Ask A Mormon

[Boulder257]

Oh, dude, I could write you a book. Southeastern US archaeology is my specialty, but I was lucky enough to go to a university that had a major pre-contact Mesoamerican scholar on faculty, so I took all of her courses I could. In the interest of brevity, though, my three main problems with the BoM are:

1. Anachronistic use of flora and fauna that according to every bit of verifiable evidence did not exist in the Americas pre-contact. There is that one guy who claims that those species might have survived and just gone extinct later, but no credible paleontologist or archaeologist will back him up and his scholarship is terrible. If we believe him we might as well believe the Ancient Aliens guy, too. I don’t buy the “well, it was translated as ‘horse’, but it was actually a tapir” argument either. It just creates a lot of additional problems, like why I should believe someone who can’t tell the difference between a horse and a tapir. Basically, whoever wrote the BoM had a post-contact Eurocentric understanding of agriculture and animal husbandry in the Americas.
2. Anachronistic references to metallurgical technologies. Because I do blacksmithing and historical recreation as a side hobby, this is the thing that really gets me. Metallurgy was extremely under-developed throughout all of the Americas up until around 800 AD and what there was was primarily geared towards precious metals like gold and copper and used for ornamentation. Bronze was uncommon until much later and they never got around to iron. What metalwork they did was primarily coldwork and I’d rather use my fists than use a coldworked sword, even if you could get one off the anvil without it shattering. Even if we give the BoM the benefit of the doubt by saying that we just haven’t found all those chariots and swords and whatever yet, why haven’t we found the mines, the smelting dross, and the forge middens that went along with it? Producing something a simple sounding a sword takes some serious social organization and a big resource supply chain and a LOT of people to do all that mining and refining and feeding the miners and refiners. It’s both unverifiable and highly unlikely during the period specified by the Mormons. Maybe they meant obsidian “swords”, but there are several references to rusty weapons and obsidian doesn’t rust. Again, the way its discussed in the BoM seems to be based on post-contact Euro-centric assumptions about resource availability.
3. Genetics evidence contravenes a Middle Eastern origin in the Americas. Until someone turns up a Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA link between native populations in the Americas and the Middle East, I have to call BS. There’s only so far the “we just haven’t found it yet” argument can stretch, and if there was settlement on the scale necessary to produce the BoM cultures, there would be certainly be biological descendants somewhere and the Amerindians very clearly aren’t those people.

Also, I have a particular beef with them over their interpretation of the North American mound-builders. And that’s not even getting into the charlatanism of Joseph Smith. The BoM just requires too many leaps of faith that go against archaeological and historical evidence for it to be true. I don’t really have a dog in the “Christian” fight. It’s a good story and I’ve heard weirder stories to explain a religious belief, but I can’t imagine anyone taking it seriously and insisting its the literal truth rather than an allegory or a pedagogical myth or some sort.

Great stuff. I would be interested in anything you can continue to add on the subject, as I am sure many other posters would be too.

 

[Porknpie]

Oh, dude, I could write you a book. Southeastern US archaeology is my specialty, but I was lucky enough to go to a university that had a major pre-contact Mesoamerican scholar on faculty, so I took all of her courses I could. In the interest of brevity, though, my three main problems with the BoM are:

1. Anachronistic use of flora and fauna that according to every bit of verifiable evidence did not exist in the Americas pre-contact. There is that one guy who claims that those species might have survived and just gone extinct later, but no credible paleontologist or archaeologist will back him up and his scholarship is terrible. If we believe him we might as well believe the Ancient Aliens guy, too. I don’t buy the “well, it was translated as ‘horse’, but it was actually a tapir” argument either. It just creates a lot of additional problems, like why I should believe someone who can’t tell the difference between a horse and a tapir. Basically, whoever wrote the BoM had a post-contact Eurocentric understanding of agriculture and animal husbandry in the Americas.
2. Anachronistic references to metallurgical technologies. Because I do blacksmithing and historical recreation as a side hobby, this is the thing that really gets me. Metallurgy was extremely under-developed throughout all of the Americas up until around 800 AD and what there was was primarily geared towards precious metals like gold and copper and used for ornamentation. Bronze was uncommon until much later and they never got around to iron. What metalwork they did was primarily coldwork and I’d rather use my fists than use a coldworked sword, even if you could get one off the anvil without it shattering. Even if we give the BoM the benefit of the doubt by saying that we just haven’t found all those chariots and swords and whatever yet, why haven’t we found the mines, the smelting dross, and the forge middens that went along with it? Producing something a simple sounding a sword takes some serious social organization and a big resource supply chain and a LOT of people to do all that mining and refining and feeding the miners and refiners. It’s both unverifiable and highly unlikely during the period specified by the Mormons. Maybe they meant obsidian “swords”, but there are several references to rusty weapons and obsidian doesn’t rust. Again, the way its discussed in the BoM seems to be based on post-contact Euro-centric assumptions about resource availability.
3. Genetics evidence contravenes a Middle Eastern origin in the Americas. Until someone turns up a Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA link between native populations in the Americas and the Middle East, I have to call BS. There’s only so far the “we just haven’t found it yet” argument can stretch, and if there was settlement on the scale necessary to produce the BoM cultures, there would be certainly be biological descendants somewhere and the Amerindians very clearly aren’t those people.

Also, I have a particular beef with them over their interpretation of the North American mound-builders. And that’s not even getting into the charlatanism of Joseph Smith. The BoM just requires too many leaps of faith that go against archaeological and historical evidence for it to be true. I don’t really have a dog in the “Christian” fight. It’s a good story and I’ve heard weirder stories to explain a religious belief, but I can’t imagine anyone taking it seriously and insisting its the literal truth rather than an allegory or a pedagogical myth or some sort.

Gull, thank you for the insight. So in your expert opinion, why do Mormons reject archeological science and the lack of all evidence supporting the Book of Mormon?

 

[LivingWaters7]

So I found the following link to John L Sorensen which presents his testimony. Link is here.

Some very interesting comments excerpted below. Truth is not found in science but through spiritual manifestations. What? No. Science and reason can help us understand and illuminate God.Throughout this varied career I have been faced with no issues that have called into question the assurance I have had since childhood that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the divinely-originated institution its adherents claim it is. This is simply not a matter of argument for me. The truth of the matter has been affirmed to me in spiritual manifestations countless times

And *I knew of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon from the manifestations of the Holy Spirit to me throughout my life as an active Church participant and leader, to which I add my “scholarly testimony.”
*
And *I knew of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon from the manifestations of the Holy Spirit to me throughout my life as an active Church participant and leader, to which I add my “scholarly testimony.” My years of study of the archaeology of Mesoamerica, in the field, of endless pages of relevant scholarly writings, and of critical consideration of the book itself have affirmed that it is authentically ancient and deserves careful consideration as a truthful record.
*
So here we have an archeologist who can not support the Book of Mormon through science, who instead speaks to being led the by Holy Spirit to know it is true. As I sit here, I wonder what do they do in the Brigham Young archeology department. What science do they do? Does their science include the absence of reason? I would have expected an archeologist to have supported the BoM with science, and not with feelings.

I’m not sure I’m following your reading of his testimony. I don’t see him saying that the Book of Mormon cannot be supported by science, nor that truth cannot be found in science. Indeed, in the quotes above, he repeatedly talks about his receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost, to confirm what he believes to be true, in addition to his “scholarly testimony”. The book that I linked to is about what he believes are scientific, scholarly evidences in support of a Mesoamerican setting of the Book of Mormon. In the last quote you gave, he says " My years of study of the archaeology of Mesoamerica, in the field, of endless pages of relevant scholarly writings, and of critical consideration of the book itself have affirmed that it is authentically ancient and deserves careful consideration as a truthful record.". That’s why I asked the other poster about his scholarly assessment as well.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying.

 

[pablope]

Oh, dude, I could write you a book. Southeastern US archaeology is my specialty, but I was lucky enough to go to a university that had a major pre-contact Mesoamerican scholar on faculty, so I took all of her courses I could. In the interest of brevity, though, my three main problems with the BoM are:

Also, I have a particular beef with them over their interpretation of the North American mound-builders. And that’s not even getting into the charlatanism of Joseph Smith. The BoM just requires too many leaps of faith that go against archaeological and historical evidence for it to be true. I don’t really have a dog in the “Christian” fight. It’s a good story and I’ve heard weirder stories to explain a religious belief, but I can’t imagine anyone taking it seriously and insisting its the literal truth rather than an allegory or a pedagogical myth or some sort.

Great!..

Also, with your training and expertise…what is your opinion of the Hill Cumorah in NY?

Why has it not been excavated up to now? (Your opinion is highly sought…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m not sure I’m following your reading of his testimony. I don’t see him saying that the Book of Mormon cannot be supported by science, nor that truth cannot be found in science. Indeed, in the quotes above, he repeatedly talks about his receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost, to confirm what he believes to be true, in addition to his “scholarly testimony”. The book that I linked to is about what he believes are scientific, scholarly evidences in support of a Mesoamerican setting of the Book of Mormon. In the last quote you gave, he says " My years of study of the archaeology of Mesoamerica, in the field, of endless pages of relevant scholarly writings, and of critical consideration of the book itself have affirmed that it is authentically ancient and deserves careful consideration as a truthful record.". That’s why I asked the other poster about his scholarly assessment as well.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying.

A “scholarly testimony” doesn’t stand on its own as a witness. He is presenting a hypothesis, and I assume (not having read the book) evidence that supports that hypothesis. Whether or not he addresses the null hypothesis, I don’t know. In any case, this doesn’t appear to be a scholarly publication, meant for peer review, but one of personal opinion meant to shore up belief.

The Mormon testimony, in relation, is one of belief. LDS have a tendency to confuse belief and history as one and the same, ie history is what you want to believe, therefore what you believe is history. So does he do the same here? I don’t think I could slog through a 800 page book of conjecture to find out.

 

[LivingWaters7]

A “scholarly testimony” doesn’t stand on its own as a witness. He is presenting a hypothesis, and I assume (not having read the book) evidence that supports that hypothesis. Whether or not he addresses the null hypothesis, I don’t know. In any case, this doesn’t appear to be a scholarly publication, meant for peer review, but one of personal opinion meant to shore up belief.

The Mormon testimony, in relation, is one of belief. LDS have a tendency to confuse belief and history as one and the same, ie history is what you want to believe, therefore what you believe is history. So does he do the same here? I don’t think I could slog through a 800 page book of conjecture to find out.

I agree (and no, I will not be slogging through the 800+ pages either ). Also, I assume that while the book is not a published work in a peer-reviewed journal, it makes use of scholarly sources from the literature, presenting his views in a manner accessible not only to scholars, but the layman. I’d be interested in Gullveig’s assessment of the Preview from his academic viewpoint, especially since it seems that the people chosen to provide reviews of the book are all LDS scholars that presumably already agree with the book’s conclusions, and probably already believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon.

The point I was making was merely that Sorenson, according to his words, does not only rely on what he believes to be a spiritual witness, but also what he believes to be historical/archaeological evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and that Porknpie misunderstood what Sorenson was saying (especially when he clearly says in the last quote-“My years of study of the archaeology of Mesoamerica, in the field, of endless pages of relevant scholarly writings, and of critical consideration of the book itself have affirmed that it is authentically ancient and deserves careful consideration as a truthful record.”). My post was only about Porknpie misunderstanding what he quoted.

 

[SteveVH]

A “scholarly testimony” doesn’t stand on its own as a witness. He is presenting a hypothesis, and I assume (not having read the book) evidence that supports that hypothesis. Whether or not he addresses the null hypothesis, I don’t know. In any case, this doesn’t appear to be a scholarly publication, meant for peer review, but one of personal opinion meant to shore up belief.

The Mormon testimony, in relation, is one of belief. LDS have a tendency to confuse belief and history as one and the same, ie history is what you want to believe, therefore what you believe is history. So does he do the same here? I don’t think I could slog through a 800 page book of conjecture to find out.

Unfortunately, like Lorraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”, the sheer volume of the book (800 pages) is all the evidence many people need to believe it is true, which is what I suspect many Mormons will surmise. I doubt many of them will actually “slog” through the book either, certainly not in any critical manner.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree (and no, I will not be slogging through the 800+ pages either ). Also, I assume that while the book is not a published work in a peer-reviewed journal, it makes use of scholarly sources from the literature, presenting his views in a manner accessible not only to scholars, but the layman. I’d be interested in Gullveig’s assessment of the Preview from his academic viewpoint, especially since it seems that the people chosen to provide reviews of the book are all LDS scholars that presumably already agree with the book’s conclusions, and probably already believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon.

The point I was making was merely that Sorenson, according to his words, does not only rely on what he believes to be a spiritual witness, but also what he believes to be historical/archaeological evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and that Porknpie misunderstood what Sorenson was saying (especially when he clearly says in the last quote-“My years of study of the archaeology of Mesoamerica, in the field, of endless pages of relevant scholarly writings, and of critical consideration of the book itself have affirmed that it is authentically ancient and deserves careful consideration as a truthful record.”). My post was only about Porknpie misunderstanding what he quoted.

I understand what you are saying. And agree, though, academics pursue a hypothesis based on scholarly study and evidence which drives their hypothesis. Sorenson’s hypothesis is driven by a feeling he has had his whole life, about the truthiness of the BoM, and a desire to align archaeology to a feeling. So I can see what porknpie is saying as well.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Unfortunately, like Lorraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”, the sheer volume of the book (800 pages) is all the evidence many people need to believe it is true, which is what I suspect many Mormons will surmise. I doubt many of them will actually “slog” through the book either, certainly not in any critical manner.

I see the hypothesis as flawed. He states authoritatively that the BoM locations are at specific places on the map in Mexico and Central America, and then proceeds to use the available archaeological sites as “evidence”.

To me, this is like taking the Lord of the Rings, and finding a suitable spot on a map of England, and possible archaeological sites, to provide evidence for Hobbits and Elves, and support for the Lord of the Rings as a historical account.

Creating a complex correlation of fantasy may be fun, but why take it seriously?

 

[SteveVH]

I see the hypothesis as flawed. He states authoritatively that the BoM locations are at specific places on the map in Mexico and Central America, and then proceeds to use the available archaeological sites as “evidence”.

To me, this is like taking the Lord of the Rings, and finding a suitable spot on a map of England, and possible archaeological sites, to provide evidence for Hobbits and Elves, and support for the Lord of the Rings as a historical account.

Creating a complex correlation of fantasy may be fun, but why take it seriously?

You make a great point and it is consistent with the Mormon view of history. Rather than verifiable historical evidence leading to a reasonable conclusion, they read the story backwards, beginning with the conclusion and then creating “historical evidence” to support it.

 

[Tarquin]

I would greatly appreciate it if a Mormon or anyone else would point out for me where descriptions in the Book of Mormon of alleged Book of Mormon peoples, politics, and religion, vis-a-vis those of pre-Columbian America are not just inescapable human universals (e.g., praying, warring, building “cities,” robbers, farms, ships, slavery, linear writing, etc.) and coincidental or exaggerated similarities (“The Book of Mormon says there were cities somewhere, and we found cities in various places.”), but are actually interdependent in some significant, demonstrable way. I found no reviews on Amazon, Goodreads, and Abebooks for Sorenson’s book. I will be happy to read and review it if someone will provide me with a copy.

 

[Tarquin]

I realize this is a bit off the current flavor of the thread, but the OP stated, “The only thing i do ask however, is that you refrain from questions regarding sacred promises and acts within the temple. We believe we have made a promise not to indulge what goes on purely out of respect for God and His Holy Temple.”

That makes me wonder whether Mormons believe they should respect their holy communion (“Sacrament”) out of respect for God and His Holy Emblems and Sacrament Ceremony? Aren’t they deserving of equal respect? If they deserve less respect, why is that? If this question is too far out of bounds, please ignore it. If it has merit, then I hope a current Mormon will explain what seems to me to be a discrepancy.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I understand what you are saying. And agree, though, academics pursue a hypothesis based on scholarly study and evidence which drives their hypothesis. Sorenson’s hypothesis is driven by a feeling he has had his whole life, about the truthiness of the BoM, and a desire to align archaeology to a feeling. So I can see what porknpie is saying as well.

Me too, agreed.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m not sure I’m following your reading of his testimony. I don’t see him saying that the Book of Mormon cannot be supported by science, nor that truth cannot be found in science. Indeed, in the quotes above, he repeatedly talks about his receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost, to confirm what he believes to be true, in addition to his “scholarly testimony”. The book that I linked to is about what he believes are scientific, scholarly evidences in support of a Mesoamerican setting of the Book of Mormon. In the last quote you gave, he says " My years of study of the archaeology of Mesoamerica, in the field, of endless pages of relevant scholarly writings, and of critical consideration of the book itself have affirmed that it is authentically ancient and deserves careful consideration as a truthful record.". That’s why I asked the other poster about his scholarly assessment as well.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying.

Living-

Well taken. I wasn’t trying to omit his quote. My focus was on his words

The truth of the matter has been affirmed to me in spiritual manifestations countless times

Another way I could say this…I would expect that the person who started the archeology department at BYU to have or communicate a clear and convincing testimony that the BoM is true, not based on spiritual manifestations, but on the science of archeology itself. That this person would provide a testimony based on clear academic research and verifiable that there exists somewhere…a chariot…swords…a temple…inscriptions…elephants…human remains…anything…even a sample of one…that the BoM is true. It’s actually kind of sad that this person spent his whole life seeking something that he could not find and at the end, remains a believer based on feelings. And our feelings can not be an infallible guide.

I don’t have to read his book(s) to know that no evidence exists…only feelings, thoughts, assumptions and ideas.

Of course you know this and I can not congratulate you enough.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Living-

Well taken. I wasn’t trying to omit his quote. My focus was on his words

The truth of the matter has been affirmed to me in spiritual manifestations countless times

Another way I could say this…I would expect that the person who started the archeology department at BYU to have or communicate a clear and convincing testimony that the BoM is true, not based on spiritual manifestations, but on the science of archeology itself. That this person would provide a testimony based on clear academic research and verifiable that there exists somewhere…a chariot…swords…a temple…inscriptions…elephants…human remains…anything…even a sample of one…that the BoM is true. It’s actually kind of sad that this person spent his whole life seeking something that he could not find and at the end, remains a believer based on feelings. And our feelings can not be an infallible guide.

I don’t have to read his book(s) to know that no evidence exists…only feelings, thoughts, assumptions and ideas.

Of course you know this and I can not congratulate you enough.

Thanks Porknpie!

I still think you’re misunderstanding what he’s saying (I’m not saying this because I support his views and conclusions, but so that we can properly understand where he’s coming from).

I don’t see Sorenson as claiming that the Book of Mormon is true based solely on his spiritual manifestation. Instead, he’s claiming that in addition to his spiritual testimony, he also believes that he has archaeological proof that the Book of Mormon really is an ancient book, specifically from a Mesoamerican context (remember, in the last quote you gave, he said that he “add” his scholarly testimony). Yes, he does say the sentence that you give above, but immediately after, he goes on to talk about the Book of Mormon from his academic perspective. For him, at least from the testimony linked to, it isn’t an either/or, but a both/and. Indeed, his book (as well his previous one (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon), and various apologetic articles) is on the very subject of archaeological and anthropological evidences in support of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. So, while we certainly don’t accept the Book of Mormon as a historical, God-preserved scriptural text, he believes that it is true, not only based on a spiritual witness, but based on the archaeological/anthropological evidences in Mesoamerica. He believes that he’s found the evidences, and his testimony definitely doesn’t claim anything to the contrary.

So, whether his evidences are valid is another question, but I think it’s safe to say that Sorenson, based on his own testimony, believes that he not only has personal spiritual confirmation of the authenticity of the BoM, but that his academic work in archaeology and anthropology also testifies of the authenticity, and that’s the purpose of his latest book.

He says in his testimony:

---

“In one particular area of study I am in a position to offer unique testimony. I have been concerned for sixty years with the topic of the Book of Mormon in relation to the scientific/scholarly picture of ancient America. As a result, I say that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record, derived ultimately from a native book written in the fourth and fifth centuries AD. More than four hundred elements of the book’s text are written in a manner and display content that cannot be accounted for except by supposing its Mesoamerican origin. Of all the theories of origin for the Book, the only acceptable explanation for how it came to be published in English in 1830 is that offered by Joseph Smith, puzzling though the details may be. No nineteenth-century person could have known enough about ancient Mesoamerican civilization to account for the depth and breadth of the “Mesoamericanisms” the scripture contains. I have documented this position by reference to an extensive archaeological literature. Details are presented in several books, including An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book, 1985), Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Research Press/FARMS, 1998), and Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (in press, 2010).”***

Having said all this, ironically, not all Mormons agree with Sorenson and the Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. Other LDS have presented their own geographies for the Book of Mormon that they see as plausible (i.e. in North America and South America), though LDS apologists generally seem to support the Mesoamerican model. So, at the end of the day, 800+ pages later, this is not proof, merely things he finds as evidences, but nothing conclusive still (and from our perspective, we’re not surprised).

 

[LivingWaters7]

I realize this is a bit off the current flavor of the thread, but the OP stated, “The only thing i do ask however, is that you refrain from questions regarding sacred promises and acts within the temple. We believe we have made a promise not to indulge what goes on purely out of respect for God and His Holy Temple.”

That makes me wonder whether Mormons believe they should respect their holy communion (“Sacrament”) out of respect for God and His Holy Emblems and Sacrament Ceremony? Aren’t they deserving of equal respect? If they deserve less respect, why is that? If this question is too far out of bounds, please ignore it. If it has merit, then I hope a current Mormon will explain what seems to me to be a discrepancy.

While Mormons do believe that they should respect all ordinances/covenants performed (though the reverence in relation to the Sacrament is not the same as what we see in Catholicism, since we believe that it’s the actual Body and Blood of Christ, while they don’t hold such a view), in the temple, they specifically covenant not to reveal certain aspects of the Endowment ritual. While they may talk about it in general terms, they won’t talk about certain specific portions, because they covenant not to, and also because this “sacred silence” seems to have been extended to the other parts of the Endowment and other ordinances, with some LDS more comfortable talking about more or less than others.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I would greatly appreciate it if a Mormon or anyone else would point out for me where descriptions in the Book of Mormon of alleged Book of Mormon peoples, politics, and religion, vis-a-vis those of pre-Columbian America are not just inescapable human universals (e.g., praying, warring, building “cities,” robbers, farms, ships, slavery, linear writing, etc.) and coincidental or exaggerated similarities (“The Book of Mormon says there were cities somewhere, and we found cities in various places.”), but are actually interdependent in some significant, demonstrable way. I found no reviews on Amazon, Goodreads, and Abebooks for Sorenson’s book. I will be happy to read and review it if someone will provide me with a copy.

The book is coming out soon, though I certainly won’t be spending so much money on it, nor reading 800+ pages. His previous book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon is available, and is much shorter. Looks like there’s a Kindle edition if interested. You can also read the Preview for his upcoming book that overviews what he claims. I’m sure if you Google “Book of Mormon, Mesoamerica” you’ll find LDS apologetic writings on the matter that you can critique.

Now, I haven’t really researched this in depth, and I am curious to know if his book presents anything new. What I’ve seen, I agree, many of these “hits” are very general, sometimes read into the text, and many of the things, at least related to the alleged Israelite connection, can be found in the Bible. I still remember the “horses=tapirs” connection that many critics, including myself, find amusing.

 

[Tarquin]

The book is coming out soon, though I certainly won’t be spending so much money on it, nor reading 800+ pages. His previous book,An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon is available, and is much shorter. . . . I still remember the “horses=tapirs” connection that many critics, including myself, find amusing.

I remember reading that older book many years ago. It did have short-comings, but when I tried to discuss my concerns, I was told I was closed minded, being misled, and there was no reason to continue talking to me. Cold water. If “horses” was used for a non-equine animal for which the Nephites had no Jewish or Egyptian word, then how are we to know whether “ship” was used for something that floated on water, “city” for a place where any people lived, “angel” for a non-angelic being, even “God” for something other than God but for which the Nephites “had no word?” On the other hand, if it was okay to call tapirs by a word the Hebrews were more familiar with (horse, though I think mule or donkey would have been better), then why not call the curom and curelom by another, familiar word, too? Such as “dog” or “camel”? There is a painful inconsistency in the treatment of the Book of Mormon text, and in the arguments for its translation.