Horses are Tapirs

[John Hamer]

Hi Beastie ---

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my speculations. I agree with your arguments which suggest that my proposals are extraordinarily unlikely.

You point out, "All the original landing party, with the exception of young children, came from a culture that DID fully utilize the horse. So why would they suddenly insist in using the horse as nothing more than a royal ornament, that once in a while pulls a 'chariot'?"

My answer --- the whole "culture" derived from two families who were in an alien environment. As a result, it is likely that individual personalities would have an extraordinary impact in founding new traditions. When you are doing something new, the actions of the founder can be particularly powerful --- look at George Washington and the traditions he established for the presidency. So, perhaps Nephi had particular ideas about horses. Maybe when he found the horses in the woods, he developed an emotional affection for one of the horses and set a pattern which was imitated by his successors. Maybe his actions and those of his successors were irrational and impractical but became bounded strictly by tradition. Tradition is a powerful force --- even if it causes a people to act against its self-interest.

But the point is --- your disagreements and my answers could go on and on. You're calling this an "unfalsifiable argument" on my part. I don't disagree, but I don't agree that it's a problem.

* * *

Prior to his retraction, Yaanufs (sarcastically) suggested that the point of this thread is that "mental gymnastics" can enable a person to "justify anything".

Rather, I'd suggest that the point of this thread is that there are two standards that people are considering: (1) Proving something true or proving something false, and (2) suggesting that something might be possible and arguing that something is extremely unlikely. I think both sides get into trouble where they try to do either thing in (1) and are on much safer ground when they stick to either course in (2).

When faithful supporters of the Book of Mormon overreach and argue that they've proved it to be true, then they have opened a line of argument that you can test and disprove. When they are merely opening a line of speculation about something they think may have been possible (albeit unlikely) then I'd suggest that it doesn't matter if their argument is "unfalsifiable." They aren't making an argument or presenting a proof --- they are just suggesting an intellectual construct that might act as a buttress to their existing, faith-based beliefs.

At the same time, while it is comparatively easy to argue that a line of speculation is unlikely, it's rather hard to prove that it could not possibly have happened under any circumstances.

In other words, elsewhere where fans of apologists are arguing --- quite without any standing --- that the Nahom coincidence proves the Book of Mormon true, they are wildly overreaching. However, I don't think anyone here is arguing that alternate animal theories prove the Book of Mormon true. As such, it doesn't matter that the theories are unlikely or even extraordinarily unlikely, it is necessary to show that they are impossible. I don't know that you can show they are impossible, any more than you can totally disprove my limited-use horse theory.

[beastie]

Great post, John. The problem is that whenever I have pointed out that current BoM methodology renders the text unfalsfiable, the apologists heatedly disagree. They insist that they are treating the text like any other ancient text being probed to determine dating.

[juliann]

When faithful supporters of the Book of Mormon overreach and argue that they've proved it to be true, then they have opened a line of argument that you can test and disprove. When they are merely opening a line of speculation about something they think may have been possible (albeit unlikely) then I'd suggest that it doesn't matter if their argument is "unfalsifiable." They aren't making an argument or presenting a proof --- they are just suggesting an intellectual construct that might act as a buttress to their existing, faith-based beliefs.

You will have an extremely difficult time finding an "apologist" in here who is trying to prove "truth". In fact, you cannot. You will find apologists insisting that the BOM is "false", however. What you see here is LDS using standard, ordinary everyday scholarship. The problem comes when nonbelieving apologists have no familiarity with it. No one would ever think that biblical scholars are buttressing their "faith". In fact, it would be extremely embarrassing to anyone making that claim.

[juliann]

The problem is that whenever I have pointed out that current BoM methodology renders the text unfalsfiable, the apologists heatedly disagree. They insist that they are treating the text like any other ancient text being probed to determine dating.

You are an apologist of the first order. Where do you get this wacky idea that only one side of a debate is an "apologist"? You have been asked and asked and asked and asked by scholars to present ancient examples to buttress your belief system with something beyond how you think things work. That is what scholarship does. It is not exactly coincidental that you are being asked for it.

[John Hamer]

You will have an extremely difficult time finding an "apologist" in here who is trying to prove "truth".

[cdowis]

John Hamer makes a bold statement:

>there is no doubt that current **scholarship** is agreed that the bulk of the evidence points to a 19th century origin.

(emphasis added)

Again, having participated in discussions for almost two decades in this area, I would very much appreciate seeing your citations. I am one individual who does have a doubt that *scholars* have made any formal study of the BOM at all.

I would appreciate your citations of those studies. Please remove my doubts.

PS I assume that you may find it necessary to create a new thread with your abundance of scholarly references.

[John Hamer]

cdowis ---

Perhaps my statement was bold, but I think it's generally accurate. Do you have scores of references to contemporary scholars who are non-believers in the Book of Mormon's religious claims, but who are proponents of either the Book of Mormon's antiquity or historicity?

I don't know that there are any studies that are detailed enough to satisfy your (sarcastic) requirements, but there hardly needs to be any. Scholars don't need to be in the business of debunking people's religious beliefs. If a person has faith that there was a universal flood from which real historic figures (Noah and his family) were saved in an ark, and if that person wants that belief to be generally accepted by scholars today, it is up to that person to produce the study and evidence that backs up that belief. It is not necessary for the rest of the scholarly community to prove that the idea of a universal flood is impossible for it to not be generally accepted as history.

Likewise, it isn't necessary for scholars who don't believe in the Book of Mormon's antiquity or historicity to prove that either is impossible for there to be general acceptance among historians and archaeologists who focus on the Pre-Columbian Americas that the Book of Mormon's narratives are not a part of the region's history. Rather, it's necessary for a believer who wants to fit the Book of Mormon into generally accepted history to prove that the text is ancient and describes the history of identifiable peoples.

In the context of this thread, that is not what the professional believing scholars are attempting. In my reading of Dr. Sorenson's book, I feel that he does not attempt to "prove" the Book of Mormon's antiquity and historicity. Rather, he is creating intellectual constructs which he speculates are possible ways the Book of Mormon narrative can be in harmony with Pre-Columbian history and archaeology as it is generally accepted by scholars. As such, I think Sorenson's approach is a good tactic and a legitimate tactic.

I would imagine that Sorenson and other believing professional scholars would concede that neither the antiquity nor the historicity of Book of Mormon has been demonstrated and accepted by the general scholarly community. Until such a time as either or both are demonstrated and accepted, therefore --- (to reiterate my bold statement) --- the state of general scholarship currently places the book in a 19th century context, rather than an ancient one. That doesn't mean that believing scholars can't believe that the book is ancient and records actual history and it doesn't mean that such a belief would be wrong --- it means only that such a belief has not been demonstrated and accepted by general scholarship.

In the end, among most of the believers in the Book of Mormon that I have known, there has been a general view that faith in God and in the gospel --- including the Book of Mormon's testament --- is the most important thing and that intellectual constructs about how this or that fits together are significantly less important. I respect that view and that faith, even if I don't share that faith.

[Scottie]

Regarding art objects of horses, I asked the question how many art objects have been found prior to 50 BC when the last mention was made of horses.

>I don't know the count. Does it matter? Why do I need to give this information before you will answer my question? How is it relevant?

Sigh.  No insult intended, but it appears that logic is not your strong suit.

If no art objects are in existence, then that itself would explain why there are no art objects showing horses. 

If there are only a few objects extant, the sample size would be too small to be meaningful. 

You really ought to pause and think before hitting the send key. 

HAH!! You question MY logic?!?!

I ask if any animal bones in mesoamerica have been preserved and you come with some stupid comment about bison in North America?!?! Now THERE is some sound "logic"...Take a good long look in the mirror, buddy.

As to your point of asking how many artifacts have been found between 600bc and 50ad. I don't know. I know there have been some found. I know that many of the decorations adorning the ancient temples are cats. Why not horses?

The fact of the matter is that horses are majestic animals in nearly every other civilization in the world. I think it VERY unlikely that ancient Americans didn't understand their worth and used them only as a food source and to pull chariots. Show me one civilization where the horse was known and not revered. Thus making the horse a main factor in the artwork of the civilization.

[beastie]

As I did on the pagan thread, I'm going to address this in bits and pieces to catch up.

First, the zebra issue. The error I made was in mixing one detail between why deer and zebra are not good candidates for domestication. I usually refer back to a source before citing from it, if at all possible, so I was frustrated by not having my Diamond book and having to go by memory. It is the deer that is not a herd animal was well as being skittish, and hence, cannot transfer to a human being as the dominant member of the herd. The zebra, while being a herd animal, is naturally skittish and does not breed in captivity.

However, the main point I was trying to make remains intact

[cdowis]

>Do you have scores of references to contemporary scholars who are non-believers in the Book of Mormon's religious claims, but who are proponents of either the Book of Mormon's antiquity or historicity?

I share the same opinion with Nibley who said that the scholastic community almost universally ignores the Book of Mormon. A book delivered by an angel to a farmboy in upstate NY?! They put it in the same category as aliens from Mars.

In most part, they simply reject it out of hand.

>there to be general acceptance among historians and archaeologists who focus on the Pre-Columbian Americas that the Book of Mormon's narratives are not a part of the region's history.

I would suggest that they have not even read the text of the book. They are unfamiliar with the contents of that book -- a book delivered by an angel.

"Scholarship" is not the same thing as "scholars". Scholarship implies a detailed and objective study of a particular issue. What scholars may or may not think is irrevelant until they do the necessary detailed research to come to an *informed* opinion.

+++++++++++

I have posted this elsewhere.

This falls under the FWIW department:

In a letter addressed to Grant S. Heward of Midvale, Utah, an outspoken

critic of the book of Abraham, William Foxwell Albright, the doyen of

American ancient Near Eastern studies, wrote: "There does appear to be

evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he

undoubtedly spent a great deal of money and effort in trying to master

Egyptian, but, as you know, when the Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had

just begun to be deciphered and it is all the more surprising that there are

two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of

Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language as being

"Reformed Egyptian."" Albright is mistaken about Joseph Smith having

"studied some Egyptian," for no materials were available to him for such

studies when the Book of Mormon was published; thus the Prophet had to rely

on divine inspiration in translating the Nephite record. But the letter,

dated 25 July 1966, reveals Albright's scholarly opinion that the appearance

of Egyptian in the Book of Mormon is remarkable. Albright's closing paragraph

is also revealing: "I do not for a moment believe that Joseph Smith was

trying to mislead anyone; I accept the point of view of a Jewish friend of

mine at the University of Utah [probably Louis C. Zucker], that he was a

religious genius and that he was quite honest in believing that he really

could decipher these ancient texts. But to insist that he did [mislead] is

really doing a disservice to the cause of a great church and its gifted

founder." The letter was located in the Klaus Baer correspondence file at

the University of Chicago by FARMS researcher Boyd Petersen. Hugh Nibley,

emeritus professor of ancient studies atBYU, was the first to point out the

Egyptian nature of the Book of Mormon names Paanchi and Pahoran. (citation

from FARMS web site)

=============

James H. Charlesworth, the noted specialist on Old World

Pseudepigrapha, wrote an article comparing certain aspects of the BOM with

the pseudepigrapha and came to the following conclusion, "there are many

other important parallels between the pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon

that deserfe careful examination." 3. Krister Stendahl, then dean of

Harvard Divinity School wrote "I have applied standard methods of historical

criticism, redaction criticism, and genre criticism (to the BOM). From such

perspectives it seems very clear that the Book of Mormon belongs to and shows

many of the typical signs of the Targums and the pseudepigraphic recasting of

biblical material...It is obvious to me that the Book of Mormon stands within

both of these traditions if considered as a phenomenon of religious texts."

(Citations #2 and #3 are found in the book "Reflections on Mormonism", the

proceedings of a conference at BYU where several nonLDS scholars were invited

to present papers).

==============

[Jan]

Do you have scores of references to contemporary scholars who are non-believers in the Book of Mormon's religious claims, but who are proponents of either the Book of Mormon's antiquity or historicity?

No one could produce "scores" as there are not scores of non-Mormon scholars that study the Book of Mormon.

There are, however, two Jewich scholars who came to accept the Book of Mormon as an ancient text (of Old World origin), identified by John Tvedtnes as Professor David Flusser and Rabbi Haim Rabin.

Not that it matters. :-)

[Jan]

When faithful supporters of the Book of Mormon overreach and argue that they've proved it to be true, then they have opened a line of argument that you can test and disprove.

[juliann]

I ask if any animal bones in mesoamerica have been preserved and you come with some stupid comment about bison in North America?!?! Now THERE is some sound "logic"...Take a good long look in the mirror, buddy.

If you can't put two and two together on something this basic you need to find another thread where you can contribute.

[juliann]

First, the zebra issue. The error I made was in mixing one detail between why deer and zebra are not good candidates for domestication. I usually refer back to a source before citing from it, if at all possible, so I was frustrated by not having my Diamond book and having to go by memory. It is the deer that is not a herd animal was well as being skittish, and hence, cannot transfer to a human being as the dominant member of the herd. The zebra, while being a herd animal, is naturally skittish and does not breed in captivity.

Why do you keep regurgitating every little stupid point? You goofed. Let it go. Zebras can even breed with donkeys, for cryin' out loud (yeah...the wild African donkeys, I guess) and Ben's quote noted that zebras were used to pull for a time as well. That was what you missed. Give it up. You are setting up straw men about "widespread domestication" and making huge leaps of logic which is what gets you in trouble every time. You do not build your case, you do not attend to important details that are critical. You just ramble on about what "should" be based on your very leaky and modern information from a few books.

[John Hamer]

I share the same opinion with Nibley who said that the scholastic community almost universally ignores the Book of Mormon.  A book delivered by an angel to a farmboy in upstate NY?!  They put it in the same category as aliens from Mars.

... In most part, they simply reject it out of hand.

... I would suggest that they have not even read the text of the book.  They are unfamiliar with the contents of that book -- a book delivered by an angel.

Hi cdowis

I agree with you and Nibley on that point: Most scholarship utterly ignores the Book of Mormon and more scholars should look much more closely at it and its contents. The Book of Mormon rarely gets more than a superficial (Mark Twain-style) glance from its critics. I've made the point elsewhere that whether you agree with Dan Vogel's thesis in The Making of a Prophet or whether you hate it, (or whether you're anywhere in between), one important thing that Vogel has done is dig deep into the Book of Mormon itself.

In my case, I've long been interested in the Book of Mormon's internal geography --- which interest led me to Sorenson's work on the subject in the first place.

[John Hamer]

You won't find any Book of Mormon scholars (or posters on this board) that every try to "prove" the Book of Mormon is true.  They discuss evidence that supports and does not support claims of historicity.

Add on:  I see now that this has already been addressed a bit.  No, even Nahom is not "proof" - it is evidence that supports historicity (rather than evidence that supports 19th C origin). 

BTW, I appreciate the tone and content of your posts and realize I'm just responding to tiny parts of them, not your overall argument.

Hi Jan, thanks.

I agree with you that this is a good way to approach the issues. Part of the process of making your case is assembling and weighing the evidence which supports the various competing theories. To use these examples: Nahom can be mustered in support of historicity theory, and lack of horses can be mustered in support of the 19th century theory. (And, as we've seen, the opposing side in both cases can argue that neither piece is conclusive in and of itself.)

[beastie]

CD questions whether there are ancient representations of animals in Mesoamerica. Of course there are. Animals have an important place in the Mesoamerican world view. The animals that are viewed as more powerful are often connected with a certain group of people. There is even some reason to believe Mesoamericans, at times, viewed these animals as being their

[juliann]

If I see an example, I'll point it out to you. I have a vague recollection from another thread of someone calling Nahom a great proof of the Book of Mormon, but I don't have the particulars, so I don't claim to be citing anyone in particular.

How could one small element "prove" a book? That is silly and if it was said it was certainly not meant to say anymore than it is a piece of evidence.

Do you mean critics?  I guess I would call people who insist that the Book of Mormon is false "critics" rather than "apologists".  ("Apologist" isn't necessarily a negative term --- I think FAIR embraces it.) 

Are you saying a "critic" does not have a position to defend? This game of calling LDS scholars "apologists" while untrained amateurs pound away on their one note tune is ridiculous. Anyone who defends a position is an "apologist" so let's stop with the phony divisions.

In fact, if you read my posts on this thread, I am arguing with Beastie (a critic) that it would be hard for him to prove the Book of Mormon false --- i.e., I'm an arguing on the side of the apologists.

You just need to clarify which apologists. Beastie does not change her position and does not argue for anything but her position.

Thus, while I will concede that it is not technically impossible to conceive that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, there is no doubt that current scholarship is agreed that the bulk of the evidence points to a 19th century origin.  You can change that when the missionaries convert the world --- or --- when you change that, the missionaries will have a much easier time converting the world.  Meanwhile, that's reality.

There is no "bulk of evidence" that has even been assessed. The untrained critics who present their theories are not capable of even engaging in the larger body of evidence that would require languages, etc. This is about to change because Mormon Studies programs are in beginning stages. When trained scholars start dealing with the BOM the focus will have to shift to the text itself rather than theories about it. It is a little early for predictions until this happens.

Also, I think it's unfair to suggest that critics have no familiarity with this argument --- Beastie has clearly spent time digging into these issues, and I flatter myself to think I have a reasonable grasp of the proposals.

She has an excellent grasp of some data. She has no idea how to construct a theory to the point that she does not even understand why the same questions are being asked again and again. Any trained scholar would never need to be asked. You won't get far on this with me since I am someone who quickly learned that training is a must and I made the effort to get it...including the languages I needed to use primary documents.

I certainly think it's quite possible that believing scholars in the broader Judeo-Christian realm who research the Bible view it from a biased lense and make proposals that buttress their faith.  I'm not embarrassed to say so.

Only if they hang out in bible colleges or conservative seminaries. And this is my realm.

[E Allusion]

You won't find any Book of Mormon scholars (or posters on this board) that every try to "prove" the Book of Mormon is true.

[Scottie]

I ask if any animal bones in mesoamerica have been preserved and you come with some stupid comment about bison in North America?!?!  Now THERE is some sound "logic"...Take a good long look in the mirror, buddy.

If you can't put two and two together on something this basic you need to find another thread where you can contribute.

Please, oh wise one...expalin the "logic" to my simple brain.

North and South America are VASTLY different climates. A bison bone from 50AD could have very well survived until now whereas bones in the jungles of Central America would have decomposed because of high humidity and acidic soil composition.

Apples to oranges...but, then again, that's just my 2nd grade logic at work here...

[John Hamer]

Are you saying a "critic" does not have a position to defend?  This game of calling LDS scholars "apologists" while untrained amateurs pound away on their one note tune is ridiculous.  Anyone who defends a position is an "apologist" so let's stop with the phony divisions.

Hi Juliann ---

Maybe it's just me, but I find your usage of the term "apologist" needlessly confusing.

Of course I think what I'm calling a "critic" has a position they are asserting --- they are criticizing a doctrine, which is the opposite of defense or apologetics. I don't think the term "critic" implies any more training than "apologist" --- both could be amateurs or professionals --- I think the terms just describe whether a person is arguing in defense of a doctrine or arguing in critique of a doctrine.

I thought that the name of the board --- The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research --- implied that the term "apologetics" was being embraced by the defenders of doctrines. I certainly didn't mean to use it to create "phony divisions."

I certainly think it's quite possible that believing scholars in the broader Judeo-Christian realm who research the Bible view it from a biased lense and make proposals that buttress their faith.  I'm not embarrassed to say so.

Only if they hang out in bible colleges or conservative seminaries. And this is my realm.

I'm sure that some believing Bible scholars do hang out in those places, just as I'm sure that many scholars who believe in the Book of Mormon hang out in conservative, religious colleges. Neither where they hang out, nor their biases, nor their motives make their research less legitimate --- but like all biases and motives, these need to be weighed by the reader.

[beastie]

There are other ways to

[beastie]

The translation process is an unknown. We don't know what the process is. We can speculate about it all we like. We have a text. The text is supposed to be a product of that process. I have expended a great deal of effort to discuss why the word "horse" is not necessarily an anachronism. Which is to say, it is an anachronism if we make the assumption that Nephi's meaning for the element in his verbal repertoire which is translated as "horse" in the Book of Mormon is the same as your meaning for the element in your verbal repertoire which is the "horse". We know, in at least one place, these meanings heavily overlap. But I am not so sure about the rest. This is a textual issue. I don't see anything in this context that would either make the argument unfalsifiable, or that this would be mislabeling, or an inaccurate background context.

Your only real response to this is to claim (with outrage) that God would not translate in this fashion (despite being unable to articulate exactly how God does translate - or to describe what God would do to a particular text to translate it).

With outrage? I have no idea why you ascribed

[cdowis]

>Many elite burials [of the Olmecs] include the small, native iron-ore mirrors, spineray or obsidian bloodletters, and jade items. If horses were strongly associated with elites, why are no horses portrayed as wayob? Or why is nothing associated with the use of the horse buried with elites?

Let me see if I understand your logic:

1. If horses were associated with the elite, there would be horse artifacts buried with the elite.

2. No horse artifacts have been found buried with the elite.

3. Ergo, no horses.

Is that your logic?

>The only

[beastie]

CD,

If after everything I've posted here, and others posted at Z, on the subject, and THAT is the best summary you can come up with, then conversation on the issue is absolutely pointless, and I'm too tired to continue.