Horsing Around

I haven't posted an online essay of the week for some time now. So let's try Horses in the Book of Mormon, a popular take on the horses question directed to a general Mormon audience, posted at Meridian Magazine. Meridian got the article from the Ancient America Foundation, whose About page explains: "AAF publications provide evidence for authenticity of the Book of Mormon." As long as you have a testimony of Mesoamerica, that is. Otherwise, you are one of the "uninformed Latter-day Saints [who] continue to promote other areas."

I don't really want to host a discussion about horses in America, which (according to the evidence accepted by most scholars) disappeared in the Pleistocene megafaunal extinction and didn't reappear in the Americas until imported by the Spanish in the 16th century. The article implies it is "anti-Mormons" who raise questions about horses in the Book of Mormon. Actually, I think anyone who reads up on horses will raise the question. Some Mormons then go on to infer the converse, that those who raise questions about horses in the BoM are thereby revealed as "anti-Mormons." From Mesoamerica to horses to anti-Mormons, I don't think this particular meditation on horses really does much for the reader.

I have a better idea: Let's just rewrite Alma 18:9. Instead of "horses and chariots," let's just put "turkeys and handcarts" and be done with it. Could someone pass this suggestion along to the Correlation Committee for confirmation?

Comments

[Geoff J]

Dude, it's done. Everyone knows the Correlation Committee reads DMI.

[RoastedTomatoes]

I would prefer "alpacas and litters," in keeping with my idiosyncratic Andean limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon. (It was the Moche, people! The Moche!)

[Guy Murray]

Dave,

This may be a cop out in the eyes of some; however, I for one have absolutely no clue about whether there were or were not horses (as we know them) in the Book of Mormon. I don't know exactly what is meant in the passages that reference horses. I suppose I could say the same for many other "difficult" problems (as they are perceived by many) about the Book of Mormon. My testimony about the Book of Mormon arises from what it says that it is: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

I personally have never considered it a zoological text, a geography text, or a building text. My testimony is based on its discussion of Christ, His Atonement, Resurrection, and Teachings.

I agree, however, that one who questions is not necessarily anti-Mormon. There is so much we don't know about the Book of Mormon, its translation, conditions of the cultures who inhabited "the land choice above all other lands", on and on. I can only base my testimony of the book on what we do know. And one thing, at least for me is that testimony is not affected by what people do or don't think about horses, cement, geography. Nor is it affected by correlation committees.

[Guy Murray]

I forgot to add--B.H. Roberts raised some questions about the Book of Mormon: see Studies of the Book of Mormon.

I don't think he can legitimately be called anti-Mormon.

[Clark Goble]

I don't think questioning is anti-Mormon. I think fixating on certain questions can be. But even that is up in the air since the attitude has a lot to do with it.

As for the Meridian article, this is another example of bad apologetics. A few others on the FAIR discussion group agreed with me. I think Meridian sometimes has some good articles, but why is it that anything vaguely relating to science is so typically horrible?