But this was limited strictly (more or less) to the online, "unofficial" aspects of LDS apologetics. After all, no one from the Maxwell Institute was involved. Neither DCP, nor Hamblin, nor any of the more high-profile, professorial types engaged in the outright invention of evidence that juliann was so obviously guilty of. At least not this time.
It turns out that FARMS, in quite an official capacity, appears to have totally invented a bogus piece of evidence!!! Most here are no doubt aware of the numerous problems facing the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. One of these problems involves the mention of "horses" during the time the Book of Mormon takes place, which is problematic since horses did not appear in the New World until after the arrival of the Spanish. Apologists have taken many approaches to addressing this problem, including the rather absurd suggestion that "horses" actually means "tapirs"---as if Nephite warriors were riding around on the backs of long-snouted, pig like creatures.
Even worse, on the Maxwell Institute's official website "Frequently Asked Questions" section (http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/faq.php ... =questions), we get this peculiar entry:
(emphasis added)The Book of Mormon never claims that the horse was universally known or used in the New World. For example, Book of Mormon references to horses suggest that they may have been relatively uncommon, being limited only to certain regions during specific periods of Book of Mormon history. One horse specimen, discovered in Florida, was carbon-dated to about 100 B.C. Other horse remains have been found in precolumbian archaeological contexts in Mesoamerica (at Loltun and Mayapan), but these have not as yet been carbon dated.
Intriguing! But how are we to validate this claim? The simple answer is: We can't. It seems there never was a "Florida horse." (Notice that there are no references to any studies, nor mention of a specific site, nor anything else of that nature. Just try searching for mention of this horse in the academic literature---there is nothing. And let's face it, the discovery of a horse that old would be an extraordinarily significant find.)
In the end, the only conclusion one can come to is this: Those responsible for the FARMS entry have invented the evidence. Some on the FAIR/MAD board, notably Tarski, have valiantly endeavored to get a legitimate answer to what are really some very serious questions about what seems to be a very serious breach of academic integrity, but all to no avail.
Naturally, this leads into the question: Who was responsible for putting up this totally contrived bit of nonsense? Was it DCP? Bill Hamblin? Or was this decided upon "by committee," as it were? Where, pray tell, are the remains of this ancient horse? In the First Presidency's "F Vault," perhaps? In the same black hole corner of Bill Hamblin's messy office where the mysterious 2nd Watson Letter supposedly disappeared to? The world may never know. Until then, it seems safe to say that the official, BYU-sanctioned apologists at the Maxwell Evidence are every bit as guilty of inventing evidence as juliann and her posse.