User:InProgress/Website reviews/B

FAIR Answers—back to home page

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Book of Mormon Difficulties"—Part 1

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the MormonThink article "Book of Mormon Difficulties—Book of Mormon Animals" appears to take are the following:

• If an animal does not appear in a picture on a wall in a ruin, then it must never have existed.
• That FAIR avoids mentioning certain Book of Mormon verses "at all costs," despite quoting verses that say something substantially similar...and despite the verses being avoided actually appearing in the FAIR Wiki article on the subject.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Rebuttal: The first apologist argument that they did not find archeological evidence of lions in Palestine until very recently is not applicable since pictographic and literary evidence of horses in the New World (outside of the Book of Mormon) is unknown. There were writings and drawings of lions in Palestine and horses used by the Huns yet there are no writings or drawings of any modern-day horses by the natives of the Americas. The Native Americans had absolutely no knowledge of horses until Columbus and the Spaniards introduced them to the Old World.

FairMormon commentary

•   Quotes from Ex-Mormon message board posts do not produce the best evidence  —Ex-mormon message board posts tend to let their rhetoric obscure facts.
  
• We believe that the Spaniards introduced the modern horse to the New World, not the Old World.
• Who says that ancient Americans had modern-day horses?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The second apologist argument that the horses described in the BOM were really deer or tapirs is absolutely ridiculous. Joseph Smith knew what a horse was and certainly the 'most correct book on earth' wouldn't mistranslate deer for horse 14 times. Can you imagine a tapir pulling the chariots as described in the Book of Mormon? Joseph managed to come up with proper nouns like Curelom and Cumom and Ziff, Senine...but he couldn't get the real name for whatever he substituted horse for?

FairMormon commentary

•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  
• Where in the Book of Mormon does it describe horses pulling chariots? Where does it describe anyone riding a horse? Horses are mentioned with chariots several times. Assuming that they were present in order to pull the chariots is simply extrapolation.
• If Joseph knew so much about horses (and he did) why don't Book of Mormon horses act like real-world horses? They are never used in battle, no one travels on them, and they may be food animals.
• Joseph likely knew, as everyone did, that the European horse was introduced by the Spanish. Why, then, did he make such a clumsy error in his forgery?
• No one claims that Joseph "mistranslated" the term deer for horse. The actual argument, if one is interested, is that early Nephites may have labeled deer "horses." Joseph's translation was accurate, but the name was given to another creature. The Amerindians called horses "deer" when the first saw them--were they "mistranslating" too?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Thoughts: As children, we were all taught in American History classes about the profound impact that horses had on the Indians once they were introduced to the New World by the Europeans. We have a hard time believing that all the history books, scientists, Indian records, etc. are all wrong about something that was so important to the Native Americans. If the ancient inhabitants of the Americas really had the horse as described in the BOM, we can't conceive of how or why they would let this most useful of all animals disappear and of course leave absolutely no trace of its existence.

FairMormon commentary

• That depends upon what they were doing with them. To the Jaredites, the Book of Mormon indicates that the elephant was more useful than the horse. Even the cureloms and cumoms were more useful than the horse. If horses were used as a source of food, then it isn't hard to imagine why they disappeared.

Quotes to consider
Ether 9꞉19

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.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Interesting note: Solomon Spalding, in his fictional piece Manuscript Story, mentions horses in connection with the inhabitants of the New World. So perhaps it's no wonder that the author(s) of the BOM might make the same mistake.

FairMormon commentary

• You don't need to know anything about Spalding to assume that the inhabitants of the New World might have had horses for a long time—all you have to do is look at what the Indians were riding in the 19th-Century.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Occasionally LDS members and even LDS apologists like Daniel Peterson talk of some evidence found of modern-day horses in America, but these are well-known hoaxes such as the Spencer Lake Hoax when an archeological student buried a horse skull at an archeological dig. FAIR actually made a video in which they cite the Spencer Lake horse as evidence of horses in BOM times. Embarrassingly, FAIR has now put this disclaimer about their video: FAIR: Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account.

Equally curious is why this drawing isn't used by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS. They likely know that the macaw explanation is accepted by serious archeologists (such as Michael Coe). They may also suspect it is not credible like the numerous ancient American horse hoaxes that Daniel Peterson of FARMS use to endorse.

FairMormon commentary

• FAIR corrected an error—why is this supposed to be "embarrassing?" Wouldn't it be embarrassing if they failed to correct the error?
• The Spencer Lake hoax is mentioned as a single example. Where are these other "numerous ancient American horse hoaxes" that Daniel Peterson is said to have endorsed? Citations please?
• Statements prefaced by the words "they are likely to know" or "they may also suspect" are not evidence—they are conjecture. Why is it "curious" that FAIR or the Maxwell Institute do not wish to use ambiguous evidence? Or that when something is clearly identified as a hoax, that they issue a correction? Isn't this what is supposed to happen?

Quotes to consider

• Gardner identifies the item as a macaw, not an elephant, in Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 6:260.. It is mentioned as a possible elephant by Roper and Peterson in 2004, but this one-sentence reference is accompanied by three pages discussing biological remains that they obviously consider of more significance. See pages 194-96 of Daniel C. Peterson and Matthew Roper, "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons (Review of: Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon)," FARMS Review 16/1 (2004): 175–220. off-site
• Why are believers criticized when they update what they believe based upon new evidence or a better understanding of old evidence? When the evidence changes, we change our minds—what does MormonThink do?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It's very interesting that apologist Daniel Peterson of FARMS says that Alma 11, which describes Nephite coinage, is almost certainly wrong.

FairMormon commentary

•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  
• Daniel Peterson has never claimed that a chapter in the Book of Mormon is "wrong."
• What LDS scholars claim is "wrong" is the chapter heading for Alma 11, which specifically mentions the word "coins." That chapter heading is not part of the actual Book of Mormon text, and was added in the 20th-century. The original Book of Mormon did not contain the word "coins," and the chapter itself describes measures of various metals that were used as currency.

Quotes to consider

• Here's the quote:

“And, by the way, for the umpteenth time, the Book of Mormon never claims that there were ‘coins’ in the ancient New World. The text of the Book of Mormon mentions neither the word coin nor any variant thereof. The reference to ‘Nephite coinage’ in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text and is mistaken. Alma 11 is almost certainly talking about standardized weights of metal—a historical step toward coinage, true, but not yet the real thing. (I wonder how many more times we will have to point this out.)” - Daniel C. Peterson, "Review of Mormonism by Kurt Van Gorden," FARMS Review of Books 8/1 (1996): 95–103. off-site

• Apparently, at least once more if MormonThink.com has anything to say about it.
• So, since MormonThink is clearly not correct in their claim--will they fix their error? If they do, remember they criticize FAIR for correcting inaccurate data. If they don't, are they going to continue to make false claims?

Additional information

• Coins—Critics claim that Book of Mormon references to Nephite coins is an anachronism, as coins were not used either in ancient America or Israel during Lehi's day. However, the word "coins" was only added to the chapter heading of Alma 11 much later, and the text of the Book of Mormon itself does not mention coins. The pieces of gold and silver described in Alma 11:1-20 are not coins, but a surprisingly sophisticated system of weights and measures that is entirely consistent with Mesoamerican proto-monetary practices. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Response: Notice how FAIR avoids at all costs mentioning the following verses from the BOM concerning Lehi's trip [emphasis added]: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/16/10,16,26-28,30#10 10 And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one POINTED THE WAY WITHER WE SHOULD GO INTO THE WILDERNESS.

30 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did go forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the DIRECTIONS which were given upon the ball.
Now followed by the verse they do mention:
38 And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or DIRECTOR—or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a COMPASS; and the Lord prepared it.

FairMormon commentary

•   Shrillness makes you appear silly and inaccurate   —When critics become shrill, they sacrifice accuracy and begin making silly sarcastic claims.
  
• Notice how the FAIR article actually leads off with the quotation of 1 Nephi 16: 10, 30. Notice how the critic sloppily includes verse 38 as part of 1 Nephi when it is actually a quote of Alma 37:38 (Accurately noted in the FAIR article Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Compass).
• Notice how the verse that FAIR "did mention" has the words "direction" and "compass" just like the verses that FAIR is supposed to have avoided mentioning "at all costs."

Additional information

• Compass—Critics charge that the description of the Liahona as a "compass" is anachronistic because the magnetic compass was not known in 600 B.C. However, believing it was called a compass because it pointed the direction for Lehi to travel is the fault of the modern reader, not the Book of Mormon. As a verb, the word "compass" occurs frequently in the King James Version of the Bible; and it generally suggests the idea of surrounding or encircling something. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Response: The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the so-called "Liahona", was a DIRECTOR, it was certainly used by Lehi's party to DIRECT them in the wilderness, and Alma the younger even made more clarification of its nature by calling it a DIRECTOR and COMPASS -- this is an anachronism because the COMPASS which DIRECTED one's course wasn't invented yet for many centuries.

FairMormon commentary

• A magnetic compass points North. If it pointed in any other direction, then it wouldn't be a magnetic compass, would it?
• The Book of Mormon states that the Liahona had writing on its surface which periodically changed, and that this provided instruction. One of the spindles in the Liahona pointed the direction that the party should travel. The Liahona, therefore, directed the party during their travels.
• The object wasn't the "so-called" Liahona—the Book of Mormon states that it was called the Liahona.

Additional information

• Compass—Critics charge that the description of the Liahona as a "compass" is anachronistic because the magnetic compass was not known in 600 B.C. However, believing it was called a compass because it pointed the direction for Lehi to travel is the fault of the modern reader, not the Book of Mormon. As a verb, the word "compass" occurs frequently in the King James Version of the Bible; and it generally suggests the idea of surrounding or encircling something. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Response: Leave it up to ' FAIRLDS to twist, take things out of context, use anything but the actual text of the Book of Mormon to make definitions, avoid the full context as much as possible, and give me yet another feeling like I've been lied to by people who believe it's for my own good to just take them at face value and stop thinking. Also FAIR grasps at straws by stating “In every case, it is clear that, at least in Jacobean England, the word was regularly treated as meaning either a round object, or something which moved in a curved fashion. “ We do not live in Jacobean England nor did Joseph Smith nor the Nephites.

FairMormon commentary

•   Shrillness makes you appear silly and inaccurate   —When critics become shrill, they sacrifice accuracy and begin making silly sarcastic claims.
  
•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  
• Of course, we have included plenty of quotes from the Book of Mormon itself.
• By noting the fact that we do not live in "Jacobean England nor did Joseph Smith nor the Nephites," we can see that this critic has a firm grasp of the obvious.
• The point is that the Book of Mormon text uses a form of Jacobean English--and no expressions that were not introduced after 1700. This has implications for how we read the text. But MormonThink does not want to be bothered with details and facts, apparently.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Response: The FAIR apologists are the same people that make "horse" mean "tapir" and "steel" somehow they make into wooden clubs with obsidian (volcanic glass) chunks all stuck into it called "macahuitl", and Nephite coinage means anything other than gold & silver monetary units, and Lehi & company conquered another race and interbred with them WITHOUT BEING MENTIONED IN ThE BOOK OF MORMON AT ALL in a ham-fisted attempt to cloud and detract from the real problem regarding Native American DNA, and there's a second Hill Cumorah on the grassy knoll.....and a whole litany of things that should be PLAIN AND PRECIOUS from the MOST CORRECT BOOK on EARTH.

FairMormon commentary

•   Shrillness makes you appear silly and inaccurate   —When critics become shrill, they sacrifice accuracy and begin making silly sarcastic claims.
  Note how the critic has now achieved a level of hysterical screaming and completely loses his grasp on basic facts.
•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  
• Sometimes quoting an ex-Mormon's critical rant from a message board just isn't a good way to calmly make a point on a site which claims to be "balanced" and "accurate."
• FAIR does not claim that "horse" means "tapir."
• FAIR does not make "steel" into "wooden clubs."
• FAIR does not claim that "Nephite coinage means anything other than gold & silver monetary units." (What does that phrase mean anyway?) FAIR simply notes that the word "coins" isn't part of the Book of Mormon text and was added to a chapter heading in the 20th-century. This is a historical fact.
• FAIR does not claim that Lehi "conquered another race."
• FAIR does not claim that there is a "second Hill Cumorah on the grassy knoll."
• FAIR has extensive information that addresses the issue of Native American DNA.

Additional information

• DNA and the Book of Mormon—A collection of articles related to DNA and the Book of Mormon. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Rebuttal: LDS apologists will search and search until they find someone that will support their claims. The fact is the vast majority of nonMormon scientists support the views of the critics as that is where the critics get their information from in the first place - the general scientific community.

FairMormon commentary

• If a scientist did find the Book of Mormon account persuasive, they would become Mormons--which would, presumably, make them unreliable for MormonThink, because they wouldn't be "nonMormon [sic] scientists" anymore.
• Most of the "general scientific community" have not examined the Book of Mormon in any detail at all, and are not equipped to comment on
• MormonThink and "the critics'" superficial approach to the Book of Mormon text makes it unsurprising that
• Believers do not dispute the scientific information. They simply disagree with the critics about what that information means, and how it ought to be applied to the issues raised by the Book of Mormon.
• Instead of arguing from authority, MormonThink should stick to an examination and debate about the evidence--as we have seen, they have not done too well at this.

Additional information

• Basic questions that need answers before using the presence or absence of something as evidence against the Book of Mormon—Translated documents (which the Book of Mormon claims to be) have many potential sources of anachronism. When trying to decide if something is a true anachronism, and when making judgments about the Book of Mormon's truth based on an assessment of anachronisms, we must take all these factors into account. Critics rarely do so, and MormonThink is no exception. They do not even seem aware of these issues, much less address them. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Regarding the elephants cited by the apologists, first off all scientists agree that elephants did not exist in the Americas, however Mastodons, which are not elephants, did exist in stone-age times. Giving Joseph Smith some latitude here and equating elephants with mastodons, here's what one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world, the National Geographic Society says: "Mastodons lived in North America starting about 2 million years ago and thrived until 11,000 years ago—around the time humans arrived on the continent—when the last of the 7-ton (6.35-metric-ton) elephantlike creatures died off." off-site So although Mastodons (once again not elephants) lived in the Americas, they died out several thousands of years before the Jaredites even came to the Americas.

FairMormon commentary