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

[beastie]

Brant,

I was curious about this assertion of yours:

Right. Monumental architecture. Monuments with depictions (even without writing). The problem is that this is precisely what is missing in the Grijalva. The stelae that tell us so much for Tikal do not exist in Santa Rosa or Chiapa de Corzo.

Although, as I said, I consider the iconography question to be minor, I was confused by this because I thought I recalled reading that Chiapa de Corzo actually did have stelae. The book Ancient Oaxaca states this, on page 125:

Military symbolism at Chiapa de Corzo and Huamelulpan provides a strong indication that offense and defense were sufficiently real concerns to be incorporated into ritual contexts.

I also found this excerpt from a book I do not own or have not read, Ritual and Power in Stone:

Without a doubt, the archaeological evidence and iconographic record of shared symbols and themes clearly demonstrate corridors of influence and communication throughout southeastern Mesoamerica. However, these paths also extended to the north and west, stretching through the Upper Grijalva River region of Chiapas and into portions of Veracruz. In these Mixe-Zoque regions, at sites such as Chiapa de Corzo and Tres Zapotes, there is evidence of interaction at many different levels, including shared ceramic assemblages as well as common symbol systems on their monumental sculpture. In particular, the practice of erecting carved stone stelae is well documented at the site of Chiapa de Corzo (Lee 1969). There, several stelae, each intricately carved with abstract horizontal designs, compare closely to stelae from Izapa (fig. 1.7). In both cases, these designs mimic textiles, and bear testimony to shared iconographic systems that were linked to expressions of rulership and sacredness. In fact, much of the imagery from Chiapa de Corzo depicts typical Late Preclassic symbols of authority better known from southeastern Mesoamerica and confirms its participation within well-established communication spheres at this time.

Could you clarify your assertion that there was no iconography in Chiapa de Corzo?

[Nomad]

beastie:

Arthur Demarest? Michael Coe? Linda Schele? Ross Hassig? If youâ??re questioning whether or not the scholars I cite are â??reliableâ?, then you know nothing about the field. While Brant may â??hintâ? that these scholars are over-reaching, I seriously doubt he would question their reliability.

And now you set up a strawman!???!

I was very clear with my statement:

The question is whether or not this body of â??scholarshipâ? is reliable or even entirely applicable for the purposes to which you apply it.

Ergo, you are drawing from a body of scholarship does not, by its very nature, seek to consider â?â?¦ the question of whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

Donâ??t pretend that you donâ??t recognize the distinction in order to facilitate your erection of the strawman.

No one is arguing that the scholars you list (as well as many others you might have listed) are not qualified in terms of the subject matter they study and address. That is the strawman. What I am arguing is that, even the eminent Coe (who is more aware of the BoM question than many of the others) does not consider the real question. Everything I have ever heard or read of Coe betrays his ignorance of the true scope and ramifications of the Book of Mormon question. He would tell us, more or less, that ancient Mesoamerica did not consist of Jaredites, Nephite, and Lamanites. But that is NOT the question!

The question is whether or not this body of â??scholarshipâ? is reliable or even entirely applicable for the purposes to which you apply it.

The question is â?¦ whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

You continue:

It doesnâ??t matter whether or not the Mesoamerican scholars make a detailed analysis of the BoM. Once youâ??ve reached a certain level of background knowledge yourself, you can make the comparison on your own.

Wow! Such unbridled arrogance!

The only response I can think of is to simply say your statement is categorically false. And yet your saying it underscores what Iâ??ve been trying to convey with my posts above: failing to make a detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon, and failing to come to understand what the text can tell us about the polities it describes, it is utterly impossible to profitably apply the existing knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica in order to determine whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

â?¦ you donâ??t appear to have enough familiarity with the field to recognize the names Iâ??ve quoted as â??reliableâ?.

Iâ??m not sure what it is I have ever said that would prompt you to make this statement. But, for the record, not only do I consider Coe and his colleagues largely â??reliableâ? in terms of their specialties, but I have a modestly appointed shelf of books by Coe, Shele, and several others â?? were I home at the moment I would be happy to give you a bibliography. I have most recently commenced Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya by Martin and Grube. I also have recently purchased (but not yet read) Scheleâ??s A Forest of Kingsâ? The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. I also very much enjoyed the less scholarly but still enlightening 1491. I have read numerous books, articles, and essays concerning the ancient Olmec, Zapotec, Toltec, Maya, and Aztec. In addition, I have read extensively from the more recent studies on the Hopewell -- a particular interest of mine since I live in the heart of the ancient Hopewell civilization.

And although I consider it much less authoritative than other sources from which I have drawn, I have also read considerably, and even profited therefrom, your own website, which contains lengthy citations from many valuable and largely reliable sources.

I don't pretend to be a "scholar" of these things. They are simply the focus of a long-pursued hobbyist study. That said, your â??better-read than youâ? posturing is somewhat comical to observe â?? not only when one considers your own "amateur" status, but also in the context of our very brief exchange.

It seems to me that your casually flippant condescension is substantially misapplied in the present case.

Take another approach â?? like perhaps addressing my actual arguments, instead of misstating them in order to provide yourself with an easier mark.

[beastie]

And now you set up a strawman!???!

I was very clear with my statement:

The question is whether or not this body of â??scholarshipâ? is reliable or even entirely applicable for the purposes to which you apply it.

Yes, your statement was clear. You stated two questions:

1- whether or not the body of scholarship is reliable

2- whether or not the body of scholarship is applicable to the purpose I assign it

The â??orâ? between the two phrases indicates there are two distinct issues.

Now, perhaps you misspoke, or were a bit careless in your statement. Thatâ??s fine, we all make mistakes at times. But please donâ??t accuse me of creating a strawman when your statement did include this:

The question is whether or not this body of scholarship is reliable.

The question is â?¦ whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

After years of debating this issue with Brant and others, I am fully aware of the basic premise of LGT; that the Nephite polity was so minor and inconsequential that it could have existed among the other Mesoamerican polities and yet disappeared without a trace or impact.

Have you read this thread? If so, perhaps you can respond to the evidence Iâ??ve offered that demonstrates the Nephites could not have been a minor and consequential polity.

[Nomad]

beastie:

The professionals who have studied this field for literally decades fundamentally disagree with your statement, that we â??know very littleâ? about the pre-classic Maya (or others).

Oh my!

I missed this gem from your post.

It caused me to laugh out loud. Literally.

I've got to believe that you are simply employing a rhetorical flourish here, and that you don't really believe what you wrote.

But I suspect that you may are serious; that you really believe our knowledge of the pre-1600 years BP time frame in Mesoamerica is extensive. And, if so, I think that explains much of the problem that you have in actually addressing the issues in the discussion Brant has been trying to frame.

Most careful and objective students of the current body of scholarship, as it pertains to the pre-Classic Maya (and earlier), would acknowledge that there is insufficient data to answer the question of whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

[cdowis]

Nomad,

I do not think you will receive a satisfactory answer.

Beastie is unable to demonstrate that her analysis is revelent to the issue of whether the Nephites as described in the BOM are incompatible with the history of mesoamerica.

There are many hurdles to overcome, including the time window of the evidence, and whether such evidence actually exists which contradicts the BOM text itself (not the cartoon version of the BOM). There are no written records, so physical artifacts must clearly speak to this issue.

I asked very specific and pointed questions, but she refused to address those issues.

Now she talks about the question on the extent of the Nephite influence and territory, which is basically irrevelant until she is able to answer the basic questions I posed.

You will find that Beastie is adroitly avoids fundamental questions on her analysis by creating with great skill a strawman. I really don't think you will get past the strawman to the real issues.

Just my personal opinion, of course. If you let her, she will suck you into a discussion on nonsense, avoiding those basic issues.

1. What constitutes Nephite culture. How do you identify it. Please note that Nephite culture included the Nehors, the Gaddianton robbers, various religions, both Christian and nonChristian, etc etc.

2. What evidence from the BOM time period and specific location do you have discounting the BOM text. This is the pre-Classic period, in specific locations in mesoamerica.

3. How do you distinguish between "nephite" and "something else". There is evidence in the BOM record that "others" lived in the same area as the Nephites, so how do you distinguish between a Nephite settlement and an "other" settlement.

May I make one suggestion as an example. If Beastie can show that human sacrifice was widespread in mesoamerica during the specific BOM time period (prior to 250BCE), this would be IMO good evidence contradicting the BOM.

[Nomad]

... the Nephites could not have been a minor and consequential polity.

"Minor and inconsequential" compared to what?

"Minor and inconsequential" in what ways?

"Minor and inconsequential" by what standards?

This is why you can't engage the real discussion, but instead resort to consistently oblique attacks in response to every one of Brant's posts. (I have followed the thread, by the way. That's why I believe you have yet to "demonstrate" hardly anything that actually treats upon the questions as Brant has framed them.)

I'm sure that, to themselves, the Nephites seemed very major and consequential. Were I to write, with an objective of persuading people two thousand years hence to remain faithful and obedient to God, a story of the Latter-day Saints in the United States since 1830, I would paint a picture that made my culture seem ever so "major and consequential" in comparison to the much larger society around us. However, I have my doubts that archaeologists and anthropologists in the year 4000 would be able to identify, amid the body of data they would then possess, the same society I would have described in my story written in 2009.

[beastie]

Oh my!

I missed this gem from your post.

It caused me to laugh out loud. Literally.

I've got to believe that you are simply employing a rhetorical flourish here, and that you don't really believe what you wrote.

But I suspect that you may are serious; that you really believe our knowledge of the pre-1600 years BP time frame in Mesoamerica is extensive. And, if so, I think that explains much of the problem that you have in actually addressing the issues in the discussion Brant has been trying to frame.

Perhaps you can respond to post 300 to demonstrate why what these scholars are saying is "laughable".

Most careful and objective students of the current body of scholarship, as it pertains to the pre-Classic Maya (and earlier), would acknowledge that there is insufficient data to answer the question of whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

Once again, you could actually deal with this issue by responding to the evidences I've provided from the BoM that demonstrate it could not have been a minor, inconsequential polity. Post 288 is a good place to start.

Nomad,I think you will receive a satisfactory answer.Beastie is unable to demostrate that her analysis is revelant to the issue of whether the Nephites as described in the BOM are inconsistent with the physical evidence in mesoamerica. It is a matter of the time window of the evidence, and whether such evidence actually exists to contradict the BOM.The question on the extent of the Nephite influence and territory. That is completely irrevelant to Beastie's analysis. You will find that Beastie is very good at ducking the revelant issues, and is very skilled at creating a strawman.I really don't think you will get past the strawman to the real issues. Just my personal opinion, of course.Nomad,I think you will receive a satisfactory answer.Beastie is unable to demonstrate that her analysis is revelant to the issue of whether the Nephites as described in the BOM are inconsistent with the physical evidence in mesoamerica. It is a matter of the time window of the evidence, and whether such evidence actually exists to contradict the BOM.The question on the extent of the Nephite influence and territory. That is completely irrevelant to Beastie's analysis. You will find that Beastie is very good at ducking the revelant issues, and is very skilled at creating a strawman.I really don't think you will get past the strawman to the real issues. Just my personal opinion, of course.

The irony is that charles actually agrees with me that the Nephite polity was a powerful polity likely with a strong central government. I'm not sure he realizes the implication of that, however.

[beastie]

"Minor and inconsequential" compared to what?"Minor and inconsequential" in what ways?"Minor and inconsequential" by what standards?This is why you can't engage the real discussion, but instead resort to an consistently oblique attack in response to every one of Brant's posts. (I have followed the thread, by the way. That's why I believe you have yet to "demonstrate" hardly anything that actually treats upon the questions as Brant has framed them.)

You've read this thread and really have no idea what the answers to these questions are? Really? That's unfortunate.

Minor and inconsequential compared to the other polities in the region, polities who were powerful and influential enough to be the leaders in terms of establishing the Mesoamerican worldview that would be echoed throughout the entire region.

Again, it is very unfortunate that you've read the entire thread and don't realize that.

Is there anyone who will actually respond to post 288, or has this thread now devolved into a focus on my arrogance?

[cdowis]

The irony is that charles actually agrees with me that the Nephite polity was a powerful polity likely with a strong central government. I'm not sure he realizes the implication of that, however.

I understand it perfectly. I don't think you realize that this is **irrevelent** to your analysis and conclusions, until you answer those fundamental questions in post 305.

You see, I've been around a long time, and I am very familiar with your techniques. I take my hat off to you -- you are a true master of deflection. Many of the antimormons could learn from you.

I haven't see any better.

[Nomad]

Minor and inconsequential compared to the other polities in the region, polities who were powerful and influential enough to be the leaders in terms of establishing the Mesoamerican worldview that would be echoed throughout the entire region.

List a few of the most significantly attested polities present in Mesoamerica at the time of Christ along with their respective domains and a rough approximation of their populations.

Then answer the question of whether or not your list can account for the entire land mass and the entire population of Mesoamerica at that time.

Then answer the question of whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present. A culture that could have comfortably resided in a geographic area of less than 250 miles in diameter, relatively isolated from other similar and even larger polities that may have existed elsewhere within the area described by the land mass of Mesoamerica.

If you respond in the negative, and employ "mainstream Mesoamerican scholarly" sources to do so, you are either willfully misrepresenting the sources, or willfully ignoring the fact that those sources cannot be employed to respond negatively to the question -- in addition to misrepresenting the picture painted by a careful and objective reading of the text of the Book of Mormon. It's as simple as that.

[beastie]

List a few of the most significantly attested polities present in Mesoamerica at the time of Christ along with their respective domains and a rough approximation of their populations.

Then answer the question of whether or not your list can account for the entire land mass and the entire population of Mesoamerica at that time.

Then answer the question of whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present. A culture that could have comfortably resided in a geographic area of less than 250 miles in diameter, relatively isolated from other similar and even larger polities that may have existed elsewhere within the area described by the land mass of Mesoamerica.

If you respond in the negative, and employ "mainstream Mesoamerican scholarly" sources to do so, you are either willfully misrepresenting the sources, or willfully ignoring the fact that those sources cannot be employed to respond negatively to the question -- in addition to misrepresenting the picture painted by a careful and objective reading of the text of the Book of Mormon. It's as simple as that.

Well, of course a relatively small society (although couple million is far too many) could exist among the other Mesoamerican polities. The question remains: was the Nephite polity a "relatively small society", in comparison to the social and political complexities of their neighbors? You can start your response by dealing with post 288. Does this describe a relatively minor polity in Mesoamerica?

[wenglund]

The question is whether or not this body of â??scholarshipâ? is reliable or even entirely applicable for the purposes to which you apply it.

...and this even charitably assuming the "scholarship" and its finite applications are fully and correctly understood.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

May I make one suggestion as an example. If Beastie can show that human sacrifice was widespread in mesoamerica during the specific BOM time period (prior to 250BCE), this would be IMO good evidence contradicting the BOM.

Why would that contradict the BoM?

Before I take the time to do this, what would you consider evidence that it was 'widespread'?

[Nomad]

Is there anyone who will actually respond to post 288, or has this thread now devolved into a focus on my arrogance?

The problem is that your arrogance is nowhere better attested than in your interpretations of the verses you cite from the Book of Mormon in post #288 in order to, as you believe, establish your particular assumption of how the Nephites constituted a â??major and consequentialâ? polity.

Your conclusions are utterly dependent on extreme interpolations that are not warranted once one considers the text in its entirety.

Simply put, there is a very likely and substantial difference between how the Nephites perceived themselves â?? and thus described themselves â?? and how â??major and consequentialâ? they probably were in comparison to the â??Lamaniteâ? (and others) polities that surrounded them at the time. Your arguments can actually be turned to our favor in many respects: not all, or even many, of the surrounding alien societies made war against, or were even interested in, the Nephites. Those who did were the â??Lamanitesâ? â?? those entities who were in close enough geographic proximity to, and whose cultural traditions made them likely enemies of, the Nephites.

Those entities who didnâ??t make war against the Nephites are not mentioned, no matter how â??major and consequentialâ? they might have been in the context of ancient Mesoamerica. Neither did any of those entities have any reason to mention the Nephites.

[beastie]

The problem is that your arrogance is nowhere better attested than in your interpretations of the verses you cite from the Book of Mormon in post #288 in order to, as you believe, establish your particular assumption of how the Nephites constituted a â??major and consequentialâ? polity.

Your conclusions are utterly dependent on extreme interpolations that are not warranted once one considers the text in its entirety.

Simply put, there is a very likely and substantial difference between how the Nephites perceived themselves â?? and thus described themselves â?? and how â??major and consequentialâ? they probably were in comparison to the â??Lamaniteâ? (and others) polities that surrounded them at the time. Your arguments can actually be turned to our favor in many respects: not all, or even many, of the surrounding alien societies made war against, or were even interested in, the Nephites. Those who did were the â??Lamanitesâ? â?? those entities who were in close enough geographic proximity to, and whose cultural traditions made them likely enemies of, the Nephites.

Those entities who didnâ??t make war against the Nephites are not mentioned, no matter how â??major and consequentialâ? they might have been in the context of ancient Mesoamerica. Neither did any of those entities have any reason to mention the Nephites.

So when the BoM tells us that, prior to the devolution of their society, they had strict laws and a governing body to enforce those laws, they were not accurately describing their culture?

It's strange to be told I'm arrogant because I believe the BoM was accurately describing its own political system.

[Tchild2]

The problem is that your arrogance

Arrogance? Nomad, from my vantage point, you are the one oozing arrogance, and ignorance.

[Anijen]

So when the BoM tells us that, prior to the devolution of their society, they had strict laws and a governing body to enforce those laws, they were not accurately describing their culture?

Governing society could be defined many ways other than the only one you wish it to be. A governing body could be the religious leaders IE the church has its governing society today but that does not mean the State of Utah is governed by them. Even within the Church a governing group can be separate, Stake A has its governing leaders but they don't interfere with Stake B the same can go for Wards etc. The polity of Utah can even be separated into smaller governing societies. Polities then and now can exist together with and without conflict. From what I have read (yes, I have kept up with the entire thread) it seems you want to place emphasis on a Nephite or Lamainte polity and then prove it absurd by using Mayan Scholars to back up your claims. The problem I have pointed out and lately Nomad has is that these scholars do not have the expertise of the Book of Mormon nor do they have that skill set. Sorenson, Clark and lately Gardner have that unique expertise and skill set of the Book of Mormon to find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Yes they might trip along the way but that does not take them off the path. Gardner has shown the humility(and wisdom) to recognise that through time new things are found and the old is replaced. Not only are we doing this in the BoM but it is done with archaeology and other sciences (soft or not).

Thanks

Anijen ~ who feels like Beasties post all read the same... but perhaps I am a moron since I do not agree with her and I do not have a PhD in Mesoamerican studies.

Arrogance? Nomad, from my vantage point, you are the one oozing arrogance, and ignorance.

I guess I am arrogant and ignorant too because I made the same argument a little while back.

[beastie]

Governing society could be defined many ways other than the only one you wish it to be. A governing body could be the religious leaders IE the church has its governing society today but that does not mean the State of Utah is governed by them. Even within the Church a governing group can be separate, Stake A has its governing leaders but they don't interfere with Stake B the same can go for Wards etc. The polity of Utah can even be separated into smaller governing societies. Polities then and now can exist together with and without conflict.

Anijen,

This explanation is not coherent with the actual BoM verses. One of the violations of law mentioned as a trigger is the execution of prisoners without proper authorization of the governor. If you are suggesting that itâ??s reasonable to assume that this is really in reference to the CHURCH, and the church put prisoners to death, and had a hierarchy that included lawyers, then church and state were one and the same. And it really doesnâ??t make sense to say the church devolved into a tribal state.

Polities then and now can exist together with and without conflict. From what I have read (yes, I have kept up with the entire thread) it seems you want to place emphasis on a Nephite or Lamainte polity and then prove it absurd by using Mayan Scholars to back up your claims. The problem I have pointed out and lately Nomad has is that these scholars do not have the expertise of the Book of Mormon nor do they have that skill set. Sorenson, Clark and lately Gardner have that unique expertise and skill set of the Book of Mormon to find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Yes they might trip along the way but that does not take them off the path. Gardner has shown the humility(and wisdom) to recognise that through time new things are found and the old is replaced. Not only are we doing this in the BoM but it is done with archaeology and other sciences (soft or not).

It is completely irrelevant whether or not these scholars have expertise in the BoM â?? theyâ??re not discussing the BoM. Besides, when Mesoamerican scholars who also have expertise in the BoM criticize the theory of the book of mormon placed in Mesoamerica, believers find other reasons to dismiss them (see Deanne Matheny).

Are you â?? and Nomad â?? really suggesting that no one can fairly evaluate whether or not the BoM took place in mesoamerica unless they are professional Mesoamerican archaeologists AND are experts in the BoM?

[poulsenll]

The Grijalva river valley (dark brown area lower left), the postulated location of the Nephite culture is shown on this map to be exssentially surrounded by mountains with 7 to 8 thousand foot peaks and a limited number of passes, effectively isolating it from other areas. Accomapnying maps from this same site show a similar pattern of ruins. The majority of these ruins are preclassic and although numerous are all small class 4 compared to those found during the classic and located in the Maya heartland. Based on this data, the proposed area may have contained a significant population but lacked the large centralized areas typical of the classic period. This supports Brant's interpretation of the Book of Mormon text. I invite anyone interested to look at this site. It is one of the most complete maps of Mesoamerican archeological sites showing relative size and precise locations. They also have a List of sites that can be seen using Google Earth.

Larry P

[beastie]

Evidence of widespread human sacrifice prior to 200 AD:

From Ancient Oaxaca by Blanton, Feinman, Kowalewski, Nicholas, page 44, describing San Jose Mogote in the Middle Formative Rosario phase (700-500 BC):

Excavations in and around Structure 19 provide intriguing evidence of an important element of the changing social system of the later Rosario phase. At some point the temple atop Structure 28 had been intentionally burned, suggesting conflict between communities or within San Jose Mogote itself. In a passageway between Structure 19 and another large Rosario-phase platform, Flannery and Marcus discovered an impressive carved-stone monument (Monument 3) that is the first of its kind. On this slab was carved a naked man, whose heart had been removed. This figure, its accompanying hieroglyphs (indicating that his name may have been â??1 Earthquakeâ?), and other evidence from the Structure 19 area led Marcus and Flannery to several inferences about the Rosario phase:

(1)The 260-day calendar clearly existed by this time. (2)The use of Xoo, a known Zapotec day-name, relates to the hieroglyphs to an archaic form of the Zapotec language. (3) The carving makes clear that Rosario phase sacrifice was not limited to drawing oneâ??s own blood with stingray spines; it now included human sacrifice by heart removal. (4)Since 1 Earthquake is shown naked, even stripped of whatever ornaments he might have worn, he fits our sixteenth-century descriptions of prisoners taken in battle. This carving of a prisoner, combined with the burning of the temple on Structure 28m suggests that by 600 BC the well-known Zapotec pattern of raiding, temple-burning, and capture of enemies for sacrifice had begun. (5)Many later Mesoamerican peoples, including the Maya, set carvings of their defeated enemies where they could be literally and figuratively â??trod upon.â? The horizontal placement of Monument 3 suggest that it, too, was designed for that visual metaphor.

From Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World, by Lynn Foster, page 28:

(in the section describing Mesoamerican traits)

Interaction also consolidated a worldview that was shaped by new symbols and given expression by new art forms. This worldview, or cosmogony, was reflected in the site orientations, paintings, and sculpture of Olmec cities. Creation myths existed at least by the Early Preclassic Period, when they were given artistic form, and these myths were elaborated throughout Mesoamerican civilization and persisted into historical times in Maya books, such as the Popol Vuh. The central gods of Mesoamerican religion, like the maize and rain gods and the feathered serpent creator god, already were depicted in Olmec sculpture. Ancestor worship, especially of powerful individuals, is indicated by archaeological evidence, and ritual human sacrifice was depicted in the art.

The concept of Mesoamerica originated with archaeologist Paul Kirchhoff, who listed a set of characteristics that differentiated Mesoamerica from its neighbors. The list included the following traits:

â?¢ Urbanism: Mesoamerica is one of the seven world areas where cities were invented.

â?¢ Monumental stone buildings built on stepped platforms â?? some pyramidal in height â?? arranged around public plazas, and associated with freestanding sculpture.

â?¢ Agriculture based on maize, beans, and squash.

â?¢ Hieroglyphic or pictographic writing; books folded like a screen and made of bark paper or deerskin.

â?¢ A 260-day ritual calendar and other calendrical calculations.

â?¢ Astronomical knowledge.

â?¢ A rubber ball game played in earthen or masonry courts.

â?¢ Human sacrifice and autosacrifice by drawing blood from the penis, tongue, or ears.

â?¢ A quadripartite world in which the earth is horizontally ordered in four directions and centered by a fifth in the middle of them; each direction was associated with colors, plants, animals, deities, and rituals. This ordered world was symbolized by cruciform shapes and the quincunx in which the center was indicated along with the four directions.

â?¢ A tripartite vertical division of the universe into the earth, multilayered heavens, and the Underworld; communication between these levels was through the center, or fifth direction, that of the vertical axis or world tree. The shaman ruler often represented this conduit between the realms of the cosmos.

â?¢ A pantheon of gods.

By the end of the Early Preclassic Period, practically all these traits were in place, if not with all their future Mesoamerican detail.

From the same text, page 69:

Archaeologists now know that the Maya practiced human sacrifice and engaged in warfare from the beginning of their civilization in the Preclassic period.

From Maya Cosmos by Friedel, Schele, and Parker, page 143:

So we find that the Olmec and the early Maya defined sacred space in fundamentally similar ways; plazas shimmered with the hidden currents of the Primordial Sea, stairways descending from the summits of Creation mountains shaped paths between worlds. Threshold buildings and ballcourt alleyways marked out the liminal space for dance, ritual sport, and â?? as we shall see â?? for sacrifice.

From The Code of Kings by Schele and Mathews, page 73:

In Mesoamerica, the ballgame had a sacred function related directly to the myths of Creation and Origin. The Maize God died and was reborn in the ballcourt. The Maya defined the ballcourt as a crack in the top of a mountain or in the carapace of the Cosmic Turtle, because these were also conceived as rebirth places of the Maize God. People went down this crack to contact their ancestors and consult oracular deities. The Maya and other Mesoamericans negotiated and sealed alliances in the ballcourt, and captured kings died by sacrifice in the ballcourt.

From The Mesoamerican Ballgame edited by Scarborough and Wilcox, page 175-177, from Peirre Agrinierâ??s article The Ballcourts of Southern Chiapas, Mexico:

The significance of the following report rests in the sheer number of unpublished or little known ballcourts of Southern Chiapas. Most of these 181 ballcourts were identified by the New World Archaeological Foundation between 1955 and 1983 andin salvage archaeological surveys of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. These surveys have recorded the highest density of ballcourts for any region in greater Mesoamerica. Southern Chiapas includes the Pacific Coastal Plain, the Central Depression of Chiapas, and most of the Central Chiapas Plateau Highlands.

(snipping paragraph about the attached tables)

The Middle Preclassic (900-400 BC)

The three earliest ballcourts belong to the sites of Finca Acapulco, El Vergel, and San Mateo, on the right bank of the Grijalva River. These sites date from the late Middle Preclassic period and are believed to have been regional centers abandoned at the close of the Escalera phase around 500 BC. The three corresponding ballcourts are the oldest known in Mesoamerica, except for the uncertain examples from La Venta (possibly dating to the early Middle Preclassic) and San Lorenzo (dating to the Palangana phase and approxiamately contemporary with our Chiapas examples.

The Late Preclassic (400 BC â?? 100 AD)

Three Chiapas ballcourts possibly date from the Late Preclassic period: Santa Rosa, in the Upper Grijalva Basin: Santa Cruz in the Acala subregion: and Rancho Alegre on the Chiapas coast near Pijijiapan. All are open-type ballcourts; Santa Cruz has a small separate structure at each end of the playing field.

Same text, page 196:

Evidence of the ballgame in our delimited region ranges from architectural ballcourts, to monumental stone sculpture bearing explicit ballgame iconography, to portable ballgame paraphernalia replicated in stone, to thematically decorated pottery. Initial ballgame themes appear during the Late Preclassic and Protoclassic (500BC- AD200), intensify as a trait complex during the Teotihuacan contact period at the outset of the Middle Classic (AD 400), and continue to the end of the Late Classic. During the Postclassic there is an absence of ballgame data on the coast, though they persist in the adjacent highlands.

More of a mytho-religious ritual than a sport, the game usually culminated in human sacrifice â?? normally decapitation.

I obtained this evidence just from a few books on my shelf. I could go on, but Iâ??ll judge whether or not itâ??s worth my effort from charlesâ??s reaction to this information.

[Nomad]

beastie:

Are you â?? and Nomad â?? really suggesting that no one can fairly evaluate whether or not the BoM took place in mesoamerica unless they are professional Mesoamerican archaeologists AND are experts in the BoM?

Iâ??ve made it clear that Iâ??m not arguing for the strawman you are so insistent on erecting.

I am arguing that one cannot fairly evaluate whether or not the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica unless they approach the question armed with an accurate (i.e. consistent with the text itself) understanding of what â??took placeâ? means.

The arguments you make about the plausibility of the Book of Mormon in its designated time frame assume a more detailed knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica than is even had concerning the polities of the â??barbariansâ? during the Roman era â?? an era for which we actually have documentary evidence! Your asserted confidence of what we know of pre-classic times borders on the ridiculous at times.

Circa the time of the birth of Christ, the Nephite polity (judged by the hints contained in the text itself) probably consisted of a few hundred thousand persons; a few confederated cities within a few days travel (on foot) of one another. If you asked any bona fide expert in ancient Mesoamerica (who did not know you might possibly be referring to â??Nephitesâ?) whether or not it was possible that a polity of 300,000 â?? 500,000 people could have thrived during that period, and yet not be detectable via archaeological or anthropological evidence available to us in 2009, they would respond (virtually unanimously, I suspect) that it is entirely possible, and perhaps even probable.

One must come to the argument with an a priori prejudice in order to not recognize that obvious fact. And, of course, you do.

[beastie]

The arguments you make about the plausibility of the Book of Mormon in its designated time frame assume a more detailed knowledge of ancient Mesoamerica than is even had concerning the polities of the â??barbariansâ? during the Roman era â?? an era for which we actually have documentary evidence! Your asserted confidence of what we know of pre-classic times borders on the ridiculous at times.

Please respond to the statements made by the archaeologists who have studied the field from my post numbered 300.

Circa the time of the birth of Christ, the Nephite polity (judged by the hints contained in the text itself) probably consisted of a few hundred thousand persons; a few confederated cities within a few days travel (on foot) of one another. If you asked any bona fide expert in ancient Mesoamerica (who did not know you might possibly be referring to â??Nephitesâ?) whether or not it was possible that a polity of 300,000 â?? 500,000 people could have thrived during that period, and yet not be detectable via archaeological or anthropological evidence available to us in 2009, they would respond (virtually unanimously, I suspect) that it is entirely possible, and perhaps even probable.

You continue to ignore the evidences that the BoM offers itself concerning its political structure and influence. Please see post 288.

One must come to the argument with an a priori prejudice in order to not recognize that obvious fact. And, of course, you do.

I fully recognize that obvious fact, and explicitly stated as much to you in post 311:

Well, of course a relatively small society (although couple million is far too many) could exist among the other Mesoamerican polities. The question remains: was the Nephite polity a "relatively small society", in comparison to the social and political complexities of their neighbors? You can start your response by dealing with post 288. Does this describe a relatively minor polity in Mesoamerica?

(note: you better scale down your numbers even more, because a polity of 300-500,000 in ancient Mesoamerica still is not minor)

Perhaps one day you will actually respond to that point.

BTW, do you have an a priori prejudice in regards to evaluating the BoM as an historical document?

The Grijalva river valley (dark brown area lower left), the postulated location of the Nephite culture is shown on this map to be exssentially surrounded by mountains with 7 to 8 thousand foot peaks and a limited number of passes, effectively isolating it from other areas. Accomapnying maps from this same site show a similar pattern of ruins. The majority of these ruins are preclassic and although numerous are all small class 4 compared to those found during the classic and located in the Maya heartland. Based on this data, the proposed area may have contained a significant population but lacked the large centralized areas typical of the classic period. This supports Brant's interpretation of the Book of Mormon text. I invite anyone interested to look at this site. It is one of the most complete maps of Mesoamerican archeological sites showing relative size and precise locations. They also have a List of sites that can be seen using Google Earth.Larry

Larry, How does the bolded portion correlate with the BoM text cited in post 288?

[Nomad]

The Grijalva river valley (dark brown area lower left), the postulated location of the Nephite culture is shown on this map to be exssentially surrounded by mountains with 7 to 8 thousand foot peaks and a limited number of passes, effectively isolating it from other areas. Accomapnying maps from this same site show a similar pattern of ruins. The majority of these ruins are preclassic and although numerous are all small class 4 compared to those found during the classic and located in the Maya heartland. Based on this data, the proposed area may have contained a significant population but lacked the large centralized areas typical of the classic period. This supports Brant's interpretation of the Book of Mormon text. I invite anyone interested to look at this site. It is one of the most complete maps of Mesoamerican archeological sites showing relative size and precise locations. They also have a List of sites that can be seen using Google Earth.

Larry P

Oh, no Larry! Had there been any kind of "major and consequential" polity in the Grijalva river valley in pre-classic times, we would know just about everything about it!

We would know the names of their cities.

We would know the nature of their government(s).

We would know what recipes they used to brew their special brand of mocha espresso!

We know almost everything about the people who inhabited the Grijalva river valley during the thousand year period from 500 B.C. to 500 A.D.

At least we know enough to say they couldn't possibly have been "Nephites." Only silly, uninformed, and poorly-read LDS apologists would argue otherwise.

Isn't that right, beastie? List for us all the polities from the Grijalva river valley during that time frame, and tell us about their government, their cultural norms, and their espresso recipes. Surely you have a mountain of references for all those things. Right?

[beastie]

This thread has devolved into a series of personal attacks and strawmen arguments. The worst strawman, to this point, is Nomadâ??s pretense that my argument has been that it is impossible for a minor polity to exist undetected in ancient Mesoamerica. I challenge anyone to find a post of mine that supports such a ludicrous assertion.

My point is simple, and yet thereâ??s been some serious avoidance in regards to it. The BoM does not describe what could be considered a minor polity in Mesoamerica during the specified time frame.

Evidences Iâ??ve offered from the BoM can be found throughout the thread, but most recently in post 288, and post 284 which Iâ??ll share here:

The fact that Pahoran was Moroniâ??s superior, and Moroni was in charge of a massive army that multiple polities had contributed to indicates influence, and it indicates influence that predated the military threat.

Second, even outside warfare, influence is repeatedly noted in the BoM. Even accepting your insistence that the chief judge from Zarahemla who was an authority figure in Ammonihah was simply for advice and counsel, and did not exercise any direct control, the fact that the leader of Zarahemla was giving advice and counsel to a polity 110 miles away indicates significant influence.

The fact that Lamanites who were directly quoted in the BoM identified with the Lehite origin story indicates ideological influence. (see, for example, Lamoni and his father)

The fact that multiple polities are identified as â??Nephiteâ? indicates influence.

The fact that it was automatically assumed that Zarahemla would defend Ammonihah indicates influence (see Alma 16:3)

The fact that the Nephites could â??giveâ? Jershon to converted Lamanites indicates influence, when Jershon would have been appr. 160 miles distant. This is true even if Jershon were uninhabited. It was indicated this land was beside Bountiful, which indicates Nephites had enough influence over Bountiful to â??giveâ? land right beside it to another group of people.

The fact that Zoramites near the border of the Lamanites defined their own beliefs in opposition to Nephite beliefs (Alma 31:17 â?? â??no Christâ?) indicates influence.

The fact that Lamanites called a city Jerusalem indicates influence.

If and when someone actually deals with these evidences from the BoM and attempts to make a case that a minor polity in Mesoamerica could have done these things, I will take their response seriously and respond. OTOH, if the continuing posts mainly address my character defects or posit silly strawmen, I will consider the thread to be past its point of usefulness.

[Anijen]

This explanation is not coherent with the actual BoM verses. One of the violations of law mentioned as a trigger is the execution of prisoners without proper authorization of the governor. If you are suggesting that itâ??s reasonable to assume that this is really in reference to the CHURCH, and the church put prisoners to death, and had a hierarchy that included lawyers, then church and state were one and the same.

~sigh~

And it really doesnâ??t make sense to say the church devolved into a tribal state.

I didn't say that.

It is completely irrelevant whether or not these scholars have expertise in the BoM

That is where your biggest error is IMO. If we are trying to find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, then yes knowledge of the book is essential.

â?? theyâ??re not discussing the BoM

They are not but we are, this post is about the Book of Mormon. Geez Nomad had it right, strawman...

Are you â?? and Nomad â?? really suggesting that no one can fairly evaluate whether or not the BoM took place in mesoamerica unless they are professional Mesoamerican archaeologists AND are experts in the BoM?

I cant speak for Nomad, but no on the Mesoamerican archaeologists (but it would help). If you want to evaluate Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon then yes I would suggest be an expert in that book which Sorenson, Clark, Poulsenll and Gardner are and one in which you do not qualify