Horses In The Book Of Mormon

[SolarPowered]

To reiterate, the Church has not to my knowledge made any statements regarding horses in the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, a number of critics have made the assertion that, because they don't know about any horses (Equus caballus) in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus, that the Book of Mormon must therefore be a fraud.

A number of members of the Church have answered those charges by pointing out that there a several ways that the term "horse" might appear in an authentic text of this sort. Any of these mechanisms is sufficient to debunk the critic's arguments. These mechanisms include:

It is common for people who encounter an unknown species of animal to name it after an animal that they are familiar with. Of particular probative value are the following examples: The Greeks, upon encountering an animal that distantly resembles a horse and lives in the water, called it a "horse"; to wit, the "hippopotamus." Various native American races have called the European horse "deer", others call it "tapir." It is entirely plausible that Lehi's party applied the name "horse" to the deer, tapir, llama, or some other animal.

It is also common in translation that when a translator encounters a name for an animal for which he has no word to translate it to, he will translate it to some name of a similar animal that his reader will be familiar with. There are a number of examples of this in the King James Bible. It is quite plausible that the translator of the Book of Mormon chose the word "horse" to represent some large critter that had no name in the subset of the English language that he was familiar with.

Also, it is unproven that there were neither Equus caballus nor Equus equus in Nephite lands during the time that the Nephites were there. And indeed, there are a number of tantalizing indicators that suggest that there may have been such. These include old linguistic traces of a word for "horse", Indian traditions of having horses before the arrival of the White Man, and numerous cases where archaeologists have thrown away horse remains in precolumbian strata because "everyone knows that there weren't any horses here then, therefore these are modern contamination."

Obviously, the presence of actual precolumbian Equus remains would satisfy even the most skeptical critic.

RCM, do you find fault with any of these lines of argument?

RCM, do you have a response to my question of whether you find fault with any or all of those lines of argument? Or are you simply unable to refute these?

[RCM]

That's a strong statement coming from someone who betrays no familiarity with the methodological standards of archaeology and anthropology. Let's see what we can do to help you out.

To begin with, horses were in fact native to the Americas for thousands of years. The record gets pretty sparse about 10,000 years ago and many scientists just assume that means horses went extinct. We have a grand total of four written records from Mesoamerica from prior to the time of Columbus (Kevin is welcome to correct me if that's out of date), and the historical record that serves to support the earlier conclusion is that of the early Spaniards saying they didn't see any native horses. Their exposure to the American continents, of course, was excruciatingly limited. Many American Indians have long held that they had horses well before Columbus, but they're generally dismissed as legends, even though early European explorers report well-supported horse populations in central North America in the early 18th century. Interestingly enough, the early Spanish claim to have kept their mares from the wild, and only sent stallions on long expeditions. Just how did all these random stallions manage to populate an entire continent so quickly without any mares? Several things support the Native American statements, though:

This Illinois State Museum "Faun Map" charts archaeological finds in the United States relevant to fauna. I searched for the modern horse and found 8 sites in the United States alone that record modern horse remains dating to the Late Holocene. They say many of them are questionable because they don't like data that conflict with traditional views. Clayton E. Ray's Journal of Mammalogy article from 1957, "Pre-Columbian Horses From Yucatan" is often cited, but no follow-up has been done. The is a 1964 article in the Wisconsin Archaeologist about a horse skull found with material dating to 800–900 CE (volume 45, issue 2). You can check out Gloria Farley's book In Plain Sight (Columbus, GA: ISAC Press, 1994) for more than 20 Pre-Columbian horse petroglyphs and stories about numerous Pre-Columbian horse statuettes found by archaeologists near the Chattahoochee River. Some of those petroglyphs are shown here.

maklelan,

I checked on the Smithsonian site and some others and horses that could have been on the North American Continent, became extinct thousands of years ago.

Certainly before the 600B.C. time frame of the Book of Mormon.

So, you can play all the games you want, but the fact is the Native American Indians of North America did not have horses prior to the Spanish

Your own LDS historian B.H. Roberts states that prior to Columbus, Indians did not have an animal big enough to carry a person

Native American History written by Indians themselves tells of how the Indian culture changed with the coming of the horse in the 1500's - 1700's.

In Christ, RCM

[Rommelator]

Rommelator,

Check your LDS commentaries on Nephi by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet

Your argument regarding the horse is ridiculous. Isn't the Book of Mormon supposed to be scripture, wasn't Joseph Smith supposed to be a prophet?

Your answer is in keeping with someone who tries to defend a document that has no historical evidence, and the Book of Mormon has no historical evidence prior to Joseph Smith.

In Christ, RCM

1. I have read the commentary by McConkie and Millet. I find it wanting in several areas.

2. This is not my argument. I was simply relaying how some LDS apologists argue. I have yet to give you my position on horses in the Book of Mormon. But if this argument is "ridiculous" then would you care to demonstrate such?

3. To say that the Book of Mormon has no historical evidence is not only stupid but ignorant. Sorry, but when someone like you claims this, I begin to lose all hope for a meaningful and worthwhile discussion.

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8

How about you start with these two. They are the introductory works on the subject.

[sean0scott]

Go to your own LDS supported apologist site, FAIRLDS.org and see for yourself. The article is right there by Mike Ash

You don't think Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Bible? Have you ever looked at the apparatus at the bottom in your Book of Mormon?

The Biblical references are everywhere and that is only when the verses are so similar the LDS Church has to list the Biblical scripture.

That's not a bibliography, it's a collection of cross references.

my logic is based upon evidence, and the Book of Mormon is lacking in every area

I seem to remember a distinct lack of logic in your arguments.

[RCM]

Let's be accurate. Some LDS apologists have suggested that.

Until one looks closer and sees that over half of the verses explicitly stated to have been pulled from the Old Testament ar edistinct from their KJV counterpart.

Actually the phrase in Hebrew is far more common than in the KJV. vayehi occurs 782 times in the Hebrew Bible, almost twice as many times as it is translated "and it came to pass" in the KJV. It's a very common Semitic literary element.

And there's archaeological evidence of both in the Americas. The chariots are preserved in clay children's toys. The argument has been promulgated that they're just toys and don't represent actual vehicles, since no full-sized examples are found, but full-sized examples would have been made of wood and other perishable materials that rarely ever survive in the Mesoamerican climate. Fired clay lasts forever.

That's one interpretation, and it was a popular interpretation back before we knew much about the history of the Americas. No revelation was ever received on it, although Joseph Smith did once advocate a limited geography theory as a possible model.

It's neither, but I think the evidence better supports the conclusion that horses were horses.

maklelan,

You have evidence that proves there were chariots in North America? I would like to see that.

I find it extremely interesting that LDS Church authorities cannot even commit to a simple map of Book of Mormon lands, as the geography matches nowhere in the real world.

The only reason LDS started going to Central and South America is because after 180 years, Mormons realized they were never going to find historical evidence for the Book of Mormon in North America.

In Christ, RCM

[RCM]

I am not aware that "the LDS Church" has said anything at all regarding horses in the Book of Mormon. I issue a CFR (Call For References) for you to provide references that substantiate your assertion.

To reiterate, the Church has not to my knowledge made any statements regarding horses in the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, a number of critics have made the assertion that, because they don't know about any horses (Equus caballus) in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus, that the Book of Mormon must therefore be a fraud.

A number of members of the Church have answered those charges by pointing out that there a several ways that the term "horse" might appear in an authentic text of this sort. Any of these mechanisms is sufficient to debunk the critic's arguments. These mechanisms include:

It is common for people who encounter an unknown species of animal to name it after an animal that they are familiar with. Of particular probative value are the following examples: The Greeks, upon encountering an animal that distantly resembles a horse and lives in the water, called it a "horse"; to wit, the "hippopotamus." Various native American races have called the European horse "deer", others call it "tapir." It is entirely plausible that Lehi's party applied the name "horse" to the deer, tapir, llama, or some other animal.

It is also common in translation that when a translator encounters a name for an animal for which he has no word to translate it to, he will translate it to some name of a similar animal that his reader will be familiar with. There are a number of examples of this in the King James Bible. It is quite plausible that the translator of the Book of Mormon chose the word "horse" to represent some large critter that had no name in the subset of the English language that he was familiar with.

Also, it is unproven that there were neither Equus caballus nor Equus equus in Nephite lands during the time that the Nephites were there. And indeed, there are a number of tantalizing indicators that suggest that there may have been such. These include old linguistic traces of a word for "horse", Indian traditions of having horses before the arrival of the White Man, and numerous cases where archaeologists have thrown away horse remains in precolumbian strata because "everyone knows that there weren't any horses here then, therefore these are modern contamination."

Obviously, the presence of actual precolumbian Equus remains would satisfy even the most skeptical critic.

RCM, do you find fault with any of these lines of argument?

Solar,

Do you not claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

So, now you are saying, a horse in the Book of Mormon did not really exist as a horse?

Then probably nothing else in the Book of Mormon can be taken to mean what it says either, right?

In Christ, RCM

[SolarPowered]

Solar,

Do you not claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

So, now you are saying, a horse in the Book of Mormon did not really exist as a horse?

Then probably nothing else in the Book of Mormon can be taken to mean what it says either, right?

If you don't mind me saying so, that was an incredibly lame response to my question. I assume your reading comprehension is much higher that is exhibited in this post. Would you like to try again with a responsive and reasoned argument? Or are we to assume that you do not, in fact, have a cogent argument to make?

Edit to add these answers to your questions:

Do you not claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

Yes, I do claim that.

So, now you are saying, a horse in the Book of Mormon did not really exist as a horse?

No, that is not what I said. As I stated earlier in this post, I actually do believe that your reading comprehension is better than is indicated by this question.

Then probably nothing else in the Book of Mormon can be taken to mean what it says either, right?

Firstly, you base that on the strawman you created in your previous sentence. Secondly, even if your strawman were actually true, this assertion does not follow from it.

[sean0scott]

Or are we to assume that you do not, in fact, have a cogent argument to make?

But you and I we've been through this, and this not our fate...

If you want to see his cogent argument, it's unpacked into quite a cute little syllogism.

[Rommelator]

The only reason LDS started going to Central and South America is because after 180 years, Mormons realized they were never going to find historical evidence for the Book of Mormon in North America.

I hope you realize that Mesoamerica is on the North American continent.

Also, mind reading aside, the reason scholars have begun postulating a Book of Mormon geography in Central America is not out of desperation, as you may think, but from a closer reading of the Book of Mormon text itself. If you knew anything about current Book of Mormon scholarship, you would know this.

[Benjamin McGuire]

What a fun thread. I have three comments for RCM:

1) from this quote:

3 Nephi 3:22 talks about using chariots and horses to defend themselves

Actually, 3 Nephi 3:22 says nothing about the Nephites using chariots and horses to defend themselves. The concept doesn't occur there, and only a forced and very bad reading of the text could draw one to such a conclusion.

2) Regarding this comment:

You don't think Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Bible? Have you ever looked at the apparatus at the bottom in your Book of Mormon?

Actually, plagiarism is a rather technical term which requires, among other things, that the author of a text is intentionally trying to present someone else's material as his own. Joseph Smith never does this. We might say at best that in places, the Book of Mormon is reliant on the language of the King James version of the Bible, but this isn't entirely unexpected. After all, when Logos presented their translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls' biblical texts in the early 1990s, the biblical text translation were more than 90% verbatim copies of the King James bible. I am not sure this is much of deal.

But 3) takes the cake:

Your argument regarding the horse is ridiculous. Isn't the Book of Mormon supposed to be scripture, wasn't Joseph Smith supposed to be a prophet?

You see, the argument here isn't about the text at all, but rather about what RCM thinks the text ought to be like based on some imaginary process of diviniely inspired translation.

Let's take an example from known history. Since Marco Polo was mentioned, we can use him. So Marco Polo discovers (in the course of his travels) a rhinocerous in Java. He doesn't know what a rhinocerous is, and for whatever reason (we can offer all sorts of speculations, and his writings provide us with some clues), he decides that it is a unicorn. Well, it isn't exactly the unicorn he was expecting, and so when he writes this down for us, he records it as follows:

There are wild elephants in the country, and numerous unicorns, which are very nearly as big. They have hair like that of a buffalo, feet like those of an elephant, and a horn in the middle of the forehead, which is black and very thick. They do no mischief, however, with the horn, but with the tongue alone; for this is covered all over with long and strong prickles and when savage with any one they crush him under their knees and then rasp him with their tongue. The head resembles that of a wild boar, and they carry it ever bent towards the ground. They delight much to abide in mire and mud. 'Tis a passing ugly beast to look upon, and is not in the least like that which our stories tell of as being caught in the lap of a virgin; in fact, 'tis altogether different from what we fancied.

The problem we immediately run into is this (at least from a translational perspective). If we simply translate "unicorn" as "rhinocerous" we actually make the text less understandable. Because of course Marco Polo doesn't replace the concept of a "unicorn" - he expands it. If Nephi (and it would have had to have occured right at the beginning) in his attempt to classify the animals they discovered in the New World (and classifying them would have been important to a people trying to live the Law of Moses - as they would have needed to determine which animals were clean and which weren't) decided on the basis of the strictures in the Law of Moses that the tapir was most like a horse (remember that tapirs and horses are two of a tiny number of odd toed ungulates, and foot structure was one of the concerns of the Law of Moses), and so called the tapir a horse, like Marco Polo, he wouldn't be replacing the concept of a horse. After all, had you showed Nephi a horse like those he was familiar with in Jerusalem, he would call that a horse just as he might call the tapir a horse (at least in his writings), then to try and differentiate between them when Nephi speaks of horses creates a linguistic challenge which tranlsations are notoriously poor at dealing with. Similarly, when Montezuma first encountered the horses of the spaniards, they were universally referred to with the same word the Aztecs used to name deer.

So, now we have the translational conundrum - Nephi uses the word "horse" to describe something - perhaps a tapir. He intentionally uses the word "horse" to do this (that is, this isn't a mistake of the text). Would translating it as something else be a mistranslation? No translator would ever take Marco Polo's text and substitute "rhinoceros" for "unicorn". Why on earth do you think that a divinely assisted translation would do something like this - to translate the word "horse" as something else - clearly defieing the intentions of the text's author? That's not translation in my opinion - yet it is exactly what you seem to be proposing that God would do ...

I just don't think you have thought it through very clearly. Your sweeping generalities don't really seem to mean much - other than to indicate that you yourself haven't given much significant thought to what you are actually suggesting.

Ben

[MAsh]

Isn't the LDS Church using double speak and confusion regarding hoses in the Book of Mormon?

First, the LDS Church answers critics who say Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Bible, by saying Joseph Smith translated in the language of the day so people could clearly understand the Book of Mormon. So, it must be assumed that a horse is a horse as was known in 1830, especially in regards to chariots.

But, now the LDS Church is saying the horse referred to in the Book of Mormon is probably a 'Tapir' or deer like animal known in Central and South America, as is noted in an article from the FAIRLDS site 'Horses in the Book of Mormon' by Mike Ash.

Ash makes the following statement;

{First, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text--it's a nineteenth-century translation of an ancient text. When we, as modern readers, read texts from ancient or foreign cultures, we often misunderstand what the ancient or foreign author was attempting to convey. Some of the things that seem "plain" to us are not so "plain" upon further investigation or once we understand the culture that produced the text.}

Ash's statement contradicts the LDS Church's apologetics and defense regarding Joseph Smith's plagiarism of the King James Bible and King James language.

Why is the LDS Church even in Central and South America looking for archaeological evidence, when 1 Nephi 13 clearly refers to the United States as the promised land?

So, is a horse in the Book of Mormon, a horse or a 'Tapir' (deer)? Can deer be used to pull chariots in battle?

In Christ, RCM

While on the surface it seems that you've read what I've written about this topic, it quickly becomes obvious that you did not peruse (applying the classic rather than commonly mistaken sense of the term) my article here: http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

The article answers many of the objections found in this thread.

And, BTW (as several others have pointed out), "the LDS Church" hasn't made claims on this issue whatsoever.

Mike Ash

www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com

[Fly Fisherman]

Would somebody a lot smarter than me, please explain to me why this horse issue seems to be such a colossal issue to critics.

Let me get this correct, here: No evidence of horses in Ancient America has been confirmed. Therefore, there never, ever, ever, ever will be a speck of confirming evidence of horses in Ancient America, and therefore, the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Even if only a small percentage of Mesoamerica has thoroughly been explored like, only one percent? (correct me if incorrect), we simply make the huge leap of faith that there never will be evidence of horses in Ancient America?

I don't understand how such hard conclusions can be made. But, I am no scientist for sure, so enlighten me.

It is interesting how horses always comes up by critics. Why don't they ever talk about the other physical things and concepts mentioned in the BOM? Oh, I forget, many of the things that were unknown in Joseph Smith's day actually have been confirmed by today. And if we talk about those, it might make people think that there indeed is some evidence for the Book of Mormon, and we wouldn't want to do that, now would we?

Here is a video to see:

If you watch John Sorenson's video, you will see a chart (which unfortunately isn't very visible in the video), which shows things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that were unknown in JS's day - you will see that only 8 things listed out of 60 were known about in ancient times that are listed in the BOM. (The green labels - confirmed - verses the red labels - unconfirmed.) In 2005, there are 35 things that have been confirmed, with 10 undetermined, and only 15 unconfirmed. (By the way, if there is a document that explains this, please do list it. The video is not too visible. )

In other words, not everything has been confirmed, but the trends are in the right direction for evidence of the Book of Mormon, even with the lack of confirmation of horses in Ancient America.

[Stanley]

1. I have read the commentary by McConkie and Millet. I find it wanting in several areas.

2. This is not my argument. I was simply relaying how some LDS apologists argue. I have yet to give you my position on horses in the Book of Mormon. But if this argument is "ridiculous" then would you care to demonstrate such?

3. To say that the Book of Mormon has no historical evidence is not only stupid but ignorant. Sorry, but when someone like you claims this, I begin to lose all hope for a meaningful and worthwhile discussion.

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8

How about you start with these two. They are the introductory works on the subject.

Reading the info in the links, Carl Hugh Jones' work is referenced. Problem is I can't locate his credentials or mention of his accomplishments.....at least Google doesn't return any. Can anyone help me with who he is, areas of expertise, and credentials?

Thanks

[Rommelator]

Reading the info in the links, Carl Hugh Jones' work is referenced. Problem is I can't locate his credentials or mention of his accomplishments.....at least Google doesn't return any. Can anyone help me with who he is, areas of expertise, and credentials?

Thanks

Where specifically are you reading the reference?

I am not challenging you, just curious to see the reference myself.

[Rommelator]

only one percent? (correct me if incorrect)

Mark Alan Wright, who is finishing up his dissertation on Mesoamerican studies, told me it is more like 1/2 of 1 percent.

[mnn727]

Correction here...

They have been addressed, which is a far cry from answered.

Sorry, but this is a little pet peeve of mine.

The fact that you don't like the answers, does not mean they have not been answered/

Just a pet peeve of mine

[Stanley]

Where specifically are you reading the reference?

I am not challenging you, just curious to see the reference myself.

1st link in post....then select number 19

The cylinder seal from Tlatilco, which was mentioned earlier, was the subject of an important study by Carl Hugh Jones. Jones carefully compared the characters on it with those on the Anthon Transcript, as published by B. H. Roberts; he made no attempt at decipherment. He found that of the twenty-four symbols, only two did not have "readily identifiable counterparts" on the transcript. From this he concluded, "The Tlatilco roller stamp is indeed an archaeological example of the type of script represented in the Anthon Transcript." He also compared characters on a cylindrical seal or stamp from the site of La Venta, Tabasco,170 which is probably of about the same age as the one from Tlatilco. He found transcript equivalents for all the second seal's symbols too (they were a good deal simpler than those from Tlatilco; hence, they were easier to match).

Google isn't returning much. There's an "archaeologist for hire" type site with a reference to the same name, but that's about all I could locate and not sure it's the same person.

[Rommelator]

1st link in post....then select number 19

Google isn't returning much. There's an "archaeologist for hire" type site with a reference to the same name, but that's about all I could locate and not sure it's the same person.

The footnote Sorenson gives is for the S.E.H.A or the Society for Early History and Archaeology, or something like that, which has published pro-LDS papers on historical/archaeological issues and was something of a FAIR or FARMS before FAIR or FARMS. Jones may have been a member involved in that group, kind of like the volunteers with FAIR, or maybe google just hasn't catalouged his works.

Footnote 170 cites:

See Philip Drucker, "La Venta, Tabasco: A Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art," Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin no. 153 (1952), fig. 43 (p. 142).

And attributes a quote of Jones in this volume. So maybe he is more than just a volunteer with a pro-Mormon group, maybe he worked with the Smithsonian, but google has not catalogued his work.

I don't know.

[Rommelator]

Did some searches on google and found an article published by Ancient American Magazine. It was a lecture given by Mr. Jones in the 1960's and seems to be republished in AAM.

If in fact he is the same person as cited by Sorenson, then he is "assistant museum director and curator of anthropology for the Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, Nebraska."

http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/medi...20JOMON.htm?n=0

[cksalmon]

Edit: Incidentally, I have personally seen Fremont Indian rock art dating to the 13th century A.D. which depicts a man riding a horse.

Where can one find this dating information in print?

cks

[Stanley]

Did some searches on google and found an article published by Ancient American Magazine. It was a lecture given by Mr. Jones in the 1960's and seems to be republished in AAM.

If in fact he is the same person as cited by Sorenson, then he is "assistant museum director and curator of anthropology for the Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, Nebraska."

http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/medi...20JOMON.htm?n=0

Yeah, it's hard to identify the guy with any certainty since there's so little about him online.

I did locate this entry:

Carl Hugh Jones

98 South 550 East

P.O. Box 1013

Midway, Utah 84049

Phone: 435-671-6848

E-mail: cjonesrr@yahoo.com

Professional Qualification and Expertise:

Prehistoric Archaeology

Historic Archaeology

Size of Projects:

Up to $1,000

$1,000 to $5,000

Comments: Experienced in rural water lines and sewer lagoon surveys. Also experienced in old trail identification and location.

It's from the Nebraska Historic Society's list of "qualified archeological contractors" (whatever that means) and he's experienced in the category of rural water lines and sewer lagoon surveys. His professional qualifications and expertise seem self promoting as there's nothing to indicate he's professionally qualified in the field of Archaeology.

I suppose my biggest concern with the original link content is he's listed as a source who did an "important study" and has zero academic qualifications. For all we know, he's read a book or two and did the study.

How does he get from water lines and sewer lagoons to being an expert on the characters in the Anthon Transcript?!?

[John Larsen]

Of course there were pre-Columbian horses. How else did the Mesoamericans pull around their steam shovels?

[John Larsen]

OK, CFR. Please provide *direct* evidence that there were no horses in America during Book of Mormon times.

Please provide *direct* evidence that there is not a heard of live elephants living in the Smithsonian.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

You don't think Joseph Smith relied heavily on the King James Bible in translating the Book of Mormon? Have you never noticed the literally thousands of 'it came to pass,' statements?

It appears in the Book of Mormon over 1,000 times.

* glyph is found in the Temple Of Inscriptions, located in the ancitent ruins of Palenque.

[maklelan]

Don't you get it? The burden of proof is upon you. You are the one asserting something that seems obviously untrue.

However, I must ask... Why did horses not flourish in the wild until Europeans arrived?

What gives you the impression they didn't? You have the records of a couple hundred Spaniards hacking their way through parts of America who say they didn't find any horses where they went? Can you provide a map of the territories scouted by the Spaniards that were horse-free? And, as I also already explained, later astonished European explorers wrote about meeting American Indians with well established populations of horses in their territories, despite being far separated from where the Spanish claimed to have introduced horses. Their stories were, for many years, dismissed as fairy tales. Your entire perspective is based on assumptions and hasty generalizations, and were I a betting man I would wager that you couldn't off the top of your head even name the decade in which horses were introduced to the Americas, or where they were introduced. You're guessing based on previously gathered knowledge that is only now being retroactively called into service for these conclusions, and you have so little of it to work with.

It seems ridiculous to think that this event caused a population explosion across two continents. Let us not forget that the natives had to trade and raid Europeans for their first horses even after there was a wild population.

The surprise of native americans is well documented when they saw Europeans riding horses. Why? because they had never seen them before.

Which tribes of Native Americans and from which regions of the Americas?

The thing about the horse argument is that it is not going to prove your religion true, one way or the other. The problem lies within the insurmountable hurdles of truth that no Christian religion can clear.

So your presupposition renders any response moot. What a good way to not have to be responsible for your argument.

If you look close, there are a great deal of problems that lie with the original inception of the Mormon church, but even these pale in comparison with the problems that arise with the very earliest forms of Christianity.

If you can achieve just a slightly higher degree of generality you don't even have to use proper nouns. You can claim intellectual superiority without even addressing your argument towards anyone.

If the church is a restoration of Christianity as it originally appeared, then you are far, far from the mark.

A perfectly meaningless statement. I can just as easily say, "If the church is a restoration of Christianity then you are far, far from the mark." Do I win?

Ask yourself, what what Christianity like in 30AD?

Since it hadn't been established yet, it wasn't like much of anything. Your ability to aver cognizance alongside such a dizzying display of abject ignorance is a thing to behold.

Horses in North America don't really matter, at that point.

Would that we were all able to assert with such confidence that, since opponent X is already wrong about every fundamental thing anyway, the current discussion is just silly. Wouldn't academia be a much easier place to make a living if all you had to do was respond to everything with, "Nu-uh"?