One of the toughest challenges for the Book of Mormon is the issue of horses. At first glance, it’s a simple case for rejecting the book. The Book of Mormon speaks of horses used by Book of Mormon peoples, and yet there is no proof of such a thing. In fact, horses went extinct in the Americas thousands of years before they show up in the Book of Mormon. Bingo. The book is bogus.
Several recent publications on this topic deserve to be considered:
- Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper, “Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives,” BYU Studies 56/4 (2017): 133-175.
- Daniel Johnson, “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses,” BYU Studies 54/3 (2015): 149-179.
Both of these are now mentioned on my related LDSFAQ page, “Questions About Problems with Plants and Animals in the Book of Mormon.”
These new publications remind us of some vital issues that are often overlooked by those criticizing the Book of Mormon:
1) In Joseph’s day, it was understood that horses simply were not in the ancient Americas at all. It was only after the Book of Mormon was published that it became known that there were ancient horses, elephants, and camels here long ago. So yes, these animals were in the Americas, but are believed to have gone extinct well before Book of Mormon times.
2) The last surviving groups of any extinct animal are likely to be present long after the apparent extinction date because fossilized or preserved remains of any species are very rare, and thus the apparent “last” remains found are rarely the actual last animal that existed. The difference between reported extinction date and the actual persistence of a species can be hundreds or thousands of years, or, in some cases, millions of years when species once thought to be extinct were found to still exist (e.g., the coelacanth fish).
3) It is possible that in some regions, now-extinct animals such as the horse might have persisted long after the apparent extinction of the species. Recent evidence also shows some mammoths lived long past the previously recognized extinction date in northern North America. It could be that some surviving horses were found and exploited by Nephites when they arrived. They are not mentioned after the time of Christ, as if they had gone extinct by then.
4) Pre-Columbian remains of horses in the Americas raise the possibility that horses were present for a while in Book of Mormon lands during Book of Mormon times. Both of the above papers provide detailed evidence that needs to be part of future debates on this topic.
5) Finding remains of ancient animals in a hot, humid climate with an acidic soil, typical of Mesoamerica, is extremely unlikely. However, the cooler climate of caves represents a possible place where such remains might endure, and this is where some of the most promising finds have been made. The many decades it took to find any physical evidence of horses among the ancient huns, whose empire was based on heavy use of horses, reminds us of how difficult it is to find animal remains among ancient peoples that used them, especially when the animal is edible (and rather tasty, according to some of my friends in Europe — for a while I lived next to a horse butcher shop in Switzerland).
6) While it is possible that the word “horse” might have been applied to another species, in light of evidence that horses were in the Americas anciently and in light of at least some traces of horse remains among pre-Columbian Native Americans, assuming that actual horses were meant is a reasonable approach. Of course, much more work is needed in this area. Meanwhile, the hard evidence presented by Johnson and further evidence discussed by Miller and Roper should not be overlooked.
[The following four paragraphs were added Feb. 28, 2018.]
Critics have asked where are horses in Mesoamerican art if they were still around in Book of Mormon times? I would also like to point out that the horses among the Nephites may have been unusual or rare animals that became fully extinct before the end of the Nephite record. If they were not a significant part of life for Book of Mormon peoples, they may also have not been important or significant in other neighboring cultures. If they became fully extinct in Book of Mormon lands by, say 50 AD, there is no reason to expect Mesoamerican art from later times to show them. What we have from earlier times is a minute fraction of what remains to be excavated. The lack of clear horse figures in what we have so far from the early Book of Mormon period is not conclusive evidence that horses or other animals were not present in the Americas then.
None of this will satisfy the critics. But keep in mind that horses in the Book of Mormon are one of the biggest weaknesses in a book abounding with strengths. If the book is true, as I believe it is, it should hardly be surprising that serious unresolved questions marks persist in some areas. Apparent weaknesses need to be considered in light of the strengths as well, such as the abundance of evidence from the Arabian Peninsula, the Old World elements such as Hebraic word plays and poetical elements throughout the Book of Mormon, the reliable and compelling evidence from numerous witnesses of the plates and the translation process, etc. Further, the weakness of uncertain horses in the Book of Mormon is an area with a hint of a familiar trend: what seemed to be a blunder contrary to common knowledge in 1830 (“no horses ever existed here anciently — they came from the Spaniards”) later changed in light of fossil evidence showing horses were here and actually originated in the Americas. The problem shifted to one of timing relative to their apparent extinction before the Nephites arrived. But the extinction date has been pushed back, and now there is at least tentative though not widely accepted evidence of actual horses in the Americas during Book of Mormon times.
Just as the common knowledge that America’s wild horses came from recent Spanish horses didn’t manage to inform the authors of the Book of Mormon (whether that was Joseph and fellow conspirators or ancient writers), that “horse sense” may be lacking among the animals themselves. Daniel Johnson’s paper notes the discrepancy between Spanish horses and possible release of Spanish horses with the common type of horses favored by some Indian tribes, raising legitimate questions about the origins of these animals. A recent study on wild horse DNA in British Columbian horses also raises the possibility that non-Spanish origins are important, though this does not necessarily mean the horses have ancient American origins, but could have descended from other Old World imports. It’s an area for further research, but one that keeps the door open for the unexpected result that wild horses in the Americas may have been here all along and are not all descended from horses introduced by the Spaniards or others. See E. Gus Cothran and Wayne P. McCrory, “A Preliminary Genetic Study of the Wild Horse (Equus Caballus) in the Brittany Triangle (Tachelach’ed) Region of the ?Elegesi Qayus (Nemiah) Wild Horse Preserve of British Columbia,” The Long Riders Guild Academic Foundation, Nov. 2014, http://www.lrgaf.org/articles/Wild%20Horse%20DNA%20Report%202015.pdf.
Interestingly, DNA evidence is also overturning other aspects of previously established knowledge about horses. See “Surprising new study redraws family tree of domesticated and ‘wild’ horses,” Science Daily, February 22, 2018, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180222145132.htm. See an interesting response to this story from Straight from the Horse’s Heart (rtfitchauthor.com).
As a reminder of common knowledge on horses being from the Spaniards, here is an excerpt from the article “Equus” in the British Encyclopedia, vol. 3, printed in 1809. An American version of this came out in 1819.
Likewise, the opening page of Jedidiah Morse’s popular American Gazetteer printed in 1809 reminds us that the wild horses used by an Indian tribe in South America were, of course, introduced by the Spaniards:
If Joseph were the literati that he seems to have been, based on the evolving narrative used to explain key Book of Mormon evidence, one must ask why he would be ignorant of the well-known fact that horses and elephants were not ever present in the ancient Americas? Why did he not possess the common knowledge that horses were introduced by the Spaniards? For a guy who is pulling arcane information off of elite maps of Arabia and accessing libraries of cutting-edge information to add little bits and pieces of plausibility to the book, it seems bizarre that he would suddenly fail to consult his technical advisory team when it came to animals in the Book of Mormon — and then manage to have his animal blunders (like many other former blunders in the book) at least given a touch of hope by later fossil finds showing that they actually were native to the Americas anciently. But it seems that this is still mostly too ancient for comfort — so far, though Daniel Johnson’s discussion of the evidence raises significant hopes that there is much more than we’ve recognized that has already been found. Stay tuned.
Jeff,
Thanks for posting that link to the American Gazeteer. In perusing it, I was immediately reminded of a relatively recent disagreement we had about what was known or knowable about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas in Joseph's time. Your contention was that all european Americans, including Joseph, thought of Native Americans as barbaric teepee dwellers who had no resemblance to the BoM peoples. I provided you with several examples of texts, extant in Joseph's time, that recognized the sophistication of the ancient peoples and their societies. You poo pooed them as not being popular enough, or close enough to Joseph's back yard to have any influence on his thinking. Hopefully the Gazeteer is popular enough, and American enough for your tastes. Consider the following examples (emphasis added by me):
In the description of "Mexico":
"The historians most to be relied on say that it [pre columbian Mexico City] was nearly nine miles in circumference; and contained upwards of 60,000 houses, containing each 4 to 10 inhabitants."
Also, this about the "Pacbacama" valley in Peru:
"4 leagues from Lima, formerly beautified by a magnificent temple built by the Incas, and dedicated to the Creator of the Universe. The Peruvians had in it several idols; but they had in it so great a reverence for God, whom they called Pacbacamac, that they offered him what they esteemed most precious. . . The ruins of this superb structure, says Jovet, do yet demonstrate its former magnificence and greatness.
Or this under "Titicaca":
"On an isle in this lake, Mango Caffac(?), the founder of the Peruvian Monarchy, reported that the Sun, his father, had placed him with Oello his consort and sister. Here was a temple dedicated to the Sun, splendid with plates of gold and silver. . . Over the river El Disaguadero, still remains the bridge of rushes invented by Capae Yupanqui, the fifth Inca, for transporting his army to the other side, in order to conquer the provinces of Collafuyo.
Or this most interesting find on the facing page under "Tizon":
"In a journey made thus far , in 1606, the Spaniards found some large edifices, and met with some Indians who spoke the Mexican language, and who told them, that a few days journey from that river towards the N was the kingdom of Tolan, and many other inhabited places whence the Mexicans migrated. It is, indeed, confirmed by Mr. Stewart, in his late travels, that there are civilized Indians in the interior parts of America. Beyond the Missouri, he met with powerful nations who were courteous and hospitable, and appeared to be a polished and civilized people, having regularly built towns, and enjoying a state of society not far removed from the European.
Jeff won't believe Joseph had access to any book or document unless he sees a photo of the Smith family bookshelf. No other explanation will suffice for Jeff (except a miracle, of course).
To the point of your post, a huge area of omission regarding the presence of horses in ancient America, is the lack of depictions of the beast in writing or art. If they were as prevalent and useful as made out to be by the BoM, one would expect to find them present in depictions of day-to-day life, or especially war. Where are they in the artifacts? It may have been difficult to locate physical remains of the Huns' horses, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that they were present in their society. Where's similar evidence in the archaeological record in the Americas?
Horses. Just another exercise of intellectual acrobatics needed to defend the legitimacy of Joseph Smith and the BOM. I honestly can't think of any other religion that requires so many far-reaching explanations. From multiple hill cummorahs, North American edens, polyandry, disavowed prophetic teachings, facsimiles, wooden submarines. The list just goes on and on
Anon, it sounds like the mere act of responding to your long list of arguments will be taken as ad admission of guilt. Do I have that right? Because a sound theory doesn't get opposed and doesn't lead to smart opponents making long lists of objections, right?
Just wondering, is there anything you believe in that is or has been the subject of debate? Perhaps something like the Bible as the word of God, the Democratic Platform, Global Warming, Federal Reserve fiscal policy, the Atkins Diet, Net Neutrality, gun control, anything? Maybe General Relativity or, to keep things especially easy, Germ Theory or the theory of gravity? All of these were or are controversial. Have you had a serious debate with people that have different views on such a topic? Have you encountered the annoyance of vocal opponents who can easily create long lists of arguments and attacks? If that would be a new experience for you, I'd encourage you to try a serious debate or two with smart opponents. You'll find that even seemingly clearcut and logical (to you) positions can have numerous flaws or weak spots, at least in the eyes of others, and can be attacked by either intelligent or ignorance forces, or both, with long lists of arguments and counter evidences. Sometimes the arguments are simply overwhelming and leave no room for a failed belief system — like the Electric Universe, or major portions of the faith-based policies of both of America's major political parties (the faith-based part includes the blind faith shared by both parties that endless debt can be accrued faster and faster without the kind of horrific consequences that have occurred in every other nation embarking on the same path in the past) — but in many cases we find that issues are complicated, take time to work through, and aren't resolved by throwing out simple sound bytes and long lists with a declaration of victory based on the number of objections one can conceive.
Horses in the Book of Mormon involves several complex issues. If the book is an ancient record, then is there a way to understand it's reference to horses that can fit with what we know? The answer is yes. There are several possible approaches, yet still question marks. But there is an interesting trend. What was utterly without support in 1830 now has the benefit of fossil evidence showing that horses were here anciently, and more recently has a small amount of physical evidence suggesting surviving horses were present to a limited degree in Book of Mormon lands. They disappear from the record by the time of Christ's ministry 2000 years ago. There is no mention of them being ridden by humans or being used in battle. They may have pulled a ceremonial litter/"chariot" of some kind for a king in one reference among the Lamanites, but otherwise they appear to have been herded, possibly for food, with no further hints at their usage. Then they disappear from the record. That is well after their accepted extinction date, but surviving pockets of a species long past the extinction date based on rare finds of remnants is likely a common occurrence. So we have question marks, but not a solid reason for rejecting the Book of Mormon.
As for the absence of horses in art, it's true that among the tiny fraction of Mesoamerican art that has been excavated, we don't have obvious horses. If horses played a major role among the Mayans, for example, we'd expect something. But the presence of horses, possibly rare already, as possibly a source of food among the Nephites does not or as a tool of some kind for one Lamanite king mean that other cultures at other times used them, or that they found them important enough to portray during the possibly brief time they were present.
At the moment it is simply too early to say that horses were not depicted in Mesoamerican art unless you assume that what has been excavated already tells us everything we need to know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If Joseph were the literati that he seems to have been, based on the evolving narrative used to explain key Book of Mormon evidence, one must ask why he would be ignorant of the well-known fact that horses and elephants were not ever present in the ancient Americas?
This is silly beyond words. If a man has access to a bunch of books, and he reads some of them, does that mean he must have read them all?
If a man were to read some of these books, but not all of them, would that be such a rare and inexplicable thing?
If a man were to encounter a fact in a book, and then forget what he read, would that be such a rare thing?
If a student reads a textbook for an exam, and he goes on to answer 19 out of 20 questions correctly, why did he get that one answer wrong? If he were the studious young man he seems to have been, must one ask why he would be ignorant of that one fact he missed on the exam?
Does getting 1 out of 20 wrong, even though he also got 19 out of 20 correct, indicate that the student did not read the textbook?
You're too smart for this kind of silliness, Jeff. Once again, your faith commitment to the historicity of the Book of Mormon is clouding your judgement.
— OK
… is there a way to understand its reference to horses that can fit with what we know? The answer is yes. There are several possible approaches, yet still question marks….
This is LDS apologetics in a nutshell. Yes, says the apologist, the evidence certainly does seem to be against us. Yet maybe there's a "way to understand" the Book of Mormon that, however improbably, explains that evidence away. Let us exercise our imaginations and search for such a way to understand.
This is why LDS apologetics makes sense only to those who already believe in its conclusions. It relieves them of the spiritual angst engendered by the evidence — by the clash of an outdated worldview with modernity.
— OK
Jeff,
My initial response was to say I used my seer stone to interpret what you had written and I'm glad you realize that you were wrong–apology accepted.
As I read your response to my post again however, I thought there were a few issues that needed to be addressed as you were getting somewhat personal. I'll start from the top:
1. "it sounds like the mere act of responding to your long list of arguments will be taken as ad admission of guilt. Do I have that right?"
I'm not sure what you have to feel guilty about. Perhaps a visit to your bishop or branch president is in order? My post had nothing to do with guilt–Freud may have something to say about your feelings. . .
2. "long list of arguments"
There's a big difference between an argument and its evidence. My argument was a simple paragraph followed by a "long list" of evidence to support my claim. I know this can be confusing but there are many good textbooks in print that can aid you in making the distinctions. One of my favorites is The Curious Writer by Bruce Ballenger.
3. "I'd encourage you to try a serious debate or two with smart opponents."
This phrase made me smile. I guess I'm to assume by this statement that yourself and others who have debated my point of view on your blog are not smart opponents? That's an alright statement to make about yourself, but others who have herein countered my arguments may have a differing opinion about their intellectual prowess. I don't think they would appreciate your throwing them under the bus.
There's been some fascinating new DNA research on horse ancestry which proves there's still a lot to learn in this field: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180222145132.htm
OK, theories for origin of the Book of Mormon increasingly appeal to smart outside help to do the heavy intellectual lifting. So if Joseph had help and direct or indirect access to abundant knowledge, how did his co-conspirators fail to remind him of basics like Christ being born in Bethlehem, Arabia being impassable, and horses being what the Spaniards brought, definitely not native to America? It’s not silly beyond words. It’s recognizing that the models offered for Book of Mormon creation leave some huge question marks. But sure, he could have been a great student of many topics and just missed basic common knowledge on several things, which his team also obviously missed and failed to correct. But do you lean to the Joseph did it alone theory, with no need for help on,say, Hebraisms and Hebrew names?
Anon #1, yes, Jedidiah Morse's views are interesting. Thanks for pointing them out. He does refer to some structures in various locations, including a wooden temple in the northwest, and yes, some kind of edifices in Peru. But none of this prepared the population in general for the revelations that would come later from Stephens and Catherwood which introduced the populace to the significance of extensive stone buildings in Mesoamerica and evidence of a truly majestic ancient civilization — not just polite noble savages west of Missouri praised for building towns.
If you look at his many other references to native tribes, it seems that he likes to point out some of their positives: amiable, polite, comely, hospitable, commodious, etc. But he doesn't leave much room to overlook the fact that they are generally a far cry from advanced Christian civilization.
Consider his characterization of the very important Cree Indians, which he calls Knisteneaux:
Knisteneaux: a tribe of Indians widely extended over the N part of N. America. Their language is similar to the Algonquins who inhabit the waters of St. Lawrence, and the coast of Labrador. Their dress is simple and commodious, their women are the most comely of savages. Their people are subject to but few disorders. They are mild and affable, just to one another other, and hospitable to strangers. [So far, so good!] Smoking precedes all affairs of consequence. This sacred rite is never prophaned; its obligations are indispenfable. It settles all differences between contending parties. No person is allowed to join in the solemnity, who has cohabited with a woman within 24 hours. They say, "he is unclean." At their funerals, the mourners cut off their hair, lacerate their flesh, blacken their faces, bury the most valuable property of the deceased, destroy what remains, that it may not pain them by bringing him to remembrance; widows sometimes sacrifice themselves with their departed husbands. Families have domestic gods, which are carved images about 8 inches long ; these they treat with the most superstitious regard. Chastity is no virtue with these people ; they exchange wives, or offer them to strangers as acts of hospitality. Incest and bestiality are common among them. So wicked, so brutal are the most amiable tribes of men, not enlightened by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sounds like he's praising another group of "noble savages" with a lot of refined attributes, and then he drops the hammer and decries these immoral brutes who lack the Gospel. But still, he does give glimpses of some genuine diversity among the tribes and some features pointing to advances beyond nomadic life alone. But for all that, the popular understanding of Native Americans in the 19th century was not terribly flattering. Stephens and Catherwood would surprise many, including the Mormons, who saw that as a big deal and some of the first meaningful evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.
Anita, thank you. It's a fascinating story. As we learn that the native horses in Asia really aren't all that native, and that the "feral" horses in America really are the same species as the ancient horses on this land, there are a growing number of people who question the US government's classification of American wild horses as an "invasive species" when they at least are the re-introduced original, or something very close to it. And there are also voices who are wondering if the standard story of wild horses in American all coming from recent Spanish horses really can fit the facts — including the appearance of many wild horses (especially the spotted ones favored by some tribes), the extensive and early development of horsemanship skills among many tribes so rapidly after Spanish horses came to the continent, and the extensive Indian lore about horses, developing so quickly. There are some intelligent voices who, in light of Indian data and genetic data for wild American horses that don't neatly fit into the Spanish camp, wonder if wild horses in America may have persisted naturally from pre-Columbian horses. I don't know enough on this topic to discuss it yet, but there are some interesting issues requiring more investigation.
Very interesting. Thank you for the post.
Book of Mormon: Horses
Anti-Mormon: There were no horses back then!
Mormon: There's some evidence there were horses. Here it is.
Anti-Mormon: Intellectual acrobatics!!
mjb, nothing Jeff has presented qualifies as "evidence" by any stretch.
Anonymous,
I won't take anything you say seriously until I know who you are. I find that most critics making comments on Mormon blogs keep their identity hidden.
A question for all critics: What evidence do you have that Joseph Smith read ANY books prior to his writing the Book of Mormon, other than the Bible? I'd be surprised if you could find more than 1 or 2 examples. All of the evidence is that he had almost no education at that time. Only later did he gain an education.
Colin,
You're working on a flawed premise. You ask "What evidence do you have that Joseph Smith read ANY books prior to his writing the Book of Mormon?"
Which I answer with: why is reading anything essential? I have read virtually nothing about the Russian meddling in the election, neither have I seen anything about it on TV, but I've heard a lot about it. Remember the milieu in which Joseph spent his formative years "The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others." By his account, we can assume he heard a lot of theories about religion, both basic and otherwise.
His account also lets us know that not only was he paying attention, but he was consuming information at a pretty good rate: "During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit."
So, what need books?
Latest No-evidence Anon, that's a fair statement because I haven't much of the evidence here. I've referred people to a couple of excellent articles that present some significant evidence. But among the evidences I referred to is one that I hope you might also know of already, without the need for citations: the fossil evidence that horses actually were in the Americas anciently. As I recall, the first such evidence was reported in 1840, and then later came the dramatic La Brea tar pit finds. Now ancient American horses are part of our common knowledge. That's evidence that moved science a little closer to the Book of Mormon — though the timing was off. But can you see how that ought to count as relevant evidence? I also presented primary sources supporting the notion that it was common knowledge in Joseph's day (and still is in ours) that wild horses in the Americas came from the Spaniards. That evidence was relevant to the discussion. Does it not count as evidence? So what does it take for something to count as evidence of some kind? Or are you willing to walk back your statement a little?
The evidence is in the product, Collin! If I suddenly started making cookies in my kitchen, and then you come to my house and find not one single cookbook, I think it's safe to assume I found a recipe somehow! Joseph's so-called inspired works are chock-full of references, allusions, and copied passages from existing work. We can either blame that on prophetic inspiration (the least likely and least rational explanation) or assume he had access to the works he was riffing on, Collin.
And as for dismissing the words of anonymous commenters, Collin, allow me to make you aware of something: most of the Founding Fathers often wrote for the public anonymously. These are men who Mormons believe to have been given godhood status, if Wilford Woodruff is to be believed. I think I'm safe amongst them in not revealing my identity.
"I think it's safe to assume I found a recipe somehow!"
What about the first person to make a cookie?
That person should be sainted.
I have to agree!
"So what need books?"
Really? I thought that one of the paths that has been promoted about the origin of the Book of Mormon involved not only a very active imagination on the part of Joseph Smith, but also his knowledge of and/or access to a fairly extensive (and rare) collection of literature.
Did I miss something? Has that opinion been changed by those who have promoted it here?
Or is it now considered sufficient that he merely must have "heard about" all the ideas that he decided to incorporate into the BoM, and should then somehow be held responsible for lifting them from some specific book or other.
The account of Joseph's referred to above seems only to speak of religious beliefs, and the differing ways that various passages in the Bible specifically were being interpreted by the many different sects. I don't think one could assume he knew much else about "how the world works" simply because he was extremely interested in his eternal welfare. In fact, elsewhere in the same account he admits that he was "unacquainted with men and things." Of course, this would have been around the time of his First Vision at the age of 14, and he has demonstrated through his works that he turned out to be an extremely intelligent man and could certainly have heard various things and retained them. But where is the evidence?
So here you are saying now, "What need books?" I think the most controversial things about the BoM (discussed here anyway) have very little to do with the religious aspects of the book, and more to do with the non-religious or historical elements of it.
How much of that kind of stuff do you think came up in day-to-day conversation?
Beary writes:
"Really? I thought that one of the paths that has been promoted about the origin of the Book of Mormon involved not only a very active imagination on the part of Joseph Smith, but also his knowledge of and/or access to a fairly extensive (and rare) collection of literature."
You seem to be conflating critics claims with Jeff's claims about the critics. I haven't read any claims by critics on this blog about Joseph's "extensive (and rare) collection of literature." I have read it many, many times from Jeff in his attempt to explain how Joseph must have worked to have produced what he did if it wasn't by the "power and inspiration of God." Those of us who are unbelievers only see the need for information available in Joseph's time for it to be included in the BoM. Your question "But where is the evidence?" can then be answered with: the book itself is the evidence. If information was available, and it ended up in the book, he got it by either word of mouth or by reading. Being as his access to learned and lay religious men was much higher than his access to "extensive (and rare) collection[s] of literature," it stands to reason that the information was transmitted verbally, and not by reading.
As for "How much of that kind of stuff do you think came up in day-to-day conversation?" I would answer with: quite a lot. The possibility of native Americans being descendents of the lost tribes of Israel had been postulated and discussed since the early 17th century as was the idea of America being a "promised land" reserved for the righteous. See https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/native-americans-jews-the-lost-tribes-episode/. The despoiling of tumuli and searching for treasures and relics of an advanced but defunct culture were common practices in Joseph's time, if one is to believe the church's stance on Joseph's treasure seeking. The fear of and political discussion of secret societies controlling the government was very much a hot button topic before the BoM began to be translated. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morgan_(anti-Mason). There is much of early 19th century America contained within the Book of Mormon, including religious concepts and items of doctrinal contention.
And another thing:
You say "I have read virtually nothing about the Russian meddling in the election, neither have I seen anything about it on TV, but I've heard a lot about it."
How intelligent an article do you think you could write about all the things you have "heard about" regarding the Russian meddling in the election?
You have entirely missed the point bearyb. You're lobbing hand grenades at a straw man. Congratulations, it's dead.
Ok, so apparently there was a lot of discussion around the time of the publication of the BoM concerning the origins of native Americans, and more particularly the idea that they might have been descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.
I might ask whether these were discussions that Joseph were ever a party to, and you would probably say that of course he was, as the evidence to that effect is in the BoM.
I'm sure you are aware, by the way, that the emphasis that was earlier placed on that possibility in the introduction to the BoM has been softened – but not eliminated – in the latest available version. And it is important to maintain the difference between what was actually claimed to be translated and commentary on the same (which is what the introduction is, as well as the synopsis of each chapter at their beginnings).
I suppose you might say that about all types of things contained in the BoM, that if they are in there Joseph must – somehow or another – have been exposed to such concepts through social contacts.
The BoM is obviously a very complex piece of literature. We do not know all the details surrounding how it came to be. I accept that it is partly a product of Joseph's time and circumstance, because if one is translating something from an unknown into a familiar language, what else could be the result? Similarly, what would be the point of having the "gift of tongues" if there were no sensible interpretation made available?
But there is much, much more contained in the BoM that has no such easy explanation, and many things that are not only not a product of his time and circumstance, but actually go against things that anyone of his time "should have known." And, granted, there are still many questions unanswered about many things concerning it.
Aside from all this, I accept the BoM to be what it claims to be because of the promises it contains, which are available to all who seek them with pure intent.
You say there are "many things that are not only not a product of his time and circumstance, but actually go against things that anyone of his time 'should have known.'"
Name 5, or even 3.
You post on Mormanity a question like yours and honestly expect someone to do a simple website search for you? What is this, too afraid of the “big bad search function”?
Aparentemente, o objetivo desse cidadao eh se fazer de fazido, quando na verdade esta mais perdido que peao em circo.
I'm not asking for a web search, I'm asking for support for bearyb's assertion. I also didn't ask for poor/lazy Portuguese, fubeca.