blackstrap Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) The dog is probably the most wide spread animal around the world as associated with man. They are used to hunt,guard home and flocks,as pets, and for food. In Mesoamerica they were mostly used as food but also as guard dogs and spiritual guide to the after life. All kinds of animals are noted in the BoM. I wonder where the dogs are. Mind you,a jaguar would make a swift meal of a dog.What about cats then? Edited August 21, 2011 by blackstrap
William James Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 The dog is probably the most wide spread animal around the world as associated with man. They are used to hunt,guard home and flocks,as pets, and for food. In Mesoamerica they were mostly used as food but also as guard dogs and spiritual guide to the after life. All kinds of animals are noted in the BoM. I wonder where the dogs are. Mind you,a jaguar would make a swift meal of a dog.What about cats then?Of course, the simplest explanation would be that Joseph Smith simply didn't think of it. But for many years now, I have left open the possibility that the Book of Mormon contains (but does not exclusively consist of) authentic revelations from God, though it may be something less of a perfectly historical document. It still has allegorical value and should not be automatically tossed out just because its historicity is highly doubtful.But continuing along the lines of our speculation (and yes, I feel like all of us are speculating when we try to reconstruct the past), I suppose that the length of the book is still short enough that a great deal of common things would be left out, including dogs.
thesometimesaint Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 blackstrap:My understanding is that cats don't taste all that good to humans. Most carnivors don't.
Connolly Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 Until we know what a curelom or cumen is how can we say dogs were left out?
LeSellers Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) The dog is probably the most wide spread animal around the world as associated with man. They are used to hunt,guard home and flocks,as pets, and for food. In Mesoamerica they were mostly used as food but also as guard dogs and spiritual guide to the after life. All kinds of animals are noted in the BoM. I wonder where the dogs are. The Nephites were Jewish. Who left dogs out of the Bible? The Littlest Angel notwithstanding, Jews did not keep dogs, and found them abhorrent. The Nephites would not have had them, either.Lehi Edited August 21, 2011 by LeSellers 2
Rivers Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Nobody left the dogs out. Alma 16:10 10 But behold, in one day it was left desolate; and the carcasses were mangled by dogs and wild beasts of the wilderness. 3 Nephi 14:6 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 3 Nephi 7:8 8 And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire. Helaman 7:19 19 And behold, instead of gathering you, except ye will repent, behold, he shall scatter you forth that ye shall become meat for dogs and wild beasts. Mosiah 12:2 2 Yea, wo be unto this generation! And the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thy hand and prophesy, saying: Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh. Edited August 21, 2011 by Rivers 2
blackstrap Posted August 21, 2011 Author Posted August 21, 2011 Thank you Rivers,I stand corrected. It seems the dog was around but more in the sense of feral dogs not so much domesticated and used for herding etc.
William James Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 Nobody left the dogs out. Alma 16:10 10 But behold, in one day it was left desolate; and the carcasses were mangled by dogs and wild beasts of the wilderness. 3 Nephi 14:6 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 3 Nephi 7:8 8 And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire. Helaman 7:19 19 And behold, instead of gathering you, except ye will repent, behold, he shall scatter you forth that ye shall become meat for dogs and wild beasts. Mosiah 12:2 2 Yea, wo be unto this generation! And the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thy hand and prophesy, saying: Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.Thanks, Rivers, for the references! I stand corrected as well, and should not have been so quick to jump to conclusions. Though dogs are referenced usually in the context of proverbs/metaphors, you have shown there is one specific reference to existing dogs which mangled carcasses. I appreciate the correction.
Duncan Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 The Nephites were Jewish. Who left dogs out of the Bible? The Littlest Angel notwithstanding, Jews did not keep dogs, and found them abhorrent. The Nephites would not have had them, either.LehiI must be Jewish because I despise dogs!!!!! I got bit twice on my mission by those blasted aminals!
blackstrap Posted August 21, 2011 Author Posted August 21, 2011 I've had Dobermans and Bouviers both known for their ability to do damage,All my kids loved them and they are extremely tolerant of children. Now I have Shiztsus. Keep the kids away.Biting is a function of fear ( and aggression) .The breed near the top of the biting list? Cocker Spaniels.As for cats,SS is correct in that they are not good eating,but they make decent pets( note to Arnold Freiberg-jaguars/cheetas excluded) .Also ,with the reverence that the Egyptians had for cats there may have been some carryover.
LeSellers Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 I must be Jewish because I despise dogs!!!!! I got bit twice on my mission by those blasted aminals!You might be Arab. They abhor them, as well. Lehi
Duncan Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 You might be Arab. They abhor them, as well. Lehias Barney Rubble once said, "Could be, Could be!"
Garden Girl Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Thank you Rivers,I stand corrected. It seems the dog was around but more in the sense of feral dogs not so much domesticated and used for herding etc.I too noticed that the scriptures cited usually placed dogs with "wild beasts" so it would seem that blackstrap's observation is in line with the probable place of dogs at that time.from the beach where it is now starting to get dark earlier and earlier... sigh...GG
KevinG Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 This thread is a great if not flattering microcosm of a typical critic/apologist dynamic. Critic throws out misinformed question. Apologist jumps on explaination of misinformation while accepting the false premise. Third party comes in and says "uh guys..."Truly God makes the wise foolish! *note: I do not excuse myself from suffering from foolishness.
Stargazer Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 I must be Jewish because I despise dogs!!!!! I got bit twice on my mission by those blasted aminals!I got attacked by a goose -- though not on my mission. Funny, they taste just like chicken. Sort of. Or maybe turkey. Mmmmm. Please pass the cranberry sauce! 1
ERayR Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) For the dog haters. If Nephi had owned a German Shepard or a Russian Wolf Hound his big brothers would not have dared lay a hand on him. Edited August 22, 2011 by ERayR
Bernard Gui Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. ...Groucho Marx 2
KevinG Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 For the dog haters. If Nephi had owned a German Shepard or a Russian Wolf Hound his big brothers would not have dared lay a hand on him.The genetic legacy of dogs in the Americas indicate chihuahua was a more likely candidate. That explains a lot.
wenglund Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 I don't recall hotdogs being mentioned in the BoM. I can't imagine why Joseph didn't include this wildly popular food in his story, along with countless other popular items (motza balls, combs, forks, fishing line, turtles, robins, moccasins, flute, kiln, cycle, tambourine, smoke signals, latrines, etc. etc.). Shame on him for not including everything and the kitchen sink so as to allay any reason to doubt the stories authenticity. I mean don't all legitimate histories mention dogs? LOLThanka, -Wade Englund-
Stargazer Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 The genetic legacy of dogs in the Americas indicate chihuahua was a more likely candidate. That explains a lot.Yes it does.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 So I guess the final answer is...No one one one one.
blackstrap Posted August 22, 2011 Author Posted August 22, 2011 Pre Columbian pottery shows very plump dogs,apparently fattened for food.They seem to be similar to the Mexican hairless dog which can grow to 60 lbs. I rather doubt a bunch of chihuahuas would be rending carcasses but a bunch of 60 lbers certainly could .
Gervin Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 It's amazing that Matthew and Peter, without the benefit of altered Hebrew or reformed Egyptian, would have made verbatim observations about dogs in Israel, hundred of years after the Book of Mormon.3 Nephi 14:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.Matthew 7:6 KJVGive not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you What a coincidence!3 Nephi 7:8: And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire. 2 Peter 2:22 KJVBut it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. What a coincidence!Helaman 7:19: And behold, instead of gathering you, except ye will repent, behold, he shall scatter you forth that ye shall become meat for dogs and wild beasts.Mosiah 12:2: Yea, wo be unto this generation! And the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thy hand and prophesy, saying: Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.1 Samuel 17:46 KJVThis day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcasses of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. Coincidental language (but forgot the dogs).Alma 16:10: But behold, in one day it was left desolate; and the carcasses were mangled by dogs and wild beasts of the wilderness.I recall from some of the Spalding discussions that the Book of Alma always seemed to track very closely to Spalding-ish words (just a coincidence, for sure). The word "mangled" isn't in the Bible so I tried a search of Spalding to see if that word appeared in his writing, perhaps alongside a reference to a dog. "Tell your master that a great Company of Wolves made an attack upon a City to rob the citizens of their deer and elk, & they let forth their dogs upon them, which attacked them with such fury, & courage that they fled mangled & torn, to a most dreary swamp" Yeah, just another doggone coincidence.
LeSellers Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 It's amazing that Matthew and Peter, without the benefit of altered Hebrew or reformed Egyptian, would have made verbatim observations about dogs in Israel, hundred of years after the Book of Mormon.Do you actually know anything about the Book of Mormon? Your rant here demonstrates total ignorance of the "story line". There were three sources for all the verbal ties between the Bible and the Book of Mormon:The Brass Plates (of Laban) that included everything in the Bible up to c. 600 BC (and a lot more)The Visit of Jesus Christ to the remnant of the Nephites in ad 33, where He gave several quotations from both Old and New Testaments that were recorded after the Brass PlatesDirect inspiration and revelation from God on the similar topics in prophets' minds on both continents.Your question answers itself with a single, even casual reading of the book you so blithely attack.Lehi
Recommended Posts