They appear to have died out? Have you worked much with a fossil record before?
Actually I have worked quite a bit with the fossil record. I am a geologist who studied paleontology and did a thesis in the area of biostratigraphy. I collected and analysed the fossils from multiple outcrops. Incredible just how many fossils are found in rocks if you intently look for them, and think of the vast rock volume that is not exposed in outcrop.
What are the odds of any one animal being fossilized? I don't know the exact odds, but it is quite small.
Having one animal fossilized ? Not all that great, but the odds are pretty good of finding something fossilized when taking into account the record from a population of animals made up of a considerable number of individuals. The fact is that fossil horses were preserved until about 10,000 years ago...then they were not...then they began to be preserved again. The simpliest and most logical explanation is that the horse disappeared in the Americas during the period of time in which they are not fossilized.
That is actually one thing that supports evolution. The fossil records show jumps in species that couldn't have happened gradually through natural selection. This is explained because you can easily miss whole species who came to be and then went extinct without leaving any fossils to find. Now if you actually look at the science, any gap doesn't prove or disprove anything. There could have been no scientific evidence of horses on the American continent before 1800, yet that wouldn't really say they weren't here. You would have to rely on historical data and there is plenty of that saying horses were here.
Just what historical data do you refer to outside of the Book of Mormon ? I am not aware of any record of horses in the historical records of peoples such as the Mayans and Aztecs in the Americas. We know that horses did not exist when the Europeans arrived from their historical accounts. So it would appear that horses disappeared at some point. This is one issue where the scientific data (from the historical science of paleontology) and historical accounts outside of the Book of Mormon are in agreement. Do you have any references to back your claim of historical accounts to the contrary ?
Now the Book of Mormon isn't a historical document in that it doesn't try to tell a history, but instead tries to bring people to Christ. However, any evidences that are included far outweigh any importance that should be given for a LACK of scientific evidence. Science can't tell us everything. Sometimes it takes reading History to help fill in the gaps. History books aren't always the most accurate source and it takes science to fill in those gaps. If you think that you are left with a complete picture when you are done though, you are highly mistaken.
You have said that the Book of Mormon is not a historical record, yet it sure purports to be one in my opinion with a record of different peoples and various wars through time. Not finding the fossilized remains of horses in strata that contain other fossil mammals is not really a lack of scientific evidence. The fossil record is sort of like a recording of some sort, like a series of pictures taken through time. We look at a picture and see various animals but not horses. Is this conclusive evidence of their not existing? Pehaps not, but if one takes many such snap shots as a body of evidence, it becomes more conclusive.
This is where both religious believers and scientists get into trouble. They look at the record we have and forget that we still don't have 99.9 percent of the story. The Book of Mormon is the story of one group of people on the American continent. It doesn't say that there were other groups from other places (except for one that went extinct (the Jaredites), and the Amelikites who became part of the same group). Since they couldn't possibly have inhabited the entire North and South American continents (at least not the people keeping the record), yet they still came across two other groups doesn't that at least hint that there could very well have been countless others? We just don't know.
We do not have the full story, but what percent is not known ? That is hard to ascertain.
A side comment that still supports my comments. We aren't told a whole lot about Christ's life. If we take everything that he said from the New Testament, it would not take very long to say all of it. Does that mean he only spoke for a few hours his entire life? The Bible also says that the earth was flooded at the time of Noah... however if Noah knew the state of the entire earth and was speaking for it, why did he have to send out a dove to determine the state of things? Maybe because he was only speaking of all the land that he could see. People take things literally though and if it wasn't mentioned, it couldn't have happened. If it doesn't say that Christ organized baptisms for the dead, then he must not have. If it doesn't say that there was any dry land on the earth at the time of the flood, then there must not have been. Therefore any scientific evidence that says a flood of the whole earth makes the Bible false... or at least the story of Noah, right?
So you are saying that one should not take the Bible literally and that much that might have happened was not recorded down in writing ?
The last thing I have to say is that we don't always know what was stated metaphorically and what was stated literally. An example of this is the days of creation. Science proved that the Bible was false long ago to those people that believed that those days were 24 hours long. Sometimes I have to wonder what I always thought of as a fact and think if I might be interpreting it wrong. Most LDS members still think that evolution is evil-ution and against the teachings of the church. Read the statements of Henry B. Eyring and you might be surprised at how little the church has said. We really just don't know. What we do know is that whatever happened, it was directed by God and wasn't all chance. How God did it, we don't know... even if God told us exactly what he did, we probably wouldn't come close to understanding.
Actually a fair amount has been said about evolution by individual LDS leaders, and they split on both sides of the question. Do you really think that most Mormons are against the theory of evolution ? I really do not know what the percentage split is on this subject, but there are very many Mormons who do think evolution occured. Actually we really do know that evolution has taken place as shown by vast amounts of scientific evidence. Was this process directed by God ? Science really does not address that point, but there is no evidence that supports this notion. This rests solely in the province of faith.
The thoughts of Henry B. Eyring ? About the time of the Scopes Trial his father, Dr. Henry Eyring, had some comments on the matter:
We should keep in mind that scientists are as diligent and truthful as anyone else. Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint. In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies. That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies.
http://www.davidvanalstyne.com/pg-reflections.html Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
There is evidence of horses existing in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but the problem is that there is a gap between when they appear to have died out and before they were re-introduced that covers the entire period of history chronicled by the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon claims only that horses were known to some New World peoples before the time of Christ in certain limited regions of the New World. Thus we need not conclude from the text that horses were universally known in the Americas throughout pre-Columbian history. Moreover, the Book of Mormon never says that horses were ridden or used in battle.
Horses are very rarely mentioned and if you are going to use this as a "flaw" in the Book of Mormon, you need to consider other civilizations. The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It's interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."
The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
There is evidence of horses existing in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but the problem is that there is a gap between when they appear to have died out and before they were re-introduced that covers the entire period of history chronicled by the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon claims only that horses were known to some New World peoples before the time of Christ in certain limited regions of the New World. Horses are very rarely mentioned and if you are going to use this as a "flaw" in the Book of Mormon, you need to consider other civilizations.
Thus we need not conclude from the text that horses were universally known in the Americas throughout pre-Columbian history. Moreover, the Book of Mormon never says that horses were ridden or used in battle.
The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It's interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."
The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?
S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe
reply
share
geode
18 years ago
The Book of Mormon claims only that horses were known to some New World peoples before the time of Christ in certain limited regions of the New World. Thus we need not conclude from the text that horses were universally known in the Americas throughout pre-Columbian history. Moreover, the Book of Mormon never says that horses were ridden or used in battle.
Horses are very rarely mentioned and if you are going to use this as a "flaw" in the Book of Mormon, you need to consider other civilizations. The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It's interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."
The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?
S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe
Since the source of your argument appears to have come directly from FARMS and not original sources, and you have even borrowed passages from FARMS without attribution, I thought I would give the reference here. The sad thing is that it appears that the FARMS piece ripped-off portions of the same paragraph without attribution from William Hamblin. I guess Hamblin might also have borrowed from elsewhere, so where the thoughts first originated may be in doubt. It also appears that FARMS may have given the wrong reference for Bokonyi ?
William Hamblin "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring and Fall 1993, p. 194):
The Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe were a nomadic people for whom horses represented both a major form of wealth and the basis of their military power. Estimates are that each Hun warrior may have had has many as ten horses [Rudi P. Lindner, "Nomadism, Horse and Huns," Past and Present 92 (1981): 15]. Nonetheless, "To quote S. Bokonyi, a foremost authority on the subject, 'We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns'" [Denis Sinor, "The Hun Period," in Denis Sinor, ed., The Cambridge History of Inner Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 203; cf. Lindner, "Nomadism, Horse and Huns," 13, for additional references]. During the two centuries of their domination of the western steppe, the Huns must have had hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare despite their vast herds, why should we expect extensive evidence of the use of horses in Nephite Mesoamerica, especially considering the limited references to horses in the Book of Mormon text?
Do we really know that S. Bokonyi is "a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia" ? Hard to say considering the reference given:
S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=129&table=transcripts Horses in the Book of Mormon
Provo, Utah: FARMS, . P. N/A
Horses in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon mentions horses, yet these animals seem not to have been known to native Americans who greeted the Spaniards upon their arrival in the New World in the sixteenth century. Moreover, archaeological evidence for the presence of the horse in the pre-Columbian Americas is presently scant and inconclusive. How can this be explained? Careful consideration of this question begins with an examination of what the Book of Mormon says and does not say about horses.
Horses are mentioned only once in the land northward during the Jaredite period—that is, during the prosperous reign of King Emer around 2500 B.C. and before the great drought sometime in the third millennium B.C. (see Ether 9:19, 30–35). Since horses are not mentioned again in the Jaredite record, it is possible that they became extinct in the region north of the narrow neck of land following that time.
Horses were known to some Nephites and Lamanites from about 600 B.C. to the time of the Savior. They were found in the "land of first inheritance" during the time of Nephi, son of Lehi (see 1 Nephi 18:25), and in the land of Nephi during the days of Enos (see Enos 1:21). They were also utilized by at least some of the Lamanite elite during the days of King Lamoni in the same general region during the first century B.C. (see Alma 18:9–12). The text does not mention horses in the land of Nephi after that time. The only other region associated with horses was the general land of Zarahemla at the time of the war with the Gadianton robbers, just prior to the birth of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 3:22; 4:4; 6:1). There is no indication in the text that horses were indigenous to that region. The Savior's reference to horses in 3 Nephi 21:14 is a prophecy of the latter days and need not be interpreted as referring to Nephite horses. In the Book of Mormon, horses are never mentioned after the time of Christ.
In short, the Book of Mormon claims only that horses were known to some New World peoples before the time of Christ in certain limited regions of the New World. Thus we need not conclude from the text that horses were universally known in the Americas throughout pre-Columbian history. Moreover, the Book of Mormon never says that horses were ridden or used in battle, although some passages suggest that at times they may have been used by the elite as a draft animal (see, for example, Alma 18:9; 3 Nephi 3:22).
Archaeological Considerations
Small herds of animals in a limited region sometimes leave no archaeological remains. We know that the Norsemen probably introduced horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs into Eastern North America during the eleventh century A.D., yet these animals did not spread throughout the continent and have left no archaeological remains.1 "It is probable," writes Jacques Soustelle, an authority on the Olmec, "that the Olmecs kept dogs and turkeys, animals domesticated in very early times on the American continent, but the destruction of any sort of bone remains, both human and animal, by the dampness and the acidity of the soil keeps us from being certain of this."2
Even if horses had been abundantly used and had been a vital element in the culture of Book of Mormon people (a claim never made by Book of Mormon writers), one cannot assume that evidence for this would be plentiful or obvious from the current archaeological record.
The study of fossilized animal remains from archaeological sites is known today as "zoo-archaeology." Zoo-archaeologist Simon J. M. Davis notes that the majority of bones found in archaeological sites are those of animals that were killed for food or other slaughter products by ancient peoples. It is rare to find remains of other animals in such locations. "Animals exploited, say, for traction or riding [such as horses], may not necessarily have been consumed and may only be represented by an occasional bone introduced by scavenging dogs." Thus "the problem of correlating between excavated bones and the economic importance of the animals in antiquity is far from being resolved."3 In fact, "One sometimes wonders whether there is any similarity between a published bone report and the animals exploited by ancient humans."4
The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."5
The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?
A parallel example from the Bible is instructive. The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region.6 Thus there is often a gap between what historical records such as the Book of Mormon claim existed and what the limited archaeological record may yield. In addition, archaeological excavations in Bible lands have been under way for decades longer and on a much larger scale than those in proposed Book of Mormon lands.
Possible Late Survival of Prehistoric Horses
Some native Mexican traditions suggest memory of the late survival of some species of horse in the New World. When Mexican peoples first encountered Spanish horses they compared them to deer. American Historian Hugh Thomas, in his seminal study of the conquest of Mexico, suggests that this association may have been partly based on native ancestral traditions that mentioned deer with tails and manes of hair. According to Thomas, "The Mexicans may have continued to think of these animals as deer. But perhaps some folk memory may have reminded them that there had once been horses in the Americas."7
Naming by Analogy
It is also possible that some Book of Mormon peoples coming from the Old World may have decided to call some New World animal species a "horse" or an "ass." This practice, known as "loanshift" or "loan-extension," is well known to historians and anthropologists who study cross-cultural contact. For example, when the Greeks first visited the Nile in Egypt, they encountered a large animal they had never seen before and gave it the name hippopotamus, meaning "horse of the river." When the Roman armies first encountered the elephant, they called it Lucca bos, a "Lucanian cow." In the New World the Spanish called Mesoamerican jaguars leones, "lions," or tigres, "tigers."
Similarly, members of Lehi's family may have applied loanwords to certain animal species that they encountered for the first time in the New World, such as the Mesoamerican tapir. While some species of tapir are rather small, the Mesoamerican variety (tapiris bairdii) can grow to be nearly six and a half feet in length and can weigh more than six hundred pounds. Many zoologists and anthropologists have compared the tapir's features to those of a horse or a donkey. "Whenever I saw a tapir," notes zoologist Hans Krieg, "it reminded me of an animal similar to a horse or a donkey. The movements as well as the shape of the animal, especially the high neck with the small brush mane, even the expression on the face, are much more like a horse's than a pig's [to which some have compared the smaller species]. When watching a tapir on the alert . . . as he picks himself up when recognizing danger, taking off in a gallop, almost nothing remains of the similarity to a pig."8
Other zoologists have made similar observations. "At first glance," note Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "the tapirs' movements also are not similar to those of their relatives, the rhinoceros and the horses. In a slow walk, they usually keep the head lowered." However, when a tapir runs, its movement becomes quite horselike: "In a trot, they lift their heads and move their legs in an elastic manner. The amazingly fast gallop is seen only when the animals are in flight, playing, or when they are extremely excited." In addition, tapirs can "climb quite well, even though one would not expect this because of their bulky figure. Even steep slopes do not present obstacles. They jump vertical fences or walls, rising on their hind legs and leaping up."9 Tapirs can be domesticated quite easily if they are captured when young. Young tapirs who have lost their mothers are easily tamed and will eat from a bowl, and they like to be petted and will often allow children to ride on their backs.10
One could hardly fault Old World visitors to the New World for choosing to classify the Mesoamerican tapir as a horse or an ass, if that is what happened. Given the limitations of zoo-archaeology, and also those of other potentially helpful disciplines when probing many centuries into the forgotten past, it is unwise to dismiss the references in the Book of Mormon to horses as erroneous.
This Research Report was prepared by the FARMS Research Department and is based on the latest available scholarly research. It is subject to revision as more information on the subject becomes available. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of FARMS, Brigham Young University, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Report last updated August 2000
Recommended Readings
Hamblin, William J. "Animals." In Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 193–95.
Sorenson, John L. "Animals in the Book of Mormon." In Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985, 288–99.
——— "Plants and Animals." In "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!" Review of "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," by Deanne G. Matheny. Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 342–48.
——— "Once More: The Horse." In Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, 98-100. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992.
Notes
1. See Gwyn Jones, The Norse Atlantic Saga: Being the Norse Voyages of Discovery and Settlement to Iceland, Greenland, America, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 119; see also Erik Wahlgren, The Vikings in America (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 124.
2. Jaques Soustelle, The Olmecs: The Oldest Civilization in Mexico (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 23.
3. Simon J. M. Davis, The Archaeology of Animals (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1987), 24.
4. Ibid., 23.
5. S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.
6. L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83–84.
7. Hugh Thomas, Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés, and the Fall of Old Mexico (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 178; see also Eugene R. Craine and Reginald C. Reindorp, eds. and trans., The Chronicles of Michoacán (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970, 63–64.
8. Quoted in Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "Tapirs," Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, ed. Bernhard Grzimek (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company), 13:19–20.
9. Ibid., 20.
10. Ibid., 28–30.
Perhaps you should have also included the disclaimer you made in another thread ?
I think it's important to keep in mind that we're discussing FARMS, and not statements from the LDS church. I wish I had the reference to the paper that the LDS church released a few years ago stating there has been no official declaration of Book of Mormon lands.
Keep in mind that you are reading articles by FARMS and not by LDS prophets, where neither, however, are perfect.
But this does not go as far as their own disclaimer, which claims that their comments do not necessarily represent their own position. That sure sounds like a cop-out to me.
This Research Report was prepared by the FARMS Research Department and is based on the latest available scholarly research. It is subject to revision as more information on the subject becomes available. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of FARMS, Brigham Young University, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
WHOOPS!
Thank you for pointing that out! I actually meant to copy and paste the link but it appears as the only thing I got was,
S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe
Lets try again...
5. S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=129&table=transcripts
Do we really know that S. Bokonyi is "a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia" ? Hard to say considering the reference given:S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.
I do not have time to give you all the references, but Google Scholar pulls up a good number of references to S. Bokonyi in professional archaeolgy and zoolology journals. From a glance at these I would say that he knows more about the zoological record for central Asia than the average joe.
That sure sounds like a cop-out to me.
Hence the reason I made the post that FARMS isn't perfect.
Even though I have made sourcing errors, my point is still the same and still valid. When you find the Huns' horses, then you can "cast the first stone" at the Book of Mormon's horses.
Thanks Again!
reply
share
geode
18 years ago
Even though I have made sourcing errors, my point is still the same and still valid. When you find the Huns' horses, then you can "cast the first stone" at the Book of Mormon's horses.
First of all the logic of why Book of Mormon horses are tied to the Hun horses in any way is rather dubious to me. We have many historical accounts that indicate that the Huns had horses contrasted with only one human account of the horses in the Americas before the last 500 years or so, in the Book of Mormon itself. The horse is found in the art of the Huns as well, bronze figures, etc. but not in art from early inhabitants of the Americas. That by itself makes this argument sort of "grasping at straws" to me. What about the horses of other Europeans ? Their remains have been found through many ages, establishing that horses existed on the continent. In fact, the source cited implies that horse bones have been found from the period of the Huns. "It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns." That would indicate that some fragments of bone have been found ?
Using the common FARMS approach of "what if" or "this could be due to" etc. One could make a valid argument that comparing the Book of Mormon horses to those of the Huns is not relevent for several reasons.
First a review from FARMS:
The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."5
The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?
So we are talking mostly about a 200 hundred year period that takes place largely on dry steppes. I think it is often thought that the Book of Mormon people lived in a tropical or semi-tropical climate that is very different than the temperate environment of the Huns. More water-lain sediments available in the Americas to preserve fossils ? Most likely the case. And the time period in question is longer to accomplish this. Want more discussion of animals adapted to one climate being invoked in a different climate ? See "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (African vs. European swallows).
Studies of the paleontology of the horse in the Americas have yielded fossil horses from before the Book of Mormon times. Horse remains are found again following the arrival of Europeans. This is very unlike the record left throught most of Europe and Asia throughout the past few thousand years.
It is claimed that the horse was quite important to the Huns. It is also known that they cremated their own dead. Is it also not possible that they afforded the same process to their horses ? That would explain a lack of horse remains from the Hun period in question. Perhaps horse were offered up as "burnt offerings" to some diety. Even further one might come to the conclusion that the horses were burned to simply provide sanitation.
How do I back up the cremation of horses theory? To be honest really I have not, I have speculated in the style that I have seen to be so common with FARMS. Am I correct? Who is to say that I am not ? No record of the Huns having done this? Maybe there is, but if not, perhaps they thought the cremation of horses to sacred a thing to record.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
Hey good point. You should write a book. The Book of Mormon is a record of people who kept the law of Moses as well. What is to say that they did not cremate their horses? They offered burnt offerings of other things!
Of course this is much like FARMS speculation, but we weren't there and we don't have evidence. Speculation is the best we can do! It seems as though the Book of Mormon wasn't written for the intent of being an archaeological record. It is more focused on it's Christian message than on Indian anthropology. It's not likely that converts to the church join becase the Book of Mormon explained the Indians, but because of the message of Christs atonement for the world's sins. Christ's gospel overwhelms everything else. Perhaps if you kept that in my mind while you read it, it would be more convincing to you.
Oh and by the way, there is early art for horse-like animals.
http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/horses.html
reply
share
geode
18 years ago
Hey good point. You should write a book. The Book of Mormon is a record of people who kept the law of Moses as well. What is to say that they did not cremate their horses? They offered burnt offerings of other things!
Yes, if you apply this idea to the Huns, you could apply the same logic to the Nephites.
Of course this is much like FARMS speculation, but we weren't there and we don't have evidence. Speculation is the best we can do! It seems as though the Book of Mormon wasn't written for the intent of being an archaeological record. It is more focused on it's Christian message than on Indian anthropology. It's not likely that converts to the church join becase the Book of Mormon explained the Indians, but because of the message of Christs atonement for the world's sins. Christ's gospel overwhelms everything else. Perhaps if you kept that in my mind while you read it, it would be more convincing to you.
I never commented upon whether the Book of Mormon was convincing to me or not. I just commented upon claims made to back its authenticity.
Oh and by the way, there is early art for horse-like animals.
Such as ? Just what is allowed as "horse-like" ? Care to give a reference ?
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
Such as ? Just what is allowed as "horse-like" ? Care to give a reference ?
The website I listed was just the first one that popped up in a search. It has a few american murals of what look like horses. These are cited from the Ancient American magazine. (
http://www.ancientamerican.com)
Now I am not saying that this is definate evidence. Horses may have been the word the orignal author or Joseph Smith used to describe what they saw. This has happened especially when spaniards came over and referred to the deer as a goat. They didn't know what else to call it!
So I guess "horse-like" is anything that looks like a horse. Take a look and decide for yourself!
reply
share
geode
18 years ago
The link you cite gets us to a home page that does not contain any pictures of horse-like animals. I guess it takes some digging ?
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/horses.html
I was referring to this one. Try again. Good joke about the digging!
reply
share
Incredible_sulk
18 years ago
sorry if this is off topic, but ive always wanted to ask a mormon, how do you react to the church changing integral parts of their doctrine like black people and polygamy? and joeseph smith writing 9 contradictory versions of his accounts of how he found the gold plates?
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
Because the church is led by revelation. Read the Bible, changes happen all the time.
There are only 4 main versions of the first vision account. They don't contradict each other. They were all given at different times during his life to different audiences. Of course they will be different.
reply
share
iknowthischurchistrue
18 years ago
Why aren't these versions widely available. The LDS think it's one of the top ten important events of the earths history. If we have these different versions to get different perspectives (which the apologists never deny that they do exist), why is it so hard to find a version other than the one published in the the pogp? Question two have you personally read the four versions Mr. SotaJerk? Or are you just talking out of your butt? I say that knowing of what I speak becuase all missionaries (including myself) have the same response to the different versions, but none of them have read the different versions.
My advice to you, read all four versions and consider them for a while before making authorative statements on them.
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
Question two have you personally read the four versions Mr. SotaJerk? Or are you just talking out of your butt?
You are a very bitter man. If you say the accounts are not readily available, then where do you get your basis for saying there are contradictions?? I myself don't have that hard of time finding the different accounts. If you do, hopefully these sources might help.
They DO exist and are available. I have read them and can say they are different, but do not contradict each other. All the accounts written during Joseph Smith's lifetime speak of his quest to know which church is true. They also talk about searching the scripture and asking in prayer in the sacred grove. All the accounts speak of the appearance of deity. ALL acounts except for the first speak of two personages. Joseph Smith never polished the first account to a point for publication. Most of the accounts were written by scribes or those who heard Joseph Smith. Most of them were paraphrased because they were basically relying on their own memory. If they WERE all identical then I think something would be up. Many would be suspicious of fraud or collusion.
From someone who has read the different accounts, I can say the only difference in them is that Joseph Smith didn't say "2 personages" in his first, first vision. Th first account reads,
a pillar of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my Son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments.
Now that doesn't sound all that contradictory to me. If you put yourselves in Joseph's shoes back then, he wasn't looking to start a church. He wasn't expecting God to restore the priesthood through him. All he wanted was to know that he could be saved. Because all the church's contradicted each other, he didn't know where he could obtain salvation. Restoring the church wasn't important at this point. Joseph needed to know about forgiveness and redemption. As Joseph grew and began to learn his purpose, then he could start to talk about the 2 personages and the universal apostasy. If you think about it, it couldn't have happened any other way.
Here's some reading for you to do on the different accounts...
Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's first Vision- What do we learn from them? -1970
Richard Lyman Bushman - Joseph Smith and The Beginings of Mormonism. 1985
Dean Jesse - The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. 1984
Richard Winwood - Take Heed that ye be not Deceived. 1995
reply
share
SotaJerk
18 years ago
Here's some more!
James B Allen "Emergence of a Fundamental: The expanding role of Joseph SMiths First Vision in Mormon thought"
Marvin Hill "First Vision Controversy: A critique and reconciliation"
Richard Howard "Joseph Smiths first Vision: The RLDS translation"
reply
share
geode
18 years ago
From someone who has read the different accounts, I can say the only difference in them is that Joseph Smith didn't say "2 personages" in his first, first vision.
I have read the different accounts as well. There are in fact numerous differences, but I agree that the big question is about the number of personages that actually appeared. How dramatic it would be for a person to see The Father or The Son, or both of them? If it had happened to me I think I would have found it so incredible that the memory would be consistent and distinct and I would mention the fact as completely and accurately as possible. A more complete version of the first account recorded by Joseph Smith is given below:
...the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them according to this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it was written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father...
Notice that the age Joseph gives for himself is different that the cannonized version in the Pearl of Great Price. The overwhealming dark power that was later said to leave him speechless is not mentioned. It would appear that only Christ appears.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share
noelfallstrom
18 years ago
Thanks for relating a more complete passage of text. I'm just curious... does anyone doubt that Joseph Smith claims he saw two beings?
He stated that the Lord appeared to him and spoke unto him. If I met two people, one introduced the other and then remained silent for the remainder of the meeting... I think that if I were to retell what I was told, I would say who told me. Mentioning that he was introduced first would be completely accurate and may be a very important event... however it is extra detail that doesn't belong in the retelling of any delivered message. The same reason why the secretary who tried to kill you before you could meet them also wouldn't apply. Definately important information, yet it wasn't a part of the message that was delivered.
If the purpose was to recount a more complete history or to describe the entire event in detail then any recalled event would be recorded. Even when this is the purpose though, it often takes several drafts. Most of the time we focus on one aspect of a memory. Even when reading it, we may sometimes gloss over the message while focusing on how he described the appearance of the two personages. Other times we may only consider the location or time of day and what other activities may have been going on at the time.
(almost) Everyone remembers 9/11. Depending on the time that you retell it you may focus on what you were doing, what you were thinking, the news channel you watched, exactly what you heard, what images they had, your interpretations of the events, how it impacted your work or school, any family or friends that may have been involved, etc. Very few retellings focus on all of those things at once. When you add too much detail, you lose any focus you might otherwise have.
In conclusion, I too find it interesting to look at differences between accounts. I just fail to see much significance in differences that are found, only that they indicate a potentially different audience or a different point that is being made.
reply
share
geode
18 years ago
Thanks for relating a more complete passage of text. I'm just curious... does anyone doubt that Joseph Smith claims he saw two beings?
Yes, some less than fully informed "anti" types sometimes claim that no versions of the First Vision included two personages until the late 19th Century.
He stated that the Lord appeared to him and spoke unto him. If I met two people, one introduced the other and then remained silent for the remainder of the meeting... I think that if I were to retell what I was told, I would say who told me. Mentioning that he was introduced first would be completely accurate and may be a very important event... however it is extra detail that doesn't belong in the retelling of any delivered message. The same reason why the secretary who tried to kill you before you could meet them also wouldn't apply. Definately important information, yet it wasn't a part of the message that was delivered.
I still would think if I saw God the Father and was addressed by Him I would think it important enough to bring up in any re-telling of the event. How many people in the history of the world have directly seen God ? Precious few.
If the purpose was to recount a more complete history or to describe the entire event in detail then any recalled event would be recorded. Even when this is the purpose though, it often takes several drafts. Most of the time we focus on one aspect of a memory. Even when reading it, we may sometimes gloss over the message while focusing on how he described the appearance of the two personages. Other times we may only consider the location or time of day and what other activities may have been going on at the time.
Memory can be a tricky thing, but really dramatic episodes in my life are etched out in fine detail when I recall them. And these events are hum-drum compared to seeing God.
(almost) Everyone remembers 9/11. Depending on the time that you retell it you may focus on what you were doing, what you were thinking, the news channel you watched, exactly what you heard, what images they had, your interpretations of the events, how it impacted your work or school, any family or friends that may have been involved, etc. Very few retellings focus on all of those things at once. When you add too much detail, you lose any focus you might otherwise have.
Basically much more happened during 9/11, and we witnessed it remotely. Yes, I remember where I was, the images, etc. But I remember even more clearly such details when I first heard that President Kennedy was shot. Very fine detail, and now quite a while ago. I think I tell my impressions the same way I have always done, right down to Helen Swift being the only one in my class to cry.
In conclusion, I too find it interesting to look at differences between accounts. I just fail to see much significance in differences that are found, only that they indicate a potentially different audience or a different point that is being made.
Some of the differences contradict each other. This cannot be explained by a talking to different audience or having a different point being made.
P.S. You never answered about the "historical" records question further up in this thread.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share
ballet_man
18 years ago
Well, this got off topic just like I thought it would.
Four things:
(1.) I'm LDS
(2.) The Book of Mormon Movie was a flying load of crap (please keep in mind, that movie was not commission or condoned by the LDS church)
(3.) Why the hell are we talking about horses? The thread was supposed to be about geneological evidence.
(4.) Here's the evidence: The Native Americans of the pacific northwest are indeed genetically related to Russo/Asian people who crossed over the bearing straight.
The Pacific Northwest Indians are genetically seperate from the Meshico, the Aztecs, the Maya and the other indigenous people of central America and southern Mexico where the bulk of the Book of Mormon took place.
These people are also genetically very different from the Inuits of the Hudson Bay area, who are consequently in a different genetic group from the Guarani and the Quilmes of south eastern-South America who are completely different from the Aymara from the other side of the Andes mountains.
The fact of the matter is there were multiple groups of vastly different people from widely different origens in the Americas before Columbus got here. The book of Mormon discusses only three of these groups in detail- none of which is the Pacific Northwest Indians who do in fact have Russo/Asian origens.
reply
share
ballet_man
18 years ago
Who the hell made up that stupid rule? Damn! Mormons say hell all the time. Hell, the abode of the damned often called "hell" is a popular topic in most Christian religeons.
reply
share
geode
18 years ago
J. Golden Kimball and Brigham Young sure used the word a bunch.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
reply
share