Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[ldsfaqs]

Mentioning a "fact" is not an argument. I simply corrected his/her judgment. Nothing else needs to be said on the matter thank you.

[ldsfaqs]

Thank heavens you are on an LDS board. Some board would ban you for questioning the voice in the sky.

Be patient..... Only just posted it. Will likely still get banned from the thread. Even though I really shouldn't.

Not that I'm wanting to have a "discussion" about it. Simply mentioning that they made an error.

It would be better if no one else said anything on it, and maybe they won't ban me.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Craig Paxton]

The article posted by Cinepro refers to a couple of such finds.

There are others out there, as well as the other types of evidences that I mentioned.

LOL I serioulsy doubt Cinepro posted anything of the sort...IF horse evidence supporting the Book of Mormon timeline were to be discovered...it would be front page news...well at least throughout Utah...

Edited August 19, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[cinepro]

LOL I serioulsy doubt Cinepro posted anything of the sort...IF horse evidence supporting the Book of Mormon timeline were to be discovered...it would be on the front page news...well at least throughout Utah...

I'll even do it twice:

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

This "horse" argument makes my point. The argument that there were actually pre-columbian (and post-pleistocene) horses in the New World isn't an "apologetic" claim. It's just a claim. That discussion can be had between any two people irregardless of their feelings about the Book of Mormon.

So Coe's belief that there weren't horses here isn't a gap in his knowledge about the Book of Mormon or BoM apologetic arguments. It's just a gap in his knowledge about horse fossils in the New World.

That being said, I think it takes a lot of gumption to say that Dr. Michael Coe has a gap in his knowledge about the history of horses in the New World, and I'd make sure I could really back up the claim before I made it.

Edited August 19, 2011 by cinepro

[Zakuska]

Be patient..... Only just posted it. Will likely still get banned from the thread. Even though I really shouldn't.

Not that I'm wanting to have a "discussion" about it. Simply mentioning that they made an error.

It would be better if no one else said anything on it, and maybe they won't ban me.

Don't worry. You wont be banned. Moderators here arn't trigger happy and usually arnt out on a power trip.

[Craig Paxton]

I'll even do it twice:

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

This "horse" argument makes my point. The argument that there were actually pre-columbian (and post-pleistocene) horses in the New World isn't an "apologetic" claim. It's just a claim. That discussion can be had between any two people irregardless of their feelings about the Book of Mormon.

So Coe's belief that there weren't horses here isn't a gap in his knowledge about the Book of Mormon or BoM apologetic arguments. It's just a gap in his knowledge about horse fossils in the New World.

That being said, I think it takes a lot of gumption to say that Dr. Michael Coe has a gap in his knowledge about the history of horses in the New World, and I'd make sure I could really back up the claim before I made it.

Could you post it a third time? Cuz, I read the entire article and still can't find anything in the article that shows there were horses in America during th BoM timeline...other than that they found horse bones, knew they were horse bones and then threw them away because they knew there were no horse bones...REALLY????

[cinepro]

Could you post it a third time? Cuz, I read the entire article and still can't find anything in the article that shows there were horses in America during th BoM timeline...other than that they found horse bones, knew they were horse bones and then threw them away because they knew there were no horse bones...REALLY????

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

[Ares]

Be patient..... Only just posted it. Will likely still get banned from the thread. Even though I really shouldn't.

Not that I'm wanting to have a "discussion" about it. Simply mentioning that they made an error.

It would be better if no one else said anything on it, and maybe they won't ban me.

No banning today. We are just working in the background to put a pox on your firstborn and a few other curses. Tell us when you start to notice the limp.

Seriously- question facts but not the persons integrity. Be careful how you state this and all will be well.

[cdowis]

Can you be more specific. I don't see what he said in the statement above that make its clear that he is abysmally ignorant of what the BOM says?

Is it his reference to the compass? Domestic animals, crops, metallurgy?

He compared the BOM to the Egyptian exodus in the sense that they are both migration stories. Why does that comparison bother you?

Here is what bothers me.

First he tells us the source of his knowledge of all things Mormon, including, I suppose the BOM. From his comments it is clear that he has not bothered to include reading the BOM itself, but depended on nonLDS (antimormon) sources. The mention of the compass is indicative of those sources.

I note that the list of things in the BOM also obviously come from those sources, because he makes no mention of those evidences of BOM culture that one can find in mesoamerica, such as...... I have made that list many times.

He clearly has not read the BOM, his knowledge is out-dated, and comes from nonLDS sources, which are questionable at best (again, the "compass"). His comments display an ignorance of the book itself, and recent research.

As I have said, he is not shy about discussing the book for which he is ignorant, including an interview on PBS on the Mormons. He pretends expertise where he has none.

Now, are you prepared to defend him. I will be happy to hear what YOU have to say about this man.

[Eldwynn]

I'll even do it twice:

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

This "horse" argument makes my point. The argument that there were actually pre-columbian (and post-pleistocene) horses in the New World isn't an "apologetic" claim. It's just a claim. That discussion can be had between any two people irregardless of their feelings about the Book of Mormon.

So Coe's belief that there weren't horses here isn't a gap in his knowledge about the Book of Mormon or BoM apologetic arguments. It's just a gap in his knowledge about horse fossils in the New World.

That being said, I think it takes a lot of gumption to say that Dr. Michael Coe has a gap in his knowledge about the history of horses in the New World, and I'd make sure I could really back up the claim before I made it.

"Recently, however, FARMS began a project to date the horse remains that were discovered at digs that date to pre-Columbian times. Acquiring the remains was an extensive job in itself. Some of the reported remains had disappeared, and some of the owners of the remains didn't want FARMS taking them for dating purposes. Of the remains that FARMS was able to acquire it appears that at least two date to pre-Columbian times. The work is not yet complete, and when I spoke to Dr. Wade Miller--the scientist in charge of the project--he indicated that more work was yet to be done before they had conclusive results. Nevertheless, the prospects look promising."

Maybe you should wait until there is actual peer reviewed work out first. The article does not offer any sort of evidence that horses existed in BOM geography at the time. Glad to see FARMS is still using the "A horse isn't really a horse" argument. Well in that case, maybe when the Nephites wrote "Jesus" they really meant "Santa".

[Daniel Peterson]

Maybe you should wait until there is actual peer reviewed work out first. The article does not offer any sort of evidence that horses existed in BOM geography at the time. Glad to see FARMS is still using the "A horse isn't really a horse" argument. Well in that case, maybe when the Nephites wrote "Jesus" they really meant "Santa".

In my experience -- I haven't yet encountered an exception to the rule -- those who cackle the loudest about the suggestion that Nephites might have called tapirs "horses" have been those who failed to fully grasp the point, which is actually pretty sophisticated and quite justifiable in terms of historical linguistics and anthropology.

In any event, FARMS (more properly now, the Maxwell Institute) doesn't officially hold to that idea. There is no official party line on the matter, nor on most other matters of detail. Everybody I know at the Institute who thinks about the subject regards a horse-tapir terminological overlap as a possibility, but also believes that it's possible that Equus equus actually survived into Nephite times (and possibly beyond).

[Daniel Peterson]

Weird. Double post.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Chris Smith]

mormonmesoramerica.com does a nice job of showing why many of the purported pre-Columbian horse bone finds are not actually what they're purported to be. Here's what BYU anthropology professor Ray Matheny had to say about the use of such individual finds to support the BoM:

"[P. 26] People have continually dragged up esoteric examples of many of these things. I don’t know how to evaluate these. Sorenson has found a reference from Lanai where a sheep’s wool has been found in an archaeological context in the Valley of Mexico. Also, metal-tipped, iron-tipped weapons used by the Aztecs when the Spaniards were invading is another thing. I really don’t know how to understand these esoteric finds that are made. They are not in a context that is understandable to me. We find esoteric things all over the world in an archaeological context, but we don’t understand what they mean. They are just oddities that appear. The things that we understand are fit into a system. … And so the archaeologist has neglected a lot of these little things. Many Mormon scholars have tried to put these esoteric things together and thread together a story that would support the Book of Mormon. In general, the archaeologist does not do this.

...

"[p. 33] I have felt that Mormons, in particular, have been grasping at straws for a very long time trying to thread together all of these little esoteric finds, out of context, and really don’t have much meaning when they’re isolated. But I like to work from the scientific base, because science base is the thing that I understand."

Panel with John Carlson, Ray T. Matheny, and Bruce Warren, “Book of Mormon Archaeology,” Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 25, 1984, transcript in the Americana Collection, University Archives; L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Fly Fisherman]

Glad to see FARMS is still using the "A horse isn't really a horse" argument. Well in that case, maybe when the Nephites wrote "Jesus" they really meant "Santa".

I know little about this subject myself, but while reading the FAIR article, I noticed the following:

"Non-LDS archaeologist, Michael Coe, in his book Breaking the Maya Code, claims that in the Mayan Yucatec language the term "tzimin" would classify either a "horse" or a "tapir."30 Tzimin originally meant "tapir" but was expanded to include the "horse" when the Yucatec speaking natives discovered a need to label the horse. Once again we could ask how the Book of Mormon can be rejected for suggesting the Nephites had done the exact thing we find in the history of Yucatec-speaking Mayans."

[Craig Paxton]

I can't recall there ever being a claim of the wine in the Book of Mormon being made from grapes.

Don't make claims about the book that the book doesn't make.

...On second thought...I take back my consession on this point. Seems to me that church apologist want it both ways...when wine is pointed out as not being possible due to the lack of grapes in the new world, then the argument becomes..."Don't make claims about the book that the book doesn't make" meaning don't read something into the book that is not there in print, yet when something in print is in the book that doesn't set with reality (horses, chariotts, cow's, pig's, wheat) then any nuanced approuch to the reading of the book tht can help make sense of the book is not only acceptable but necessary.

So which way is it? Nuanced or literal? Pick one.

[Kevin Christensen]

Something relevant for Craig's recurrent difficulty with the implications of cultural context from my essay in FR 16/1.

But can we honestly say that the kinds of adjustments that apologists like Sorenson make have general implications? Yes. The Book of Mormon emphasizes that we can understand the writings of the Jews as they understand them only if we learn their culture (see 2 Nephi 25:1—5). By implication, the same is true of the Mesoamerican context.

Is it possible to tie the meaning of words, particularly translated words, to a single cultural background? Frankly, no. When I went to England in 1973, I quickly learned that while many things are what they appear to be, the words for those things were sometimes not what I first thought. The roads looked the same, but I had to look a different direction when crossing them. Cars were much smaller and not only had the steering wheel on the opposite side but had boots and bonnets instead of trunks and hoods. There were no trucks, but there were lorries, no elevators but lifts. There were no french fries, but there were chips (which were also similar to fried potatoes). They had something like potato chips, but only if I asked for crisps. There were no cookies; what they called biscuits resembled cookies but were different from what I thought of as biscuits. And what was it to be cheeky? That sticks in my mind because I had to learn the concept of cheeky from within the culture because it could not be translated precisely from their English to mine.

The point is that what Vogel and Metcalfe call "ad hoc," Sorenson and Gardner base on a general principle that cultural contexts can make a difference in meaning.162 Some concepts travel across cultures more easily than others, but cultural context raises issues that apply to all translations across all cultures. Their insistence that a nineteenth-century context suffices, and that an appeal to the "plain meaning" is all that is necessary to understand the text, is itself an ad hoc defense because it cannot be generally applied to critical study of any translation of any purported ancient document or, for that matter, to the study of any culture by any outsider.

In the same way, in explaining the parable of the sower in Mark, Jesus says, "Know ye not his parable? How then will ye know all parables?" Jesus points out that unless you comprehend the notion that the same words can yield a vastly different harvest, depending on the context you place them and the nurture that you give them, you really can't understand what is he is getting at in making any kind of likening.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[BookofMormonLuvr]

...On second thought...I take back my consession on this point. Seems to me that church apologist want it both ways...when wine is pointed out as not being possible due to the lack of grapes in the new world, then the argument becomes..."Don't make claims about the book that the book doesn't make" meaning don't read something into the book that is not there in print, yet when something in print is in the book that doesn't set with reality (horses, chariotts, cow's, pig's, wheat) then any nuanced approuch to the reading of the book tht can help make sense of the book is not only acceptable but necessary.

So which way is it? Nuanced or literal? Pick one.

My only point was- stick to actual arguments of things actually IN the text and don't invent ones. There is no mention of grape culture or grape wine among the Nephites- grapes are only mentioned in prophecies quoted from the Brass Plates (if I remember correctly). I'll let people smarter then me argue with you about the other things you mention (I feel it is a waste my time).

[Craig Paxton]

Something relevant for Craig's recurrent difficulty with the implications of cultural context from my essay in FR 16/1.

In the same way, in explaining the parable of the sower in Mark, Jesus says, "Know ye not his parable? How then will ye know all parables?" Jesus points out that unless you comprehend the notion that the same words can yield a vastly different harvest, depending on the context you place them and the nurture that you give them, you really can't understand what is he is getting at in making any kind of likening.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin...while I apprecaite that you feel I'm having some recurrent difficulty in grasping the concept of cultural contexts...I assure you that I understand the argument quite well. It's a great apologetic solution to an other wise difficult Book of Mormon problem. While I understand the argument, at present I don't buy it.

During Joseph's so-called translation process you're suggesting that he merely inserted words that made sense to him when he encountered a Reformed Egyptian word that he didn't fully comprehend. So when he saw the reformed Egyptian word for Tapir he inserted horse, or saw the Reformed Egyptian character for “alcoholic drink formed by stomping dandelion leaves under your feet” he inserted the English word “wine”. This is a fine translation theory to excuse difficult Book of Mormon word usage problems. All I’m asking is that you find one apologetic tool and stick with it. Do we or don’t we read things into the Book of Mormon? If wine is not wine and a horse is not a horse and a chariot is not a chariot…because as you claim, it was a difference in cultural context…who is to say that “Any word” in the Book of Mormon is a reliable translation from the supposed Reformed Egyptian?

This is a slippery slope. Do you really want to go down this path? Where does it stop? How is it that Joseph got all the translation process correct when it supports your premise but got it wrong when his choice of words does not sync with confirmed reality? Was Christ really Christ, was Zarahemla really Zarahemla? Was Nahom really Nahom? Purhaps each and every words was a cultural contextual error...or maybe....just maybe

Joseph thought that ancient Americans actually had wine, charriotts and horses...and told the story as such.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

My only point was- stick to actual arguments of things actually IN the text and don't invent ones. There is no mention of grape culture or grape wine among the Nephites- grapes are only mentioned in prophecies quoted from the Brass Plates (if I remember correctly). I'll let people smarter then me argue with you about the other things you mention (I feel it is a waste my time).

So if I understand you correctly I should stick to things actually IN the text and don't invent ones NOT in the text...like thinking that a horse when in the text of the Book of Mormon might actually have been referring to an actual horse rather than "inventing" some explanation that is NOT in the text, like suggesting that a horse really wasn't a horse but a tapir once I realize that there were no horses in pre-columbian America?

Gee we're in complete agreement.

[Scott Lloyd]

All I’m asking is that you find one apologetic tool and stick with it.

I"ve not been following this thread, but the above statement jumped out at me as reflecting a rather fatuous obliviousness to the fact that the adversarial critic of Mormonism has a far greater burden than a defender. That is, the implicit task he has set for himself is to definitively rule out the validity of Mormonism. All the defender need due is establish plausibility, and that can be done with one "apologetic tool" or another.

If the question is thus left open, the sincere seeker may then go to God in prayer and request a manifestation by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin...while I apprecaite that you feel I'm having some recurrent difficulty in grasping the concept of cultural contexts...I assure you that I understand the argument quite well. It's a great apologetic solution to an other wise difficult Book of Mormon problem. While I understand the argument, at present I don't buy it.

During Joseph's so-called translation process you're suggesting that he merely inserted words that made sense to him when he encountered a Reformed Egyptian word that he didn't fully comprehend. So when he saw the reformed Egyptian word for Tapir he inserted horse, or saw the Reformed Egyptian character for “alcoholic drink formed by stomping dandelion leaves under your feet” he inserted the English word “wine”. This is a fine translation theory to excuse difficult Book of Mormon word usage problems. All I’m asking is that you find one apologetic tool and stick with it. Do we or don’t we read things into the Book of Mormon? If wine is not wine and a horse is not a horse and a chariot is not a chariot…because as you claim, it was a difference in cultural context…who is to say that “Any word” in the Book of Mormon is a reliable translation from the supposed Reformed Egyptian?

This is a slippery slope. Do you really want to go down this path? Where does it stop? How is it that Joseph got all the translation process correct when it supports your premise but got it wrong when his choice of words does not sync with confirmed reality? Was Christ really Christ, was Zarahemla really Zarahemla? Was Nahom really Nahom? Purhaps each and every words was a cultural contextual error...or maybe....just maybe

Joseph thought that ancient Americans actually had wine, charriotts and horses...and told the story as such.

Actually, despite your argument that you do understand the problem of translation and cultural context, you demonstrate that you still don't understand the situation. Your assumptions show in the way that you try to describe the argument, that there is an reformed Egyptian word for Tapir, and Joseph inserted horse. The problem not that one-dimensional. It is multi-dimensional. There is the original culture and the translator culture, and then your interpretation. There are the characters on the plates, and what is behind that, and then there is the translation. We don't know whether the characters on the plates described a tapir, or whether the word had an ambiguous history like the term "cattle" which was just shown in its root meaning to refer to "property." What were Ammon's flocks? When Arnold Frieberg paints Ammon with a glistening steel sword, and surrounded by wooly sheep, you have to realize that much of what he imagines comes from his cultural assumptions about what words like "sword" and "flock" mean.

You can only argue "If wine is not wine and a horse is not a horse and a chariot is not a chariot…" because you still don't understand the that relationship between symbols and the things signified is not an absolute constant like Einstein's speed of light, the same for all observers throughout all time. Word meaning is culturally conditioned and dependent on context. You've seen horse and chariots in Ben Hur. What more is necessary? The realization that Joseph Smith wasn't translating Ben Hur, but the Book of Mormon. And the horses and chariots in the Book of Mormon never do many of the things the horses and chariots in Ben Hur do, and there may be reasons for that. Search for Book of Mormon descriptions of bridles and saddles, or hooves, and horse shoes, and neighing, manes and tails, of pulling plows or riding bareback, or anything that horses commonly did in Joseph Smith's experience. If those kinds of things existed in the text, they would function to constrain the meaning, but they don't exist, and therefore, those kinds of contextualizing constraints don't exist, so we must contextualize elsewhere. In a hundred distinct Book of Mormon wars, chariots never make an appearance in any battle. They only appear briefly as ceremonial transport. The Hebrew word simply means "riding thing." So that constraint on meaning does not exist in the Book of Mormon text. Wheels are possible, but not necessary. All Sorenson and Gardner are doing is pointing out for certain terms, we have fewer constraints and more possibilities than you are willing to recognize. And Sorenson and Gardner do not exclude the possibility that the few references to horses do in fact refer to what we think of as horses. They are just recognizing possibilities that are inherent in any translation across cultures and the fact that we don't necessarily know for certain based on the presence of just the word in a very few places, with fewer details than critical certainty requires.

Try looking closely at how the word "language" is used in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes it refers to the cultural dialect, whether Hebrew or Egyptian, or their altered dialects, but sometimes it refers to the kind of things people are talking about, the topics of discussion, what is literally on their tongues. If you think the word always means the same thing, you are only demonstrating that you have not read closely. You have concerns about a 'slippery slope' of unconstrained meaning but also ought to recognize your use of the slippery slope logical fallacy. Proper contextualizing functions to constrain meaning. We learn to stand where people stood, and think how they thought, in order to try to see what they saw. We have to be willing to be surprised now and then in order to learn anything new. Take the darkness of skins in the Book of Mormon. If you actually read, you might notice that in some cultures skins can be garments, ritually important garments often are, and in fact, there are Book of Mormon passages that describe filthy garments in the same contexts in which other passages describe cultural filthiness. Nibley and Tvedtnes discuss the use of the "skin of blackness" imagery in Egyptian and Hebrew culture, which casts light on Book of Mormon uses. Coe does not provide readings that include this kind of close observation when making his charges of racism.

That is the whole point of 2 Nephi 25:1-5 discoursing that no one understands the things of the Jews unless they are taught after their manner. The same applies to the Mesoamerican cultures, and Arabian cultures and Asian cultures that touch the Book of Mormon. And the translator's culture. Words shift in their meaning over time, as in other ways. Try reading Beowolf in the original. Olde English is not our English. An 1828 Dictionary sometimes delivers surprises relative to modern expectations. Word meaning and usage is not static, but does slip around over time. Unless we know what difference culture and context makes, we won't know whether and how it makes a difference.

N.R. Hansen famous observed that "all data are theory-laden." I'm fond of this quote" "To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That is why mouse traps work." That is, the mouse always approaches cheese under the unexamined theory that cheese always means life. It is blind to the significance of context.

Ben McGuire has occasionally pointed out the situation in Marco Polo's accounts of seeing a unicorn, when the context of the report suggests it was a rhinoceros. A translator of Marco Polo's report might "correct" the word to suit us, but doing so also removes from the translation the sense that Marco Polo was using the best word he had available to describe something he had never seen before. So removing that from the translation also removes important detail that Marco Polo was applying an old word to something unfamiliar.

You ask where does it stop? If and when we can contextualize properly, word meaning tends to become more clear and stable. Though sometimes ambiguity is part of the meaning, so multiple meanings should be recognized.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 22, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

My only point was- stick to actual arguments of things actually IN the text and don't invent ones. There is no mention of grape culture or grape wine among the Nephites- grapes are only mentioned in prophecies quoted from the Brass Plates (if I remember correctly). I'll let people smarter then me argue with you about the other things you mention (I feel it is a waste my time).

Mosiah 11:15, referring to King Noah:

[15] And it came to pass that he planted vineyards round about in the land; and he built wine-presses, and made wine in abundance; and therefore he became a wine-bibber, and also his people.

You can see the other references here.

Edited August 22, 2011 by cinepro

[Doug the Hutt]

I"ve not been following this thread, but the above statement jumped out at me as reflecting a rather fatuous obliviousness to the fact that the adversarial critic of Mormonism has a far greater burden than a defender. That is, the implicit task he has set for himself is to definitively rule out the validity of Mormonism. All the defender need due is establish plausibility, and that can be done with one "apologetic tool" or another.

If the question is thus left open, the sincere seeker may then go to God in prayer and request a manifestation by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Hi Scott,

On burdens of defender/critic...

I respectfully disagree with the statement that the critic has a greater burden of proof than the defender. The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making affirmative claims. Joseph Smith, and by extention Mormonism(s), is making the affirmative statement that Joseph is God's prophet, that He restored His Church through Joseph, that the LDS Church (not one of its many diminuative branches) is the only true and living church, that all other churches are all abominations and corrupt, that there once lived millions of Jaredites/Nephites/Lamanites with their varying weapons, animals, foods, traditions, governments, wars, writing systems, etc. It is incorrect to begin with the assumption that Mormonism is the defendant and innocent of all charges and that the prosecution has to prove those those things never existed or happened while all the defense has to do is invent plausibilities (how do you prove that none of the events or people in the BOM ever happened or existed?). Insisting that critics (or even 'adversarial critics') of Mormonism have a 'fatuous obliviousness to the FACT' of a greater burden than a defender is nothing more than shifting the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

http://www.fallacies.info/burdenofproof.html

On plausibilities...

Plausibility isn't enough, at least in my mind. How often have we heard of plausible excuses only to find out that they were a deterrent from the truth? We should avoid placing too much hope in "plausibilities" (of course, if that's all that's available then there will be great gnashing of teeth upon hearing my suggestion to avoid them). I'm very suspicous of any defense designed around plausibilities and usually take them with a grain of salt. I'm influenced by the side with the most physical evidence first, then circumstantial evidence and motive, etc. It's not enough to create excuses for specific purposes where the model changes depending on the circumstances (see Cr@ig's posts). What's worse is when almost every falsifiable argument is met with yet another excuse for why we don't find direct evidence validating the reality of the Book of Mormon *stuff* in ancient America.

plau·si·ble (plôz-bl)adj.1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking: "Ambitious, unscrupulous, energetic, ... and plausible,a political gladiator, ready for a 'set-to' in any crowd" (Frederick Douglass).[Latin plausibilis, deserving applause, from plausus, past participle of plaudere, to applaud.]plausi·bili·ty, plausi·ble·ness n.plausi·bly adv.Synonyms: plausible, believable, colorable, credible

These adjectives mean appearing to merit belief or acceptance: a plausible pretext; a believable excuse; a colorable explanation; a credible assertion.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plausibility

On God manifesting truth by the Holy Ghost...

Your second point of taking the problem to God and having the Holy Ghost manifest the truth to you -- essentially the process outlined in Moroni 10:3-5 -- is part of the epistemology in question. Employing that process is circular reasoning because the conclusion depends on the legitimacy of the process being questioned which depends on the affirmative answer reached in the conclusion.

Circular reasoning: Reasoning that requires us to assume something is true in order to provide evidence that it’s true. See begging the question.

Begging the question: An argument that uses a premise to prove a conclusion when the premise already implies that the conclusion is true. See circular reasoning.

http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/philosophy-dictionary-glossary/

[LeSellers]

Actually, despite your argument that you do understand the problem of translation and cultural context, you demonstrate that you still don't understand the situation. Your assumptions show in the way that you try to describe the argument, that there is an reformed Egyptian word for Tapir, and Joseph inserted horse. The problem not that one-dimensional.

As a professional linguistic nit-picker (who makes more than my allotted number of mistakes), I'd like to clarify this a bit.

As I read the Book of Mormon, there were no "reformed Egyptian words" on the Book of Mormon plates. What there were, were "altered Hebrew" words, written in "reformed Egyptian characters". Sort of like Beowulf translated from a modern English version into Siamese. Beowulf was originally written in runes, and in a very old form of English. The modern version is both "altered English" (from the Beowulfian perspective), and written in "reformed Phonecian" characters. The Thai translator moves it into yet another language and alphabet.

Talk about juggling chainsaws.

Lehi

Edited August 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Mosiah 11:15, referring to King Noah:

You can see the other references here.

grapes?

Perhaps, it was some indigenous plant used for wine that they planted in their "vineyards"?

Edited August 22, 2011 by BookofMormonLuvr