I know the issue has been discussed and I've even seen the funny yet disrespectful signature of one common poster on the subject, but I came across an interesting claim of which I'd been previously unaware:

The horse was vital in the Hun warrior society of Asia and Eastern Europe, but there is no known horse bone from this period in the archaeologic record.

The horse played a minimal role in Book of Mormon societies, and yet there is some evidence of horses among Mesoamericans.

Ironic?

(Paraphrased from http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Animals#Horse.)

[This message has been edited by uriah923 (edited 3/21/2008 1:53p).]

And your source is... the Mormons??

Sorry, get back to me when you can cite a respected independent scholar.

I know of no valid evidence of any horses in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times. I know of no non-LDS scholar who would even suggest such.

I doubt the Hun claim, but I will look into it.

The more important focus is not to dissect horses by themselves. You can do that, and if you do it with an open mind, I think you will conclude there were no horses. More important is to look at all the different anachronisms and consider whether the LDS apologist defenses are likely or maybe just plausible.

Take horses for example. The evidence is against the presence of horses, but the apologists draw attention to a single horse skull in South Dakota or somewhere (that was planted as a prank) and to other arguments that could make it seem plausible that horses may have existed.

The problem is that the truth is usually a product of the likely rather than the plausible. Sometimes truth is messy. Sometimes it results from unlikely circumstances. Usually, though, truth is related to the likely.

If you set aside the BoM text, is it "likely" that horses existed in Mesoamerica in BoM times? No. In fact, it is highly unlikely.

Now, if horses were the only anachronism in the BoM, then maybe you could overlook it.

There are many, many other anachronisms. There is no need to list them all here.

LDS apologists have vigorously put up defenses regarding these anachronisms. But you should ask yourself, are the defenses likely? Possible? Barely plausible?

Is it likely that there were cattle in Mesoamerica? Is it likely that there was steel armor and weapons in Mesoamerica? (Is it likely that when the BoM writers spoke of steel they really mean wooden clubs with obsidian?) Is it likely that Mesoamericans had chariots and wheels? Is it likely that they grew all kinds of plants that weren't known to be and aren't believed to have been available here?

Some of the LDS defenses on these issues may be plausible (some less than others), but when "plausibles" start to add up, you can bet that truth is nowhere nearby.

Truth is usually a result of the likely.

On the other side of the coin, is it likely that culturally significant things such as jaguars and known Mesoamerican deities would be absent from the BoM narrative? If the BoM was a true story, wouldn't you expect to see unique characteristics of Mesoamerica show up in the text?

Swampfox -The horse was vital in the Hun warrior society of Asia and Eastern Europe, but there is no known horse bone from this period in the archaeologic record.

This statement is easy to verify. It takes time for all of the evidences to come together to paint the full and accurate picture of the truthfulness of the B of M, a picture that many are hoping can never come together because this will mean they are on the outside looking in.


PS -the question about metal weapons was first addressed by the Spanish soldiers in their invasion of what is now Brazil, when they wrote in the journals (that were sent back home to Spain) that the Indians fought them with metal weapons. they saw them impaled in their fellow soldiers and saw them laying about on the battlefield. Now they have found a 2,000 year old iron ore mine in Peru. When they find the evidences of the smelting, the discussion will be over on that subject.


[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 3/21/2008 5:12p).]

Here is one analysis on the Hun thing. I am sure there is more out there about Hun horses, but this analysis really says it.

quote:

---

First, there is no dispute as to whether the Huns existed in real time and space, as opposed to the "BOM people", for which exists no direct evidence whatsoever; and second, since the domesticated horse was in widespread use in every corner of Europe and Asia for centures before and during the entire Hun period, there are horse remains scattered throughout the continent, and obviously, it is ridiculous to attempt to identify which horse bones belonged to a Hun, or to any number of other groups over the centuries, including the Romans. It's as though [the LDS apologist] expects horse remains stamped with "Property of Attila T. Hun, Esq." to be unearthed.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/64b3c3fe515f841c

---

Oh, and I had to throw in the signature!




A horse is a horse, of course, of course, unless it's a Book of Mormon horse!

quote:

---

No, Wilbur...none of my ancestors were present in Mesomerica. And now that you mention it....we've had no Mormons in the family. We were all Methodists...how do you think SMU got its mascot?

---

Well, there you have it....straight from the horse's mouth. No horses in Mesoamerica.

Which reminds me of that famous poem..."No mayonnaise in Ireland."


[This message has been edited by TxAgKuwait (edited 3/21/2008 5:42p).]

quote:

---

Now they have found a 2,000 year old iron ore mine in Peru.

---

This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts from true believing Mormons like ibgenesisag.

First, Peru has nothing to do with the area which Mopologists claim is the only possible location for the BoM. Peru is on the western coast of South America.

Second, the "mine" in Peru was used to make body paints and other paints - and nothing more. There is no evidence that anyone in the Americas mined iron for weapons. There is some evidence that ancient Americans used iron from meteors to make weapons.

ibgenesisag talks about the Peruvian thing as if it has some meaning to the BoM, but it has none.

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 3/21/2008 6:08p).]

Just a couple of comments...

quote:

---

Usually, though, truth is related to the likely.

---

Again, basically, this entire argument boils down to El Sid's entirely arbitrary, private assessment of the probability of something he doesn't favor much anyway. I have yet to see him move much beyond "It doesn't make sense to me therefore, it shouldn't make sense to anyone else." That's it.

quote:

---

Here is one analysis on the Hun thing...

---

Actually, that analysis, along with your post, completely misses the point. Of course the Huns existed, no one ever claimed they did not.

The argument is that we have had no direct evidence of the Huns use of horses even though we have corroborative evidence from other contemporary sources. Now imagine that we somehow don't have those other sources. We have to assess whether or not the people inhabiting what was once the Hunnic empire used horses purely from the archeological record. If we look at that record, there is little evidence of horses. So the argument is talking about the difficulty of establishing something which should be as apparently obvious as Huns using horses. It is an argument which goes directly to Sid's notion that one can just sort of figure out what "makes sense" and then go with that -- because if without all that other corroborating evidence, from the archeological record, it "doesn't make sense" that the Huns used horses. So this whole notion that all truth needs to be "apparently obvious" is a mistake.

The same thing goes for many events and things which are pretty much taken for granted. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, yet there is scant evidence at best of any sort of Israelite captivity or exodus.

Now I will also just say that in my reading of LDS archeologists who are familiar with these things, that these guys do not strike me as people who are tentatively putting out plausibilities and gaming scenarios. These guys are genuinely convinced and convinced by the evidence that the Book of Mormon is real. They are fairly convinced that we have already stumbled across many Book of Mormon locales in central America but haven't realized it yet due to the lack of toponyms. I recently found out that Dr. Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan), both joined the LDS Church several years ago. This was well after earning their degrees. I'm not trying to say anything other than this idea that the Book of Mormon is this big bunch of simpleton nonsense that any kindergartener could dismiss is pretty bogus.

quote:

---

Some of the LDS defenses on these issues may be plausible (some less than others), but when "plausibles" start to add up, you can bet that truth is nowhere nearby.

---

You must mean all the "plausibles" about Joseph Smith just making up the language, story, geography, culture, textual consistency over a period of a couple of months and then duping all those witnesses and others ... right?

Do you want the inside scoop on Sarabia?

First, go to the Mormon genealogy site. There is a long history of Sarabias in the LDS church, so he likely has LDS family members.

His wife also converted, but her story is interesting.

quote:

---

I was actually one of the missionaries who helped teach and baptize Dr. Goldsmith.

Her conversion story is an interesting one, but it wasn't because of her involvement with archaeology.

If I remember correctly, her husband was either a nevermo or an inactive member - I can't remember all of the details - but she seemed sincere in her convictions that the Book of Mormon was true.

Archaeologically speaking, she is a truth seeker. She keeps an open mind and questions everything - as a good archaeologist should.

As a faith promoting story, the mission president held a zone conference there at the pyramids and had Dr. Goldsmith share her testimony with everyone.

It was long but simple - and she made it clear that while she new of no connections between her site and the Book of Mormon, she did have a "burning testimony" that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was true.

I was impressed to be able to say I'd helped teach and baptize an archaeologist, but kept it largely to myself simply because I knew perfectly well that her testimony never connected history with the Book of Mormon.

Having said all of that, there's no doubt that she's a brilliant and genius archaeologist - but she's a little koo koo en la cabeza if you know what I mean.

Often during the discussions she'd go off on tangeants about her "spiritual" experiences, and it was clear that certain marbles weren't rolling right upstairs.

She has the typical "kinda weirdo" personality that goes hand-in-hand with the kinds of converts coming into the church these days. Her husband isn't American, so that helped play into the whole experience.

Anyway, I thought I'd chime in simply because I might be partly to blame for what's transpired with her involvement in the church now. Sorry guys.

I kept in touch with her for several years during my TBM stage after my mishy, but we lost contact several years ago after I became too busy with the career to keep up the conversations.

She's a genuine person, but she is off her rocker a bit. In a good way, but you know what I mean. Hers was a "spiritual" witness, not an archaeological witness, and she made that emphatically clear to us.

Even after the mishy, she was always hesitant to make any connections with the Book of Mormon and her archaeology simply because she didn't want people to get the wrong idea - like "Aha! Evidence that the Book of Mormon is TRUE!" kinda thing.

She's a humble gal, her husband stayed pretty much in the background and participated in the discussions with a humble attitude and a believing demeanor.

Ah, this brings back so many memories of the mish.

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1205454090&modified=1205454090

---

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 3/21/2008 7:10p).]

quote:

---

Do you want the inside scoop on Sarabia?

---

And any of this matters exactly how? Once again, you completely miss the point. The point is that there are otherwise intelligent people who deal with this stuff who believe the narrative -- that it is not as easily dismissed as some would like to purport. Bitter "exmo" personal hatchet jobs notwithstanding.




[This message has been edited by groove (edited 3/21/2008 7:18p).]

Not trying to derail, but I basically don't give a flip about horses, metal, or magic underwear a few hundred years ago in Central or South America.

The BOM contradicts scripture. That's enough for me to reject it.

groove, there is a reason that very intelligent people can blind themselves to the facts. I have come to see that when people want to believe in something, they will do mental pretzels to deny or ignore contrary evidence.

It is not just in matters of religion.

There are otherwise intelligent and informed Obama supporters who wouldn't blink if DNA proved he was a serial rapist. They have already "bought in."

The Lone Stranger -Tell us the scriptures that the Book of Mormon "contradicts".

quote:

---

groove, there is a reason that very intelligent people can blind themselves to the facts.

---

I agree. I actually think you are a pretty good case in point (as I am fairly sure you feel I am the same). The condescending "exmo" commentary post you linked is an interesting study in constrasts. Whoever wrote that just cannot wrap their head around the idea that someone else who is ostensibly intelligent and informed could form a different conclusion. So on the one hand we have praises for an intelligent person, but when it comes to differing spiritual beliefs the other person is "off their rocker" or "koo koo." Its kind of funny because you almost get a sense that deep down the writer actually deeply respects the person they have just slammed in such a consescending fashion. I think people like to selectively apply evidence where it suits them and that this is an inevitable problem in the human condition.

The difference is that I think reasonable people can disagree reasonably on some of these issues.

I'm glad you came by, El Sid. I didn't remember your name, but I wanted to have at least one nothing-like-the-people-in-the-Book-of-Mormon-Indian riding a tapir in this thread.

In any case, I don't think you've addressed my point, which is the justification for putting the "horse issue" in the "against the Book of Mormon" pile with any confidence. Given the situation with the Huns, I can't bring myself to draw a connection between the absence of archeological evidence of horses and the actual absence of horses. In other words, how is one to assess the likelihood of the existence of horses based on archeological evidence when it's obvious the two do not always correlate?

Even if I could establish this connection, however, there seems to be more and more evidence popping up pointing towards the existence of horses in the Americas during pre-Columbian times. This article from a few years ago details how things have progressed (very slowly, as things go in this field) in a "the Book of Mormon was right" direction, using (as far as I can tell) non-LDS academic sources: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=246

Well, I had no axe to grind against Mormonism and no reason to disbelieve it. I approached it with an open mind.

quote:

---

I don't think you've addressed my point, which is the justification for putting the "horse issue" in the "against the Book of Mormon" pile with any confidence.

---

Well, I will have to research the Hun horse issue, but I am afraid I will find what I have found before. When you dig into LDS apologetic defenses, you often find little substance.

But you missed the point of my post. Do you think it is LIKELY that there were horses in Mesoamerica in BoM times. If so, based on what?

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 3/21/2008 9:22p).]

there is no archaeological evidence that has been published of horses in America BEFORE european contact

I don't care if there were or weren't horses, especially if one uses the term loosely solely for beast of burden. That won't please you, because despite generally liking you I don't find your mind open.

Here is part of an update from the LDS missionary who baptized Dr. Sarabia's wife. He doesn't sound "bitter" to me. He sounds thoughtful and somewhat anguished over what he has come to learn.

quote:

---

It's strange to look back to those old mission memories from nearly 9 years ago. It almost seems like a lifetime ago, religiously speaking. I'm not sure how much I have in common with the missionary that I was.

How would they perceive me now? Would they be angry with me? Would their testimony be strong enough to learn that their "missionary" has learned better? Even more, would their hearts break at learning the things that I've come to learn over this past decade?

I've been back to Mexico twice since my mission, both times while I was still TBM, and had great visits with different families I've baptized. In a real sense, I feel like if I were to go back, I wouldn't visit any of my converts. I feel like I've betrayed them, in the same way that a child might feel betrayed to learn at a very young age that there is no Santa or Easter Bunny or Toothferry.

There is a certain amount of guilt upon my shoulders that I have a hard time shedding.

Families who could barely afford food were manipulated into paying 10%.

I get letters from time to time from converts. The first few years I responded with my natural TBM sentiments. The last couple of years, those letters have gone unanswered. The guilt has overwhelmed me to the point that I could never bring myself to pen a response - even to let them know how I was doing.

My steadfast anchor of a testimony of the church has given way to the subtle yet powerful tides of humility and truth.

It was a different time and I was a different person.

The magic of Mormonism has revealed its bag of tricks. As a retired magician, I wouldn't know how to entertain the crowd that believed the illusions.

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1206160095&modified=1206160095

---

Anyone who trashes someone else like that (especially someone they ostensibly respect) is "bitter" by definition. I can respect the decision to leave, but not the trash talk.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 3/22/2008 10:28a).]

Y'all need to listen to El Sid.

He/She would never put Descartes before the horse, even if the horse were in Mesoamerica.

Buh-dum-dum!

Well said El Sid.

Mormon beliefs and the Bible. Just one of many such links.

http://www.knowtruth.com/untruth/mormonism/mormonism_and_bible.php

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormonism.html

Just search under "mormon biblical" and you will find much that is interesting.

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 3/22/2008 8:10p).]

No Lone Stranger - since you have never actually read the Book of Mormon (and I have seen and read this stupid link) tell me where in just three instances you think the doctrine in the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.

Old Man, how do you KNOW Lone Stranger has never read the Book of Mormon?

Are you using your Peter Priesthood Powers of Discernment? The same powers of discernment that were unable to expose that GA as a pedophile (of course, he might just have been 'following the prophet')? The same powers of discernment that had them paying megabucks for Hoffman forgeries Jerrald Tanner was able to diagnose?

Your continued presence (rather than another banning) on the board is due, I think, to the Staff wanting to provide everyone with a reliable source of comic relief. But it is annoying, to say the least....when you come up with all these accusations towards people when you actually have nothing upon which to base them.

Kuwait -I can read his ignorant and uniformed posts and deduce that. Same as yours. You have never read it and sudied with real intent and truly prayed about its truthfulness, expecting an answer. Be honest, now have you?

PS -is "old" supposed to be an insult in your use of the word or your limited perspective? People who know me would tell you that "old is not what they think of when they think of me. And as one of my good friends said, "I am not old, I have just been here a long time". Hope that you are as fortunate as I have been. All this aside, Happy Easter!

quote:

---

No Lone Stranger - since you have never actually read the Book of Mormon (and I have seen and read this stupid link) tell me where in just three instances you think the doctrine in the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.

---

If you had even skimmed one of the links I posted, you wouldn't have to ask this question.

And, your posts are a example of a kind of compartmentalized blindness. You constantly call others ignorant, brash, dumb, lacking in comprehension skills, and then claim a kind of nice innocence about the whole thing.

Dude, take an example from your fellow LDSers. They are able to argue and dialogue without alienating everyone and pissing off so many people.

What you don't seem to get,is that if you are the evidence of what happens to a person's character and life after following Smith, then who would ever want to look into Him?

Can you take this personal stuff somewhere else? This isn't about how the Book of Mormon allegedly contradicts the Bible or about who has or hasn't read what. This is about horses in the Book of Mormon ... and it was generally civil and informative.

Here is a video you can all chew on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTDndF5dcjI

Steel

Come on, Steel. Surely you didn't find anything in that video that is even worth mentioning! One pygmy Mammoth somewhere in Siberia is supposed to relate in some way to the Book of Mormon??

Maybe the word "chariot" means something else (despite the fact that the translation from the alleged gold plates was supposedly by the power of God) ?

Horse bones have been found? Really? I would like to see the peer-reviewed evidence. Forgive me if I don't take Daniel C. Peterson's word for it.

It is this very kind of nonsense which continues to show me that Mormonism is a made up religion. Truth does not need this sort of contortionist defense.

On second thought, that video really kind of angers me.

It is borderline dishonest and designed to prey on the uninformed.

Very bad form on the part of FARMS.

The question about whether or not pre-Columbian horses are "likely" is misleading, as it assumes the ability to make such a determination. Everyone can, of course, study the research of others, but even this requires a detailed, planned method and the eye of an expert if scientifically valid conclusions are to be reached. (The large number of research publications dedicated to peer review and survey, and the high percentage of these which find errors, are evidence of this.)

So, given interpretation is out of our (being those involved in this discussion) league, we must stick to reasoning. In other words, we can identify what is being said by science and what is logically possible within those bounds.

I'm sure you can see where this leads us on the horses in the Book of Mormon issue. The facts upon which we must all agree are two-fold:
1. There is currently not enough evidence to support a scientific consensus that pre-Columbian horses existed in the Americas. (This is directly observable in a survey of current research and scientific publications.)
2. #1 does not remove the possibility of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas. (This follows logically from the situation with the Huns, as well as the nature of archeology in general.)

In other words, as of early 2008, science can neither verify nor rule-out Book of Mormon claims concerning pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.

quote:

---

In other words, as of early 2008, science can neither verify nor rule-out Book of Mormon claims concerning pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.

---

This is true, although science can tell us that it is very unlikely that there were Messoamerican horses in Book of Mormon times.

Consider that when the Spaniards did arrive, the horse and use of the horse spread like wildfire and became deeply ingrained in the very cultures. Horses became a dominant motif not just in life but in art. It is hard to imagine that horses existed in the BoM times but left nary a trace, culturally or archaeologically.

I thought the video presented just what you'd expect from FAIR: an emphasis on encouraging developments (for Book of Mormon apologists, at least), while leaving the issues open for further learning. I'm not sure how this is nonsense, contortionist, or dishonest.

(Oh, and the producing group is FAIR, not FARMS.)

Lastly, I'd like to quote myself in the hopes of provoking a response:

quote:

---

Even if I could establish this connection, however, there seems to be more and more evidence popping up pointing towards the existence of horses in the Americas during pre-Columbian times. This article from a few years ago details how things have progressed (very slowly, as things go in this field) in a "the Book of Mormon was right" direction, using (as far as I can tell) non-LDS academic sources: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=246

---