Wheeled artifacts have been discovered in pre-European-intrusion sites. One article, with photos, is here

Jeff Lindsay gives some useful observations and references here

Here’s another article

We have two big dogs. I tell people it’s our way of food storage.

Ever seen them leaving SLC with those same coolers, full of . . . . something? From my experience, it’s horse meat. (my Tongan boss at PCC received such “deliveries 3 times in the 4 years I worked for him).

Now this was pre-9/11, and since I no longer get to Hawaii, and don’t have occasion to fly in/out of SLC, I don’t know if is still possible or prevalent. BTW – His wife can cook it up quite deliciously, and I would not hesitate to eat it again if offered . . .

Also, I ate dog meat three times (that I know of) on my mission in Asia, am I going to Hell?

What is our response to those who hold this or similar positions? Do we ostracize them and slap them down and kick them out? How do we persuade them without listening to them and allowing them the possibility to persuade us? Do we allow them to teach our youth? Do we allow their convictions, or lack thereof, fair access in our protected marketplace of ideas? Is there room for them in a church that I believe is more a hospital for sinners than a country club for those already in the fast lane to their celestial glories, at least in their own minds?

What bothers me more than the horses is how some orthodox Mormons treat the skeptical but not hostile disbelieving metaphorist. As the chorus of skeptics grows louder, with the Internet acting as an applifier, it seems to me that the orthodox become more defensive and obsessed with the questions of historicity and by default neglect the religious message. I might add that I think this forum is a good place to discuss the issues bearing on historical problems.

Several years ago a youngish member of my Quorum told me privately of the recent development of his disbelief in the historical reality of the B. of M. He was a blue blood life long Mormon, served a mission, married in the temple and was actually a direct descendant of one of the early prophets. He asked me if I thought there was a future or even a current place for him in the church, disbelieving as he did.

I told him yes. I even asked him to teach more than one lesson in Priesthood meeting on topics he was comfortable teaching sincerely. I was surprized at his restraint under fire, not to expose or advertise his doubts and to simply direct others to defend the areas he could not. He was asked to team teach early morning seminary which he did and without complaints. (Perhaps the youth were asleep when he really cut loose). He developed a relationship of trust and honesty with the church, not one of lying and fear of discovery and discipline. Frankly it was not any more of problem than the ward leaderes made of it and I only hoped that when he moved others would have the same or more tolerance for his struggles.

Read the comment immediately above you for a theory of how the Book of Mormon could have come forth without God himself doing the translation into English.

Read further above that for a discussion of how the Reformed Egyptian word might have been ‘horse,’ though they weren’t horses.

Even God can’t do a perfect translation, in my opinion, because languages don’t map perfectly. Even if he did it himself, he could only do a best possible translation, which is not the same thing.

God is a perfect translator, but it appears that God allowed the original integrity of the document to stand (such as Alma’s ‘opinion’ about the resurrection or the later Nephi waxing contrafactually nostalgic) and God also had to speak to JS in a manner that made sense to JS. Plus, I don’t know that JS was “perfectly” inspired (although my personal experiences reading the BoM suggests that he was close!). In other words, God-as-perfect-translator is limited by an imperfect text and an imperfect prophet (JS).

-It appears in the Book, because the printer printed it there.

-The printer printed it there, because the printer’s manuscript had the word “horse” there.

-The printer’s manuscript had the word “horse”, because the original manuscript had the word “horse”.

-The original manuscript had the word “horse”, because Joseph Smith said “horse”, and the scribe wrote it down.

-Joseph Smith said “horse” because…?

That’s what I want to know. Why did Joseph Smith say “horse” to the scribe?

It makes no sense to me when people draw analogies between the Book of Mormon “translation”, and other conventional translations. Conventional translations have several limiting factors, mainly the translator’s knowledge of both languages and their nuances.

But I think it is safe to say that there is no one who has ever lived that could translate the Book of Mormon into English conventionally. No one has ever had knowledge of both languages. So it would have to be done by God, unless a “Rosetta Stone” was found that could link the languages. Since there wasn’t, the actual relationship between the written reformed Egyptian and the spoken English words would have to have been made by God.

In a conventional translation, isn’t the translator trying to get beyond the words on the page and trying to read the mind of the author? Asking “what were they trying to say?”, and express it in a different language? That’s why a translator has to understand metaphors and other language devices for both languages, so they can understand the meaning, and not give a literal, nonsensical translation.

And in the case of the Book of Mormon, don’t we have just that? A perfect translator (God), who knows exactly what Nephi saw, and what he meant when he wrote “horse”?

Can someone present a theory of divine translation in which this isn’t the case?

Whatever errors Moroni and other ancient scribes might have made in understanding or transcription had to be filtered through God to get to Joseph.

Thus, I can understand errors when the scribes wrote the words down. I can understand errors when Oliver copied the original manuscript onto a printer’s manuscript. I can understand errors introduced in the printing process. But how could there be errors in the translation when it was God who was translating the Reformed Egyptian to English?