Horses, Horses, Where are the Horses?

[Scottie]

Is it possible to get a source for that there quotation, Sir Knight?

This was posted on yonder board, and I'm re-posting it here for the benefit of those who might have been questioning the 400AD date.

Here is the link that the quote came from.

As I understand, it costs $31.50 to subscribe to this magazine and get that quote and/or references.

[USU78]

This was posted on yonder board, and I'm re-posting it here for the benefit of those who might have been questioning the 400AD date.

Here is the link that the quote came from.

As I understand, it costs $31.50 to subscribe to this magazine and get that quote and/or references.

Well that's rotten of 'em . . . expecting payment for work product. Thanks for running it down.

[Scottie]

Well that's rotten of 'em . . . expecting payment for work product. Thanks for running it down.

Beastie did quite a bit of research on this particular issue.

What she basically found was that the date of the actual dig site dated to 400AD, and they found these bones in the dig site. There was a mistake where somebody mistook the age of the bones as the age of the site. It has been corrected in most scholarly journals, but you can't un-print the books.

Zak, knowing this new information, will you accept it and stop using the sources you provided? It appears that EB and the children's book are mistaken.

[USU78]

Beastie did quite a bit of research on this particular issue.

What she basically found was that the date of the actual dig site dated to 400AD, and they found these bones in the dig site. There was a mistake where somebody mistook the age of the bones as the age of the site. It has been corrected in most scholarly journals, but you can't un-print the books.

Zak, knowing this new information, will you accept it and stop using the sources you provided? It appears that EB and the children's book are mistaken.

Well, the kid's book obviously based its information on the Britannica folks.

The shoddy site control is obviously nobody's fault but the folks who worked the site.

And the dating of fossils without context is all but impossible.

[cdowis]

Beastie did quite a bit of research on this particular issue.

What she basically found was that the date of the actual dig site dated to 400AD, and they found these bones in the dig site. There was a mistake where somebody mistook the age of the bones as the age of the site. It has been corrected in most scholarly journals, but you can't un-print the books.

I understand that the dating is uncertain, and their conclusions were subject to other interpretation. Anyway, I agree that it should not be used in the dating of horses.

[Scottie]

I understand that the dating is uncertain, and their conclusions were subject to other interpretation. Anyway, I agree that it should not be used in the dating of horses.

Or elephants.

[beastie]

The name of the article that Danna (a poster on the board that shall not be named) accessed for us is:

Hypothesis on the cause of extinction of the South American mastodonts

G. Ficcarellia, A. Azzarolia, A. Bertinia, M. Coltortib, P. Mazzac, C. Mezzabottaa, M. Moreno Espinosad, L. Rooka and D. Torrea

The link is: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDS-3SVRC12-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01/31/1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1401703896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=370920a7a37c900b240192c1653420c3

I think it should also be pointed out that these references that Zak shared on page one:

The cited references above are (1) Palmer, D., ed. (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. pp.239

[Darth J]

Some of whom also accept Mesoamerica as the most likely setting for the Book of Mormon. Just ask on this board, and you'll find a few. Seriously, your claim that there is a logical--or even actual--link between seeing possible loanshifting in the Book of Mormon and subscribing to a theory of Mesoamerican setting is a silly hill to die on...and suggests to me (though I may be wrong here) that you've uncritically embraced some kind of 'internet Mormon' stereotype.

If I'm embracing some kind of stereotype, why did I specifically point out---and provide links to---alternative theories to the Mesoamerican model?

There is an actual link between loan-shifting for "horse" and certain Mesoamerican models-----have you ever read anything by Sorenson or his followers?

You are right that some Mesoamerican fans think there were real horses down in Guatemala or wherever during Book of Mormon times. That's exactly my point: the only reason to assume any loan-shifting at all is if you concede that there were no horses around during the Book of Mormon period.

[Darth J]

Not necessarily. For any one of your points above.

Old Testament scholars such as Margaret Barker have made a strong case that much of what is now considered the Law of Moses was a late (time of Josiah forward) innovation by what are termed the Deuteronomist reformers--changes which didn't really solidify and become ascendant until during the Babylonian captivity. Consequently, these new laws were not embraced in the beginning by all of Jewish society, and, by c600BC, groups of Jews who were opposed to them were leaving Jerusalem in protest.

So Deuteronomy 14 may not have been on the plates of brass. And the concerns expressed therein may have meant nothing to Lehi and his descendants.

Here are just a couple of issues with going that way:

First Nephi 22:20 has Nephi repeating Moses' prophecy about the Messiah from Deuteronomy 18 (the 1 Nephi quotation is actually more like Acts 3, but never mind). Deuteronomy 18 is part of the Mosaic law about priests and sacrifices. So if you're disputing these parts of the Law being on the brass plates, you're creating a problem for the Book of Mormon (where did Nephi get this quote from?).

The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible included Deuteronomy 14. If Deuteronomy 14 is a late edition that certain Israelites opposed and refused to obey, it is curious that Joseph Smith would provide an inspired correction to the dietary laws in Deuteronomy 14 if it was not really part of the Law of Moses.

[cdowis]

Or elephants.

What was the dating for the last wooly mammoth? Compare that with the Jaredite time frame.

[beastie]

One more update:

Zak probably lifted the footnotes directly from Mormonanity without crediting Lindsay.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/12/elephants-or-gomphotheres.html

The wiki page was apparently corrected after Lindsay linked, copied and pasted it.

So Zak is probably not guilty of intended deception, but rather his typical carelessness, although it's definitely bad form to copy Lindsay without crediting him.

[Jeff K.]

An interesting discussion I am tempted to spend 30+ dollars on regarding the extinction date of an elephant class in meso America

The proboscideans (Mammalia) from Mesoamerica

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One more update:

Zak probably lifted the footnotes directly from Mormonanity without crediting Lindsay.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/12/elephants-or-gomphotheres.html

The wiki page was apparently corrected after Lindsay linked, copied and pasted it.

So Zak is probably not guilty of intended deception, but rather his typical carelessness, although it's definitely bad form to copy Lindsay without crediting him.

So why not issue a CFR instead of a guessing game?

[Darth J]

All of them. None of these witness statements require that the translation was handed to JS. You assume that evidence for a tight translation is also evidence for a mechanical translation. Not the same thing.

No, it's that I don't see any practical difference between a tight translation and a mechanical translation. If the seer stone/U & T are showing you, in effect, "these characters mean these words," I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between "tight" and "mechanical."

You're right in that the lack of a manuscript makes it harder to explain the KJV biblical passages issue. There is some overlap between the KJV passages issue and a tight-v.-loose translation discussion but it's mostly about the KJV issue. But the lack of a manuscript in the room doesn't really speak directly to whether the translation was merely handed to JS or whether he played any part in the process.

The King James thing is more than just trivial in deciding what theory one wants to follow in the translation process, unless you believe that Nephi and his descendants just coincidentally sprinkled phrases from post-exile biblical writings (like Malachi) and New Testament phrases throughout the text.

[Aside: From my perspective you are mixing your terminology. It appears that you have been arguing that the translation was given to JS and that he had no control over how it was worded. Is that correct? If this is the case, then what you are arguing for is a mechanical translation process, not a "tight" translation. A tight translation might be the product of a mechanical process, but it just as easily could be the product of the translator. It could be the result of how JS chose to word the translation. You are conflating translation issues by arguing for a mechanical translation process while using terminology like "tight" translation. Can you see the difference?]

No. From everything I have read from apologists, I think "tight" or "mechanical" is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Either way, it speculates that Joseph Smith somehow actually understood what the writing said (as opposed to had the concept in his head and worded it his own way).

Do you agree that some of the witness statements say that the original characters appeared in the stone as if on a parchment? How did this happen? If the statement is true, then there are two main possibilities, right? Either he had no control over their appearance and simply watched what appeared in the stone like my daughters staring at the TV with a vacant expression, or he had some control in desiring to see the characters and they appeared. So if the English words appear in the form of a translation, don't we have the same two options? Either he watches what some other divine entity places in the stone and simply reads it to others or the English words represent text that he desires to see--text that he is formulating in his mind, tests with the Holy Ghost (D&C 9) and then sees in the stone. There are pros and cons to both scenarios, but for the strength of the latter position think about how the seer stone was supposed to work in treasure hunting. Did the user have any input by way of thinking about what he was seeking or was it merely a passive one-way receiver that randomly displayed the treasure de'jour?

Whether he was just watching TV or had to really, really want to watch TV, what difference does this make as to whether it's an actual "translation" of what the written characters literally say?

Not necessarily true. JS could have selected the words yet followed a tight translation, thus preserving whatever loan-shifting had occurred. I.e., if Nephi uses the Hebrew sus (horse) for a deer or similar species, this naming convention--like hippopotamus (river horse) in English--could have stuck throughout the Nephite record keeping. JS then could have simply translated horse as horse, preserving the loan-shifting that started with Nephi. Again, you have conflated the issue of a tight translation with that of a mechanically-controlled translation process. The two issues are separate and need to be treated discretely.

Your example here shows what I'm talking about. There is not an English writer anywhere who actually writes "river horse" when writing about a hippo. "Hippopotamus" is its own word with its own meaning among English speakers. I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that nobody on this board read "hippopotamus" and thought you were talking about a horse that lives in a river.

"Tyrannosaurus" means "tyrant lizard." English speakers writing about dinosaurs don't write "tyrant lizard," and when they do write about "tyrannosaurus," no one is confused about this possibly meaning some despotic lizard. People know what a tyrannosaurus is. Etymology is not the same as meaning.

If the Book of Mormon was written for "our day," then it would seem more reasonable for the translation to be of what the words would mean to modern (1820's onward) readers, not what it meant to a Hebrew living in pre-Columbian Guatemala (or wherever).

Ah, the translation-as-TV-watching theory. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but I find it a little bizarre. Under this scenario, I imagine there would have been a CD slipped inside a plastic pocket on the back cover of the plates and JS simply popped it into his nifty Hat/DVD player and watched the action in the dark while translating. Seriously, where did you get the idea that JS would see images of animals and not simply see text?

???

Equally bizarre.

R i i i i i g h t . . .

[scratches head]

No, this is the problem with the loose translation idea. For Joseph Smith to supply his own words to explain what's happening on the gold plates, he has to get some kind of mental image or concept of some kind of what is being talked about. So he's not seeing reformed Egyptian characters and understanding that these characters would mean "horse" in English. Instead, he has some picture or concept or whatever of what Nephi/Mormon/Moroni is talking about, and Joseph Smith thinks "horse" is the best way to explain it.

If Joseph Smith is somehow visualizing or conceptualizing what is going on and then choosing the words that explain it, he's got to have at least some idea of what he's talking about, or he couldn't choose the words to describe it. If he is conceptualizing these events somehow, he would have to have at least some idea of what is going on. If the loan-shifting is with him (says it's a horse because he doesn't know what else to call it), he's got to have some idea of where this is happening. If he has the image/impression/concept of a tapir and calls it a "horse," then he has to know that this isn't a conventional horse and lives somewhere other than the current United States he is used to. And that would follow for everything else: if it's a loose translation, he has to have some idea of what's going on to select what words describe his impression/concept/image.

The witness statements clearly tie the translation to text and to the stone. Can we agree on that much? So we can stop talking about images.

Why? We don't know how the translation happened, remember? Not every believer agrees with the text being tied to the stone.

As for words like "curelom" they come from a different time and place and depend on how the Jaredite plates were translated themselves. Are these Jaredite words or Nephite? If the latter, is the translation Moroni's or is he abridging a translation by Benjamin? If it's Benjamin's translation, is the word Benjamin's choice or is it Moroni's choice as editor. In any case, it's interesting that you might have an instance of loan-shifting with horse right after the Nephites arrive in the new world but possibly have a straight-out borrowing when it comes to an earlier culture (Jaredite) or later culture (Moroni as editor).

So how did Moroni know that "deseret" means "honeybee"?

But this is all really speculation. I don't have an answer for the horse issue, otherwise I would have responded earlier in the thread. I merely object to how you co-opted the witness statements by assuming a specific translation process in order to make your case for the perceived horse anachronism more solid. For the record, I also object when believers do the same thing to try and resolve anachronisms. I'm truly interested in how the translation process worked, but not so I can prove anything about horses or cement.

No, that's not really it. I don't assume any translation process at all; I'm just talking about subscribing to tight or loose translation theories is, as a practical matter, about choosing which set of issues you would rather talk about.

You're right. I do think that in a larger context it can be looked at as one of many indicators, but I agree that it assumes the premise. But will you grant that you used the witness statements in a similar fashion? I.e., your premise and conclusion were the same also: JS was not in control of the translation because the translation was tight, because he saw text in the stone, etc. If you assume that the translation was handed to him, then these quotes prove this. But if you don't assume this, then you see something else. As I pointed out, good historians and linguists look at the same quotes and disagree with your conclusion. That was my point in using Ricks' argument (not my own). He looked at the same evidence differently. So you simply can't assume a mechanical process when you set out to make your horse-anachronism case more solid. That was the only reason why I joined the conversation.

Good historians and linguists are speculating just as much as anyone else, since they have no source text.

Actually you have some who were present, others who claim to be quoting those who were present, and at least one who quotes someone who was related to JS but not present. But your actual request was for another "contemporary" account. I provided one. If I have the time I'll try to look up whom he claimed to be quoting, but I do wish to remind the court that the first stipulation was to be contemporary, not first-hand. If you only want first-hand, you'll have to omit a few of your own.

Do you have a reason to dispute any of the people quoting, for example, Martin Harris?

The Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses didn't write the statements they signed, either. Do you dispute the accuracy of those statements because the witnesses themselves did not write them?

And I don't care if it's second hand. I don't see how "the Holy Ghost made him understand the characters" isn't another tight/mechanical statement (which I don't see as a meaningful distinction).

First, you have again conflated the issue of a mechanical process with a tight translation. Second, does the Holy Ghost's involvement in D&C 9 also suggest a mechanical process to you? If not, why does the Holy Ghost's involvement in the one automatically reflect a mechanical process? I think it's very possible to read this quote as implying the same thing as D&C 9. Quinn certainly did, so I'm not in poor company, right?

Why do you need any theory at all unless you are trying to explain various issues with the Book of Mormon's claims to being an ancient text? If you think it's really a scripture that was translated by the power of God, who cares?

I see your explanation above but I still don't buy it. I acknowledge that many of those who advocate a LGT of the BoM also advocate loan-shifting (and a number of other arguments). But that doesn't mean that the arguments are intrinsically linked. [bTW, the other models you place in opposition to what you call the LGT are also LGT models as well--they simply suggest that the events in the BoM took place somewhere other than mesoamerica.] I don't know anything about Malaysia, but don't all the locations in the Americas equally suffer from an absence of evidence for horses at this time? If so, why is this a mesoamerican problem while not a problem for New York? It doesn't matter whether you believe in a hemispheric model or LGT model (in any of its options), you still have to face a lack of scientific evidence for horses at the right time, don't you? I still don't see the link between this issue and LGT. Makes no sense.

Regards

I'm not the one promulgating any of these theories, so I don't suffer from any lack of evidence problems. However, if you look at those links, the New York people just say that either the bones haven't been found yet or that the bones from the right time period are actually there.

If you're going to get technical about what LGT theory means, than anything other than the Book of Mormon covering the entire planet is a limited geography theory. But most people, such as the FAIR wiki, are talking about Mesoamerican when they say limited geography theory.

I'm not saying loan-shifting necessitates the Book of Mormon being in Guatemala or southern Mexico or wherever down there. I explicitly said that there tends to be a correlation between the loan-shifting assumption and being a fan of Mesoamerica, a la Sorenson.

[Scottie]

So why not issue a CFR instead of a guessing game?

Everything Zak posted was in response to my CFR.

[beastie]

So why not issue a CFR instead of a guessing game?

Why be coy? The two citations match in every detail.

Zak:

The cited references above are (1) Palmer, D., ed. (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. pp.239

[Darth J]

What was the dating for the last wooly mammoth? Compare that with the Jaredite time frame.

Okay, for argument's sake, go with this: elephants/mastodons/woolly mammoths only lived during Jaredite times, but were extinct by Nephite times.

How did Moroni, in abridging Ether, know what an elephant was?

Why did Moroni know what an elephant was, but he didn't know what a curelom or a cumom was?

Why did Moroni know what an elephant was (so he used the word "elephant"), but he didn't know what the Jaredites meant by curelom or cumom, but he did know that "deseret" was Jaredite (whatever they spoke/wrote) for "honeybee"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why be coy? The two citations match in every detail.

Zak:

Lindsay:

You will have to ask Zak.

He should have cited were he got it from.

[cdowis]

Why did Moroni know what an elephant was (so he used the word "elephant"), but he didn't know what the Jaredites meant by curelom or cumom, but he did know that "deseret" was Jaredite (whatever they spoke/wrote) for "honeybee"?

Excellent question.

We need to realize that the issue of translation was not Moroni -- he used the Jaredite (or Nephite) words for these animals, but Joseph Smith's translation of these words into english. And that comes down to the general question on how the BOM was translated.

One possibility, when JS saw the word for elephant, he saw some image which was familiar to him, viz. an elephant, or, more probable, a wooly mammoth. But when he saw the images for curelom or cumom, he did not know the English equivalent for an animal he had never seen, so he simply used the Nephite/Jaredite name. For example, he saw a llama for a curelom, but had never seen one before, did not know the english name for it.

[StuddleyG]

You need to check that as there were pre-Columbus horses, but there is a belief they died out and were re-introduced.

JMS

With this fact under consideration, mormons who are young earth creationists would have no problem believing there were horses in America during Book of Mormon times. With a young earth belief, horses aren't a problem since carbon dating would have to be rejected.

[StuddleyG]

I personally think that there very well could have been horses. Those horse bones found on the Yucaton peninsula indicate that it is possible. Not concrete but possible.

[J Green]

No, it's that I don't see any practical difference between a tight translation and a mechanical translation. If the seer stone/U & T are showing you, in effect, "these characters mean these words," I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between "tight" and "mechanical."

This is the problem. You want to discuss translation issues without understanding or using the taxonomy. It's difficult to explore ideas about loan-shifting or other concerns if you don't see the difference. The distinction lies between a process (how JS translates) and a product (the end result of his translation).

PROCESS. Joseph either participates in the translation or he doesn't. Those who argue that he didn't participate in the translation believe that he was simply given the translation and then just read what was given to him back to the scribes. This would be a mechanical process. Those who advocate that he was able to understand the original text through the gift of God and helped formulate the words used in the translation are advocating for a translator-controlled process.

PRODUCT. The end result can reflect the original text in a word-for-word fashion that mirrors more of the original language structure and flow (a

[beastie]

Zak really needs to learn how to read footnotes. He cited Lindsay's footnotes, which Lindsay obtained from the old, and erroneous, wiki page, in their entirety to support the 400 AD date.

From Zak's post on page one, as a response to a CFR on the 400AD date:

The cited references above are (1) Palmer, D., ed. (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. pp.239

[beastie]

I personally think that there very well could have been horses. Those horse bones found on the Yucaton peninsula indicate that it is possible. Not concrete but possible.

Please check out my website page here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.htm

for a detailed refutation of the Yucatan claim. I'd rather not copy and paste the entire section, becaus it's quite lengthy, but assume that anyone who is genuinely interested in real data on this claim will take the time to follow the link.

[jskains]

I could be mean and add the ultimate possibility. That God put them there and allowed them to die out after the wars, and there just wasn't enough there for following cultures to adopt into their own "artforms".

JMS