Book of Mormon geography

[_Themis]

Remember that God didn't give the papyrus to Joseph Smith and that this was driven by Joseph Smith.

I am aware of that. The questions are why did Joseph get the wrong idea about the papyri. Would he really think it was from Abraham and then go ans ask God to translate it. Now would God really get involved in such a mistake, knowing full well what it would lead to. God is really helping to deceive Joseph, including the meanings given the facsimiles. Remember that Joseph had already come up with the BofMoses.

His willingness to engage in using seerstones was not inspired. God just worked with Joseph Smith, despite that.

That would be a problem considering he used them to supposedly come up with the Book of Mormon.

Later Joseph Smith discarded them as he became more familiar with the Lord. The same is true here. His misconceptions and unwillingness to ask and fully understand things got in his way. But, Joseph Smith was a human being and I understand that and he did and said a lot of stupid things as a result.

This seems more an excuse. If I look at it as Joseph making it up, it all fits. No more having to do mental gymnastics to explain all the problems. I wonder why God would play these games. It would seem smarter not to give Joseph things that will only lead him to wrong conclusions, not to mention everyone else.

[_beastie]

Ok, I finally got the thread read but am stuck back on the animal issue.

As I mentioned, the "horse" problem isn't just a horse problem. It is that the Book of Mormon names several large land mammals that were not present during the Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica. They are: horses, elephants, cattle, ox, goats, curelom and cumoms.

That is SEVEN large land mammals that didn't exist in Mesoamerica, for which SEVEN ancient Mesoamerican possibilities must be offered.

Apologists normally avoid offering a list of candidates for obvious reasons.

Deer are disqualified, because all the possible sources of translation errors - the Nephites and Joseph Smith - knew what a deer was, and knew the difference between a deer and a horse.

The wild boar of Mesoamerica are disqualified because they're needed for "pigs" in the Book of Mormon.

So you have the tapir. That's it.

Certainly Joseph Smith would not have somehow mystically "seen" a parrot and called it a cow. The unknown animals must be large land mammals.

I realize Brant has probably left the thread for now. I wish I had had the time to read the thread and ask while he was still here.

So for other believers: please name SEVEN different large land mammals that existed in ancient Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period that could fit as these Book of Mormon animals.

[_Tobin]

Ok, I finally got the thread read but am stuck back on the animal issue.

As I mentioned, the "horse" problem isn't just a horse problem. It is that the Book of Mormon names several large land mammals that were not present during the Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica. They are: horses, elephants, cattle, ox, goats, curelom and cumoms.

That is SEVEN large land mammals that didn't exist in Mesoamerica, for which SEVEN ancient Mesoamerican possibilities must be offered.

Apologists normally avoid offering a list of candidates for obvious reasons.

Deer are disqualified, because all the possible sources of translation errors - the Nephites and Joseph Smith - knew what a deer was, and knew the difference between a deer and a horse.

The wild boar of Mesoamerica are disqualified because they're needed for "pigs" in the Book of Mormon.

So you have the tapir. That's it.

Certainly Joseph Smith would not have somehow mystically "seen" a parrot and called it a cow. The unknown animals must be large land mammals.

I realize Brant has probably left the thread for now. I wish I had had the time to read the thread and ask while he was still here.

So for other believers: please name SEVEN different large land mammals that existed in ancient Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period that could fit as these Book of Mormon animals.

Clarifications:
1) The term ox is meaningless in this discussion. Ox is a castrated bull (male) and cow is a female bovine.
2) There is a variety of North American goat, just not domesticated.
3) Cattle is a domesticated herd of bovines so again meaningless.
4) I don't know what cureloms and cumoms are.

The disappearance of domesticated animals is also not the problem nor is the non-use in later civilizations. If all the domesticated animals died, of course, they wouldn't have been in use. And it is already known that horses were native to North America until humans supposedly wiped them out. So, the problem is finding examples that they were here during the time period in question. And I don't buy the translation error theory. It is just a way to avoid the fact that remains of domesticated cattle (including ox), and goats have not been found. The same can be said of pre-columbian horses and elephants for this period of time.

[_Shulem]

The same can be said of pre-columbian horses and elephants for this period of time.

Remember, we are dealing with Joseph Smith and his slick ways. You want to find those horses and elephants? Dig every square inch of soil and you won't find them. They are in Joseph Smith's imagination just like the king's name and the name Shulem within the writing of Facsimile No. 3. We are dealing with things that aren't real such as curelom and cumoms.

The Book of Mormon is a hoax. Those things contained in the covers thereof never happened. And Jesus is not coming back. Never. It's been 2 thousand years and another 2 thousands years will expire and he still won't be here.

Paul O

[_beastie]

Clarifications:
1) The term ox is meaningless in this discussion. Ox is a castrated bull (male) and cow is a female bovine.
2) There is a variety of North American goat, just not domesticated.
3) Cattle is a domesticated herd of bovines so again meaningless.
4) I don't know what cureloms and cumoms are.

The disappearance of domesticated animals is also not the problem nor is the non-use in later civilizations. If all the domesticated animals died, of course, they wouldn't have been in use. And it is already known that horses were native to North America until humans supposedly wiped them out. So, the problem is finding examples that they were here during the time period in question. And I don't buy the translation error theory. It is just a way to avoid the fact that remains of domesticated cattle (including ox), and goats have not been found. The same can be said of pre-columbian horses and elephants for this period of time.

You're correct, I should not have counted both ox and cows.

So make that SIX large land mammals.

Cureloms and cumoms were listed along with other large land mammals, so I think it's fair to include them on the list.

And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms. (Ether 9:19)

So, my challenge is now for believers who defend the Mesoamerican setting of the Book of Mormon to provide a list of SIX large land mammals that were present during the specified Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica.

[_Shulem]

So, my challenge is now for believers who defend the Mesoamerican setting of the Book of Mormon to provide a list of SIX large land mammals that were present during the specified Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica.

Note that the elephants and cureloms and cumoms were especially useful to man. There should be evidence left in the dirt for this.

Beastie, what the hell is a curelom? Jesus!



Paul O

[_beastie]

Note that the elephants and cureloms and cumoms were especially useful to man. There should be evidence left in the dirt for this.

Beastie, what the hell is a curelom? Jesus!



Paul O

I'm pretty sure it's related to a snuffleupagus.

[_Shulem]

Note that the elephants and cureloms and cumoms were especially useful to man. There should be evidence left in the dirt for this.

Beastie, what the hell is a curelom? Jesus!



Paul O

I'm pretty sure it's related to a snuffleupagus.

I think you're right, Beastie.



Paul O

[_moksha]

I would agree that discussing translation methods is like angels dancing on the head of a pin; Joseph Smith refused, when asked, to explain his translation method.

Point well taken. It would be like asking David Copperfield explain how he made the Sands and Stardust Casinos disappear. Best to just appreciate the power of the implosions.

[_Jaybear]

What is the evidence to support your assertion that Smith never commented on the translation process to Whitmer, Harris, Emma, Hale, Knight, or anyone one else who might have stopped by while he purported to translate the plates?

I suspect that you are overstating the evidence, which is something you would never allow a critic to get away with.

He didn't, at least for attribution and he said he couldn't comment. Brant Gardner's new book lays this out as Brant tries to come up with his various theories.

The best you have is in JSH. Not much of anything there.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I asked you to produce the evidence that supports your assertion, pointing out that apologists have a tendency to overstate the evidence when it suit their purpose.

Instead of producing the evidence, you again summarized your understanding of the evidence.

Let see if I can be more clear ...

When you say "he said he couldn't comment."
What specifically did he say, who did he say it to, when did he say it, who reported that he said it, when did this person report his statement?

In other word, lay the foundation, and introduce your evidence.

I've long argued against the face in the hat theory, which Whitmer describes, only because it would be impossible to make complicated dictation come out of a hat.

Ah, but the process that Whitmer describes is not dictation in any traditional sense, but reading words that God makes appear on the special stone in Joseph's hat.

Or do you consider that impossible as well?