Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[drumdude]

"The skin submitted to us, is, in the Minutes of the Society, denominated that of "The Rocky Mountain Sheep;" and, from the wool with which it is covered, it may certainly be considered as nearly allied to that genus of quadrupeds, though, had it wanted [i.e., lacked] this woolly covering, we would probably have been inclined to consider it as more allied to the goat. The general figure of this skin is very different from that of any sheep's skin I have ever seen. The difference is perhaps most remarkable in the length and figure of the neck, which, in no slight degree, resembles that of a thoroughbred horse. The general structure of the head, externally viewed, does not appear to vary from that of other sheep, more than might be ascribed to accidental circumstances. . . ."
[p. 389]

This is an excellent find. The loanshift argument looks even more weak when there were other animals which were closer analogs.

There was nothing preventing the Book of Mormon authors, be they God or seer stone or Smith, from eschewing using a name for the animal and simply describing it as looking *similar* to animal X instead of identical to animal X.

Lord knows the Book of Mormon is replete with “X was like unto Y.” Yet when it comes to these anachronisms that is completely absent.

[MG 2.0]

It would have been fairly impressive if Mormon God had told Joseph Smith to write “puma” instead of Lion. There are evidences of the word being used as early as the late 1700s, well in time for it to be correctly translated in the Book of Mormon.

Alas we get exactly what we would expect, a translator who was completely ignorant of the correct word to use.

Prompt: Would Joseph Smith, Mormon prophet, be more likely to refer to what we call a mountain lion, a puma or a lion?

Joseph Smith would have been far more likely to refer to what we now call a "mountain lion" as a "lion" rather than a "puma." In early 19th-century American English, the common names for Puma concolor included "mountain lion," "panther," "cougar," and "catamount," with "mountain lion" and "panther" being especially prevalent in the regions where Joseph Smith lived and worked

. The term "puma" was not widely used in North America during Smith's lifetime; it is derived from a Peruvian word and became more common in scientific and international contexts later.

Evidence from the Book of Mormon and related writings shows that the term "lion" was familiar and used for both literal and metaphorical references. The Book of Mormon contains several mentions of "lions," though these are often biblical quotations or similes for strength and ferocity, not necessarily references to the actual African lion.
. Scholars have noted that when early Americans and Spanish explorers encountered large predatory cats in the Americas, they often called them "lions," regardless of species. This linguistic practice is reflected in the widespread use of "mountain lion" for the American cougar.
Perplexity A.I.

And now, you have the rest of the story (nod to Paul Harvey).

Why would God 'override' Joseph Smith in this instance...and others? That's an important and relevant question.

Matt Roper has been at this for a long time. It's easy to look the other way or put your head in the sand and end up in the same place as you were before.

Now, before someone accuses me of being mean or unfeeling...ha ha...let me say that I am saying the above with no malice or ill intent. I'm simply pointing out the fact that often, as humans, we take the easy road rather than the hard road of exploration.

Yes, that is a problem that all of us have to deal with and hopefully overcome.

To be clear, I like the way drumdude handles himself on this board. Very civil. Nothing against him as a person. I'm simply asking whether or not he has an equivalent amount of expertise as Matt Roper does in this instance...and others.

Why are apologists instantly thrown under the bus?

This is just one small example of where a critic might be getting something wrong without further exploration and understanding.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

MG,

See my comment above about the Book of Mormon’s ceaseless use of “like unto.”

All of these anachronisms could have been easily avoided during the production of the Book of Mormon with a simple qualifier. But it’s clear to me that the author of the Book of Mormon believed what is written. If it says steel, they believed it meant steel. If it says horse, they believed it was a horse.

“Like unto a horse” is not found anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Why? Because the author meant horse.

[MG 2.0]

MG,

See my comment above about the Book of Mormon’s ceaseless use of “like unto.”

All of these anachronisms could have been easily avoided during the production of the Book of Mormon with a simple qualifier. But it’s clear to me that the author of the Book of Mormon believed what is written. If it says steel, they believed it meant steel. If it says horse, they believed it was a horse.

“Like unto a horse” is not found anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Why? Because the author meant horse.

Does the Book of Mormon ever say, "Like unto a Lion"? I don't know that it does. If Joseph called a puma a lion I think this may explain what's going on with "horse" and other examples. I don't think a qualifier is needed if Joseph actually saw/understood [a]"lion' rather than [a]"puma".

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

MG,

See my comment above about the Book of Mormon’s ceaseless use of “like unto.”

All of these anachronisms could have been easily avoided during the production of the Book of Mormon with a simple qualifier. But it’s clear to me that the author of the Book of Mormon believed what is written. If it says steel, they believed it meant steel. If it says horse, they believed it was a horse.

“Like unto a horse” is not found anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Why? Because the author meant horse.

Does the Book of Mormon ever say, "Like unto a Lion"? I don't know that it does. If Joseph called a puma a lion I think this may explain what's going on with "horse" and other examples. I don't think a qualifier is needed if Joseph actually saw/understood [a] "lion' rather than [a] "puma".

Regards,
MG

This is an important part of the translation process that is constantly switched in the Mormon apologetic shell game.

What is your belief on how the word “horse” got into the Book of Mormon? Do you agree with the witnesses that the letters were shown on the rock and if not copied exactly as God revealed, that Joseph would be forced to re-dictate them until correct?

Or do you believe as the newer apologists do that Joseph inserted his own ideas into the text?

[MG 2.0]

Does the Book of Mormon ever say, "Like unto a Lion"? I don't know that it does. If Joseph called a puma a lion I think this may explain what's going on with "horse" and other examples. I don't think a qualifier is needed if Joseph actually saw/understood [a] "lion' rather than [a] "puma".

Regards,
MG

This is an important part of the translation process that is constantly switched in the Mormon apologetic shell game.

What is your belief on how the word “horse” got into the Book of Mormon? Do you agree with the witnesses that the letters were shown on the rock and if not copied exactly as God revealed, that Joseph would be forced to re-dictate them until correct?

Or do you believe as the newer apologists do that Joseph inserted his own ideas into the text?

Prompt: Can two views of Book of Mormon translation, composite and traditional, be brought together in synthesis to create one translation narrative?

Revelation as a Mediated Process: Both the expansion theory and traditional accounts agree that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon "by the gift and power of God." The expansion theory frames this as a revelatory process in which Joseph’s own language, concepts, and cultural context played a role in expressing the ancient message.

Ancient Core, Modern Expression: The synthesis accepts that the Book of Mormon contains an ancient core-material from the Nephite record-while also acknowledging that Joseph Smith, as a prophet, was authorized and inspired to expand, clarify, and contextualize the text for his 19th-century audience.

Witness Accounts and Flexibility: Eyewitnesses described a translation process that appeared mechanical and tightly controlled (words appearing on a seer stone, read aloud to scribes). However, modern scholarship (e.g., Royal Skousen) has shown that the process was not as rigid as some accounts suggest, allowing for Joseph’s interpretive input and human language.

A Co-Authorship or Co-Participation Model

Blake Ostler and other scholars propose a "co-authorship" or "co-participation" model: Joseph Smith is both translator and creative revelator, participating with God in bringing forth scripture that is both ancient and modern. This model posits:

Divine Revelation provides the underlying message and authority.

Human Mediation allows the prophet’s language, worldview, and interpretive framework to shape the final text.

Scripture as Living Text: The resulting scripture is not a static, word-for-word rendering, but a living document that bridges ancient origins and modern needs.

How the Synthesis Might Look

The Book of Mormon translation involved Joseph Smith receiving divine revelation through interpreters (seer stone, Urim and Thummim), as described in traditional accounts.

While translating, Joseph’s own mind, language, and cultural context inevitably influenced how the ancient message was rendered, resulting in expansions, clarifications, and modern theological insights.

This process is consistent with broader patterns of scriptural creation, where prophets act as both recipients and interpreters of revelation, shaping scripture for their own communities.

Summary Statement

The most robust synthesis sees the Book of Mormon as an ancient record brought forth by revelation, with Joseph Smith acting as both translator and inspired commentator. The translation process was both miraculous and interpretive, producing a text that is authentically ancient in origin but also deeply shaped by the prophet’s language and context, thus harmonizing expansion theory with traditional faith claims.
Perplexity A.I.

This lines it up pretty well. It's been discussed a lot. I don't know that I want to get into it all over again. Let it be said, there are reasons for why we might find "lion" rather than "puma"...and so on.

Critics aren't too hot on any kind of hybrid model for translation obviously.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Does the Book of Mormon ever say, "Like unto a Lion"? I don't know that it does. If Joseph called a puma a lion I think this may explain what's going on with "horse" and other examples. I don't think a qualifier is needed if Joseph actually saw/understood [a] "lion' rather than [a] "puma".

Regards,
MG

This is an important part of the translation process that is constantly switched in the Mormon apologetic shell game.

What is your belief on how the word “horse” got into the Book of Mormon? Do you agree with the witnesses that the letters were shown on the rock and if not copied exactly as God revealed, that Joseph would be forced to re-dictate them until correct?

Or do you believe as the newer apologists do that Joseph inserted his own ideas into the text?

So we’re back to “loose translation” now are we…lion meant puma, horse meant tapir, Guatemala was Alaska…I mean, ffs. I’d like to see Roper submit his article to National Geographic, those boys would get a real hoot out of it.

[MG 2.0]

This is an important part of the translation process that is constantly switched in the Mormon apologetic shell game.

What is your belief on how the word “horse” got into the Book of Mormon? Do you agree with the witnesses that the letters were shown on the rock and if not copied exactly as God revealed, that Joseph would be forced to re-dictate them until correct?

Or do you believe as the newer apologists do that Joseph inserted his own ideas into the text?

So we’re back to “loose translation” now are we…lion meant puma, horse meant tapir, Guatemala was Alaska…I mean, ffs. I’d like to see Roper submit his article to National Geographic, those boys would get a real hoot out of it.

Don't forget the Smithsonian.

Can you imagine having a baptismal service where all the new converts were NG and Smithsonian folks? I can't.

They are just as 'invested' as anyone else.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

This is an important part of the translation process that is constantly switched in the Mormon apologetic shell game.

What is your belief on how the word “horse” got into the Book of Mormon? Do you agree with the witnesses that the letters were shown on the rock and if not copied exactly as God revealed, that Joseph would be forced to re-dictate them until correct?

Or do you believe as the newer apologists do that Joseph inserted his own ideas into the text?

So we’re back to “loose translation” now are we…lion meant puma, horse meant tapir, Guatemala was Alaska…I mean, ffs. I’d like to see Roper submit his article to National Geographic, those boys would get a real hoot out of it.

It’s not very convincing to me. Mormon God went to all this trouble to set up the glowing rock with explicit characters on it, and then we slide into confusion once again with Joseph Smith fiddling around with the text.

If I recall, that kind of stuff was what caused the so-called Great Apostasy in the first place.

[Moksha]

Why are apologists instantly thrown under the bus?

Regards,
MG

Had Matt used the phrase grasping at straws instead of Loanshifting, do you think that might have made a difference?