Horses In The Book Of Mormon

[Hashbaz]

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.

I'm not sure where they got "U(I)-CH-I" UTCHI reading - it is totally wrong. The glyphs read "i - u - ti" and it is pronounce ee-yoot. The translation is correct, however, and this glyph is not just found at the Temple of the Inscriptions - it's actually one of the most common glyphs there is across the Maya area (Tikal, Copan, Quirigua, Yaxchilan, etc). You'll find it on virtually all monumental texts (stela, panels, lintels, etc). The famous "Tablet of the 96 Glyphs" from Palenque has it on there 5 times (in other words, a solid 5% of the text is "it came to pass"). They didn't have punctuation, so they began almost every sentence with it (or a variant such as "since it had come to pass").

[Obiwan]

When have mormons even proposed for YEARS now that "Tapir" is a possibility???

I only see anti's using that old chestnut. A chestnut that was basically mentioned once in an article getting little traction.

That was simply a possibility when there wasn't any evidence..... There's now LOT'S of evidence of pre-columbian horses in the America's.

Where have the anti's been???

[Obiwan]

RCM.... Important video..... Watch It!!!

[caudicus]

You might need to take a chill pill, there, Mak. You aren't changing anyone's minds.

The knowledge off the top of my head includes that Native Americans could not domesticate feral horses, and so they were forced to trade and steal from Europeans for them. Why would they be trading and stealing horses if they already had their own supply? As useful as this animal could be, why would only a small population of people have this knowledge? Your hypothesis isn't adding up for me.

Obviously, the fossil record does a good job of ruling out the scenario where there are feral horses everywhere, and only a few people have managed to train them. I daresay you might actually be the one who is making assumptions and working backwards from them.

You see, the best way to go is to start by assuming that you know absolutely nothing. When you realize this, you won't get as angry as you seem to get. The best we humans can do is approximation. So relax, the point here is to exchange information and ot learn. There is nothing more futile than getting angry at someone in an internet debate forum.

I actually did some googling before responding to the horse debate for the hundredth time, so, you may try and suggest you know more about what is going on my brain than I do, but I absolutely assure you that I have more information about action potentials, calcium-ion channels, neurotransmitters, and anandamine receptors at my disposal. I am usually the first to question the status quo, and I have no problem challenging my preconceived notions of what is true. I have not always been an atheist.

My argument has not changed. You are just presenting something that could be true. This something makes people who believe in the BoM feel better about themselves, and is entirely unconvincing to everyone else. Why? Because the evidence overwhelmingly suggests the opposite of what you are saying. It says that horses arrived in the Carribean in the 1490s, and the mainland in the early 1500s.

I could be wrong about this horse thing. All of us naysayers could be wrong, but the odds are we are not. Now take this one issue that I could be wrong on, and then hold up the next issue to it... say scimitars, windows, steel, elephants, sheep, or rusted blades. The odds become less and less with each issue... and that is just the archeological aspect. All religions share some serious problems with their claims. So, I am not shifiting responsibility, I am just highlighting the scope of your argument for you.

A forum like this allows people to hyper focus on one issue at a time, which is useful, but it is a poor medium for getting the big picture.

You don't win with your remark about the restoration because you can't say that your argument is more valid than mine. The evidence is on my side. All you can do is create a little bit of doubt. You may go ahead and say that I am ignorant, but that seems like you are resorting to playground tactics because you lack the means to demonstrate that I am wrong.

My responses are very far from "nuh-uh." I hope you realize that this discussion has happened before, and even many TBMs that the evidence for the existence of horses in North America before the Europeans brought them and after the extinction of the more primitive variety is mostly underwhelming. Perhaps we can exchange information at another time in a more meaningful manner, but it won't be until you adjust you attitude a little.

Peace.

[maklelan]

You might need to take a chill pill, there, Mak. You aren't changing anyone's minds.

Oh, I'm well aware of that.

The knowledge off the top of my head includes that Native Americans could not domesticate feral horses, and so they were forced to trade and steal from Europeans for them. Why would they be trading and stealing horses if they already had their own supply? As useful as this animal could be, why would only a small population of people have this knowledge? Your hypothesis isn't adding up for me.

But you don't know to which geographic region that was limited to, do you? You're assuming this phenomenon was observed all over, when it fact it was pretty limited.

Obviously, the fossil record does a good job of ruling out the scenario where there are feral horses everywhere, and only a few people have managed to train them. I daresay you might actually be the one who is making assumptions and working backwards from them.

Well, for one, native horses wouldn't be feral. For two, the fossil record is light years away from being comprehensive, and I never said the horses where everywhere.

You see, the best way to go is to start by assuming that you know absolutely nothing. When you realize this, you won't get as angry as you seem to get.

I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. There's no anger.

The best we humans can do is approximation. So relax, the point here is to exchange information and ot learn. There is nothing more futile than getting angry at someone in an internet debate forum.

I'm well aware of that.

I actually did some googling before responding to the horse debate for the hundredth time, so, you may try and suggest you know more about what is going on my brain than I do, but I absolutely assure you that I have more information about action potentials, calcium-ion channels, neurotransmitters, and anandamine receptors at my disposal. I am usually the first to question the status quo, and I have no problem challenging my preconceived notions of what is true. I have not always been an atheist.

Well, you wouldn't be a proper atheist without reams of Google-fed knowledge.

My argument has not changed. You are just presenting something that could be true. This something makes people who believe in the BoM feel better about themselves, and is entirely unconvincing to everyone else. Why? Because the evidence overwhelmingly suggests the opposite of what you are saying. It says that horses arrived in the Carribean in the 1490s, and the mainland in the early 1500s.

Please cite this evidence, then. I've cited numerous facts that don't support that conclusion and you've yet to actually engage them. Perhaps you can provide something of your own besides "I googled it."

I could be wrong about this horse thing. All of us naysayers could be wrong, but the odds are we are not. Now take this one issue that I could be wrong on, and then hold up the next issue to it... say scimitars, windows, steel, elephants, sheep, or rusted blades. The odds become less and less with each issue... and that is just the archeological aspect. All religions share some serious problems with their claims. So, I am not shifiting responsibility, I am just highlighting the scope of your argument for you.

I'm happy to address each and every one of those issues, irrespective of how many anti-Mormon sites you've googled that have asserted the very same position as you.

A forum like this allows people to hyper focus on one issue at a time, which is useful, but it is a poor medium for getting the big picture.

But just squinting at a collection of discussions from afar without knowing much about them individually isn't really a way to aver that you're position is beyond reproach.

You don't win with your remark about the restoration because you can't say that your argument is more valid than mine. The evidence is on my side.

And yet you continue to refuse to provide it. Just claiming, "The evidence is on my side" doesn't win any arguments for you. I've provided actual evidence and actual citations. You've done nothing of the sort. You've only said, "Well, I seem to recall this vague generality that, if I recall correctly, leads me to believe I'm right. There, the evidence is on my side. I win." That kind of argumentation makes my skin crawl. If you can't provide evidence, don't get in this discussion.

All you can do is create a little bit of doubt. You may go ahead and say that I am ignorant, but that seems like you are resorting to playground tactics because you lack the means to demonstrate that I am wrong.

I provided the evidence long ago. Remember, it is you that has yet to engage that evidence or provide any of your own.

My responses are very far from "nuh-uh."

No, that's exactly what they are.

I hope you realize that this discussion has happened before,

I do realize that, and it happened exactly as it's happening now, with no evidence and nothing but hazy memories of facts once heard but not well remembered or verified. I'm trying to put a stop to that kind of pseudo-argumentation.

and even many TBMs that the evidence for the existence of horses in North America before the Europeans brought them and after the extinction of the more primitive variety is mostly underwhelming. Perhaps we can exchange information at another time in a more meaningful manner, but it won't be until you adjust you attitude a little.

I'd prefer if you'd just engage my evidence. If you can't, then by all means hide behind this facade of "Oh, I can't talk to you, you're much to unstable right now." Just to make it easier for you, here are the facts I presented:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208527328

[Bender]

maklelan Posted Today, 07:14 AM

I'd prefer if you'd just engage my evidence. If you can't, then by all means hide behind this facade of "Oh, I can't talk to you, you're much to unstable right now." Just to make it easier for you, here are the facts I presented:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208527328

This isn't sufficient evidence for scientists to conclude that horses did exist in the Americas. The horse remains in the cave in the Yucatan fitting into the right time period has still not been confirmed, and the horse skull in Wisconsin has been sufficiently discredited even by believing members here to not be of much value. You can look up some of the discussions on this board for more info if you like.

The reason scientists think horses went extinct is that horse remains disappear from the record. Could some have survived. Possible, but that is not a scientific argument to say they did. Should we believe that they did, or should we believe that they didn't, which has the best odds of being right, but willing to change that belief if sufficient evidence comes forward?

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

I think that if I put my faith in what may or may not be in the ground is the short cut to disaster.

[Bender]

thesometimesaint Posted Today, 08:57 AM

Bender:

I think that if I put my faith in what may or may not be in the ground is the short cut to disaster.

As long as your willing to change your faith as new evidence is found you will be OK.

I realize you may not have read some of my posts on the horse topic on other threads so let me be clear. I don't think the horse issue is that important in regards to the BoM. It still remains some what problematic, but I wouldn't stop believing on that issue alone. I think it is better to look at the whole both physical and spiritual to help one come to what they think is correct and be willing to change what they think as new information becomes available. I'm not one who thinks that if God exists he would want blind faith or belief. This leads people into many different incorrect beliefs. I may have to many of those as it is.

[phaedrus ut]

When have mormons even proposed for YEARS now that "Tapir" is a possibility???

I only see anti's using that old chestnut. A chestnut that was basically mentioned once in an article getting little traction.

That was simply a possibility when there wasn't any evidence..... There's now LOT'S of evidence of pre-columbian horses in the America's.

Where have the anti's been???

I'm completely unfamiliar with the evidence for horses in Mesoamerica in BOM times. Can you provide a reference?

Regarding the tapir comment I still see it quite often. You can still find the FARMS article, the FAIR Wiki, Jeff Lindsay's site, Mike Ash from the 2007 BOM lands Conference, and of course John Sorenson suggested it in his Ancient American Setting book and in writing for FARMS.

It's not a isolated suggestion it's rather ubiquitous in LDS horse apologetics.

Phaedrus

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

What would it take in the science community for me to leave my faith? Maybe a personal visit from God telling me otherwise. I've been a member for a long time now. I've seen one argument after another come too a brief life for a while then flounder and drowned in its own silliness. Whether horses or tapirs, deer or some other unknown animal, or not, is ever found to have been used. It is irrelevant to my faith.

[Bender]

thesometimesaint Posted Today, 09:45 AM

Bender:

What would it take in the science community for me to leave my faith? Maybe a personal visit from God telling me otherwise. I've been a member for a long time now. I've seen one argument after another come too a brief life for a while then flounder and drowned in its own silliness. Whether horses or tapirs, deer or some other unknown animal, or not, is ever found to have been used. It is irrelevant to my faith.

Yes I'm aware that many members believe that the spiritual trumps the physical. I think it is to be expected that some arguments from both sides of the issue here will come and go, but there are many like the horse issue that are still around and going strong. Otherwise i guess we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

On one hand we have a paucity of evidence for the horse, just like for many years there was the lack of evidence of people writing religious text on plates of metal. OTOH. Now we have evidence for the latter. Should I have gone with the former. What should be my state of belief now?

[Bender]

thesometimesaint Posted Today, 10:09 AM

Bender:

On one hand we have a paucity of evidence for the horse,

Yes very little and most of it is not very good. This is why you shouldn't believe they did exist. If we get enough in the future that they do exist, then we can all change our beliefs and understanding on it, just like I would start to believe in Big Foot if they get enough good evidence for it's existence. Myself and other believing members also understand that even if the horse did exist it doesn't prove the BoM, but it will get rid of one apparent anachronisms.

just like for many years there was the lack of evidence of people writing religious text on plates of metal.

Yes now we have a paucity of evidence that some cultures have used metal plates for writing very short bits of information on metal plates. So you should except that some cultures or peoples have used metal on rare occasions. Very simple really.

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

Seems rather frenetic to me. Believe, don't believe, believe, don't believe, believe. etc., etc., etc.,. I simply withhold judgment until I have more information. But to each their own.

Would we expect to see writing on metal tables from a culture descendant from one that did?

[Mudcat]

I suppose dogs have been ruled out?

Does anyone think that it could have been possible to breed dogs large enough to accommodate riders?

Perhaps, the reason we have no fossil record to support the "Mudcat Big Dog Theory", is because the older dogs were fed to the younger ones. In short, the evidence could have been consumed.

We see in the photo below a handsome gaucho monkey riding his "horse" on the range.

So at least in principle, we see that dogs can be saddle broken.

[maklelan]

This isn't sufficient evidence for scientists to conclude that horses did exist in the Americas. The horse remains in the cave in the Yucatan fitting into the right time period has still not been confirmed, and the horse skull in Wisconsin has been sufficiently discredited even by believing members here to not be of much value. You can look up some of the discussions on this board for more info if you like.

The reason scientists think horses went extinct is that horse remains disappear from the record. Could some have survived. Possible, but that is not a scientific argument to say they did. Should we believe that they did, or should we believe that they didn't, which has the best odds of being right, but willing to change that belief if sufficient evidence comes forward?

1) I never said that science needs to conclude that horses existed during this time period. I only said there's enough evidence to leave the issue unresolved. Your objections still don't solve the problem.

2) You didn't respond to everything I posted. There's still the issue of pre-Columbian depictions of horses and riders, and the testimony of Native Americans.

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

I've seen some Great Danes, and Mastiffs that might qualify.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

I've seen some Great Danes, and Mastiffs that might qualify.

Like this BullMastiff

[LDSMusic483]

Like this BullMastiff

When I was on my mission there was this crazy huge Bull Mastiff in one of my area's. You could hear his bark from about 4 streets away and his size compared to the van he was fenced in with was scary big. I can't remember if we tried tracting that house or not.

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

Yep.

[SolarPowered]

I suppose dogs have been ruled out?

Does anyone think that it could have been possible to breed dogs large enough to accommodate riders?

Not that I think it likely that they called dogs "horses", but I do want to point out that nowhere does the Book of Mormon say anything at all about people riding on horses. That is an assumption some have made that is not supported by the text.

[Bender]

thesometimesaint Posted Today, 10:37 AM

Bender:

Seems rather frenetic to me. Believe, don't believe, believe, don't believe, believe. etc., etc., etc.,. I simply withhold judgment until I have more information. But to each their own.

I don't think one should make a judgment until you have sufficient evidence to do so. I would rather change my beliefs based on sufficient evidence then remain believing something that evidence tells me is most likely not true.

Would we expect to see writing on metal tables from a culture descendant from one that did?

Possibly.

[John Larsen]

1) I never said that science needs to conclude that horses existed during this time period. I only said there's enough evidence to leave the issue unresolved. Your objections still don't solve the problem.

2) You didn't respond to everything I posted. There's still the issue of pre-Columbian depictions of horses and riders, and the testimony of Native Americans.

What pre-Columbian depictions of horses and riders? I am not aware of any. Where can I read about these?

A assume you mean testimony of pre-Columbian Native Americans? Where can I hear that?

[maklelan]

What pre-Columbian depictions of horses and riders? I am not aware of any. Where can I read about these?

Gloria Farley's book In Plain Sight (Columbus, GA: ISAC Press, 1994) lists numerous such depictions. This website also reproduces (very poorly) a small handful of others.

A assume you mean testimony of pre-Columbian Native Americans? Where can I hear that?

No, the testimony of 17th and 18th century Native Americans who never had contact with the Spaniards encountered by other European explorers. They claimed that they had had horses for generations up generations, and the stories of those European explorers were largely discounted for years because others argued that horse populations couldn't have developed so quickly so far from the Spanish introduction.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Like this BullMastiff

Amazing!