More on Horses

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly!

Even though it has been repudiated, largely by its founders.

It has no scientific or philosophical basis.

Wittgenstein repudiated the entire Tractatus. AJ Ayer, it's founder also repudiated it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayer/

You keep ignoring my questions.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you are mistaken here. Gen Zers and millennials are the ones rejecting Mormonism in droves and mainly due to the history and the social positions of the church.  And also this group rejects organized religion in large  numbers and are politically liberal.

More’s the pity. They energetically destroy things, but they contribute and build nothing.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well, I think we are kindred spirits in a way, but it just doesn't seem to be sticking.

I am trying.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let's discuss western Civilization in about 200 years, ok? 

 

 

I would be happy to see it.

[Bernard Gui]

Quote

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

Horses evolved in the Americas around four million years ago, but by about 10,000 years ago, they had mostly disappeared from the fossil record, per the Conversation. Spanish settlers likely first brought horses back to the Americas in 1519, when Hernán Cortés arrived on the continent in Mexico. Per the new paper, Indigenous peoples then transported horses north along trade networks.

To trace when the animals spread, researchers radiocarbon dated and analyzed the DNA of the remains of more than two dozen horses found across the Western U.S. The remains had been stored in archaeological collections countrywide, per Live Science’s Kristina Killgrove.

Three of the horses, with remains from Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico, date to before the Pueblo Revolt. And rather than simply roaming the countryside on their own, the horses appear to have been part of Native American culture. Dental damage on one horse and bony growths on the skull of another suggest people had put bridles on the animals, per Science News’ Bruce Bower. Certain chemical elements in the creatures’ teeth signaled they ate maize, an Indigenous crop. And another horse had a healed facial fracture, meaning it might have been given veterinary attention, per Live Science.

The researchers compared the ancient horses’ DNA with that of modern horses and found that the centuries-old equines had largely Spanish ancestry. Together, the findings suggest horses spread “from Spanish settlements in the American Southwest to the northern Rockies and central Great Plains by the first half of the 17th century. 

 

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

More’s the pity. They energetically destroy things, but they contribute and build nothing.

Yea I am not as cynical about these generation as you are.  Adults thought our generation was going to burn down the world.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

More’s the pity. They energetically destroy things, but they contribute and build nothing.

LOL…….No.

[Hamilton Porter]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

More’s the pity. They energetically destroy things, but they contribute and build nothing.

They eat tide pods.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

They eat tide pods.

And boomers and Gen Xers were denying themselves life-saving vaccines and died in even greater numbers so glass houses and stones and all that.

[rodheadlee]

I thought we were going to talk about horses:-)

Don't tell me I read all those Louis L'Amour  books for nothing.

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So my belief or disbelief in horses in the Book of Mormon is a test of my faith in Christ? 

Not Christ, but yeah, I've lived through a quarter century of critics using archaeology as a test of their willingness to accept BoM truth claims.

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So which is it, no or yes?  Does my disbelief in horses in the Book or Mormon disqualify me, in your judgement, as a believer in Christ? 

 

Sorry, poor choice of words.  Of course not.  Christians can believe in Christ and absolutely disbelieve just about all the 'new world specific' truth claims of the BoM.  

 

[morgan.deane]

On 4/10/2023 at 11:54 PM, The Nehor said:

And the Mongols with their very specialized horse culture were able to break all the rules of warfare due to that culture.

Here we go again. Last time I commented about a rather broad and ridiculous statement that supplying Nephite and Jaredite armies would equal the allied effort from World War II. 

But as a military historian I've covered just about every type of military history so I'm probably the only one qualified to scratch his head and ask what rules were changed?

In my studies I didn't see any rules changed. Nomadic armies with horseback archers always had some advantages over their sedentary neighbors. They were incredibly mobile so they could strike unexpectedly at vulnerable spots. They were weak when it came to siege craft and cities, which is where the Mongol invasion bogged down in China. You can read the chapter on the Battle of Xiangyang in my book here: https://www.amazon.com/Decisive-Battles-Chinese-History-Morgan/dp/1594162891#:~:text=Decisive Battles in Chinese History by Morgan Deane overcomes these,major Japanese operations in China.

Or read about it generally here: 

Mountain Fortress Defence: The Experience of the Southern Song and Korea in Resisting the Mongol Invasions by Huang K’uan-Chung and David Wright in Warfare in Chinese History, Hans Van De Ven ed. 

A successful invasion from a nomadic based army leading to a geographic expansive empire happened so many times from Scythians, Huns, Magyars, Mongols, and to a lesser extent by Parthians, Turks, Mamluks, Crimean Tatars, and Russians that some scholars say the years from about 400 to 1400 were the age of the nomad. See this for example about that school of thought: https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/7323

What I've learned about Genghis Khan is that he had the charisma to unite a larger group of tribes and his successors incorporated defeated people into the armies which gave them naval commanders and siege experts, which helped Kublai Khan at the Battle of Xiangyang for example. Just because the Mongols did it better, doesn't mean they invented any new rules. 

I get the central argument is that the Nephites didn't change culturally around the horse so apparently research that proves the horse was in ancient America doesn't matter. But the Book of Mormon hardly mentions the horse to begin with. It is mentioned in some vague descriptions about floral and fauna in a couple places. Repeated in the Isaiah chapters. It seemed to be a supply of food in 3 Nephi 3. And horses had to be "prepared" in relation to chariots in Ammon's story. So a handful of mentions over a thousand years doesn't sound like it should have an effect on Nephite culture. It wasn't mentioned in relation as a beast of burden in farming, or in warfare, which are the two major ways they would affect a civilization. (Except for the part about warfare, the account in Ammon most closely aligns with the concept of a ceremonial beast that accompanies a king, and depictions of those are in found in Mesoamerican culture. But thats a discussion for another time.) 

Its usually the apologists that are accused of this, but I've seen it more in critics. The critics on this board seem to be relying on a set of faulty assumptions about history. The Mongols didn't really change any rules about warfare but were much like another dozen nomadic groups. Then the broad, borderline mischaracterization of history is compared with a lazy reading regarding the Book of Mormon. The Nephites were sedentary and didn't mention the horse that much, and when horses are mentioned in the text, it wasn't in relation to warfare or farming where we should expect to hear about them if they were pivotal to Nephite horse culture. Long story short, your point is not supported by history, and when you try to compare that bad history to the text, the point is even less useful in understanding horses in the Book of Mormon. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, morgan.deane said:

Here we go again. Last time I commented about a rather broad and ridiculous statement that supplying Nephite and Jaredite armies would equal the allied effort from World War II.  

That sounds insane. Ancient logistics just didn’t work like modern logistics.

I probably should have said steppe nomads and not mongols. That will teach me to post when I have a fever and my brain is frying.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You do know you are in an LDS themed message board, right? There are some people who read the book of Mormon here…

 

I am just following the science.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, morgan.deane said:

David Wright in Warfare in Chinese History, Hans Van De Ven ed. 

Glad to see David’s made good. We were good friends up in Calgary.  He lent me a book or two.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

I don’t know how you sit through fast and testimony meeting without biting your tongue so hard you go right through it. All those superfluous “is true” statements. Also wonder if your ward has your Rorty quote memorized yet.

No- every one of those statements about truth is correct.  And you are not understanding how Ayer makes that possible through his attitude and context- even though HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION.

  The church IS TRUE.  READ ALMA 32 

I never said I accepted Ayer's position- the point is that HE LEFT HIS OWN POSITIVISM and went with the theory he put forward in my earlier quote.  I did not then nor do I now accept his theories!

I guess I have to do it for you ALMA 32 is the ultimate statement- which actually works philosophically!!!

Quote

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a asign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

These are they who seek "sure evidence" proving the existence of God.

Quote

 

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to abelieve, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much amore bcursed is he that cknoweth the dwill of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into etransgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

 

One must work on finding his own "path/truth/testimony".   It is up to every person

Quote

21 And now as I said concerning faith—afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye bhope for things which are cnot seen, which are true.

One must start with HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN.   This is therefore NOT about seeking scientific evidence.  It is a HOPE for things NOT SCIENTIFICALLY verifiable- which clearly INCLUDES religious topics.   "I hope there is a God- wouldn't that be wonderful?"

Quote

 

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is amerciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, anot only men but women also. Now this is not all; little bchildren do have words given unto them many times, which cconfound the wise and the learned.

 

ALL who seek can receive a testimony- John 5:1 and Moroni 10:3 -6 ish

Quote

 

24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—

25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who awould humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.

 

"Take it slow and easy- don't worry about it.  You can't get truth overnight!  I am not trying to humble you- some of you would, but take it easy as you can according to your circumstances".

Quote

 

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

 

You're not going to get "perfect" knowledge out of this- you have to try the practice.  So EXPERIMENT with it- first you have to exercise faith to see if it is going to work at all.

Try it and you will see that it works- then go from there.

Quote

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Notice what qualifies for "EVIDENCE" here- you must not resist- but allow the FEELING of the goodness of the word- by it "swelling" in your breast.   It feels good, and you will want more of this feeling.  You will FEEL that it is good and give "light" to your spirit.  It will be "delicious" and you will want some more.

This is of course a different kind of evidence than impartial scientific evidence- it is deeply personal and emotionally connected.  It encompasses ALL of you- body and mind and soul!  This is motivated by what we call the "spirit"

Quote

 

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand.

 

This is pefect Pragmatic theory of truth- (insofar as it IS a theory of truth- a bit technical-)  The word WORKS in your life and this is what most people mean with the phrase "I know the church is true"- it means "I have planted the seed and tasted the fruit of the gospel of Jesus Christ- and I KNOW it works by my own experience- the belief has brought me peace and all I could want to acieve purpose in my life, and comfort that my sins are forgiven through Jesus."

You feel the light of Christ- your conscience and you know that what you feel is true and does exactly what you wanted it to do for you- give you comfort and peace of mind in the gospel.

And so it is "true" and you KNOW IT!

OK now this is where it gets REALLY interesting- and discusses reality.   PRAGMATIC REALITY IS ACTUAL EXPERIENCE- if you are looking through a microscope, that is a different experience than NOT looking through a microscope- it is the "reality" itself that changes by changing the perspective and experience of reality.

Quote

 

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

 

But the testimony must be fed with further experiences, study and understanding and fostered in order to grow into true knowledge

Quote

 

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you.

 

And so now in religious contexts the criterion of truth becomes the "sweetness" of the message and its affects in our lives.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

You keep ignoring my questions.

HUH?  Sorry I guess- please ask again whatever I missed.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So what I’m really itching to know now is, what was the immature AJ Ayer’s view?

🙂

Positivism- I thought I had made that clear- sorry

He felt that any sentence which could not be objectively verifiable was nonsense.   His mature view left open the possibilities of other paradigms.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And boomers and Gen Xers were denying themselves life-saving vaccines and died in even greater numbers so glass houses and stones and all that.

LOL. No.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

They eat tide pods.

And tablespoons of cinnamon.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea I am not as cynical about these generation as you are.  Adults thought our generation was going to burn down the world.

There’s plenty of help.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And tablespoons of cinnamon.

Is that an issue?

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

I don’t know how you sit through fast and testimony meeting without biting your tongue so hard you go right through it. All those superfluous “is true” statements. Also wonder if your ward has your Rorty quote memorized yet.

It's not that hard. LDS testimony meetings are a fascinating thing. Someone says, "I know the the Church is true" - but Churches cannot technically be 'true' - instead the phrase has become a substitute for a series of propositions that someone might hold that they believe are true (and propositions generally can be true and false). And out there in the congregation, when I say 'Amen', what I mean is that I also hold to a series of propositions about the Church that I believe are true. And in this way, we all understand the Church as true, even if we have an entire congregation who, individually, have unique sets of propositions that they believe about the Church.

I am not sure that the "is true" statements are entirely superfluous - and I am very sure that few members have ever thought about it in these terms.

[ksfisher]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Positivism- I thought I had made that clear- sorry

He felt that any sentence which could not be objectively verifiable was nonsense.   His mature view left open the possibilities of other paradigms.

You had. I think I’ve just been watching too much Monty Python lately and couldn’t resist. 

[Dario_M]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

You had. I think I’ve just been watching too much Monty Python lately and couldn’t resist. 

I find this nonsens i hope you don't mind. 

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

HUH?  Sorry I guess- please ask again whatever I missed.

Ok. Maybe it is time to start our private conversation.  Tax season has just been overwhelming me. I really do want to try to understand your approach better and educate myself. I really am open to being lead to wherever God or some higher power may lead me. I have a great void in my life right now.