The Interpreter is sticking with Tapirs. Chariots aren't chariots and more.

[Dr Exiled]

Hi,

I'm new to this chat board. I have to say that accuracy doesn't seem to be prized here. I'm the author of the INTERPRETER article. I don't say that Book of Mormon horses were tapirs. I have included the discussion for completeness. I doubt that was the animal. Horses in the Book of Mormon are rarely mentioned. Tapirs are more plentiful in the area today, although who knows what it might have looked like in 589 BCE.

The point of the article is that if horses (Equus caballus) existed among the Book of Mormon peoples, they did not use them as virtually all other developing civilizations used them. They didn't help in war or with transportation or in other ways.

This is important for determining the size of the Book of Mormon "Promised Land."

More importantly, it shows that critics have overstated their case when they say or imply that DNA evidence proves the Book of Mormon is not historical.

Thanks,

Brian Hales

Are you saying that perhaps horses didn't exist among the Book of Mormon peoples? If so, and archeology backs the lack of horses during the Book of Mormon times, why does the Book of Mormon mention horses? Was God a bad communicator? And if they did exist and were something other than what we, today, consider as horses, why call these animals horses? Again, is it a question of God not communicating well? He supposedly inspired Joseph Smith through the seer stone to write down the words that became the Book of Mormon, so perhaps God wasn't up to speed in the days where horses were mentioned? The word "horse" came out of the seer stone to be communicated to a 19th century audience and beyond, an audience that has a particular meaning attached to the word "horse" and so one would assume that a God would mean what He said through the seer stone. Or perhaps He didn't bother to correct what was translated, letting us continue to move in darkness?

As for DNA, how is the lack of DNA from 600 BC Israel being overstated? Is it that critics don't grant the one/trillion or lower chance that DNA will some day support Book of Mormon claims?

[Shulem]

It never fails to bring a smile to my face seeing former church apologists like Shulem, Consig, Philo, and Reel engage with their past selves in the form of current MoPologists.

They know all the tricks. They know where the bodies are buried.

Indeed, and it's nice to be appreciated and valued. This free speech message board is like a great nail in the Mormon coffin and one in which the apologists dread and fear because they know they can't beat us.

Just imagine Gee & Mulhestein coming here to take me on with the Book of Abraham! Think about that.

In any case, we are the champions!

[Shulem]

The point of the article is that if horses (Equus caballus) existed among the Book of Mormon peoples, they did not use them as virtually all other developing civilizations used them.

What do you mean "if"?

Joseph Smith Nephi listed some basic farm animals spotted to have existed when first exploring the forests. These animals were known to the Jews (Nephi) in 600 BC and could be called by no other name other than what they were.

• Cow

• Ox

• Ass

• Horse

• Goat

• Wild Goat

The text states that the first explorers came into contact with animals in which they were familiar. They called them by name. A horse is a horse of course and by no other name is a horse given in the Book of Mormon other than "horse."

[Doctor Steuss]

Maybe the chariots were pulled by the goats, cattle and pigs that also obviously existed. It'd keep with the theme of using domesticated animals differently than everyone else did, as well as differently than what the text plainly suggests.

I mean, if it's good enough for Dáin Ironfoot...

Book of Mormon Hebrews were a pretty wild bunch. Eating pigs and horses, while riding about on their thoroughbred tapirs.

[Dr Exiled]

This is a problem apologists never seem to answer. If words in the Book of Mormon mean something different than how 19th century people used them or how we use them today, why the confusion? Why would a supposed supreme being like the Mormon god allow this confusion? Is he a bad communicator? When he is at dinner with his harem, if he asks to pass the butter, did he really mean pass the bread?

[Nimrod]

This is a problem apologists never seem to answer. If words in the Book of Mormon mean something different than how 19th century people used them or how we use them today, why the confusion? Why would a supposed supreme being like the Mormon god allow this confusion? Is he a bad communicator? When he is at dinner with his harem, if he asks to pass the butter, did he really mean pass the bread?

And thus, how can any of the words of the Book of Mormon be taken at face value today if some of them don't mean what they obviously and have for centuries denoted?

[Shulem]

Maybe the chariots were pulled by the goats, cattle and pigs that also obviously existed. It'd keep with the theme of using domesticated animals differently than everyone else did, as well as differently than what the text plainly suggests.

Sure, they could have chariots and wagons pulled by all manner of animals, I grant that. But the chariot is special and Joseph Smith's knowledge of the chariot was certainly grounded in his understanding of how they were employed in the Bible. Now, listen to what Brian Hales is saying in his article:

• "Chariots with wheels are not described in the Book of Mormon."

• "John L. Sorenson explains: “Scholars have long operated on the assumption that the wheel was unknown in ancient American technology."

• "So assuming Lamoni’s “chariots” had wheels may not be justified."

Hales then says that "Wheels would assist in moving but are not implicit in the definitions" and to make his point he quotes something from the Oxford Dictionary in an attempt to convey how a vehicle or receptacle is not necessary dependent on wheels.

Hogwash!

All we need do is refer to the same dictionary that Joseph Smith was familiar with and also remind everyone that Smith was well versed about the use of chariots in the Bible:

CHARIOT,noun
1. A half coach; a carriage with four wheels and one seat behind, used for convenience and pleasure.

2. A car or vehicle used formerly in war, drawn by two or more horses, and conveying two men each. These vehicles were sometimes armed with hooks or sythes.

CHARIOT, verb transitive To convey in a chariot

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe the chariots were pulled by … pigs that also obviously existed.

[malkie]

Now that would be cool!

Cool enough for you, Res?

Since the church seems to be de-emphasizing the "get your own world" idea (as taught to many of us by the missionaries, and in regular church classes) perhaps a "get your own Nephite Battle Rhino" program would bring in new folks, and bring back the old inactives - maybe even re-convert the apostates!

[Res Ipsa]

Now that would be cool!

Cool enough for you, Res?

Since the church seems to be de-emphasizing the "get your own world" idea (as taught to many of us by the missionaries, and in regular church classes) perhaps a "get your own Nephite Battle Rhino" program would bring in new folks, and bring back the old inactives - maybe even re-convert the apostates!

Get thee behind me, tempter!

Although that rhino is pretty damn cool....