Book Of Mormon Evidence

[Brant Gardner]

Mosiah 29:

We can agree to disagree on whether or not this could be called a democracy, but even you try to link it to the later multepal form of government. I'm ok with you using that term, instead. The problem remains, however, in that when you attempt to justify assuming a multepal form of government during the BoM time period, you ignore the fact that this form of government constituted a shift away from the former form of gov't, which seems to have generally failed during the collapse. Your approach, to my view, would the the same as asserting that one can take the form of US gov't in the nineteenth century and place it backwards in time to the 1600's, while ignoring the revolution that took place in the interim, and resulted in an altered form of gov't.

Of course I see it differently. The change in the nature of the government elevated elements of internal government that were already in place, likely long before the rise of the concept of the kings. These underlying kin-structures remained in place during the reign of kings, and were certainly the models that were elevated for the multepal governments. It is hardly a stretch to say that when a king-form of government was removed that the logical process was to fall back on a long-standing secondary governmental form - which is what produced the multepal. There is no reason to suppose that those structures were not available earlier with the Nephites did the same thing.

[Brant Gardner]

But my real interest in pursuing this wasn't to discuss the anachronism of democracy or the voice of the people, whatever that may have been, but to demonstrate the layers of hierarchy described in the BoM. Once you get to this many levels of hierarchy, it begins to look like a state. This is why I say that only the most powerful, evolved polities in Mesoamerica could hope to qualify as a major BoM city, and that is problematic because it is those same cities that had such a major impact on the cultural and political evolution of the entire region.

Not unsurprisingly, we disagree again. These are not extral layers of hierarchy that were more complex than any other society. They were existing kin/clan structures that were elevated after the removal of the king. There is no need to posit any extra complexity than would have existed with the very first king was elevated. It certainly doesn't require reading a state into the organization.

[beastie]

Well, I suppose it's up to readers to decide. Perhaps this will help:

In his book The Ancient Maya, page 58, Arthur Demarest provides the following:

Tribes: Larger societies, often with agricultural and/or pastoral economies, living in permanent (sedentary) locations. Tribes are often multi-settlement societies integrated by theoretical descent groups and voluntary association organizations (for example, warrior clubs, religious cults, fraternal organizations, etc.)

Chiefdoms: Often larger societies in which social integration is facilitated by the existence of prestigious leaders who direct warfare and storage or redistribution of food. Individuals are ranked in their status according to their degree of kinship relationship to the chief. Chiefdoms sometimes have ceremonial centers as the focus of religious activities, redistribution, and social integration.

States: Societies with highly integrated, organized, and centralized leadership with a governing body or rulers. The power of the ruler is backed by coercive force, law, and/or religious sanctions.