterrain wrote:

Why are apologists doing it as these intellectual levels, which doesn't convert or convince anybody?

Apologetics is a CRUTCH for mormons. FARMS is a crutch. Its an intellectual crutch for those that don't have a strong enough testimony to accept things even when they might look ridiculous to the world.

Did my wife call you?

Actually, it's a nice brain exercise. To me, it seems that little matters, and little rests on the outcome of it all. Teaching children and not being a lawyer, though, I don't have lots of opportunities for higher thought with other human beings, refining argument, etc. On the other hand, it's also a good learning and understanding opportunity. On the other hand, maybe you and my wife are right--I'm listening, as I have slacked off here recently...

Marvelous wrote:

The Smithsonian's statement concerning the BOM is evidence.

Hardly.

Marvelous wrote:

Can you imagine the conversion potential of acceptance of it by the scientific community as an authentic history?

No. As before, even if it were (1) proven (which I believe quite near impossible) and (2) made public, I don't think it wouldn't matter much. Not being there, though, I can't answer for the LDS "scientists". Which fits in with what is said a moment later:

In the last twenty years, at least, I know of no one who joined because they were persuaded by scientific evidence supportive of the BOM.

Marvelous wrote:

This is true, in part, because the factual evidence is inconclusive, at best, and damning, at worst.

Well, I don't know about the damning part. Even as a believer, I would be surprised if the factual evidence ever were more than inconclusive, especially to the common man. I would only hope that some who reason against it all, might take another look--a spiritual one--that the past "factual evidences" arguments might have inhibited them from doing.

Marvelous wrote:

What I discovered in investigating the Witnesses is that they claim the same spiritual witness, as I believe most Christians do. So the feelings I associated with the "one and only true church" weren't unique. It wasn't an infallible gauge of truth.

Wow! You take another's word over your own experiences? That's ... interesting.

Marvelous wrote:

I do think feelings matter. I believe in using them as one tool in discerning truth. But feelings don't trump facts.

How does one get from the Spirit to feelings? And what are these "facts"?

Marvelous wrote:

I was viewing the Church through rose-colored glasses. When the tint was removed and I learned all of the facts, the truth about Mormonism was as obvious to me as the truth about the Society.

Once more, the "facts"?

beastie wrote:

I do understand that it is the MEANING which translates, not the vocabulary. But my point is that JS had to be able to process the original text well enough to understand what that MEANING was.

Well, that's assuming the meaning is known, and the same idiom exists and is known in the target language, too.

beastie wrote:

And, of course, defenders today are forced to exploit the "convenient philological loophole of being a translation".

Forced? exploit? When horses (real horses, as we know them) are PROVEN to NOT have been where the Book of Mormon was, then that statement might be true.

See, it's fun to look at possibilities. The Book of Mormon was real. It's from God. See how easy that was? Ok, now, let's talk about it more. But for LDS, even though at times we seem to ignore the God part--such as here on the board--it's often because it's so evident and understood that we don't even mention it. It's a last resort, because it was (1) first and (2) from God.

beastie wrote:

Can you offer an example of a BoM "hit" to Mesoamerica that:

1) was not a popular notion during JS' time period

2) was not equally reflected in JS' time period

3) is specific enough to measure, rather than so generic it could fit just about any

time period

beastie wrote:

During JS' period, ancient America was fairly mysterious, and many of the notions popular about it actually echoed the statements of the BoM...In fact, the BoM was pretty consistent with what folks during his time period actually believed to be true about ancient America.

For example? Which ones were?

beastie wrote:

It's the pre-existing conviction that God told you it's true that makes one predisposed to accept an argument like the horses in the BoM were really undomesticated tapir pets that had nothing to do with a method of transportation.

poor guy... spent so much time trying to prove tapirs just couldn't be domesticated because they make messes...

beastie wrote: ...that BoM probably IS an ancient Mesoamerican document, but I ain't touching it cuz I will ruin my career if I believe in angels!???

I do know a few that way. perhaps critics would like to tell everyone WHICH scholars they've talked to about reading the BoM, and the results? Actually, since that's a little private, maybe just a REAL number and results?

beastie wrote:

First, don't check back later, because I doubt mormonism will EVER be that powerful of a movement.

Then why waste your time?

beastie wrote:

Just look on these sort of threads to see how quickly critical evidence is dismissed because it's coming from non-experts (even when they quote experts, as I often take pains to do)

Oh, until I got to the last of that statement, I thought you were talking about LDS!

beastie wrote:

Kings over kings - this is far too generic to be meaningful. There had been complex inter-relationships between royalties during JS' period, as well. And the Bible is full of rulers of various degrees of authority.

For example? Heck, even in MY time period there wasn't this for a typical student. I'm still unaware of anyone in general who knows this. How about polling some teachers for us? Maybe I'll do that, and report back. The Bible is FULL...? The story of Jesus has two I can think of, but it's not really clear to me just from that what's going on; so, you're saying perhaps some very learned ministers taught Joseph this?

beastie wrote:

Volcanoes - one of the most powerful volcanic eruptions in recorded time had taken place within JS' youth, and had resulted in the "year of no summer". I have a hard time believing this was not reported world-wide and commented upon. Moreover, the specific lists of BoM items defenders point to as evidence of knowledge JS could not have had regarding volcanoes can also be found in other nineteenth century sources that the author of the BoM could have easily accessed.

So you're saying that there should be something about lack of crops that year in the Book of Mormon?

beastie wrote:

The weaponry - to cite this as a match is very problematic, IMO, without a lot of qualifiers. Scholars state that the bow and arrow did not arrive in Mesoamerica until after 800 AD. And, of course, there were no steel swords, no metal breastplates or helmets. Now, I realize that Brant, and other BoM defenders, either refer to translation errors or as-yet undiscovered evidence to help them get over these problems, but that doesn't change my point...

Of course, of course... Are you reading the same things everyone else is reading on this stuff?

beastie wrote:

When I talked about people without an emotional investment, I was talking about scholars unassociated with either mormonism or exmormonism, which is who you seem to imply should be tackling the BoM.

Ah...like... atheists? agnostics? Protestants? Catholics? Jews? secularist scientists? Who WERE you talking about?

Just how many years would Teotihuacan have been able to thrive had it already entirely deforested the area by Mormon's time period?

Well, with all that wood shipping going on, I don't know. So...thriving is dependent on forests? No wonder China is thriving right now...

Nevertheless--I will grant that I have seen an improvement in thinking, research, and debate skills from beastie.

(WHAT, YOU THOUGHT I'D READ THIS WHOLE THREAD AND NOT MAKE ANY COMMENTS?!?!)

[Brant Gardner]

truth dancer:

So, how would you suggest to a Mesoamerican scholar, they read the BoM? What must they do differently to know it is actually a text written in Mesoamerica, two thousand years ago?

Much of the recent discussion is demonstrating to me how difficult it is to have complex discussion on a board. It tends to get reduced to soundbites and reproduced that way. No doubt I am doing the same with your question.

The rather obvious problem with the Book of Mormon is that it appears in modern times, has a modern vocabulary and proposes information contrary to accepted scholarship (more or less, depending upon the topic and the year you look at the scholarship).

The point where I agree with beastie is that I haven't seen anyone be sufficiently interested in the text to move past the surface issues unless they have a religious interest in the text. As you look at this thread, you will note that most respondents who don't believe in the text propose arguments that are consistent with a modern origin (beastie excepted). That is hardly surprising, but no less a beginning assumption than belief. Each perspective suggests a way to read the text.

Why do scholars pour over the Gospel of Judas but not the Book of Mormon? Obvious antiquity is one. Wider impact another. Closer to an "original" is another. The last is that much of what we are seeing on that text is the result of media hype.

A different parallel to the Book of Mormon question is the issue of the Aztec Great White god. The Quetzalcoatl research has been all over the place. There was no reason to suspect that Quetzalcoatl would have been a European without some preconceived notion that he was. The literature looked as mythological as any other. However, a particular research path began looking for history in the religion in ways that were not applied to any other figure in Mesoamerican mythology.

While much of that was a fanciful quest, it also spawned H.B. Nicolson's pivotal work on Quetzalcoatl as a historical figure. That is a scholarly work that examines the very same data that the more fanciful researchers did - and came to a similar conclusion about a historical person - but very different time period.

None of that was ever done for any of the other gods. How can we explain that Nicholson was even interested in finding history in what should have been obvious mythology? There was a climate of believe promulgated by religion and it raised a question he might not otherwise have answered.

I don't see anything in the Book of Mormon that on first reading compels a Mesoamerican background. However, if I have reason to go looking carefully, there are things in the text that are inexplicable without it.

The case for the historical reading has to be argued on the basis of the evidence. Attempting to argue the case on the basis that someone else didn't see what they weren't looking for doesn't tell us much. That is why beastie's comments are usually worth responding to. At least she is attempting to engage the issues of the evidence without simply declaring that they can't exist because they differ from a different reader's initial assumption.

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

I guess they are unaware of Brant

[livy111us]

Hi Tyler,

A few clarifications are in order.

You wrote:

Most scholars believe that when the BOM speaks of horses, it actually means horses.

Not exactly. While some LDS apologetic scholars (including John Sorenson) do allow that BoMor horses could be of the equus variety, they are quick to note that "horse" might well be an Old World culture-based misnomer for a New World horse-like mammal, such as a deer, tapir, or even a llama. It is this latter argument that John Clark roundly rejects.

You also wrote:

NWAF has been disbanded, and is no more.

Disbanded or not, John Clark is still identified as director of the foundation (e.g., see his bio in the latest BYU Studies 44.4 [2005]: 317 [actually published in 2006]).

Brent,

Let me clarify my last post. Most scholars believe that when the Book of Mormon speaks of horses, that it truly means horses. But, that does not mean that it is not possible that they could have been tapirs (Bairdis), and are still open to the slight possibility. It is generally rejected as being gospel, but still probable. Like I said, I believe John Sorenson is in this group.

That is quite interesting that NWAF is still in his bio. I do not have this issue the read myself. Is it speaking of a current, or past accomplishment?

Tyler

[beastie]

I just spent a half an hour of my life responding to some of these points and then accidently hit the wrong button and lost it all. So now I'm just going to address a couple, and if I get over my irritation, may provide more later.

But right now, my first and strongest suggestion to grego is that he educate himself a bit on one topic in particular: what did folks in JS time period imagine to be true about the ancient inhabitants of the american continent?

Dan Vogel and signature books are kind enough to provide on online version of just what grego needs: Dan's book Indian Origins and the BoM.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/preface.htm

I may be wrong, but I have been assuming that most people who participate on these sort of threads at least have this basic background information on the subject. I consider this information to be necessary to have a meaningful discussion on the possible origins of the BoM. Anything I could say pales in comparison to what Dan has already provided for us. Thanks, Dan.

And lest you imagine that Dan is too biased to fairly report on this information, here's another book, written by a scholar who is completely unrelated to mormonism:

Romancing the Maya, Mexican Antiquity in the American Imagination 1820-1915, by R. Tripp Evans.

The BoM is the focus of one chapter in this book.

Regarding interrelationships between kings and deforestation:

JS lived in a period in which there was intense interest, and antipathy, toward monarchy in general. It does not take much imagination or historical background knowledge to understand something very basic:

Different kings rule over different areas.

Some kings are more powerful than other kings.

Some areas are wealthier and more powerful than other areas.

Kings of lesser power tend to form relationships with more powerful kings. Europe's history demonstrates this, and nineteenth century Americans were not that far removed from intimate connection with British royalty to forget these basic lessons in power and royalty.

Deforestation: JS lived during a period in which intensive land clearing was taking place. There were places in the world that already had been negatively impacted by this practice, but knowledge of this is less important, since the BoM does not describe the deforestation in negative terms, just in terms of shipping.

Question regarding shipping: from where, and how, did Teotihuacan ship timber around 400 AD?

(heh, someone who lived during the Erie canal construction writing a story including shipping... go figure.)

Regarding tapirs:

Please pay particular attention, grego:

I am not arguing against cross labeling. I am arguing that the context of the BoM is not coherent with the undomesticated, pet tapir as the "horse". IMO, the only reason Brant and Ben state that the "horse" was undomesticated is due to the fact that they are aware that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the tapir was ever domesticated and used in conjunction with transportation.

I do not believe their argument that the tapir was undomesticated and unrelated to transportation is persuasive,, but there's only so much time I'm willing to spend beating a dead horse.

one final comment, a repeat of an earlier, ignored one:

The fact that Brant, Ben, and Clark, all hope for future evidence of a mesoamerican horse indicates to me that they are not deeply wedded to their current argument, ie, that the context of the BoM does not fit a "horse" as a domesticated animal used in transportation with some structure called a chariot. If they were deeply wedded to this argument, they would realize that it would actually be problematic for the Bom were evidence of a horse to be discovered, because then the BoM would suddenly be inconsistent with that evidence because it is not consistent with a domesticated horse used with transporation.

I suspect that, if evidence of a horse is one day found, their argument that the text is not consistent with a domesticated animal used for transportation will evaporate overnight.

more later, after I get over my irritation at myself and my computer

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

I suspect that, if evidence of a horse is one day found, their argument that the text is not consistent with a domesticated animal used for transportation will evaporate overnight.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. I have already stated that I believe that published data are coming (I understand the tests are completed and conclusive). However, I still don't think that whatever falls under the "horse" label functions the way we think of horses. If the horse were incontrovertibly demonstrated to be the Book of Mormon horse, it doesn't change the way the text refers to that animal.

What will have to change overnight is the suggestion that the mention of the horse is an anachronism that disqualifies the text. That is the reason I have also urged caution on the part of those who would place too much emphasis on that datum.

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

You said:

Because they read it with a certain perspective, they come to certain conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me that they read "horse" and "chariot" just as Vogel does.

I said:

I guess they are unaware of Brant

[beastie]

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. I have already stated that I believe that published data are coming (I understand the tests are completed and conclusive). However, I still don't think that whatever falls under the "horse" label functions the way we think of horses. If the horse were incontrovertibly demonstrated to be the Book of Mormon horse, it doesn't change the way the text refers to that animal.

What will have to change overnight is the suggestion that the mention of the horse is an anachronism that disqualifies the text. That is the reason I have also urged caution on the part of those who would place too much emphasis on that datum.

So if evidence were uncovered one day that indicated that the horse did exist in ancient Mesoamerica, and was used to pull a chariot for transportation, would you view this new information as a problem for the Book of Mormon?

[beastie]

One more quick catch-up comment

QUOTE

beastie wrote:

And, of course, defenders today are forced to exploit the "convenient philological loophole of being a translation".

Forced? exploit? When horses (real horses, as we know them) are PROVEN to NOT have been where the Book of Mormon was, then that statement might be true.

See, it's fun to look at possibilities. The Book of Mormon was real. It's from God. See how easy that was? Ok, now, let's talk about it more. But for LDS, even though at times we seem to ignore the God part--such as here on the board--it's often because it's so evident and understood that we don't even mention it. It's a last resort, because it was (1) first and (2) from God.

Yes, defenders of the Book of Mormon have been forced to exploit the very "loophole" that Brant's reference cites as common in forgeries. If none of these anachronisms were contained in the Book of Mormon, defenders would not be using the "translation artifacts/errors explanation in the first place.

Do you really deny this is so?

[Quantum See]

One more quick catch-up comment

QUOTE

beastie wrote:

And, of course, defenders today are forced to exploit the "convenient philological loophole of being a translation".

Forced? exploit? When horses (real horses, as we know them) are PROVEN to NOT have been where the Book of Mormon was, then that statement might be true.

See, it's fun to look at possibilities. The Book of Mormon was real. It's from God. See how easy that was? Ok, now, let's talk about it more. But for LDS, even though at times we seem to ignore the God part--such as here on the board--it's often because it's so evident and understood that we don't even mention it. It's a last resort, because it was (1) first and (2) from God.

Yes, defenders of the Book of Mormon have been forced to exploit the very "loophole" that Brant's reference cites as common in forgeries. If none of these anachronisms were contained in the Book of Mormon, defenders would not be using the "translation artifacts/errors explanation in the first place.

Do you really deny this is so?

beastie:

How silly of you. Aren't you aware that lack of evidence is not evidence even if the likelihood of forthcoming evidence is highly improbable.

The only way to know that the Book of Mormon is literally true is to know that the Book of Mormon is literally true. You must ignore all facts, inconsistencies and improbabilities that contradict this truth because all those things are falsifiable.

You must put your trust in the unfalsifiable evidence of the Spirit. Oh and if other people claim to have spirit witnesses you can be certain that those witnesses are not as true as our Spirit witness. Why? Because it is.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

So if evidence were uncovered one day that indicated that the horse did exist in ancient Mesoamerica, and was used to pull a chariot for transportation, would you view this new information as a problem for the Book of Mormon?

You continue to jump a long way on a little evidence. If a horse is found (and it has been) that tells us that there was an animal present in the area when people thought it wasn't there. The bones do not tell us how it was used. Evidence that any animal pulled anything is currently not present. We know that they knew about wheels and axles and platforms - and we know that they rolled them along (at least for the minatures). There is no indicationn of what pulled (or pushed) them. There is no indication that the miniatures represent something larger, though it would be unusual if they did not.

Finding a horse bone is not the same as finding horses acting like Old World domesticates.

[exegete]

Hi Brant,

Thanks for your reply. You noted:

Not really. Vogel reads it as an anachronism that defines the lack of historicity. Clark clearly does not.

Both John Clark and Dan Vogel view the BoMor horse as an actual horse (equus). You do not. Both John and Dan reject the apologetic involving transcultural (mis)naming of horses. You do not. Both John and Dan view the BoMor horse as problematic. You do not. Dan, presumably like John's archaeology colleagues, views BoMor horses as anachronistic while John expects that someday a horse bone may be found in support of what the BoMor claims. But again, you do not.

I'm unclear on how you think Clark's ethnohistorical approach to the BoMor helps your argument about BoMor "horses."

Hi Tyler,

Thanks for chiming in again.

You wrote:

Let me clarify my last post. Most scholars believe that when the Book of Mormon speaks of horses, that it truly means horses. But, that does not mean that it is not possible that they could have been tapirs (Bairdis), and are still open to the slight possibility. It is generally rejected as being gospel, but still probable. Like I said, I believe John Sorenson is in this group.

You're still mistaken, my friend. A review of the secondary literature reveals that your "slight possibility" is more than a tad misleading. John Sorenson, Daniel Peterson, Matt Roper, et al., have all proposed transcultural renaming of some animals (including tapirs and deer as "horses") as a plausible (not merely a "slight[ly] possible") explanation for why the archaeological record doesn't match the BoMor narrative.

You also asked:

That is quite interesting that NWAF is still in his bio. I do not have this issue the read myself. Is it speaking of a current, or past accomplishment?

Current. Here is John's full bio:

John E. Clark is Professor of Anthropology at Brigham Young University, director of the New World Archaeological Foundation, and a specialist in Book of Mormon geography.

[BYU Studies 44.4 (2005): 317 (actually published in 2006), bold green emphasis added]

Best regards,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[beastie]

Brant, you misunderstand my question. I am not leaping from the supposed upcoming discovery of horse bones to a "real" horse. I am, instead, asking that if it were discovered that the horse existed, and behaved as a real horse in ancient Mesoamerica, would you view that as problematic for the Book of Mormon?

[poulsenll]

And, why is "wilderness" translated as "deserto" in the Italian Book of Mormon? Wait, my E-->I dictionary gives that translation. But my I-->E dictionary (the other half) says "deserto" means only "desert", and says nothing about "wilderness". What?? Obviously not the same...  So is it the English, the Italian, or the dictionary that's WRONG?

I had the same question so I went to my Spanish language dictionary to resolve the prolem. With the following results:

English

Dictionary - Webster.com

Wilderness

noun

1 a (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (

Desert

adjective

1 : desolate and sparsely occupied or unoccupied <a desert island>

noun

1 a : arid land with usually sparse vegetation; especially : such land having a very warm climate and receiving less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) of sporadic rainfall annually

spanish

Dictionary - pequeno Larousse

Desierto

Adjective

Despoblado, solitario - Unoccupied, solitary

Noun

Lugar despoblado y arido - an unoccupied and arid place

As u can see the Adjective forms of desert in both English and Spanish more closely express the concept of wilderness as defined by Webster while the noun forms in both languages adds the concept of dry or arid. As an almost native Spanish speaker, when I hear desierto, I think of desolate rather than arid and when I hear desert in English,I think of arid. Since there is no exact translation for wilderness into Spanish the back translation does not work. This problem is present in many translations and is why translations should be done by Bilinguals whenever possible and one should always check the meaning of the translated word in a native language dictionary rather than depend on the Eng to Span or Span to Eng type of dictionary.

[livy111us]

Brent,

Let me "chime in" again. I think the best way to solve this problem is to ask the scholars themselves. Let's hope they come across this thread.

On another subject, what do you take archaeological findings of pre-Columbian horses to mean? Were they just very lost horses who made it across the ocean, or just a fraud? Would not the finding of the equus prove that they existed anciently on the American continent? How much evidence of the horse would you need to no longer consider this an anachronism?

Tyler

[beastie]

On another subject, what do you take archaeological findings of pre-Columbian horses to mean?

Which archaeological findings would that be?

[Daniel Peterson]

Just for the record, I'm inclined to think that the text is really talking about horses (Equus equus), and I think that John Sorenson is similarly inclined. But we hold open the possibility that the Nephites might have applied the term horse to something that we ourselves would not classify as a horse -- just as the ancient Greeks, when they saw the hippopotamus, called it a "river horse" (from the Greek nominal phrase ho hippos ho potomios, [literally,

[beastie]

For the life of me, I