When I first heard the Book of Mormon criticized for the mention of horses, it didn't bother me, I knew that some day we would find proof that horses did indeed exist before the arrival of the Spaniards. Well that day has arrived. Read on.
Over the years, some LDS apologists would suggest things such as the Book of Mormon writers really meant deer. But I knew that if they were talking about deer, then Joseph Smith would have translated it as deer. Nowhere have deer been used as domesticated beasts of burden, so these apologists were just embarrassing themselves. The proverbial grasping at straws. That kind of "apology" only makes the criticism worse.
Others would suggest that maybe it was a tapir, a New World animal that Joseph Smith would not have known so he translated it as "horse." No. If Joseph didn't know the translation for an unknown animal he simply left it in the original language as he did with cureloms and cumoms.
Ether 9:19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
I take the majority of information for this post from the research reported by Daniel Johnson. His lecture and article on the subject should no longer remain obscure. The information is vital and fascinating.
Ether 9:19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
Apparently, the belief that the American mustang was introduced by Spaniards was common knowledge at the time of Joseph Smith. So, why in the world would he include that in the book, "brilliant charlatan" that he was. Again, I knew that the book would be vindicated some day. Just like the criticism that the scientists at the time of publication in 1830 absolutly "knew" the book was false because it depicted high civilization and the scientists and scholars KNEW that the natives in America were nomadic savages and had nothing of the sort.
That criticism was short-lived because in 1841 Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatán by John Lloyd Stephens, with the incredibly detailed illustrations by Frederick Catherwood of the newly found "lost cities of the Maya." That book was joyfully welcomed and caught the fancy of the early Latter-day Saints - including Joseph Smith himself.
Likewise, the Lord will humble His critics of the mention of horses.
The sad thing is that the evidence of horses has been there all along. Over the years, if archaeologists found horse bones in their digs, they would simply toss them aside because they KNEW that horses were post-Conquest. They would indiscriminately dig through those layers in their quest for pre-Columbian strata. Think of all the evidence that has been destroyed.
Likewise, the Lord will humble His critics of the mention of horses.
The sad thing is that the evidence of horses has been there all along. Over the years, if archaeologists found horse bones in their digs, they would simply toss them aside because they KNEW that horses were post-Conquest. They would indiscriminately dig through those layers in their quest for pre-Columbian strata. Think of all the evidence that has been destroyed.
In one instance, a certain cave had "tens of thousands of years of strata" inside it with habitation from modern man. But they found horse bones in every layer, including obvious non-Arab "native" horses. The archaeologist's explanation was that the native horses were the pre-historic horses that died out in the last ice age and that burrowing animals must have pushed those bones up into the more recent pre-Columbian strata. Anything, to avoid admitting they have been wrong all along.
That is my biggest frustration with modern science. They use unproven theories to "prove" new theories, so progress moves at a snail's pace and we are taken down wrong roads and spend years wandering around aimlessly until a new generation spends a lifetime overturning the previous egomaniacs' incorrect theories.
That is my biggest frustration with modern science. They use unproven theories to "prove" new theories, so progress moves at a snail's pace and we are taken down wrong roads and spend years wandering around aimlessly until a new generation spends a lifetime overturning the previous egomaniacs' incorrect theories.
I take the majority of information for this post from the research reported by Daniel Johnson. His lecture and article on the subject should no longer remain obscure. The information is vital and fascinating.The first recorded Spanish expeditions on the mainland continent of the Americas was 1519 when Cortes brought 13 or 16 horses with him when he set out to conquer Mexico.
Mr. Johnson argues that horses were central to some Native American tribes sooner than it would be possible if the only horses available were the horses that escaped from the Spaniards and bred in the wild, or even if they were stolen by natives and bred.
Plus the horses favored by the natives did not look like the horses the Spaniards had brought. The Spaniards favored solid color Arabian stallions, but the natives had large herds of smaller horses and favored the pinto, a multi-colored "painted" pony.
His sources, French and Spanish chroniclers of the 16th century, place the widespread use of horses long before the accepted dates of the spread of horses, above.
Mr. Johnson also points out that the Spaniards kept meticulous records of the horses they brought and can account for most of these horses.
Besides these smaller, painted horses more closely resemble the "pre-historic" horses that were supposed to have died out during the last ice age. And all through the time mentioned above, the Arabian horses were breeding with the native horses to create the mustangs that we see today.
Mr. Johnson argues that horses were central to some Native American tribes sooner than it would be possible if the only horses available were the horses that escaped from the Spaniards and bred in the wild, or even if they were stolen by natives and bred.
Plus the horses favored by the natives did not look like the horses the Spaniards had brought. The Spaniards favored solid color Arabian stallions, but the natives had large herds of smaller horses and favored the pinto, a multi-colored "painted" pony.
His sources, French and Spanish chroniclers of the 16th century, place the widespread use of horses long before the accepted dates of the spread of horses, above.
 |
| Dates of the first recorded mention of horses with the various tribes. |
The expeditions did not bring mares because it caused trouble among the stallions. The Caribbean islands were used for breeding purposes.
Besides these smaller, painted horses more closely resemble the "pre-historic" horses that were supposed to have died out during the last ice age. And all through the time mentioned above, the Arabian horses were breeding with the native horses to create the mustangs that we see today.
Source:
BMAF Conference 2012 Daniel Johnson "Hard Evidence of Horses in America"
INDIGENOUS HORSES
The Arrival of Horses into the Americas
Hernán Cortés
Additional reading:
BMAF Conference 2012 Daniel Johnson "Hard Evidence of Horses in America"
INDIGENOUS HORSES
The Arrival of Horses into the Americas
Hernán Cortés
Additional reading:
Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came
Survival of Horses in Pre-Colombian Times
"Hard" Evidence of Ancient American Horses
Mexican Pre-Historic Horse
Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives
When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Horses There? (Knowhy 649)
Survival of Horses in Pre-Colombian Times
"Hard" Evidence of Ancient American Horses
Mexican Pre-Historic Horse
Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives
When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Horses There? (Knowhy 649)
No comments:
Post a Comment