Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[John Williams]

Nope. No change. My statement in post #7 of this thread was:

Well, it's nice to know that you still think caution is a symptom of being an anti-Mormon.

[Hawkmoon]

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!

It seems you are displaying quite a bit of "bias" yourself... in every one of your posts. The fact is this subject has been bandied about extensively on this board, and it is quite doubtful anyone is going to go through it all again just for you. Perhaps you should use the search function and then you can chime in with your non-Mormon, unbiased opinion... once more.

[Hawkmoon]

Since the decision has been made that the elephants of Copan are macaws, I thought I would share a few pictures of macaws from around the world.

(Did you ever see an elephant fly?)

(Well, I seen a horsefly)

(And I seen a dragonfly)

(Yeah, I seen a housefly)

(Ha-ha-ha-ha)

(Yeah, I even seen a macaw fly)

Yeah, I seen all that too...

I seen a peanut stand, heard a rubber band

I seen a needle that winked its eye

But I be done seen 'bout ev'rything

When I see a elephant fly

[ebeddoulos]

Of course, you never quoted the end version:

END VERSION:

(I seen a peanut stand, heard a rubber band)

(I seen a needle that winked it's eye)

ELEPHANTS:

Now I be done seen about ev'rything

When I see an elephant fly

(Oh my!)

CROWS:

When I see

When I see

When I see an elephant fly

(Look at him go)

When I see an elephant fly

(Happy landings, son)

(Yippee!)

When I see an elephant fly

I sure wish I'd a-got his autograph

(Oh man, I got his autograph)

Well, so long glamour boy!

[Daniel Peterson]

Somehow the picture is getting less grand all the time. Smaller region, smaller horses (tapirs?), steel swords that are really just wooden clubs.

Arnold Friberg would have been decidedly less inspired. I know I am.

Yeah. And especially when you consider that the central message of the Book of Mormon isn't about Christ, salvation, and God's concern for his children -- mere peripheral noise, that -- but, instead, focuses like a laser on vast geographical distances, Clydesdale horses, and Damascene blades.

[Bernard Gui]

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!

So you are sticking with the Great Plains view?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Thanks Brant. I put the rubbing frame and the Chichen photo on Graphic Converter, blew them up

and used a bunch of filters, and I didn't see any resemblance. I thought maybe I was going blind.

Bernard

[Zakuska]

Yep, that looks like it, and it sure doesn't look like a horse in context.

My lands...

Looks like a Unicorn!

1) That tail doesn't look 'BONEY' to me.

2) The mans croch only goes to the horses knees.

3) it looks nothing like the two Jaguars in the row above and on either side.

[cksalmon]

Thanks Brant. I put the rubbing frame and the Chichen photo on Graphic Converter, blew them up

and used a bunch of filters, and I didn't see any resemblance. I thought maybe I was going blind.

Bernard

See the gif here. (It will "recycle" if you give it a few seconds.) Chris has, to my mind, almost assuredly pinpointed the correct image on the rubbing. I don't think there can be reasonable doubt about that. As I think Brant has already stated supra, he agrees with Chris that this is the correct identification.

[Bernard Gui]

Enos tell us that the raised many horses. I don't think using the word common or plentiful would be that inappropriate. Lehi's group said they found horses in the wilderness. I'm not sure why the word herd couldn't be used. The fact that they are mentioned a number of times in a primarily religious text, I would think would suggest that they were important, maybe even prized. Ridden? Who knows. I would also think Lehi's group would know that they could be ridden.

There is no mention of horses between Enos and Ammon (544BCE-90BCE).

Then one Lamanite king has a few. The main body of Nephites have some

horses in 16CE, and that's it for the horse in the BoM. If one judges strictly

what the BoM says about horses, it's clear there were not many, they were

not used for the purposes other people used them for, and they were not

important in Lehite culture.

Bernard

[Bender]

Bernard Gui

There is no mention of horses between Enos and Ammon (544BCE-90BCE).

You forgetting that the BoM is primarily a religious story not a historical one. Just because something isn't mentioned for a period of time doesn't mean it isn't important or that they disappeared. The key in your sentence is the fact that horses are still around even after almost 500 years, and how many pages represent this time period from Enos to Ammon.

Then one Lamanite king has a few

One? If one has horses (not sure how many he would have had so few or many would be speculation) maybe other Lamanite Kings would have some. How about the wealthy?

The main body of Nephites have some horses in 16CE, and that's it for the horse in the BoM

Some. Never saw that word used to describe the number of horses they had. Again speculation. So how many times does a religious book need to mentioned Horses for there to be more than a few or some? The fact it mentions horses a number times shows that horses were important to them. IF they are so unimportant why even mention them when it just takes up very valuable space on metal plates?

If one judges strictly

what the BoM says about horses, it's clear there were not many, they were

not used for the purposes other people used them for, and they were not

important in Lehite culture.

Not many. So far you have judged them to have few or some, both words not used in relation to the number of horses in the BoM. The only word used was many by Enos. He didn't say "not many", but "many". A word I think far more related to common or plentiful than some or few. The whole Idea of there being only a few and maybe they died out after the last mention of them is total speculation. Its seems there is a biased reading of the text to lower the number of horses only because to date there is no compelling evidence that horses were present during BoM time period.

[Bernard Gui]

You forgetting that the BoM is primarily a religious story not a historical one. Just because something isn't mentioned for a period of time doesn't mean it isn't important or that they disappeared. The key in your sentence is the fact that horses are still around even after almost 500 years, and how many pages represent this time period from Enos to Ammon.

Yet there are extremely detailed descriptions of battles...no mention of men on horseback or warfare using cavalry. I don't know why the number

of pages is relevant, but there are about 135 pages between Enos and Ammon.

One? If one has horses (not sure how many he would have had so few or many would be speculation) maybe other Lamanite Kings would have some. How about the wealthy?

Did you say something about speculation? The book only talks about 1 person who owned horses.

So how many times does a religious book need to mentioned Horses for there to be more than a few or some? The fact it mentions horses a number times shows that horses were important to them.

"A number of times" is exactly 3 in over 1000 years of history. This clearly indicates that horses were not important. How can you claim otherwise?

IF they are so unimportant why even mention them when it just takes up very valuable space on metal plates?

Horses play the pivotal role in the story of Ammon and the king of the Lamanites. The other makes a list of the properties of the Nephites in flight.

Neither mentions people riding them.

Not many. So far you have judged them to have few or some, both words not used in relation to the number of horses in the BoM. The only word used was many by Enos. He didn't say "not many", but "many". A word I think far more related to common or plentiful than some or few.

From Enos' perspective, there were many horses in the area in which they lived. He did not have a knowledge of anything out of his

small environs. Enos was a 3rd generation Lehite. We are not dealing with huge numbers of people spread over a large area.

If I look out my back window, I see 5 squirrels playing in the fir trees. I would turn to my wife and say, "There are a lot of

squirrels out there!" That says nothing about the number of squirrels any place other than my back yard.

The whole Idea of there being only a few and maybe they died out after the last mention of them is total speculation. Its seems there is a biased reading of the text to lower the number of horses only because to date there is no compelling evidence that horses were present during BoM time period.

How can you possibly conclude that? There are only three references to horses in the BoM.

How is this reading biased? Lowering the numbers is exactly what the text of the book does.

Bernard

[Cold Steel]

This is the photo of the horse at Chitzen Itza. The man standing beside the horse is one of the three Nephites. Note that he has a beard.

[Bender]

Bernard Gui

Yet there are extremely detailed descriptions of battles...no mention of men on horseback or warfare using cavalry. I don't know why the number

of pages is relevant, but there are about 135 pages between Enos and Ammon.

Extremely detailed? Now theres some speculation. I don't see the text going into that much detail, but maybe thats a matter of perspective.

Did you say something about speculation? The book only talks about 1 person who owned horses.

Yup, it does only talk about one(except for Enos's group). I never said the others did have horses though, I only made the comment that it would be reasonable if one had horses the others MAY as well, but I can understand from your view point why you may not want to see that.

"A number of times" is exactly 3 in over 1000 years of history. This clearly indicates that horses were not important. How can you claim otherwise?

I admit that I am speculating that because they do mention horses at all shows that horses had some importance. I'm not sure why you would think mentioning horses only three times shows they didn't think of them as important. Like I said before, if there so unimportant why even mention them at all. Also remember it's not a history book.

Horses play the pivotal role in the story of Ammon and the king of the Lamanites. The other makes a list of the properties of the Nephites in flight.

Neither mentions people riding them.

Not sure what your trying to say here

From Enos' perspective, there were many horses in the area in which they lived. He did not have a knowledge of anything out of his

small environs. Enos was a 3rd generation Lehite. We are not dealing with huge numbers of people spread over a large area.

If I look out my back window, I see 5 squirrels playing in the fir trees. I would turn to my wife and say, "There are a lot of

squirrels out there!" That says nothing about the number of squirrels any place other than my back yard.

I only used Enos's word of many unlike you using few or some which are not found in the BoM for horses. I'm not the one saying how many there are supposed to be. Also Enos says they were raising many horses.

How can you possibly conclude that? There are only three references to horses in the BoM.

How is this reading biased? Lowering the numbers is exactly what the text of the book does.

Read above. I'm not the one concluding or speculating how many there were, and no the text does not tell us that either.

[jonzlaw]

But seriously, good grief. I see your sophomoric smearing and well poisoning knows no bounds and your blatant double standard is happily employed.

Dude, with this post you (perhaps unwittingly?) completely agreed with my point. OF COURSE an LDS acheologist is going to be biased. OF COURSE a non-LDS archeologist is also going to be biased, just not with LDS theology. That you might first make my point for me, and then finish an otherwise civilized post with the above nonsense is just odd. "Sophomoric smearing?" Who/what did I smear? "Well poisoning?" What well? What poison? "Blatant double standard?" Please! Are there mormons on here that actually enjoy this sort of emotional outburst or what?

[Cold Steel]

There's more evidence that there were horses than there is evidence that the ancient Americans used wheels, yet no one realistically believes that the ancient Americans didn't have wheels. Just today I heard on the History Channel how the Mayans were astronomical whizzes, but that they were almost totally ignorant of the wheel. It was a monumentally stupid comment. You can't have a society like that without having and using the concept of the wheel.

People believe that because they can't readily find evidence of the wheel, then the ancients didn't have a clue about it. Still, the comment was terribly behind the times. Wheeled toys have been found all over the place, and like most toys, are based on real life applications. In other words, if you find toy guns, then expect to find real ones eventually!

[jonzlaw]

Last October I gave a presentation at the BoM Lands Conference on Horses in the BoM. I've updated the article for FAIR here:

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

Mike Ash

Thank you for the links. I have read the articles and am left with two impressions.

1) You and others have spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to deal with the apparent problem and are to be commended for the exhaustive analysis.

2) The prevailing theme in all of the links seems to be that, perhaps, a horse is not in fact a horse. If this is true, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that the average Mormon is simply not to be deterred by the apparent fact that a great number of the plants/animals/insects referenced in the BOM did not actually exist at the time. Fair enough. But you will understand my skepticism.

[SolarPowered]

1) You and others have spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to deal dealing with the apparent problem and are to be commended for the exhaustive analysis.

Fixed it for you.

[jonzlaw]

It seems you are displaying quite a bit of "bias" yourself... in every one of your posts.

This is most certainly true.

The fact is this subject has been bandied about extensively on this board, and it is quite doubtful anyone is going to go through it all again just for you.

Oh but they are!

Perhaps you should use the search function and then you can chime in with your non-Mormon, unbiased opinion... once more.

Thanks for not calling me "anti-Mormon." I really hate that.

[Chris Smith]

There's more evidence that there were horses than there is evidence that the ancient Americans used wheels, yet no one realistically believes that the ancient Americans didn't have wheels.

Sure they do.

[jonzlaw]

So you are sticking with the Great Plains view?

Bernard

Honestly Bernard, I'm no longer convinced Smith was even talking about horses. I'm now leaning toward rats. But, yes, I think there were a lot of rats.

[SolarPowered]

2) The prevailing theme in all of the links seems to be that, perhaps, a horse is not in fact a horse. If this is true, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that the average Mormon is simply not to be deterred by the apparent fact that a great number of the plants/animals/insects referenced in the BOM did not actually exist at the time. Fair enough. But you will understand my skepticism.

I wouldn't say that all he does is that. He does thoroughly deal with the fact that it would be squarely within the normal range of how language and translations operate for "horse" in the Book of Mormon to refer to something other than Equus caballus. He however also discusses an ongoing project at FARMS that is in fact finding that there are actual Equus remains that radiocarbon date to precolumbian times.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for not calling me "anti-Mormon." I really hate that.

Understandably so. Being an anti-Mormon is, on the whole, a rather low thing. But if you really want to avoid the label, you would be wise to avoid posting such comments as this in the future:

Every time a Mormon starts talking about "authority" they lose me completely. I Believe that the contemporary concept of priesthood authority as required in the Mormon church or the Catholic church is utterly ridiculous. "Authority" is to be found in one Person only, and that is Jesus Christ. Any man - mormon or otherwise - who thinks he has some sort of "authority" over other men is a fool.

[John Williams]

Understandably so. Being an anti-Mormon is, on the whole, a rather low thing.

Not if it's done right.

[Daniel Peterson]

Not if it's done right.

And true communism hasn't yet been tried . . .