Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[drumdude]

https://interpreterfoundation.org/inter ... s-animals/

The Summary

In a set of two initial articles, Matthew Roper introduces the fruits of his now several-decade-long study of claimed Book of Mormon anachronisms, and then analyzes claims regarding the book’s descriptions of animals. After discussing what he means by an “anachronism” (i.e., as items in the text that have, at one point or another, been claimed to be “odds with known facts or widely held assumptions about the ancient world”), he notes the potential significance of these anachronisms, as framed by Hugh Nibley:

“It is the ‘howlers’ with which the Book of Mormon abounds that furnish the best index of its authenticity. They show, first of all, that the book was definitely not a typical product of its time, and secondly, when they are examined more closely in the light of present-day evidence, they appear very different indeed than they did a hundred years ago.”

Roper’s purpose is not to address every piece of evidence which might be brought forward in relation to the Book of Mormon and its ancient claims, nor is it to end all discussion of claims that he feels the evidence now supports or to express favor for specific geographical models. It is instead simply to see “how well alleged anachronisms themselves have held up over time”. His method for doing so involved a review of over 1,000 critical sources printed since 1830, with the anachronisms they cite organized into eight categories, including animals, ancient warfare, metals and metallurgy, ancient culture, proper names, wilderness journeys; records, writing and language; and natural phenomena. The chapter for each category includes details of the allegation, a categorization of its status (with the Book of Mormon’s textual features “confirmed”, “partially confirmed” or “unconfirmed” by the available evidence), and a set of charts summarizing the anachronisms in that category and their status over time.
Roper goes on to analyze claims regarding the following Book of Mormon animals:

Horses
(Confirmed to be contemporary with man in pre-Columbian times and as part of Indigenous traditions; Partially Confirmed in Book of Mormon times). Some early critics claimed that horses could not be found in the Americas at any point prior to Columbus, but the fossil record is placing evidence of horses increasingly closer to Book of Mormon timeframes.

Asses
(Unconfirmed in Indigenous traditions, but Partially Confirmed in Book of Mormon times). As with horses, critics once claimed that the ass could not be found in the Americas prior to Columns, but smaller species of horse, which might have been considered an ass by Book of Mormon peoples, have been found with material dated as late as 1300-1240 BC in Mexico.

Cows
(Confirmed as a loan shift). Early critics claimed that cows were not present before Columbus, let alone in Book of Mormon times, but early European settlers sometimes referred to the bison as “cow”, and it remains the proper term for female bison, suggesting that the term may have been applied as a loan shift to the bison present in various areas of North America (despite questions about the extent of their range).

Oxen
(Confirmed as a loan shift). In keeping with the broad assumptions of early critics, it was believed that there were no oxen prior to Columbus. As “oxen” can refer to both domesticated bovines or a variety of wild animals, including 18th century references to bison, the same bison-related loan shift could have been applied.

Cattle
(Confirmed). As with the above equines and bovines, critics have claimed that there were no pre-Columbian cattle. However, “Hebrew words rendered as cattle by translators can refer to any large or small quadrupeds”, and thus may have been applied any number of four-legged animals raised and used for food (e.g., deer, peccary).
Goats & Wild Goats (Confirmed as a loan shift). Though species of goats in the Americas appear to have gone extinct prior to Book of Mormon times, Early Spanish observers characterized certain species of Mesoamerican deer as “goats” and “wild goats”.

Sheep
(Confirmed). Critics have claimed a lack of pre-Columbian sheep, but mountain sheep ranged extensively across North America in pre-Columbian times, and are recorded as having been used as ritual food in central Mexico as late as 900AD.
Flocks and Herds (Confirmed). In connection with claims regarding sheep, critics have suggested that the terms “flocks” and “herds” were anachronistic. In addition to evidence of mountain sheep, there are a number of other animals in pre-Columbian America that could have formed domesticated flocks and herds, whether that be the quadrupeds noted above (as suggested by the potential underlying Hebrew) or flocks of birds and fowl.

Elephants
(Confirmed to be contemporary with man in pre-Columbian times; Partially Confirmed in Book of Mormon times). Critics have similarly claimed that there were no elephants at any point in the Americas before Columbus, but fossil evidence continues to extend the pre-Columbian timeframe for mammoths of various kinds, with the most recent finds currently dating to 3985BC.

Swine
(Confirmed as a loan shift). The Book of Mormon use of the term “sow” has been interpreted by critics as a reference to swine, of which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America. But New World peccaries closely resemble pigs, were often named as such by the Spanish, and were an important meat source in ancient Mesoamerica, suggesting a plausible loan shift.

Honeybees
(Confirmed). Some have claimed that there were no pre-Columbian honeybees, but stingless honeybees were well known in early Mesoamerica.

Lions
(Confirmed as a loan shift). Early critics claimed that lions have never been in the Americas, and these were apparently unfamiliar with the far-ranging cougar] (Rise and Shout!), which, given the common appellation of “mountain lion”, could have clearly served as a loan shift.

(It continues ad nauseum in this fashion.)

I suppose it’s a very fitting article for the journal run by Dan the Tapir Man himself.

[Marcus]

Here's the end of Kyle Rasmussen's summary of this:

The Reflection
I’ve been waiting for this book for a long time, and it’s great to see Roper’s analysis enter the formal light of day. The trajectory of confirmation it suggests was one of the two “critical strikes” I identified in my Bayesian analysis of Book of Mormon evidence. Any one of the Book’s seemingly anachronistic claims being overturned may not be a big deal—some of these critics appear not to have been the sharpest tacks in the box. But taken in aggregate, we would definitely not expect new evidence to side with the Book of Mormon, over and over again, to the tune of dozens of confirmed claims. What Roper will be presenting in Interpreter over the next few weeks should turn the head of any honest skeptic.

As is always the case, one could quibble with how the analysis is organized....

https://interpreterfoundation.org/inter ... s-animals/

Oh dear. No, the organization of this nonsense is not the part with which people "quibble." As for the part I bolded? Well, you just have to laugh.

[Doctor Scratch]

“Howlers” is quite an appropriate term here: I haven’t laughed this hard at an “Interpreter” article in quite some time. What on earth does Roper think he’s doing? It’s like the Mopologists are back at square one: “It’s confirmed that there were ancient elephants in Alaska!” Okay, so the idea is that the Jaredite portion of the Book of Mormon took place in… Alaska??? LOL!!!

[drumdude]

The target audience is chapel Mormons who can quickly glance over the headline and walk away satisfied that all the issues have been dealt with.

The tacky swipe at critics at the end is just a nice cherry on top of their nonsense.

[Doctor Scratch]

The target audience is chapel Mormons who can quickly glance over the headline and walk away satisfied that all the issues have been dealt with.

The tacky swipe at critics at the end is just a nice cherry on top of their nonsense.

The entire piece is dependent upon the readers being dumb. I mean, what happens when a well-meaning Chapel Mormon sees that all the “proof” for the Book of Mormon is only “partially confirmed”? The Mopologists seem clueless to the fact that this article shows that there is not a single shred of evidence that fully supports Mormonism. At best, the Book of Mormon claims are “partially confirmed.”

Meanwhile, readers can see for themselves that the Interpreter President is on a seemingly endless self-serving vacation. The idea that “Interpreter” is faith-promoting in any meaningful sense is a total joke. Go ahead and donate if you want to help Daniel Peterson feel better about avoiding a senior mission.

[drumdude]

Imagine what it’s like to be an intelligent, questioning Mormon desperately looking for something to cling on to. And the best interpreter can do is “well cougars are kind of like Lions. Go BYU!”

It’s like throwing a drowning man an anchor and telling him to just pretend it’s a life raft.

[huckelberry]

Imagine what it’s like to be an intelligent, questioning Mormon desperately looking for something to cling on to. And the best interpreter can do is “well cougars are kind of like Lions. Go BYU!”

It’s like throwing a drowning man an anchor and telling him to just pretend it’s a life raft.

I thought cougars were Lions huh.

While camping a friend saw a large cougar come out of the woods my friend was quite alarmed, saying "Lion, big lion." I thought maybe I was breakfast.

[drumdude]

It would have been fairly impressive if Mormon God had told Joseph Smith to write “puma” instead of Lion. There are evidences of the word being used as early as the late 1700s, well in time for it to be correctly translated in the Book of Mormon.

Alas we get exactly what we would expect, a translator who was completely ignorant of the correct word to use.

[Moksha]

Okay, so the idea is that the Jaredite portion of the Book of Mormon took place in… Alaska??? LOL!!!

Makes sense as they were crossing Beringia in their submarines, the sight of which would have been a tremendous howler.

If only the Seer Stone had been able to do a more accurate job of translating, LDS apologists would not have to be so creative in their explanations of anachronisms. Simply saying the Nephites rode into battle on their faithful tapirs could have saved Mormons much heartache.

[Rick Grunder]

From my Mormon Parallels (all editions), pp. 1242-44 (which see, for the full citations of bibliographic references). The Plough Boy was a New York State agricultural periodical of substance published at Albany and distributed widely, 1819-1823 . . .

SHEEP FOR THE Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon references to sheep in ancient America (Ether 9:18; Alma 5:59) are treated with varying degrees of discomfort by LDS scholars; see Reynolds and Sjodahl, 6:140-42; Sperry 1967, 159-60, 238; Sorenson 1985, 293, 295-97, 299. "Only recently," writes John L. Sorenson, "have scientists demonstrated that a full pastoral tradition based on domesticated llamas existed in pre-Columbian Peru for thousands of years." (Sorenson 1985, 295, searching for possible Nephite cattle, but suggesting related "Camelidae, Paca or Agouti" for Book of Mormon sheep, p. 299).

For farmers living in New York State of the 1820s, however, the question of sheep in ancient America may have seemed more simple. The third volume of the Plough Boy contains four woodcut illustrations in a serialized article taken from the American Farmer, entitled "THE SHEEP OF PERU Are exceedingly valuable, and ought to be introduced into the United States of North America." Dated New-York, April 28 and "May, 1821," this admonition by William Davis Robinson is highly detailed but non-technical. Robinson praises the wool quality and other assets of four species of Peruvian "sheep," and promises that the person who imports them into the United States will profit well. See the following issues, with corresponding illustrations entitled "The Llama," (April 6, 1822 [III:45], pp. 353-54); "The Alpaca," (April 20 [III:47], p. 372); "The Huanaco," (April 27 [III:48], p. 380; see ILLUSTRATION below); and "The Vicuna," (May 4 [III:49], pp. 388-89).



An indigenous South American "sheep," shown to New York State farmers in the Plough Boy for April 27, 1822 [III:48], p. 380. Martin Harris was particularly interested in weaving and wool at this time, and his brother Seth Harris was mentioned in an issue of the Plough Boy for his fine wheat harvest (January 5, 1822, III:32, p. 255).

There follows a lengthy article of comparable interest, "On the Rocky Mountain Sheep of the Americans. By Professor JAMIESON, of Edinburgh. From the 3d vol. of the Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society." (pp. 389-90). The bulk of the article is based on the report of one Thomas Laurie who speculates on the value of mountain goat wool, beginning with the following remarks which are of particular interest to the ongoing scholarly struggles with domesticated Book of Mormon animal species . . .

"The skin submitted to us, is, in the Minutes of the Society, denominated that of "The Rocky Mountain Sheep;" and, from the wool with which it is covered, it may certainly be considered as nearly allied to that genus of quadrupeds, though, had it wanted [i.e., lacked] this woolly covering, we would probably have been inclined to consider it as more allied to the goat. The general figure of this skin is very different from that of any sheep's skin I have ever seen. The difference is perhaps most remarkable in the length and figure of the neck, which, in no slight degree, resembles that of a thoroughbred horse. The general structure of the head, externally viewed, does not appear to vary from that of other sheep, more than might be ascribed to accidental circumstances. . . ."
[p. 389]

Whatever the animal is, the writers would like to see living specimens, and would consider importing it to the Scottish Highlands to raise for its wool, hide and meat. Laurie's reference to the mountain goat's neck resembling that of a horse may remind one of Milton R. Hunter pointing eagerly to an ancient stone bas-relief of a "Chichen Itza Horse," as he called it (but which looks more like a llama) in his Archaeology and the Book of Mormon . . . Volume I (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, [c.1956; "first edition"]), p. 6 illustration.