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

[beastie]

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?

Of course we all, hopefully, learn and update our views. I would like to point out that, in the past, you have seemed to insinuate that I fundamentally misread the BoM. But as your former views and cdowis' views demonstrate, that really isn't the case. You may have updated your views, but my interpretation of the BoM is reasonable and sound.

[beastie]

Brant,

Do you concede you were incorrect on this point?

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).

The scripture I quoted earlier clearly demonstrates that Pahoran was calling the shots.

[beastie]

I want to try to clarify some of my major points, which apparently I have not differentiated between explicitly enough. There are various issues Iâ??ve been trying to discuss. Brant has frequently responded to me as if I were only discussing one of these issues â?? overt political control. The various issues are:

1. Did the Nephites have a notable influence on an extended terrority? (this may include influence in various aspects, including ideology, political practices, etc)

2. Did the Nephites exercise actual, overt, political control on some of the polities in this territory?

3. Is it possible to obtain information about ancient cultures without relying on written sources or an abundant amount of images?

At this point, it seems to me that Brant and I agree on point one â?? the Nephites had a notable influence on an extended territory, which I will try to remember to call the Nephite region (instead of polity). We disagree on point two, although contrary to Brantâ??s assertions, I think there is evidence to allow this as a reasonable conclusion (see cdowisâ??s statements and Brantâ??s former views). My last couple of posts have been about point 3, since Brant made this statement:

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.

My opinion is that itâ??s quite possible to obtain a significant amount of reliable information about ancient polities without written evidence or abundant images. I know that archaeologists in general would agree with that statement, but Iâ??m curious as to Brantâ??s view on the issue.

Yes, Iâ??m aware that now Iâ??m talking about the spreading of ideology, because this is addressing point number three. Future posts may revert back to addressing points one and two. I will try to remember to explicitly note which point Iâ??m addressing in each post to avoid confusion.

Powerful polities exert tremendous influence on other, less powerful polities. In Mesoamerica, the powerful polities were the ones who established the ideological trend of the rest of the region. From Scheleâ??s Forest of Kings:

â??If we judge the Maya only by our own definition of progress, they had few technological wonders. By our standards, they were a Stone Age people lacking even such rudimentary developments as the uses of metal and the domestication of beasts of burden. Yet few people today would deny that they possessed a high civilization and a complex social order. If the Maya did not invent an advanced scientific technology that harnessed natural energy, what then did they invent? The answer to this question is simple: They invented ideas that harvested social energy. The genius of the Maya was expressed through the creation of new visions of power. They invented political symbols that transformed and coordinated such age-old institutions as the extended family, the village, the shaman, and the patriarch into the stuff of civilized life.â? (page 97)

Actually evidence since that time period shows that these ideas were invented long before the Maya.

Brant seems to be positing that it would be quite possible for a Nephite polity to be as powerful at Tikal and there would be nothing that could indicate it, because they didn't leave the kind of records that would give us the information. The problem with this assertion is that if the Nephite polity were as powerful as Tikal, then that same polity would be one of the most influential polities, and that influence would be seen in the developing Mesoamerican ideology. After all, it was the most powerful polities that invented these ideas that â??harvested human energyâ? and transformed the region.

IOW, the â??markâ? that we could easily see would be the â??markâ? on the rest of the region, and future polities. We ought to see a â??Nephite-shaped holeâ?, and we donâ??t.

[cdowis]

I want to try to clarify some of my major points, which apparently I have not differentiated between explicitly enough. There are various issues I’ve been trying to discuss. Brant has frequently responded to me as if I were only discussing one of these issues – overt political control. The various issues are:

1. Did the Nephites have a notable influence on an extended terrority? (this may include influence in various aspects, including ideology, political practices, etc)

2. Did the Nephites exercise actual, overt, political control on some of the polities in this territory?

3. Is it possible to obtain information about ancient cultures without relying on written sources or an abundant amount of images?

Yes, yes, maybe.

Brant seems to be positing that it would be quite possible for a Nephite polity to be as powerful at Tikal and there would be nothing that could indicate it, because they didn't leave the kind of records that would give us the information. The problem with this assertion is that if the Nephite polity were as powerful as Tikal, then that same polity would be one of the most influential polities, and that influence would be seen in the developing Mesoamerican ideology. After all, it was the most powerful polities that invented these ideas that “harvested human energy” and transformed the region.

Tell us specifically what constitutes "nephite ideology" and what physical evidence we would find to confirm or disconfirm that ideology. As I have mentioned many times, what specifically are you looking for to say "this is Nephite" vs "this is something else".

Please be specific, and it needs to be compatible with the BOM text itself, rather than a cartoon version of the BOM. (NOTE: quite frankly, like the discussion on what constitutes Nephite DNA, this is a "trap" from which no one has been able to escape, but let's see what you have to offer)

To save us time, please include the Gaddianton robber culture, the division into tribes, the Nehors, etc into your answer.

[beastie]

Did you read my website pages yet, Charles? Did you read this entire thread yet?

[cdowis]

Did you read my website pages yet, Charles? Did you read this entire thread yet?

Since you are in "summary mode", perhaps you can give me specific post numbers, or give a specific cut and paste fr your website which specifically addresses my reuqest. I do not read web sites, either apologetic or antimormon. You tell me what you consider important and answers my question and I will respond.... or not, and I will just go away into the sunset. Let you and Brant hash it out.

[wenglund]

IOW, the â??markâ? that we could easily see would be the â??markâ? on the rest of the region, and future polities. We ought to see a â??Nephite-shaped holeâ?, and we donâ??t.

Is it probable or even possible that in a given region, certain ideological "marks" of past predominate polities may be virtually obliterated in future predominate polities--particularly if interim predominate polities were of a radically divergent or opposing ideology, as with significant revolts or takeovers?

If so, then your reasoning doesn't necessarily follow.

Given what is recorded in the final pages of the Book of Mormon, it would be unreasonable to expect much if any Christ-centered ideology of 1st century Nephites, among the 4th or 5th century Nephite/Lamanite polity, let alone the archeological findings of people's living in that same region at later times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

Since you are in "summary mode", perhaps you can give me specific post numbers, or give a specific cut and paste fr your website which specifically addresses my reuqest. I do not read web sites, either apologetic or antimormon. You tell me what you consider important and answers my question and I will respond.... or not, and I will just go away into the sunset. Let you and Brant hash it out.

Charles, frankly, if you cannot even be bothered to read this thread, much less my website which contains essays that specifically address the assertions I have made on this thread, I think you should go away into the sunset. I see no reason why I should spend my time spoonfeeding you when you apparently aren't interested enough to pick up the spoon.

[beastie]

Is it probable or even possible that in a given region, certain ideological "marks" of past predominate polities may be virtually obliterated in future predominate polities--particularly if interim predominate polities were of a radically divergent or opposing ideology, as with significant revolts or takeovers?

No, I donâ??t believe past cultures can be completely obliterated. Certainly itâ??s been attempted, but I think it is highly improbable that it would meet with any success. Besides, no region is an island or in a bubble. Their impact will be felt elsewhere.

Given what is recorded in the final pages of the Book of Mormon, it would be unreasonable to expect much if any Christ-centered ideology of 1st century Nephites, among the 4th or 5th century Nephite/Lamanite polity, let alone the archeological findings of people's living in that same region at later times.

This would only make sense if every single Mesoamerican polity were destroyed during during that time frame. I seriously doubt anyone would be willing to make that argument, as it flatly contradicts the history of ancient Mesoamerica. LGT has to presume that the â??destructionâ? was more figurative (as in destroying a lineage) versus arguing for the destruction of a large number of polities. (In fact, Iâ??m pretty sure Brant has made that argument in the past.) Otherwise, youâ??re in for a world of hurt in defending that proposition.

So given that the only reasonable approach is to view the destruction as figurative, or extremely limited, all the other polities in the Nephite region would still be around, still bearing the markers of the past Nephite influence.

[wenglund]

No, I donâ??t believe past cultures can be completely obliterated. Certainly itâ??s been attempted, but I think it is highly improbable that it would meet with any success. Besides, no region is an island or in a bubble. Their impact will be felt elsewhere.

If my question was in regards to "cultures" rather than "certain ideologies", then you may have a point. And, If my question was regarding the region in general, rather than specific to the predominate polity within the region, then you may also have a point. Unfortionately, you misread my question in these two very critical ways.

Sadly, even my specific ideological analogy didn't suffice in helping you to avoid misreading me in these two critical ways.

It might help the discussion were you to directly answer the question that I asked. Feel free to try again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

I did directly answer your question. But since it appears that the fact that I did not parrot back your exact question in my reply, perhaps this will help your confusion:

It is not probable or even possible that in a given region, certain ideological "marks" of past predominate polities may be virtually obliterated in future predominate polities--particularly if interim predominate polities were of a radically divergent or opposing ideology, as with significant revolts or takeovers.

Now perhaps you would like to address the fact that there was no mass destruction of the given "Nephite" region during the specified time period in the first place, so your entire question is irrelevant.

[wenglund]

It is not probable or even possible that in a given region, certain ideological "marks" of past predominate polities may be virtually obliterated in future predominate polities--particularly if interim predominate polities were of a radically divergent or opposing ideology, as with significant revolts or takeovers.

This would mean that all the ideology of past polity MUST have markers in future polity. In other words, no idealogy can possibly be lost, overshadowed, or unmarked by future polity regardless of ideological revolts and takeovers by polity with divergent ideology.

So, to you, when the Romans conquered Jerusalem, or later when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, not one iota of Jewish ideology was obliterated within those respectiver polities? Do you seriously believe this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

So, to you, when the Romans conquered Jerusalem, or later when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, not one iota of Jewish ideology was obliterated within those respectiver polities? Do you seriously believe this?

It depends on what you mean when you say "one iota of jewish ideology."

Given the fact that it would be insane to insist that the entire Nephite region, or even a significant portion of it - was utterly destroyed in 400 AD, I'm left uncertain as to the point of this entire exchange.

[wenglund]

It depends on what you mean when you say "one iota of jewish ideology."

Given the fact that it would be insane to insist that the entire Nephite region, or even a significant portion of it - was utterly destroyed in 400 AD, I'm left uncertain as to the point of this entire exchange.

Let's see...my question was about "certain ideology" (i.e. some ideology) being lost/obliterated, and here you are talking about "entire Nephite region being utterly destroyed". Is it any wonder that you are uncertain as to the point of the entire exchange. You seem incapable of keeping strait the specific subject and limited scope that I have explicitly iterated and reiterated and clarified and reclarified.

Perhaps it my help were you to not impose an unqulified and binary interpretation onto my intentionally qualified and nuanced questions.

Again, I am not asking if it is impossible that the entire Nephite region was utterly destroyed. Rather, I was asking if it was possible, if not plausible, that some Nephite ideology may no longer be found marked among later polity. Here's giving it one more try...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Just read her web site. She seems to think that everything is answered there. I really don't understand why she posts anything at all -- just give a link to the site for any and all questions.

[Bender]

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-

Sorry Wade that doesn't quite cut it. Accurate only to how you viewed those conversations without even backing it up with evidence. You don't have to mention the word Character to attack ones character. Try reading your post again. You clearly are trying to describe a character flaw in beastie, and whether it is true or not does not take away from it being an Ad hominen.

Here are some of your words

she has demonstrated a remarkable consistency in reading into my comments things that I not only did not say

So, if she exibits this kind of pathology with someone she has been in direct conversation with,

I am wondering why you would mistakenly confuse my pointing out a consistent pattern of behavior with "pyschoanalysis".

Not that this says yea or nay to the arguments being presented, I just wanted Brant and others to understand the kind of "thinking" they are up against, if they didn't already know.

Your last statement does not somehow negate the ad homenin. Sorry Wade, but I am still a little surprised by this.

[Brant Gardner]

So when presented with a disconnect between the BoM and data that virtually all Mesoamerican archaeologists accept, Brant will try to reinterpret the BoM.

I am really quite sad that you see it that way. I certainly don't and it has never entered my mind that I have to reinterpret the text because of disconnects. On the contrary, my approach has been to assume that there is a connection and to read the text against that connection. That seems to me to be diametrically opposed to the method you appear to believe that I have used.

In the case of changing my mind about the nature of the Nephite hegemony, it was a case of having read more of the text and thought more carefully about the issue. My original opinion (as many of my former opinions about the text) was based on a quick reaction to a single verse rather than an examination of the other textual material that bear on that issue (usually the more subtle evidence rather than the explicit statements). My opinion changed because of more information in the text, not because I saw a problem with Mesoamerica.

As for your most recent suggestion that artistic influence is the equivalent of political domination, I am afraid that there is simply no evidence for that at all, and quite a bit to the contrary. Artistic influence can spread quite apart from any connection to the originator of the style.

You might be surprised, however, that it is one of my theses that the political pressure of the Mesoamerican form of kingship does appear in the Book of Mormon, and it is behind the particular forms of Nephite apostasy (the kingmen being the most obvious, but not the only, example). I do believe that institution was significant and that it impacted the Book of Mormon, but in a different way than you are supposing.

For the record, I do not see any disconnects between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. All of its descriptions of political forms are consonant with the structures of political units that are known from Mesoamerica. The socio-cultural pressures of complex hierarchical societies strongly influenced the Book of Mormon--as witnessed by their attempt to reject that influence, and the internal pressures indicating that they were being accepted by portions of the population (and completely by certain cities). All of that describes the nature of the pre-Classic, when the more egalitarian style cities began to adopt the forms of kingship and more hierarchical societies. Rather than a disconnect, the Book of Mormon provides a textual description of the conflicts created in the major socio-political change of the pre-Classic, which is the time period of the Book of Mormon.

Remember, you are using evidence from cultures that are from the Classic, not the earlier period.

[cdowis]

Remember, you are using evidence from cultures that are from the Classic, not the earlier period.

With a wave of the hand, Beastie sniffs "Just read my webpage" when I brought up the same issue.

She assures us that it's all there.

[beastie]

As for your most recent suggestion that artistic influence is the equivalent of political domination, I am afraid that there is simply no evidence for that at all, and quite a bit to the contrary. Artistic influence can spread quite apart from any connection to the originator of the style.

I did not say, or imply, or even think that "artistic influence is the equivalent of political domination". I tried to be more explicit in outlining the 3 issues above, but you continue to conflate the issues.

You might be surprised, however, that it is one of my theses that the political pressure of the Mesoamerican form of kingship does appear in the Book of Mormon, and it is behind the particular forms of Nephite apostasy (the kingmen being the most obvious, but not the only, example). I do believe that institution was significant and that it impacted the Book of Mormon, but in a different way than you are supposing.

Unless you can specify some way in which the kingship described in the BoM is at odds with the type of kingship eighteen century Americans would already be aware of, and demonstrate how that conflict ends up being consistent with Mesoamerican kingship, it's not notable.

For the record, I do not see any disconnects between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. All of its descriptions of political forms are consonant with the structures of political units that are known from Mesoamerica. The socio-cultural pressures of complex hierarchical societies strongly influenced the Book of Mormon--as witnessed by their attempt to reject that influence, and the internal pressures indicating that they were being accepted by portions of the population (and completely by certain cities). All of that describes the nature of the pre-Classic, when the more egalitarian style cities began to adopt the forms of kingship and more hierarchical societies. Rather than a disconnect, the Book of Mormon provides a textual description of the conflicts created in the major socio-political change of the pre-Classic, which is the time period of the Book of Mormon.

We haven't even addressed the anachronistic warfare discussed in the BoM. This is a conversation we've had in the past. The BoM describes a type of conquest warfare that was anachronistic to the time period in ancient Mesoamerica. IIRC, you also deal with this by interpreting the BoM in a way that one would not normally interpret the text. This is what I believe you've also done with the text I've shared on this thread. You assert that, for example, we don't know who Moroni's superior was, when the text clearly tells us it was Pahoran. You tell us the Nephites didn't use force to exercise political control, when the text tells us that military force was used to force the kingmen into military service. These are example that do demonstrate a disconnect between the BoM and Mesoamerica, and you deal with it by interpreting the BoM in an unusual fashion.

Remember, you are using evidence from cultures that are from the Classic, not the earlier period.

So can we simply disregard all the conclusions the scholars have arrived at about the earlier periods? Or, in other words:

How do scholars know what they know about Monte Alban?

cdowis,

I could deal with you not reading my website, despite the fact that, after ignoring it, you also claim I don't provide evidence. But what I can't deal with is you not bothering to even read this thread, and then asking ME to comb through it and tell you which posts to read.

There is a clear ideology detected in ancient Mesoamerica. It is an ideology in which the king served simultaneously as a sort of shaman, and one of his primary jobs was to perform in a trance state in which he would transform into a dead ancestor or deity. To achieve this trance state he would perform bodily perforations, particularly the penis, dance, and probably use some form of hallucinogenic substance. This was based on the ideology that dead ancestors became a conduit to the otherworld, and the deities of the otherworld would involve themselves favorably in human endeavors if humans "fed" them, so to speak, with blood. This blood was not only obtained through self-perforations, but through human sacrifice, preferably the sacrifice of nobles from other polities. There are other details that could vary from area to area, but this basic ideology is consistently portrayed through Mesoamerica, throughout various regions, across time from the Olmec onward. This ideology became successful and spread throughout the region and survived for thousands of years due to the fact that it was spread by the most powerful. The most powerful polities influenced lesser polities, and the influence was this ideology (among other cultural traits).

To suggest that some of the most powerful polities were actually Judeo-Christian would be the equivalent of suggesting the spread of the Judeo-Christian ideology. So instead of the actual ideology we do detect throughout Mesoamerica, we could instead detect the Judeo-Christian ideology as described in the BoM. Sorenson has, in the past, tried to make a case for a connection between Judeo-Christianity and the Mesoamerican worldview, but his points of connection are so hopelessly vague that one could use them to draw a connection between any religions (such as the use of water or blood as religious symbols).

Some apologists have understood this and have attempted to demonstrate detection of BoM Judeo-Christianity, like Jakeman's "tree of life" stela. But these fall apart upon closer inspection.

It makes no sense to insist that there is no way we could detect Judeo-Christian influence because of the use of similar iconography, when scholars are able to discern a clear Mesoamerican world view. If we can detect that, we could detect Judeo-Christian worldview, using the BoM as a guide.

When presented with this fact, many believers, including (surprisingly, to me) Brant, will reply "you're only using Classic texts". But the entire point is that the Classic worldview did not spring into existence out of nowhere - it came from earlier time periods. That is why Classic texts can logically and successfully be used to identify the same ideology in earlier periods. To deny that this can be done is to deny the entire field of Mesoamerican studies. I'm sure that there are several believers who will feel quite comfortable denying the entire field of Mesoamerican studies, but there are other folks who may not feel as comfortable doing so.

[wenglund]

Sorry Wade that doesn't quite cut it. Accurate only to how you viewed those conversations without even backing it up with evidence. You don't have to mention the word Character to attack ones character. Try reading your post again. You clearly are trying to describe a character flaw in beastie, and whether it is true or not does not take away from it being an Ad hominen. Here are some of your words. Your last statement does not somehow negate the ad homenin. Sorry Wade, but I am still a little surprised by this.

That's okay. I completely disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. I do, though, appreciate the feedback.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bender]

wenglund Posted Today, 09:38 AM

That's okay. I completely disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. I do, though, appreciate the feedback.

Your Welcome.

[Brant Gardner]

But the entire point is that the Classic worldview did not spring into existence out of nowhere - it came from earlier time periods. That is why Classic texts can logically and successfully be used to identify the same ideology in earlier periods.

It is very true that the Classic evolved from the pre-Classic. It is true that many of the traits that were once thought to have been unique to the Classic have been found in the pre-Classic. It is also true that it is during the pre-Classic that these things evolved. That is the defining and important point. They were not the same, and they were not in existence at every location at all periods of the pre-Classic.

The example of Cerros (cited by Freidel and Schele in Forest of Kings) is a specific example of where a pre-Classic non-king, less complex city adopted the forms of kingship that were prevalent in other communities around them. This is the time period when the "early adopters" were increasing in not only complexity, but economic and military power. Their form of government and social structure were in the process of becoming the dominant political and social structure of the region. That is the reason why the Classic must be applied only with caution to the earlier periods. Since we have better documentation, we know more about what we see and, seeing that in an earlier form, can make reasonable inferences about the earlier form. What cannot be done is to assume that the later form that can be seen in some of the earlier forms was therefore as prevalent, or had the same pervasiveness, as it did at the later time. That is the lesson of Cerros.

Cerros was a more egalitarian community that decided to adopt kingship. Interesting, as I remember, it later abandoned it. That provides a rather interesting single-city model for the very process that the Book of Mormon describes, the temptations with the forms of kingship (and social complexity) as well as the rejection of those in favor of more egalitarian principles.

That process of experimentation with political systems and social complexity is absolutely appropriate to the pre-Classic. It is the very process that is described in the Book of Mormon. The later forms which became dominant and pervasive after this period cannot be used to presuppose that the earlier and experimental forms did not exist. As at Cerros, they clearly did. That is the danger in the uncautious application of the Classic to the pre-Classic. It is the danger of over-generalization (which we have discussed before as one of the things that I see in your application of Mesoamerican material to the Book of Mormon).

(edited to repair italics formatting)

[Honorentheos]

You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the matter, but were meso-american kings legislative in nature or more purely religious as seems to be implied in the article linked to on the Holy Lord? The notion that mayan kings were the pinnacle of the pyramid of an increasingly complex social order that provided a religious as well as socially cohesive influence on the society under their rule is interesting when contrasted to the other types of kings that may be reflected in the BoM narrative. I have to admit to not being very familiar with the research and debate on the subject.

It seems that there are three models of king-ship that would be possible within the BoM - one modeled on the relationship of post-revolution America to the British crown, one modeled on the Kingdom of Israel, and one the reflects meso-american monarchy structures.

What evidence is there for any or all of these? In some ways, I could see the King Benjamin narrative being a version of the Lord King typology - without all of the blood-letting and gentile perforation. I could also see it as a form of the idealized American denouncement of an unjust monarchy - King Benjamin being the type of a king that they would have supported and being suggestive of the case that led to independence. We have democratic elections taking place in the BoM (Alma 2) associated with the proposed assent of a king, which seems to fit best with an early american model, but that may be due to my ignorance of the subject.

Anyway, given that beastie and Brant both seem to have done a lot of researching and thinking on the matter, I was curious what other sources are available that do not require buying a set of books?

[Brant Gardner]

You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the matter, but were meso-american kings legislative in nature or more purely religious as seems to be implied in the article linked to on the Holy Lord?

I doubt that there was any real division between the two concepts for most of Mesoamerica. We have better information on the religious functions because they are the subject of more of the records. Politically, we have the records of enthronement, but of course those are full of religious meaning as well. The capture and treatment of kings, however, suggests a very strong political function (though obviously not irreplaceable, and the cities of the conquered kings managed to continue governing themselves).

In some ways, I could see the King Benjamin narrative being a version of the Lord King typology - without all of the blood-letting and gentile perforation.

I, and more recently--Mark Wright-- tend to see Benjamin's speech as contrasting Nephite politics and religion with that embodied in the "Holy Lords." There are several specifics of his speech (such as the discussion of what his admisistration is not that appear to function as a contrast to something the people know to be true in other kingdoms).

I could also see it as a form of the idealized American denouncement of an unjust monarchy

That has been a traditional interpretation. Bushman was the first to discover that those assumptions about the text didn't work well to explain subsequent Nephite political structures.

We have democratic elections taking place in the BoM (Alma 2) associated with the proposed assent of a king, which seems to fit best with an early american model, but that may be due to my ignorance of the subject.

See Bushman, Richard L. â??The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution.â? In Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, edited by Noel B. Reynolds. Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1982, 189-211.

[beastie]

It is very true that the Classic evolved from the pre-Classic. It is true that many of the traits that were once thought to have been unique to the Classic have been found in the pre-Classic. It is also true that it is during the pre-Classic that these things evolved. That is the defining and important point. They were not the same, and they were not in existence at every location at all periods of the pre-Classic.

The example of Cerros (cited by Freidel and Schele in Forest of Kings) is a specific example of where a pre-Classic non-king, less complex city adopted the forms of kingship that were prevalent in other communities around them. This is the time period when the "early adopters" were increasing in not only complexity, but economic and military power. Their form of government and social structure were in the process of becoming the dominant political and social structure of the region. That is the reason why the Classic must be applied only with caution to the earlier periods. Since we have better documentation, we know more about what we see and, seeing that in an earlier form, can make reasonable inferences about the earlier form. What cannot be done is to assume that the later form that can be seen in some of the earlier forms was therefore as prevalent, or had the same pervasiveness, as it did at the later time. That is the lesson of Cerros.

Cerros was a more egalitarian community that decided to adopt kingship. Interesting, as I remember, it later abandoned it. That provides a rather interesting single-city model for the very process that the Book of Mormon describes, the temptations with the forms of kingship (and social complexity) as well as the rejection of those in favor of more egalitarian principles.

That process of experimentation with political systems and social complexity is absolutely appropriate to the pre-Classic. It is the very process that is described in the Book of Mormon. The later forms which became dominant and pervasive after this period cannot be used to presuppose that the earlier and experimental forms did not exist. As at Cerros, they clearly did. That is the danger in the uncautious application of the Classic to the pre-Classic. It is the danger of over-generalization (which we have discussed before as one of the things that I see in your application of Mesoamerican material to the Book of Mormon).

First, I want to clarify that this response is dealing solely with the spread of ideology, and not whether or not the Nephites exercised direct political control.

The fact that caution is used in applying data from the Classic period to earlier periods is not a carte-blanche for postulating any theory at whim. Moreover, the revisions of theories regarding the earlier periods, since the decoding of Maya glyphs, has trended towards confirming evidence of the same Mesoamerican worldview at even earlier time periods than previously suspected, or the possibility of more complex polities than previously suspected. The revisions have not included any suggestions that the Mesoamerican worldview was not firmly in place by the pre-classic period, as far as my readings indicate. In fact, the trending thought seems to be that there was actually very little difference between the Classic and Pre-classic periods after all.

The problem for the BoM is escalated due to the Jaredite immigration, as well. The presence of a Judeo-Christian polity â?? that, again, would have been quite influential during the time period, even aside from whether or not they had direct political control â?? at a very early period in the evolution of the Mesoamerican worldview is even more problematic than the Nephite situation.

Again, the problem I am describing is about the spread of ideology, not particular levels of political complexity. That is a different point, and Iâ??m trying to be very explicit in differentiating between these issues since you tend to conflate them in your replies to me.

To be clear, I am asserting that the most powerful polities were the polities that dictated the ideological course of evolution for the rest of the region. While we disagree on whether or not Zarahemla exercised direct political control, we do agree that the Nephites were very influential in the region. The region that involves the BoM story is quite significant, in terms of Mesoamerica in general, so weâ??re talking about a significant swathe of Mesoamerica that would have been influenced by the Nephites for hundreds of years, and even earlier with the Jaredites. Yet there is zero indication of a Judeo-Christian influence in the Mesoamerican worldview. The Nephites were exactly the type of polity that would have been dictating the evolution of Mesoamerican worldview, and yet they had zero impact on that evolution.

To be even clearer, the idea of the Holy Lord evolved in ancient Mesoamerica because the most powerful polities embraced the idea, and led the way for the rest of the region. That is why, even if we never find â??Zarahemlaâ?, we should be able to detect their presence in the overall evolution of the Mesoamerican worldview. This is why the question is not just â??can we detect the Nephitesâ?, but â??can we detect a Nephite-shaped hole in the evolution of Mesoamerica.â?