The post Book of Mormon Playlist appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

Spalding Sometime between 1809 and 1812 (about twenty years before the Book of Mormon came to press) a Reverend Solomon Spalding (also spelled Spaulding) wrote a novel about a group of ancient Roman sailors who were blown off course and landed in America. Spalding died in 1816 and his manuscript was never published. In 1833, Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, who had recently been excommunicated from the LDS Church for unchristian-like conduct toward some young ladies, heard of this manuscript and endeavored to show that Joseph Smith had plagiarized Spalding’s work by turning it into the Book of Mormon. Originally, Hurlbut wanted to publish the manuscript in order to prove that the Book of Mormon was fraudulent, but when he read the manuscript he did not find the hoped-for parallels. Discouraged, he passed the project on to another anti-Mormon, E.D. Howe. Howe, in turn, published an anti-Mormon book claiming that the Book of Mormon plagiarized Spalding’s novel. According to so-called “witnesses” who had read the manuscript, Spalding had written about Nephi, Lehi, the Lamanites, and Nephites nearly twenty years before the publication of the Book of Mormon. The critics claimed that Sidney Rigdon, a convert to the Church, copied the manuscript and gave it to Joseph Smith who turned it into the Book of Mormon. Rigdon, however, had never heard of the Book of Mormon or its contents until he became a Mormon after 1830, and he had not even been in the vicinity of Spalding’s home until after Spalding had died. Even many years later, after Rigdon had apostatized from the Church, he denied ever having seen the Book of Mormon until it was introduced to him by the Mormon missionary Parley P. Pratt. Somehow the Spalding manuscript was lost and then resurfaced in 1884 in a pile of papers belonging to a man who had bought Howe’s business. Examining Spalding’s actual novel proved that the Mormons had been right all along; any similarities between the manuscript and the Book of Mormon were superficial.

In 1775 James Adair published A History of the American Indians, and in 1823 Ethan Smith published View of the Hebrews. Both books claimed to provide evidence that the Indians were remnants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. By the time Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, some people of the day believed that the Indians were descendants of the lost tribes. Critics note numerous parallels between phrases in the Book of Mormon and phrases in the books by Ethan Smith and James Adair. According to the critics, some of these word phrases appear in the same order and are grouped with other word phrases identical to that of the Book of Mormon. Because Ethan Smith’s and James Adair’s books were printed before Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, the critics claim that the similarity in phraseology proves that Joseph borrowed information from these books. Such a conclusion, however, commits the post hoc (or “coincidental correlation”) logical fallacy. This fallacy is expressed as: “Event A occurred before event B. Therefore, A must have caused B.” A rooster who believes that his crowing causes the sun to rise each morning is the classic illustration of this fallacy. Similarities do not prove dependence. Just because two documents have similar phrases does not mean that one is dependent on the other. Generally, all people in a given society use similar phrases to express ideas and elucidate concepts. Joseph would have used the phrases and terminology of his day to translate or convey the meaning of what was on the plates.

The alleged similarities between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, however, go beyond phraseology. Among the critics’ list of similarities are the discovery of a lost Hebrew book among the Indians, Indians who had contact with Egyptian hieroglyphics, a barbarous people who overthrew a civilized people, the destruction of Jerusalem, large civilizations in America, lengthy quotes from Isaiah, that the American Gentile nation would become the savior of Israel in America, polygamy, and Quetzalcoatl—a white, bearded prophet who visited the early Americans.ⁱ At first blush, some of these parallels sound intriguing. The problem is, however, that if Joseph was familiar with Ethan Smith’s historical speculations and his attempts to prove that the Indians were descendants of the ten lost tribes, then Joseph would not have blatantly contradicted some of the “evidences” proposed by Ethan’s book. Ethan’s book, for instance, begins with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (which occurred after Christ’s ascension). The Book of Mormon, of course, begins with the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonians, 600 years before Christ. The two similarities are not similar at all and must be counted as the coincidental mention of the city, Jerusalem. View of the Hebrews lists many Old Testament prophecies about the restoration of Israel including those contained in Isaiah 11. While these scriptures are essential to Ethan’s argument, none of them—with the sole exception of those in Isaiah 11—are found in the Book of Mormon.

The longest chapter in Ethan’s book lists numerous proofs for the Hebrew lineage among the Indians, but virtually none of these proofs are found in the Book of Mormon. Ethan claims that all experts believe that the Hebrew-Indians came across the Bering Strait, yet the Book of Mormon claims that Book of Mormon peoples came by boat. One of Ethan’s favorite proofs that the Indians were Israelites is their use of the word “Hallelujah,” yet this word is never found in the Book of Mormon. Other words listed by Ethan that supposedly imply proof of Israelite dependency find not even the remotest equivalency to any of the names in the Book of Mormon. According to Ethan, one of the surest signs that the Indians are Israelites is his claim that the Indians would carry small boxes into battle to protect them from injury—just like the Israelites and the Ark of the Covenant. How could Joseph have missed this wonderful evidence? If Joseph had read Ethan’s book or if he was at least familiar enough with its contents to plagiarize or sponge the ideas proposed in Ethan’s book, it would make sense that Joseph would have utilized this fabulous story of Indian battle boxes. Keep in mind that Ethan was not writing fiction; he was claiming that, according to his research and the opinions of other experts, his proofs supported the belief that the Indians were Israelites. Why would Joseph miss an opportunity to bolster the Book of Mormon’s claim to be an authentic ancient text? With Ethan’s book Joseph had some of the best and brightest propositions of his day to support his interpretation of the Book of Mormon’s general thesis (that the Indians were descended from Israelites). Why did he not use them? Other missed opportunities include Ethan’s claim that the Israelite Indians would offer a daily sacrifice by passing venison through a fire and cutting it into twelve pieces. Once again, this is not found in the Book of Mormon. Ethan equates the white-bearded God, Quetzalcoatl, with Moses. The Book of Mormon never mentions Quetzalcoatl or any of Ethan’s details of Quetzalcoatl’s Indian traditions—such as bare feet, pierced ears, fiery-flying serpents, green plumage, and more. The pinnacle event in the Book of Mormon is a visitation from Christ, Himself. Many Mormons—perhaps following the tradition of people like Ethan Smith—believe that the legends of a white-bearded prophet (sometimes called Quetzalcoatl and sometimes known by other names) refer to Christ. Some modern LDS scholars, however, believe that the Quetzalcoatl traditions (as relating to a white-bearded god/prophet who promised to return) were created by the Spaniards and have no bearing on Christ’s visitation to the New World.ⁱⁱ

If Joseph plagiarized Ethan’s View of the Hebrews he missed many opportunities to support the Book of Mormon with the information of his day. In fact, much of the information included in the Book of Mormon was contrary to what was known in 1830 about the ancient Old and New Worlds. It does not seem likely that Joseph would write a book—a book that he hoped people would believe—that would contradict what the best information of his day suggested about the ancient worlds. The “parallels” between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon are actually so tenuous that in 1996 the Religious Studies Center at BYU reprinted Ethan’s 1825 book, making it readily available for anyone to see the differences for themselves. According to the critics, however, Joseph was able to sponge all kinds of things from his environment—stories of Indian origins, magic worldviews, Kabalistic traditions, apocryphal legends, archaic names, and more.

If we take the sponge theory seriously, then it seems logical that Joseph would have relied on the latest knowledge of his day when fabricating his Book of Mormon. We find, however, that Joseph’s new scripture was at odds with nineteenth-century theories about the origin of New World inhabitants as well as what the “scholars” of his day believed about the ancient Old and New Worlds. In Joseph’s day, what most people knew about the Native Americans came from discoveries in local vicinities. It was not until 1842 (a dozen years after the Book of Mormon was published) that John Lloyd Stephens first brought to light the findings of his expeditions among Mesoamerican ruins.ⁱⁱⁱ Also, as pointed out in Chapter 6, over 80% of items mentioned in the Book of Mormon (such as barley, cement, thrones, and more) had no New World archaeological support in 1830. That means that Joseph included things in the Book of Mormon that were contrary to what was known about the Indians during his lifetime. Today, 75% of those same items have been confirmed to at least some degree by New World archaeology.^iv

We find the same thing in the ancient Old World. As the late Eugene England has shown, there was a dearth of accurate information about the ancient Near East in Joseph Smith’s day. Information on ancient Arabia that was available was often wrong, and almost consistently described Arabia as a barren wasteland. Some books claimed that it was so hot in Arabia that animals were roasted on the plains and birds in mid-air. The southern coastline was described as a rocky wall, so dismal and barren that there was not even a blade of grass. The Book of Mormon, however, tells a different story. Nephi, for example, tells us about a system of wadis (valleys of seasonal riverbeds) now known to have existed in ancient Arabia, but not mentioned in the books of Joseph’s day. Very few books mentioned any fertile regions in Arabia, and those that did got the information wrong as well—describing fertile regions as producing rice, maize, and tropical fruits. So inaccurate were the experts of 1830 America, that if Joseph had sponged the information of his day, he would have produced a book full of errors. Most of what we Westerners know about ancient Arabia has come within the last few decades.

This is aptly demonstrated in the comments of one twentieth-century critic (who claims a Ph.D. in biology): First Nephi 17:5 is a interesting description of Arabia which is “called Bountiful because of its much fruit and also wild honey.” Arabia is bountiful in sunshine, certain insects, petroleum, sand, heat, clear skies, and fresh air, but certainly not in “much fruit and also wild honey,” nor has it been in over 4,000 years. …First Nephi 18:1 indicates that the Jews made a ship from ample timber of Arabia. The same objection above applies here. Arabia had and has no significant timber forests.^v Current research, however, demonstrates that the early chapters of the Book of Mormon relate real-world information about ancient Arabia during the seventh century B.C. (just as described by Nephi in their flight from Jerusalem). Details of the trip have a high degree of confirmation from archaeology and Old World studies. These include descriptions of terrain, difficulties, vegetation, ore, trails, and, of course Nahom (as noted in Chapter 6). In southern Arabia, east of NHM, is tiny coastal inlet known as Khor Kharfot. It is not only located exactly where Nephi found “Bountiful” but it matches the Book of Mormon description of Bountiful, detail for detail—including the existence (both anciently and modernly) of “much fruit and also wild honey” as well as ship-building timber. Significantly, no other place in Arabia matches all of the details of Bountiful other than Khor Kharfot.^vi As with the growing support for the Book of Mormon from New World archaeology, the discoveries of the ancient Old World tend to confirm the book as well—all contrary to the information Joseph might have sponged from his nineteenth-century New England environment.

The post Could the Book of Mormon Story have Come From Existing Books? Highly Unlikely. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

Continue your search below with this informative exerpt from Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt

An anachronism is something that does not fit the time frame for which it is claimed. For example, a tale of King Henry VIII watching television would be anachronistic. The Book of Mormon has frequently been charged with containing numerous anachronistic items including certain animals, plants, metals, textiles, and weapons. In all instances, however, there is the possibility that (a) such things were once in the Americas but the evidence has either disappeared or has not yet been found, or (b) Book of Mormon labels are based on the re-labeling of New World items with familiar Old World labels. To claim that things did not exist because they have not been found is to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance or silence. According to a famous and generally accepted archaeological dictum, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (see, for example, the discussion on the limits of archaeology in Chapter 6).

Until the middle of the twentieth century, for example, the best archaeologists were convinced that the camel was unknown in Egypt until Greek and Roman times despite the mention of camels in the biblical account of Abraham (Genesis 12:16). Today, however, scholars realize that the camel continued to be used in Egypt from prehistoric to present times.ⁱ Similarly, despite several biblical and sixteenth-century references to lions in Israel (some of these references mentioned lions over a thousand years after the Book of Mormon mentions horses) scholars had been perplexed by the absence of lion bones. As late as 1981, Dr. Joseph Heller, chairman of the Department of Zoology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, told one researcher that there were no archaeological remains of lions in Israel.ⁱⁱ Despite the fact that archaeologists have been digging in Israel since 1864, it was not until 1983 that the remains of two lions were discovered in Israel. As far as I am aware, no other remains have been discovered since. As LDS scholar John Tvedtnes also notes, Similarly lions were frequently depicted in ancient Egyptian wall reliefs and papyri and were hunted and even raised as pets by the royal family, but no lion remains were found until 2001, when …a mummified lion from the first century B.C. [was discovered] in an Egyptian tomb. This was more than a century and a half after archaeological work began in Egypt.ⁱⁱⁱ

As pointed out in Chapter 5, words do not have “plain” meanings; they only have meaning in context of a language, culture, timeframe, and in relation to other words. When the Miami Indians, for example (who were familiar with cows) first encountered the unfamiliar buffalo they simply called them “wild cows.” Likewise the explorer DeSoto called the buffalo vaca which is Spanish for “cow.” The Delaware Indians named the cow “deer,” and a group of Miami Indians labeled the unfamiliar sheep “looks-like-a-cow.”^iv Also, as noted in Chapter 5, the Hebrew word parash can mean horse as well as a human horseman, depending on context.^v In the Bible, the Hebrew word for horse is sus and means leaping, but it can also refer to the rapid flight of swallows and cranes. Typically our English-language Bibles translate the word sus as horse, but twice it is translated as crane, and twice as horseback—referring to a rider.^vi

The Book of Mormon authors tell us that reformed Egyptian (their written language) was different than their spoken language. The Nephites would have liked to write in Hebrew but they used reformed Egyptian instead because it took up less space on the plates (Mormon 9:32–33). Reformed Egyptian was probably a more compact script than Hebrew and possibly consisted of a more limited vocabulary. Moroni tells us that if they could have written in Hebrew instead of reformed Egyptian there would have been fewer mistakes. Maybe he understood that at least some reformed Egyptian characters only approximated a concept or that some words had expanded meanings. As we examine the Book of Mormon text we discover that, indeed, reformed Egyptian appears to have had a very limited vocabulary. LDS researcher Benjamin McGuire notes that while the Book of Mormon is roughly 270,000 words long, it has a vocabulary of only about 5,500 words. If we compare this to contemporary books of Joseph Smith’s day we find that Warren Ramsey’s The Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution had roughly as many words as the Book of Mormon but had a vocabulary 2.5 times greater than the Book of Mormon. Jules Verne’s Around the World in 80 Days has only one third as many words as the Book of Mormon, but has a vocabulary nearly 25% larger. Solomon Spalding wrote a novel that some critics claim was the original source for the Book of Mormon. That claim has been soundly refuted (see Chapter 12), but it is interesting that Spalding’s manuscript, which is just under 15% the length of the Book of Mormon, has about the same size vocabulary. The limited Book of Mormon vocabulary becomes even smaller when we remove the unique Book of Mormon names.^vii

Some might suggest that the Book of Mormon’s vocabulary was limited because Joseph Smith’s vocabulary was limited. The evidence, however, contradicts such a theory. In the Book of Mormon, for example, we find a single word for a moving body of water—a “river.” In the Doctrine and Covenants, however, Joseph Smith uses “river,” “stream,” “rill,” and “brook.” Critics frequently claim that Joseph copied the language of the Bible when translating the Book of Mormon. The Bible, however, contains not only “river,” but descriptors such as “stream,”“creek,” and “brook”—none of which are in the Book of Mormon. Likewise, the Book of Mormon uses only one word for large bodies of water—”sea.” Other than the figurative lakes of fire and brimstone, we do not read of “lakes,” “ponds,” “oceans,” “pools,” etc.

There is little doubt that Joseph incorporated terms of his environment to describe or convey some translations of Book of Mormon text (see Chapter 5), but it seems that at least in some instances such borrowed terminology was used in metaphorical ways rather than in describing physical specimens. Some LDS scholars have suggested that, in at least some instances, the “seas” of the Book of Mormon may have been large lakes or other bodies of water (like the Dead Sea). The Bible uses not only “sea” but unlike the Book of Mormon it also uses “pond,” “pool,” and “lake.” In the Doctrine and Covenants we find “sea,” “ocean,” and “pool.” Other than wheat, barley, corn, and the generic term “tree,” we find few terms for flora in the Book of Mormon text. In contrast, the Bible mentions the poplar, pine, pomegranate, palm, almond, fig, gopher, chestnut, and olive.^viii

Of the animals listed in the New World portions of the Book of Mormon, thirteen are physical creatures, whereas the remaining animals are figurative and may have been borrowed from Joseph’s language to express common ideas. Two of the thirteen physical creatures are cumoms and cureloms from Jaredite times (for which we have no Nephite or modern translation). Of the eleven remaining physical creatures we find cow, ox, ass, horse, goat, wild goat, dog, sheep, swine, serpents, and elephant. In the Bible we find the same animals as listed in the Book of Mormon (with the exception of the “elephant”) along with the lion, bear, ape, ostrich, hare, bat, badger, greyhound, ram, ferret, lizard, chameleon, snail, mole, spider, stork, mouse, weasel, tortoise, vulture, frog, crow, camel, and many more. While “fowl” are said to exist in Book of Mormon lands, no specific bird (nor even the word “bird”) is ever mentioned other than figuratively. In the Bible, however, we read not only of birds and fowls but we find the hawk, dove, quail, owl, pigeon, partridge, swan, swallow, and crane.

It quickly becomes apparent that reformed Egyptian had a small vocabulary. What does one do with a small vocabulary when there is a need to include a variety of new and unfamiliar items? The solution is to intuitively expand the definition of existing words. When translators run into the problem of untranslatable words, they resolve the issue by way of several options—such as adaptation, paraphrasing, borrowing, and other options.^ix The same thing happens when people find it necessary to label new and unfamiliar items, they often instinctively “loanshift” words or expand familiar terms to include unfamiliar items.^x Cross-cultural onomastica^xi (onomastica refers to the names we use for people, animals, or things) occurs throughout the world.

Anthropologists and historians who have studied cross-cultural contact, for instance, refer to this well-known practice as loanshift or loan-extension. When the Greeks first encountered a large unfamiliar animal in the Nile River, for example, they named it hippopotamus or “river horse.”^xii Umberto Eco, a world-renowned (non-LDS) linguist (semiotics), explains: Often, when faced with an unknown phenomenon, we react by approximation: we seek that scrap of content, already present in our encyclopedia, which for better or worse seems to account for the new fact. A classic example of this process is to be found in Marco Polo, who saw what we now realize were rhinoceroses on Java. Although he had never seen such animals before, by analogy with other known animals he was able to distinguish the body, the four feet, and the horn. Since his culture provided him with the notion of a unicorn—a quadruped with a horn on its forehead, to be precise—he designated those animals as unicorns.^xiii Marco Polo recorded that the rhinoceros did not precisely match descriptions he had previously heard about unicorns but he nevertheless simply expanded his understanding of what a unicorn might be to include the rhinoceros.

Non-LDS linguist Dr. Joel Hoffman likewise explains, “Words can mean more than one thing, …the meaning of a word can be extended…. [and]…words change meaning when they travel (“get borrowed”) from one language to another.”^xiv While the Nephites may have used familiar names for unfamiliar flora, fauna, or weapons, Joseph Smith may have struggled to translate foreign items by using words from his vocabulary that approximated concepts or ideas. It is an indisputable fact that loan-shifting can happen during the translation of one language to another^xv and two languages need not resemble each other phonetically in order for loan-shifting to occur.^xvi Instead of creating entirely new words for unfamiliar things, sometimes people tend to “translate” new things into their own language by expanding their current words to include the new item.

For another insightful article on anachronisms in the Book of Mormon check out this link: http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2013/08/anachronisms-and-expectations-assessing.html

The post Are Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon Evidence it is Fiction? Evidence of Divine, Actually. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

When most of us recontextualize Book of Mormon horses, we tend to envision Nephites riding traditional horses into battle or using them to pull chariots. The Book of Mormon, however, never says horses were ridden (a curious thing if Joseph was the author of the Book of Mormon) or that they pulled chariots. In fact, Book of Mormon horses are never mentioned in a combat narrative. Book of Mormon horses do not function anything like nineteenth-century farm or field horses, nor are they utilized by either the Nephites or Lamanites as were the horses belonging to the farmers, explorers, or Native Americans in Joseph Smith’s milieu. Understanding these differences is a clue to helping us realize that Book of Mormon horses refers to something different than what we intuitively envision. There are at least two possible resolutions to the “horse” problem in the Book of Mormon: (1) definitions were expanded to include new meanings and (2) horses were present but their remains have not been found.

Limited Vocabulary

The Book of Mormon authors tell us that reformed Egyptian (their written language) was different than their spoken language. The Nephites would have liked to write in Hebrew but they used reformed Egyptian instead because it took up less space on the plates (Mormon 9:32–33). Reformed Egyptian was probably a more compact script than Hebrew and possibly consisted of a more limited vocabulary. Moroni tells us that if they could have written in Hebrew instead of reformed Egyptian there would have been fewer mistakes. Maybe he understood that at least some reformed Egyptian characters only approximated a concept or that some words had expanded meanings. As we examine the Book of Mormon text we discover that, indeed, reformed Egyptian appears to have had a very limited vocabulary. LDS researcher Benjamin McGuire notes that while the Book of Mormon is roughly 270,000 words long, it has a vocabulary of only about 5,500 words. If we compare this to contemporary books of Joseph Smith’s day we find that Warren Ramsey’s The Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution had roughly as many words as the Book of Mormon but had a vocabulary 2.5 times greater than the Book of Mormon. Jules Verne’s Around the World in 80 Days has only one third as many words as the Book of Mormon, but has a vocabulary nearly 25% larger. Solomon Spalding wrote a novel that some critics claim was the original source for the Book of Mormon. That claim has been soundly refuted (see Chapter 12), but it is interesting that Spalding’s manuscript, which is just under 15% the length of the Book of Mormon, has about the same size vocabulary. The limited Book of Mormon vocabulary becomes even smaller when we remove the unique Book of Mormon names.ⁱ Some might suggest that the Book of Mormon’s vocabulary was limited because Joseph Smith’s vocabulary was limited. The evidence, however, contradicts such a theory. Of the animals listed in the New World portions of the Book of Mormon, thirteen are physical creatures, whereas the remaining animals are figurative and may have been borrowed from Joseph’s language to express common ideas. Two of the thirteen physical creatures are cumoms and cureloms from Jaredite times (for which we have no Nephite or modern translation). Of the eleven remaining physical creatures we find cow, ox, ass, horse, goat, wild goat, dog, sheep, swine, serpents, and elephant. In the Bible we find the same animals as listed in the Book of Mormon (with the exception of the “elephant”) along with the lion, bear, ape, ostrich, hare, bat, badger, greyhound, ram, ferret, lizard, chameleon, snail, mole, spider, stork, mouse, weasel, tortoise, vulture, frog, crow, camel, and many more. While “fowl” are said to exist in Book of Mormon lands, no specific bird (nor even the word “bird”) is ever mentioned other than figuratively. In the Bible, however, we read not only of birds and fowls but we find the hawk, dove, quail, owl, pigeon, partridge, swan, swallow, and crane. It quickly becomes apparent that reformed Egyptian had a small vocabulary.

Loan-Shifting

What does one do with a small vocabulary when there is a need to include a variety of new and unfamiliar items? The solution is to intuitively expand the definition of existing words. When translators run into the problem of untranslatable words, they resolve the issue by way of several options—such as adaptation, paraphrasing, borrowing, and other options.ⁱⁱ The same thing happens when people find it necessary to label new and unfamiliar items, they often instinctively “loanshift” words or expand familiar terms to include unfamiliar items.ⁱⁱⁱ Non-LDS linguist Dr. Joel Hoffman likewise explains, “Words can mean more than one thing, …the meaning of a word can be extended…. [and]…words change meaning when they travel (“get borrowed”) from one language to another.”^iv While the Nephites may have used familiar names for unfamiliar flora, fauna, or weapons, Joseph Smith may have struggled to translate foreign items by using words from his vocabulary that approximated concepts or ideas. It is an indisputable fact that loan-shifting can happen during the translation of one language to another^v and two languages need not resemble each other phonetically in order for loan-shifting to occur.^vi Instead of creating entirely new words for unfamiliar things, sometimes people tend to “translate” new things into their own language by expanding their current words to include the new item.

Deer?

The Quiché languages of highland Guatemala have expressions like keh, which means both deer and horse, and the cognitive keheh, which means mount or ride.^vii An early pre-Spanish incense burner discovered in Guatemala shows a man riding on the back of a deer, and a stone monument dating to 700 A.D. shows a woman riding a deer. Until recently, many people in Siberia rode on the backs of deer. In such cases the deer served as horses.^viii When the conquistadors arrived in the New World both the natives and the Spaniards had problems classifying new animals. The lowland Maya called the European goat a “short-horned deer”^ix and some of the Amerindians referred to the newly introduced horse simply as “deer.”^x If early Native Americans had no problem expanding their definition of “deer” to include horses, why could not the Nephites expand their definition of “horse” to include deer if the American genus of deer in some ways acted like horses? It is not only possible, but virtually mandatory that the same phenomenon would be found in the Book of Mormon if it really derived from an ancient culture that intermingled with another foreign culture.

Tapir?

In my opinion, a more likely candidate for the Nephite loan-shift “horse” would have been the Central American tapir. The Spaniards called the native tapir (which is related to the horse) an “ass,”^xi and some of the Maya called the European horses and donkeys “tapirs” because, at least according to one observer, they looked so similar.^xii Tapirs are one of only a few odd-toed ungulates—a family that includes the horse, zebra, donkey, onager, and the rhinoceros. These large grazing animals have common traits, including an odd number of toes on each hoof, a large middle toe, and a relatively simple stomach (as compared to other grazing animals like cows who regurgitate their cud for digestion).^xiii While some species of tapir are rather small and look like pigs, the Mesoamerican variety—Baird’s Tapir—can grow to be nearly six and a half feet in length and can weigh more than six hundred pounds. A modern government report indicates that, The tapir is docile toward man and hence management of the animal is relatively easy. An indigenous person describes the tapir as follows: “The animal is very sociable. Taken as a pup, one can easily tame it; it knows how to behave near the house; it goes to eat in the mountain and then returns to sleep near the house.”^xiv Tapirs were frequently eaten^xv and, because of their strength, they may have been used as beasts of burden on a small scale.

Ancient Horses?

Pockets of Ancient Horses In prehistoric times miniature horses lived in the Americas. Current studies suggest that these animals (which were generally under five feet high at the shoulder) were hunted for their meat. In fact, they may have become extinct in some parts of the New World due to over hunting.^xvi Some scholars believe that small pockets of these diminutive horses survived until Book of Mormon times^xviiand ongoing research on several ancient American horse bones may support such a theory.^xviii At least a few non-Mormon scholars believe that real horses (of a stature smaller than modern horses) may have survived New World extinction. The late British anthropologist, M.F. Ashley Montague, a non-LDS scholar who taught at Harvard, suggested that the horse never became extinct in America. According to Montague, the size of post-Columbian horses provides evidence that the European horses bred with early American horses.^xix Non-LDS Canadian researcher, Yuri Kuchinsky, also believes that there were pre-Columbian horses. Kuchinsky, however, believes that horses (smaller than our modern horses) were reintroduced to the west coast of the Americas about 2,000 years ago by Asians who came on boats. Among Kuchinsky’s evidences for pre-Columbian horses are (1) horse traditions among the Indians that may pre-date the arrival of the Spaniards, (2) supposedly pre-Columbian petroglyphs that appear to depict horses, and (3) noticeable differences between the typical Spanish horse and the much smaller Indian ponies.^xx

Unfortunately, however, such theories are typically seen as fringe among mainstream scholars. Due to the dearth of archaeological support, most scholars continue to believe that horses became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene period. Is it possible that real horses lived in the Americas during Book of Mormon times? And if so, why does there seem to be no archaeological support? First, it is important to recognize that the Book of Mormon never states or implies that horses roamed the New World in large numbers—in fact, horses are mentioned very infrequently. If small pockets of horses lived in pre-Columbian America, it is possible that they would have left little if any trace in the archaeological record. We know, for example, that the Norsemen probably introduced horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs into Eastern North America in the eleventh century A.D., yet these animals did not spread throughout the continent and they left no archeological remains.^xxi According to one non-LDS authority on ancient American, the Olmecs had domesticated dogs and turkeys but the damp acidic Mesoamerican soil would have destroyed any remains and any archaeological evidence of such animal domestication.^xxii

Archaeological Evidence

The fact is, however, that there does appear to be archaeological support that horses existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. In 1957, for instance, at Mayapan (a site corresponding to Book of Mormon lands/times) horse remains were discovered at a depth considered to be pre-Columbian. Likewise, in southwest Yucatan, a non-Mormon archaeologist found what may likely be pre-Columbian horse remains in three caves. Excavations in a cave in the Mayan lowlands in 1978 also turned up horse remains.^xxiii Why haven’t pre-Columbian horse remains received greater attention from other scientists? As an article for the Academy of Natural Science explains, such discoveries are typically “either dismissed or ignored by the European scientific community.”^xxiv The problem may be one of pre-conceived paradigms. Dr. Sorenson relates the story of a non-LDS archaeologist colleague who was digging at an archaeological dig in Tula and discovered a horse tooth. He took it to his supervisor—the chief archaeologist—who said, “Oh, that’s a modern horse, throw it away” (which he did). It was never dated.^xxv Dr. John Clark, director of the New World Archaeological Foundation has expressed similar concerns: The problem is archaeologists get in the same hole that everybody else gets in. If you find a horse—if I’m digging a site and I find a horse bone—if I actually know enough to know that it is a horse bone, because that takes some expertise—my assumption would be that there’s something wrong with my site. And so archaeologists who find a horse bone and say, “Ah! Somebody’s screwing around with my archaeology.” So we would never date it. Why am I going to throw away $600 to date the horse bone when I already know [that it’s modern]? …I think that hole’s screwed up. If I dig a hole and I find plastic in the bottom, I’m not going to run the [radio]carbon, that’s all there is to it. Because …I don’t want to waste the money.^xxvi A few years ago FARMS began a project to date the horse remains discovered at digs that date to pre-Columbian times. Acquiring the remains was an extensive job in itself. Some of the reported remains had disappeared, and some of the owners of the remains did not want FARMS taking them for dating purposes. Of the remains that FARMS was able to acquire it appears that at least a few date to pre-Columbian times. Retired professor of geology and paleontology Dr. Wade Miller did some preliminary work on dating some of the horse remains. He notes: Some of the unpublished dates run on horse fossils that appear to be valid are: 5,890 B.C. (Pratt Cave in Texas); 830 B.C. southern Saskatchewan, Canada); 815 A.D. (Ontario Canada); 1,260–1,400 A.D. (Wolf Spider Cave, Colorado). A date of about 1,120 B.C. was determined using a thermoluminescence method on a horse bone from Horsethief Cave in Wyoming.^xxvii The standard scientific view is that New World horses became extinct about 10,000 years ago. Any horse bones dated after this time demonstrate that at least some pockets of horses survived the mass extinction and that small pockets could have survived to Book of Mormon times. Although the work is not yet complete, the prospects look promising.

The post Are Pre-Columbian Horses in Book of Mormon Problematic? Not Necessarily. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

The post The Book of Mormon Claims Elephants in Ancient America? Latest Findings. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

Until recently the critics were sure that barley and wheat were unknown in the ancient New World. An article in Science 83, however, revealed that pre-Columbian domesticated barley had been discovered by archaeologists at an ancient Hohokam Indian site in Arizona.[455] The non-LDS author of this article suggested that the barley might have been imported from Mexico at a very early date. It is interesting that Alma 63:6–10 describes various Nephite migrations to the North. It is possible that such migrations (and other similar ancient Mesoamerican migrations) might have influenced North American cultures and crops. To the surprise of many, the find at the Hohokam site in Arizona was a first only because it yielded cultivated or domesticated barley. Biologist Howard Stutz explains, “three types of wild barley have long been known to be native to the Americas.” Furthermore, scholars now report that other examples of what may be domesticated barley have been found in eastern Oklahoma and southern Illinois, dating from 1 to 900 A.D.[456]

It is also possible that real wheat was present during Book of Mormon times but has since disappeared. When the Spanish arrived in the New World in the sixteenth century, for example, Bishop Landa wrote that they helped the Indians to raise European millet, which grew remarkably well in the area. Four centuries later, however, botanists were unable to find even a trace of the millet about which Landa had written. Perhaps Book of Mormon wheat referred to something similar but different than what we know as wheat. In America, for instance, “corn” refers to maize, but in England it once meant wheat, and in Scotland oats. A recent study of amaranth, an Old World grain which was used like wheat in pre-Columbian America, has led some scholars to conclude that the grain was brought to the New World by ship in ancient times. Amaranth, which is not unlike wheat, could have been the “wheat” mentioned in the Book of Mormon.[457]

The post Barley and Wheat in Ancient America? Actually, Yes. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

Although the type of silk with which we are familiar has not been found, other types of silk were known in the ancient New World. The Spanish reported several kinds of silk. One kind of silk was spun from the hair of rabbit’s bellies, another may have come from a wild silkworm, and yet a third came from the pod of the ceiba tree. Spanish chronicles report that types of silk were spun and woven in Mesoamerica before their arrival. Since the arrival of the Spanish, however, these fabrics have disappeared—deteriorated with time. As with wheat and silk, it is possible that Book of Mormon linen refers to linen-like items rather than the linen with which we are familiar. Bernal Diaz, for instance, who served with Cortez, described Native American garments made of henequen, which is like linen. Likewise, sixteenth-century Bishop Landa recorded that the Mayan priests used linen garb in their ritual ceremonies.[458] The native garments were enough like “linen” to warrant the use of the same label. Henequen is made from the fiber of the maguey plant and closely resembles the flax fiber used to make European linen.

Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, Incorporated

The post Is there any Evidence of Silk or Linen in Ancient America? Yes. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

Iron: In 1996 a non-LDS Olmec specialist reported that several tons of iron had been excavated from ancient New World sites. Prior to this discovery, only a few pieces of iron were known.[460]

Steel: When Nephi slew Laban to obtain the plates of brass, he used Laban’s own sword made of “precious steel” (1 Nephi 4:9). James H. Hunt, a critic writing in 1844, listed “steel” as one proof that the Book of Mormon was fraudulent. Hunt—who lived in the same time and general vicinity as Joseph Smith (and would likely have had access to the same resources)—claimed that Alexander the Great, who lived three hundred years after Nephi, employed iron weapons because steel was unknown. “…a coarse kind of steel, or iron carbonated,” claims Hunt, came on the scene about five hundred years after Laban and Nephi.[461] Even as late as 1920 some critics were claiming that Joseph Smith got it wrong and that steel was unknown in Lehi’s day.[462] Steel is typically an alloy of iron and traces of carbon that have been hardened by a process of heating and quenching. We now know, however, that deliberate “steeling” of iron was well-known in the Near Eastern world centuries before Nephi was even born. Recent discoveries, for example, include a twelfth-century B.C. carburized knife that shows evidence of quenching. An iron pick, likely dated to the same period, was discovered in northern Israel and has a hardness value characteristic with modern hardened steel.[463] Non-LDS archaeologist Amihai Mazar, claims that this pick “is the earliest known iron implement made of real steel produced by carbonizing, quenching, and tempering.”

[464] Other non-LDS scholars claim that blacksmiths in the Mediterranean had mastered the process of quenching iron into weapons at least a hundred years before Nephi. Steel was likely an uncommon metal in Nephi’s world—which is probably why Nephi referred to Laban’s sword as “most precious steel”—but archaeology shows that it was not the unknown. The King James Version of the Bible often uses the word “steel” to refer to what we know today as bronze. Early societies often conflated metals. To early Egyptians, for example, copper was a type of iron.[465] Likewise, one early New World chronicler wrote that the Tarascans (Mesoamerica’s most noted metallurgists at the time of the Spanish conquest) wore “steel” helmets. How can the Book of Mormon be faulted for using the label “steel” to refer to non-traditional steel objects if Spanish conquistadors and the Bible used the same terminology? It should also be noted that in Joseph Smith’s day the word “steel” meant “hard” or to “make hard,” and did not necessarily refer to the specific metal. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt

The post No Brass, Iron or Steel Used in Book of Mormon Times? Recent Findings. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

According to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon was engraved on a stack of metal plates, six inches wide, six inches thick, eight inches long, and had the “appearance of gold.”[466] Critics claim that gold plates of that dimension would weigh about 200 pounds—too heavy for Joseph to carry while running from his enemies.[467] Those who handled the Book of Mormon, however, claim that the plates only weighed around 50 to 60 pounds.[468] While a solid block of gold of the specified dimensions might weigh 200 pounds, unevenly hammered sheets of gold within the volume described by Joseph might only weigh 100 pounds—still heavier, however, than the weight given by Book of Mormon witnesses.

Turning to the New World we find that the ancient inhabitants did indeed make engravings on a metal which was lighter than gold but had the appearance of gold. A 1984 article in Scientific American addressed the South American discovery of several large metal objects made out of hammered sheet copper. When these copper sheets were first unearthed they were covered with a green corrosion. Once the corrosion was removed, however, it was discovered that the copper had originally been covered with a thin layer of silver or gold so that these sheets appeared to be made entirely out of silver or gold. The most important alloy discovered at these sites (and also discovered in Mesoamerica) was a mixture of copper and gold known as tumbaga.[469] When copper and gold (the only two colored metals) are melted together they mix and stay mixed after they cool and solidify. Tumbaga ranged from 97% gold to 97% copper with traces of up to 18% of other metals or impurities. Once the gold finish was applied it would appear that the tumbaga object was made of solid gold. While tumbaga can be cast, drawn, hammered, gilded, soldered, welded, plated, hardened, annealed, polished, engraved, embossed, and inlaid it would destroy itself if not stored properly. It is therefore interesting to note that the Book of Mormon plates were laid atop two stones positioned across the bottom of the stone box so that the plates would not be exposed to water or dirt.

Too little gold in the Book of Mormon plates would have made them brittle and too much gold would have made them too heavy as well as increasing the danger of distortion during engraving. If the Book of Mormon plates were made of tumbaga, they were probably between 8 and 12 carat gold and thus would have weighed between 53 and 86 pounds.[470] When tumbaga (which is red) is treated with any simple acid—such as citric acid—the copper in the alloy is removed from its surface leaving a brilliant .0006 inch twenty-three karat gilt coating which is easier to engrave. This process was used in ancient America. To the eye, the object would have the appearance of pure gold.[471]

Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt

The post Were the Actual Gold Plates too Heavy to Carry Around? Only about 60 lbs. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

When the Spaniards arrived, the Native Americans seemed unfamiliar with the wheel. Archaeologists, however, have found over one hundred examples of wheeled artifacts in the Americas, most of which are pre-Columbian wheeled toys from Central America.[486] Many of these wheels were attached to the toys in different ways. This would suggest that the early Mesoamericans had some experience with axles and wheels.[487] If small toy-like objects had been fitted with wheels, it is impossible to think that the early Americans would not have understood the benefit of larger wheeled items such as carts. In all cultures toys are models of larger objects that work on the same principles. For instance, one recently discovered wheeled figure from the Americas is that of a man astride a platform with wheels. This implies that the Mesoamericans understood that wheels could be used to move a person.[488] Dr. Sorenson notes that “when the Spaniards invaded Guatemala, they reported that the Quiché Indians used ‘military machines’ consisting of wooden platforms mounted on ‘little rollers’ to haul weapons around one battlefield to resupply their soldiers.”[489]

But if the wheel was known in ancient American (and it may not have been) why would its utilization disappear? After the Spanish introduced (or re-introduced) the wheel to Native Americans, some groups refused to use the wheel because it was not practical in the Mesoamerican jungle terrain.[490] Many of the Mayas of Guatemala still walk today with loads on their backs, centuries after the Europeans exposed them to the wheel. Frances Gibson, who lived among the Maya and studied their ways, also found that the Mayas did not wish to use the wheel due to religious beliefs.[491] The wheeled figurines have been called “toys” for lack of a better description. Generally, however, these toys were not used for children (as is evidenced by minimal wheel wear and their lack of smooth motion) but rather they had religious significance for adults.[492] Not only did the wheel represent the sun, but the commonly portrayed dog, often carried on wheels, was also a symbol of the sun and was intimately associated with the underworld. The wheel was linked to the Mesoamerican belief that the sun died each night when setting and was reborn through an Aztec goddess the following morning. Thus the wheels on a figurine connected it symbolically to the sun. This same connection between a wheeled dog and the concept of death and rebirth is found in the Old World and in Old World burials.[493]

The use of the wheel among early Americans may have disappeared due to changes in religious beliefs. Unfortunately, larger vehicles would most likely have been constructed of wood, and wood deteriorates with time. Such disappearances are not unusual. According to the Bible, the Philistines in Saul’s time had 30,000 chariots (1 Samuel 13:5), yet as far as I know not a single fragment of a chariot has ever been uncovered in the Holy Land.[494] In the humid Mesoamerican climate, would we really expect the survival of two-thousand year-old wooden wheels (the last mention of Nephite chariots dates to about 20 A.D.)?

Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt

The post Should use of Wheels in the Book of Mormon be a Concern? No. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.