This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“Anachronisms: Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC – 421 AD?” (CES Letter)
| Obviously, Joseph Smith knew that there were no elephants in North or South America. So if he wrote the Book of Mormon, why would he mention elephants? The science is not settled. We know horses were in America before the Ice Age. In fact, horses originated in America 1.7 million years ago and spread to the rest of the world. It is a question of when horses went extinct. The popular consensus is that they died out many thousands of years ago. But some scientists say horses lived on even until the time Europeans arrived. |  |
Horses migrated over the Bering Strait land-bridge 17,000 years ago, and the popular consensus is that environmental changes and over-hunting killed them off in the Americas. But evidence strongly suggests horses survived all the way to the time of European explorers.
Archaeological Evidence For Horses – Horse fossils have been found from after horses supposedly went extinct, but before the time Europeans arrived:
- Pratt Cave, Texas – dated to 6020 – 5890 BC
- Wolf Spider Cave, Colorado – dated to 1260 – 1400 AD
- Horse Thief Cave, Wyoming – dated to 3124-1100 BC
- Wyoming – dated to 1426-1481 BC (see Wyoming Archaeologist 38:55-68; the earliest date given for European horses in America is 1519)
- Sutherland, Saskatchewan – dated to 880 AD (see Canadian Museum of Nature I-8581)
- Frontenac County, Ontario – dated to 1117 AD
- Carlsbad, California – 1625-1705 AD (this horse dates to at least 50 years before the Spanish arrived in California at the Presidio in San Diego)
DNA Evidence For Horses – It is hard to tell if ancient horse bones came from European horses or native American horses, because of one very good reason: they are genetically the same. The E. lambei of North America has identical mDNA to E. cabalus, the modern horse. Genetic studies have found; “neither paleontological opinion nor modern molecular genetics support the contention that the modern horse in North America is non-native.” “Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America.”
European Explorer Accounts Of Native Horses – Ancient explorers gave detailed accounts of horses and horse-like animals (such as tapirs) in North America.
- Hui Shen – 5th century. “They traveled on horseback and transported their goods with carts or sledges pulled by horses, buffalo, or deer.” (Some skeptics say Fusang is not North America, but all early maps locate Fusang around California.)
- Bjorn of Iceland – 13th century. Saw horses in an expedition beyond Greenland. Winnipeg natives told of ancient White peoples with horses called Onachipounnes.
- Baron de Lahontan – 1687 in Seneca, New York. “We found plenty of horses, black cattle, foul, and hogs.” (This is later than 1519, but a rather early date for plentiful horses to make their way to New York.)
- Louis-Joseph La Verendrle – 1642, Lakota Indians. Described a “mountain of the people of the horse” in a distant area of the Great Plains.
The Chickasaws and Seminole horses of Tennessee and Florida show distinct characteristics unlike European horses, and were found to be plentiful in obscure areas early in the 17th century. How did Native tribes became proficient in breeding, riding, and caring for large herds of horses in a matter of years, if they indeed got the horses from the Spanish settlers?
North American tribes of the Great Plains claim “they always had horses.” Since the DNA is the same as modern European horses, it is impossible to tell from DNA testing. The only way we could reasonably know is if we found more fossil evidence from before the 16th century but after 15,000 BC. Does the absence of more fossil evidence prove that there were no horses anywhere? No.
Many cave drawings, from within this time frame, show horses including figures riding horses. The Utz-Oneota Tablet 1300 shows a horse shot by a bow. Additionaldrawings can be found at the Canyon de Chelly, Arches National Park, Canyonlands, and Anubis Cave.
Oral traditions for native horses are particularly strong among the Lakota Indians, as described in this scientific study. Lakota Indians say the U.S. government rounded up their horses and destroyed them to keep the Indians on their reservations.
Refers To Obscure Animals – Maybe the E. lambei horse did not survive to recent times after all? Another theory is that in his translation, Joseph Smith picked the most closely related animals he could think of. He did not have a PHD in anthropology so he did not know the name of every animal mentioned in the Book of Mormon. He was an uneducated farm boy from upstate New York.
Scholars think “horse” refers to the tapir, deer, or some animal used for travel. This makes sense, but CES Letter rejects this theory out of hand: “I was amazed to learn that… horses aren’t really horses.”
But this only shows CES Letter‘s ignorance of speaking a second language and translating text. Obviously, Joseph Smith did not have a book on anthropology sitting on the shelf to look up tapir. So he chose a closely related ungulate that everyone knows about, the horse. These are not anachronisms.
Did Horses Only Exist Among Nephites? – The Book of Mormon people were a foreign tribe in the midst of vast native populations. How do we know horses didn’t exist briefly among a local tribe? The word “wheat” is only mentioned once. If CES Letter ignorantly rejects the explanation that it might refer to a related local plant such as the amaranth, then even still, how do they know that wheat did not briefly exist among an obscure local American tribe? Lots of things existed that haven’t been found by scientists.
Refers To Technology – Another theory is that “horse” refers to the technology of riding an animal rather than a certain kind of animal. The word “silk” is always mentioned in the Book of Mormon in the context of an advanced fine cloth, alongside “fine-twined linen.” It is about the technology not the specific object. Joseph Smith did not have a PHD in textiles, so he picked the most closely related word he knew to talk about cloth made of animal woven animal hair. Early European explorers likewise spoke of “silk” in early America, in reference to soft cloth woven from the under-hair of rabbits. It is likely that the Book of Mormon was talking about the same thing.
Dictionaries from Joseph Smith’s time defined horses and other things on CES Letter‘s list in terms of their use. “Horse” was defined as “a neighing quadruped, used in war and draught and carriage.” Plenty of animals in the Americas fit this description.
| Elephants – Mammoths are elephants, and Mammoths or Mastodons existed in North America at the time of the Jaradites. CES Letter Logical Fallacies |  |
| Falsehood | CES Letter groups this list of animals and technologies as available between 2200 BC-421 AD. according to the Book of Mormon. But this is false. The Book of Mormon mentions the elephant existing among the Jaradites shortly after 2400 BC, but does not mention elephants any later than that. Some say the Tower of Babel was built in 2200 BC at the latest, and likely much earlier. Mammoths or Mastodons did indeed live in the Americas many thousands of years ago. The Book of Mormon does not mention wheels as existing in North America. Other animals listed by CES Letter have been found. The peccary pig and goats certainly directly existed. |
| Argument From Ignorance | Just because a few things haven’t been found doesn’t mean they never existed. It is impossible to prove horses did not exist anywhere in Pre-Columbian America. |
| Etymological Fallacy | Clinging to the “true meaning” of modern words, CES Letter completely ignores the context and translation process of the Book of Mormon. The 1792 dictionary defined “horse” as “a neighing quadruped, used in war and draught and carriage.” |
| Poison The Well | CES Letter ridicules any discussion of linguistics of words, which is inappropriate for a discussion about translating words from another language. |
| Cherry-Picking | There is a long list of things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about, but CES Letter ignores all this. |
Fake Science – By refusing to consider any answer that involves linguistics, CES Letter focuses the frame solely on science. Science says there were no horses, and religion says that there were. This false argument appeals to science as the higher source for truth yet is itself highly unscientific. What, are we supposed to scour every inch of soil in America until we find fossils of every object and animal that is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is impossible. CES Letter thus puts the burden of proof on Mormons in bad faith.
The scientific thing to do would be to find an object in ancient America that the Book of Mormon claims was never there. That would be a solid argument. But instead, they make a sweeping generalization that something the Book of Mormon mentions once or twice couldn’t possibly have been there. This is science? Actual science should be investigated and celebrated by Mormons and non-Mormons alike, but this is just generalizing. The Book of Mormon was never intended to be an anthropology record or an authority about which animals existed at which time. Mormon was not a scientist who studied animals and plants. He was a military leader writing a volume about theology.
Innuendo Rather Than Logic – As with their first argument, CES Letter does not bother giving any explanation to a highly complex subject, because the purpose of this attack is to put the audience in a skeptical frame of mind.
CES Letter drops a bit of leading evidence, and the reader connects to dots in their mind to the inevitable conclusion. If horses and these other things did not exist in ancient America, the Book of Mormon must be false for claiming they did exist. CES Letter does not actually say this, but leads the audience to say it in their minds. They do not give us this logic, but allows the reader’s mind to string it together on their own, because people are much more likely to believe a deduction if they figured it out on their own, subconsciously. They are also more likely to believe the evidences for that deduction.
If we sat down and investigated this question thoroughly, it would be easy to debunk the “contradiction.” So instead, CES Letter rapidly moves on to more severe questions of ‘science vs. Book of Mormon’ before the audience even has time to think about it. They do not bother giving any explanation to a highly complex subject, because the purpose of this attack is to put the audience in a skeptical frame of mind.
Contradiction Strategy – CES Letter again uses the Marxist contradiction strategy of agitation, and shifts focus to science vs. religion. They present the subject as self-evident and demand Mormons explain every little tiny part of their conflicting claim, rather than just accepting some things are unclear or unknown. Satan likewise pushes people to make sweeping assumptions based on current “science” and refuse to accept something as unknown. They make sweeping generalizations in order to define everything and get to the “particular essence” and replace people’s general understanding. This kind of superstition is the opposite of faith.