Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[MormonMason]

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

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

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

[MormonMason]

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

Nope. If the Nephites used their word for "horse" would not a literal translation of the word be the English "horse"? It matters not whether the Nephites really meant horse or applied that word to something else when they first saw it. A literal translation of the word would require "horse" even if it wasn't.

[Brant Gardner]

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.

The event occurred before the translation. The retelling occured about 50 years later. In that distant perspective, I am not confident that you should draw any conclusions about the specifics of what Joseph said. I am sure his mother would remember that he discussed the people and the customs, but less certain that the specifics were what Joseph said or what Lucy expected that he would have said or thought he said based on the myriad assumptions that grew up around the text after the fact. Since I have seen evidence that the early history was altered by communal lore, I suspect the latter and don't think this statement should be taken at face value.

[MormonMason]

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!

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]).

[Daniel Peterson]

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

First and foremost from several days in a hotel on the coast of Turkey during which time the room my wife and I shared had a lovely view of the beach right below it, densely packed with unappetizing Europeans.

And then there was the time that my wife and I, walking down the shore beneath the cliffs near San Onofre, California, came upon a remote beach occupied, oddly, by men only . . .

[MormonMason]

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?

Not on Smith but on the original writers/compilers.

[Zakuska]

Sure they do.

So Chris,

What does Beastie have to say about this Horse carved in stone?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Is this it?

http://www.cumoraharchive.com/Discussion/p.../picture48.aspx

-Smac

Can't fool me...that's a donkey. You guys.

[John Williams]

So Chris,

What does Beastie have to say about this Horse carved in stone?

Is someone still claiming this is a horse carved in stone?

[Zakuska]

It sure isnt a stylized Jaguar. The mans croch only goes to its knees. Looks like a shetlan pony or mule, or possibly a unicorn to me. All part of the equise class.

[SolarPowered]

Is someone still claiming this is a horse carved in stone?

Uh, yah. Eight pages of John W saying, "It's not a horse" doesn't make it so.

[Tarski]

First and foremost from several days in a hotel on the coast of Turkey during which time the room my wife and I shared had a lovely view of the beach right below it, densely packed with unappetizing Europeans.

And then there was the time that my wife and I, walking down the shore beneath the cliffs near San Onofre, California, came upon a remote beach occupied, oddly, by men only . . .

While I was visiting UCSD with some colleagues we twice had occasion to visit Black's beach which, as it turns out, is a nude beach and is near the UCSD campus.

Let me just report that the figures that adorned that beach were often quite beautiful and athletic. On the second occasion, a "glamour" photographer had talked some of the "denizens" of the beach into posing. I was duly appalled and shut my eyes ( )

[Bender]

Brant Gardner

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.

I agree with you for the most part. I do think its a big assumption to say it never works or is ridden. The text is not detailed enough with that information nor was that the purpose of the text. Horses and cattle have both been used as food sources as well as work animals by most cultures that had them so I'm not sure why listing horses with cattle or other animals that are only being used as food sources would preclude them as being used for other things. Its also a very big assumption to say the horse never pulled the Chariot. The assumption of pulling the chariot is not just based on the use of the word horse and chariot but the fact that the two are being used as a means of transportation. Its not that big of an assumption to think that the horses, or horse like animal, would be pulling or carrying the chariots.

[John Williams]

Uh, yah. Eight pages of John W saying, "It's not a horse" doesn't make it so.

CFR. Eight pages of you insisting that something has been said doesn't make it so.

[poulsenll]

The event occurred before the translation. The retelling occured about 50 years later. In that distant perspective, I am not confident that you should draw any conclusions about the specifics of what Joseph said. I am sure his mother would remember that he discussed the people and the customs, but less certain that the specifics were what Joseph said or what Lucy expected that he would have said or thought he said based on the myriad assumptions that grew up around the text after the fact. Since I have seen evidence that the early history was altered by communal lore, I suspect the latter and don't think this statement should be taken at face value.

Brant

I tend to agree with you but thought I would throw it into the discussion.

I agree that it was plural but if it has any meaning at all, it suggests that there were more than one kind of riding animal and may or may not have included horses although that is one possibility.

Larry P

[SolarPowered]

I do think its a big assumption to say it never works or is ridden.

That's not an assumption at all. The Book of Mormon is a finite text. It is possible (and reasonable) to do an exhaustive search of the text. And such a search will show that nowhere is a horse reported to be worked or ridden.

If you wish to extend the discussion to what might be implied by the Book of Mormon text, that is fine. However, I note that such a discussion carries with it the presupposition that the Book of Mormon in fact describes an actual civilization that existed, and had events that occurred outside of the view of the text.

[John Williams]

That's not an assumption at all. The Book of Mormon is a finite text. It is possible (and reasonable) to do an exhaustive search of the text. And such a search will show that nowhere is a horse reported to be worked or ridden.

Yes, Lamoni's horses just happened to be prepared along with chariots for the purpose of "conducting" Lamoni "forth to the land of Nephi." But that in no way suggests that the horses and chariots were actually used to conduct anyone forth.

[SolarPowered]

CFR. Eight pages of you insisting that something has been said doesn't make it so.

OK, how about this one?:

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

Or do you need a comprehensive list?

[John Williams]

OK, how about this one?:

Or do you need a comprehensive list?

And how is expressing an opinion that it "doesn't look like a horse" an insistence that it isn't a horse? Again, calling for reservation of judgment does not equal a hard statement that it isn't a horse. It may well be, but it's very difficult to make such a judgment based on the evidence.

[Zakuska]

And how is expressing an opinion that it "doesn't look like a horse" an insistence that it isn't a horse? Again, calling for reservation of judgment does not equal a hard statement that it isn't a horse. It may well be, but it's very difficult to make such a judgment based on the evidence.

The "horses" my kids road at the fair only came up to my armpits. Funny... thats exactly where the horse goes on the man packing him. Oh... silly me... ponies aren't horses.

[Brant Gardner]

Yes, Lamoni's horses just happened to be prepared along with chariots for the purpose of "conducting" Lamoni "forth to the land of Nephi." But that in no way suggests that the horses and chariots were actually used to conduct anyone forth.

It is always useful to return to the text:

9 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 18:9)

From the text and text alone, we know that horses can be/should be fed. We know that along with chariots, horses are "prepared." Then he is to be conducted. While inference has both horses and chariots doing the conducting, it also has them on the trip at all. On that, the text is not explict. Substitute other words and you get "prepare his kittens and mittens, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi."

Now, I am not at all suggesting that horses or chariots have any equivalency with kittens and mittens, only that the text itself does not tell us what the relationship of the horses and chariots are to the conducting. The sentence is perfectly understandable with "kittens and mittens" but without having Lamoni sit on a mitten pulled by a kitten.

That, unfortunately, is the power of assumption. We simply assume based on the words what the rest of the context "should be," and that context is applicable if and only if our assumption of the context and connotations are correct. When working with ancient documents in translation, that is not a good assumption to make.

[SolarPowered]

And how is expressing an opinion that it "doesn't look like a horse" an insistence that it isn't a horse? Again, calling for reservation of judgment does not equal a hard statement that it isn't a horse. It may well be, but it's very difficult to make such a judgment based on the evidence.

OK, I will acknowledge that my statement about "Eight pages of John W saying, 'It's not a horse'" was poetic license, to wit, hyperbole, and that you have in fact been pretty reasonable and rational on this thread about fairly considering the evidence.

And I do value that kind of intellectual integrity.

[John Williams]

The "horses" my kids road at the fair only came up to my armpits. Funny... thats exactly where the horse goes on the man packing him. Oh... silly me... ponies aren't horses.

Who is insisting it isn't a horse? Brant has explained quite nicely why caution is appropriate. But, if you prefer to use a straw man as a club to beat people up with, have at it.

[John Williams]

From the text and text alone, we know that horses can be/should be fed. We know that along with chariots, horses are "prepared." Then he is to be conducted. While inference has both horses and chariots doing the conducting, it also has them on the trip at all. On that, the text is not explict. Substitute other words and you get "prepare his kittens and mittens, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi."

Now, I am not at all suggesting that horses or chariots have any equivalency with kittens and mittens, only that the text itself does not tell us what the relationship of the horses and chariots are to the conducting. The sentence is perfectly understandable with "kittens and mittens" but without having Lamoni sit on a mitten pulled by a kitten.

That, unfortunately, is the power of assumption. We simply assume based on the words what the rest of the context "should be," and that context is applicable if and only if our assumption of the context and connotations are correct. When working with ancient documents in translation, that is not a good assumption to make.

What is the alternative, Brant? He prepares chariots and horses for what purpose? Both here and in Alma 20, the preparation of the chariots and horses is done in context of going somewhere. If they are merely unrelated, like kittens and mittens, what is the alternative explanation? Why mention horses and chariots in the context of travel if they weren't used for travel at all?

[Hawkmoon]

deleted