Revision as of 15:04, 21 September 2014

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to MormonThink page "Book of Mormon Problems"—Part 1

Quick Navigation

• Response to claim: "pictographic and literary evidence of horses in the New World (outside of the Book of Mormon) is unknown"
• Response to claim: "The Church added the word coins starting in 1920 to the chapter summaries in order to clarify what the text of the chapter was about"
• Response to claim: "The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the "Liahona", was a DIRECTOR"
• Response to claim: "scientists agree that elephants did not exist in the Americas"

"pictographic and literary evidence of horses in the New World (outside of the Book of Mormon) is unknown"

MormonThink states...

"The first apologist argument that they did not find archeological evidence of lions in Palestine until very recently is not applicable since pictographic and literary evidence of horses in the New World (outside of the Book of Mormon) is unknown. There were writings and drawings of lions in Palestine and horses used by the Huns yet there are no writings or drawings of any modern-day horses by the natives of the Americas. The Native Americans had absolutely no knowledge of horses until Columbus and the Spaniards introduced them to the New World."

FairMormon Response

"that the horses described in the BOM were really deer or tapirs is absolutely ridiculous"

MormonThink states...

"The second apologist argument that the horses described in the BOM were really deer or tapirs is absolutely ridiculous. Joseph Smith knew what a horse was and certainly the 'most correct book on earth' wouldn't mistranslate deer for horse 14 times. Can you imagine a tapir pulling the chariots as described in the Book of Mormon? Joseph managed to come up with proper nouns like Curelom and Cumom and Ziff, Senine...but he couldn't get the real name for whatever he substituted horse for?"

FairMormon Response

|think=

•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  
• The Book of Mormon does not mention horses pulling chariots. The BOM does not mention horses being ridden. Horses are mentioned with chariots several times. Assuming that they were present in order to pull the chariots must be extrapolated.
• The Old Testament and New Testament do mention horses being ridden. The D&C mentions that horses can be ridden.
• Joseph knew much about horses yet in the Book of Mormon, they are not used in any way he was familiar with. They are not mentioned as being used for work, transportation or battle.
• Joseph likely knew, as everyone did, that the European horse was introduced by the Spanish. Why, then, did he make such a clumsy error in his forgery?
• MormonThink falsely attributes the possibility of the word "horse" as a description of a similar animal to Joseph mistranslating the text. No one claimed that Joseph "mistranslated" the term deer for horse. Mormonthink completely omits the accurate position, which is that early Nephites may have labeled deer "horses." This conjecture is based on the fact that The Amerindians called horses "deer" when they first saw them.

|quote= |link=Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals/Horses |subject=Horses |summary=According to the most scientists, the mention of "horses" in the Americas during Book of Mormon times presents an anachronism--something that doesn't fit the time frame for which it is claimed. Is this a death-knell for the Book of Mormon?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Thoughts: As children, we were all taught in American History classes about the profound impact that horses had on the Indians once they were introduced to the New World by the Europeans. We have a hard time believing that all the history books, scientists, Indian records, etc. are all wrong about something that was so important to the Native Americans. If the ancient inhabitants of the Americas really had the horse as described in the BOM, we can't conceive of how or why they would let this most useful of all animals disappear and of course leave absolutely no trace of its existence.

FairMormon commentary

• That depends upon what they were doing with them. To the Jaredites, the Book of Mormon indicates that the elephant was more useful than the horse. Even the cureloms and cumoms were more useful than the horse. If horses were used as a source of food, then it isn't hard to imagine why they disappeared.

Quotes to consider
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.

Additional information

• Animals—It is claimed that the Book of Mormon mentions animals which do not belong in a pre-Columbian New World. They cite this as evidence for Joseph Smith 'slipping up,' and revealing his forgery. Often attacked examples include: the ass (donkey), bees, the cow, the elephant, the horse, silkworms, and swine (pigs). Some sport is also had at the expense of two unknown animals, which are given untranslated names cureloms and cumoms (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Interesting note: Solomon Spalding, in his fictional piece Manuscript Story, mentions horses in connection with the inhabitants of the New World. So perhaps it's no wonder that the author(s) of the BOM might make the same mistake.

FairMormon commentary

• You don't need to know anything about Spalding to assume that the inhabitants of the New World might have had horses for a long time—all you have to do is look at what the Indians were riding in the 19th-Century.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Occasionally LDS members and even LDS apologists like Daniel Peterson talk of some evidence found of modern-day horses in America, but these are well-known hoaxes such as the Spencer Lake Hoax when an archeological student buried a horse skull at an archeological dig. FAIR actually made a video in which they cite the Spencer Lake horse as evidence of horses in BOM times. Embarrassingly, FAIR has now put this disclaimer about their video: FAIR: Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account.

Equally curious is why this drawing isn't used by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS. They likely know that the macaw explanation is accepted by serious archeologists (such as Michael Coe). They may also suspect it is not credible like the numerous ancient American horse hoaxes that Daniel Peterson of FARMS use to endorse.

FairMormon commentary

•   Believers aren't allowed to change their opinions:  —If believers don't abandon their faith because of the critics' arguments, they are "ignoring the evidence." When believers change their opinions as new data become available, the critics declare that this means the believers are being inconsistent or caving in.
  
• FAIR gladly corrects errors and frequently updates information. The critic inexplicably mocks an admirable policy as an embarrassing thing to do.
• The Spencer Lake hoax is mentioned as a single example. but further documentation can not be given to support the untrue claim of "numerous ancient American horse hoaxes" that anyone has endorsed.

Quotes to consider

• Gardner identifies the item as a macaw, not an elephant, in Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 6:260.. It is mentioned as a possible elephant by Roper and Peterson in 2004, but this one-sentence reference is accompanied by three pages discussing biological remains that they obviously consider of more significance. See pages 194-96 of Daniel C. Peterson and Matthew Roper, "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons (Review of: Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon)," FARMS Review 16/1 (2004): 175–220. off-site
• It is troubling that MormonThink's critic mocks believers when they update what they believe based upon new evidence or a better understanding of old evidence. When the evidence changes, we feel obligated to include it.

"The Church added the word coins starting in 1920 to the chapter summaries in order to clarify what the text of the chapter was about"

MormonThink states...

"we'd just like to add the following common sense items: The Church added the word coins starting in 1920 to the chapter summaries in order to clarify what the text of the chapter was about. Why would they use the word 'coins'? It was obvious to the Church (and anyone else reading the text) that the text of the BOM was referring to coins and a monetary system. Do you think that the Church just casually adds words to their sacred scriptures specifically for the purpose of summarizing and clarifying the text without being pretty confident they are doing so correctly?"

FairMormon Response

Money and the Book of Mormon

Jump to details:

• Question: Does the Book of Mormon refer to "coins"?
• John Welch (1999): "This sidelight in the book of Alma contains enough facts to support meaningful parallels between King Mosiah's weights and measures and those used in other ancient cultures"

"The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the "Liahona", was a DIRECTOR"

MormonThink states...

"Critic's Response: The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the "Liahona", was a DIRECTOR, it was certainly used by Lehi's party to DIRECT them in the wilderness, and Alma the younger even made more clarification of its nature by calling it a DIRECTOR and COMPASS -- this is an anachronism because the COMPASS which DIRECTED one's course wasn't invented yet for many centuries. FAIR grasps at straws by stating “In every case, it is clear that, at least in Jacobean England, the word was regularly treated as meaning either a round object, or something which moved in a curved fashion. We do not live in Jacobean England nor did Joseph Smith nor the Nephites."

FairMormon Response

The Book of Mormon mentions the word "compass"

Jump to details:

• Question: Was the Liahona simply a magnetic compass that was out of place in 600 B.C.?
• Robert L. Bunker, "The Design of the Liahona and the Purpose of the Second Spindle"

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Response: The FAIR apologists are the same people that make "horse" mean "tapir" and "steel" somehow they make into wooden clubs with obsidian (volcanic glass) chunks all stuck into it called "macahuitl", and Nephite coinage means anything other than gold & silver monetary units, and Lehi & company conquered another race and interbred with them WITHOUT BEING MENTIONED IN ThE BOOK OF MORMON AT ALL in a ham-fisted attempt to cloud and detract from the real problem regarding Native American DNA, and there's a second Hill Cumorah on the grassy knoll.....and a whole litany of things that should be PLAIN AND PRECIOUS from the MOST CORRECT BOOK on EARTH.

FairMormon commentary

•   Shrillness makes you appear silly and inaccurate   —When critics become shrill, they sacrifice accuracy and begin making silly sarcastic claims.
  
•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  
• FAIR does not claim that "horse" means "tapir."
• FAIR does not make "steel" into "wooden clubs."
• FAIR does not claim that "Nephite coinage means anything other than gold & silver monetary units." (What does that phrase mean anyway?) FAIR simply notes that the word "coins" isn't part of the Book of Mormon text and was added to a chapter heading in the 20th-century. This is a historical fact.
• FAIR does not claim that Lehi "conquered another race."
• FAIR does not claim that there is a "second Hill Cumorah on the grassy knoll."
• FAIR has extensive information that addresses the issue of Native American DNA.

Additional information

• DNA and the Book of Mormon—A collection of articles related to DNA and the Book of Mormon. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Rebuttal: LDS apologists will search and search until they find someone that will support their claims. The fact is the vast majority of nonMormon scientists support the views of the critics as that is where the critics get their information from in the first place - the general scientific community.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is applying circular reasoning  —The premise used by the critic depends upon validity of the conclusion.
  If a scientist did find the Book of Mormon account persuasive, they would become Mormons--which would, presumably, make them unreliable for MormonThink.
• Most of the "general scientific community" have not examined the Book of Mormon, and are not willing to comment on it or any other religious text.
• Believers do not dispute the scientific information as Mormonthink does when it is inconvenient. They simply disagree with the critics about what that information means, and how it ought to be applied to the issues raised by the Book of Mormon.
• MormonThink unsuccessfully engages in arguing from authority rather than honestly examining and debating the available evidence.

Additional information

• Basic questions that need answers before using the presence or absence of something as evidence against the Book of Mormon—Translated documents (which the Book of Mormon claims to be) have many potential sources of anachronism. When trying to decide if something is an anachronism, and when making judgments about the Book of Mormon's truth based on an assessment of anachronisms, we must take all these factors into account. Critics rarely do so, and unfortunately, MormonThink is no exception. They do not seem aware of these issues, or they are withholding information. (Link)

"scientists agree that elephants did not exist in the Americas"

MormonThink states...

"Regarding the elephants cited by the apologists, first off all scientists agree that elephants did not exist in the Americas, however Mastodons, which are not elephants, did exist in stone-age times. Giving Joseph Smith some latitude here and equating elephants with mastodons, here's what one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world, the National Geographic Society says: Mastodons lived in North America starting about 2 million years ago and thrived until 11,000 years ago—around the time humans arrived on the continent—when the last of the 7-ton (6.35-metric-ton) elephant like creatures died off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061003-mastodons.html . So although Mastodons (once again not elephants) lived in the Americas, they died out several thousands of years before the Jaredites even came to the Americas."

FairMormon Response

Notes