Those pesky Book of Mormon horses and elephants!!!

[rongo]

Just now, cinepro said:

Ultimately, you have two different translation theories: the "loose" translation and the "tight" translation, and defenders must insist that both were used, with Joseph ping-ponging back and forth between a tight translation and a loose translation. Such an elastic theory might be useful for defending the belief that it is an ancient document, but I'm not sure if it actually makes sense.

I think you're right about loose and tight being the two options. Why doesn't it make sense if both are correct at times? Why couldn't it be loose, unless the Spirit at times made it clear that it had to be that way (such as with certain spellings, or the odd words)? I don't see a reason why it can't make sense for it to be mostly loose, but tight at other times --- I think that's what the textual evidence indicates. 

I'm not a fan of the EmodE fad theory. I don't think it fits reality, I don't think it's compelling, and I think it adds a bunch of other things that need to be defended and shored up (needlessly). Why would God have a "ghost committee" force a "tight" text on Joseph? Why not simply help him translate "by the gift and power of God" through the seer stone and U&T, as understood through the loose and tight theories? 

[randy]

On 1/20/2021 at 3:54 PM, ksfisher said:

Ether 9:19

And they also had ^ahorses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

The word "useful" could be read as meaning some degree of domestication.  Either that or "especially tasty."

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals!

[OGHoosier]

On 1/21/2021 at 11:35 AM, rongo said:

 

I'm not a fan of the EmodE fad theory. I don't think it fits reality, I don't think it's compelling, and I think it adds a bunch of other things that need to be defended and shored up (needlessly). Why would God have a "ghost committee" force a "tight" text on Joseph? Why not simply help him translate "by the gift and power of God" through the seer stone and U&T, as understood through the loose and tight theories? 

I don't hold to EModE myself, mostly because I don't find it compelling in light of counterarguments. However, if that turns out to be what the evidence suggests, then I wouldn't think that the "why would God do X" questions" would be too troublesome. I tend to be a skeptical theist, which means that I'm immediately skeptical of human capacities to judge God's means, methods, or motives with any degree of epistemic confidence. In other words, I don't think "why would God do X" questions are all that useful. 

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

On 1/21/2021 at 11:35 AM, rongo said:

 

I'm not a fan of the EmodE fad theory. I don't think it fits reality, I don't think it's compelling, and I think it adds a bunch of other things that need to be defended and shored up (needlessly). Why would God have a "ghost committee" force a "tight" text on Joseph? Why not simply help him translate "by the gift and power of God" through the seer stone and U&T, as understood through the loose and tight theories? 

I don't hold to EModE myself, mostly because I don't find it compelling in light of counterarguments. However, if that turns out to be what the evidence suggests, then I wouldn't think that the "why would God do X" questions" would be too troublesome. I tend to be a skeptical theist, which means that I'm immediately skeptical of human capacities to judge God's means, methods, or motives with any degree of epistemic confidence. In other words, I don't think "why would God do X" questions are all that useful. 

The EModE theory is intriguing to me for the opposite reason stated by rongo, because it seems to go with exactly "why would God do X", in his method of operation that is made known to us through the restoration.  Just think about it...  Who did God get to reveal the record to Joseph?  One of the guys who wrote the book.  Who restored the priesthood?  The same guys who held the keys in the previous dispensation.  Most of the things that our Heavenly Father does are accomplished through the men and women that he calls to the work.  The miracles of God are done through extraordinary men and women.  So I don't see it as a strange thing for God to include some of the same individuals in a translation committee to prepare a translation ahead of time.  I'm not saying the EModE theory is right, because I think it's too early to tell.  But I certainly wouldn't cast it aside simply because it doesn't fit with the way that I think God should do his work.

Edited January 27, 2021 by InCognitus

[PacMan]

On 1/20/2021 at 4:27 AM, gav said:

Found this interesting in a documentary regarding new discoveries in the amazon with LIDAR. 

The segment I have linked below has paintings of a mastodon, giant sloth and early horse. If the link doesn't open correctly it's at 58:30 in the video. Be aware that there is some indigenous nudity in the surrounding documentary so keep that in mind depending on the audience.

There has been fossil evidence of pre-columbian horses etc. for a long time and now we have newly discovered pictorial evidence of the overlap with humans.

 

 

Check out 1:07:17. Clearly shows transoceanic voyages were possible and occurred. 

[carbon dioxide]

To me the whole horse, elephant issue is just an excuse to dismiss the Book of Mormon.  Archaeologists have not found evidence of any horses and elephants that date to BOM times therefore the BOM is wrong.  This is complete nonsense.  Archaeology only validates or does not validate something but it does not prove something is wrong as its a field of discovery.  Nobody has sifted through every square acre of land in the Americas to see if there are any horse or elephant bones exist from BOM times.  As new technology is developed, we see how little we know about ancient America.  In 2018, they found a 1000 year old city in Mexico that archaeologists totally missed. Not a small city but a Manhattan sized city with 40,000 foundations.  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5599318/ancient-pyramid-city-discovered-underground-mexico-angamuco/

If archaeologists can't notice Manhattan sized cities, I think its highly likely they could be missing small bone fragments that might be buried in the soil in some field.  The truth is they probably don't even know 10% of what is out there. And that keeps proving itself with LIDAR technology. 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

Delete

Edited January 31, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[dougtheavenger]

On 1/20/2021 at 6:27 AM, gav said:

Found this interesting in a documentary regarding new discoveries in the amazon with LIDAR. 

The segment I have linked below has paintings of a mastodon, giant sloth and early horse. If the link doesn't open correctly it's at 58:30 in the video. Be aware that there is some indigenous nudity in the surrounding documentary so keep that in mind depending on the audience.

There has been fossil evidence of pre-columbian horses etc. for a long time and now we have newly discovered pictorial evidence of the overlap with humans.

 

 

 

[dougtheavenger]

If I am not mistaken, horses and elephants are only mentioned in the Book of Ether and only before the "Great Dirth".  This means the Book of Ether may be the oldest book on Earth.

Edited February 20, 2021 by dougtheavenger

[Sevenbak]

In related news, the science keeps changing, and statements made in the past have to be changed to to support the status quo.  

Remember that ice age horse discovered a couple years ago in Lehi Utah?  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/science/horse-skeleton-utah.html

 

Well... this week they announced that the horse had been ridden, and so naturally could only be a few hundred years old, instead of thousands of years.   

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/29706/20210217/horse-skeleton-ice-age-found-utah-backyard-isnt-what-seems.htm

 

Oh the frailties of men.  When they are learned they think they are wise...

Edited February 22, 2021 by Sevenbak

[katherine the great]

42 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

Well... this week they announced that the horse had been ridden, and so naturally could only be a few hundred years old, instead of thousands of years.   

That isn’t what they based the date on. That information is what caused them to look closer. The bones were radiocarbon dated and showed that the horse died sometime after the 1680s. Analysis of the teeth indicated that the horse ate local plants and drank local water. The healed injuries suggested the horse was kept alive and cared for (by humans) and they guess the purpose may have been to breed her. 

[Emily]

On 1/26/2021 at 6:38 PM, OGHoosier said:

I tend to be a skeptical theist, which means that I'm immediately skeptical of human capacities to judge God's means, methods, or motives with any degree of epistemic confidence. In other words, I don't think "why would God do X" questions are all that useful

I actually find "why would God do X" questions extremely useful. For example, "Why would God create a veil over our knowledge of the pre-existence?" This question, if you assume that His actions were meant for our good, can lead to a better understanding and acceptance of God's methodologies. 

"Why would God give a fourteen year old boy a vision?" "Why does God allow evil?" "Why did God restrict travel to the Americas to select groups until the 1400s then open the place to a European free for all that decimated the indigenous people?"  These are all good questions that can lead to enlightening, reconciling and sometimes humbling discussions - again, when you are working from the presumption that no matter how inexplicable the occurrence, the end result was intended for our good.,

The "Why would God....X?" questions are only useless when the questions are used in an attempt to deny clear evidence or because a theory is being rejected based on personal bias rather than cogent counter arguments.

For example (at the risk of sending this discussion completely off topic.)

"Why would God use evolution to create our mortal bodies? I think the dirt stirring is literal."

or...

"Why would God have Moroni carry the plates all the way from Central America to New York? It makes more sense to have the Nephites and Lamanites duke it out around the foot of that shale hill in New York."

[Emily]

1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

In related news, the science keeps changing, and statements made in the past have to be changed to to support the status quo.  

I'm not going to deny that scientists, as fallible human beings, are occasionally prone to wrapping data around preconceived notions, and are often slow to accept data that contradicts those notions.

However, in this instance (based on the summary of the referenced research paper), it looks like the initial dating of the skeleton was based on the strata in which the bones were found (old sediment layers) and the later dating was based on actually dating the skeleton itself. The calibrated carbon dating had a large spread of about 200 years. The latter end of the date being in the 1800s, pioneer period. So the researchers took further measurements of the teeth to determine possible diet, and used that to support the idea that the horse was raised in Utah - not brought in from the East, and was probably from the earlier 1600s period, and therefore a horse used by Native Americans, rather than migrating Europeans.

Nothing sinister here. Just scientists looking at new data and trying to figure out what it means. One meaning being that Native Americans in Utah were possibly riding horses as early as 1680.

This is good. The further back they can push Native Americans riding horses, the more likely scientists will eventually conceed the point that Northern Native Americans keep trying to make... That they've always had horses.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Emily said:

I'm not going to deny that scientists, as fallible human beings, are occasionally prone to wrapping data around preconceived notions, and are often slow to accept data that contradicts those notions.

However, in this instance (based on the summary of the referenced research paper), it looks like the initial dating of the skeleton was based on the strata in which the bones were found (old sediment layers) and the later dating was based on actually dating the skeleton itself. The calibrated carbon dating had a large spread of about 200 years. The latter end of the date being in the 1800s, pioneer period. So the researchers took further measurements of the teeth to determine possible diet, and used that to support the idea that the horse was raised in Utah - not brought in from the East, and was probably from the earlier 1600s period, and therefore a horse used by Native Americans, rather than migrating Europeans.

Nothing sinister here. Just scientists looking at new data and trying to figure out what it means. One meaning being that Native Americans in Utah were possibly riding horses as early as 1680.

This is good. The further back they can push Native Americans riding horses, the more likely scientists will eventually conceed the point that Northern Native Americans keep trying to make... That they've always had horses.

 

Sad I can't give you a rep point yet.  Well stated.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Emily said:

I actually find "why would God do X" questions extremely useful. For example, "Why would God create a veil over our knowledge of the pre-existence?" This question, if you assume that His actions were meant for our good, can lead to a better understanding and acceptance of God's methodologies. 

"Why would God give a fourteen year old boy a vision?" "Why does God allow evil?" "Why did God restrict travel to the Americas to select groups until the 1400s then open the place to a European free for all that decimated the indigenous people?"  These are all good questions that can lead to enlightening, reconciling and sometimes humbling discussions - again, when you are working from the presumption that no matter how inexplicable the occurrence, the end result was intended for our good.,

The "Why would God....X?" questions are only useless when the questions are used in an attempt to deny clear evidence or because a theory is being rejected based on personal bias rather than cogent counter arguments.

For example (at the risk of sending this discussion completely off topic.)

"Why would God use evolution to create our mortal bodies? I think the dirt stirring is literal."

or...

"Why would God have Moroni carry the plates all the way from Central America to New York? It makes more sense to have the Nephites and Lamanites duke it out around the foot of that shale hill in New York."

 

I agree.  I find why questions very useful personally, and noticed lately that my scripture study marks include a lot of random question marks in the margins.  Where the 'why's fall short in my opinion is when we use them to ask "Why would God do something that I don't agree with" type of questions. 

Trying to use ourselves and our very limited understanding as the standard for what God would or wouldn't do isn't usually very useful (seeing as how the scriptures are clear that our ways and His ways don't match up often) and I wonder if that's what OGHoosier meant?  Hopefully he'll clarify.

[Rajah Manchou]

On 1/31/2021 at 5:04 PM, PacMan said:

Check out 1:07:17. Clearly shows transoceanic voyages were possible and occurred. 

If you look at the map included with the video, you'll see that one of the source locations is a narrow neck of land that matches the geography of the Book of Mormon. It was known as Komara in Book of Mormon times. The DNA of the people who first settled in this narrow neck of land is heavily shifted towards the Middle East, including R1a-M420, R-M479, R-M17, and R-M124. They later traveled east through the Polynesian islands as far as South America and west as far as Madagascar.

Michael Coe himself stated that he believed the Maya of Mesoamerica were culturally connected to the ancient inhabitants of Komara.

[Emily]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Trying to use ourselves and our very limited understanding as the standard for what God would or wouldn't do isn't usually very useful (seeing as how the scriptures are clear that our ways and His ways don't match up often) and I wonder if that's what OGHoosier meant?  Hopefully he'll clarify.

That's probably what he meant. But even if we can't fully comprehend all of God's thoughts, I believe it's still useful to try to comprehend his thoughts.  We are, indeed, actively encouraged to try to understand Him and given metaphors to help us in that quest. Example: "He is your father and he's a good one. What do good earthly fathers do?"

It's true that all of those scriptural comparisons only allow us to see through glass, and it's dark on the other side - but we still see more than if we don't bother to look at all, or if we dismiss the ideas of other people who are also looking, not because we have studied it out and found definite flaws in their glass, but simply because we have grown comfortable with our own view.

"Why did God do this?"  is one of the best questions (in my probably not humble enough opinion) for trying to comprehend the mind of God.  (Although the "How did God do this?" questions are a bit more fun. 😁)