Cinepro Schools MAD on the "Horse-Tapir" Issue

[_hugh jass]

Here is FairLDS's take on this:



The image above is from http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse

[_honorentheos]

That's a great picture, Hugh.

I found this statement above it in the source interesting -

"Book of Mormon horses are never used to hasten a journey and they are never used in a combat narrative."

Alma 18:9 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

Alma 20:5-6

5 And Ammon said unto him: No one hath told me, save it be God; and he said unto me—Go and deliver thy brethren, for they are in prison in the land of Middoni.

6 Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.

Hmmm.

[_Equality]

Wow, another descent through the looking glass. Why do I ever go over there? The crazy! It burns! I love how the mopes never address cinepro's or uncertain's well-reasoned arguments. Instead, zakuska and that numbnuts Will Schryver deflect and change the subject. Schryver seems to think there is a global scientific conspiracy about horses in America, all designed to make Book of Mormon proponents look bad. His avatar choice is truly apt. The mopes can't answer the simplest question: why didn't God know the difference between a horse and a tapir? As sethbag points out, things are so much simpler (and sensible) when one just accepts the notion that Joseph Smith made it all up. There aren't any Mormon "difficulties" that aren't solved by accepting that possibility.

[_bcspace]

Here is FairLDS's take on this:

How many TBM's there accept the tapir hypothesis? I don't. Has a poll been taken? Until then, what legitimate reason do you have to pin this hypothesis on FAIR or the MDD board in general?

[_Sethbag]

Hi, Sethbag.

I've been schooled by Cinepro for years. I'm out the door with daughter in a few minutes, but I promise to answer for my stupidity when I get a chance.

And trust me, I'm routinely answering for my stupidity in one way or another, so I have plenty of practice.

Cheers

J Green, just for the record, I said:

He's saddled with some really stupid apologetics, and having to bend his considerable wits toward defending them.

I'm not saying you're stupid. In fact, I complimented your intelligence by referring to your "considerable wits" (and I didn't mean it sarcastically). But the fact is you're stuck having to defend some pretty indefensible things, using some pretty stupid apologetics.

By the way, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the realization that some mopologetic arguments (specifically about the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's polygamy) were just plain awful, and a decision not to privelege the church's claims in these kinds of discussions anymore. Keep it up - as soon as I decided to stop doing that, and decided to look at the historical evidence pro- and con- the church with a truly open mind, whatever the outcome, it was game over. "Joseph Smith was just making it up" really does explain almost everything far, far better than mopologetic arguments ever could. That's almost certainly because "Joseph Smith was just making it up" is in fact correct.

[_J Green]

Hi, Seth.

If you're ever in SLC, I recommend this little pizzeria called Este. It's just off 21st south near 9th east. Great little knots of bread with fresh garlic and oregano on them that you dip in marinera sauce. Good place for the first annual Great Tapir Caper conference.

I'm not saying you're stupid. In fact, I complimented your intelligence by referring to your "considerable wits" (and I didn't mean it sarcastically).

I realize that. And thanks for the compliment. I was just in a lighthearted mood as I was heading out the door with my daughter. Poking fun at myself.

But the fact is you're stuck having to defend some pretty indefensible things, using some pretty stupid apologetics.

Quite possible. I've never been very good at apologetics, per se. But I do enjoy discussions with people who are willing to engage without being too dogmatic about anything. I'm not sure I know what to think of the horse issue in the Book of Mormon. I don't consider myself a tapir apologist, but as someone who works with language, the loan-shifting argument intrigues me. I won't claim it doesn't have its weaknesses (or make for some pretty silly pictures), but I enjoyed the exercise of taking the linguistic aspect of the argument all the way through its paces with Uncertain, especially if it created some entertainment value over here. As Mr. Bennet said, "What do we live for but to make sport for our neighbors and laugh at them in our turn?" I still think the theory is plausible, but you won't find me starting any threads over it or arguing dogmatically that it's perfect.

By the way, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the realization that some mopologetic arguments (specifically about the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's polygamy) were just plain awful

I concur. There are some doosies out there. Although some here may not believe it, I generally don't play the apologist very often. Not because I don't think apologetics has any value but because I don't have many answers myself. I follow the conversations in part because I like having my assumptions challenged. And I like interacting where possible with bright people on subjects we have in common.

Keep it up - as soon as I decided to stop doing that, and decided to look at the historical evidence pro- and con- the church with a truly open mind, whatever the outcome, it was game over. "Joseph Smith was just making it up" really does explain almost everything far, far better than mopologetic arguments ever could. That's almost certainly because "Joseph Smith was just making it up" is in fact correct.

I appreciate that. I have more than a few friends and colleagues that have taken a similar path, and I have great discussions with them. I can appreciate the viewpoint that many of these questions would go away if you accept that Joseph Smith simply made it all up. I do see some inconsistencies and things that are perplexing. On the other hand, I also like the metaphor of Adam having to grapple with thorns and thistles in mortality, so I can take a few cuts here and there as I navigate the road by study and faith. In spite of the fact that I really have no answers for some of the perceived anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, I find a tremendous amount of richness, complexity, and spiritual nourishment there. Still love reading it after all these years.

I can't say my spiritual foundation can't be changed, but I do honestly believe the core claims of the church, such as the fact that the Book of Mormon is really the product of an ancient civilization that left its records on gold plates that were delivered by an angel to Joseph Smith. But beyond that, I have tried hard for decades to challenge all other assumptions about these things beyond that basic spiritual conviction. Which means that while I believe the Book of Mormon to be true, I'm open to various ideas of how or where it took place. But it also means I have no clue as to how to answer the horse question. Still, I enjoy discussing the ideas to see if they remain consistent.

I also realize that what I've said above means that I'm probably not as open-minded as I need to be from your perspective. I can live with that. I am who I am. I find a lot of fulfillment in embracing my spiritual convictions while trying to weed out the thorns and thistles of assumptions from my path. I stil believe I'm capable of discussing ideas rationally and seeing other points of view.

So while I don't own the great tapir caper theory, I still find the main idea behind it tenable. And I'm willing to keep poking the theory with a sharp stick with you until it either dies or squeals and runs away.

Cheers

[_Cardinal Biggles]

The German word for sheath or scabbard is Scheide. The German word for vagina is also Scheide.

If I see the German sentence: "Er zog das Schwert aus der Scheide", it would quite incorrect, plain and simple, for me to translate that as "He drew the sword from the vagina."

Vagina is the Latin word for "sheath." It would be a strange translation, for sure, but perhaps not so simply and plainly incorrect.

After all, a vagina is, functionally, a sheath.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

6 Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.

And we're all aware that Ash believes that this means that they were preparing the horses to be eaten, the supposed foodstuffs to be transported by means of the sledges, er, chariots.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

This then begs the question: Why doesn't the LDS church just change the damn wording from horse to tapir?

The Book of Mormon has already undergone massive amounts of editing, so why not clear up this matter?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Anyway.