They Shoot MAD Horses, Don't They?

[_kamenraider]

^^^ Maybe the person isn't backwards.

[_Danna]

I have seen that picture!

It clipped me on the ear when thrown at me from the other side of the living room by my TBM mum (just about ripped out my second earring!).

It was one of a series of poster-size photos mounted on really heavy card that were standard fire-side props for discussion on the amazing reality of Book of Mormon claims. There was also a picture of a 'baptismal font' and an 'elephant' (from memory).

Mum had a stash of the huge black and white photos. When I started discussing Book of Mormon and archeology issues, she stomped off, got the lot, and dumped them in front of me. When I said, "looks like a dog to me!" she frisbeed that one at my head. From memory, I thought the elephant looked much like a parrot.

It was photos like this and a pretty dodgy filmstrip about 'solid evidence' from mesoamerican archeology that recruited a large number of NZ Maori (No, NOT Lamanites, They are NEPHITES thankyouverymuch) to the church in the 60s/70s Including my crazy parents. There had been a large initial intake earlier in the century, but there was also a batch of converts that seemed to be hooked by scientific evidence in the 60s/70s.

[_beastie]

I wanted to comment on Brant's latest comments:

1) Maya art is complicated and although an eye not familiar with their art may see elephants, there are none. The history of seeing an elephant goes back at least to Waldeck, an early artist who reproduced Maya art. I remember a book reprinting one of his drawings of a "since lost" mural. There was an elephant there, so clearly that no one could mistake it. The problem was, it was what Waldeck thought he saw, rendered so as to be an elephant. Comparing other drawings he made to better copies clearly indicates that his renditions were imaginative and not to be trusted. Seeing elephants when they are not there is normal. However, for those who are used to the canons of the area, they are not elephants. They are macaws (or, in the case of some of the images in this list, bats).

I strongly agree. The people seeing a horse in this carving simply do not know what they are looking at, and see a horse because they desperately want to see a horse.

2) While current dogma says that there are no pre-Columbian horses, it is quite likely that the dogma has labeled anomalous or uninteresting the evidence of pre-Columbian horses. While there is obvious controversy, there are indications that there are verified remains. Since the article remains unpublished, there is nothing to go to for proof. Since I understand from reliable sources that there are such data, however, the best scientific approach is to withhold final judgment until the evidence is presented. That includes holding off on the dogma (and it functions just like religious dogma) that there were no pre-Columbian horses.

This is nuts. Brant is suggesting that archaeologists and mesoamerican scholars simply ignore the evidence of pre-Columbian, post-extinction horses because they just aren't interested. Any archaeologist who would be able to prove the existence of the pre-Columbian, post-extinction horse in the New World would make a huge name in the field and would have a high incentive for that reason alone. In addition, some of the seemingly anomalous horse bones have been studied more thoroughly, and none have been shown to be pre-Columbian, post-extinction. The fact is that there is no reliable evidence for the horse in this time period. People accept that because it is a fact, not because it is a religious dogma.

But, as always, I am amused when religionists try to insult some aspect of science by calling it a religion. I agree, that is quite insulting.

3) While the Book of Mormon mentions horses, there is always the question of what a Book of Mormon horse was. That is a textual issue and one that interpreters of texts in translation (and sometimes even in an original language in the case of unique terms) face frequently. In the case of the Book of Mormon, whatever the "horse" is, it doesn't do the things we expect of horses. It never works, although it clearly is an animal and moves. It is never ridden. It is described in the same sentence as "chariot" (another term in issue), but it never pulls the chariot (that is an assumption people make because of the word "chariot", but the text does not say that). The only context in which the "horse" appears without the "chariot" is in a set of animals that we otherwise recognize as food sources. If you took out the word "horse" and substituted anything else (such as the unknowable "cumom") you would have no idea what the animal was based on the descriptions of what it did.

4) Discussions of the horse in the Book of Mormon reveal much more about pre-formed assumptions than they do about horses in the Book of Mormon (and that covers both sides of the divide).

Please. Brant holds to the loose translation theory, so the words were from Joseph Smith' mind. When he said "horse and chariot", he meant the horse and chariot he knew.

And no, he didn't mean the spiritual way accompanying royalty being carried on a litter. (hee hee)

[Tator]

Oh, for heaven's sake, there are still MADhatters insisting that it's a picture of a horse.

Runtu, do me a favor. Tell Zak to do a google book search of "Landscapes and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica", search for "temple of the wall", turn to page 260, and look at the drawing to see what this is really a carving of.

It's funny, not even Brant telling them that it's not a horse doesn't convince them. Some of these people are truly impervious to reason or facts.

[_Runtu]

Oh, for heaven's sake, there are still MADhatters insisting that it's a picture of a horse.

Runtu, do me a favor. Tell Zak to do a google book search of "Landscapes and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica", search for "temple of the wall", turn to page 260, and look at the drawing to see what this is really a carving of.

It's funny, not even Brant telling them that it's not a horse doesn't convince them. Some of these people are truly imprevious to reason or facts.

I've just been told that, just because horses and chariots are mentioned as being prepared for a journey, it doesn't mean that they were actually used for transportation. *shaking my head*

I'll mention that to Zak.

[_beastie]

I've just been told that, just because horses and chariots are mentioned as being prepared for a journey, it doesn't mean that they were actually used for transportation. *shaking my head*

I'll mention that to Zak.

Yeah, I read this. What is maddening about this argument is that it contradicts the very premise of the "loose translation" in the first place. "Loose translation" means that Joseph Smith was actively involved as translator, in some way - he was the one formulating the words to capture the idea or image that came to him (in whatever way that happened in the first place). So if "horses and chariots" meant "horses pulling a chariot" to Joseph Smith, then that is what those same words mean in the Book of Mormon.

[_Runtu]

I've just been told that, just because horses and chariots are mentioned as being prepared for a journey, it doesn't mean that they were actually used for transportation. *shaking my head*

I'll mention that to Zak.

Yeah, I read this. What is maddening about this argument is that it contradicts the very premise of the "loose translation" in the first place. "Loose translation" means that Joseph Smith was actively involved as translator, in some way - he was the one formulating the words to capture the idea or image that came to him (in whatever way that happened in the first place). So if "horses and chariots" meant "horses pulling a chariot" to Joseph Smith, then that is what those same words mean in the Book of Mormon.

I think they recognize the flimsiness of the argument, but they make it anyway because it's plausible in a hair-splitting, "you've got to be kidding" sort of way. But it certainly doesn't strengthen their position, does it?

[_beastie]

I just read Zak's response - he is a perfect demonstration of what brant referred to earlier - he has no idea what he's looking at. It's a visionary serpent jaguar, because that was the symbol used for one of the rulers of Palenque. It looks more like a serpent than a jaguar.

I'll see if I can find another drawing of the serpent jaguar somewhere online, not that it would help.

[_Scottie]

Oh, for heaven's sake, there are still MADhatters insisting that it's a picture of a horse.

Runtu, do me a favor. Tell Zak to do a google book search of "Landscapes and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica", search for "temple of the wall", turn to page 260, and look at the drawing to see what this is really a carving of.

It's funny, not even Brant telling them that it's not a horse doesn't convince them. Some of these people are truly imprevious to reason or facts.

I've just been told that, just because horses and chariots are mentioned as being prepared for a journey, it doesn't mean that they were actually used for transportation. *shaking my head*

I'll mention that to Zak.

I heard this too. "being prepared" means they were preparing them for eating, not riding.

[_beastie]

First, to help Zak or others interested, when you look at the drawing on page 260 of Landscapes and Power, the panel in question is on the bottom row right on top of the words "the wall". If someone knew nothing about Maya iconography the drawing wouldn't make any sense, but it's a vision-serpent wrapped around the figure. Scholars know that it's not just a regular vision serpent, but a serpent-jaguar, due to the association of that symbol with one of the rulers of Palenque.

Here's one representation of the vision- serpent:




This image is different because the serpent is not wrapping around Lady Xoc, but is appearing in front of her, but you get the idea of the S shape involved, which you can also see in the Landscapes drawing. Royalty engaged in ceremonial activities designed to cause visions, and the vision serpent was the representation of that experience.