DiscussMormonism.com

In the Torah, pork is specifically forbidden as an unclean meat, and pigs themselves are forbidden to be touched, once they are dead:

Leviticus 11:7-8
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch, they are unclean to you (KJV.)

Deuteronomy 14:8
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass (KJV.)

This prohibition is reinforced in the book of Isaiah, chapter 65, verses 2-5, where "unclean meat" and those who "eat the flesh of pigs" are mentioned.

While the tapir "divides the hoof," he does not "chew the cud," making him an unclean animal, similar to camels or horses, both of which also carry a prohibition that they not be eaten.

Given that the ancient Jews were militant, in fact, literally religious in their avoidance of dead pigs, in either food or carcass form, is it really feasible that they would reach the New World, look right at the obviously pig-like tapir, and call it a "horse?" They would have been quite well-versed in what a horse looked like, and what a pig looked like; would they not have called it a pig?

I don't accept the tapir hypothesis. A horse is a horse when it comes to translation.

bcspace wrote:I don't accept the tapir hypothesis. A horse is a horse when it comes to translation.

Thank You. With this assertion You are in a good company, together with Joseph F. Smith or Joseph Fielding Smith. ( I'm sorry for the confusion, there were too many Smiths in the early leadership.)
He has said when the "horse" issue was new: "if the Book of Mormon says horses, then there were horses".
Unfortunately, for him and for You, the science says it different.



Temporary addition to my sig line:
_________________
The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church. --Magellan




.

Unfortunately, for him and for You, the science says it different.

It does not. You can't prove a negative. The most you can say is that there is no scientific evidence and een that might not be true.

bcspace wrote:I don't accept the tapir hypothesis. A horse is a horse when it comes to translation.

Okay...thanks for putting it bluntly like that. It just seems to me that Jewish immigrants to a new place would be extremely concerned with what was Kosher and what was not. I don't know if you have kids, bcspace, but I'll bet if you do or did, you'd be on the lookout for what you as Mormons are not allowed to eat. I guess the analogy for Jews and tapirs would be something like coffee ice cream for Mormons. Sure, it's not the hot drink specifically forbidden...but it is coffee. Or coffee-flavored candy. You might forbid those things as not being "Mormon kosher" enough, in the same way that Lehi and family would see tapirs as being on the forbidden list.

Even faced with an entirely new species, Jewish immigrants, I would think, would recognize it as being fairly porcine -- "splitting the hoof and not chewing the cud" -- rather than equine ( no "splitting of the hoof"), just based on their concern with dietary laws, and the importance of what they are not allowed to touch or eat. They could utilize the animal while alive, I guess, but they would have to avoid even touching it when it died.

Still, if mine is a stupid argument, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out. I don't want to be stupid, you know. :P

bcspace wrote:

Unfortunately, for him and for You, the science says it different.

It does not. You can't prove a negative. The most you can say is that there is no scientific evidence and een that might not be true.

Interesting. So, scientifically, we can't say the passenger pigeon is extinct or that stegosaurus did not live in N. America 10,000 years ago? Is that your understanding of how science works?

bcspace wrote:A horse is a horse

of course, of course.

EAllusion wrote:

bcspace wrote:

Unfortunately, for him and for You, the science says it different.

It does not. You can't prove a negative. The most you can say is that there is no scientific evidence and een that might not be true.

Interesting. So, scientifically, we can't say the passenger pigeon is extinct or that stegosaurus did not live in N. America 10,000 years ago? Is that your understanding of how science works?

We can say that there is no evidence that the stegosaurus didn't live 10,000 years ago and that the passenger pigeon is likely extinct as we have found none of them. If we dig up 10,000 year old stegosaur bones tomorrow, we reexamine our hypothesis.

The Nehor wrote:
We can say that there is no evidence that the stegosaurus didn't live 10,000 years ago and that the passenger pigeon is likely extinct as we have found none of them. If we dig up 10,000 year old stegosaur bones tomorrow, we reexamine our hypothesis.

A set of observations can just as easily disconfirm a positive statement as a negative one. That's the problem of induction for you. My question was semi-rhetorical. We're perfectly justified in thinking, on the basis of the available evidence, that there were no horses or stegosauruses in the pre-Columbian Americas in a given time-period. "Negatives" like, "The passenger pigeon went extinct" are justifiably believed on scientific grounds just as much as "positives" like, "all life on earth contains nucleic acids."

We can say that there is no evidence that the stegosaurus didn't live 10,000 years ago and that the passenger pigeon is likely extinct as we have found none of them. If we dig up 10,000 year old stegosaur bones tomorrow, we reexamine our hypothesis.

Exactly.