Who Are the LDS Apologists Critics Often Quote – Part III

Continuing with the last two posts, regarding who LDS apologists are, and why they are so labeled by the mainstream sectarian world, the first seven examples were covered in the preceding two posts, and the following is the rest of the list.

8. “One apologist claims that sheep wool has been found in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, but this is disputed by mainstream archaeologists.

More than just a claim is needed. A find may actually be what is claimed, but since it is outside the mainstream thinking, it is usually going to be disputed.

9. Some “apologists” suggest that the word "sheep" may refer to another species of animal that resembled sheep such as Big Horn sheep or Llamas. Critics point out that camel-like animals such as llamas, are unclean according to Israelite law, and are not acceptable for food or for sacrifice, and that Big horn sheep have never been domesticated by humans.

Wrong approach. Big Horn sheep are indigenous to western North America, basically in the Rocky Mountains. They have never been located in the areas of the Land of Promise, and even so, their high-altitude habitat suggests that domestication would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

10. “Some LDS apologists, such as Matthew Roper of FARMS, believe that "goat" in the Book of Mormon refers to brocket deer in order to explain the apparent anachronism.”

Wrong approach. The brocket deer looks nothing like a goat, and Joseph Smith certainly knew the difference between deer and goat, and the spirit acknowledged that “goat” was the correct term, not “deer.”

11. Some LDS apologists argue that the word "swine" refers to Peccairies (also known as Javelinas), an animal that bears a superficial resemblance to pigs. Critics rebut that there is no archeological evidence that peccaries have ever been domesticated.

Wrong approach. Joseph Smith, a farmer, living in farming communities, would have known that swine refers to “Any of various omnivorous, even-toed ungulates of the family Suidae, including pigs, hogs, and boars, having a stout body with thick skin, a short neck, and a movable snout.” That is, he would have known what pigs, hogs and boars were, and that the word “swine,” (Ether 9:18), is generally meant to be “pig.”

The point is, first of all, the Book of Mormon needs no further explanation meant to change the meaning or wordage of the scriptural record—the book can stand on its own, and 2) those who try to make such changes in hopes of proving a point, actually work against the purpose of the book itself.

The Book of Mormon needs no one to apologize for it. It is the word of God as written by various ancient prophets in the Western Hemisphere, abridged by one prophet under the direction of the Lord, and translated by another prophet under the direction of the Spirit. Nothing more needs be said other than to quote the record correctly and specifically as it is written.

Those who try to apologize for it, make changes in it, or claim what is written really means something else, do a disservice to the book itself, to the Lord, and to the Church in general. If one wants to write about the Jaredites and Nephites and what is written about them in the scriptural record, then one should hold true to the faith of what is written, for it is correct—every whit!