The horse, domesticated animals and tilling the ground

[_Dcharle]

The horse, domesticated animals and tilling the ground are very problematic for the Book of Mormon. The Apologetic defense that since the Book of Mormon rarely mentions these animals, or activities we cannot assume they covered the lands, does not save the Book of Mormon. Let me illustrate

Ether 9:19 (Approx: 2100 BC)
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.

1 Ne 18:25 (Approx: 589 BC)
25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

Enos 1:21 (Approx: 420 BC)
21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.

3 Ne 6:1 (Approx: 26 AD)
1 AND now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them.


These are a few of the references where Smith writes about horses, this represents a conservative estimate of approximately a 2000 year time period when horses where supposedly on the American continent. Now according to the text these animals “were for the use of men” which means they were used for food and work like plowing and tilling:

Ether 10:25
25 And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plow and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash.

The technology of using tools to till the earth and utilizing animals “for the use of man” would have been such a game changer as far as food production and general economic support there is no way possible that this supposed small band of Nephites could have contained horse populations within a “limited geography”.

We know that when the horse was actually introduced into the American continent by the Spaniards in the 1500’s, within a relatively short period of time (few hundred years) horse populations exploded, they covered the lands!

We have the Book of Mormon mentioning horses over a 2000 year period of time, the book even states “many horses” so one could assume that during this period of time, if there were horses here like Smith claims, horse populations would have followed similar patterns and covered the face of the land. The horse and other domesticated animals were just too important of an asset to not be utilized content wide!

If Smith were correct we would find an abundance of evidence for horses and domesticated animals that could be dated during the Book of Mormon time frame, not just a few one-off examples, and even with the one-off examples there is dispute around the dating. The “plausible deniability” claims of the apologists are just not strong enough to overcome modern day science.

With no evidence of horses in America during the time frame that Smith said they were here leaves the apologists with only hypothetical s that are not based upon modern day knowledge has already resolved. I am certainly not claiming to be an expert in the field of Meso-American archaeology, but for me this is one where Occam's Razzor clearly wins the day!


"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

or,

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."


In my mind you have to make too many assumptions or hypothetical's for horses in Meso-America to work.

Let me quote a few passages from Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, professor of geography at UCLA:

“The Americas had originally been full of big mammals. About 15,000 years ago, the American west looked much as Africa’s Serrengetti Plans do today, with herds of elephants and horses pursued by lions and giant ground sloths. Just as in Australia/New Guinea, in the Americas most of those large mammals became extinct. …the extinction took place around 17,000 to 12,000 years ago in the Americas. For those extinct American mammals whose bones are available in greatest abundance and have been dated especially accurately, one can pinpoint the extinctions as having occurred around 11,000 B.C. …Hunters expanding southward through the Americas, encountering big animals that had never seen humans before, may have found those American animals easy to kill and may have exterminated them.” (Guns, Germs, and Steel by, Jared Diamond, P46-47)

Diamond then goes on to explain what happened when the Spanish showed up with horses:

“Pizarro’s military advantages lay in the Spaniards’ steel swords and other weapons, steel armor, guns, and horses. To those weapons Atahuallpa’s troops, without animals on which to ride into battle, could oppose only stone, bronze, or wooden clubs, maces, and hand axes, plus slingshots and quilted armor. Such imbalances of equipment were decisive in innumerable other confrontations of Europeans with Native Americans… We easily forget that horses and rifles were originally unknown to Native Americans. They were brought by the Europeans and proceeded to transform the societies of Indian tribes that acquired them.” (Guns, Germs, and Steel by, Jared Diamond, P74-75)

Just like Atahuallpa’s troops, the Jaredites, Nephites, Mulikiets, and all other “ites” would not have known about the horse, they were gone by the time they supposedly arrived in the Americas.

[_Tobin]

1) Your quotes are a complete mess because you are in fact referring to two entirely different civilizations. The Nephites and the Jaredites in Ether.
2) Horses may have been present on this continent. It is a Euro-centric view that horses died off over 10,000 years ago and were not reintroduced to this continent until post-contact. However, it may yet be proven (and there seem to be indications) of horses being present pre-contact. I believe in time that will happen. I very much doubt you'll join the Church if they do however. And this isn't the first time this has happened where the critics have been completely wrong. For a long time, critics said barley didn't exist pre-contact until it was discovered to have existed as well.
3) Your reference to them using farm implements of the Jaredites in Ether does not demonstrate at all use of horses and plows. In fact, horses don't appear in the citation at all. And it doesn't refer to the Nephites as you claim.
4) You also take a swipe at the small geography theory. You should be aware that the Bible, for the most part, also deals with the very small geography of Israel mostly. These people had to be in walking distance of one another and so we can't imagine we are talking about large distances (there are no indications they had jet aircraft or cars or freeways) and would have been on the same scale as the Bible. Also, the Bible does not talk about all the other civilizations at the time nor is it oriented towards them. It is silly to view the Book of Mormon any differently. It is specific to the Nephite/Lamanite and Jaredite civilizations.

[_Dcharle]

That is my point, that both the Jaradites and Nephites speak of horses yet they did not populate the land like they did when the Spaniards reintroduced them to the America's.

[_Themis]

It is a Euro-centric view that horses died off over 10,000 years ago and were not reintroduced to this continent until post-contact.

There is no such thing as a Euro-centric view in regards to this issue. There is a scientific/scholarly view which is based on a lot of evidence showing they did die off. Feel free to present what you think is the best piece of evidence.

I believe in time that will happen. I very much doubt you'll join the Church if they do however.

Pre-columbian horses found to exist during Book of Mormon times provides no evidence for the Book of Mormon. It only gets rid of some current evidence against. Now Gold plates with the Book of Mormon story on it showing up would provide evidence.

And this isn't the first time this has happened where the critics have been completely wrong. For a long time, critics said barley didn't exist pre-contact until it was discovered to have existed as well.

It's actually a relative of barley, although millions of years ago. It doesn't really solve the problem, but the bigger problems have been the crops the Book of Mormon does not mention.

[_Drifting]

1) Your quotes are a complete mess because you are in fact referring to two entirely different civilizations. The Nephites and the Jaredites in Ether.
2) Horses may have been present on this continent. It is a Euro-centric view that horses died off over 10,000 years ago and were not reintroduced to this continent until post-contact. However, it may yet be proven (and there seem to be indications) of horses being present pre-contact. I believe in time that will happen. I very much doubt you'll join the Church if they do however. And this isn't the first time this has happened where the critics have been completely wrong. For a long time, critics said barley didn't exist pre-contact until it was discovered to have existed as well.
3) Your reference to them using farm implements of the Jaredites in Ether does not demonstrate at all use of horses and plows. In fact, horses don't appear in the citation at all. And it doesn't refer to the Nephites as you claim.
4) You also take a swipe at the small geography theory. You should be aware that the Bible, for the most part, also deals with the very small geography of Israel mostly. These people had to be in walking distance of one another and so we can't imagine we are talking about large distances (there are no indications they had jet aircraft or cars or freeways) and would have been on the same scale as the Bible. Also, the Bible does not talk about all the other civilizations at the time nor is it oriented towards them. It is silly to view the Book of Mormon any differently. It is specific to the Nephite/Lamanite and Jaredite civilizations.

Tobin, where did the events in the Book of Mormon take place?
Why did the Prophet Joseph Smith state that the Hill Cumorah was in New York?
Why has the Church altered its position several times on who the ancestors of the Native Americans are/were?

[_subgenius]

Pre-columbian horses found to exist during Book of Mormon times provides no evidence for the Book of Mormon. It only gets rid of some current evidence against.

Goalpost moved - check!

[_Drifting]

Pre-columbian horses found to exist during Book of Mormon times provides no evidence for the Book of Mormon. It only gets rid of some current evidence against.

Goalpost moved - check!

Not really.

There is no evidence of horses in any area claimed to be where the events of the Book of Mormon took place during the era of the Book of Mormon claimed timeline. Goalposts appear to be still in original location - check!

[_Themis]

Pre-columbian horses found to exist during Book of Mormon times provides no evidence for the Book of Mormon. It only gets rid of some current evidence against.

Goalpost moved - check!

Another one over your head. Is it that hard to understand that horses being found do not provide evidence for the Book of Mormon. The only way it can be is for two conditions to take place. First that horses did indeed exist during Book of Mormon times, and second that Joseph and others in the 1800's thought that horses did not exist in the America's anciently. I even gave you a hint as to how some things would be evidence for and others are only evidence against. Removing evidence against some claim does not of necessity mean it is now evidence for a claim.

[_Drifting]

Another one over your head. Is it that hard to understand that horses being found do not provide evidence for the Book of Mormon. The only way it can be is for two conditions to take place. First that horses did indeed exist during Book of Mormon times, and second that Joseph and others in the 1800's thought that horses did not exist in the America's anciently. I even gave you a hint as to how some things would be evidence for and others are only evidence against. Removing evidence against some claim does not of necessity mean it is now evidence for a claim.

Whoosh ---------->The Point

Subgenius's head

[_son of Ishmael]

Pre-columbian horses found to exist during Book of Mormon times provides no evidence for the Book of Mormon. It only gets rid of some current evidence against.

Goalpost moved - check!

What evidence has been found to prove that horses existed prior to the arrival of the Spanish?