More on Horses

[Teancum]

55 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Not to postmodern people it doesn't.

Well it probably does not matter to anyone really.  But humor me. Why does it not matter to postmodern people?

[Hamilton Porter]

6 minutes ago, cacheman said:

The article posted by the OP is not the same one in the BoMC video.  Instead, it provides evidence that modern horses were integrated into the plains Indians culture at as early as the early 1600's, prior to European settlement into those areas.  It also shows that the horses used by Native Americans did not originate from Late Pleistocene North American horses, but instead originated from European genetic sources.

Yup caught that.

[Hamilton Porter]

Just now, Teancum said:

Well it probably does not matter to anyone really.  But humor me. Why does it not matter to postmodern people?

He can speak for himself, since I'm not a philosopher. Looking at what he wrote in the other thread, it's ridiculous to be making existential decisions over horse bones.

[mfbukowski]

fergitabouitit

Edited April 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

What does Simon Southerton know about this subject? Thanks for linking the thread.

I just read the words people post. But if we have to have credentials to post, can you give me your cv so I can evaluate before reading what you post here. 

[Hamilton Porter]

Southerton's response was about the imperfections in the methodology, coupled with some of his signature bunghole rhetoric.

[Hamilton Porter]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

fergitabouitit

I'm busting beans!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well it probably does not matter to anyone really.  But humor me. Why does it not matter to postmodern people?

We have been over it a hundred times. Read the Rorty quote in my siggy.  If you have honest questions this time, ask THEN. 

Postmodernism, roughly, is the opposite of positivism.  Remember the all the times we discussed "positivism is dead"?

That's why the horses don't matter.

The paradigm you are pushing is a category mistake.

Religion is about your purpose in life, not about the evolution of horses. 

Parables are not scientific facts, nor is their value logically dependent on whether or not they are scientifically correct.

You don't need a statement of authenticity about the name and address including latitude and longitude of the location of the father in the prodigal son story to make the parable true and useful.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about horses.

It's not about that.

I'm not wasting more time.  I will be glad to answer honest questions. 

That's all your "humor" for today!

You know I love you dude! 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

47 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

his signature bunghole rhetoric.

Not going to disagree, but since you seem to imply this type of rhetoric is bad, you might want to spend some time looking in the mirror…

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Southerton's response was about the imperfections in the methodology, coupled with some of his signature bunghole rhetoric.

So you are unable to refute his arguments I see.

[Hamilton Porter]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Parables are not scientific facts, nor is their value logically dependent on whether or not they are scientifically correct.

I agree with this to a degree. Since the Book of Mormon is a religious history, not a history book, proving or disproving it scientifically would be quite absurd.

In any case, facts immediately surrounding Joseph Smith and witnesses should have greater evidentiary value than whether the book he produced is historical, definitely over whether we've found the right horse bones yet.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

In any case, facts immediately surrounding Joseph Smith and witnesses should have greater evidentiary value than whether the book he produced is historical, definitely over whether we've found the right horse bones yet.

Nope. Why would it?

Do you worry about Bach's biography in evaluating his music?

Edited April 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamilton Porter]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you are unable to refute his arguments I see.

He didn't really make an argument. He said this isn't evidence for horses because:

1. The sample might be contaminated.

2. This isn't evidence for horses because there is no evidence for horses.

3. Something about Kennewick man and other red herrings.

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope. Why would it?

Do you worry about Bach's biography in evaluating his music?

Why don't you tell the church to throw its historical archives into Great Salt Lake then? None of it matters.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

He didn't really make an argument.

I think that we have to be careful here - what exactly is the argument that is being made?

The arguments over horses have always been a bit indirect. The core issue is that we have a text that makes claims about its origins - it claims to be a translation of a historical text that describes events in the past occurring someplace. There is a critical response to the text that argues that it cannot possibly be what it claims to be because the text (in translation) refers to horses, which couldn't possibly exist in a specific time and place. The search for horse remains is entirely about disproving that critical argument, and not about proving the truth of the Book of Mormon - which is [only] a part of mfbukowski's point. Finding horse remains in exactly the right time and place (assuming that we are interpreting the text appropriately in that regard) still wouldn't give us evidence of the Book of Mormon. And even if we accept the idea that there were horses in the right place and time, our argument merely shifts to another set of interpretations about whether or not the text describes its horses in a context that matches up to this archaeological record. At every step of this process, we are tied up in interpretation of a modern text - and the way that we interpret the text makes these arguments ultimately fruitless. Critics and believers will almost never interpret a text in the same way because their approach to the text is so different from the very beginning - their rules for interpretation and reading have very little overlap even before they start to read (and interpret).

These kinds of arguments aren't about what really happened, they are only about the notion of plausibility. This isn't to say that it is a bad endeavor to engage a critical argument to try and confront its premises and conclusions, or even to make an argument about plausibility. We just need to also recognize that when we do this, we aren't actually making an argument about the truth of the text or the truth in the text.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That's why the horses don't matter.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about horses.

I agree with you on these points to a degree.  The gospel isn't about carbon dating horse bones.  Whether the word in the Book of Mormon that we read as horse looked the same to Mormon as the horse  I can see in a cowboy movie makes no difference.  Jesus Christ either died for my sins or he didn't.  Horses don't enter into that equation.

However...

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You don't need a statement of authenticity about the name and address including latitude and longitude of the location of the father in the prodigal son story to make the parable true and useful.

I think understanding the people in the scriptures and the context within which they are making decisions and exercising faith strengthens my understanding of the scriptures and helps put a face on the people.  And I find that the more I understand about the people involved, or at least their culture and beliefs, the more real the scripture story is.  And the more I can see someone in the scriptures as a real person the more I realize I can do what they did.  I can have faith.  I can serve.  I can repent.

I find it helps.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Why don't you tell the church to throw its historical archives into Great Salt Lake then? None of it matters.

Omigosh. History is valuable, it's just irrelevant to religious belief.  I just read this for Come Follow Me!

You are worrying about bread.

Matt  16:

"5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 ¶ Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

[ksfisher]

Article by Brant Gardner dealing with horses in the Book of Mormon

https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.pdf

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that we have to be careful here - what exactly is the argument that is being made?

The arguments over horses have always been a bit indirect. The core issue is that we have a text that makes claims about its origins - it claims to be a translation of a historical text that describes events in the past occurring someplace. There is a critical response to the text that argues that it cannot possibly be what it claims to be because the text (in translation) refers to horses, which couldn't possibly exist in a specific time and place. The search for horse remains is entirely about disproving that critical argument, and not about proving the truth of the Book of Mormon - which is [only] a part of mfbukowski's point. Finding horse remains in exactly the right time and place (assuming that we are interpreting the text appropriately in that regard) still wouldn't give us evidence of the Book of Mormon. And even if we accept the idea that there were horses in the right place and time, our argument merely shifts to another set of interpretations about whether or not the text describes its horses in a context that matches up to this archaeological record. At every step of this process, we are tied up in interpretation of a modern text - and the way that we interpret the text makes these arguments ultimately fruitless. Critics and believers will almost never interpret a text in the same way because their approach to the text is so different from the very beginning - their rules for interpretation and reading have very little overlap even before they start to read (and interpret).

These kinds of arguments aren't about what really happened, they are only about the notion of plausibility. This isn't to say that it is a bad endeavor to engage a critical argument to try and confront its premises and conclusions, or even to make an argument about plausibility. We just need to also recognize that when we do this, we aren't actually making an argument about the truth of the text or the truth in the text.

Agree, thanks, and there's more.

In 2500 years of Western philosophy NO ONE has come up with an undisputed theory of truth.

For those interested, and for evidence:

https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=truth

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I tend to believe natives over dumb white people, especially about their own history.

Then this should be pretty conclusive for you:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

He didn't really make an argument. He said this isn't evidence for horses because:

1. The sample might be contaminated.

2. This isn't evidence for horses because there is no evidence for horses.

3. Something about Kennewick man and other red herrings.

Yes.  He made an argument as to why the carbon dating may not be accurate.Same with Kennewick man

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I agree with this to a degree. Since the Book of Mormon is a religious history, not a history book, proving or disproving it scientifically would be quite absurd.

In any case, facts immediately surrounding Joseph Smith and witnesses should have greater evidentiary value than whether the book he produced is historical, definitely over whether we've found the right horse bones yet.

What matters to me is that he lied to people about important things that impacted them personally and for long periods. Especially regarding polygamy. He lied to Emma, he lied to church members, to the general public, to the federal government.

After having experienced that behaviour personally from someone in my life and having seen how such a person can fool lots of other people, it all made sense for me.

That's the kind of thing that matters to me.

[Hamilton Porter]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  He made an argument as to why the carbon dating may not be accurate.Same with Kennewick man

He said it's not gold standard, therefore, MORMONS AND KENNEWICK MAN.

Guy should stick to working with plants.

[Pyreaux]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What matters to me is that he lied to people about important things that impacted them personally and for long periods. Especially regarding polygamy. He lied to Emma, he lied to church members, to the general public, to the federal government.

After having experienced that behaviour personally from someone in my life and having seen how such a person can fool lots of other people, it all made sense for me.

That's the kind of thing that matters to me.

Wow. Its getting weird reading your personal hang ups about polygamy in this horse thread. Such "lies" seem a little murky and subjective.

[Hamilton Porter]

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What matters to me is that he lied to people about important things that impacted them personally and for long periods. Especially regarding polygamy. He lied to Emma, he lied to church members, to the general public, to the federal government.

After having experienced that behaviour personally from someone in my life and having seen how such a person can fool lots of other people, it all made sense for me.

That's the kind of thing that matters to me.

Sorry to hear that.