Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[jonzlaw]

Ever seen a "river horse"? Perhaps you might have seen one either on Safari, in a photo or even at the zoo? They do not look a whole lot like horses but that is what the Greeks called them when they saw them for the first time.

*

*

*

In case you haven't already figured out what a river horse was, it is a hippopotamus (hippo [horse] + potamos [river] = hippopotamus [horse of (the) river]).

Nice! What Smith really meant was "Hippos and cattle!"

[USU78]

Nice! What Smith really meant was "Hippos and cattle!"

A short lesson: When I was 19 I was pretty convinced that my mathematics and logic studies as an undergrad getting ready to go on a mission made me the smartest person in every room I would ever enter.

I was, despite my inflated selfappraisal, stupid, shortsighted and meanspirited, not to mention uncharitable and unkind.

In this internet age, I see a whole lot of mes out there, just as arrogant and just as stupid as I ever was.

I suggest, friend, that you step back for a moment and consider the reality of facing an animal of unknown origin in days before scientific taxonomies (which, historically speaking, has been a very, very short time). How do you go about naming that there beastie?

The Greeks, for reasons good and sufficient to them, called that big-toothed, big-mouthed and extremely massive and aggressive beastie in the river shallows a river horse.

The Israelite expatriate Lehites may well have seen an unknown beastie (or beasties) and given it (them) familiar names for reasons good and sufficient to them.

The real issue here is whether you believe there were Lehites or not. The horse argument does not particular shake the faith of most Mormons, since they understand the human vagaries of translation and such and don't expect things to be different than what they are. You, apparently, expect the world to bend to your will and have not yet learned that there are other folks out there who have value and whose beliefs and opinions, while different from yours, are also of great value in the world.

The sneering has simply got to stop. It's a deliberate provocation, whether you realise your knowing and willing participation in it. Less peaceful people shoot each other on the freeways for far less.

USU "Look at the grey poupon story in today's paper" 78

[jonzlaw]

A short lesson: When I was 19 I was pretty convinced that my mathematics and logic studies as an undergrad getting ready to go on a mission made me the smartest person in every room I would ever enter.

I was, despite my inflated selfappraisal, stupid, shortsighted and meanspirited, not to mention uncharitable and unkind.

Curious, did this change before you went on your mission?

In this internet age, I see a whole lot of mes out there, just as arrogant and just as stupid as I ever was.

I'm arrogant and stupid for engaging in debate on your apologetics board? The very purpose of this board is to provide Mormons with the opportunity to defend their faith. If not for me, against whom might you defend your faith exactly? Btw, I should think there are better ways to defend your faith than calling a non-believer arrogant and stupid. Of course, I could be wrong.

I suggest, friend,

You mean, "arrogant and stupid friend" right?

that you step back for a moment and consider the reality of facing an animal of unknown origin in days before scientific taxonomies (which, historically speaking, has been a very, very short time). How do you go about naming that there beastie?

The Greeks, for reasons good and sufficient to them, called that big-toothed, big-mouthed and extremely massive and aggressive beastie in the river shallows a river horse.

The Israelite expatriate Lehites may well have seen an unknown beastie (or beasties) and given it (them) familiar names for reasons good and sufficient to them.

I have already conceded that a horse may not in fact be a horse. I even agree that a horse may well have been a hippo. I just don't think it likely that people were herding hoards of hippos and cattle. Call me crazy.

The real issue here is whether you believe there were Lehites or not.

Obviously, I don't.

The horse argument does not particular shake the faith of most Mormons,

I am well aware of this fact. Nor do other so called "issues" with the history as told in the BOM.

since they understand the human vagaries of translation and such and don't expect things to be different than what they are.

Sorry, I didn't really get this statement. I would say however that Mormons do expect and accept things to be other than what they are stated to be in the BOM. Horses for instance.

You, apparently, expect the world to bend to your will and have not yet learned that there are other folks out there who have value and whose beliefs and opinions, while different from yours, are also of great value in the world.

Precisely what have I said that leads you, friend, to conclude that I expect anything of anyone here? Or that I don't value the opinions of others, even where they disagree? One of the reasons I engage others on this board is in order to learn more about your beliefs. I certainly don't have any expection, or desire for that matter, to change anyone's beliefs, even if I don't share them, and even if, at times, I might think them outright ridiculous.

The sneering has simply got to stop.

Make you a deal. I'll stop sneering (whatever that means), if you and others here stop with the name calling.

It's a deliberate provocation, whether you realise your knowing and willing participation in it.

If you're not willing to subject yourself to provocation from non-believers, what on earth are you doing on a Mormon apologetics board?

Less peaceful people shoot each other on the freeways for far less.

Are you trying to tell me that my comments here are going to get me shot? Harsh! FYI - I love each and every one of you. I do not share in your beliefs, but, I do not seek to change them either.

USU "Look at the grey poupon story in today's paper" 78

[MormonMason]

Nice! What Smith really meant was "Hippos and cattle!"

But, the fact remains that we do NOT know what the Nephites meant when they wrote "horse." For that matter, do we even know why the Greeks referred to the animal of the Nile as a kind of horse? The obvious answer to is that we do not know the answer in either case.

That is why Brant talks about readers' assumptions brought to the text of the Book of Mormon. It might have been some genus of horse or it might have been something else that the Nephites used their word for "horse" to describe. There is nothing in the text that describes them as to form and nothing in the text that states that they were ridden. Both are assumptions of the kind Brant discusses above, if I am reading his text correctly.

[jonzlaw]

But, the fact remains that we do NOT know what the Nephites meant when they wrote "horse." For that matter, do we even know why the Greeks referred to the animal of the Nile as a kind of horse? The obvious answer to is that we do not know the answer in either case.

That is why Brant talks about readers' assumptions brought to the text of the Book of Mormon. It might have been some genus of horse or it might have been something else that the Nephites used their word for "horse" to describe. There is nothing in the text that describes them as to form and nothing in the text that states that they were ridden. Both are assumptions of the kind Brant discusses above, if I am reading his text correctly.

"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....."

"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....."

Ok lets get real here. As noted above, at least twice the reference is to "horses and cattle." There's just no way Smith isn't talking about, well, horses and cattle. If we are to somehow come to the conclusion that "horses" did not in fact refer to "horses" as we know them, (because of the absence of archeological/historical evidence of horses in the Americas during the relevant time period), then do we also have to conclude that "cattle" was not a reference to "cattle?" Remember, much like the horse, domesticated cattle - such as might be the subjects of a "herd" - were unknown in the Americas until the 1600s.

[MormonMason]

"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....."

"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....."

Ok lets get real here. As noted above, at least twice the reference is to "horses and cattle." There's just no way Smith isn't talking about, well, horses and cattle. If we are to somehow come to the conclusion that "horses" did not in fact refer to "horses" as we know them, (because of the absence of archeological/historical evidence of horses in the Americas during the relevant time period), then do we also have to conclude that "cattle" was not a reference to "cattle?" Remember, much like the horse, domesticated cattle - such as might be the subjects of a "herd" - were unknown in the Americas until the 1600s.

Translation doesn't work that way, jonzlaw, irrespective of divine translation or translation by the wisdom of man alone. If the Nephites used words in Egyptian or even Hebraic terms to name animals of similar appearance or habits with such names as they knew for the original animals as they originally knew them in their original, native lands, even though they may or may not have existed in the new land in which they arrived, the literal translations into English would be horses and cattle even if the actual animals in question weren't either. That is the nature of translation, jonzlaw. You need to learn a little bit about what that entails before pontificating thus.

I have volumes of material dealing with such matters and I can assure you that any kind of translation is not cut and dried as you wish it to be, I do not care what the source of the translation. There is an interesting translation of Psalm 23 into an African language. In this particular country (I do not now recall the details at the moment but it was in a magazine article dealing with translations of the Bible and the difficulties entailed in such endeavors), they do not know what sheep or shepherds are and do not know the bahavior of sheep, but they do know what goats and goatherders are and how goats behave.

This African translation reads something like the following in English, in part: "The LORD is my goatherder. I shall be lacking nothing. . . . He drags me by the throat to the watering hole." A literal translation would incomprehensible to the reader in that African nation. There are other examples of the problems inherent in translation of ancient texts. Some of these problems actually cause misunderstanding in our current Bibles due to mistranslation of Aramaic to literal Greek in our current texts of the New Testament.

In any case, if the original said horses and cattle even though they may not have been the actual animals Joseph Smith would have thought about in his farm experience, a literal translation to horses and cattle is acceptable in English translation of these words used by the original authors. Translation just is like that. There is precious little we can do about it. Those were the words that Joseph Smith chose to use in the translation. Were I the translator of the Book of Mormon, I may not have used the same words and terms as did Joseph Smith in his day.

Translating it tapirs and turkeys may have made sense to the Mesoamerican mind, and may even have made some sense in English, but it would have been just as incomprehensible for English readers in Joseph Smith's day as a literal translation might have been too problematic for readers to comprehend, and who likely would have taken such a thing as so much foolishness. "Whoever heard of people using tapirs to pull chariots or raising herds of turkeys as cattle?!?" would likely have been the cry of the day. The thing is, we do not know precisely what they meant by what they wrote about their animals and customs. Everything we bring to the text is nothing more than our own assumptions.

I myself await the brand new data on horse bones and C14 dating, as well as further archaeological studies to strengthen the claim that horses did exist in the Americas in Book of Mormon times. But, I am not holding my breath and am not too worried about it. I know what the ancients did in naming animals unfamiliar to them in reaching new territory and if that is what the Nephites did, why is that a problem? Knowing what I do about translation and the hazards and pitfalls thereof, it troubles me not a whit to believe that such could have happened even in the Book of Mormon. There is plenty of evidence for it in ancient cultures, both in the Old World and in Mesoamerica.

[jonzlaw]

Translation doesn't work that way, jonzlaw, irrespective of divine translation or translation by the wisdom of man alone. If the Nephites used words in Egyptian or even Hebraic terms to name animals of similar appearance or habits with such names as they knew for the original animals as they originally knew them in their original, native lands, even though they may or may not have existed in the new land in which they arrived, the literal translations into English would be horses and cattle even if the actual animals in question weren't either. That is the nature of translation, jonzlaw. You need to learn a little bit about what that entails before pontificating thus.

I have volumes of material dealing with such matters and I can assure you that any kind of translation is not cut and dried as you wish it to be, I do not care what the source of the translation. There is an interesting translation of Psalm 23 into an African language. In this particular country (I do not now recall the details at the moment but it was in a magazine article dealing with translations of the Bible and the difficulties entailed in such endeavors), they do not know what sheep or shepherds are and do not know the bahavior of sheep, but they do know what goats and goatherders are and how goats behave.

This African translation reads something like the following in English, in part: "The LORD is my goatherder. I shall be lacking nothing. . . . He drags me by the throat to the watering hole." A literal translation would incomprehensible to the reader in that African nation. There are other examples of the problems inherent in translation of ancient texts. Some of these problems actually cause misunderstanding in our current Bibles due to mistranslation of Aramaic to literal Greek in our current texts of the New Testament.

In any case, if the original said horses and cattle even though they may not have been the actual animals Joseph Smith would have thought about in his farm experience, a literal translation to horses and cattle is acceptable in English translation of these words used by the original authors. Translation just is like that. There is precious little we can do about it. Those were the words that Joseph Smith chose to use in the translation. Were I the translator of the Book of Mormon, I may not have used the same words and terms as did Joseph Smith in his day.

Translating it tapirs and turkeys may have made sense to the Mesoamerican mind, and may even have made some sense in English, but it would have been just as incomprehensible for English readers in Joseph Smith's day as a literal translation might have been too problematic for readers to comprehend, and who likely would have taken such a thing as so much foolishness. "Whoever heard of people using tapirs to pull chariots or raising herds of turkeys as cattle?!?" would likely have been the cry of the day. The thing is, we do not know precisely what they meant by what they wrote about their animals and customs. Everything we bring to the text is nothing more than our own assumptions.

I myself await the brand new data on horse bones and C14 dating, as well as further archaeological studies to strengthen the claim that horses did exist in the Americas in Book of Mormon times. But, I am not holding my breath and am not too worried about it. I know what the ancients did in naming animals unfamiliar to them in reaching new territory and if that is what the Nephites did, why is that a problem? Knowing what I do about translation and the hazards and pitfalls thereof, it troubles me not a whit to believe that such could have happened even in the Book of Mormon. There is plenty of evidence for it in ancient cultures, both in the Old World and in Mesoamerica.

Ok, first, I'd like to thank you for your respectful and thoughtful post. However, as I said before, get real man! This is but one of the reasons why the non-Mormon has such difficulty with Mormon faith. I totally and completely respect your right to be a Mormon, and do not look at this or any other issue related to this faith as a "problem." Nor would I expect you to necessarily be "troubled" by this or any other issue related to this faith. However, what you have essentially said here is:

(1) I can't know what was meant by the references to "horses and cattle" because I lack adequate knowledge of translation. This assertion is, with all due respect, absurd. (Although I would acknowledge the fact that, given we are apparently dealing with an otherwise unknown, non-existent language, anything is possible)

(2) Irrespective of the fact that we can't know what was meant by references to "horses and cattle," you are still waiting for archeological confirmation of the fact that there were in fact "horses and cattle" in the Americas during the relevant time period. Again, a strech, and a demonstration of the absurdity of the first assertion.

[negragardenia]

How about a burro or a mule, although it seems that history teaches that the Conquistadores brought them to the Americas... could there be a possibility for it to be a burro or a mule?

Smaller than a horse. Looks like a horse.

[MormonMason]

Ok, first, I'd like to thank you for your respectful and thoughtful post. However, as I said before, get real man! This is but one of the reasons why the non-Mormon has such difficulty with Mormon faith. I totally and completely respect your right to be a Mormon, and do not look at this or any other issue related to this faith as a "problem." Nor would I expect you to necessarily be "troubled" by this or any other issue related to this faith. However, what you have essentially said here is:

(1) I can't know what was meant by the references to "horses and cattle" because I lack adequate knowledge of translation. This assertion is, with all due respect, absurd. (Although I would acknowledge the fact that, given we are apparently dealing with an otherwise unknown, non-existent language, anything is possible)

That you are finding this so hard to understand demonstrates a lack of adequate knowledge of the fuller process and the examples of ancient texts, grammarians and lexicographers. Ancient texts and linguistic analyses demonstrate that the ancients did sometimes apply the names of known creatures to unknowns when they came to find them in lands new to them. End of story. It is possible that the same thing occurred in the Book of Mormon in the original texts, a more or less literal translation of which would give us the equivalents in English of what they stated, regardless of what the animals really were.

(2) Irrespective of the fact that we can't know what was meant by references to "horses and cattle," you are still waiting for archeological confirmation of the fact that there were in fact "horses and cattle" in the Americas during the relevant time period. Again, a strech, and a demonstration of the absurdity of the first assertion.

Certainly! In any case, it is not a stretch and does not demonstrate either the absurdity of the first assertion, contra your pontification, simply because examples abound in genuinely ancient texts as well as more modern translations of, say, the Spanish Chroniclers. As to why I await further data, it is called having an open mind. You should try it sometime.

[jonzlaw]

That you are finding this so hard to understand demonstrates a lack of adequate knowledge of the fuller process and the examples of ancient texts, grammarians and lexicographers. Ancient texts and linguistic analyses demonstrate that the ancients did sometimes apply the names of known creatures to unknowns when they came to find them in lands new to them. End of story. It is possible that the same thing occurred in the Book of Mormon in the original texts, a more or less literal translation of which would give us the equivalents in English of what they stated, regardless of what the animals really were.

Certainly! In any case, it is not a stretch and does not demonstrate either the absurdity of the first assertion, contra your pontification, simply because examples abound in genuinely ancient texts as well as more modern translations of, say, the Spanish Chroniclers. As to why I await further data, it is called having an open mind. You should try it sometime.

Hey, I'm no genius, thats for sure. But, for me, considering the context in which the references to horses and cattle are made, and the fact that they are referenced together, pretty much forcloses any interpretation, no matter how hopeful, that Smith was talking about some other unknown animal in an unknown land.

And, your "open mind" explanation for why you anxiously await the finding of horse/cattle evidences is, again no disrespect, just silly. If they ever do find such evidences are you going to then say "hey, I knew he meant horses and cattle all along?" Have you ever considered a career in politics?

[ebeddoulos]

Oh, for heavens sakes, look at an 1828 dictionary and figure out for yourself that cattle can mean almost any animal:

• CATTLE, n.
  1. Beasts or quadrupeds in general, serving for tillage, or other labor, and for food to man. In its primary sense, the word includes camels, horses, asses, all the varieties of domesticated horned beasts or the bovine genus, sheep of all kinds and goats, and perhaps swine. In this general sense, it is constantly used in the scriptures. See Job 1. 3. Hence it would appear that the word properly signifies possessions, goods. But whether from a word originally signifying a beast, for in early ages beasts constituted the chief part of a mans property, or from a root signifying to get or possess. This word is restricted to domestic beasts; but in England it includes horses, which it ordinarily does not, in the United States, at least not in New-England
  

As for horses, it is still a very open and undecided subject. Deal with it.

[jonzlaw]

Oh, for heavens sakes, look at an 1828 dictionary and figure out for yourself that cattle can mean almost any animal:

• CATTLE, n.
  1. Beasts or quadrupeds in general, serving for tillage, or other labor, and for food to man. In its primary sense, the word includes camels, horses, asses, all the varieties of domesticated horned beasts or the bovine genus, sheep of all kinds and goats, and perhaps swine. In this general sense, it is constantly used in the scriptures. See Job 1. 3. Hence it would appear that the word properly signifies possessions, goods. But whether from a word originally signifying a beast, for in early ages beasts constituted the chief part of a mans property, or from a root signifying to get or possess. This word is restricted to domestic beasts; but in England it includes horses, which it ordinarily does not, in the United States, at least not in New-England
  

As for horses, it is still a very open and undecided subject. Deal with it.

Thank you for the link. Very interesting stuff. Especially the second part - that you left out - that says in the United States (in 1828) "cattle" refers only to beasts of the bovine genus.

You also left out the best and most applicable definition:

3. In reproach, human beings are called catlle.

Also, the only reason the horses subject remains "very open and undecided" for you is because it must, not because it logically or reasonably should.

[ebeddoulos]

Thank you for the link. Very interesting stuff. Especially the second part - that you left out - that says in the United States (in 1828) "cattle" refers only to beasts of the bovine genus.

You also left out the best and most applicable definition:

3. In reproach, human beings are called catlle.

Also, the only reason the horses subject remains "very open and undecided" for you is because it must, not because it logically or reasonably should.

We are not talking about the 1828 legal definition of cattle in the USA. We are discussing the 1828 general understanding of cattle as applied in scripture.

Therefore, the best definition was the one I used and specifically the following:

• "1. Beasts or quadrupeds in general, serving for tillage, or other labor, and for food to man. In its primary sense, the word includes camels, horses, asses, all the varieties of domesticated horned beasts or the bovine genus, sheep of all kinds and goats, and perhaps swine. In this general sense, it is constantly used in the scriptures. See Job 1. 3."
  

Since you apparently did not look up the scripture that Webster so kindly provided, I will do so for you:

• "And his cattle consisted of seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred she-asses in the pastures, and a very great household, and he had a great husbandry on the earth; and that man was most noble of the men of the east." (Job 1:3 - Brenton)
  

Since you seemed to find some humerous application for the third definition webster provided, I will confess that I did as well. Your arguments have yet to deviate from that great herd of anti-Mormons who have broached this subject before.

The reason the horses subject remains "very open and undecided" for me is because of the evidence. It is mistakenly assumed by those who oppose the church that Book of Mormon references to horses had little archeological supporting evidence. It was thought (and in some circles may still be) that horses did not exist on the American continents prior to A.D. 1500.

However, the existence of pre-Columbian horses has been reported in scientific journals for over 100 years.

• â??Cragin, in a recent paper,â?  has given a preliminary notice of three terranes in Clark County, which he wrongly ascribes to the late Pliocene. The lithological characters of these terranes are, of course, nearly worthless, save for local use; and he has not yet given a critical list of the vertebrate fossils contained in them. The lowermost of these, which he calls the Meade gravels, contained â??abundant remains of horses, llamas, elephants, turtles,â?? etc., some of which are â??Elephas imperator (?), Megalonyx leidyi, Equus complicatus, E. curvidens, Auchenia huerfanensis,â?? etc.
  â? Colorado College Studies, vol.6, p. 53â?
  (S.W. Williston, â??The Pleistocene of Kansasâ?, Transactions of the Annual Meetings of the Kansas Academy of Science, [1895-1896], Vol. 15, pg. 90)
  

Beginning with the studies by the great Joseph Leidy, we now know that the horse originated on the American continents. Note: Joseph Leidy is considered America greatest biologist of the 19th century. In addition to his contributions to human anatomy, he also made landmark advances in botany, parasitology and paleontology. A biography by Leonard Warren, titled â??Joseph Leidy: The Last Man Who Knew Everythingâ? is available from Yale University Press.

Fossils of the horse Equus conversidens have been found from Florida to Arizona and from Kansas to Old Mexico.

• â??Should further collecting show that specimens of Equus conversidens from deposits of Wisconsin age average significantly smaller than fossils of the species from Sangamon and older faunas, it might be well to separate the younger animals under the name Equus conversidens littoralis Hay. The geologic range seems to be Yarmouthian to the late Wisconsin Pleistocene. The known geographic range includes Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida and the Valley of Mexico.â? (Walter W. Dalquest & Jack T. Hughes, â??The Pleistocene Horse Equus conversidensâ?, American Midland Naturalist, [October 1965], Vol. 74, No. 2, pg. 417 )
  

Some scientists still grapple with the question: â??Why did the horse become extinct in the land of its origins when the Spanish reintroduction demonstrated that the Americas provided a favorable environment?â? Many believe that climatic change, over-hunting by humans or a combination of the two as the most plausible explanations for the extinction of the American horse.

A third explanation now seems much more likely, i.e., the American horse did not become extinct after all. In 1957, in a Post-Classic Mayan site called Mayapan, partial skeletal remains of horses were found at a depth of two meters (six feet) under ground. They were â??considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization.â?

• â??It is now possible to report horse remains of probable pre-Columbian age from a new locality in Yucatan. This material consists of one complete upper molar and 3 fragmentary lower molars, all preserved in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Cat. No. 3937). â?¦ They are considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization. â?¦ It is by no means implied that pre-Columbian horses were known to the Mayans, but it seems likely that horses were present on the Yucatan Peninsula in pre-Mayan time.â? (Clayton E. Ray, â??Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatanâ?, Journal of Mammalogy Vol. 38, No. 2, (May 1957): pg. 278.)
  

Think before you disparage Clayton E. Ray, Curator Emeritus in the Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, and Curator of Late Cenozoic Mammals and of Fossil Marine Mammals in the same department for more than 30 years before his retirement in 1994. See this Smithsonian Tribute to him and his career.

The Lord has promised that those who lift up their voice against the church will be confounded. The arguments against the horse fit this bill.

• â??Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you â?? â?¦ no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.â? (Doctrine & Covenants 71:8-10
  

Since you are so enamored with horses, are you going to bring up the other old, hoary and debunked anti-Mormon arguments of barly, bees and cement next?

[jonzlaw]

We are not talking about the 1828 legal definition of cattle in the USA. We are discussing the 1828 general understanding of cattle as applied in scripture.

Therefore, the best definition was the one I used and specifically the following:

• "1. Beasts or quadrupeds in general, serving for tillage, or other labor, and for food to man. In its primary sense, the word includes camels, horses, asses, all the varieties of domesticated horned beasts or the bovine genus, sheep of all kinds and goats, and perhaps swine. In this general sense, it is constantly used in the scriptures. See Job 1. 3."
  

Since you apparently did not look up the scripture that Webster so kindly provided, I will do so for you:

• "And his cattle consisted of seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred she-asses in the pastures, and a very great household, and he had a great husbandry on the earth; and that man was most noble of the men of the east." (Job 1:3 - Brenton)
  

Since you seemed to find some humerous application for the third definition webster provided, I will confess that I did as well. Your arguments have yet to deviate from that great herd of anti-Mormons who have broached this subject before.

The reason the horses subject remains "very open and undecided" for me is because of the evidence. It is mistakenly assumed by those who oppose the church that Book of Mormon references to horses had little archeological supporting evidence. It was thought (and in some circles may still be) that horses did not exist on the American continents prior to A.D. 1500.

However, the existence of pre-Columbian horses has been reported in scientific journals for over 100 years.

• â??Cragin, in a recent paper,â?  has given a preliminary notice of three terranes in Clark County, which he wrongly ascribes to the late Pliocene. The lithological characters of these terranes are, of course, nearly worthless, save for local use; and he has not yet given a critical list of the vertebrate fossils contained in them. The lowermost of these, which he calls the Meade gravels, contained â??abundant remains of horses, llamas, elephants, turtles,â?? etc., some of which are â??Elephas imperator (?), Megalonyx leidyi, Equus complicatus, E. curvidens, Auchenia huerfanensis,â?? etc.
  â? Colorado College Studies, vol.6, p. 53â?
  (S.W. Williston, â??The Pleistocene of Kansasâ?, Transactions of the Annual Meetings of the Kansas Academy of Science, [1895-1896], Vol. 15, pg. 90)
  

Beginning with the studies by the great Joseph Leidy, we now know that the horse originated on the American continents. Note: Joseph Leidy is considered America greatest biologist of the 19th century. In addition to his contributions to human anatomy, he also made landmark advances in botany, parasitology and paleontology. A biography by Leonard Warren, titled â??Joseph Leidy: The Last Man Who Knew Everythingâ? is available from Yale University Press.

Fossils of the horse Equus conversidens have been found from Florida to Arizona and from Kansas to Old Mexico.

• â??Should further collecting show that specimens of Equus conversidens from deposits of Wisconsin age average significantly smaller than fossils of the species from Sangamon and older faunas, it might be well to separate the younger animals under the name Equus conversidens littoralis Hay. The geologic range seems to be Yarmouthian to the late Wisconsin Pleistocene. The known geographic range includes Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida and the Valley of Mexico.â? (Walter W. Dalquest & Jack T. Hughes, â??The Pleistocene Horse Equus conversidensâ?, American Midland Naturalist, [October 1965], Vol. 74, No. 2, pg. 417 )
  

Some scientists still grapple with the question: â??Why did the horse become extinct in the land of its origins when the Spanish reintroduction demonstrated that the Americas provided a favorable environment?â? Many believe that climatic change, over-hunting by humans or a combination of the two as the most plausible explanations for the extinction of the American horse.

A third explanation now seems much more likely, i.e., the American horse did not become extinct after all. In 1957, in a Post-Classic Mayan site called Mayapan, partial skeletal remains of horses were found at a depth of two meters (six feet) under ground. They were â??considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization.â?

• â??It is now possible to report horse remains of probable pre-Columbian age from a new locality in Yucatan. This material consists of one complete upper molar and 3 fragmentary lower molars, all preserved in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Cat. No. 3937). â?¦ They are considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization. â?¦ It is by no means implied that pre-Columbian horses were known to the Mayans, but it seems likely that horses were present on the Yucatan Peninsula in pre-Mayan time.â? (Clayton E. Ray, â??Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatanâ?, Journal of Mammalogy Vol. 38, No. 2, (May 1957): pg. 278.)
  

Think before you disparage Clayton E. Ray, Curator Emeritus in the Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, and Curator of Late Cenozoic Mammals and of Fossil Marine Mammals in the same department for more than 30 years before his retirement in 1994. See this Smithsonian Tribute to him and his career.

The Lord has promised that those who lift up their voice against the church will be confounded. The arguments against the horse fit this bill.

• â??Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you â?? â?¦ no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.â? (Doctrine & Covenants 71:8-10
  

Since you are so enamored with horses, are you going to bring up the other old, hoary and debunked anti-Mormon arguments of barly, bees and cement next?

Now that was a heck of a post! Bravo! Sorry though, I'm still not convinced. (perhaps I truly am "confounded") No, I have no explanation for why a horses teeth might have shown up in some dig in the 50's. Just as I can't explain why, if indeed there were horses, or cattle, nobody thought to record this fact in hundreds of years of history. (yes, I have seen the cave painting. Don't look like a horse to me.)

I am curious about one thing though. Are you then of the camp that in fact Smith was referring to horses and cattle or not?

Also, admittedly, I am sort of enamored of the horses, not really familiar with the others, but I'm certain you have a ready answer for any "anti" issues with such.

Btw, I would like to remind you that I accept that none of this matters a wit to your faith in Smith and the BOM. And thats ok with me.

[Zakuska]

Bravo...

You better watch out for Beastie on Dr. Shades site though. She's got a whole site dedicated to disparaging Clayton E. Ray. Apparently... some of his Cattle bones ended up being Bison. Or some such silly thing as that.

[MormonMason]

Hey, I'm no genius, thats for sure. But, for me, considering the context in which the references to horses and cattle are made, and the fact that they are referenced together, pretty much forcloses any interpretation, no matter how hopeful, that Smith was talking about some other unknown animal in an unknown land.

Yet, you still fail to acknowledge that you bring to the text a rather late assumption. It does not foreclose upon anything to have these terms in the Book of Mormon. May I suggest that you go and dig through some of the ancient texts and through the lexicons so you can see firsthand that this was the way of the ancient world not matter your protestations. There are extant examples in the relevant literature, both ancient and modern.

The Spanish Chroniclers had not problem calling a Macquahuitl a sword, even though, technically, it is a war club of sorts. Maya had no problem with seeing horseback riders and referring to them as "deer-riders" and so forth. The Greeks had not problem with naming a previously unknown creature to them as a kind of horse. It is there, in the texts. You just want to ignore the evidence. Right now, we cannot prove one way of the other the situation until we find evidence of actual horses and cattle--or not.

And, your "open mind" explanation for why you anxiously await the finding of horse/cattle evidences is, again no disrespect, just silly. If they ever do find such evidences are you going to then say "hey, I knew he meant horses and cattle all along?" Have you ever considered a career in politics?

I never said that I "anxiously" await the evidences of horses and cattle. I myself wrote above that I am not holding my breath. It is you who are reading into my approach something that simply is not there. I keep an open mind--nothing more. I have no intention ever of saying "I knew it all the time" and so forth. I have already gone on record that I have an open mind and that either alternative provides a solution, even if partially correct.

As to politics, I have given it some thought over the years, maybe even running for President one day--although I am sure that my age may become a question by the time that day comes. However, I feel I can do better for the American people by remaining behind the scenes--for now...

[cdowis]

My opinion:

1. A horse is a horse, a cow is a cow, an ox is an ox, and a goat is a goat. If a horse is actually something else, then what is the goat, the ox, etc.

2. A sword can have an edge of steel, or from something else that is sharp.

3. Armor can be made of metal or animal skins.

Now that is my personal opinion. And I am not awaiting "anxiously" for anything regarding the authenticity of the BOM, especially considering the conditions in mesoamerica.

But I do watch with interest as things are discovered, e.g. domestic barley, changes in burial practices, ancient names in the BOM text, certain locations as described in the BOM.

[Zakuska]

We're getting closer!

Arizona

Equus Conversidens

0-8500 Years ago

http://mapserver.museum.state.il.us/faunma...&Taxon=EQco

Here is a list of all the various Equine Species who have inhabited North America...

Equus caballus

Equus calobatus

Equus complicatus

Equus conversidens

Equus excelsus

Equus francisi

Equus fraternus

Equus giganteus

Equus hemionus

Equus lambei

Equus mexicanus

Equus niobrarensis

Equus occidentalis

Equus parastylidens

Equus pacificus

Equus scotti

Equus tau

Distribution and maps can be seen here:

http://www.museum.state.il.us/research/fau...scientific.html

I need to get me a Jstor account:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2423270

10,000 BCE

Hunters in Alberta, Canada (St. Mary’s Reservoir), butcher horses for food. Equus conversidens, also called the Mexican horse, coexists with the larger Equus occidentalis. Some think that the Mexican horse is an onager.

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp177_horses.html

[Zakuska]

Stanton's Cave, AZ (Grand Cayon)

Anyone want to check that book out?

"H" indicates 0-20 cm level, presumed Holocene; (8500 years to present.)

Equus asinus (H) Euler 1978;

Equus cf. conversidens Harington, 1984;

http://www.utep.edu/leb/paleo/site78.htm

[John Williams]

My opinion:

1. A horse is a horse, a cow is a cow, an ox is an ox, and a goat is a goat. If a horse is actually something else, then what is the goat, the ox, etc.

2. A sword can have an edge of steel, or from something else that is sharp.

3. Armor can be made of metal or animal skins.

Now that is my personal opinion. And I am not awaiting "anxiously" for anything regarding the authenticity of the BOM, especially considering the conditions in mesoamerica.

But I do watch with interest as things are discovered, e.g. domestic barley, changes in burial practices, ancient names in the BOM text, certain locations as described in the BOM.

Sure, these little discoveries nibble tantalizingly around the edges, but so far, what is known about Mesoamerica is almost nothing like the world described in the Book of Mormon.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sure, these little discoveries nibble tantalizingly around the edges, but so far, what is known about Mesoamerica is almost nothing like the world described in the Book of Mormon.

[John Williams]

Snoring is certainly a lot easier than familiarizing yourself with Mesoamerica, isn't it?

[John Williams]

Stanton's Cave, AZ (Grand Cayon)

Anyone what to check that book out?

http://www.utep.edu/leb/paleo/site78.htm

Come on, Zak. Throwing out random hits from google searches doesn't cut it. If you have a point, you might want to make it. No one is arguing that Pleistocene horses didn't exist in the Americas (which is what Stanton Cave has). What the heck do Pleistocene horses have to do with the Book of Mormon?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Snoring is certainly a lot easier than familiarizing yourself with Mesoamerica, isn't it?

Sorry you have failed to get me interested in this tired out argument. So there is not conclusive evidence of pre columbian horses, I guess that JS did get it wrong and the BoM is now false right??? I mean after all that is what you are getting at. Right?

[Brant Gardner]

So far, what is known about Mesoamerica is almost nothing like the world described in the Book of Mormon.

Certainly I can't agree with this statement.

Snoring is certainly a lot easier than familiarizing yourself with Mesoamerica, isn't it?

I am somewhat familiar with Mesoamerica--and the Book of Mormon. I find very little that is not comfortable in a Mesoamerican location at the time periods required. What differs isn't qualitatively different than some of the Spanish descriptions from just after the conquest, which similarly have aspects that don't seem to accurately describe native Mesoamerica among many which clearly do.