Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[Daniel Peterson]

Wouldn't this require something less than an inspired translation by Smith?

Why?

And, when read in context, at least some BOM references to horses are made together with cattle. It is way too far a stretch to think Smith was referring to cattle and tapirs as opposed to cattle and horses.

Why?

[Bernard Gui]

Like these?

"The Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having

reserved for themselves provisions, and HORSES and cattle, and flocks of every

kind, that they might subsist for the space of SEVEN YEARS....." (3 Nephi

4:5,

"the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty

and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his HORSES

and his cattle....."

"Plentiful" was my word btw.

Yes. Like those. What words in those quotes indicate the amount of horses they had?

Or are you just assuming it was like the Great Plains teeming with massive herds

being rounded up by whooping Lamanites? Is there any other BoM reference

that would give one the idea that they were common, plentiful, prized, ridden?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Here's how one candidate for authorship of the BoM dealt with the horse question:

Solomon Spalding:

Corn, wheat, beans, and squashes & carrots they raised in great abundance. The ground was plowed by horses & generally made very mellow for the reception of the seed.

Hamboon, mounted on an eligant horse richly caparisoned, rode thro the encampment proclaiming aloud, every man to his station. Seize your arms & prepare for Battle.

They then clasped each others hands & bowing very low, took an affectionate farewell. But where are Lamesa & her friend? During these ceremonies their horses move with uncommon swiftness, her heart palpitates with an apprehension that she might be overtaken by her brother. But now a friend more dear, her beloved Elseon, with his companions, outstrip the wind in their speed. & within one hour & half they overtake these fearful Damsels.

As the whole of this parade indicates no flight of Elseon & Lamesa, we must now view them with their select company of friends seting out on a short journey. All mounted on horses, they rode about twenty miles to a village where they halted.

The elk constituted a considerable part of their animal food. The horses were managed in the same way & the people tho't their meat to be a savoury dish.

Bernard

[jonzlaw]

Why?

Why?

I guess I was under the impression that Smith's translation was perfect, flawless, and, in fact, of God. That Smith would write "horse" when the original author(s) meant or in fact said something else seems to contradict this impression.

I also guess I have never heard of cattle and tapir being referenced together in this manner or in this sort of context. My bad?

[jonzlaw]

Yes. Like those. What words in those quotes indicate the amount of horses they had?

Or are you just assuming it was like the Great Plains teeming with massive herds

being rounded up by whooping Lamanites? Is there any other BoM reference

that would give one the idea that they were common, plentiful, prized, ridden?

Bernard

You're kidding right?

[Sevenbak]

I guess I was under the impression that Smith's translation was perfect, flawless, and, in fact, of God.

Why would you have such an impression. The title page it'self said otherwise.

TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanitesâ??Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentileâ??Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelationâ??Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyedâ??To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereofâ??Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentileâ??The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heavenâ??Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off foreverâ??And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nationsâ??And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.

[Rommelator]

All together now: "BIAS"

Huh? Clarification, please.

Hints? What hints? I haven't seen any hints!

See the replies by Brother Gardner.

Why am I an "anti" because you can't deal with the fact that there weren't any horses in the Americas at the time Smith says there were in the BOM?

Did I call you the anti-Mormon? Certainly not.

A little defensive don't you think? You do illustrate the point though. Bias is the obvious problem with the LDS archeologist/scholar.

No. Its called sarcasm. Furthermore, bias is a problem with all scholars, not just LDS ones (although I must applaud your ability to smear and poison the well). I defy you to show me any scholar, researcher, historian, etc. who is free from bias and totally objective. My point is that you assume that just because someone is not LDS that immediately exalts their opinion over those of LDS researchers. This, of course, is an ad hominem fallacy that fails to realize that, to quote Hugh Nibley:

"What on earth have a man's name, degree, academic position, and, of all things, opinions to do with whether a thing is true or not?"

[jonzlaw]

Quick observation: I was sort of expecting more on this horse issue from you folks. Indeed, After reading some posts it seemed as though the issue had all but been resolved in favor of the BOM. Yet, so far all I've gotten is "he said horse but he may not have meant horse" and "well maybe there just weren't that many horses around back then." Come on people!

[Rommelator]

Indeed, After reading some posts it seemed as though the issue had all but been resolved in favor of the BOM

How on earth did you get this impression? I saw a number of different approaches to a problem and a discussion over a certain stone carving.

[Brant Gardner]

Beastie was also kind enough to hunt up the Roys rubbing mentioned in the review.

Chris:

That is certainly a rubbing from Chichen, but it isn't the one in question. There is no figure in that rubbing that corresponds to the figure in the carving. The "candidate" with the serpent has the person facing the wrong direction. Of course, I can't see enough of the mural to see what the rest of it is, but really doesn't seem the same at the one posted at all.

However, on the basis of that rubbing, I think we probably chagne from dog to jaguar.

[Brant Gardner]

(All-Seeing Eye @ Jul 20 2008, 09:35 PM)

OK, I must confess that the images concerning Stelae B, Copan, which purport to be elephants, actually do look like elephants. . .

What is the rebuttal to this? They really don't look like parrots to me.

According to . . . they are stylized Macaws.

Definitely go with Chris's source here. The "looks like" argument from people who aren't used to seeing the rather baroque Maya art makes for a lot of misreadings, including Eric Von Daniken's "space ship" reading of Pacal's sarcophagus. I remember reading that before I had studied much of the Maya, and it really kind of looked like what he described. Now that I understand Maya conventions, I see things that I couldn't before and I would never mistake it for anything else.

Believe the macaws.

[Brant Gardner]

A ritual vessel from the Classic Maya showing what appears to be an elephant deity depicting reasonably faithfully, probably from a mariner's description from Buddhist or Hindu India, this special deity as Ganesa - the god of protection and luck in ventures. [...] Yalloch, Guatemala, Late Classic, 600-900 A.D.

It doesn't look like Ganesh at all to me. It looks more like a human wearing a long-nosed bat costume (which I would expect in Mesoamerica, given their other depictions of that animal).

Here's a purported carving of an elephant at Copan. . . .

That one of extremly obviously a parrot. The "scale" pattern is typical of the way the bird features are depicted, but there are longer, separate feathers under the beak (which has the nostril). The round, unlidded eye is also a birds. Macaw, unquestionably.

[jonzlaw]

Did I call you the anti-Mormon? Certainly not.

Uh, yeah, you kinda did. Its ok though, I can take it.

Furthermore, bias is a problem with all scholars, not just LDS ones (although I must applaud your ability to smear and poison the well).

True. But LDS archeologists/scholars are biased by LDS theology. Non-LDS archeologists/scholars are not

My point is that you assume that just because someone is not LDS that immediately exalts their opinion over those of LDS researchers.

No I don't. I reasonably conclude that the non-LDS archeologist/scholar is not biased by Mormon theology.

[Sargon]

jonzlaw, become acquainted with the debate.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml#horses

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=129&am...ble=transcripts

http://en.fairmormon.org/Topical_Guide/Boo.../Animals/Horses

[smac97]

It doesn't look like Ganesh at all to me. It looks more like a human wearing a long-nosed bat costume (which I would expect in Mesoamerica, given their other depictions of that animal).

That one of extremly obviously a parrot. The "scale" pattern is typical of the way the bird features are depicted, but there are longer, separate feathers under the beak (which has the nostril). The round, unlidded eye is also a birds. Macaw, unquestionably.

Thanks for your insights.

-Smac

[jonzlaw]

Why would you have such an impression. The title page it'self said otherwise.

TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanitesâ??Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentileâ??Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelationâ??Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyedâ??To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereofâ??Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentileâ??The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heavenâ??Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off foreverâ??And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nationsâ??And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.

Hey I'm no LDS scholar, but doesn't this say that God gave up the contents of the BOM to Joseph Smith by divine revelation, and at the same time specifically stated that if any faults or mistakes are ever found that such is on Smith? Why in the heck would God do that? And what of all of the stuff about how Smith translated the scripture - word for word - directly from the plates or whatever. Isn't the Mormon approach to the Bible to believe what is written "to the extent it has been translated correctly" called into question if the same is said, by God no less, of the stuff in the BOM?

[Sargon]

Hey I'm no LDS scholar, but doesn't this say that God gave up the contents of the BOM to Joseph Smith by divine revelation, and at the same time specifically stated that if any faults or mistakes are ever found that such is on Smith? Why in the heck would God do that? And what of all of the stuff about how Smith translated the scripture - word for word - directly from the plates or whatever. Isn't the Mormon approach to the Bible to believe what is written "to the extent it has been translated correctly" called into question if the same is said, by God no less, of the stuff in the BOM?

jonzlaw,

you failed miserably to comprehend Peterson's remarks about the translation. Noone suggested there was an error in translation. Read up on the debate before you continue to make a horse out of yourself.

[Sargon]

Brant,

I recently watched The History Channel's special "The Maya: Death Empire" in which Dr. Stephen Houston of Brown University was quoted very extensively throughout. One notable quote is found near the very end of the program:

Maya archaeology is just beginning. There are innumerable cities, innumerable temples, innumerable settlements that we have not been able to study and excavate.

After looking into his CV it appears he taught for a number of years at BYU. In my ignorance, I assume that this mean he is a member of the church. Do you know this gentleman?

If he is LDS, and if all LDS scholars are so terribly biased as jonzlaw and most other critics hold, what in the world is the History Channel doing using such a hack for their program? And why does he have notable references on his CV such as Michael Coe and David Stuart when he apparently is a biased, untrustworthy Mormon pseudo-scholar?

Of course, I could be wrong in my assumption that all BYU professors are necessarily LDS. Either way, we have a reputable scholar claiming not that not all the discovering has been done, but that we aren't even close.

James

[John Williams]

Is seeing horses and elephants in Mayan artwork an instance of "presentism"? It was certainly interesting to see people argue that because it "looks like a horse," it must be a horse. Maybe it is a horse, but this is probably a case of FRIN.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I honestly can't tell what it is. The pictures are not good enough for me to tell the details of the man standing next to it and the figure is in the background. From experience working with Mesoamerican art, I am reluctant to declare anything without much better information.

Of course, it could be a tapir <grin>.

I am inclinded to agree with you on this. I cant tell waht it is and even if I could I am no expert. It could be a tapir? Lol.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

I recently watched The History Channel's special "The Maya: Death Empire" in which Dr. Stephen Houston of Brown University was quoted very extensively throughout. . . .

After looking into his CV it appears he taught for a number of years at BYU. In my ignorance, I assume that this mean he is a member of the church. Do you know this gentleman?

I do not know him personally, but I do know that he is very well respected, and not LDS. He is one of Mark Wright's advisors. As for the point that there is much that is yet to be discovered, I doubt that point would be in debate among any Mesoamericanist.

[Tarski]

I honestly can't tell what it is. The pictures are not good enough for me to tell the details of the man standing next to it and the figure is in the background. From experience working with Mesoamerican art, I am reluctant to declare anything without much better information.

Of course, it could be a tapir <grin>.

But,...Solarpowered has already declared that "any kindergartener call see that it's a horse".

[Tarski]

Is seeing horses and elephants in Mayan artwork an instance of "presentism"? It was certainly interesting to see people argue that because it "looks like a horse," it must be a horse. Maybe it is a horse, but this is probably a case of FRIN.

Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria?

[Sargon]

I do not know him personally, but I do know that he is very well respected, and not LDS. He is one of Mark Wright's advisors. As for the point that there is much that is yet to be discovered, I doubt that point would be in debate among any Mesoamericanist.

Then let the record show that a NON-LDS Mayan archaeologist (one who is presumably familiar with the BoM) agrees that we have barely scratched the surface of Mayan archaeology.

Thanks Brant.

[Daniel Peterson]

I guess I was under the impression that Smith's translation was perfect, flawless, and, in fact, of God.

a) I can't even imagine what a "perfect" translation would be. The concept is, from my perspective, unintelligible.

b) The Book of Mormon doesn't claim to be "perfect" or "flawless"; the Title Page, in fact, explicitly allows for imperfections.

c) It isn't clear why something that is "of God" needs to be "perfect" and "flawless."

d) I've said nothing, really, about the translation, as such.

That Smith would write "horse" when the original author(s) meant or in fact said something else seems to contradict this impression.

The suggestion that I mentioned to you has Joseph Smith dictating (and his scribe writing) horse because the original author(s) wrote horse.

I also guess I have never heard of cattle and tapir being referenced together in this manner or in this sort of context. My bad?

You must move in different circles than I do. Except for this particular subject, Baird's tapir never arises in my daily conversations at all.