Horses in Ancient America?

[beastie]

The challenge with this - (the issue of the horse as Beastie portrays it) is that there isn't any sufficient reason (in my estimation) to assume that its existence in mesoamerica would have had the same impact on the evolution of culture there as it did elsewhere.

I believe I've asked this several times so far without receiving a response (perhaps not necessarily from you, but others echoing this argument).

Can you provide an example of a culture that had horses for over a thousand years and those horses did NOT impact the evolution of their culture?

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

More strawmen.

Please explain.

And...of course, when everything else fails...haul in Hitler. 

So, does this mean you don

[Dan Vogel]

USU78,

Absent discovery of in situ evidence in the form of Absent discovery of in situ evidence in the form of a freeway sign saying "Zarahemla, next 3 exits," some will never be convinced by the evidence. some will never be convinced by the evidence.

Do you think Schliemann discovered Troy because there was

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

So assume we begin w. 20 perceived anacronisms. Over time, how many of those would have to be overturned (ala the horses issue) before, in the critics view, the scale tips?

At what point do these begin to be more than mere "lucky guesses?"

I can imagine ways the BofM could be proven true without the guessing game you describe. BofM historicity is a complex issue that doesn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Can you provide an example of a culture that had horses for over a thousand years and those horses did NOT impact the evolution of their culture?

No. Should this make a difference? You seem to be using this as a way of avoiding the larger issue. There are specific reasons why the horse (or something similar) was necessary for cultural development in some places. Those same issues do not exist in Mesoamerica. Why is your request even relevant?

Ben

[USU78]

USU78,

Absent discovery of in situ evidence in the form of Absent discovery of in situ evidence in the form of a freeway sign saying "Zarahemla, next 3 exits," some will never be convinced by the evidence. some will never be convinced by the evidence.

Do you think Schliemann discovered Troy because there was

[MAsh]

CI, any idea with the updated info on horses (per your conversation with John C.). might be forthcoming?

Mike Ash

MormonFortress.com

[Benjamin McGuire]

C.I. -

Perhaps you might find the following two sets of statments by Dan Vogel a bit humerous:

Of course, we cannot speak for all readers, but you cannot assume that Masons such as Hyrum Smith had a different interpretation based solely on the fact that they believed the BofM and were baptized. That is an assumption from silence. If any assumption is to be made, it would clearly have to be that all readers agreed with the one

[Confidential Informant]

CI, any idea with the updated info on horses (per your conversation with John C.). might be forthcoming?

No. He just said he thought it would be in the next year or so and that it would deal with horses time-dates to the time of Christ (2000 years ago) and found in Texas and Wyoming.

He specifically said it wasn't his research so he didn't have all the details.

However, he did note that in his presentation he mentioned horses but was intentionally vague. Apparently, there are more of these "bones" found in some collections that archeologists are currently trying to get at (Private collections maybe? or perphaps collections held by the Mexican gov't) and he didn't want to say anything that would jeoprodize those relationships and compromise those attempts to gain access.

C.I.

Edited to fix an spelling error.

[Benjamin McGuire]

And now a few questions for Dan -

A little later in his book (p. 17), Laudan makes the following comments:

Both Dudley Shapere and I have written at some length on debates among scientists about the goals of science. We are persuaded that scientists have often been able to give compelling reasons for adopting one set of aims rather than another. We still lack a perfectly general theory about the constraints - empirical and otherwise - that govern the 'rational' choice of aims and goals. But the absence of a fully general theory about how debates about aims and methods are rationally adjudicated in science does not militate aginst the fact that we now understand several of those valuative mechanisms pretty clearly. And what that understanding establishes is that the selection of methods and aims for science need be neither capricious nor wholly subjective.

It seems to me, among other things, that our "aims" cannot be entirely independant. When we work to achive a particular goal or "aim", we can make achieving other "aims" impossible. We do not simply move from one goal to the next in a linear fashion. So, even if we exclude utopian aims (although in the course of this discussion this might not be a realistic approach), we can still have several incompatible "aims". And these may be "aims" that we discover the incompatibility only after we begin to pursue them. Laudan suggests here that there are "rational and compeeling reasons for adopting one set of aims rather than another." But, in having to create hierarchies of "sets of aims", we create a situation in which two scientists, although faced with the same cognitive values, will still disagree in their valuations of their "sets of aims" - and who therefore come tom completely different theoretical evaluations.

Can Laudan even complete his theory? Can reason be used to create the hierarchy of aims? When we order those aims, the values we use (and they can be anything - simplicity, relevance, centrality, etc.) are just that - values. They are not Laudan's meta-values. And it is hard to imagine that simple reason will lead us to prefer one set of values against another. Don't you think that this creates pluralism and relativism - because differences in the hierarchy of values of aims cannot be rationally decided?

Ben

[rameumptom]

Would such a discovery radically alter your view of the Book of Mormon?  Why or why not? 

No. They will simply move on to the next "missing" proof in an area that cannot be proved and never will be. That is the point for the last of the Enlightenment flagbearers ...the impossible dream.

I'm supposing that the only thing that would satisfy SOME of them would be for God to send a platoon of angels down with the gold plates, certified postage.

But then, the same arguments can go for the Bible. I can show that Joshua didn't bring down the walls of Jericho. I can show from the evidences that Adam didn't exist as we think of him in a creationist/6000 year way. I can show there was no global flood.

Why is it that many anti-Mormons have no problems with being Judaeo-Christians?????

Why don't they insist that God to send a platoon of angels down with the Ten Commandments on stone tablets, certified postage, as well?

[Dan Vogel]

USU78,

The spiritual witness is.

I

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

In the first quote, Dan asserts that the the best assumption is that because some readers claimed that the Book of Mormon was anti-masonic, we can assume that all readers read anti-masonry into the text. But, in response to you, he claims that you can't assume from the text that because it doesn't mention riding or warfare, that it wasn't so.

I

[smac97]

>>> Do you think the evidence for the BofM is so overwhelming that only the ignorant and stubborn refuse to acknowledge it?

>> The spiritual witness is.

> I

[USU78]

I had said: "As for Schliemann: evidence which convinced folks that Schliemann's site in W. Turkey is likely Troy is not evidence that Aphrodite won a beauty contest which led to a war."

to which DV responded:

Not sure what this is supposed to prove either. Removing the question of the BofM

[beastie]

Beastie writes:

QUOTE 

Can you provide an example of a culture that had horses for over a thousand years and those horses did NOT impact the evolution of their culture?

No. Should this make a difference? You seem to be using this as a way of avoiding the larger issue. There are specific reasons why the horse (or something similar) was necessary for cultural development in some places. Those same issues do not exist in Mesoamerica. Why is your request even relevant?

You need support for your assertion that horses could have existed for well over a thousand years in an area that never demonstrates a cultural impact from those horses. I'd like to see that this is possible, and if it is, you should be able to demonstrate it. The world is a big place with a long history.

You do realize that Mesoamerica has a varied geography, and evidence exists that fairly wide scale trade and communications were taking place over that wide spread area, don't you? Let's say you're correct, and the horse was fairly useless in the limited area of the Nephites. The problem is that the horse already existed there, and even prior to the Nephite's arrival, and certainly afterwards, given the trade and communication throughout Mesoamerica, other people who lived in areas of Mesoamerica which would be more hospitable to the horse would have eventually began to use the horse in a way that would leave a cultural impact.

Here are some additional comments I mentioned earlier today, regarding the quality of earlier claimed evidences for horses.

Here is another example of why it is prudent to investigate sources, particularly when the sources are stated to make claims that directly contradict the conclusions of experts in the field.

From Quest For the Gold Plates by Stan Larson, p 190.

Sorenson, in an effort to support his position that the horse might have survived into Book of Mormon times, stated the following:

Archaeologist Paul S. Martin, for example, saw no theoretical reason why

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

It seems to me, among other things, that our "aims" cannot be entirely independant. When we work to achive a particular goal or "aim", we can make achieving other "aims" impossible. We do not simply move from one goal to the next in a linear fashion. So, even if we exclude utopian aims (although in the course of this discussion this might not be a realistic approach), we can still have several incompatible "aims". And these may be "aims" that we discover the incompatibility only after we begin to pursue them. Laudan suggests here that there are "rational and compeeling reasons for adopting one set of aims rather than another." But, in having to create hierarchies of "sets of aims", we create a situation in which two scientists, although faced with the same cognitive values, will still disagree in their valuations of their "sets of aims" - and who therefore come tom completely different theoretical evaluations.

Can Laudan even complete his theory? Can reason be used to create the hierarchy of aims? When we order those aims, the values we use (and they can be anything - simplicity, relevance, centrality, etc.) are just that - values. They are not Laudan's meta-values. And it is hard to imagine that simple reason will lead us to prefer one set of values against another. Don't you think that this creates pluralism and relativism - because differences in the hierarchy of values of aims cannot be rationally decided?

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Another book by Laudan that you might want to look at is Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate (Berkeley, Ca: University of California Press, 1984). One of the things he discusses is the limitations of the hierarchical structure of scientific debates, and advances a

[Dan Vogel]

Smack,

==I think many of "the truths in the book" are inextricably linked to the book's historicity. The "historicity" of the risen Christ, for example, is also perhaps the greatest "truth" of the Book of Mormon.

Does the BofM have to be historically true before the HG will bear witness? Does a spiritual witness also mean that everything in the NT about Jesus is historically accurate?

Is it possible that you are pushing your spiritual experience beyond its content? In other words, is it not possible that you are making unfounded assumptions about your experience the same as one might a non-spiritual experience? Is it possible to misinterpret spiritual witnesses?

> Removing the question of the BofM

[Dan Vogel]

USU78,

What hath historicity of Troy (i.e., Troy's actual existence in time and space) to do with Aphrodite's "gift" to young Paris? Not a dang thing. Likewise both the Master's appearance at the Bountiful Temple and Nephi's Asherah have nothing to do with Zarahemla's discovery by some LDS Schliemann. Zarahemla's "discovery" would no more prove the Master's New World appearance any more than Troy's discovery prove Aphrodite's vanity and malice.

I understood the gist of what you were arguing, but you are quite wrong. What I mean to say is that you are right about Troy, but wrong about Zarahemla. If Zarahemla were unequivocally found, there would be only one way JS could have known that.

and with which I [sort of] agreed here: "The spiritual witness is [overwhelming]."

Do you think only Mormons who have not experienced spiritual witness can change their minds about BofM historicity?

[dragonslayer]

Would such a discovery radically alter your view of the Book of Mormon?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

I

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

You need support for your assertion that horses could have existed for well over a thousand years in an area that never demonstrates a cultural impact from those horses. I'd like to see that this is possible, and if it is, you should be able to demonstrate it. The world is a big place with a long history.

And where did I make this assertion?

I don't think I have ever asserted (in this thread anyway) the notion that the Nephites understood "horse" in the same conceptual and semantic model which you do. Hence, the complete irrelevance of your comments in response to my approach to the text here in this thread.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

These theories have been replaced by more comprehensive theories; yet, they can never be disproved in absolute terms. So, how do you explain scientific consensus on such matters as these, if as you say,

[USU78]

DV:

Do you think only Mormons who have not experienced spiritual witness can change their minds about BofM historicity?

Interesting question. After thinking about it for quite a while, I conclude, "Yes."

First for practical reasons: I have no expectation, for example, that Zarahemla was called that other than by a very small number of people.

Second for spiritual reasons: The Aphrodite/Paris/Helen example shows us that the underlying faith claims may be quite independent of the historicity of place claims. Ultimately, JSJr.'s testimony of angels, the Father and the Master all are unprovable by other than spiritual means. I am quite confident someone would be able to spin Zarahemla found to be independent of JSJr.'s testimony, and, hence, the sceptic and scoffer would remain safely unconvinced.

[Confidential Informant]

Beastie,

I'm sorry I cannot find the original post to which I am responding here. Perhaps I'm on the wrong thread, though I would have sworn it was this one.

At any rate, your point was that Smith was exposed to certain idea which were prevalent in his cultural milieu and was therefore influenced by them and could have included them in his book w/o ever having actual read the books from which those idea sprang. ( I hope I'm not misstating your point).

That's a fair point, but it also misses a lot.

It's one thing to say that Joseph took general idea that were floating around the neighborhood and refashioned them into concepts in his narrative, but how does that explain specific details about both ancient Israel and ancient Mesoamerica that he got right?

How does the fact that the question of pedobaptism was being debated translate into specific descriptions of mesoamerican fortifications consisting of trenches and earthen walls crowed with a wooden balastrade?

How does the fact that the question of priesthood authority was being debated translate into a detailed description of Mayan kingship power structures?

How do any of those ideas explain the detailed use of cement?

How do any of these ideas explain the description of the Jaredite timeline which almost perfectly paralells that of the Olmecs, a civilization that wasn't even recognized until something like 150 years after the fact?

You might (and it's a big "might") be able to attribute some of Smith's theological ideas to ideas that were floating around his cultural milieu at that time, but to explain the details, at some point you got to place the appropriate books (assuming they exist) into his hands. It's not enough to simply claim the books existed and it's not enough to speculate that Smith "may" have had access to them, because eyewitness testimony states he didn't have books.

Either that, or you've got to prove that he was wrong, but according to Clark's chart that he showed in D.C., it's not trending in your favor.

C.I.