Horses In The Book Of Mormon

[RCM]

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

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

[Somebodyz]

Hasn't this topic been pretty well covered before? You might want to check the 'search'.

[consiglieri]

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

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

[jwhitlock]

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.

I fail to understand how FAIR is now the official source for what the "LDS Church is saying".

[TrespassersW]

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.

Really? Who, exactly, has been saying that? King James English wasn't "the language of the day" for Joseph Smith.

So, it must be assumed that a horse is a horse as was known in 1830, especially in regards to chariots.

Why must that be assumed? Even if the Book of Mormon had been written in "the language of the day," I don't see how that necessitates this assumption.

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.

Mike Ash isn't "the LDS Church." He is entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. The rest of us are free to agree or disagree with him, as we see fit.

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.

Again, who, exactly, made the first claim? Was it Mike Ash? If so, then such a contradiction would be significant. If not, then all you've done is found two different authors who disagree with each other. I'm not sure why that would be a big deal. (And, frankly, I'm not even convinced yet that the two authors disagree. I'd have to see the original quote for your "language of the day" claim.)

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?

Is the LDS Church looking for archaeological evidence in Central and South America? Does 1 Nephi 13 "clearly" refer to the US? If it does, what kind of archaeological evidence does 1 Nephi 13 say we should find in the US? What should we be looking for? And where?

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

Where, exactly, does the Book of Mormon mention a chariot being used in battle? I'd be interested in that reference.

[Ipso Facto]

The myth that there were no horses in pre-Columbian America is being discredited more and more with each passing year. Some of the previously discovered fossil evidence has been systematically suppressed by adherents to archaeological orthodoxy, but even their defensive reflexes will be forced to yield to a growing body of evidence to the contrary.

Northern Plains and Rocky Mountain Indian tribes owed their primacy over surrounding tribes to their mastery of the horse long before Columbus. Now recent genetic testing supports their oral traditions concerning the antiquity of their horsemanship. The pinto breeds of horses descend from the Indian ponies that early Spaniards saw them ride when they made their first forays into the Rocky Mountain area. The Spaniards owned and bred only large-boned, solid-colored horses. The Appaloosa and Pinto breeds are native American, as known for dozens of generations by the native American people who have ridden, bred, and cherished them.

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. There were horses in ancient America. There were horses being ridden by the indigenous populations of the Rocky Mountains when Columbus landed in Hispaniola.

[RCM]

The myth that there were no horses in pre-Columbian America is being discredited more and more with each passing year. Some of the previously discovered fossil evidence has been systematically suppressed by adherents to archaeological orthodoxy, but even their defensive reflexes will be forced to yield to a growing body of evidence to the contrary.

Northern Plains and Rocky Mountain Indian tribes owed their primacy over surrounding tribes to their mastery of the horse long before Columbus. Now recent genetic testing supports their oral traditions concerning the antiquity of their horsemanship. The pinto breeds of horses descend from the Indian ponies that early Spaniards saw them ride when they made their first forays into the Rocky Mountain area. The Spaniards owned and bred only large-boned, solid-colored horses. The Appaloosa and Pinto breeds are native American, as known for dozens of generations by the native American people who have ridden, bred, and cherished them.

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. There were horses in ancient America. There were horses being ridden by the indigenous populations of the Rocky Mountains when Columbus landed in Hispaniola.

Sorry, I disagree

There is no historical evidence which indicates that prior to Columbus, any North American Indian Tribe had an animal that was able to carry a man

You cannot study Native American Indian history and find evidence of tribes using horses for hunting, racing, war, traveling, and etc., prior to 1492.

There are lots of might be, maybe, possibly, what if, we think, it looks like, from the evolution and scientific community, but when it comes down to historical evidence, they just don't have it.

In Christ, RCM

[RubyHunter]

Sorry, I disagree

There is no historical evidence which indicates that prior to Columbus, any North American Indian Tribe had an animal that was able to carry a man

You cannot study Native American Indian history and find evidence of tribes using horses for hunting, racing, war, traveling, and etc., prior to 1492.

There are lots of might be, maybe, possibly, what if, we think, it looks like, from the evolution and scientific community, but when it comes down to historical evidence, they just don't have it.

In Christ, RCM

Oh no, you're gonna get it now.

If you use the statement "There is no historical evidence" RIGHT AFTER someone says it's there... You're going to get smashed and made to look like a fool. I'm going to sit here and wait for it to happen for a bit.

After I do the dishes, I'll come back and post what I've got if someone else hasn't.

[Ipso Facto]

Sorry, I disagree

There is no historical evidence which indicates that prior to Columbus, any North American Indian Tribe had an animal that was able to carry a man

You cannot study Native American Indian history and find evidence of tribes using horses for hunting, racing, war, traveling, and etc., prior to 1492.

There are lots of might be, maybe, possibly, what if, we think, it looks like, from the evolution and scientific community, but when it comes down to historical evidence, they just don't have it.

In Christ, RCM

There is absolutely no evidence that horses were extinct in North America when Columbus arrived -- only assumptions. If you think there is such evidence, please present it.

Genetic analysis, on the other hand, demonstrates a distinction between the descendants of the Indian Appaloosa and other "painted" horses and the known breeds of Spanish horses.

But you can go ahead and believe the myth as long as you'd like. It's a free country. Just don't expect people who know better to bow in reverent acquiescence when you start evangelizing your mythology.

Edit: Incidentally, I have personally seen Fremont Indian rock art dating to the 13th century A.D. which depicts a man riding a horse.

[RCM]

Really? Who, exactly, has been saying that? King James English wasn't "the language of the day" for Joseph Smith.

Why must that be assumed? Even if the Book of Mormon had been written in "the language of the day," I don't see how that necessitates this assumption.

Mike Ash isn't "the LDS Church." He is entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else. The rest of us are free to agree or disagree with him, as we see fit.

Again, who, exactly, made the first claim? Was it Mike Ash? If so, then such a contradiction would be significant. If not, then all you've done is found two different authors who disagree with each other. I'm not sure why that would be a big deal. (And, frankly, I'm not even convinced yet that the two authors disagree. I'd have to see the original quote for your "language of the day" claim.)

Is the LDS Church looking for archaeological evidence in Central and South America? Does 1 Nephi 13 "clearly" refer to the US? If it does, what kind of archaeological evidence does 1 Nephi 13 say we should find in the US? What should we be looking for? And where?

Where, exactly, does the Book of Mormon mention a chariot being used in battle? I'd be interested in that reference.

Trespassers,

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

Of 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

[Ipso Facto]

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.

I agree that the argument for "tapir" and "deer" is misguided and weak.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Nice use of irrelevant, well-poisoning adjectives. It would be nice to see a well-informed critic address the specifics of the argument, rather than have to put up with this kind of dismissive, hand waving shallowness.

Actual discussion on this subject has happened on other threads. It doesn't appear that that's going to happen with the one-line wonders passing themselves off as "informed critics" here.

[Rommelator]

Have you never noticed the literally thousands of 'it came to pass,' statements?

The funny thing about that phrase is that in Egyptian, Hebrew and Mayan there is an exact phrase that can be translated as "and it came to pass". No one need rely on King James English to write that one.

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

Reformed Egyptian to King James English is not that much of a stretch. James Charlesworth translated the Old Testament pseudepigrapha into King James English in the 1970's, so why can't Joseph Smith do so in 1830? The highly Bible literate society of Joseph Smith was his intended target, not to mention the immediate environmental context, with the translation of the Book of Mormon.

As Hugh Nibley said, had Joseph Smith been living in Germany at the time he would have translated into Luther's German instead of King James English.

So, what exactly is the problem??

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

It reads:

And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like the people are taking their stuff and high tailing it to a gathering place to defend themselves. Don't see how chariots themselves are being used defensively.

[RCM]

There is absolutely no evidence that horses were extinct in North America when Columbus arrived -- only assumptions. If you think there is such evidence, please present it.Genetic analysis, on the other hand, demonstrates a distinction between the descendants of the Indian Appaloosa and other "painted" horses and the known breeds of Spanish horses.But you can go ahead and believe the myth as long as you'd like. It's a free country. Just don't expect people who know better to bow in reverent acquiescence when you start evangelizing your mythology.Edit: Incidentally, I have personally seen Fremont Indian rock art dating to the 11th century A.D. which depicts a man riding a horse.

Ipso,

I would like you to refer me to credited historical documents that the Smithsonian would acknowledge

Also, I would like you to refer me to Native American History by the Indians themselves that acknowledge your argument. If you have such evidence I will acknowledge it. Since you make such a point of the Appaloosa, please use that as your primary reference and also the Nezperce Indians.

However, you are not talking to some city dweller. My heritage is that of the West, meaning settlers, homesteaders, ranchers, and Indian history. And I am very familiar with Indian culture that acknowledges the revolution that was made in the Native American Indian's lifestyle when the horse started showing up from the Spanish.

I read a document by the Native Indians themselves that was highlighting the fact that Indians were the first that raced horses for sport in North America.This was in the 1600's and noted that several Indian Chiefs had a herd of racing horses that were separate from their war horses and trading horses.This is also to be noted that this took place after the Spanish had arrived and introduced the horse to North America

To further make the point, I live where there are wild horses, and wild horses are not native to North America. There was a time when many of the so called wild horses had brands on them, proving they were nothing but horses that had at one time belonged to farmers and ranchers. The only exceptions I know of are either in Oregon or Nevada and they are the Grulla, which are believed to be direct descendants from some of the earliest Spanish Horses.

So, if you want to talk about people who believe in 'myths,' don't discount yourself.

As for your Fremont Indian Rock Art dating to the 11th century A.D., what other evidence of Indians with horses from this timeframe exists to validate this dating. Anyone can just throw a date on something, refer me to credible historical documents that support your argument.

In Christ, RCM

[SolarPowered]

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

I am pleased to see that someone gave the thoughtful response that the OP deserved.

[mnn727]

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.

The LDS Church NEVER ventures into apoligetics. Some members do, but the Church never does.

Where ever or whomever you get your information from is obviously misleading you.

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.

[saemo]

The pinto breeds of horses descend from the Indian ponies that early Spaniards saw them ride when they made their first forays into the Rocky Mountain area. The Spaniards owned and bred only large-boned, solid-colored horses. The Appaloosa and Pinto breeds are native American, as known for dozens of generations by the native American people who have ridden, bred, and cherished them.

From OK State description of differing breeds of livestock:

"Though commonly associated with the Native American for its legendary magical qualities in battle, the Pinto horse was actually introduced to North America by European explorers, chiefly those from Spain, bringing their Barb stock that had been crossed with native European stock years before. It is believed that the Pinto patterns may have arrived in Europe via the Arabian strains, as Pinto markings appear in ancient art throughout the Middle East. However, evidence of the more dominant Tobiano pattern among the wild horses of the Russian Steppes suggests the introduction of Pinto coloring to Europe possibly as early as during the Roman Empire."

[sean0scott]

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

Of 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.

Okay, let me see if I can unpack your argument so some of us who are blind to the ways of logic can see exactly what you're saying.

p1. 3 Nephi 3:22 states people in Ancient America used horses and chariots to defend themselves.

p2. King James or Old English was the language of the early 1800's in America

p3. The Book of Mormon uses literally thousands of "it came to pass" statements.

p4. The Book of Moses was written in King James English,

p5. Therefore Joseph Smith relied heavily on the King James Bible (derived from premises 2,3,4)

p6. We (Mormons) believe the original Book of Mormon plates were written in reformed Egyptian in King James English (derived from premises 3)

p7. 1 Nephi 13 mentions the Promised Land.

p8. LDS commentaries recognize that the text refers to Columbus, Puritans, Settlers and the Revolutionary War in 1 Nephi 13.

CONCLUSION: It is desparate and deceptive to say Book of Mormon horses are "Tapir" or deer (derived from 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 )

Is this a fair representation of your argument? If so, hopefully this version can help us better address your concern. I know it has helped me a great deal already.

[Rommelator]

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.

You have read an awful lot into the Book of Mormon text. Past LDS leaders and commentators have said that the "land of promise" consists of all of North and South America.

http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Bo...y/DEBMG04F.html

Furthermore, for the geography of the Book of Mormon to be in continental USA and the Gentile in 1 Nephi 13:12 to be Columbus is problematic, since Columbus never set foot on what is now the continental United States shores but instead in the Caribbean Islands and Mesoamerica.

BTW, I agree that the Book of Mormon took place in North America. Mesoamerica, after all, is a part of the North American continent.

[cjcampbell]

Sorry, I disagree

There is no historical evidence which indicates that prior to Columbus, any North American Indian Tribe had an animal that was able to carry a man

You cannot study Native American Indian history and find evidence of tribes using horses for hunting, racing, war, traveling, and etc., prior to 1492.

There are lots of might be, maybe, possibly, what if, we think, it looks like, from the evolution and scientific community, but when it comes down to historical evidence, they just don't have it.

In Christ, RCM

To the contrary, Pacific Northwest Indian tribes all have traditions about pre-Columbian horses. They say their ancient horses looked somewhat different than modern European horses -- they describe an animal that closely resembles an ancient Mongolian horse, which Columbus did not have and which now lives only in Mongolia.

This would make sense even from a view that does not accept the Book of Mormon, however. The Pacific Northwest was the last area where primitive horses went extinct. And there is no reason to suppose that ancient Mongolians crossing into Alaska would not have brought horses with them.

I believe, however, that the Book of Mormon is correct and there were horses among ancient American peoples. I am not convinced that the horse ever went completely extinct in the Americas. As mentioned, the Appaloosa's DNA cannot be traced to European horses.

As for 'chariots' I think that Mormon and Moroni used the term pretty loosely to cover everything from a travois to a modern automobile. There were no chariots in Joseph Smith's day, yet Moroni says he saw large numbers of them in Joseph Smith's day and in our own time. If Joseph Smith was forging the Book of Mormon, why would he have Moroni say that there were chariots in the time of Joseph Smith? Surely Joseph Smith knew how many chariots there were in the state of New York (the answer being 'zero'). Personally, I think Moroni saw a Los Angeles traffic jam and described what he saw as 'chariots.'

I have only heard the 'tapirs and deer' argument from critics. I have never heard a Latter-day Saint suggest that the horses of the Book of Mormon were tapirs or deer. I think the critics are using a straw man argument when they bring that one up.

[RCM]

Okay, let me see if I can unpack your argument so some of us who are blind to the ways of logic can see exactly what you're saying.

p1. 3 Nephi 3:22 states people in Ancient America used horses and chariots to defend themselves.

p2. King James or Old English was the language of the early 1800's in America

p3. The Book of Mormon uses literally thousands of "it came to pass" statements.

p4. The Book of Moses was written in King James English,

p5. Therefore Joseph Smith relied heavily on the King James Bible (derived from premises 2,3,4)

p6. We (Mormons) believe the original Book of Mormon plates were written in reformed Egyptian in King James English (derived from premises 3)

p7. 1 Nephi 13 mentions the Promised Land.

p8. LDS commentaries recognize that the text refers to Columbus, Puritans, Settlers and the Revolutionary War in 1 Nephi 13.

CONCLUSION: It is desparate and deceptive to say Book of Mormon horses are "Tapir" or deer (derived from 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 )

Is this a fair representation of your argument? If so, hopefully this version can help us better address your concern. I know it has helped me a great deal already.

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

[cjcampbell]

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

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.

[Rommelator]

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)

Some LDS apologists argue this, not all of them.

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

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

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

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.

4. The Bible refers to horses and chariots

True.

5. The Book of Mormon refers to horses and chariots

Also true.

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

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.

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

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.

[soren]

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

I don't see the point in zeroing in on the detail of "and it came to pass" to establish the relation of the BOM and KJV. Wayehi, The Hebrew equivalent of " and it came to pass" is used in Hebrew as a tense marker used in narrative sequences to indicate when a future tense verb is being used to denote a past event. The Septuagint translation of the OT, quoted constantly in the NT, often translates the Hebrew with the Greek kai egeneto, which is roughly equivalent to "It came to pass," and some of the NT writers themselves overuse the expression. Modern translation theories tend to advocate leaving "And it came to pass" untranslated, because it is not a necessary part of English verb tenses, but the inclusion or exclusion of it is really just a matter of translation theory, not unique to the KJV only. Relative to the frequency of "and it came to pass" in actual Hebrew, Joseph Smith's use of the term is actually quite realistic.

Having said that, I am not trying to dispute that the BOM uses the KJV, or that this poses a problem for reading "horses" as tapirs. I am only saying that I don't think we should make too much of "and it came to pass" as an example.

[maklelan]

Sorry, I disagree

There is no historical evidence which indicates that prior to Columbus, any North American Indian Tribe had an animal that was able to carry a man

You cannot study Native American Indian history and find evidence of tribes using horses for hunting, racing, war, traveling, and etc., prior to 1492.

There are lots of might be, maybe, possibly, what if, we think, it looks like, from the evolution and scientific community, but when it comes down to historical evidence, they just don't have it.

That's a strong statement coming from someone who betrays no familiarity with the methodological standards of archaeology and anthropology. Let's see what we can do to help you out.

To begin with, horses were in fact native to the Americas for thousands of years. The record gets pretty sparse about 10,000 years ago and many scientists just assume that means horses went extinct. We have a grand total of four written records from Mesoamerica from prior to the time of Columbus (Kevin is welcome to correct me if that's out of date), and the historical record that serves to support the earlier conclusion is that of the early Spaniards saying they didn't see any native horses. Their exposure to the American continents, of course, was excruciatingly limited. Many American Indians have long held that they had horses well before Columbus, but they're generally dismissed as legends, even though early European explorers report well-supported horse populations in central North America in the early 18th century. Interestingly enough, the early Spanish claim to have kept their mares from the wild, and only sent stallions on long expeditions. Just how did all these random stallions manage to populate an entire continent so quickly without any mares? Several things support the Native American statements, though:

This Illinois State Museum "Faun Map" charts archaeological finds in the United States relevant to fauna. I searched for the modern horse and found 8 sites in the United States alone that record modern horse remains dating to the Late Holocene. They say many of them are questionable because they don't like data that conflict with traditional views. Clayton E. Ray's Journal of Mammalogy article from 1957, "Pre-Columbian Horses From Yucatan" is often cited, but no follow-up has been done. The is a 1964 article in the Wisconsin Archaeologist about a horse skull found with material dating to 800â??900 CE (volume 45, issue 2). You can check out Gloria Farley's book In Plain Sight (Columbus, GA: ISAC Press, 1994) for more than 20 Pre-Columbian horse petroglyphs and stories about numerous Pre-Columbian horse statuettes found by archaeologists near the Chattahoochee River. Some of those petroglyphs are shown here.