Why does the Book of Mormon mention the following animals: ***, Bull, Calf, Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat (the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat!), Horse (the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies), Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants non-LDS indicate that there is no evidence of elephants in the New World and the mammoth and mastodon of North America have been extinct for thousands years. None of these animals even existed in America during the era and timescale of Book of Mormon times.
Why aren't animals such as Coatimundis, Deer, Jaguars, Tapir, Monkeys, Sloths, Turkeys, etc.. mentioned when they were animals that existed? They were unknown to Joseph Smith, but later discovered to have lived here at the time the Nephites were supposed to have co-existed with them.
2007-12-18 13:56:35 · 12 answers · asked by 2telldatruth 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Here's an idea for where the jaguars were mentioned:
4 Ne. 1: 33
33 And they also cast them into dens of wild beasts, and they did play with the wild beasts even as a child with a lamb; and they did come forth from among them, receiving no harm.
I want to point out that carbon dating is often inaccurate, and I have seen horse fossils at the La Brea tar pits. Also, if you do a search on buffalo/bison, they refer to bulls and cows also. Many Native American tribes almost literally ate every part of animals they killed, including the marrow of bones, which would help explain why it is so hard to find bones of beasts from 1,000 plus years ago. In fact, I bet if I went out and dug up my dead pet parakeet from 28 years ago in the back yard, it would be impossible to find identifiable remains. Even if there were 20 parakeets buried in the backyard, I might have difficulty finding the remains of more than a couple of them after 28 years. Now let's pretend they were buried in a moist jungle that was prone to earthquakes. I don't think I would find a parakeet skeleton in a backyard like that even if I knew where to look. Also, remember, they're still excavating new ruins all the time.
Have a happy day, and I send you a non-ancient gummi bear.
2007-12-19 15:09:46 · answer #1 · answered by Cookie777 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because in all of the small references to animals- it is when describing either what animals they used to build or do something. how many instances in any history has man ever found use for farming, buiding etc. in a sloth, turkey, jaguar whatever a tapir is... example- you are writing in your journal telling about your day- do you mention all the animals that exsist? or do you maybe only mention the ones that have some sort of imprtance to you like a dog or cat or a horse or some pet? basically, the BOM isn't a scientists window into ancient things and animals. it is compiled accounts of different people at different time periods recording what they feel is important for the generations that follow. it's an account of the play of the Lord in their in their lives and in passing down genealogy and gospel teachings for the generations to follow. Not an archeological diary.
2007-12-19 02:11:10 · answer #2 · answered by pono7 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well you have to think, is the word it translated to, truly what it was?
I don't have a reason, but you should know that bull, calf, and cow are also words for moose. There were goats here. Buffalo could be Ox, sheep...I dunno about that. There are "pig like" rodants in South America...elephants and horses, who knows...
As far as the other animals, just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean they weren't there. It's not like the book just lists all the kinds of animals in a row.
I'm sure there are many animals in the old world that are not even mentioned in the Bible...but we know they're there anyway.
2007-12-18 22:30:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
No, the BoM can't be true b/c it doesn't mention beavers, wolverines, chipmunks, bison, elk, weasels, and bobcats--all native to N America. How could Joseph Smith forget to write about all these little critters in order to make his fraudulent work more convincing? What a dum-dum, eh?
Oh, yes--you forgot to mention dogs, too. The BoM talks about my fav animal--the dog. Oh gosh, golly gee wizz! THere's no scientific proof that Natives kept dogs before white guys got here to the continent. Guess the BoM just isn't true then.
But then, the Bible doesn't discuss that the Egyptians kept cats, so maybe it isn't true either.
I have to ask--are you trying to save Mormons, or do they just annoy you?
2007-12-19 11:07:02 · answer #4 · answered by colebolegooglygooglyhammerhead 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It doesnt mention a lot of creatures that exist all over the world and existed in America. The Prophets did not think that it was particularly important to mention EVERY creature they saw.
And the found remains of Horses in MesoAmerica. Give it time and the Earth might just give up a few more titbits in support.
2007-12-19 10:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by Bangbangbangbang 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They talk about horses in the BOM?!? I guess I've always just focused on the spiritual part.
2007-12-19 08:33:59 · answer #6 · answered by Karen 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They probably only mentioned the useful animals. And if you're inferring that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, you should read it first.
2007-12-18 22:10:55 · answer #7 · answered by catalyst 4 · 10⤊ 3⤋
Get over it, animals die and others were brought with people. Live with it!
2007-12-23 23:22:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Common names can mean different things to different cultures. There can be slight variations to what one description is for one culture. It can mean something else to another.
2007-12-19 10:35:09 · answer #9 · answered by Kerry 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What do you care. God could come and tell you Himself it's true and you still won't believe it.
2007-12-19 09:23:55 · answer #10 · answered by plastik punk -Bottom Contributor 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋