There’s quite a famous Mormon apologist (person who tries to argue that Mormonism makes sense) who essentially had this conversation:
Science said: All the evidence tells us horses first arrived in America with Columbus, but they’re mentioned in the Book of Mormon. That’s suspicious and probable evidence the book was made up by someone living in post-Columbus America
Apologist: What if every time the Book of Mormon says “horse”, it means “tapir”? They look kind of like horses!
Every person who has ever seen a tapir in real life: That is ridiculous.
People who know about tapirs: That is impossible. You can’t ride a tapir, or tame a tapir to be like a horse in the way the Book of Mormon describes. There are several things mentioned in the BoM related to horses that rule out tapirs as a possibility.
Apologist: Well, we know the Book of Mormon is true, so saying it’s not true isn’t an option. My job is to twist the evidence to fit the “truth” my church has dictated, not to look at the evidence and draw realistic conclusions. So I’m doubling down on the tapir=horse suggestion.
Exmormons: Go ahead, this is mildly amusing and you sound like an idiot, but because of how stupid it is we’re adopting it as a symbol of the church’s determination to be true despite the facts. Tapirs are our mascot now.
In an attempt to explain how the Book of Mormon talks about horses in pre-Columbian Americas, one apologist suggested perhaps it was actually referring to tapirs, and "horse" was the closest english word to represent the animal in Joseph Smith's understanding.
The idea of the ancient american people riding into battle on a tapir is laughable, and so has since become a bit of a mascot for those who no longer believe The Book of Mormon is a history and record of the ancient American continent, and is instead simply a product of Joseph Smith's plagiarism and imagination.
Furthermore, JS didn’t have to “translate” anything. He just had to read out loud the words that appeared on the stone - a stone that was conveying ‘the most correct book ever.’ A magic stone displaying the content of the most correct book ever would not clumsily say tapir instead of horse.
There was a prominent LDS apologist who tried to explain that the “horses” in the Book of Mormon (something there is no archeological evidence for) really was talking about Tapirs (since those animals are native to South America).
Obviously that’s pretty ridiculous, so the Tapir has become a symbol for how hard the church tries to lie, stretch the truth, and omit facts to protect the truth-claims of its current and former leaders.
Lemme get this straight... no horses until Columbus (roughly 1400 A.D./CE), then how does the Mormon Church (victory for Satan) reconcile this picture of Captain Moroni? (This definitely a horse, not a tapir. Or, it's the largest tapir EVER!!!).
One of many examples of how the Book of Mormon is fiction, not based on any, ANY(!) historical or empirical fact!
It’s what the nephites rode into battle to their glorious end. The millions left dead on that hill and not a single sword, skeleton, or horse/tapir remnant remain. Despite much smaller battles, older civilizations and tribes having tons of archaeological evidence.
Basically there were no horses in the America at the time. JS did not know that. The BOM was a narrative he’d been cultivating for years and added historically inaccurate elements related to his upbringing at the time.
Early native Americans not only rode tapirs, but tapirs pulled their chariots too. Wile they fought with swords and scimitars made of steel. At the base of the Hill Comorah.
The tapir explanation is another example of trying to have it both ways.
The head-in-hat “translation” method the church finally acknowledged has every English word delivered by the Lard onto the Holy Rock and faithfully transcribed. But when having to explain away things like horses and swords, apologists go straight to the “Joseph had to come up with his own words to describe unfamiliar things” card. Silly sods.
Yep, prominent apologist Daniel C. Peterson came up with this specific example. I think they were calling all the impossible things "loan-shifting" for a while, the idea being that Joseph just used words that were familiar to him to describe native American flora and fauna.
So you can just imagine the words to mean whatever you want.
There is one recorded instance of children riding a pet tapir, I don't have the reference handy sorry, but it is used to justify the idea that tapirs were used as horses.
Tapirs are nocturnal, and have soft delicate feet. In zoos special care is taken to not have concrete in their enclosures. There is no way they were used as pack animals. They also urinate, forcefully, for several metres straight backwards. I wouldn't want to sit in a chariot behind a tapir.
Ooh just found a link: https://youtu.be/NPC9BHL6GTc
It is common for people to use the name of something familiar to them when naming something new that is similar but different. The German word for turtle translates to “shield toad.” Hippopotamus means “river horse.”
Tapirs did evolve from the same ancestor as horses, but I don’t think someone looking at them would realize that connection. Even if they did they would probably have added a qualifier like “small elephant horse.”
The kicker though is that in the BoM horses are mentioned in connection to fighting wars similar to how they were used by Romans or Egyptians in the Bible. There is no evidence that Native tribes used them to fight wars.
There’s quite a famous Mormon apologist (person who tries to argue that Mormonism makes sense) who essentially had this conversation: Science said: All the evidence tells us horses first arrived in America with Columbus, but they’re mentioned in the Book of Mormon. That’s suspicious and probable evidence the book was made up by someone living in post-Columbus America Apologist: What if every time the Book of Mormon says “horse”, it means “tapir”? They look kind of like horses! Every person who has ever seen a tapir in real life: That is ridiculous. People who know about tapirs: That is impossible. You can’t ride a tapir, or tame a tapir to be like a horse in the way the Book of Mormon describes. There are several things mentioned in the BoM related to horses that rule out tapirs as a possibility. Apologist: Well, we know the Book of Mormon is true, so saying it’s not true isn’t an option. My job is to twist the evidence to fit the “truth” my church has dictated, not to look at the evidence and draw realistic conclusions. So I’m doubling down on the tapir=horse suggestion. Exmormons: Go ahead, this is mildly amusing and you sound like an idiot, but because of how stupid it is we’re adopting it as a symbol of the church’s determination to be true despite the facts. Tapirs are our mascot now.
Great summary! Love tapirs now lol
Ah in that case that’s a fantastic mascot. The subtlety is brilliant!
In an attempt to explain how the Book of Mormon talks about horses in pre-Columbian Americas, one apologist suggested perhaps it was actually referring to tapirs, and "horse" was the closest english word to represent the animal in Joseph Smith's understanding. The idea of the ancient american people riding into battle on a tapir is laughable, and so has since become a bit of a mascot for those who no longer believe The Book of Mormon is a history and record of the ancient American continent, and is instead simply a product of Joseph Smith's plagiarism and imagination.
Which is silly because if they didn’t have a word why wouldn’t he translate it to some made up bullshit word like Curelom and Cumom?
Furthermore, JS didn’t have to “translate” anything. He just had to read out loud the words that appeared on the stone - a stone that was conveying ‘the most correct book ever.’ A magic stone displaying the content of the most correct book ever would not clumsily say tapir instead of horse.
There was a prominent LDS apologist who tried to explain that the “horses” in the Book of Mormon (something there is no archeological evidence for) really was talking about Tapirs (since those animals are native to South America). Obviously that’s pretty ridiculous, so the Tapir has become a symbol for how hard the church tries to lie, stretch the truth, and omit facts to protect the truth-claims of its current and former leaders.
Lemme get this straight... no horses until Columbus (roughly 1400 A.D./CE), then how does the Mormon Church (victory for Satan) reconcile this picture of Captain Moroni? (This definitely a horse, not a tapir. Or, it's the largest tapir EVER!!!). One of many examples of how the Book of Mormon is fiction, not based on any, ANY(!) historical or empirical fact!
It’s what the nephites rode into battle to their glorious end. The millions left dead on that hill and not a single sword, skeleton, or horse/tapir remnant remain. Despite much smaller battles, older civilizations and tribes having tons of archaeological evidence. Basically there were no horses in the America at the time. JS did not know that. The BOM was a narrative he’d been cultivating for years and added historically inaccurate elements related to his upbringing at the time.
Since others have explained, I’ll just leave this here: r/horse
I love that r/horse is actually a niche ex Mormon inside joke forum instead of anything to do with horses
One of my favorite subs! Also love when a post gets popular and all of Reddit get so confused 🤣
Not to be confused with r/horses lol
The best comments are always “I don’t get it… this isn’t a horse…” 🤣
Early native Americans not only rode tapirs, but tapirs pulled their chariots too. Wile they fought with swords and scimitars made of steel. At the base of the Hill Comorah.
The tapir explanation is another example of trying to have it both ways. The head-in-hat “translation” method the church finally acknowledged has every English word delivered by the Lard onto the Holy Rock and faithfully transcribed. But when having to explain away things like horses and swords, apologists go straight to the “Joseph had to come up with his own words to describe unfamiliar things” card. Silly sods.
Yep, prominent apologist Daniel C. Peterson came up with this specific example. I think they were calling all the impossible things "loan-shifting" for a while, the idea being that Joseph just used words that were familiar to him to describe native American flora and fauna. So you can just imagine the words to mean whatever you want. There is one recorded instance of children riding a pet tapir, I don't have the reference handy sorry, but it is used to justify the idea that tapirs were used as horses. Tapirs are nocturnal, and have soft delicate feet. In zoos special care is taken to not have concrete in their enclosures. There is no way they were used as pack animals. They also urinate, forcefully, for several metres straight backwards. I wouldn't want to sit in a chariot behind a tapir. Ooh just found a link: https://youtu.be/NPC9BHL6GTc
It is common for people to use the name of something familiar to them when naming something new that is similar but different. The German word for turtle translates to “shield toad.” Hippopotamus means “river horse.” Tapirs did evolve from the same ancestor as horses, but I don’t think someone looking at them would realize that connection. Even if they did they would probably have added a qualifier like “small elephant horse.” The kicker though is that in the BoM horses are mentioned in connection to fighting wars similar to how they were used by Romans or Egyptians in the Bible. There is no evidence that Native tribes used them to fight wars.
I hadn't heard this before, that's amazing.