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

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

But Joseph Smith never stated the Book of Mormon occurred over the entire hemisphere, thus the Heartland idea. See the Wentworth Letter.

To my knowledge that is correct, Smith said no such thing. But others did, such as the idiot Pratt brothers who proffered interpretation of the geography in effort to visualize the story on the globe. Smith just nodded and went along with anything that made his made-up story look genuine.

Bottom line, it only took a single day to travel from one side to the other of the narrow neck -- from sea east to sea west. Just ONE day. And all it took was a day and a half to traverse the length of the neck seeing the neck was not very long but rather short.

2CF should give your Delmarva thread in Celestial a hard look. I’d love to read a scholarly exchange between yourself and Brother Neville with regard to your excellent and well-researched theory. It was such an a-ha! moment.

- Doc

[Marcus]

According to Hales, verse 1 shows horses as “food,” to justify they were eaten, not ridden, and therefore tapirs:

3 Nephi 6:1

And now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them.

[hales writes] Horses included with other sources of food.

And verse 2:

2 And it came to pass that they had not eaten up all their provisions; therefore they did take with them all that they had not devoured, of all their grain of every kind, and their gold, and their silver, and all their precious things, and they did return to their own lands and their possessions, both on the north and on the south, both on the land northward and on the land southward.

So, by Brian Hales’ logic, along with eating their horses, the Nephites also ate their gold, silver, and precious things.

The absolute nonsense people write to justify the Book of Mormon as a historical document is unbelievable.

Welcome to the Interpreter’s “peerless” peer review. As in, not reviewed in any academic, meaningful way.

[Shulem]

2CF should give your Delmarva thread in Celestial a hard look. I’d love to read a scholarly exchange between yourself and Brother Neville with regard to your excellent and well-researched theory. It was such an a-ha! moment.

- Doc

I hear what you're saying. All of us have been brainwashed by Book of Mormon geography and all of those theories are trips down rabbit holes and consist of hoodwinks that rely on cognitive dissonance -- twisting, distorting, and utter BS.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the Delmarva theory has not picked up acceptance or serious notice from critics and exmos because even the critics are suffering from the remnants of being brainwashed and not seeing clearly.

It is what it is. Eventually, I feel quite confident that it will become universally accepted among critics and by those trying to understand the motives behind Smith's deception and that he absolutely depended on a pattern to keep his story straight and consistent.

But oh well. And, I've not told all! Yeah, I'm holding back. There are more amazing things to be explained and revealed. The presentation is still in the early stages.

[Rivendale]

This baffles me. Why are they producing this despite all the evidence to the contrary? I would think they would let the maligned Tapir just go away.

It's all a waste of Goddamn time and Brian Hales is just another retard who has his head up his you-know-what.

What a dumb ass.

I get that. That article seems out of character for him. Superficial arguments. Maybe we are seeing his lag time in real time transitioning from polygamy.

[brianhales]

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

[Shulem]

It's all a waste of Goddamn time and Brian Hales is just another retard who has his head up his you-know-what.

What a dumb ass.

I get that. That article seems out of character for him. Superficial arguments. Maybe we are seeing his lag time in real time transitioning from polygamy.

Rivendale,

It is most unexpected but Hales just joined the board, if you can believe it, and as a new member it necessitates my a need to remove my personal attack against him and apologize for that personal slam against him. Whether he posts again or whether I have any discourse with him, I doubt it, but I need to make my peace and do the right thing.

It's all a waste of Goddamn time and Brian Hales is just another retard who has his head up his you-know-what.

What a dumb ass.

Edited by Shulem with an apology to Hales who is now a member of the board even if just for one post.

PS. I'm sure Hales can understand that many critics (including myself) are very angry with many of the apologetic presentations on line -- for me, especially the Book of Abraham. This anger tends to cause certain persons to lash out from time to time -- sometime more often than others. Of which I am very guilty of that!

[consiglieri]

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

Welcome to the party, Pal!

[Rivendale]

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

You are correct. It does seem a little misleading to include the statement that apologists are sticking with the Tapir as a valid excuse. I will accept that criticism and apologize. However, why even add it? It seemed extremely out of place given the fact it has became the critics laughable cudgel. How has the current DNA evidence been overstated?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

By “rarely mentioned” do you mean the fourteen or so times they’re mentioned, twice referencing Old Testament scripture (establishing what ‘horse’ means for the Book of Mormon narrative)?

And by saying “Book of Mormon horses were [not] tapir:”

What could explain the Book of Mormon references to horses that, apparently, did not behave like Equus caballus?

Several explanations are possible.29

Perhaps those horses represent an inexact translation of a different animal with some horse characteristics. Ironically, the much-maligned tapir (Figure 1), which has been suggested as a possible Book of Mormon “horse,” is taxonomically related to the Equus caballus, both being in the Perissodactyla order.30

Historically the tapir has been domesticated but apparently not tamed, raising questions about whether it could be the Book of Mormon horse.31

By using the passive voice, and insinuating “others” believe tapir to be horses, are you yourself not insinuating tapir were the horses described in the Book of Mormon?

- Doc

eta: footnotes 29 & 31 are references to other LDS apologetics that create a circular confirmation bias that Book of Mormon horses are tapir.

[Doctor Steuss]

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.

Hi Brian,

So, when it says "...make ready his horses and his chariots...", we should interpret this as, what exactly? The equivalent of "make ready his unrelated domesticated food source, and his mode of transportation that will be pulled by something else"?