Horses, Horses, Where are the Horses?

[Chris Smith]

Scientifically, no evidence for is not evidence against.

That's a mathematical fallacy.

[J Green]

And what kind of changes were made.

I think you will find most of them are punctuation, and grammatical (indicating, perhaps, that the original language was not English). Also, some were a matter of clarification, not corrections.

Your argument is based on an incorrect premise.

Hi, cdowis.

If you look carefully at my post again, you'll ascertain quite quickly that this is not my argument at all. The argument is that of Dr. Stephen Ricks. (I provided a link to his article in the post.) That said, while I haven't studied the changes myself, I'm not sure I would just take your word that Ricks' premise is incorrect unless you provide some kind of documentation or analysis or unless I studied it myself and came to the same conclusion.

Regards

[StuddleyG]

If only...... if only we could get Chuck Norris on our side. Then it would be a down hill battle. Nay, a down hill ride.

Yes. Then Chuck could explain that he roundhouse kicked all the horses and other animals off the continent without a trace. People would believe him. People would flock to the church in millions.

[Zakuska]

Intresting:

800 year old Canadian Horse, thats precolumbian, (yes,post BOM). I like the comments:

BbGc-VP, Hemlock Park: Horse bones recovered from what appeared to be glacial outwash were expected to yield a late Pleistocene age. The structure of the teeth suggested a fossil horse. However, the resulting collagen date neither matches that expectation nor provides a reasonable age for a horse that could have been introduced during the historic period. As Krueger notes in the date list, collagen is ""far superior"" to carbonate in cases of discordance. This date may represent an exception to that rule.

Since it doesn't fit our preconcieved notions it must be in error.

http://card.canadian...ail.php?id=7130

Heres another one:

Equus scotti 2840

FaNp-VP, Riddell: Skwara (1988; SkwaraWoolf, 1981) describes the Riddell fauna as a Rancholabrean assemblage that may be as much as 175,000 years old. She rejects S-1305, because it underlies till of the Battleford Formation and leaves too little time for advance and retreat of Late Wisconsinan ice. She notes that GSC-1041, 38,000

[Zakuska]

This is the one they found 20 miles from my Dads farm:

Huntington Reservoir Sinkhole: A sinkhole is formed in the North Horm Formation bedrock along the eastern crest of the Wasatch Plateau at the upper limits of Spring Creek, 3.2 km north-northwest of the Huntington Dam. Three anomalously young dates were obtained on mastodon hydroxyapatite, and a date on mastodon bone collagen is three millennia older. The site produced two partial skeletons of mastodons, some fragmentary remains of horse and bison, and a bifacially worked stone tool that was not in demonstrable association with the bones.

Carbon dates to: 7590

[Darth J]

No offence, mate, but it's only 'funny' to a person who hasn't spent much (any?) time at all working firsthand with historical texts written by those in 'contact zones.' I have on my hard drive more than 2,000 pages of transcribed 16th-century documents of this very sort along with my own translations in parallel, and they all similarly contain a bewildering mishmash of pure loanshifts where no attention is drawn to the fact that loanshifting is occuring, loanshifts which suggest in some way that loanshifting is occurring, descriptions without names, local words which are then defined, and, finally, local words used without any accompanying explanation or description whatsoever. In other words, what you've just described as a seeming inconsistency in the Book of Mormon is exactly reproduced in the historical documents with which I work.

I find it interesting when people launch an attack by asserting how things 'should be' without grounding that assertion in any kind of practical reality.

I'm genuinely befuddled. What in your mind is the connection between seeing possible loanshifting in the Book of Mormon and attempts to let the internal geography of the book determine its range??? It's not like claiming horses in the Americas makes more sense if one assumes the narrative covers the entire hemisphere.

The reason you're having this problem is that you're assuming that it's either a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon or an entire hemisphere model for the Book of Mormon. Other geographic theories don't assume loan-shifting for "horse" because they believe that it is not necessary for their concepts of where the Book of Mormon happened.

Such as:

Western New York: http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/link%20seven.htm

Malaysia: http://www.mormonlocations.com/index.html

Other ideas about New York: http://bookofmormongeography.org/

The Heartland Model: http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/index.php

So, yes, what you need "horse" to mean depends on where you are placing the Book of Mormon. Not everyone with a theory about the Book of Mormon accepts that "horse" meant anything other than "horse." The loan-shifting idea usually goes hand-in-hand with a Mesoamerican idea of the Book of Mormon.

Also, some theories about loan-shifting beg the question of why someone would need to loan-shift for an animal they had already seen. For example (from http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml#horses)

John L. Sorenson has suggested the latter possibility and has pointed to archaeological specimens showing humans riding on the backs of animal figures, some of which are evidently deer. Also Mayan languages used the term deer for Spanish horses and deer-rider for horsemen. Indians of Zinacantan, Chiapas, believe that the mythical "Earth Owner," who is supposed to be rich and live inside a mountain, rides on deer. In addition, the Aztec account of the Spanish Conquest used terms like the-deer-which-carried-men-upon-their-backs, called horses (see Bernardino de Sahagun, The War of Conquest: How It Was Waged Here in Mexico, trans. A. J. Anderson and C. E. Dibble [salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1978], pp. 28, 35, 55, 60).--Quoted from Reexploring the Book of Mormon, John Welch, ed., Deseret Book, SLC, UT, 1992, p. 98).

Except that people from the Middle East would know what a deer is. Deuteronomy 14:5, for example, talks about deer. Why would a person who knows what a deer is call it a horse?

[Darth J]

Why should I trust anyone who can't count?

Lehi

I didn't write that sentence, so that's not my problem. Nor does it change what a declarative sentence is in English grammar.

Tell me, LeSellers, does the principle of not trusting someone who can't count apply universally---say, to Joseph Smith's various accounts of his age and the date of the First Vision?

Or does it only apply when you are trying to attribute another person's error that is irrelevant to defining a declarative sentence to me?

[Zakuska]

Except that people from the Middle East would know what a deer is. Deuteronomy 14:5, for example, talks about deer. Why would a person who knows what a deer is call it a horse?

1) You are assuming that Nephi wrote the verses in question, Mormon and Moroni knew nothing of the middle east other than what they had read in their sacred books.

2) The hebrew word in question that is translated in English as roebuck, or deer it's exat meaning is unkown.

roebuck

a) a kind of deer, reddish in colour

b) perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown

See Blue letter Bible, footnote:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3180&t=KJV

[Zakuska]

At what point does one throw their hands in the air and tell the scientists to quit thinking of ways to explain away thing so they can arrive at their preconceived conclusions??!

Heres another "anomilously young Mammoth."

6510

[cdowis]

If you look carefully at my post again, you'll ascertain quite quickly that this is not my argument at all. The argument is that of Dr. Stephen Ricks. (I provided a link to his article in the post.) That said, while I haven't studied the changes myself, I'm not sure I would just take your word that Ricks' premise is incorrect unless you provide some kind of documentation or analysis or unless I studied it myself and came to the same conclusion.

Regards

Since you quoted him, I would assume you would be interested in checking him out. One of the antimormon myths is the 4000 changes in the BOM text. This has been refuted and you don't see the antis using this very much.

[Darth J]

Hi, Darth.

Most of these quotes don't actually force us into the paradigm you are trying to impose on them.

Which ones?

The fact that there were no other manuscripts in the room doesn't do it, neither does the fact that the interpreters helped him to read the characters.

Actually, the statement about lacking any other manuscripts doesn't help a common element of a loose translation theory: borrowing King James Bible passages when the Book of Mormon said similar things.

The statement that he could see the text refers also to characters from the source text (the plates). And initially he would copy characters from the plates then use the interpreters to read the characters and provide a translation. According to some of the statements he could also see the English translation he provided in the stone. All this could either mean that he is being provided the words in English without any participation on his part (a "mechanical" process) or that he is making decisions himself, the text of which is then reflected in the stones (a "translator-controlled" process).

If the English words are appearing before him, in what way exactly would he be supplying decisions? And if Joseph Smith is selecting the words, then this isn't really consistent with the idea that it was the Nephites who loan-shifted "horse" to mean a tapir or whatever, as Sorenson fans speculate. That would mean that Joseph Smith was seeing a picture of this animal, but doesn't know what a tapir/deer/tree sloth/whatever is, so he calls it a horse. Of course, this also implies that Joseph Smith was having some sort of vision of the Book of Mormon events, which means he would have had some picture as to where it happened. Even if you don't know the precise location, most people aren't going to confuse the Yucatan with Minnesota, for example.

Royal apparently leans toward your interpretation, but Bushman doesn't commit even though he considers the same quotes you have provided. Stephen Ricks (and our own Brant Gardner) consider the same evidence and see JS as being involved in the process.

A portion of Stephen Ricks' argument can be found in "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon":

1. D&C 9:7-8 records the translation process as requiring studying in the mind by the translator and a confirmation by the Holy Ghost.

This still begs the question of what he was studying in his mind. Words, or images, or ideas? If it's anything but words, then the speculation that it was the Nephites who called a tapir/whatever a "horse" doesn't really work anymore. Instead, it's Joseph Smith who has an idea or picture of an animal and calls it a "horse." And if that's the case, it's hard to imagine what he would have called an "elephant" that wasn't a large land animal with a trunk. It also isn't really helpful in explaining why he called something a "curelom" if he's not seeing reformed Egyptian words turned into English words.

2. JS made numerous changes to the target text in 1837. If it was all dictated to him without his control (e.g., proper name spelling), why did he feel he could change it? If he had input into the process (see one above), he would naturally make changes without too much concern.

Your premise and the conclusion seem to be the same: Joseph Smith made changes because he was in control of the verbiage.

3. A contemporary account (as per your request) by Reverend Diedrich Willers:

...by using these spectacles, he (Smith) would be in a position to read these ancient languages, which he had never studied and that the Holy Ghost would reveal to him the translation in the English language.

Quinn reads this as evidence for the translation process as laid out in D&C 9--one that involves the translator understanding the language and, with the help of the Holy Ghost, transferring the meaning components into English.

Everyone I cited was present while the translation was happening and/or one of the Book of Mormon witnesses. I don't know where Willers was getting his information, but in any event, the statement says that the Holy Ghost revealed the English translation. That suggests a tight translation.

On another note, you linked the loan-shifting concept to LGT, which puzzles me. I don't recall them being linked. What exactly is that link?

Regards

I explained that above. Some theories of the Book of Mormon posit that horses were present during Book of Mormon times in the area where those theories set the Book of Mormon---the American Heartland, Western New York, Malaysia, etc.

It's the Mesoamerican theory that tends to say "horse" means a tapir, a deer, etc.

[Darth J]

1) You are assuming that Nephi wrote the verses in question, Mormon and Moroni knew nothing of the middle east other than what they had read in their sacred books.

Nephi didn't write First and Second Nephi? Oh, okay.

But let's go with that. If it was Mormon or Moroni writing these parts, where did they get the word "horse" from if they had never seen one in the Western Hemisphere? Why would they loan shift to describe an animal familiar to them as an animal they had never seen before?

2) The hebrew word in question that is translated in English as roebuck, or deer it's exat meaning is unkown.

See Blue letter Bible, footnote:

http://www.bluelette...ngs=H3180&t=KJV

Are you really trying to imply that deer would not have been in the Middle East around 600 B.C.?

http://books.google.com/books?id=OmS9GQzqfXwC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=deer+biblical+times&source=bl&ots=BJePF7y6wE&sig=YhPFI0YhdwhXng0GiJeuMl7mjLA&hl=en&ei=FKg_TJq2HZS-sQP23JXEBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2606

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/135818

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/secret-mission-to-bring-back-biblical-animals/

http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/pictures/Mammals.htm

[Hamba Tuhan]

The reason you're having this problem is that you're assuming that it's either a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon or an entire hemisphere model for the Book of Mormon.

Actually, and I'm still not entirely sure why it matters, I'm in no way committed to a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. Just last week, one of my Young Men brought it up, and I happily discussed with him what I find interesting about the proposal and also what I find flawed about the proposal.

Other geographic theories don't assume loan-shifting for "horse" because they believe that it is not necessary for their concepts of where the Book of Mormon happened.

Outside of the Malaysia one, all other 'geographic theories' must either assume a) that, contrary to the prevailing scientific consensus, horses really did exist somewhere in the Americas during Nephite times, or b) that something similar to loanshifting can account for the use of the word horse in the Nephite record. Why is 'horse' any less of an anachronism if it was used in, say, pre-Columbian New York State???

Again, no offence intended, but I remain unconvinced that the problem here is mine.

Of course, this is all just a side issue to the larger one: Claims that the use of the word horse in the Book of Mormon could be an instance of loanshifting are supported by exactly parallel occurrences of loanshifting in other, less 'questionable' historical documents produced by people in 'contact zones'--an issue which you seem to have dropped.

[Zakuska]

Nephi didn't write First and Second Nephi? Oh, okay.

No I didn't say that.

But let's go with that. If it was Mormon or Moroni writing these parts, where did they get the word "horse" from if they had never seen one in the Western Hemisphere? Why would they loan shift to describe an animal familiar to them as an animal they had never seen before?

You'll have to explain that one.

Are you really trying to imply that deer would not have been in the Middle East around 600 B.C.?

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

http://www.studyligh...gi?number=T2606

http://www.israelnat...ews.aspx/135818

http://www.care2.com...blical-animals/

http://www.biblepict...res/Mammals.htm

Not in the least.... what I am saying is that the defintiion of the word translated as DEER in Deut 14:5 according to the lexicon is actually unkown. The same could be said about the word the KJV translated as Unicorn.

[handys003]

Zak he knows what your saying is correct. He admitted before way back. He is making assertions to redirect you from such. He's playing a game.

[Darth J]

Actually, and I'm still not entirely sure why it matters, I'm in no way committed to a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. Just last week, one of my Young Men brought it up, and I happily discussed with him what I find interesting about the proposal and also what I find flawed about the proposal.

It's because of the answer below:

Outside of the Malaysia one, all other 'geographic theories' must either assume a) that, contrary to the prevailing scientific consensus, horses really did exist somewhere in the Americas during Nephite times, or b) that something similar to loanshifting can account for the use of the word horse in the Nephite record. Why is 'horse' any less of an anachronism if it was used in, say, pre-Columbian New York State???

First, the Church teaches that gospel truth trumps scientific consensus. For example:

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven

[Darth J]

No I didn't say that.

Yeah, you did.

Horses are mentioned as a native animal in the promised land in First Nephi.

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

1 Nephi 18:25

The only reason to bring up "assuming" is if you dispute that Nephi wrote First Nephi.

Not in the least.... what I am saying is that the defintiion of the word translated as DEER in Deut 14:5 according to the lexicon is actually unkown. The same could be said about the word the KJV translated as Unicorn.

Since the Nephites were living the law of Moses, getting their animals straight had important religious implications. Deuteronomy 14, which would have been on Laban's brass plates, says what animals are clean to eat. And there's more than one word referring to a "deer" in Deuteronomy 14:5.

http://www.bible-his...om/isbe/D/DEER/

By the way, to everyone who thinks that the Nephites ate horses:

Horses aren't permissible animals to eat under the law of Moses (horses don't have split hooves and they don't chew cud). So real horses are out (as a food source).

Loan-shifting fans who think the Nephites ate "horses" need to find an animal that has split hooves and chews its cud for this "horse" to be permissible food for a people who were living the law of Moses.

6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat. 7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. 8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase

Deuteronomy 14

[J Green]

Since you quoted him, I would assume you would be interested in checking him out. One of the antimormon myths is the 4000 changes in the BOM text. This has been refuted and you don't see the antis using this very much.

I'm not sure you're following the conversation correctly. The issue has nothing to do with the 4,000-changes chestnut. Indeed, Dr. Stephen Ricks is a professor at BYU and wrote his article for the Maxwell Institute. I suggest you re-read the post and the linked article for comprehension.

Regards

[Hamba Tuhan]

Well, again, the only reason to bring up loan shifting is a concession that horses were not present in the Western Hemisphere during Book of Mormon times. Not every believer in the Book of Mormon is willing to take that position. There are still lots of subscribers to the "they just haven't been found yet" idea.

Some of whom also accept Mesoamerica as the most likely setting for the Book of Mormon. Just ask on this board, and you'll find a few. Seriously, your claim that there is a logical--or even actual--link between seeing possible loanshifting in the Book of Mormon and subscribing to a theory of Mesoamerican setting is a silly hill to die on...and suggests to me (though I may be wrong here) that you've uncritically embraced some kind of 'internet Mormon' stereotype.

[Zakuska]

Yet another Mammoth they say is "too Young"

AjHg-VP, Rostock: Mammoth remains, including a skull fragment with upper M2, a cervical vertebra, a scapula and a limb bone fragment, were found on the cultivated surface of a peaty swale. Excavation revealed tusk fragments at 27 cm depth, which is taken to be the original burial position. Bone collagen yielded an anomalously young age, whereas a date on tusk collagen is concordant with pollen evidence. Five sediment samples removed from cavities within the skull contained pollen spectra consistent with zones 1b and 2a, dated to late glacial time at the nearby Poole Farm section. Nineteen species of molluscs and 2000 individual insects from 16 families have also been recovered from this site.

4370

[Hamba Tuhan]

Since the Nephites were living the law of Moses, getting their animals straight had important religious implications. Deuteronomy 14, which would have been on Laban's brass plates, says what animals are clean to eat.

...

By the way, to everyone who thinks that the Nephites ate horses:

Horses aren't permissible animals to eat under the law of Moses (horses don't have split hooves and they don't chew cud). So real horses are out (as a food source).

Loan-shifting fans who think the Nephites ate "horses" need to find an animal that has split hooves and chews its cud for this "horse" to be permissible food for a people who were living the law of Moses.

Not necessarily. For any one of your points above.

Old Testament scholars such as Margaret Barker have made a strong case that much of what is now considered the Law of Moses was a late (time of Josiah forward) innovation by what are termed the Deuteronomist reformers--changes which didn't really solidify and become ascendant until during the Babylonian captivity. Consequently, these new laws were not embraced in the beginning by all of Jewish society, and, by c600BC, groups of Jews who were opposed to them were leaving Jerusalem in protest.

So Deuteronomy 14 may not have been on the plates of brass. And the concerns expressed therein may have meant nothing to Lehi and his descendants.

[J Green]

Which ones?

All of them. None of these witness statements require that the translation was handed to JS. You assume that evidence for a tight translation is also evidence for a mechanical translation. Not the same thing.

Actually, the statement about lacking any other manuscripts doesn't help a common element of a loose translation theory: borrowing King James Bible passages when the Book of Mormon said similar things.

You're right in that the lack of a manuscript makes it harder to explain the KJV biblical passages issue. There is some overlap between the KJV passages issue and a tight-v.-loose translation discussion but it's mostly about the KJV issue. But the lack of a manuscript in the room doesn't really speak directly to whether the translation was merely handed to JS or whether he played any part in the process.

[Aside: From my perspective you are mixing your terminology. It appears that you have been arguing that the translation was given to JS and that he had no control over how it was worded. Is that correct? If this is the case, then what you are arguing for is a mechanical translation process, not a "tight" translation. A tight translation might be the product of a mechanical process, but it just as easily could be the product of the translator. It could be the result of how JS chose to word the translation. You are conflating translation issues by arguing for a mechanical translation process while using terminology like "tight" translation. Can you see the difference?]

If the English words are appearing before him, in what way exactly would he be supplying decisions?

Do you agree that some of the witness statements say that the original characters appeared in the stone as if on a parchment? How did this happen? If the statement is true, then there are two main possibilities, right? Either he had no control over their appearance and simply watched what appeared in the stone like my daughters staring at the TV with a vacant expression, or he had some control in desiring to see the characters and they appeared. So if the English words appear in the form of a translation, don't we have the same two options? Either he watches what some other divine entity places in the stone and simply reads it to others or the English words represent text that he desires to see--text that he is formulating in his mind, tests with the Holy Ghost (D&C 9) and then sees in the stone. There are pros and cons to both scenarios, but for the strength of the latter position think about how the seer stone was supposed to work in treasure hunting. Did the user have any input by way of thinking about what he was seeking or was it merely a passive one-way receiver that randomly displayed the treasure de'jour?

And if Joseph Smith is selecting the words, then this isn't really consistent with the idea that it was the Nephites who loan-shifted "horse" to mean a tapir or whatever, as Sorenson fans speculate.

Not necessarily true. JS could have selected the words yet followed a tight translation, thus preserving whatever loan-shifting had occurred. I.e., if Nephi uses the Hebrew sus (horse) for a deer or similar species, this naming convention--like hippopotamus (river horse) in English--could have stuck throughout the Nephite record keeping. JS then could have simply translated horse as horse, preserving the loan-shifting that started with Nephi. Again, you have conflated the issue of a tight translation with that of a mechanically-controlled translation process. The two issues are separate and need to be treated discretely.

That would mean that Joseph Smith was seeing a picture of this animal, but doesn't know what a tapir/deer/tree sloth/whatever is, so he calls it a horse.

Ah, the translation-as-TV-watching theory. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but I find it a little bizarre. Under this scenario, I imagine there would have been a CD slipped inside a plastic pocket on the back cover of the plates and JS simply popped it into his nifty Hat/DVD player and watched the action in the dark while translating. Seriously, where did you get the idea that JS would see images of animals and not simply see text?

this also implies that Joseph Smith was having some sort of vision of the Book of Mormon events, which means he would have had some picture as to where it happened.

???

Equally bizarre.

Even if you don't know the precise location, most people aren't going to confuse the Yucatan with Minnesota, for example.

R i i i i i g h t . . .

[scratches head]

This still begs the question of what he was studying in his mind. Words, or images, or ideas? If it's anything but words, then the speculation that it was the Nephites who called a tapir/whatever a "horse" doesn't really work anymore. Instead, it's Joseph Smith who has an idea or picture of an animal and calls it a "horse." And if that's the case, it's hard to imagine what he would have called an "elephant" that wasn't a large land animal with a trunk. It also isn't really helpful in explaining why he called something a "curelom" if he's not seeing reformed Egyptian words turned into English words.

The witness statements clearly tie the translation to text and to the stone. Can we agree on that much? So we can stop talking about images. As for words like "curelom" they come from a different time and place and depend on how the Jaredite plates were translated themselves. Are these Jaredite words or Nephite? If the latter, is the translation Moroni's or is he abridging a translation by Benjamin? If it's Benjamin's translation, is the word Benjamin's choice or is it Moroni's choice as editor. In any case, it's interesting that you might have an instance of loan-shifting with horse right after the Nephites arrive in the new world but possibly have a straight-out borrowing when it comes to an earlier culture (Jaredite) or later culture (Moroni as editor).

But this is all really speculation. I don't have an answer for the horse issue, otherwise I would have responded earlier in the thread. I merely object to how you co-opted the witness statements by assuming a specific translation process in order to make your case for the perceived horse anachronism more solid. For the record, I also object when believers do the same thing to try and resolve anachronisms. I'm truly interested in how the translation process worked, but not so I can prove anything about horses or cement.

Your premise and the conclusion seem to be the same: Joseph Smith made changes because he was in control of the verbiage.

You're right. I do think that in a larger context it can be looked at as one of many indicators, but I agree that it assumes the premise. But will you grant that you used the witness statements in a similar fashion? I.e., your premise and conclusion were the same also: JS was not in control of the translation because the translation was tight, because he saw text in the stone, etc. If you assume that the translation was handed to him, then these quotes prove this. But if you don't assume this, then you see something else. As I pointed out, good historians and linguists look at the same quotes and disagree with your conclusion. That was my point in using Ricks' argument (not my own). He looked at the same evidence differently. So you simply can't assume a mechanical process when you set out to make your horse-anachronism case more solid. That was the only reason why I joined the conversation.

Everyone I cited was present while the translation was happening and/or one of the Book of Mormon witnesses. I don't know where Willers was getting his information

Actually you have some who were present, others who claim to be quoting those who were present, and at least one who quotes someone who was related to JS but not present. But your actual request was for another "contemporary" account. I provided one. If I have the time I'll try to look up whom he claimed to be quoting, but I do wish to remind the court that the first stipulation was to be contemporary, not first-hand. If you only want first-hand, you'll have to omit a few of your own.

but in any event, the statement says that the Holy Ghost revealed the English translation. That suggests a tight translation.

First, you have again conflated the issue of a mechanical process with a tight translation. Second, does the Holy Ghost's involvement in D&C 9 also suggest a mechanical process to you? If not, why does the Holy Ghost's involvement in the one automatically reflect a mechanical process? I think it's very possible to read this quote as implying the same thing as D&C 9. Quinn certainly did, so I'm not in poor company, right?

I explained that above. Some theories of the Book of Mormon posit that horses were present during Book of Mormon times in the area where those theories set the Book of Mormon---the American Heartland, Western New York, Malaysia, etc.

It's the Mesoamerican theory that tends to say "horse" means a tapir, a deer, etc.

I see your explanation above but I still don't buy it. I acknowledge that many of those who advocate a LGT of the BoM also advocate loan-shifting (and a number of other arguments). But that doesn't mean that the arguments are intrinsically linked. [bTW, the other models you place in opposition to what you call the LGT are also LGT models as well--they simply suggest that the events in the BoM took place somewhere other than mesoamerica.] I don't know anything about Malaysia, but don't all the locations in the Americas equally suffer from an absence of evidence for horses at this time? If so, why is this a mesoamerican problem while not a problem for New York? It doesn't matter whether you believe in a hemispheric model or LGT model (in any of its options), you still have to face a lack of scientific evidence for horses at the right time, don't you? I still don't see the link between this issue and LGT. Makes no sense.

Regards

[cdowis]

Horse == tapir

How does the chariot fit this definition? Or are we also supposed to change the definition of chariot to a tapir collar, or something else.

[Scottie]

Zak, as to your references to the 400AD, another poster has found this...

Hoffstetter (1952) reported the recovery

of a partial left femur of Cuvieronius tarijensis (= Cuvieronius

hyodon) (Ficcarelli et al., 1995) during the excavation

of a trench in the Quebrada Colorada. The trench cuts

through the sequence and therefore the stratigraphical position

of the find is unknown. Unfortunately, most of the historical

data from Ecuador are doubtful. The mastodont

femur from Punfn belongs to a juvenile individual; for this

reason a possible attribution to H. chimborazi should thus

not be ruled out. The only true C. tarijensis material (two

adult fragmentary tusks) presently known from Ecuador

was donated by anonymous collectors to the Colegio

Benign0 Malo, at Cuenca, where it is still preserved today.

This material is reported from Bafios de Cuenca but without

reliable stratigraphical information. Some of the

present authors, revising the mastodont material of Ecuador

(Ficcarelli et al., 1995), have already stressed the erroneous

stratigraphical and systematical attributions reported

in literature, and the uncertain provenance of part of the

fossil material known until now.

It appears that both books are in error.

[USU78]

Zak, as to your references to the 400AD, another poster has found this...

It appears that both books are in error.

Is it possible to get a source for that there quotation, Sir Knight?