Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[John Williams]

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

Maybe, but good-quality anti-Mormonism has ...

[Daniel Peterson]

Maybe, but good-quality anti-Mormonism has ...

Perhaps in an alternate universe.

Or in a land far away and long ago, a land from which no records survive, where animals talked and water sprites gamboled among the forest elves.

Not in the world I inhabit.

[John Williams]

Perhaps in an alternate universe.

Or in a land far away and long ago, a land from which no records survive, where animals talked and water sprites gamboled among the forest elves.

Not in the world I inhabit.

Hmmmm. A land far away and long ago, a land from which no records survive ...

Nah, too easy.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hmmmm. A land far away and long ago, a land from which no records survive ...

Nah, too easy.

You're thinking, perhaps, of pre-Conquest Mesoamerica? A land not very far away, from which records survive?

It evidently wasn't easy enough.

[Tarski]

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

OK, but why? I suppose Anti-catholic is low too right? Anti-religion in general?

I've been told that deep ecology or even just vanilla environmentalism is a religion. I have also heard it said that secularism is a kind of religion.

Is being anti- any of the above a low thing?

Is being anti-scientology a low thing?

Is being anti-atheism a low thing?

Is being anti-paganism a low thing?

Is being anti-epicureanism a low thing.

Anti-nudism?

Where is the dividing line? Roughly along the naturalist/supernaturalist divide? If so, strange that.

[John Williams]

You're thinking, perhaps, of pre-Conquest Mesoamerica? A land not very far away, from which records survive?

It evidently wasn't easy enough.

Oddly enough, a fairly well-known religion professor said that the Nephites and Lamanites probably existed in an alternate universe, and that's why there's no trace of them.

[jonzlaw]

Fixed it for you.

Hey that was pretty cool editing. Thanks?

[jonzlaw]

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 equus. He however also discusses an ongoing project at FARMS that is in fact finding that there are actual Eauus remains that radiocarbon date to precolumbian times.

See, thats why I used italics with the word "prevailing."

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:

I think the phrase you're looking for is "anti-Mormonism."

[SolarPowered]

See, thats why I used italics with the word "prevailing."

OK, that works!

[Daniel Peterson]

OK, but why?

Because a religious devotion to attacking the religion of others is a low kind of religion, quite distinct from affirmatively advocating one's own.

I suppose Anti-catholic is low too right?

Right.

Anti-religion in general?

On the whole, yes.

I've been told that deep ecology or even just vanilla environmentalism is a religion.

It can, I think, become an ersatz religion.

I have also heard it said that secularism is a kind of religion.

See above.

Is being anti- any of the above a low thing?

Criticizing any of the above things is not necessarily a low thing, any more than disagreeing with Catholicism or Mormonism is, in and of itself, a low thing. Obsessively following any of the above things around to attack it instead of concentrating on affirmatively advocating one's own position would strike me as a rather psychologically questionable thing.

Is being anti-scientology a low thing?

If and to the extent that Scientology is a criminal operation or a conscious financial scam, as some have alleged, it is not a low thing. Otherwise, see above.

Is being anti-atheism a low thing?

Responding to atheist critiques of theism is not a low thing. Affirmatively advocating theism is not a low thing. Obsessively tracking atheism in order to attack it instead of affirmatively advocating one's own position would strike me as a rather psychologically questionable thing.

Is being anti-paganism a low thing?

Obsessively following a relatively handful of quirky Neopagans around in order to attack Neopaganism instead of affirmatively advocating one's own position would strike me as a rather psychologically questionable thing.

Is being anti-epicureanism a low thing.

Are you talking about epicureanism or Epicureanism? In any event, the above principles still apply.

Anti-nudism?

Have you ever seen the people who actually show up on nude beaches? I have. Anti-nudism is a moral and civilizational imperative.

Where is the dividing line? Roughly along the naturalist/supernaturalist divide?

Not altogether. Not even very much. Perhaps not even at all.

Sorry not to match your hoped-for simplistic straw man.

****

Oddly enough, a fairly well-known religion professor said that the Nephites and Lamanites probably existed in an alternate universe, and that's why there's no trace of them.

Do you have a name and an actual quotation?

[John Williams]

Do you have a name and an actual quotation?

It was said in confidence, so, no, it wouldn't be right to break that confidence.

[Daniel Peterson]

It was said in confidence, so, no, it wouldn't be right to break that confidence.

Well, an anonymous colleague of that anonymous professor told my second cousin's mother-in-law (who chooses to remain nameless) that that anonymous professor was joking. And she told a neighbor, who told her dentist, who told the dental hygienist who cleaned my teeth last month at an undisclosed location.

[Tarski]

Are you talking about epicureanism or Epicureanism?

epicureanism. It seemed more provocative if less in line with the religion theme. I almost said hedonism.

Anyway, I am no more anti-Mormonism than I am anti-Catholic. Its just that I know more about the former so its more interesting and easier to make my points. It's a debate about what's true. Strangely, it seems that the Christian anti-mormons are more likely to seek the actual destruction of the Mormon church. Religion on religion fighting is pretty entertaining at times (but just tragic at other times).

[Sargon]

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!

I also watched a History Channel special called "The Maya: Death Empire" in which one of the archaeologists interviewed suggests that the Maya did in fact know about metals and wheels, but that they chose to not employ them in the construction of their great temples because it took away from the value that an edifice has when constructed by sheer man power. He suggests it is a strange worldview for us to consider, but true nonetheless.

[John Williams]

Well, an anonymous colleague of that anonymous professor told my second cousin's mother-in-law (who chooses to remain nameless) that that anonymous professor was joking. And she told a neighbor, who told her dentist, who told the dental hygienist who cleaned my teeth last month at an undisclosed location.

Ah, the irony, Dan.

[peeps]

Have you ever seen the people who actually show up on nude beaches? I have. Anti-nudism is a moral and civilizational imperative.

And now we're left to wonder how it is Dr. P has this first hand information . . .

[John Williams]

And now we're left to wonder how it is Dr. P has this first hand information . . .

It appears that it came from a dental hygienist who related it to some distant relative who heard from someone on John Gee's dissertation committee who told his cousin's ex-wife's stepson's brother-in-law.

[Chris Smith]

It appears that it came from a dental hygienist who related it to some distant relative who heard from someone on John Gee's dissertation committee who told his cousin's ex-wife's stepson's brother-in-law.

I heard the dental hygienist was Mike Quinn's stake president.

[SquarePeg48]

Ok, from the perspective of a non-expert in archeology, after reviewing the carvings shown through this post, I am left to wonder if there had never been a Book of Mormon or LDS church, would archeologists now be exclaiming their amazing discovery that there were horses and even elephants in pre-Columbian Latin America, according to these amazing new carvings discovered? The Book of Mormon has apparently deeply divided those in the field in regard to MesoAmerican relics and their meaning. I'm not an expert, but in these carvings put in context, it's easy for me to pick out parrots, monkeys, jaguars, and snakes...and A HORSE for cryin' out loud. These animals are not so symbolically drawn that it's not clear to even the uneducated eye what they are!

[Chris Smith]

Ok, from the perspective of a non-expert in archeology, after reviewing the carvings shown through this post, I am left to wonder if there had never been a Book of Mormon or LDS church, would archeologists now be exclaiming their amazing discovery that there were horses and even elephants in pre-Columbian Latin America, according to these amazing new carvings discovered? The Book of Mormon has apparently deeply divided those in the field in regard to MesoAmerican relics and their meaning. I'm not an expert, but in these carvings put in context, it's easy for me to pick out parrots, monkeys, jaguars, and snakes...and A HORSE for cryin' out loud. These animals are not so symbolically drawn that it's not clear to even the uneducated eye what they are!

Actually, I doubt anyone would have seen a horse in this picture absent a predisposition thereto (whether due to the Book of Mormon or some other diffusionist or environmentalist agenda).

[Brant Gardner]

Through all of the arguing on this thread, perhaps it would be valuable to return to what actually matters, which is evidence.

1) Maya art is complicated and although an eye not familiar with their art may see elephants, there are none. The history of seeing an elephant goes back at least to Waldeck, an early artist who reproduced Maya art. I remember a book reprinting one of his drawings of a "since lost" mural. There was an elephant there, so clearly that no one could mistake it. The problem was, it was what Waldeck thought he saw, rendered so as to be an elephant. Comparing other drawings he made to better copies clearly indicates that his renditions were imaginative and not to be trusted. Seeing elephants when they are not there is normal. However, for those who are used to the canons of the area, they are not elephants. They are macaws (or, in the case of some of the images in this list, bats).

2) While current dogma says that there are no pre-Columbian horses, it is quite likely that the dogma has labeled anomalous or uninteresting the evidence of pre-Columbian horses. While there is obvious controversy, there are indications that there are verified remains. Since the article remains unpublished, there is nothing to go to for proof. Since I understand from reliable sources that there are such data, however, the best scientific approach is to withhold final judgment until the evidence is presented. That includes holding off on the dogma (and it functions just like religious dogma) that there were no pre-Columbian horses.

3) While the Book of Mormon mentions horses, there is always the question of what a Book of Mormon horse was. That is a textual issue and one that interpreters of texts in translation (and sometimes even in an original language in the case of unique terms) face frequently. In the case of the Book of Mormon, whatever the "horse" is, it doesn't do the things we expect of horses. It never works, although it clearly is an animal and moves. It is never ridden. It is described in the same sentence as "chariot" (another term in issue), but it never pulls the chariot (that is an assumption people make because of the word "chariot", but the text does not say that). The only context in which the "horse" appears without the "chariot" is in a set of animals that we otherwise recognize as food sources. If you took out the word "horse" and substituted anything else (such as the unknowable "cumom") you would have no idea what the animal was based on the descriptions of what it did.

4) Discussions of the horse in the Book of Mormon reveal much more about pre-formed assumptions than they do about horses in the Book of Mormon (and that covers both sides of the divide).

[poulsenll]

Through all of the arguing on this thread, perhaps it would be valuable to return to what actually matters, which is evidence.

1) Maya art is complicated and although an eye not familiar with their art may see elephants, there are none. The history of seeing an elephant goes back at least to Waldeck, an early artist who reproduced Maya art. I remember a book reprinting one of his drawings of a "since lost" mural. There was an elephant there, so clearly that no one could mistake it. The problem was, it was what Waldeck thought he saw, rendered so as to be an elephant. Comparing other drawings he made to better copies clearly indicates that his renditions were imaginative and not to be trusted. Seeing elephants when they are not there is normal. However, for those who are used to the canons of the area, they are not elephants. They are macaws (or, in the case of some of the images in this list, bats).

2) While current dogma says that there are no pre-Columbian horses, it is quite likely that the dogma has labeled anomalous or uninteresting the evidence of pre-Columbian horses. While there is obvious controversy, there are indications that there are verified remains. Since the article remains unpublished, there is nothing to go to for proof. Since I understand from reliable sources that there are such data, however, the best scientific approach is to withhold final judgment until the evidence is presented. That includes holding off on the dogma (and it functions just like religious dogma) that there were no pre-Columbian horses.

3) While the Book of Mormon mentions horses, there is always the question of what a Book of Mormon horse was. That is a textual issue and one that interpreters of texts in translation (and sometimes even in an original language in the case of unique terms) face frequently. In the case of the Book of Mormon, whatever the "horse" is, it doesn't do the things we expect of horses. It never works, although it clearly is an animal and moves. It is never ridden. It is described in the same sentence as "chariot" (another term in issue), but it never pulls the chariot (that is an assumption people make because of the word "chariot", but the text does not say that). The only context in which the "horse" appears without the "chariot" is in a set of animals that we otherwise recognize as food sources. If you took out the word "horse" and substituted anything else (such as the unknowable "cumom") you would have no idea what the animal was based on the descriptions of what it did.

4) Discussions of the horse in the Book of Mormon reveal much more about pre-formed assumptions than they do about horses in the Book of Mormon (and that covers both sides of the divide).

In Joseph Smith's history written be his mother there is the following description of Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Nephites.

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 82

Note the bolded text. If Joseph had mentioned that they rode horses, would not his mother have used the word horse, rather than animal. This occurred before Joseph recieved the plates and translated them. It makes me suspect that what he described as an animal used for riding was something very different from a horse.

Larry P

[John Williams]

Note the bolded text. If Joseph had mentioned that they rode horses, would not his mother have used the word horse, rather than animal. This occurred before Joseph recieved the plates and translated them. It makes me suspect that what he described as an animal used for riding was something very different from a horse.

Larry P

Another possibility is that Lucy meant that they rode on multiple kinds of animals. If, say, Joseph described them as riding on tapirs, llamas, and horses, the use of the word "animals" would make equal sense.

[Tarski]

In Joseph Smith's history written be his mother there is the following description of Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Nephites.

Note the bolded text. If Joseph had mentioned that they rode horses, would not his mother have used the word horse, rather than animal. This occurred before Joseph recieved the plates and translated them. It makes me suspect that what he described as an animal used for riding was something very different from a horse.

Larry P

In the bolded text, the words "animals" is plural. Therefore you inference is faulty. For example, the bolded sentence is completely consistent with the possibility (even likelihood) that Joseph said something like:

"and they rode around on camels, cureloms, culoms,... and horses, of course, lots of big horses. Of course to this day, the Lamanites, now called Indians, still ride horses!"

[John Williams]

In the bolded text, the words "animals" is plural. Therefore you inference is faulty. For example, the bolded sentence is completely consistent with the possibility (even likelihood) that Joseph said something like:

"and they rode around on camels, cureloms, culoms,... and horses, of course, lots of big horses. Of course to this day, the Lamanites, now called Indians, still ride horses!"

Great minds think alike, and all that ...