Horses are Tapirs

[cdowis]

>then conversation on the issue is absolutely pointless, and I'm too tired to continue.

I understand your feelings on the matter.

I understand the difference between *fact* and unproven assertions and speculation. Repetition of assertion does not make it a fact.

Since you are "tired" I do not expect a response, but for those who are interested:

1. Our discussions have centered around the Nephites/Lamanites. You then give an example from the **Olmec** era.

The Olmecs is a civilization which began prior to Lehi's landing -- they lived in the era of the Jaredites. A completely different culture.

Now, let us see what the bom says about horses and the Jaredites:

Ether 9 [19] And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

Please note that the horse is specifically excluded from the "especially" useful animals. It has a very secondary role.

So, your whole premise is built on Nephite culture and the example you give us is from the Jaredites.

2. Your logic is flawed. You make unproven assertions and assumptions in the premise (e.g. horses require art objects, there were no art objects, ergo no horses), and you pretend that only one conclusion can be drawn.

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

No horse artifacts have been found buried with the elite.

Ergo, no horses.

Are you able to see the problems with this logic?

Finally, with a defective example, and flawed logic, you are upset, you are "tired" because we do not accept this as proven fact -- "we know" etc.

I have been down this road many times. Assertions, assumptions are presented as fact. These assumptions/assertions ares repeated several times, using phrases as "obviously", "it is clear", "only one conclusion", "we know" to pretend that these assertions are fact.

Your logic is flawed, your example is flawed, and your assertions/assumptions are not established facts. They are only your opinion.

[beastie]

CD -

I'm not going to rehash every point that has been discussed on many different threads here and on Z. If you imagine that I - and, btw, reputable scholars in the field whose opinions matter the most - have concluded there were no horses in Mesoamerica due to the lack of horse artifacts in burials, then you are seriously mistaken. There are an abundance of issues and facts that result in this conclusion. The fact that you have limited your discussion to just one of those items leads me to believe you are not seriously interested in the subject.

This was also your pattern on Z. I well remember your repeated claim that, due to geography, horses would not be used in Mesoamerica in the traditional manner. You were presented with evidence that, during the Conquest, horses were used in the traditional manner with success. I provided a quote from Sorenson admitting as much. On this thread I provided another resource that referred to a 2,500 square kilometer region of flat plain contained within the BoM area. The lack of evidence for horses does NOT just extend into the art work - I specifically mentioned that NOT due to the fact that it is the only point, or even the most important - but that because the idea of art was raised on this thread. And I referred to MORE than just the Olmec period.

But, since you brought it up, the Jaredite record is problematic for you, anyway.

Ether 11:23-26

And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals:  and they did dig it out of the earth; where fore they did cast up might heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper.  And they did all manner of fine work. 

And they did have silks, and fine-twined linen:  and they did work all manner of cloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness.

And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plow and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash.

And they did make all manner of tools with which they did work their beasts.

Two for the price of one. Detailed descriptions of mining, metal tool making, with which they would "work with their beasts".

Which beasts would that be?

But, to you, it boils down to this:

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

No horse artifacts have been found buried with the elite.

Ergo, no horses.

Are you able to see the problems with this logic?

The first, apparently insurmountable problem with YOUR logic is that it is not what I have presented. So yes, I see a problem with it. The problem is that after all these discussions, and many sorts of evidences offered, you distill it down to this.

And, as I said, that is an insurmountable problem.

[cdowis]

>reputable scholars in the field whose opinions matter the most - have concluded there were no horses in Mesoamerica

Scholars change their opinions as new discoveries are made. Happens all the time.

I understand that *opinion* is not fact, even a consensus of opinion.

>There are an abundance of issues and facts that result in this conclusion. The fact that you have limited your discussion to just one of those items leads me to believe you are not seriously interested in the subject.

Let us make this simple.

Present your logic:

Point A

Point B

etc

Thererfore "we know that there no horses in mesoamerica during bom time period".

If I have misstated your logic, here is a chance to summarize every point that you have made. I certainly do not want to put words into your mouth. I want you to speak for yourself in a clear and certain manner.

You said "we know", and here is the opportunity to tell us exactly why we "know" this.

>Detailed descriptions of mining, metal tool making, with which they would "work with their beasts". Which beasts would that be?

I assume the list that was in Ether -- horses, elephants, etc. and more specifically those beasts which were "especially" important.

The issue is not that horses were used among the jaredites, but whether artifacts of a beast of burden would be buried with royalty.

[cdowis]

Here is the bottom line for me.

I have no problem with:

There is no evidence for horses

Scholars are in agreement that there is no evidence for horses

Where we might look for evidence for horses -- stalls, art, etc -- no evidence can be found.

++++++++

Again, I have no problem with those statements. But your "We KNOW there were no horses" is nonsense.

[Scottie]

Here is the bottom line for me.

I have no problem with:

There is no evidence for horses

Scholars are in agreement that there is no evidence for horses

Where we might look for evidence for horses -- stalls, art, etc -- no evidence can be found.

++++++++

Again, I have no problem with those statements.  But your "We KNOW there were no horses" is nonsense.

I have to agree. We do not KNOW anything...including "this is the one true church".

Moderator: What does this remark have to do with the topic let along further any dialogue? I have not seen you add much but noise to this thread, Scottie. Move to another thread.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

I pointed out to you that your reaction to ink

[Scottie]

Moderator:

[cdowis]

I am not Beastie, but I have a few ideas on the subject.

>Does God translate word-for-word, or does he do so idea-for-idea.

Skousen's research on the BOM manuscripts and the translation process lead him to accept the literal, tight translation method rather than a loose (idea oriented) one.

>you think my primary goal here is to "prove" the Book of Mormon to be authentic. But this isn't my goal. My goal is to understand the text.

Then why use tapir instead of the textual horse? I understand horse, and personally have no need for tapir. I can see no evidence for "tapir" except for a desire to avoid the difficulty of trying to find horses in a mesoamerican context.

I have no such need. Horse has worked well for me over the two decades of discussing the BOM.

>It is hard to imagine that any beast of burden would have had the impact on mesoamerican culture the same as the did elsewhere.

A point that may be lost on the BOM critics who use this as the foundation of their "we know there were no horses" argument. They seem to forget that mesoamerica terrain and climate does not lend itself to a transportation system based on horses.

>What need did they have for an animal that would have been prohibitively expensive to maintain?

What need do we have for a Porsche? Horses were for the rich, the elite. And possibly used for food, in the same category as cattle.

[beastie]

I don't have time to address specific posts, but am happy to report I did locate a used library copy of the tapir-referenced encyclopedia article. I probably won't get it for two weeks, but I will certainly provide more context for plow pulling Brazilian tapir.

[beastie]

Pardon me for wondering .... what does inspiration of a writer as to what to include have to do with what kind of translation would get produced. You are still avoiding the issue. It is that simple. The question which I asked is not difficult. It has nothing to do with the selection process for the material in the text. It has to do with the mechanics of the translation. Does God translate word-for-word, or does he do so idea-for-idea. What about this question is so difficult for you to answer that you cannot do it in any straightforward fashion.

Gee, these conversations get confusing. I'd invoke Shades right now but I know that's been "discredited". You made another comment I wanted to respond to, but lost track of, that all we know about what God intended the boM to be is what a MAN tells us God says. Now you're asking me what inspiration has to do with JS' translation process. The reason this reminds me of Shades is this. When I was a believer, and had some apologist told me that we don't really know what GOD wanted the BoM to be, all we know is what some MAN conveyed about that, I would have thought you were on the road to apostasy. I mean really, it sounds like something an atheist like me would say. You're absolutely right - we don't know beans about what God really wants and says, because all we have is HUMAN BEINGS claiming God told them what he really wants and says, and we're supposed to view that with a high degree of reliability.... for a reason I have yet to figure out, once I realized that even BELIEVERS view the revelatory process as unreliable.

But I try to approach this with what I used to believe, myself, when I try to address these issues. Now some here would say that I was a mindless, ignert, naive fundamentalist rube who didn't really represent TRUE mormonism, but I would say that my views seemed to correlate quite well with the beliefs of other active mormons I knew, and the lessons we were given by the church. I used to believe that the process that inspired Mormon to add the small plates even though he didn't know why he needed to do so, is the same process through which JS translated the gold plates. If I am going to accept that God really DID tell Mormon to add the small plates, and I think all believing LDS would accept that he did, then obviously God cares enough about the future of this translated record that he's going to intervene to solve a problem that won't occur for centuries.

Ok, but back to the process. I really thought I did answer this, I honestly don't know what kind of details you want from me. I said that God was the translator, so he would translate the record in the way that best preserved the meaning - so he's not going to translate word-for-word, because that would result in gibberish, although it may work with some passages. As a believer, I would most adamantly NOT believe that God's primary intent as translator was to protect authorial art, but instead that his intent was that the BoM would be an instrument of conversion, particularly to the Lamanites, but all others as well. I would have looked at you as if you had two heads had you suggested that God was more interested in preserving authorial art, or we had to at least be open to that possibility. The BoM isn't just a translation - it is a means to an end, the means to convert as many as possible to the true gospel. I seriously doubt Nephi's feelings would have been hurt had God decided to avoid potential problems by using the word 'tapir' instead of horse, in the same spirit and motivation that led God to tell Mormon to add the small plates. But that is nothing but my opinion as a former believer.

Now, God as translator would not use word-for-word because it would not create a coherent text, but he would TRANSMIT the end, translated product WORD FOR WORD to JS. Why? To avoid another layer of errors, and, most importantly, because that is what the contemporaries told us he did.

(btw, I know your view is that Nephi creatively labeled the tapir, but for convenience sake, I am calling that a translation error because the end result is the same.)

I still don't understand why this is a recurring issue for you, if we both accept, no matter what the translation process and errors, the background context of animal X is still reliable. That is what I have been trying, and trying, to focus on.

The whole "steel" thing is a distraction. I don't think it has any relevance to this issue we are currently discussion. The problem is that the "translation" issue is central to the question of the "horse" - because of the many assertions which you have made with regards to the translation. Let me bring back one of them.

It certainly does have to do with the question of translation errors reaching the point where it alters background context. That was the whole reason I brought it up.

The moment that I assert that the word "horse" isn't an anachronims (i.e. isn't a translation artifact - the phrase you seem to be using at the moment), you come back and insist that God wouldn't translate the text in such a fashion.

You are conflating two issues. You keep returning to this one, which is far less pertinent, as long as we both accept that the background context is still reliable. Yes, I don't believe God would translate that way, but it really doesn't matter enough in this discussion to keep harping on it. And yes, I thought your criticism of ink was unduly harsh. But that is a separate issue that you don't seem to be keeping separate in your mind.

I want to discuss the background context of animal X because that is the one thing we both agree would remain reliable, despite translation artifacts.

By the way, how much did God insert himself into the text over the lost 116 pages?

It is hard for me to believe your religion is the same one I used to know. God inserted himself in that he directly inspired Mormon to add the small plates although Mormon really didn't know why.

I can't believe I just had to explain that.

The Horse is never used in battle - a signficant point when you consider how much of the Book of Mormon is devoted to descriptions of warfare. Do you see the problem? Perhaps you don't. But in the argument for modern authorship, this becomes something of a problem. It is just as you keep pointing out - the horse in Nephite society doesn't produce the same impacts of the horse everywhere else, nor is it used in the same ways. Its a good starting point.

Where does the BoM state that horses were never used in battle?

I think it could be necessary to show that tapirs were used in that manner if you were trying to prove that animal X was a tapir. But I'm not, so its not necessary. In fact, all I am asserting is that the "horse" doesn't appear to be a "horse" as we know it, and that in all likelihood, this is not a result of the translation process.

Sure, Ben. Sure. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore on this point. Not your job. Not your interest.

We can return to this after I get the tapir reference myself. I really look forward to it.

I think that part of the whole issue is the demands which you incessantly make in terms of evidences for which there is no conclusive answer. You want to suggest that the horse would have interacted with every culture in the same way - a reasonable suggestion if and only if ever culture was the same. It is hard to imagine that any beast of burden would have had the impact on mesoamerican culture the same as the did elsewhere. What need did they have for an animal that would have been prohibitively expensive to maintain?

One more time, for old time's sake. I have not claimed that the horse must impact each culture in the exact same way. I have said we should see SOME IMPACT of the horse, and that SOME IMPACT would be like the other impacts we've seen in other cultures.

For example, although I think you misuse the horse/maize article which the author expressly states was meant to demonstrate why a maize based society could sustain such a large population without the horse, and he explicitly states he was NOT addressing other horse issues, even if we accept your premise that the horse would have ZERO impact on agriculture in mesoamerica, you, yourself, are arguing that SOME NUMBER OF HORSES were kept for SOME REASON. So their cost as a royal ornament wasn't too great, but to use the horse to expedite information in a time of war was?

And note again the information that CD reliably ignores, over and over: the geographic regions of Mesoamerica are varied. Sorenson mentions that the spaniards were quite successful with horses in an area he notes as being part of the boM, and I just quoted from the Oaxaca book talking about the 2,500 square kilometers of flat plains that was the land of Moron, according to Sorenson. I've seen CD's MO long enough on Z to predict that this information will never, ever, register with him, and I'm not sure about Ben, but maybe it will finally register with someone, somewhere, out there in the internets.

[beastie]

I also wanted to comment on CD's quibble over the word "know". First, I'm curious - do you so quibble with those who bear their testimony? Do you instruct them to not use the word "KNOW", despite the fact that it is understood that what they are REALLY saying is "I have a very strong belief that the church is true?"

Obviously, we "know" nothing, in the manner you want to use the word. We don't even "know" if the law of gravity is accurate. Science constructs theories, and while creationists love to make a big deal over the word "theory", as you do here with the word "know", all theories have the possibility of being disproven one day. However, certain theories have been so resistant to criticism, and so reliable in prediction and explanation of events, that we human beings can feel that we "know" the theory is accurate and a fact.

So given the fact each time we have a ball in our hands, and open our hands palms down, the ball will fall to the earth, it serves all practical purposes to say that we "know" the law of gravity can be accepted as "known", and a "fact". I think this explanation, although it pertains to evolution, will help.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

This phrase could be used to describe the "fact" that horses did not exist in ancient Mesoamerica: it has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

Now given the fact that science, unlike religion, has a built in correctional system, if one day some astouding find is uncovered (as Brant has assured us is shortly forthcoming in regards to horses), then science will correct itself. But as it stands now, I think the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars would accept the statement: it is a fact that there were no horses in ancient Mesoamerica.

Looping back to Ben:

Need to add one more thing: IMO, the ONLY reason apologists have constructed their various theories (ie, tapirs and nontraditional horses) is due to the fact that we "know" (see above explanation) that there were no horses in ancient Mesoamerica. Had this never been an issue, ie, had evidence of horses always existed in ancient Mesoamerica, no apologist would be arguing things like "horses were used primarily as food", and "horses were not used in battles." Despite what they say, the text simply does not demand that interpretation. It is simply lacking these sort of details.

What always strikes me ironic about this particular point is that these same apologists will argue till they are blue in the face that we MUST assume pre-existing others, despite the lack of details in the text. And now, apparently, we MUST assume they weren't used in battles, despite the lack of details in the text.

[cdowis]

>Where does the BoM state that horses were never used in battle?

We know that they were not used in battle because it never mentions riding horses into battle or the use of chariots during the wars.

Surely if the horse were used in battles, it would have mentioned it. The BOM gives us detailed descriptions of battles and mentions multiple and various wars, and not once is the use of the horse mentioned.

The consensus of scholars throught the universe agree that any account of a war would surely mention horses if they were used.

It is clear that this is the only conclusion that we can make: we *know* that the horse was not used in war because the BOM says nothing about it.

[Orange Zodiac]

I said that God was the translator, so he would translate the record in the way that best preserved the meaning - so he's not going to translate word-for-word, because that would result in gibberish, although it may work with some passages.  As a believer, I would most adamantly NOT believe that God's primary intent as translator was to protect authorial art, but instead that his intent was that the BoM would be an instrument of conversion, particularly to the Lamanites, but all others as well.  I would have looked at you as if you had two heads had you suggested that God was more interested in preserving authorial art, or we had to at least be open to that possibility.  The BoM isn't just a translation - it is a means to an end, the means to convert as many as possible to the true gospel.  I seriously doubt Nephi's feelings would have been hurt had God decided to avoid potential problems by using the word 'tapir' instead of horse, in the same spirit and motivation that led God to tell Mormon to add the small plates.  But that is nothing but my opinion as a former believer. 

Palmer makes the point that if the translation process had been one where Joseph Smith worked out the meaning himself like a persons translating say French into English where personal interpretations and variations between translators and translation could be expected then he would have had nothing to fear of retranslating the lost 116 pages since any alterations made by the people who stole the original translation because he could argue that these were merely different wordings but the meaning remained intact. He also noted that it would have been a simple matter to distinguish the handwriting of the original scribe from the changed portions which would require strike out and insertion marks and would be in the handwriting of someone other than the original scribes. But getting back to the first statement, Palmer notes that Joseph Smith does not indicate that his retranslation of the plates would be different, which suggests that the exact words were put in his mind by God, and thus was not similar to how typical translation processes occur. Especially since Joseph didn't even need to be in the same room as the plates in order to translate them.

you, yourself, are arguing that SOME NUMBER OF HORSES were kept for SOME REASON.  So their cost as a royal ornament wasn't too great, but to use the horse to expedite information in a time of war was?

If an animal was a "royal ornament" it seems like we would see depictions of it all over royal tombs and palaces. It was once illegal for anyone but a royal to own a greyhound. If a peasant was found owning a greyhound they could be killed on the spot. But then we also see paintings of royals and their greyhounds. What is the point of owning a status symbol and not making art that glorifies the status symbol so that others recognize its role and meaning in the society?

Beastie even if you are not getting through to Ben or Charles I appreciate your posts! Your posts are registering with people!

[beastie]

CD,

I can make the same argument in regards to the pre-existing others, whose only mention are vague statements that have equally valid explanations outside the others, as well as the contention that horses were used for food.

There is a shifting standard here, which shifts upon need.

[cdowis]

Beastie,

You found a flaw in my logic?

You feel uncomfortable with "not found, not exist", or assumptions stated as facts, etc?

Regarding "others", the BOM text shows that the Jaredites were still around for a long time after Lehi landed.

[beastie]

I don't have a problem with your language, CD. I have a problem with a standard that shifts dependent upon need. In one case, apologists demand that we strictly keep to the words in the text, and if the text does not explicitly state that "horses were used in battle", then horses were NOT used in battle. At the same time, apologists want to insist horses were used as food, and a large group of pre-existing others existed, despite the fact the text does not explicitly mention either.

Moderator note: See moderator comments in http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=8544&st=165 before you continue. Questions and answers will be actively moderated in this thread as well.

[bizabra]

Tapir's look much more like horses than pigs and since "hippopotomus" means "river horse" that Lehi could have very easily just named the tapir a horse.

Is that the gist of it, or am I missing more?

Why did you suppress mention of culturally variable naming conventions in your earlier summary? So that the tapir-hypothesis would look more exposed and stupid? As it is, you've barely hinted at the character of the discussion.

Would you mind expanding on what evidence you have found that lead towards horses existing?

[Dunamis]

Notice: Multiple posts (from a majority of the posters in here) have been deleted in an attempt to make this thread manageable. That includes off-topic one liners, zingers, personal squabbling and the like.

[Dunamis]

A relevant question (to me at least) is:  CAN a tapir be trained to pull a chariot or carry a rider, and would "stables" be required to house them? Is there any evidence that they can be domesticated and trained for human uses?

I haven't kept up with these conversations. Obviously. So just out of curiosity, has any "apologist" claimed that a tapir as I am seeing pictured and described by otherswould be pulling chariots and carrying riders? I'm finding that peculiar considering the size and configuration of the pictures I am seeing.

Can someone produce a quick explanation for dummies about what these labels being used actually mean? Is everyone actually talking about the same animal?

[Matt Andrews]

Dunamis:

I haven't kept up with these conversations. Obviously. So just out of curiosity, has any "apologist" claimed that a tapir as I am seeing pictured and described by otherswould be pulling chariots and carrying riders? I'm finding that peculiar considering the size and configuration of the pictures I am seeing.

Can someone produce a quick explanation for dummies about what these labels being used actually mean? Is everyone actually talking about the same animal?

As I understand it, most tapir are smallish, but there is a species that can be quite large. I've seen these in person, and they are pretty big. 3 1/2 feet tall, nearly as wide, and maybe 5 feet long? Very stocky. If there hadn't been a sign saying 'Tapir', I would have called it a 'tall-pig-thingy' or 'small hippo-anteater hybrid'.

I have no idea if you could train one to ride or pull chariots. My guess is that if you could, people would. I once corresponded with a tapir enthusiast who said she knew some farmers have tried to get tapirs to pull plows, but that it didn't work very well. I asked her if she thought you could ride one, and she seemed to think that was an odd idea. Whatever that is worth. (A little, maybe.)

As far as whether any apologist has suggested that Lehi or any of his descendants rode tapirs or hooked them to their chariots, I'm not sure. I seem to recall a discussion of a tapir pulling a wheel-less sled contraption, and that this could be what the BoM means by 'horses' and 'chariots', but can't remember where I read that.

A google search on tapirs gives you some info, including the four species of tapir and their habitats. I don't remember if the largest species is found in meso-america or not, which would be a concern for LGTers.

[Confidential Informant]

A relevant question (to me at least) is: CAN a tapir be trained to pull a chariot or carry a rider, and would "stables" be required to house them? Is there any evidence that they can be domesticated and trained for human uses?

Maybe, as a newbie, you ought to be reading the whole thread before posting. Had you done so, you'd have noted a whole bunch of evidence that Ben (cromis) gave that indicated that Tapir can, and indeed have, been trained to do such things.

As I understand it, most tapir are smallish, but there is a species that can be quite large. I've seen these in person, and they are pretty big. 3 1/2 feet tall, nearly as wide, and maybe 5 feet long? Very stocky. If there hadn't been a sign saying 'Tapir', I would have called it a 'tall-pig-thingy' or 'small hippo-anteater hybrid'.

That may well be how you might describe it. But the question is how would a 6th century BC jew describe it? As Ben has noted several times on this thread, the foot of the animal seems to play a significant role in the Jewish identification of the animal. Tapirs and horses share the same foot structure, and therefore, as Ben as noted, that might lead to a closer association with the horse than you or I might associate.

I have no idea if you could train one to ride or pull chariots. My guess is that if you could, people would.

In theory, you might be right. IN practice, you aren't. For example, we know very well that the mayans knew about wheels and understood well how they worked. Yet, they never appear to have taken the next step and made the wheel a major part of their transportation.

Clearly they could have done so, then why didn't they?

C.I.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Gee, these conversations get confusing. I'd invoke Shades right now but I know that's been "discredited". You made another comment I wanted to respond to, but lost track of, that all we know about what God intended the boM to be is what a MAN tells us God says. Now you're asking me what inspiration has to do with JS' translation process. The reason this reminds me of Shades is this. When I was a believer, and had some apologist told me that we don't really know what GOD wanted the BoM to be, all we know is what some MAN conveyed about that, I would have thought you were on the road to apostasy. I mean really, it sounds like something an atheist like me would say. You're absolutely right - we don't know beans about what God really wants and says, because all we have is HUMAN BEINGS claiming God told them what he really wants and says, and we're supposed to view that with a high degree of reliability.... for a reason I have yet to figure out, once I realized that even BELIEVERS view the revelatory process as unreliable.

Listen Beastie, it isn't my problem that you had a FUNDAMENTALIST mind set as a believer. It doesn't matter to me that from your perspective, if you were still a believing LDS you might view me as being on the road to apostacy. Clearly, I would view this responses as representing a fundamental gap in your belief system - perhaps one that contributed to your loss of faith.

What is ironic is that you take these beliefs that you no longer believe, and attempt to make them the foundation which all of us who are LDS must believe to be faithful LDS, and then attack a position which you yourself don't believe is valid any more. The fact remains that human commnication is ambiguous. You think, somehow, that God, when filtered through man, is going to be unambiguous? Or that scripture would be unambiguous? That somehow, this communication would be any different than any other humnan communication? That perhaps "magically" a reader would have a completely different experience in reading it than any other text? The Book of Mormon (as I have pointed out numerous times) accepts the fact that revelation is ambiguous, and even discusses various ways to deal with the ambiguity. So forgive me if I find your comments here to be of no value. You aren't describing the religion that I believe. And the fundamentalist mind set you describe isn't necessary (as far as the gospel is concerned) for salvation. But, it certainly makes your life easier as a critic I suppose.

Now I suppose here, you are going to claim that I did just as you suggested I would - that I am calling you "a mindless, ignert, naive fundamentalist rube who really didn't represent TRUE mormonism". I wouldn't say that. There are lots of Mormons who believe this, but this doesn't somehow not make them fundamentalists. Nor does it mean that fundamentalists can't be a part of TRUE mormonism. I especially got a kick out of this statement:

If I am going to accept that God really DID tell Mormon to add the small plates, and I think all believing LDS would accept that he did, then obviously God cares enough about the future of this translated record that he's going to intervene to solve a problem that won't occur for centuries.

What does Mormon actually say about this event? It's right there - everyone can read it - here are the Words of Mormon verses 3-7 (emphasis added):

And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass

[cdowis]

Beastie

>I don't have a problem with your language, CD. I have a problem with a standard that shifts dependent upon need. In one case, apologists demand that we strictly keep to the words in the text, and if the text does not explicitly state that "horses were used in battle", then horses were NOT used in battle. At the same time, apologists want to insist horses were used as food, and a large group of pre-existing others existed, despite the fact the text does not explicitly mention either.

Apparently my response was deleted so let me try again.

Moderator: Our apologies if this occurred. We are trying to reduce the quarreling ratio while maintaining the content so the thead is readable. If you are an innocent victim, we appreciate your understanding. For those of you responding to Beastie, her/his account has been suspended.

I agree -- "all of the scholars agree", "no mention of horses in war" etc. The whole thing was a convoluted series of assumptions and flawed logic.

[noel00]

[Off-topic and discourteous post deleted. ] Moving right along. . . .