Question: When Did Horses Live in the Americas? Part I

Many historians believe that most of the development of horses began in the Americas. Scientists agree that the first horses (called Pliohippus) to evolve in North America appeared millions of years ago. According to them, for some unknown reason, horses (Equus) disappeared from the western hemisphere and were re-introduced by Spanish explorers (after Columbus) in the sixteenth century. In fact, scientists believe that most of the evolutionary development of the horse actually took place in North America, where they developed the very successful strategy of grazing (eating grass) rather than browsing (eating softer succulent leaves). These grazers, they say, evolved specialized teeth for processing the stiff and coarse grass that was at that time becoming very plentiful on the Great Plains of North America. At some point some of them crossed into the Old World via the Arctic-Asia land bridge. Then, suddenly, no one is absolutely certain why, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, horse (Equus) disappeared from North and South America.

When we couple this information with the knowledge that 1) horses, like all animals, did not evolve from a single cell amoeba, but were placed on the Earth by God—a concept not acceptable to scientists—and 2) that the Earth is only about 13,000 years old, then we have an interesting support in showing that horses existed in the Americas before the arrival of the Spanish, and during the times the Jaredites and Nephites occupied the Western Hemisphere.

Left: The Eques caballus (caballoid horse) introduced by the Spanish in 1519; Right: The Equus lambei (Yukon horse), a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction

It is interesting to note that critics of the idea that the North American wild horse is a native animal, using only paleontological data, assert that the species, Eques caballus (or the caballoid horse), which was introduced in 1519, was a different species from that which disappeared 13,000 to 11,000 years before. However, the relatively new (27-year-old) field of molecular biology, using mitochondrial-DNA analysis, has recently found that the modern or caballine horse, Eques caballus, is genetically equivalent to Equus lambei, a horse from the fossil record and now claimed to be extinct. In other words, DNA shows these horses to be the same.

Not only is Eques caballus genetically equivalent to Equus lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of Eques caballus anywhere except North America. In addition, researchers who removed ancient DNA of horses from permanently frozen soil in central Alaskan permafrost dated the material at between 7600 and 10,500 years old. The findings suggest populations of these now-extinct mammals endured longer in the continental interior of North America, challenging the conventional view that these and other large species disappeared from the continent about 12,000 years ago.

So now we find that the so-called extinct horse of the fossil record, and the horses that the Spanish brought to the Americas in 1519, is the same horse, which only proves the scriptural record of 1) Noah took the horse from North America to the Eastern Hemisphere, and 2) the Jaredites brought the horse back to the Western Hemisphere.

In addition, science obviously does not know for certain when the last horses in the Western Hemisphere disappeared, or became “extinct” by their standards. Each new discovery brings the “extinct” horse in the Western Hemisphere closer to the present and certainly within the realm of the history as recorded in the scriptural record of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, especially when we realize the correct age of the Earth.

It is also of interest to note that scientists are now saying, “"Extinctions often seem dramatic and sudden in fossil records, but our study provides an idea of what an extinction event might look like in real time, with imperiled species surviving in smaller and smaller numbers until eventually disappearing completely." As an example, the Tarpan horse died out in the wild between 1875 and 1890, when the last known wild mare was accidentally killed during an attempt at capture. The last captive Tarpan died in 1909 in a Russian zoo.

Left: The only known illustration of a Tarpan (Turkish meaning “wild horse”) made from life, depicting a five month old foal by Borisov in1841; Right: Przewalski’s Horse, the only remaining type of "wild" horse that has never been domesticated

In addition, scientists also tell us that “Hard remains of animals are rarely preserved, are difficult to find, and are difficult to accurately date because of physical degradation.” As a result, MacPhee, Willerslev, Roberts and Froese date the dirt in which the animal remains are found.” According to Willerslev, director of the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen: "In principle, you can take a pinch of dirt collected under favorable circumstances and uncover an amazing amount of forensic evidence regarding what species were on the landscape at the time.” However, it would seem that the problem with this is that the landscape may be dated to a time long before the last horse roamed the area. As Richard Roberts, of the University of Wollongong in Australia, said: "We can be confident that the deposits from which the DNA was recovered haven't been contaminated since these lost giants last passed this way.” However, again, there is no way to know where else the animals roamed, and how long they lived since “they last passed this way.”

(See the next post, “Question: When Did Horses Live in the Americas? Part II,” for more on the existence of Book of Mormon mammals in the Western Hemisphere)

Question: When Did Elephants Live in the Americas?

There is no question in anyone’s mind (Paleontologists, paleobiologists, science) that elephants at one time thrived in North and South America—the only question is when did they exist? If, in fact, the world is only 13,000 years old as the scriptural record suggests, and has been shown to be far more accurate in Scientific Fallacies & Other Myths than science’s questionable 4.55 billion years, then when was the so-called Pliocene Period? Science tells us that it was from 3.6 to 13.65 million years ago—but if the Earth was only formed 13,000 years ago or so, then when really was the period when the so-called Rhynchotherium elephant existed?

Left: This Proboscidea (Latin proboscis) is a taxonomic order containing one living family, (Right) Elephantidae, and several so-called extinct families; however, we do not know that the Proboscidea had any different skin than the Elephant of today, therefore, just longer tusks

Remains of rhynchotherium and gomphotheres, consisting of molars and tusks, have been found in South America at Monte Verde, Chile, and also in the Valle del Magdalena, Colombia. They are claimed to have been widespread in North, Central and South America. In fact, these animals, first described in 1811 by J. Illiger encompass the trunked mammals—that is, elephants—and claimed to have been throughout the Americas as late as 1.6 million years ago. Of course, if the Earth is only 13,000 years old, then when exactly did they thrive in the Americas?

Palentologists claim these animals lived for 10,000 years, which is close, since all living animals that move upon the dry land were created on the sixth day, or about 8,000 years ago. The scientific classification of proboscideans is unstable and frequently revised, and some relationships within the order remain unclear—as of today, there are at least 177 species and subspecies of recognized proboscideans, classified in 43 genera. Yet, God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:24-25)

So, elephants are elephants. Artists can make them look different by placing scraggly coats on them, but basically an elephant is an elephant. So when did they live? The record of Elephantidae bones dates back to the beginning of when this Earth was formed, to the time when God “made the beast of the earth.”

Consequently, when people who claim to know so much, but in reality know so little, “forever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth,” claim there were no elephants in the Americas until after the arrival of the Spanish, they are ignoring their own discoveries.

This rynchotherium of the proboscidea (elephant) family, presently displayed in the Las Vegas Natural History Museum, was found in Arizona, supposedly lived 3 million years ago and roamed Central and South America. Considered a very rare specimen, it is the best representation of this mammal to exist

Elephant remains have been found in Florida, California, Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Argentina specifically, which paleobiologists (Paleobiology is a growing and comparatively new discipline which combines the methods and findings of biology with the methods and findings of the earth science paleontology, and is occasionally referred to as "geobiology") claim all belong to an extinct, early form of elephant which died out some million years ago, or so. But again, if the earth is only 13,000 years old, when and why did these early elephants become extinct? Or are they merely earlier ancestors of today’s elephant? Stated differently, are they the elephants the Jaredites brought to the Land of Promise (Western Hemisphere) around 2100 B.C., and show once again the reality of the Book of Mormon?

Numerous elephant remains were found in the La Brea Tar Pits in Southern California and replicated in design shown here. By the way, there were no dinosaur bones found in the Tar Pits, but bison, camels, llamas, both western and Mexican horses, pronghorn, elk, deer, bear, lion, jaguar, cheetah, cougar, bobcat, wolf, coyote, and numerous other common small animals (raccoon, skunk, weasel, etc.) None of these animals are extinct, and all exist today 

Obviously, when God made the animals and commanded them to reproduce after their own kind, the animals (unlike man, perhaps) obeyed. The elephants God made, the elephants the Jaredites brought, and the elephant remains found in the ground in the Americas, are the same elephant lineage, and have always existed in the Americas. Or are we to believe that the elephants that died out in the Western Hemisphere in the ancient past and did not survive here after that, somehow did not die out, or somehow reinvented themselves in the Eastern Hemisphere so that in the 1500s, the Spanish could reintroduce them into the Western Hemisphere. Am I the only one that finds this strange?

The scientists, who deny the existence of God, and all He has created, formed and organized, want us to believe these elephants are entirely different. So whom shall we believe? The Godless? Or the scriptural record? The earth is 13,000 years old and the elephant has been in the Americas after the Flood since the Jaredites brought them here.

(See the next post, “Question: When Did Horses Live in the Americas? Part I,” for more on the existence of Book of Mormon mammals in the Western Hemisphere)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XXX

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first one hundred and twenty-three comments were answered in the previous 29 posts, the one hundred and twenty-fourth and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comments #124 “I read that the only thing at issue regarding differences of opinions in the Church about Noah’s Flood is the scope of the flood, and differences in belief on that point are not essential to salvation. So what if Church leaders believe that the Flood covered the entire globe? So what if some believe, based upon scientific evidence, that the Flood was local in scope? It simply makes no difference to the teachings in the Church that Noah was a prophet, and that he did as God commanded him.” Emile O.

Response: It is hard for the Flood to be the “baptism of the Earth” when only one portion of the earth was baptized or covered with water. This is a doctrinal issue as Brigham Young stated, and arguments or disagreements over doctrine are not appropriate. The world is full of different religions whose differences stem from disagreements over doctrines. I would think this is important—not just the Flood, but all doctrinal issues. After all, God is not the author of confusion—Satan is!

Comment #125 “The French word "adieu" appears only once in the Book of Mormon in Jacob 7:27. Some LDS claim it is merely a translation into modern English, so the use of a French word is not amiss. For example, Daniel H. Ludlow contends that the use of the French word "adieu", and others, may have been the result of Joseph Smith choosing the best word available to convey the meaning of the original text; however, this seems strange that a French word “adieu” would be chosen, and even appear on the plates in the first place.” Alexei

Response: The word adieu is from Old French, literally meaning “to God.” It is also from Middle English (adew, adewe, adue), as well as Middle French, and is equivalent to “a” Latin, ad (to) “Dieu” Latin Deus  (God), and is actually part of the phrase à dieu vous commant, "I commend you to God." When Jacob closed out his brief writing, he wrote: “I must soon go down to my grave…And I make an end of my writing upon these plates, which writing has been small; and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu” (Jacob 7:27). Literally, Jacob bid farewell (goodbye) to the reader, but to his brethren (in the gospel) he “commended them to God.” It is important to note this difference. In 1828, the word “adieu” in New England English was considered “a farewell or commendation to the care of God” (to wish a fond farewell) it was used in place of the word “farewell,” as an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends, and carried much the same meaning as it did in French (and Italian)—a unique phrase with a sad tinge to parting. In addition, it also can carry the same meaning as adios in Spanish, which means literally “See you again.” Perhaps to best understand this use (and no doubt how it was meant at Jacob’s hand) is to understand that Jacob was a very kindly man, full of concern for his brethren, brought up in the harshness of two brothers trying to kill his father and older brothers, cautious in making harsh statements, and then doing so only with an apology. Note his comments: “it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you,” and “it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained [compelled], because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds,” and “it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.” It is obvious that Jacob was a tender-hearted, loving man, and when he closed out his record, he bid the casual reader, a friendly goodbye, but to his beloved brethren, his final farewell (adieu) was a promise that he and they would meet again, and in the meantime, he commended them to God. No better word in the entire English language could have been chosen by Joseph Smith to convey the meaning of Jacob’s parting comment.

Comment #126 “Book of Mormon prophets in the Americas quote chapters 48–54 of the Book of Isaiah after having left the Jerusalem area around 600 BC. Since Isaiah died around 698 BC, under traditional biblical belief, there would be no conflict. However, recently, many Biblical scholars assert that these chapters were not written by Isaiah, but rather, by one or more other people during the Babylonian captivity sometime between 586 and 538 BC (between 14 and 82 years after it could have been known to Lehi and his family)”

Response: One of the great things about the Book of Mormon is that it confirms the writings of Isaiah and lays to rest the charges that someone else wrote the later chapters. The Lord himself confirms this in 3 Nephi 23:1. The name 'Isaiah' signifies in its original Hebrew (YESHAYAH) meaning 'Jehovah Saves', a name in complete harmony with the great prophet's teaching and hopes. Nephi and Jacob quoted liberally from Isaiah because 1) he testified of the coming of the Savior, and 2) he knew about the Nephites and their dwelling on an isle of the sea.

Comment #127 “Baptism is mentioned as a ritual that is taught and performed among the Nephite civilization, with its first mention being taught by Nephi between 559 and 545 BC. However, baptism as as described in the Book of Mormon is widely believed to be unknown until its institution in early Christianity many hundreds of years after the practice was ostensibly taught and practiced as related in the Book of Mormon. The first known mention of baptism in this form is by John the Baptist. A similar incarnation of the practice of baptism was practiced by the Jewish group the Essenes between the 2nd century BC and the first century AD.” Julio

Another great value of the Book of Mormon is to correct the misguided beliefs and attitudes of the uninformed and misguided. The fact that the Essenes practiced this so-called ritual should suggest a proof to the Book of Mormon, as the Book of Mormon provides a witness to the accuracy of baptism before John the Baptist.

Comment #128 “A wild goat is mentioned in 1 Nephi 18:25, however, goats are domesticated, not wild. This is another glaring mistake in the Book of Mormon.” Terrance G.

Response: The domestic goat (Capra aegagrus hircus) is a subspecies of goat domesticated from the wild goat (Capra aegagrus), of southwest Asia and Eastern Europe. The goat is a member of the family Bovidae and is closely related to the sheep as both are in the goat-antelope subfamily Caprinae. It is sometimes referred to as the Bezoar or Pasang goat. The wild goat is not extinct, and dates back to at least 8000 B.C., in the area of Iran. Certainly, next to Mesopotamia, would have been available to the Jaredites to bring to the New World. Mention of the wild goat is more of a testimony to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than the opposite.

The Wild Goat – Bexoar Pasang (Capra aegagrus). The Wild Goat is a widespread species of goat, with a distribution ranging from Europe and Asia Minor to central Asia and the Middle East

About once a year or so, I spend some time answering questions that have been asked and not previously answered until several have been accumulated. However, this time I waited so long, I didn’t realize so many questions had accumulated, so these several posts was my catching up with your questions. Perhaps I need to do this more often. In any event, this now concludes the posts on questions, comments and criticism received. If you have a comment or have made a comment that was not answered as far as you know, ask again. Either email through the website or ask it as a comment on a current post—all questions or comments will be answered. Again, thank all of you for your interest. You might not agree with the conclusions written here, but I invite intelligent and knowledgeable disagreement, especially when accompanied by either a referenced “fact” or by scripture. If you feel you must criticize, feel free to do so, but any criticism or comment is better served with back up material that can be understood, considered, discussed and answered.

Answering Recent Comments – Part XXIX

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first one hundred and seventeen comments were answered in the previous 28 posts, the one hundred and eighteenth and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #118 “If, as John L. Sorenson and other writers suggest, most Book of Mormon history took place in Mesoamerica, what can we conclude regarding the discovery of the bones of a white Lamanite in Illinois and the plates in New York? It seems possible that some Lamanites could have wandered north after Moroni closed his narrative and fought battles on American soil, and the discovery of Zelph could be used by Latter-day Saints as prima facie evidence. We know, too, that the plates Joseph Smith translated came from a hill near his home and were deposited there by Moroni. Someday I hope Moroni explains more fully just where he was during those last three decades of his life, and I hope Zelph is by his side; and after Moroni is finished, I hope Zelph tells his story, geography and all.” Angelina R.

Response: First, as has been mentioned here numerous times, the entire Western Hemisphere is the overall Land of Promise, though only a portion of that was involved in the events of the Book of Mormon. Hagoth’s ships brought thousands of emigrants into Central America, where Nephite ruins, like those in the Andean area, can be seen. Zelph merely shows that Nephites and Lamanites also migrated into North America.

As for where Moroni was during the last three decades of his life, we need to understand that at the conclusion of that time, about 421 A.D., Moroni made his last entry into the Book of Mormon record—it does not say or imply that he died right after that. We don’t know when Moroni died, or under what circumstances—he could have lived for quite some time beyond that point, or taken up as was Moses. As for Zelph’s story—there would be tens of thousands of stories worth knowing regarding all the Nephites and Lamanites who lived in areas outside the land listed in the Book of Mormon. I believe that someday we will have that information.

Comment #119 “Joseph Smith has made numerous false prophecies. In September of 1832 Joseph Smith claimed that the Lord told him that the latter-day Saints would build the New Jerusalem and its temple in Zion, Missouri during his generation: “For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house…which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed.” Gunter.

Response: Joseph Smith was never told it would happen in his generation. He was told this generation. In the Lord’s terminology, “This generation” has always meant a certain period of time—not particularly based on someone’s or a specific group’s lifespan. This generation could well mean this entire dispensation. According to the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, a generation covers a broad range of definitions, including "The people of the same period, a series of children or descendants from the same stock, a family, a race, progeny and offspring." You have placed a very narrow interpretation on the word, but obviously, Joseph Smith was using the term in its broadest sense. Because a prophet doesn't fit your interpretation does not make him any less of a prophet.

Comment #120 “Joseph Smith said, “I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left”. 

Well, the United States Government did not redress (or rectify) any of the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri, and now over 150 years later, the U.S. Government is still standing. Here we have another example of a false prophecy. 

Deuteronomy 18:22 tells us what we should think about false prophets: 

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” DeMarco.

Response: Joseph Smith never put a time frame upon the redress or the punishment. The term “in a few years” is not indicative of a few years from the moment Joseph made the statement, but in the Lord’s time, which is based on a far longer day than ours, “a few days” has not yet come about. Nor do we know what “redress the wrongs” entailed. Generally, a prophesy cannot be determined in our time, but in the Lord’s time. The punishment of the Lamanites did not come for a little more than 1000 years after they destroyed the Nephites, though it had long been prophesied. As he Lord told Joseph Smith, “Behold, mine eyes see and  know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in  the season thereof, for them all; For there is a time appointed for every man, according as his works shall be (D&C 121:24-25); For their bounds are set, they cannot pass (D&C 123:9). Though it took a thousand years for the Lamanites to meet their punishment, it came "swiftly." In less than a handful of years, they went from the epitome of civilization to becoming slaves--three entire cultures numbering in the millions, almost "overnight" as you will. Estimates are that 169 Spaniards under Pizarro defeated and subjugated 16,000,000 Inca between 1528 and 1532.

Comment #121 “I’ve read where Joseph Smith said that he translated the golden plates (from which he got the Book of Mormon) letter-by-letter, “by the power of God” and that it was “the most correct of any book on earth." If that’s true why has the Mormon Church had to make more than 4,000 changes to the Book of Mormon that was originally published in 1830?” Holmes F.

Response: Joseph Smith’s comment was in regard to the doctrines of the gospel contained in the Book of Mormon, and if you would read Joseph’s entire statement about that, you would find that was what he said. As for changes, the vast majority of changes was in regard to spelling, grammar, etc., which has been clearly defined and covered here on several occasions, as well as elsewhere.

Comment #122 “Why do Mormons say that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers when both the first chapter of John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16 teach that Jesus is the creator of all things, including Lucifer?” Tatiana.

Response: We are all sons of God, the Father of us all. Jesus is shown in numerous biblical scriptures that he said he is the Son of God, the Father. As for the creator of all things, God the Father has said that he created all things through his son, Jesus Christ, but He, himself, created man (Genesis 1:26).

Comment #123 “In the book of Jacob, he condemns polygamy, yet Joseph Smith condoned polygamy as an ordinance of God.” Jillian.

Response: Throughout the Bible period, God has, from time to time, directed certain people and groups to practice polygamy, and that has never ceased. On the other hand, He has shown He is not pleased when people involve themselves in polygamy without His direction or approval. Polygamy, when practiced in any dispensation under God’s approval, was done under certain circumstances with definitive rules and provisions. When man has decided on his own to do what God has not granted to him to do, God is not pleased. It should be noted that Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record.

Left: When Elijah called down the fires from heaven to destroy Ahab’s priests of Baal, he prayed:” "Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that Thou art God in Israel." Of course, Abraham, Isaac and Israel were polygamists; Right: from the polygamist Jacob, came the Twelve Tribes of Israel

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XXX,” for the last of the comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XXVIII

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first one hundred and twelve comments were answered in the previous 27 posts, the one hundred and thirteenth and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #113 “The word "synagogue,"  found in Alma 16:13, last century B.C., is not factual. Scholars claim that synagogue was not in use before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity.  The oldest known synagogue is located in Delos, Greece, which has been dated to 150 BC. Why in the Book of Mormon?” Gervas.

Response: First of all, a synagogue in Joseph Smith's day meant "a congregation or assembly of Jews, met for the purpose of worship or the performance of religious rites" or "the house appropriated to the religious worship of the Jews." A current dictionary defines the word the same. Consequently, whatever word was used by the ancient writer(s) of the scriptural record, Joseph Smith translated it into its English equivalent of his day--a word we clearly understand today. As he did in all cases where he knew an English equivalent, Joseph Smith used these words to describe ancient writing. If you were reading in an ancient Persian script of the first century B.C. that you were translating the word “Puranas,” how would you write it in English? The word meant “Holy writing,” and you would probably use the term “scripture,” though that term was not applied to the puranas until more than a thousand years later. Does that make your translation fraudulent? Certainly the people (English speaking) for whom you are translating will completely understand the term and your meaning.

Comment #114 “Joseph Smith stated in a letter to the editor of Times and Seasons, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon." Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon contains some names which appear to be Greek, some of which are Hellenizations of Hebrew names (e.g. Antipas, Archeantus, Esrom, Ezias, Jonas, Judea, Lachoneus and Zenos). Other Greek names are non-biblical and their presence in the book is puzzling to both believers and skeptics, since neither Smith nor the Nephites spoke Greek.” Kaitlyn.

Response: It is not puzzling to me, nor do I think it is puzzling to anyone with half a brain. I don’t speak Greek, but know the name Jason; I don’t speak Latin, but know the name Felix; I don’t speak French, but know the name Andre; nor Celtic, but know the name Angus; nor German, but know the name Arnold; nor Italian, but know Carlo; nor Turkish, but know Omar; nor Russian, but know Ivan, etc., etc., etc. Besides, what Joseph Smith was saying in the article was that what he translated on the plates was not written in Greek or Latin, but in the Reformed Egyptian which he translated “through the grace of the Lord.” He never said there were no Greek, Latin, or any other type of name on the plates—he never addressed the subject.

Comment #115 “Engineering capabilities of the Palestinian Jews before 600 B.C. were well established in building, agriculture and irrigation, yet nothing of the kind has been found in the Americas.” Lamarr.

Response: Oh, contraire! Engineering in the Americas before the arrival of Christopher Columbus was advanced in agriculture, hydrology, irrigation systems, transportation, mechanical engineering, civil engineering and astronomy. In addition, Native Americans made extensive use of fire to change the landscape and to create open areas for farming and hunting. Examples of pre-Columbian engineering from different indigenous civilizations can be found across North and especially in South America.

Left: Just one example, the 12-sided stone carved fitting in this ancient rock wall in Peru. Even today, engineers find it hard to explain how this could have been done by an ancient people; how this and (Right) numerous other ancient Peruvian walls could have been built to fit so exactly without mortar, etc. 

Comment #116 “You keep claiming that there are sites in South America during Book of Mormon times that show great achievements, but never name them.” Jacinda.

Response: How about the Chavin in Peru, claimed to have been by some from around 600 B.C. to first or second century A.D. According to Silverman and Isbell, the chief example of their architecture is the Chavín de Huántar temple, which shows complex innovation to adapt to the highland environments of Peru. To avoid the temple being flooded and destroyed during the rainy season, the Chavín people created a successful drainage system of several canals built under the temple that acted as drainage. The Chavín also showed advanced acoustic understanding, and during the rainy season, water rushed through the canals and created a roaring sound, causing the temple to appear roaring like a jaguar—a sacred animal. The temple was built of white granite and black limestone, neither of which is found near the Chavín site. This meant that leaders organized many workers to bring the special materials from far away rather than use local rock deposits. The Chavin civilization also demonstrated advanced skills and knowledge in metallurgy, soldering, and temperature control, as well as using early techniques to develop refined gold work. According to Lothrop, the melting of metal had been discovered at this point and was used as a solder. The people domesticated camelids, called llamas, and used them for pack animals, fiber, and meat—especially ch'arki, or llama jerky, which was commonly traded by camelid herders and was, according to Miller and Burger, the main economic source of the Chavin people. The Chavin also successfully cultivated several crops, including potatoes, quinoa, and maize, and, according to Burger and Van Der Merwe, they developed an irrigation system to assist the growth of these crops. (Also see "Chavin de Huantar and its Sphere of Influence," in Handbook of South American Archeology). There are scores of different sites built like those of the Chavin throughout the Andean area, especially in Peru.

Front view of the castle in the archeological site of Chavin de Huantar. The iconography on the walls of the stone galleries is highly complex. The limited access, both physically and symbolically, of the stone-walled galleries supports the existence of a religious elite who planned and constructed the ceremonial center

Comment #117 “I read this and wondered what you thought of it, ‘Since the early twentieth century, many scholars and other serious students of the Book of Mormon have come to favor the limited geography model, with Mesoamerica (extending from southern Mexico to Guatemala) as the Book of Mormon homeland and New York’s Hill Cumorah as the repository of Mormon’s record but not the scene of the final Nephite-Lamanite battles. Notwithstanding its various permutations regarding real-world correlations, this interpretation, with antecedents apparent in the 1840s, seems to best match the complex requirements of the scriptural text itself while remaining tenable after years of rigorous examination in light of the archaeological and cultural record of ancient Mesoamerica.” Fisheye.

Response: I believe this appeared on the Neal A. Mawell Institute website, which is basically an arm of FARMS, which is fully committed to, and has always promoted, Mesoamerica. The site also claims: “Certain anecdotal statements attributed to Joseph Smith regarding Lehi’s landing in Chile and the identity of a deceased “white Lamanite” warrior (whose skeletal remains were found by members of Zion’s Camp in western Illinois) are problematic and not especially helpful in efforts to reconstruct an authoritative geography for the Book of Mormon,” which is not helpful, of course, to the Mesoamerican theme. However, it is problematic, that is, difficult, challenging, awkward and tricky for Mesoamericanists to discount. For a complete answer, read the book Inaccuracies of Mesoamerican & Other Theorists, which you can pick up on this website or Amazon.com, for a counter argument based upon scripture for every Mesoamerican Book of Mormon Land of Promise claim.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XXVIII,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XXVII

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first one hundred and eight comments were answered in the previous 26 posts, the one hundred ninth and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #109 “Did you know that between 2004 and 2007, a Purdue University archaeologist, Kevin J. Vaughn, discovered a 2000 year old hematite mine near Nazca, Peru. Although hematite is today mined as an iron ore, Vaughn believes that the hematite was then being mined for use as red pigment. There are also numerous excavations that included iron minerals. He noted: "Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World...Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite.” B.G.O.

Response: The key word in what you wrote is “believes.” Though Archaeologists cannot “know,” they are notorious in creating an entire culture, civilization, and history out of very minimal artifacts and what they “believe” about them. First people say there was no iron smelting in the New World during Book of Mormon times, then when such is found, they claim it was for pigment, and certainly not for weapons and tools. I would love to have such a crystal ball as these folks seem to have. The discoverer of “Mina Primavera” mine said, “"Because mining is an extractive industry, it tends to destroy archaeological evidence, but it demonstrates that iron ores were important to ancient Andean civilizations." In fact the Western Hemisphere’s oldest iron mine was found at San Ramon in northern Chile, along with prehistoric mining tools, showing the earliest known mining activity in the Americas, and dating at least to the second millennium B.C.

A 2,000-year-old mine dubbed Mina Primavera has been discovered on a steep, rocky slope in southern Peru, offering proof that an ancient people in the Andes mined iron ore long before the Inca Empire, archaeologists say

Comment #110 “Your Book of Mormon talks about chariots, yet there is no evidence to support wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica and South America. The Curator of Ethnography at the American Museum of Natural History in New York has said, “we see that the prevailing mode of land transport in the New World was by human carrier. The wheel was unknown in pre-Columbian times.” Although the Incas used a vast network of paved roads, they are so rough, steep and narrow that they appear to be unsuitable for wheeled use. Bridges that the Inca people built, and even continue to use and maintain today in some remote areas, are straw-rope bridges so narrow (about 2–3 feet wide) that no wheeled vehicle can fit. Inca roads were used mainly by chaski message runners and llama caravans. Mormon scholar William J. Hamblin has suggested that the chariots mentioned in the Book of Mormon might refer to mythic or cultic wheeled vehicles.” Gennady

Response: First, there are two problems with your comment: 1) What has been found in Mesoamerica is of no importance to a discussion of wheeled chariots in the Book of Mormon, and 2) the period of the Incas, therefore what they did or didn’t do, is also of no importance to the events in the Book of Mormon, since the Inca existed from around 1400 to 1532 A.D. when they were conquered by the Spanish. Now, to your comment: 1) whether the wheel was known in the Americas prior to the Spanish is a very debatable concept, one that may never be fully determined, therefore what a curator believes or this or that historian, archaeologist, etc., believes is of little merit toward a provable fact, after all, it took hundreds of years to find evidence of chariots in the Red Sea to support the escape of the Israelites; 2) the so-called Inca roads, which existed for over a millennium before the Inca came to power, were basically smooth, and serviceable to wheeled vehicles, but over the 2000 years and more to our day, thousands of earthquakes have made “smooth places rough.” Still, the roads and highways in the Andean area are remarkable, especially when considering that they are some 2000 to 2500 years old and, in some places, still relatively smooth, especially those around Lake Titicaca. When the Spanish arrived, they noted the smoothness of the roads and compared them to those of Rome, upon which wagons moved and chariots raced for a thousand years; 3) the Andean roads are steep in places, even stepped in areas in the mountains, and narrow in some places where they were cut through solid rock. However, most of the roads were flat, solid, and very wide—some as wide as a modern four-lane highway; 4) the rope bridges would be too narrow for a chariot, however, the Spanish found they could ride horses across at a good clip two abreast—in fact they were amazed at the sturdiness of the rope bridges once they were upon them, though they were fearful to cross them when viewed from a distance; 5) what William J Hamblin thinks about cultic and mythical chariots and the animals that are depicted in art and legend pulling them, is of no consequence to matters in the Book of Mormon, and is certainly no creditable authority on the subject. Now having said all that, let’s consider the basic uses of the chariot in the scriptural record. Ammon records having ridden in King Lamoni’s chariot, drawn by horses, in the Land of Ishmael (within the greater Land of Nephi), and of meeting Lamoni’s father, the king over all the land, who also was in his chariot. These chariots are mentioned in connection with transportation between two cities in the lands—a land described as a more or less flat plateau between mountains. The second usage of the chariot is when the Nephites were to bring their chariots, animals, belongings, etc., to a central area where they were to provide a common location against the Robbers who later came down out of the hills to attack them. Again, this area is described as a more or less flat area in the center of the land in some type of very large valley. There is no mention of chariots being used in the mountain areas, or taken on very long trips, etc. It should be kept in mind that the Jews in Israel had horses and knew the chariot, but mostly walked long distances—it would not be unusual for the same attitude to prevail among the Nephites. It should also be noted that horse warfare was not introduced among Lehi’s descendants until long after the demise of the Nephites when the Spanish arrived. Even among the American Indians of North America, the horse, while in great use among warriors for raids and battle, etc., was not used by anyone other than warriors—not by women or by older men, who walked long distances while being guarded by warriors on horseback, often with horses used to pull travois, Hollywood movies notwithstanding.

Horses pulling travois were rarely ridden, but led, usually by a squaw walking beside it. Almost all early pictures of Indian migrations showed horses used specifically for hauling travois or packed with goods

Comment #111 “How do you reconcile the fact that Jacob uses the name "Christ" as a new term, and from this point on the word "Christ" is used almost exclusively in the Book of Mormon, while Richard Packham argues that the Greek word "Christ" in the Book of Mormon challenges the authenticity of the work since, Joseph Smith clearly stated that, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates.” Even Hugh Nibley seems to have a problem with it and postulated that the word "Messiah" could have been derived from Arabic rather than Hebrew, although Arabic is not mentioned as one of the languages in which the golden plates were written.” Marcell.

Response: Jacob himself tells you that matters “were shown unto me” (2 Nephi 10:2), and that “the angel spake unto me” and told Jacob that Christ “should be his name.” Thus, from that time forward, with the Nephites knowing the name of the future birth and mission of the Messiah, Savior, etc., the name “Christ” was thereafter used. What name that was in the Nephite language, or how it was written in Reformed Egyuptian is not known; however, it translated into English as "Christ." Is it considered unusual that the Creator of all things, the God of the Universe, the Savior of all mankind, would not know by what name he would be called when he came into this world “to fulfill all righteousness”? It always amazes me that critics find such trivial and ridiculous things to make issues over.

Comment #112 “Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Marvin W. Cowan contend that certain linguistic properties of the Book of Mormon provide evidence that the book was fabricated by Joseph Smith. They cite, among others, linguistic anachronisms such as the Americanized name "Sam".” Gerard.

Response: First of all, a series of articles was posted in this blog a while back dealing with the Tanners and others claim to Book of Mormon anachronisms. As for Sam--it was an ancient Egyptian name, and meant “uniter” and in some cases, a title, such as Sam Tawi or Taui, as used by Tehuti-mos III after his accession (Heinrich Brugsch Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs (1891), found a sculpture representing him in the act of kneeling and adoring the sacred animal. His official names, Sam-Taui and Mastu-Ra, were inscribed upon the tablet); there is also evidence of the Amulet of the Sam, made out of Lapis lazuli and other hard substances, was found in swathing of mummies. Sam was also an ancient Hebrew name meaning “God has heard.” It is also of Persian origin, where its meaning is "a character in Shahnameh,” the Book of Kings, an epic poem written by the Persian poet Ferdowsi. The name dates back long before Lehi.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XXVIII,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XXVI

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first one hundred and two comments were answered in the previous 25 posts, the one hundred and third and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #103 “Do you not think that the Lord had a knowledge of where in time Joseph would need to live.. what country.. the time period, the place.. before he was born? Could not Moroni be directed where to bury the plates and what to say to Joseph, so Joseph would indeed find them?” Teodoro.

Response: Absolutely. God knows the beginning from the end. It is all planned and He knows exactly when this or that will happen. Joseph Smith’s family lived where they did to fulfill the Lord’s purposes; the plates were buried in the hill in upstate New York where Joseph would be when the time for him to be led to them came. The hill in upstate New York did not have a local name before the plates were uncovered there. Moroni told Joseph the name of the hill, which was a perfect tie in to the scriptural record Joseph would soon be translating. To the Creator of all things, nothing is unknown, nothing is unplanned, and all things follow His plan to accomplish His purposes.

Comment #104 “Oliver Cowdery stated in January, 1831: ‘This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him Cumorah, which hill is now in the state of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County” (HC 1:184). So it was clear to Oliver Cowdery that Moroni had told Joseph Smith that the hill in Palmyra was called Cumorah—the only way the early saints could have known the hill was called that was because Joseph Smith told them. The only way Joseph Smith could have known was if Moroni had told him.” Penny.

Response: All that is true; however, one should not read into this information more than it states. Moroni told Joseph the hill was named Cumorah. He did not tell him it was the same hill that his father hid up records in, or the hill where the final Nephite battle took place, or the same hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon. And since the scriptural record does not tell us where Moroni buried the records, we only know that they were in that hill in upstate New York when Moroni informed Joseph of the fact. He well could have brought the plates from some other area to bury them in that hill, or he could have hid them in the ground elsewhere, then later, closer to the time of Joseph Smith’s living there, brought them from elsewhere and buried them there, or they could have been taken up (as the plates were taken up from Joseph after his work on them was completed) to be brought forth, in the ground, at a later time. None of this is known, for it is not written in the scriptural record, nor officially declared by the Church.

Comment #105 “I read this on another website and thought you might find it interesting: "Having just read a book titled “Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica” I found at http://www.nephicode.com, I vote for the OTHER category above. This book will astound all Book of Mormon geography enthusiasts. It is different, well written, long, and with more footnotes and references than I have ever seen. More importantly, it is the only book on the subject that is not merely someone’s belief or opinion, but every point made is reference directly to the Book of Mormon text and explains things no other author or theory has so far stated to such a degree. I don’t usually recommend anything, but if you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend this read. There are also three other books in this series, and I am now reading the second one: “Who Really Settled Mesoamerica,” and find it as interesting and detailed as the first.” Malthe.

Response: Thanks for mentioning it. Perhaps we are making some headway.

Comment #106 “Back then, “isle” meant “continent”, not “island”. Sorry, no Gilligan theory today. (: Tim

Response: Perhaps you would like to get hold of Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. This dictionary, which Webster claims in a lengthy introduction was inspired, was written in the New England area around the time Joseph Smith was growing up, and published around the time Joseph was translating the plates, and within a hundred miles of where Joseph lived. Webster claims it was the language of New England. In that dictionary, “isle” is defined as “island,” a word (island) Webster claims was not really a word at all and meant “island land.” He claims the word “isle” was in common use in New England America (not island) and was used as we use “island” today. As for back then, “isle” never meant continent. The British Isles were never considered a continent, and Australia was never called an “isle.”

Comment #107 “Geological, archeological and anthropological data all agree that, other than minor changes due to volcanic activity and earthquakes, the geography of the Americas has seen little change since well before the arrival of Book of Mormon peoples on the American continent.” Baldwin.

Response: Sometime sit down and think about a three-hour earthquake, coupled with tornadoes (whirlwinds), numerous cities sinking into the ground, some cities covered up by collapsing mountains, mountains that no longer exist, and valleys that rise into mountains whose “height is great,” and then say again, “the Americas has seen little change since well before the arrival of Book of Mormon peoples on the American continent.”

Comment #108 “I read this exchange in a website recently and wondered what you thought of it. Person 1) Since Lehi et al. could observe the sun rising and setting just as easily as we can, I'd say that we must anchor north to north. Any realignment of the Earth's axis of rotation, or flipping of its magnetic field is a nonstarter. Person 2) While I don't entirely disagree, you seem to assume that "north" has an absolute meaning that everyone accepts. If so, you would be mistaken. Secondly, you also assume that the existence of a technical celestial definition of north necessarily equals an on-the-ground description of north. I have seen firsthand that that assumption is not absolutely correct. So -- we certainly have to deal with directions, but if we require that all directions must conform to our opinions about what directions should be, then we are correct only if the text is modern and western. If it is something else (and it says it is) then those assumptions may not hold true.” Zoraida.

Response: While Nephi, and Jacob to a lesser degree, were not born in the Western Hemisphere, or location of the Book of Mormon, all others were, as was Mormon and Moroni—so “elsewhere” does not apply. But other than that, the plates were translated by Joseph Smith, a New Englander, and definitely a westerner. Couple that with the fact that his translation was written for us to understand, it can only hold true that the words he used would 1) be normal to him in his day, and 2) clearly understood by us who read it today. Thus, we must conclude that north is north, etc. In addition, let’s not play games about words—go out and ask 100 people “what does the direction north mean?” and you will get basically 100 answers that agree with the common understanding of north.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XXVI,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)