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

[Res Ipsa]

…Check the footnote. ALWAYS check the footnote….

That is the single most important lesson I have learned from any Interpreter article.

At law school, cite checking is what the new members do. Every cite in every submission. Tedious as hell (I hear), but absolutely necessary as a check on the authors.

[Shulem]

And...... and....... did not Joseph Smith himself declare the Adam Ondi Ahman the NEW JERUSALEM? And it is in Missouri, not Mesoamerica? So, do any Mesoamericanist actually believe what Joseph Smith himself established by revelation from Jesus Christ?! Just who are the apostates anyway?

Right, the Missouri revelation (1831) for the New Jerusalem came shortly after the church was organized when Smith was able to juggle new revelations into the mix to meet changing circumstances and ideals. But it's important to note that his so-called expansion of Zion from New York and from Kirtland lead to the American frontier -- western boundary, Missouri. There was nothing about going south to Mexico to find the real Cumorah or establish a New Jerusalem at Mesoamerica. Mexico was the furthest thing from Joseph Smith's mind! For him, there was only ONE Cumorah -- ONE!

The apologists are apostates. We (the critics) defend what Joseph Smith really taught!

[Marcus]

That is the single most important lesson I have learned from any Interpreter article.

At law school, cite checking is what the new members do. Every cite in every submission. Tedious as hell (I hear), but absolutely necessary as a check on the authors.

I only learned it from the Mormons. In my area, faking footnotes just isn’t really a thing, as i imagine in most disciplines. But, every single time I have had some doubts about an Interpreter article and have checked the footnotes, I have found failure—failure to properly cite, failure to adequately quote, frequently failure to even cite a source, let alone a legitimate one. And I never trust an Interpreter footnote related to statistics. Interpreter authors cite themselves, they cite non-related stuff, sometimes they even just use a footnote to imply a source and then just argue their (insupportable) case. The interpreter authors and reviewers are completely incorrigible in this respect. You literally cannot trust any footnote posted in an article from the Interpreter Journal. It is truly the “peer-less” Journal.

Allen Wyatt, if you’re reading here, your journal gets an F from me.

[Philo Sofee]

HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!! Erm... lemmee guess........Hales isn't peer reviewed by anyone in his camp either?!
This is literally over the top stupid. I can't even. I mean were I his father, I would blush in shame for him making a statement like this.

It's far beyond stupid. It's mendacious. Here's the whole quote:

One definition for chariot in the Oxford Dictionary specifies “a stately vehicle for the conveyance of people,” and “vehicle” is defined as a “receptacle in which anything is placed in order to be moved.”19 Wheels would assist in moving but are not implicit in the definitions.

Parse the language carefully.

"One definition for chariot" Red flag for cherry pick.

"in the Oxford Dictionary" OK, so one of several definitions in the same dictionary. Guaranteed Cherry Pick.

Which dictionary? Check the footnote. ALWAYS check the footnote.

The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971) 1:383, 2:3599.

And what, exactly, is the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971)? It's a reprint of the Second Edition of the OED (1933). Now, that's not an unreasonable choice. The OED is an excellent English Dictionary -- maybe the best English Dictionary. And "chariot" has been around for a long time and we've no reason to suspect that it's changed much in meaning. However, one of its strengths is the historical information and detailed etymologies of words. Just ask the publisher:

Now comes the Compact Edition of OED II, which captures all the wealth of scholarship found in the original edition in just one volume. The Compact is not an abridgement, but a direct photoreduction of the entire 20-volume set, with nine pages of the original on every nine-by-twelve page of the Compact (a magnifying glass comes with it). As in the Second Edition, the Compact combines in one alphabetical sequence the sixteen volumes of the first OED and the four Supplements--plus an extra five thousand new words to bring this monumental dictionary completely up to date. And it is monumental, with definitions of 500,000 words, 290,000 main entries, 137,000 pronunciations, 249,300 etymologies, 577,000 cross-references, and over 2,412,000 illustrative quotations. But as large as it is, perhaps its most important feature is its historical focus. The OED records not only words and meanings currently in use but also those that have long been considered obsolete. Moreover, under each definition of a word is a chronologically arranged group of quotations that illustrate the word's usage down through the years, beginning with its earliest known appearance. The result is a dictionary that offers unique insight into the way our language has, over the centuries, grown, changed, and been put to use.

More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary--the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words, a fascinating guide to the history and evolution of the language, and one of the greatest works of scholarship ever produced. The Washington Post has written that "no one who reads or writes seriously can be without the OED." Now with the Compact, the world's greatest dictionary is within the reach of anyone who wants one.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... us&lang=en&#

But, given that wealth of information, why does the author limit himself to one part of the definition of chariot from that dictionary? In particular, what are the odds that none of the other definitions in that dictionary define "chariot" without using the word "wheel"? Well, about zero. Just Google the word chariot and you will find that the most common definition by far is some type of wheeled cart or wagon or vehicle. Did the most comprehensive English dictionary just happen to miss the "wheel" part. Or did the author pour through the dictionary most likely to include some definition of "chariot" that does not include the word "wheel" and pick that one?

This kind of cherry picking dictionary game is dishonest pseudo-scholarship. It's also Nibleyesque -- make sure to cite a source that is not easily accessible so that no one is likely to fact check you.

But the chicanery continues. Note the last sentence of the quote: "Wheels would assist in moving but are not implicit in the definitions." I suppose this is technically true, because the vast majority of definitions of "chariot" explicitly refer to wheels. Not implicit -- explicit. Or does the author mean "are not implicit in the definitions that I cherry picked?"

Any other evidence for wheelless anythings called "chariots?" Not in the paper. Just dishonest dictionary cherry picking.

Just another of many examples of why Interpreter is a vanity publication and not a scholarly journal.

Res, THANK YOU for your excellence. That is all. May I use your post here for a Backyard Professor Responds video? I will make it tonight after Mormonism Live! This kind of stupid sh*t HAS TO BE EXPOSED for what it is.

[Res Ipsa]

It's far beyond stupid. It's mendacious. Here's the whole quote:



Parse the language carefully.

"One definition for chariot" Red flag for cherry pick.

"in the Oxford Dictionary" OK, so one of several definitions in the same dictionary. Guaranteed Cherry Pick.

Which dictionary? Check the footnote. ALWAYS check the footnote.



And what, exactly, is the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971)? It's a reprint of the Second Edition of the OED (1933). Now, that's not an unreasonable choice. The OED is an excellent English Dictionary -- maybe the best English Dictionary. And "chariot" has been around for a long time and we've no reason to suspect that it's changed much in meaning. However, one of its strengths is the historical information and detailed etymologies of words. Just ask the publisher:



https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... us&lang=en&#

But, given that wealth of information, why does the author limit himself to one part of the definition of chariot from that dictionary? In particular, what are the odds that none of the other definitions in that dictionary define "chariot" without using the word "wheel"? Well, about zero. Just Google the word chariot and you will find that the most common definition by far is some type of wheeled cart or wagon or vehicle. Did the most comprehensive English dictionary just happen to miss the "wheel" part. Or did the author pour through the dictionary most likely to include some definition of "chariot" that does not include the word "wheel" and pick that one?

This kind of cherry picking dictionary game is dishonest pseudo-scholarship. It's also Nibleyesque -- make sure to cite a source that is not easily accessible so that no one is likely to fact check you.

But the chicanery continues. Note the last sentence of the quote: "Wheels would assist in moving but are not implicit in the definitions." I suppose this is technically true, because the vast majority of definitions of "chariot" explicitly refer to wheels. Not implicit -- explicit. Or does the author mean "are not implicit in the definitions that I cherry picked?"

Any other evidence for wheelless anythings called "chariots?" Not in the paper. Just dishonest dictionary cherry picking.

Just another of many examples of why Interpreter is a vanity publication and not a scholarly journal.

Res, THANK YOU for your excellence. That is all. May I use your post here for a Backyard Professor Responds video? I will make it tonight after Mormonism Live! This kind of stupid sh*t HAS TO BE EXPOSED for what it is.

Of course, but I suggest you first find a copy of the dictionary that the author cited. Then use a screenshot of the entire definition, perhaps with the cherry picked part hilited. If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well.

[Shulem]

But, given that wealth of information, why does the author limit himself to one part of the definition of chariot from that dictionary? In particular, what are the odds that none of the other definitions in that dictionary define "chariot" without using the word "wheel"? Well, about zero. Just Google the word chariot and you will find that the most common definition by far is some type of wheeled cart or wagon or vehicle. Did the most comprehensive English dictionary just happen to miss the "wheel" part. Or did the author pour through the dictionary most likely to include some definition of "chariot" that does not include the word "wheel" and pick that one?

The only dictionary Smith would have been concerned with is one that may have been on his own bookcase. I provided a possible example of that earlier:

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

And then, of course, there is the Bible in which Smith heavily depended on:

And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.

The mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots?

And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axletrees, and their naves, and their felloes, and their spokes, were all molten.

And, I would like to also point out there are numerous examples in the Bible that show chariots and horses being inseparable in which a chariot can nothing of itself. It must be pulled by a HORSE. Of course!

[Philo Sofee]

But, given that wealth of information, why does the author limit himself to one part of the definition of chariot from that dictionary? In particular, what are the odds that none of the other definitions in that dictionary define "chariot" without using the word "wheel"? Well, about zero. Just Google the word chariot and you will find that the most common definition by far is some type of wheeled cart or wagon or vehicle. Did the most comprehensive English dictionary just happen to miss the "wheel" part. Or did the author pour through the dictionary most likely to include some definition of "chariot" that does not include the word "wheel" and pick that one?

The only dictionary Smith would have been concerned with is one that may have been on his own bookcase. I provided a possible example of that earlier:

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

And then, of course, there is the Bible in which Smith heavily depended on:

And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.

The mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots?

And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axletrees, and their naves, and their felloes, and their spokes, were all molten.

And, I would like to also point out there are numerous examples in the Bible that show chariots and horses being inseparable in which a chariot can nothing of itself. It must be pulled by a HORSE. Of course!

You are asking far and away too much of apologists to actually understand this. It's too deep. Their simple minds can only comprehend the mystery of the chariot without wheels in order to verify the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

[Rivendale]

For the life of me where is Brian? If Mormonism is true, I mean absolutely true there should be no rest for the believers. Brush aside the pearls before swine and all the other tapestry that seems to cloak the insecurities of the believers it seems like an eternal failure. Every member a missionary? Think of how other past prophets went into the Lion's den and excited without a scratch. Or how early missionaries went out without purse or script. Now it seems defenders are scared. Why even comment on a post that you never plan to defend your assertions? Brent Metcalf actually engaged you on this very topic just days ago and you wrote him off as dated. Despite Brent's assertion that he spent 40+ years researching this topic you brushed him aside. Grow up and defend your belief or go away.eta.....life

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Can you imagine battle rhinos pulling war sleds through the jungles of Central America, the deserts of Ica and Peru and Sonora, and the highlands of the Andes? It’s absolutely marvelous what these peoples were able to achieve with the fauna available to them. Can you imagine this curelom:



uparmored? Wow!

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

But, given that wealth of information, why does the author limit himself to one part of the definition of chariot from that dictionary? In particular, what are the odds that none of the other definitions in that dictionary define "chariot" without using the word "wheel"? Well, about zero. Just Google the word chariot and you will find that the most common definition by far is some type of wheeled cart or wagon or vehicle. Did the most comprehensive English dictionary just happen to miss the "wheel" part. Or did the author pour through the dictionary most likely to include some definition of "chariot" that does not include the word "wheel" and pick that one?

The only dictionary Smith would have been concerned with is one that may have been on his own bookcase. I provided a possible example of that earlier:

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

And then, of course, there is the Bible in which Smith heavily depended on:

And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.

The mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots?

And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axletrees, and their naves, and their felloes, and their spokes, were all molten.

And, I would like to also point out there are numerous examples in the Bible that show chariots and horses being inseparable in which a chariot can nothing of itself. It must be pulled by a HORSE. Of course!

All true. As the issue from the apologist’s perspective is what Jews meant by “chariot” at the time the word was allegedly recorded on the plates, the Old Testament examples are spot on.