Any new evidence for the historical account of the Book of Mormon?

[Brant Gardner]

Now Brant wants to pick up his spade and bucket and leave. I am surprised how long the board has allowed Beastie to contribute. The same type of thing is happening in the Trinity thread.

I find this comment curious. Are you suggesting that the discussion has not reached the point where the same things are being repeated continually? Are you suggesting that it makes sense to continue to agree to disagree?

I am also surprised that you think beastie has said anything on this thread that might warrant moderator action. I haven't seen it. She has done exactly what someone with a different opinion ought to do. She has argued it with evidence and explained her position. That is never wrong (even if the position is <grin>).

[Brant Gardner]

Long ago on this thread I told you that even if, to move the discussion forward, we agreed to only focus on influence rather than actual control, your problem is not eliminated. While some on this thread wonâ??t notice due to their eagerness to claim victory for believers (and who likely would have been ready to declare victory before Brant uttered one word), you have pretty much conceded the extended influence point, as your quote above demonstrates.

Oh my. Back to this point.

1) We cannot demonstrate control. That means that we cannot equate what happens in Nephite land to Tikal or Calakmul or Teotihuacan or the Triple Alliance, all of whom excercised various forms of control (if you will remember, according to your own source, Tikal and Calakmul had consequences for the cessation of tribute). That means that your entire argument that the Book of Mormon is "like" something it shouldn't be like vanishes because the inappropriate model cannot apply.

2) You have moved from a polity that exercises control (which is the kind that you suggest is the wrong model for the Book of Mormon) to one that excercises influence. You suggest that I agree that there is influence from Zarahemla. I agree. However, influence is not the same thing as control. Influence is voluntary. I influence you if you accept the influence. If you do not, I cannot do anything to make you accept it. If I do, then I am exercising control.

3) What you have done is equate influence with control. They are not the same, but you are using them that way. That is, as they would say, cheating. Can there be influence without control? How else do cultural patterns spread without any specific contact? Why are there regional patterns that transcend particular groups. Why are Tikal and Calakmul similar while being avowed enemies? Influence.

If you have reduced your argument to influence then you have completely changed the question. The issue of whether or not there was influence is a very different one. The question would be whether or not non-compulsury political influence can be created without compulsion. The Book of Mormon gives you the model for that. When it suits a city to be Nephite, it is. When it suits a section of the people to be Nephite, they are. When that changes, they leave the polity and the collective "Nephites" do absolutely nothing about it.

What happened when a few states decided to leave the Union. The response was not influence. It was outright control through military action.

So, what triggers military action in the Book of Mormon? Never the control of any internal issue. Only the response to an overt outside threat.

So, yes, you can say that there was influence. However, you cannot use the concept of influence as though it is the same as control. You cannot use that concept to suggest that the Book of Mormon condition doesn't match the models, because all of the models you are using include that issue of control. Granted, they also have influence beyond their control, but that is precisely the point. Influence is voluntary and is accepted or dismissed without any attempt to regulate it.

[cdowis]

Brant,

I have not read the entire thread so perhaps you have already answered these questions already. How do you handle the issue of the kingmen and the vote for the form of central government. (I am talking about the time prior to the Lamanite war -- just the vote itself).

To me there seems to be an inherent assumption that there was a strong central government, and the vote, the issue, was the form of that government -- a democracy or a kingship. Under the model of the Greek city-states, no such proposal or vote could have taken place. I do not see Zarahemla as the Delphi of mesoamerica, as evidenced by this political (not military) issue.

Second, even under a pressing military situation, I see no evidence where one Greek city state would actually attack and force another state to participate in a war. Can you give us one such example, similar to what is described in the BOM?

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

I have not read the entire thread so perhaps you have already answered these questions already. How do you handle the issue of the kingmen and the vote for the form of central government. (I am talking about the time prior to the Lamanite war -- just the vote itself).

The first point in answering this question is to make sure that we are on the same page when we are discussing the "voice of the people." We both know that this was put to the "voice of the people." I suspect that we might have a different perception of what that meant, since you use the word vote. That term, vote carries with it the connotations of a type of government when had some mechanism of enforcing the result of the vote.

The "voice of the people" does not operate like a democratic vote. It was, it appears from the evidence I can see, a measure of the popular opinion, where the majority influenced the minority. In a case where a governmental system cannot enforce behavior, if a change in form is not wanted, the people simply don't support it and it fails. Hence the statistical weight of opinion has value to influence the direction of governmental institutions.

To me there seems to be an inherent assumption that there was a strong central government, and the vote, the issue, was the form of that government -- a democracy or a kingship.

That is what happens if you equate the "voice of the people" with voting. You get the presumption of a democracy (which it clearly was not). Of course, it had been a kingship, but even the nature of that form of political structure was much lower on the complexity scale than we are accustomed to thinking based on Western history.

Second, even under a pressing military situation, I see no evidence where one Greek city state would actually attack and force another state to participate in a war. Can you give us one such example, similar to what is described in the BOM?

No force was required, and that was the point. Sparta and Athens were mutually antagonistic, but when they were both threatened by the Persians, they both joined forces to repel the invaders. Their mutual self-interest was greater than their internal antagonism.

In the Book of Mormon, we have no indication that Zarahemla ever forced anyone to fight. The army is called up from the people and the voluntarily go to battle--becaue all of them are being threatened. The evidence for this comes in the exceptions. The kingmen do not go to fight, because they want the Lamanites to take over (it actually furthers their cause). In spite of the refusal of a major segment of the population to fight, there is no coercion on them to do so. They simply don't go.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I wondered how long it would take before someone like Wegland would offer his psychoanalysis of Beastie just as the argument was getting interesting. Now Brant wants to pick up his spade and bucket and leave. I am surprised how long the board has allowed Beastie to contribute. The same type of thing is happening in the Trinity thread.

Pick up his spade bucket and leave? From my perspective beastie's arguments are over-simplistic and unsubstantiated (and monotonous). Brant can only answer the same question so many times without getting bored.

[lostindc]

Beastie is rehashing the same arguments over and over, and these arguments have been answered. Yet she fails to answer much of what Brandt has offered.

[cdowis]

In the Book of Mormon, we have no indication that Zarahemla ever forced anyone to fight. The army is called up from the people and the voluntarily go to battle--becaue all of them are being threatened. The evidence for this comes in the exceptions. The kingmen do not go to fight, because they want the Lamanites to take over (it actually furthers their cause). In spite of the refusal of a major segment of the population to fight, there is no coercion on them to do so. They simply don't go.

I have alot of respect for your opinions, so perhaps you can tell us about Al chapter 51:15-21. I really do not understand your statement here. Regardless of WHY they did not fight, the fact remains that they were compelled to fight or be destroyed, by the authority of the governor. This is not an indication of Athens vs Sparta. I think your idea is interesting, but this incident smashed your hypothesis to smithereens. There was a vote (call it whatever you want), the kingmen lost, and they then refused to fight against the Lamanite threat -- they were PASSIVE, not actively going against the Nephite army. It was their passivism that was punished by death, or to actively take up arms in defense of their country. And this included multiple cities.

Sorry, but the Greek city state model just does not fit here. But, as I said, it was interesting.

[Brant Gardner]

I have alot of respect for your opinions, so perhaps you can tell us about Al chapter 51:15-21. I really do not understand your statement here. Regardless of WHY they did not fight, the fact remains that they were compelled to fight or be destroyed, by the authority of the governor. This is not an indication of Athens vs Sparta. I think your idea is interesting, but this incident smashed your hypothesis to smithereens. There was a vote (call it whatever you want), the kingmen lost, and they then refused to fight against the Lamanite threat -- they were PASSIVE, not actively going against the Nephite army. It was their passivism that was punished by death, or to actively take up arms in defense of their country. And this included multiple cities.

Sorry, but the Greek city state model just does not fit here. But, as I said, it was interesting.

I suppose it depends upon how you read the cause. I don't read it as pacifism, I read it as open rebellion. Why is not fighting a rebellion? It weakens the defenses of the homeland against the invaders and places an apparently sizable body of people in a position to decide to more actively resist. They were dangerous and seen as internal threats. There was no such compulsion on the people of Ammon who similarly did not fight. They were not deemed a threat.

In this case, authority is given to a military general who is in the field and fighting. There is no other mechanism. Look at the question from another perspective. Were it not for the war, there was no compulsion on the dissent of the kingmen, even though they were considered destructive to the Nephite form of government. The time when there was compulsion was when there was a war going on. There was already an army in the field, and already a figure given rather extraordinary powers to protect the land.

The authority to act came, not from any governor, but from the voice of the people. Again, that isn't a vote.

(edited to add:) Concerning the Greek example, the question is whether or not a military situation can be used as a normative example of political control. That part of the example is still relevant. Athens and Sparta could cooperate against an outside enemy without having any overt means of united government at all.

In the case of the Nephites, there is agreement that they considered themselves connected. The question is what the nature of the connection is. Beastie's argument has been that any kind of collective cooperation is equivalent to a state level society and therefore shouldn't have existed, or if it did, should have left a discernible mark (I am, of course, reducing the argument much farther than she would). I agree that when it comes to military action that there were some direct exercises of control. However, outside of that, there is little to indicate that Zarahemla had control over the other cities. It certainly assumed form of leadership, but the non-military evidence is that it didn't have much of a way to enforce that leadership, since entire cities could fission away without any more consequence than having to endure a couple of missionaries.

[wenglund]

Ad Hominem - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his/her argument.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see this type of post from you Wade.

There are quite a few errors in your brief response. First, I wasn't "attacking", I was simply accurately describing my past experience with one of the interlocutors. Second, I made no mention of character. Rather, I spoke to Beasties way of "thinking". Third, I wasn't making an argument or arguing against an argument. In fact, I explicitly indicated otherwise. Instead, I was noting that some people (Beastie for example) have a different perception than Brant about whether someone can "read what isn't written". Now, with all the errant things you read into what I said, it is clear that Beastie is not alone in her perception.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I wondered how long it would take before someone like Wegland would offer his psychoanalysis of Beastie just as the argument was getting interesting. Now Brant wants to pick up his spade and bucket and leave. I am surprised how long the board has allowed Beastie to contribute. The same type of thing is happening in the Trinity thread.

I am wondering why you would mistakenly confuse my pointing out a consistent pattern of behavior with "pyschoanalysis". Perhaps you haven't a clue what "psychoanalysis entails".

I am also wondering why you think Brants decision to conclude his end of the discussion is because of my brief side-note rather than for the reasons he actually expressed, and particularly in light of the fact that he made no mention of me or my comments when indicating his decision and why.

Clearly, you also are reading things that weren't written, thus further evincing what I said.

With this apparent breakout (epidemic?) of misreading between the lines, a bit of Ogden Nash or Hughes Mearns may be in order:

"As I was going up the stair

I met a man who wasn't there!

He wasn't there again today!

I wish, I wish he'd stay away!"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

First, it is inevitable that some believers will respond by overtly attacking my character or other traits, or by insinuating attacks. I'd prefer to try to stay on topic, so I think it's more productive to simply ignore that noise.

Brant:

1) We cannot demonstrate control. That means that we cannot equate what happens in Nephite land to Tikal or Calakmul or Teotihuacan or the Triple Alliance, all of whom excercised various forms of control (if you will remember, according to your own source, Tikal and Calakmul had consequences for the cessation of tribute). That means that your entire argument that the Book of Mormon is "like" something it shouldn't be like vanishes because the inappropriate model cannot apply.

2) You have moved from a polity that exercises control (which is the kind that you suggest is the wrong model for the Book of Mormon) to one that excercises influence. You suggest that I agree that there is influence from Zarahemla. I agree. However, influence is not the same thing as control. Influence is voluntary. I influence you if you accept the influence. If you do not, I cannot do anything to make you accept it. If I do, then I am exercising control.

3) What you have done is equate influence with control. They are not the same, but you are using them that way. That is, as they would say, cheating. Can there be influence without control? How else do cultural patterns spread without any specific contact? Why are there regional patterns that transcend particular groups. Why are Tikal and Calakmul similar while being avowed enemies? Influence.

If you have reduced your argument to influence then you have completely changed the question. The issue of whether or not there was influence is a very different one. The question would be whether or not non-compulsury political influence can be created without compulsion. The Book of Mormon gives you the model for that. When it suits a city to be Nephite, it is. When it suits a section of the people to be Nephite, they are. When that changes, they leave the polity and the collective "Nephites" do absolutely nothing about it.

What happened when a few states decided to leave the Union. The response was not influence. It was outright control through military action.

So, what triggers military action in the Book of Mormon? Never the control of any internal issue. Only the response to an overt outside threat.

So, yes, you can say that there was influence. However, you cannot use the concept of influence as though it is the same as control. You cannot use that concept to suggest that the Book of Mormon condition doesn't match the models, because all of the models you are using include that issue of control. Granted, they also have influence beyond their control, but that is precisely the point. Influence is voluntary and is accepted or dismissed without any attempt to regulate it.

This is exactly why Iâ??ve been repeating my point. Iâ??ve been able to tell for many pages that you were missing my primary point, so I would try to restate it in a slightly different way, or with different data, to try to get through.

No, I am not conflating political control and influence. Iâ??ve been trying to differentiate between overt political control and extended influence since page 9:

beastie

Brant, the fact that you had to resort to using Teotihuacan actually proves the point I was trying to make, which is if the polity described in the BoM really existed in ancient Mesoamerica, it would have been the most powerful polity around. Teotihuacan was an incredibly powerful polity, the most powerful up until the advent of the Aztecs, and yet scholars do not generally believe that even Teotihuacan was politically controlling other polities like Tikal as much as it was influencing other polities. So the first interesting avenue is exploring whether or not the Nephite polity was politically controlling other polities or simply influencing them. But even if you are successful in persuading folks that the Nephites werenâ??t really engaged in political control, you have painted yourself in a corner, because even the â??influence modelâ?, a la Teotihuacan, requires an incredibly powerful polity. Even worse, the very premise of the argument â?? that it exercised powerful influence â?? negates one of the most important premises of LGT, which is that the Nephite polity was a minor polity that had no discernable impact on the larger host culture.

What you are trying to argue is that the Nephite polity was powerful enough to INFLUENCE â?? not politically control, in your argument â?? all the other polities listed in the BoM â?? and yet was not powerful enough to leave a discernable impact on those same polities.

I tried again on page 10:

This is an oversimplification. You mentioned earlier that scholars suspect Teotihuacan used force. Some scholars are very tentative about their use of force, and speculate the Teotihuacanâ??s touch is seen elsewhere due to its influence rather than military might. That influence can be attained through trade, for example, and some scholars heavily lean towards that theory. While I think you are wrong and are purposefully minimizing the political control exercised by the Nephites, even if we change the focus and accept influence rather than direct political control, you still have the same problem. Your problem is that the Book of Mormon, at the very least, presents a case in which the Nephite polity is influential enough to have a â??chief judgeâ? over a polity over a hundred miles away, and influential enough to create a significant military confederacy â?? and yet at the same time you assert that the Nephite polity was minor and should not be expected to leave a recognizable footprint.

You canâ??t have it both ways.

I do believe that the Nephite polity actually exercised political control, but I can still make my point accepting your premise that all the Nephites had was extended influence. You have continued to discuss this as if all of my comments were meant to prove overt political control, when I was, at times, trying to demonstrate influence. However, I will try to more explicitly differentiate between the two to avoid this confusion.

So letâ??s proceed from our point of agreement: that the Nephites exercised tremendous influence in the region prescribed by the BoM. To try and differentiate between asserting that itâ??s one polity in particular controlling the other, Iâ??ll call it a Nephite region instead of Nephite polity. This immediately brings to mind another region of comparable size in the same period and area â?? the Maya region.

You stated that the Nephite polities share â??commonality based on religo-political similarityâ?. The same thing can be said about the Maya. The Nephites had significant influence over an extended territory. The same can be said about the Maya. Is there any way possible that the Maya footprint would not be discernable? If we had not found a single Maya ruin, would we be able to discern a â??Maya shaped holeâ? in Mesoamerica?

Iâ??m going to respond to some of the details you raised in other posts, but I consider this to be the most important point, and the point I really want to focus on. Again, this is a good summary of my point: What you are trying to argue is that the Nephite polity was powerful enough to INFLUENCE â?? not politically control, in your argument â?? all the other polities listed in the BoM â?? and yet was not powerful enough to leave a discernable impact on those same polities.

[beastie]

Zarahemla? Bountiful? Ammonihah? Gershon? All of those are polities. All call themselves Nephites because there is a commonality among them, but based upon a religio-political similarity. We are still trying to find evidence for the uber-polity you are suggesting. Using that assumption to read the evidence to support the assumption doesn't really count.

As an example, we know that Captain Moroni called the shots. We know that it was a Nephite army. Which city did he come from? The text doesn't say. Since it doesn't, you can't say which city called the shots. We know who, but not who was above him (there there wasn't much).

First I want to make sure Iâ??m being clear, due to the past confusion. I am discussing military actions not to demonstrate Nephite political control, but rather to demonstrate Nephite power.

Alma 50:39.40

39 Behold, it came to pass that the son of Nephihah was appointed to fill the judgment-seat, in the stead of his father; yea, he was appointed chief judge and governor over the people, with an oath and sacred ordinance to judge righteously, and to keep the peace and the freedom of the people, and to grant unto them their sacred privileges to worship the Lord their God, yea, to support and maintain the cause of God all his days, and to bring the wicked to justice according to their crime.

40 Now behold, his name was Pahoran. And Pahoran did fill the seat of his father, and did commence his reign in the end of the twenty and fourth year, over the people of Nephi.

Alma 59:3,4

3 And it came to pass that he immediately sent an epistle to Pahoran, desiring that he should cause men to be gathered together to strengthen Helaman, or the armies of Helaman, insomuch that he might with ease maintain that part of the land which he had been so miraculously prospered in regaining.

4 And it came to pass when Moroni had sent this epistle to the land of Zarahemla, he began again to lay a plan that he might obtain the remainder of those possessions and cities which the Lamanites had taken from them.

Alma 60:1,2

1 And it came to pass that he wrote again to the governor of the land, who was Pahoran, and these are the words which he wrote, saying: Behold, I direct mine epistle to Pahoran, in the city of Zarahemla, who is the chief judge and the governor over the land, and also to all those who have been chosen by this people to govern and manage the affairs of this war.

2 For behold, I have somewhat to say unto them by the way of condemnation; for behold, ye yourselves know that ye have been appointed to gather together men, and arm them with swords, and with cimeters, and all manner of weapons of war of every kind, and send forth against the Lamanites, in whatsoever parts they should come into our land.

[beastie]

Once again, I made these points in an attempt to demonstrate Nephite power and influence, not necessarily direct political control.

I said:

the Nephites were able to persuade multiple polities spreading over a hundred miles to abandon their homes and live in one specified location for 7-9 years

Brant replied:

And the context was? This is a perfect example of "rallying the wagons" against a common enemy. This is the precise context you cannot use as a demonstration of the power of a polity because history tells us that it can be the situation and not the polity that creates the unity of action.

Hereâ??s an example of where I was trying to demonstrate Nephite power through pinpointing their influence, and I believe you interpreted it as an attempt to demonstrate political control. As Iâ??ve stated repeatedly now, I believe I can demonstrate my point by focusing on examples of Nephite power rather than direct political control.

So would you agree that the ability to persuade multiple polities to abandon their homes for 7-9 years is contingent on a certain amount of power and influence?

Beastie:

the Nephites were able to obtain provisions for their army, as well as the traveling civilian population, from multiple cities along the way

Brant:

Notice the word "army." What is the context?

Again, it takes a certain amount of power and influence to persuade other polities to provide such significant provisions â?? even in a state of war.

beastie

the Nephites were able to sustain a massive army for over a decade while battling â??Lamanitesâ? across the region

Brant

Notice the word "army."

I have to repeat myself. Iâ??ve made this point several times and you continue to ignore its impact. The actions of a polity undertaken in a state of war reveal information about how powerful and complex that polity already was. A weak polity without influence would not be able to persuade other polities to provide significant provisions. A simple polity without social complexity would never be able to sustain a massive army for over a decade.

You canâ??t just ignore what these actions tell us about a polity because it was a state of war. As I stated before, the Nephites made it clear that, even at times when they were capable of exterminating the enemy, they would prefer not to do so for ideological reasons, so the fact that they only engaged in force in retaliation or protection does not indicate that they were not otherwise capable of engaging in force.

So the fact that the Nephites were able to sustain a massive army over a decade does, indeed, tell us something about how socially complex and comparatively powerful the Nephites were.

Iâ??ll come back later for the other points.

[cdowis]

I suppose it depends upon how you read the cause. I don't read it as pacifism, I read it as open rebellion. Why is not fighting a rebellion? It weakens the defenses of the homeland against the invaders and places an apparently sizable body of people in a position to decide to more actively resist. They were dangerous and seen as internal threats. There was no such compulsion on the people of Ammon who similarly did not fight. They were not deemed a threat.

Uh..... pardon me, but you do understand the history of the people of Ammon, do you not? The historic agreement between themselves and the Nephites. Frankly, I am speechless that you would bring this up as an argument.

In this case, authority is given to a military general who is in the field and fighting. There is no other mechanism. Look at the question from another perspective. Were it not for the war, there was no compulsion on the dissent of the kingmen, even though they were considered destructive to the Nephite form of government. The time when there was compulsion was when there was a war going on. There was already an army in the field, and already a figure given rather extraordinary powers to protect the land.

The ******authority to act came, not from any governor****, but from the voice of the people. Again, that isn't a vote.

Did you actually read the verses I cited?

[beastie]

It will take me a bit longer to put together the next reply.

BTW, Brant, this assertion of yours:

Beastie's argument has been that any kind of collective cooperation is equivalent to a state level society and therefore shouldn't have existed, or if it did, should have left a discernible mark (I am, of course, reducing the argument much farther than she would).

is grossly incorrect. This is why I repeat myself. I'm trying to correct these sort of erroneous assertions.

I do not assert that "any kind of collective cooperation" is equivalent to a state level society. That is a patently ridiculous assertion, and an absurd reduction of my argument to the point of distortion.

I do assert that the type of power and influence exercised by the Nephites within their region would leave a discernible mark.

[hagoth7]

I do believe that the Nephite polity actually exercised political control...

Pondering the implications of that statement for a moment....

[cdowis]

Beastie,

We have had this discussion here. Brant was an active participant as well.

Not having read this thread very much, have you actually advanced your argument beyond those assertions and assumptions? I do understand the difference between fact and opinion/assertion/speculation. It is necessary to establish that the Nephite government carried control over all cities outside the Lamanite territory. We have already demonstrated that there were "others", outside the Nephites, and we can assume that they would not allow the Nephites to directly control their cities. The burden of proof lies upon yourself within the text of the BOM, that any and all cities within the Nephite borders were controlled by the Nephites, IOW every city in the north, the Lamanites inhabiting the south.

Whilst Brant and I may disagree on minor details, the broad picture still remains as the issue between you and ourselves. Read our previous exchange, and let's see if you can move this forward.

thanks very much.

[The Dude]

Ooh boy, I wonder if beastie can rise to the challenge of going back to a thread cdowis remembers from 2 years ago.

Not having read this thread very much,

Hmmm...

[beastie]

Charles,

If you want to know my argument, I suggest you read both this thread and my website. I already have to repeat myself in order to try and correct erroneous assertions about my stance, I'm not going to repeat myself simply because you haven't bothered to read what's already there.

As I recall, your prior argument was basically that, without written text, archaeologists really can't know anything about an ancient culture. They're just guessing. Add to that you don't even regard inscriptions as "writings". Archaeologists, of course, disagree with this argument, and even, at times, assert that what can be found in the dirt can actually be more reliable than writings, which tend to propaganda. While I don't intend to try and change your mind, I am curious as to which books written by Mesoamerican archaeologists, you've read in order to form that opinion. BTW, for those who are also interested in how archaeologists draw conclusions about ancient cultures from the "dirt", see my post numbered 47 on the thread charles linked. I will repeat one statement by archaeologists William Dever (who is an expert on ancient Israel):

If the postprocessualists have set us back again upon the right rack in studying the past â?? assaying to write history based on archaeological data- we must confront once again questions raised earlier. What kind of history do we want? How do artifacts constitute data, and are such data primary or secondary? Here we may take a clue from the postprocessualists themselves. One of their persistent themes is â??readingâ? the artifacts, not unlike reading texts. In fact, artifacts are texts, and similarly informative when skillfully and sympathetically interpreted. (Wonâ??t that be news to the revisionists?)

It is interesting to note the difference between you and Brant. Brant has much more respect than you do towards the field of archaeology and understands how the "dirt" can provide a great deal of data about an ancient culture, even without written records. So when presented with a disconnect between the BoM and data that virtually all Mesoamerican archaeologists accept, Brant will try to reinterpret the BoM. We can see this in his response to you about the Alma verse that do clearly show the willingness to use force on the king-men, as well as in his response to the chief-judge situation. You, on the other hand, won't reinterpret the BoM in this way because you feel free to just ignore what Mesoamerican scholars assert about ancient Mesoamerica, because they're just guessing. I find this dichotomy interesting because it highlights the dilemma I am trying to also demonstrate: that there is a serious disconnect between the BoM and what Mesoamericans scholars inform us about ancient Mesoamerica. You and Brant represent the two available means to deal with that disconnect.

I do want to thank you for the link to our old conversation, however. I wanted to cite what Brant's old website stated about Ammonihah, but it appears to be defunct, so I was delighted to see that I cited his website on the thread you linked.

Here's what Brant had to say about the Ammonihah situation on his website at that time:

The historical lesson deals with the nature of the political and religious alliances of Zarahemla. Clearly Ammonihah recognizes the authority of Zarahemla over it. They reject Alma because he has no political authority over them. While they are aware of his religious authority, they feel no need to heed that authority as the do not recognize it. The separation of Nephite religion from the political structure is complete, and sufficiently separate that Ammonihah can proclaim political dependence while rejecting the religious dependence.

[Brant Gardner]

I do assert that the type of power and influence exercised by the Nephites within their region would leave a discernible mark.

We have been over this one as well. Your definition of the discernible mark had to do with writing and the erection of stelae with political information. That is correct for the Maya, however, it is also correct for a time period too late for the Book of Mormon. In the time and place suggested for the Nephite hegemony you are talking about, there is neither carved writing nor stelae. It wasn't that they didn't know how to write or that they didn't have a government in any city. They simply hadn't got to the point where they were committing that to stone.

So, your definition of what you are looking for for this "mark" is anachronistic. Theoretically, the Nephites could have had a governmental structure as regionally powerful as Tikal (and remember that I am not suggesting this), but there would be nothing that could indicate it, because they didn't leave the kind of records that would give us the information.

That situation is somewhat similar for many pre-Classic sites, but even moreso in the Grijalva valley, which in addition to not leaving much in the way of texts, doesn't have buildings adorned with the religious symbols and did not leave a rich iconographic legacy. There are remarkably few images recovered from Santa Rosa, for example.

[Brant Gardner]

Here's what Brant had to say about the Ammonihah situation on his website at that time:

That was quite a while ago. I have learned more since and revised my opinions (that is allowed, based on evidence, is it not?). You will not find that sentiment in the published commentary. Artifacts of my learning process like that one were high on my list of reasons for finally taking the online version down. I would prefer to be judged on what I have learned 10 years later.

[beastie]

We have been over this one as well. Your definition of the discernible mark had to do with writing and the erection of stelae with political information. That is correct for the Maya, however, it is also correct for a time period too late for the Book of Mormon. In the time and place suggested for the Nephite hegemony you are talking about, there is neither carved writing nor stelae. It wasn't that they didn't know how to write or that they didn't have a government in any city. They simply hadn't got to the point where they were committing that to stone.

So, your definition of what you are looking for for this "mark" is anachronistic. Theoretically, the Nephites could have had a governmental structure as regionally powerful as Tikal (and remember that I am not suggesting this), but there would be nothing that could indicate it, because they didn't leave the kind of records that would give us the information.

That situation is somewhat similar for many pre-Classic sites, but even moreso in the Grijalva valley, which in addition to not leaving much in the way of texts, doesn't have buildings adorned with the religious symbols and did not leave a rich iconographic legacy. There are remarkably few images recovered from Santa Rosa, for example.

Tell me, Brant. How have scholars formed their opinions about Monte Alban?

BTW, the "mark" isn't just writing and stelae. It's religious, political, and cultural impact on the evolution of the region. I go into details in this portion of my website:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/holylord.htm

I find it remarkable that someone as well read in Mesoamerican history as you are would think that the only "mark" a powerful polity would leave would be writings and stelae. They "marked" the entire region by directing the evolution of ideology and politics. Why did, for example, the concept of "Holy Lord" become so pervasive in Mesoamerica? It's because the most powerful established a pattern that others adopted.

Also, it is nice that you are admitting you've changed your mind, instead of insisting that I misread you.

[Brant Gardner]

It's religious, political, and cultural impact on the evolution of the region.

Are you still missing the aniconic nature of the Grijalva valley? Or are you suggesting that since there isn't the "mark" of a powerful politically dominant city, that there wasn't that kind of government in the area.

If the latter, then we are both agreeing about the archaeology, and simply trying to discern the nature of political influence based on the text.

In that case, we are back to the very argument we have been having, which is that there is no evidence of any enforcement of any kind, unless they are in a military action. Military actions only occur in direct response to an overt outside military action, and therefore are not typical of the means of political enforcement.

Why did, for example, the concept of "Holy Lord" become so pervasive in Mesoamerica? It's because the most powerful established a pattern that others adopted.

Now this is fascinating. Do you realize that you have completely shifted the nature of your analysis away from politics and into cultural diffusion of ideas and art? You do not believe that the transmission of the concept of the "Holy Lord" was due to political influence/dominance, do you?

Also, it is nice that you are admitting you've changed your mind, instead of insisting that I misread you.

A question of when. May I assume that you have learned something in the last 10 years and prefer your current understanding? Should I argue with your current arguments or something you said 10 years ago?

[beastie]

Brant,

My latest reply had nothing to do with military or over political control. I'm now responding directly to this assertion of yours:

So, your definition of what you are looking for for this "mark" is anachronistic. Theoretically, the Nephites could have had a governmental structure as regionally powerful as Tikal (and remember that I am not suggesting this), but there would be nothing that could indicate it, because they didn't leave the kind of records that would give us the information.

Again, how have scholars formed their opinions about Monte Alban?

[Zakuska]

That situation is somewhat similar for many pre-Classic sites, but even moreso in the Grijalva valley, which in addition to not leaving much in the way of texts, doesn't have buildings adorned with the religious symbols and did not leave a rich iconographic legacy. There are remarkably few images recovered from Santa Rosa, for example.

And with Israelite predisposition of not making graven Images of any thing on the earth or in heaven, isn't that what we would expect to see?