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

[Nomad]

This should prove to be quite entertaining.

It has already achieved that objective. Assuming you choose to continue the discussion, it has very promising prospects of advancing from simply entertaining to enlightening.

Why do we have to know specific rules and manner of playing to ascertain whether or not sacrifice was often included in the ballgame?

â?Often includedâ? ?????? â?Often includedâ? ??????

The first hint of equivocation rears its anticipated head.

Hold to that thought, star-eater, I suspect you will be returning to it, and expanding its scope of ambivalence.

But understand that your choosing to equivocate from your earlier, much more unequivocal, assertion is to vacate the underlying premise of your argument: namely, that the existence of ball courts dating to pre-Classic times in the Grijalva River valley is prima facie evidence that whoever lived at that time was engaged in human sacrifice, a practice presumably inconsistent with what the Book of Mormon tells us about the Nephites, who, according to Sorenson, Poulsen, and others, are the likely inhabitants of that geographic area in pre-Classic times. In fact, we may learn that your assertion is likely false for most, if not all, pre-Classic Mesoamerican sites â?¦ but letâ??s not get ahead of ourselves.

As for the necessity of knowing the manner in which the game is played as a clue to the accompanying practice of human sacrifice â?¦ letâ??s just say I intend to argue that the two things are inseparably connected. It remains to be seen if you can demonstrate that you know why they are connected. It is seemingly apparent that you do not. And I do not intend, at this juncture, to demonstrate it myself.

You are the one who has made the bold assertion that the presence of a ball court in any given location is prima facie evidence that human sacrifice occurred. You have a substantial burden of proof in that respect: you must produce sufficient evidence to warrant your assertion that ball courts = human sacrifice, either that or advance your already-commenced equivocation from â??often includedâ? to â??occasionally includedâ? to â??possibly includedâ? to â??we just donâ??t know for sureâ? to â??probably not a component of the earliest manifestations of the â??gameâ?? that was played.â?

[beastie]

â?Often includedâ? ?????? â?Often includedâ? ??????

The first hint of equivocation rears its anticipated head.

Hold to that thought, star-eater, I suspect you will be returning to it, and expanding its scope of ambivalence.

Really, I often suspect that you simply donâ??t read my posts.

Way back on post 353, I stated:

There is little doubt that sometimes the ballgame was recreational. However, scholars uniformly agree that the primary purpose of community ballcourts was the ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesomaerican creation myth. This would result in human sacrifice.

Could it be that youâ??ve actually been arguing against a strawman all this time? I wouldnâ??t be surprised at all.

[Nomad]

Could it be that youâ??ve actually been arguing against a strawman all this time? I wouldnâ??t be surprised at all.

Not hardly.

As I indicated above, the very premise of your implicit assertion concerning the presence of these ball courts in the Grijalva River valley in pre-Classic times is to demonstrate the unlikelihood of â??Nephitesâ? being the residents thereof. Why? Well, of course, because the presence of ball courts is prima facie evidence of human sacrifice â?? a practice we assume to be inconsistent with what the Book of Mormon tells us about Nephites. Ergo â?¦ the Book of Mormon cannot be historical.

Statement 1:

â?¦ scholars uniformly agree that the primary purpose of community ballcourts was the ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesomaerican creation myth.

Statement 2:

This would result in human sacrifice.

The entire question is whether or not the â??ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesomamerican creation mythâ? (which, incidentally, I acknowledge as being at the root of the playing of the â??gameâ??) â??would result in human sacrifice.â?

The issue is not whether the ballgame was sometimes, often, or even usually played for recreational (or â??entertainmentâ? purposes) â?? although I believe it can be persuasively demonstrated that it was â??probably almost alwaysâ? played for such purposes in pre-Classic times.

Your task is to demonstrate that the â??ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesoamerican creation mythâ? â?¦ â??would result in human sacrifice.â?

Answering my initial questions will advance us along the road to determining whether or not you can do that:

• How do we know of the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts?
  
• What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the game during Classic times?
  
• What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the game during pre-Classic times?
  
• What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during Classic times?
  
• What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during pre-Classic times?
  
• What is the meaning of the glyphs surrounding the early-Classic (ca. 350 A.D.) panels at Yaxchilan depicting the King playing the ball game?
  
• Just for giggles, what can you tell us about the rules of the game concerning striking the ball?
  

[beastie]

I was going to put a bit more work into this, but Nomad's recent performance persuaded me otherwise:

It now appears that Nomad has, not surprisingly, been careless in his reading of my posts and has been arguing against a strawman. However, since I already started work on this post, and since I think it may benefit other readers, Iâ??ll go ahead and continue.

From the essay Ballgames and Boundaries, by Susan Gillespie, from the book The Mesoamerican Ballgame, page 321 (Iâ??m going to snip the internal references to make it easier to read):

Decapitation and Sacrifice

Paramount in these interpretations is the notion that the sacrifice of a player was necessary to bring about the desired benefits which the game was thought to produce. â??The ball game cult of the Middle Classic period was essentially a sacrificial cultâ?. The sun (or moon) was sacrificed, as represented or caused by the player, in order that it die so that it could be reborn, continue its cyclical movement, and rejuvenate seasonal agricultural fertility.

The evidence for ballgame-related sacrifice is overwhelming, and only a few examples of this evidence can be listed here. At the Aztec annual Panquetzaliztli ceremony dedicated to the rebirth of Huitzilopochtli, an avatar of the sun, victims were sacrificed in the ballcourt. There is a sacrificial scene (probably decapitation) on a bas-relief panel at El Tajinâ??s South Ballcourt. Depictions of the act of decapitation and disembodied heads or skulls are found on ballcourt reliefs at Chichen Itza and Monja Ballcourt; with ballcourt representations in codices; on a gold pendant from Tomb 7 at Monte Alban with a skull depicted in the center of a ballcourt; on Maya vases with ballgame scenes; and on ballgame related objects, such as the Aparicio stela of a decapitated ball player, a palma with a decapitation scene, and the Bilbao stelae which portray ball players with disembodied heads. There are stone hachas, worn at the waist of ball players, in the shape of heads and skulls. The Mixtec â??decapitated goddessâ? is shown in the codices with a ballcourt among her insignia. There is also an architectural construction known as the tzompantli (skull rack), on which human skulls were displayed, located immediately adjacent to ballcourts at some sites (eg, Chichen Itza, Late Postclassic Tula, Tenochtitlan). Actual skulls have also been found associated with ballcourts as the result of archaeological investigations at various Mesoamerican sites.

Mythical evidence of ballgame-related sacrifice is said to be founding the Popol Vuh, in which the â??fatherâ? and â??sonâ? twin pairs were killed by their ballgame opponents and one twin of each pair was decapitated. A similar story of decapitation occurs in an Aztec myth in which the goddess Coyolzauhqui was beheaded by Huitzilopochtli. Although this act was not a ballgame sacrifice, it did occur in a ballcourt, at its center, the itzompan- â??place of the skullâ?.

Almost all of the evidence for ballgame sacrifice concerns decapitation. Either the act itself is depicted or else the disembodied heads or skulls are shown. Thus it is widely supposed that ballgame-related decapitation as sacrifice was a major aspect of the ritual game.

The essay goes on to discuss whether or not decapitation versus the other forms of sacrifice (heart removal) were most likely the predominant form of ballgame sacrifice, but I donâ??t think that section is necessary to demonstrate the clear, direct link between human sacrifice and the ballgame.

From the Southern Maya Lowlands: A Study in Pre-Hispanic Ballgame Architecture by Vernon L. Scarborough, in The Mesoamerican Ballgame, page 141:

The Ballgame

Recreational play was probably one reason for the continued popularity of the game, but the strongly ritualized character of the game for the resolution of disputes was most manifest in a community sanctioned masonry court (my bold). As an element of the successful mediation of conflict, the game acted as a forum for opposing groups to vie for social and political status. The forging of meaningful alliances during the contest would be expected and would have required a significant spatial and architectural investment in place. Decisions were legitimized in part by the architectural setting.

Ethnohistoric accounts of the rubber-ball game reported by the Antilles by Oviedo and Las Casas indicated spirited wagering by most in attendance, with the sacrifice of a human captive sometimes accompanying the event.

Page 143:

In the Maya ballgame, ritualized behavior associated with blood sacrifice was a dominant theme. Although the game may have had an oracular quality to it, the outcome of the predicted event, not the game itself, was seldom in question. The governing elites extended the out come of a match by appeasing displeased deities through post-ballgame ritual and sacrifice, if the final result of the game were contrary to the predicted one. Sacrifice is not predicted to be a perfunctory act required at all ballgame performances, but a ritualized drama necessary only when the outcome of the game did not support the predicted event.

In attempting to understand this issue, it is crucial to understand that the ballgame is a reenactment of an ancient origin myth in Mesoamerica about the Hero Twins. There is evidence for the Hero Myth that long predates the Classic period. Hereâ??s an excellent summary from an extremely reliable source that discusses the connection between the ballgame and the Hero Twins (it also mentioned Nomadâ??s glyphs, that he somehow imagines changes the entire scenario):

http://www.famsi.org/research/vanstone/2012/faq.html#losers

Did the losers of the Ballgame get sacrificed?

The Ballgame or la Pelota was one of the most unusual features of Mesoamerican cultures. Early Formative rubber balls have survived in the springs of El Manat

[beastie]

Apparently, you have inadvertantly conflated the analogous objects of my question. The Nephites are analogous to todays advances polity, not the primitive native villiagers.

You'll have to forgive me, I get confused with the different apologetic theories, especially when they appear on the same thread. So you're arguing that the Nephites are advanced in comparison to the natives? I want to make sure that's correct before responding (which may be tomorrow).

[Nomad]

Your seemingly desperate dump of largely irrelevant citations, designed apparently to wow the casual observer by sheer mass what it lacks in substance, is a disappointment.

None of what you have posted bears upon the question at hand:

Your task is to demonstrate that the â??ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesoamerican creation mythâ? â?¦ â??would result in human sacrifice.â?

And this obviously means, within the context of our discussion, that you must demonstrate this to have been the case during pre-Classic times.

You make the undisputed claims that:

There is evidence for the Hero Myth that long predates the Classic period.

There is no doubt that formally constructed (ie, â??communityâ?) ballcourts have been found in the preclassic time period.

But none of the evidence for human sacrifice you cite is speaking of the pre-Classic period.!

None of it!

Very little of it is even pertinent to the question of human sacrifice during Classic times.

Most of it doesnâ??t even touch upon the connection between the accepted ritual and the question of human sacrifice, as though you are still persuaded that one automatically proves the other.

And Iâ??m sure you know that.

Indeed, a substantial number of the sources you have cited consist not of â??textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwiseâ?, but simply conclusions with no reference to the evidence. That simply will not do, especially when I suspect you probably know what the evidence is, and from where and when it comes.

You pose the question:

â?¦ did Mesoamericans in the preclassic period also adhere to the Hero Twin creation myth?

To which I reply in the affirmative.

And yet, the only pertinent question remains:

Did the ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesoamerican creation myth result in human sacrifice during pre-Classic times?â?

Furthermore, you have failed to answer the most important of the questions I have posed, specifically these:

• How do we know of the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts?
  
• What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the game during pre-Classic times?
  
• What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during pre-Classic times?
  
• What is the meaning of the glyphs surrounding the early-Classic (ca. 350 A.D.) panels at Yaxchilan depicting the King playing the ball game?
  

Iâ??m willing to let the issue of Classic times slide at this point, although I might very well argue that none of your cited sources present any evidence for the nature of the game during that period. Indeed, close examination reveals that almost all of their assertions concerning the nature of the game during Classic times are based on arbitary extension into Classic times of the evidence from a combined sparse record from post-Classic and very late Classic times. But the issue of human sacrifice during the Classic era is simply not a debate Iâ??m all that concerned with in terms of the present question.

I will also abandon the question about how the ball was struck -- although the apparent evolution of the game in this regard is a pertinent commentary on the non-static nature of the manner in which the game was conducted throughout the continuum of Mesoamerican history.

At any rate, what did you expect to accomplish, besides bluff, with your cited sources concerning Kaminaljuyu and San Bartolo?!!

Neither one of those sources says anything about human sacrifice being associated with the ball court and reenactment of the creation myth! You must have known that before you set out to laboriously type those words on your keyboard. So why bother?

I could give more evidence of PreClassic Hero Twin mythology â?¦

Please refrain.

It is cumbersome for both of us and entirely irrelevant.

As to your points that â??all but the most hard-headedâ? will concede:

1. There is strong evidence in the Classic period connecting formal ballcourts to human sacrifice.

If there is, we are still waiting to see it. Your sources do not argue for human sacrifice during Classic times. Even so, I am willing to vacate this issue in favor of concentrating on the one that is actually relevant in terms of your indictment of Book of Mormon historicity.

2. There is strong evidence in the Classic period connecting the ballgame to the reenactment of the Hero Twin ballgame.

3. There is strong evidence of the existence of formal ballcourts in the Preclassic period.

4. There is strong evidence of the existence of the Hero Twin myths in the Preclassic period.

As hard-headed as I may be, I agree with all of these. Unfortunately, none of them bear upon the relevant question, as stated clearly in my previous posts, and most recently, above.

You conclude with the utterly unsupported assertion that:

There â?¦ is no justification for the complete decoupling of Preclassic ballcourts from human sacrifice.

There is also no evidence, at least that you have presented to this point, that would couple pre-Classic ball courts with human sacrifice, other than your, as yet, unsupported argument that the presence of a ball court equates to the practice of human sacrifice during that period.

Youâ??ve given your typing fingers quite a workout today, but your efforts thus far have failed to do anything but demonstrate your willingness to be evasive. Iâ??ll continue to hope for better as we proceed.

[James Banta]

I will not allow myself to be engaged in endless bunny trails. I have not asserted that we know the "rules and manner" of the game, other than that it was a sacred religious ritual that often ended in human sacrifice. I said I would provide more information regarding how scholars have arrived at this conclusion. But I will not follow you down pointless trails, particularly when you make no argument that these points have any relevancy regarding what I have actually asserted.

It would be bad enough if the "ball games" ended in human sacrifice, but having it be part of their everyday religious worship in Teotihuacan, the largest city of the Indians of the Mexican area. The earliest buildings at Teotihuacan date to about 200 BC, and the largest pyramid, the Pyramid of the Sun, was completed by 100 CE. The city reached its zenith between 150 and 450, when it was the center of a powerful culture whose influence extended through much of the Mesoamerican region. As with other Mesoamerican cultures, Teotihuacanos practiced human sacrifice. Human bodies and animal sacrifices have been found during excavations of the pyramids at Teotihuacan.. (Coe, Michael D.; and Rex Koontz (1994) [1962]. Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs. New York: Thames & Hudson.)

This time frame overlapped the time the BofM says Jesus came to the New World and set up His Church here as He has done in Israel.. This is NOT consistent with the BofM story of the destruction in about 33 AD nor is it consistent with their belief is many gods and the offering of sacrifice to them at all not less human sacrifice.. Again the truth of the BofM is brought into serious doubt by the REAL history of the happening at or near the Time of Jesus' ministry and death on the cross.. IHS jim

[Brant Gardner]

This time frame overlapped the time the BofM says Jesus came to the New World and set up His Church here as He has done in Israel.. This is NOT consistent with the BofM story of the destruction in about 33 AD nor is it consistent with their belief is many gods and the offering of sacrifice to them at all not less human sacrifice.. Again the truth of the BofM is brought into serious doubt by the REAL history of the happening at or near the Time of Jesus' ministry and death on the cross.. IHS jim

You are correct for the timeframe, but missing the important issue of location. Teotihuacan is not considered part of Book of Mormon lands. In the way I reconstruct the history in the Book of Mormon, I understand Mormon seeing Teotihuacanos as part of the reason for the final wars against the Nephites. That would be consonant with Mormon's disgust that women are "now" being sacrificed. The sacrifice of women appears to be attested at Teotihuacan. So, given the appropriate geography, the information about Teotihuacan actually fits precisely with what the Book of Mormon claims, contrary to your suggestion.

[James Banta]

You are correct for the timeframe, but missing the important issue of location. Teotihuacan is not considered part of Book of Mormon lands. In the way I reconstruct the history in the Book of Mormon, I understand Mormon seeing Teotihuacanos as part of the reason for the final wars against the Nephites. That would be consonant with Mormon's disgust that women are "now" being sacrificed. The sacrifice of women appears to be attested at Teotihuacan. So, given the appropriate geography, the information about Teotihuacan actually fits precisely with what the Book of Mormon claims, contrary to your suggestion.

Again the time line is the enemy of your premise.. Teotihuacan hit it's highest between 100 BC and 450 AD.. From 450 AD it was no longer a major city or power in the area.. These couldn't have been the armies that traveled two to five thousand miles out of BofM lands to the area that is now upstate New York to have their final battle.. IHS jim

[Brant Gardner]

Again the time line is the enemy of your premise.. Teotihuacan hit it's highest between 100 BC and 450 AD.. From 450 AD it was no longer a major city or power in the area.. These couldn't have been the armies that traveled two to five thousand miles out of BofM lands to the area that is now upstate New York to have their final battle.. IHS jim

You have two problems in this statement. The first is that you are arguing against a New York Cumorah, apparently thinking that I believe that is where the final battle happened. I don't, so your travel issues are moot.

The second is that you appear to misunderstand the dating of Teotihuacan and, in particular, the impact of Teotihuacan on the region I am suggesting. Teotihuacan "enters" (considered a euphemism for a takeover, whether military or in some other way) of Tikal in A.D. 379. Teotihuacan is north of the Book of Mormon area. Tikal is to the south. That means that precisely during the time period of the final battles, we have Teotihuacanos who are in the region. We also have indications that they brought different military techniques along with them--and the Book of Mormon complains that the rules of warfare have changed. In other words, right time, right place, right "enemy."

Your timeline and distance criticisms are misplaced.

[LeSellers]

These couldn't have been the armies that traveled two to five thousand miles out of BofM lands to the area that is now upstate New York to have their final battle..

Your period key is still stuck, but you knew that, I'd guess.

Anyway, please stop telling us what our scriptures say. You're not very good at it, especially for someone who claims to have been LDS in the past.

The text gives us no indication that "their final battle" was in New York, upstate or anywhere else.

Lehi

[Anijen]

Again the time line is the enemy of your premise.. Teotihuacan hit it's highest between 100 BC and 450 AD.. From 450 AD it was no longer a major city or power in the area.. These couldn't have been the armies that traveled two to five thousand miles out of BofM lands to the area that is now upstate New York to have their final battle.. IHS jim

James almost all who had posted in this thread are speaking of a LGT I emphasize the letter L which stands for limited. I do not and most here from what I can tell do not subscribe to the final battling happening in Upstate New York.

Anijen

[wenglund]

You'll have to forgive me, I get confused with the different apologetic theories, especially when they appear on the same thread. So you're arguing that the Nephites are advanced in comparison to the natives? I want to make sure that's correct before responding (which may be tomorrow).

I am sorry, but no, you are confused in multiple ways. I am not presenting an argument, I am testing, by anaolgy, Honorentheos' or your argument:

One of the interesting aspects of beasties argument is that the Nephites do not represent a civilization that is a co-evolving sub-group. Technically, the Nephites, and their brothers the true lamanites, should have brought with them old world technologies, ideologies, and social structure that, from the BoM text, would seem more advanced and more desirable to the native populations.

A late example that shows how this should work if the book represented reality is in Alma. The BoM describes Nephite warfare using Nephite weaponry and armor that results in a significant military victory. It is only within a chapter or so of this event that we see the Lamanites do what you would expect a culture to do - advance their own technology in the form of armor to be able to respond.

Religion, art, and social structure aside, one does not usually see a culture, especially one so fond of warfare, give up these kind of advantages if they work so well. The fact that the spaniards seem to have arrived with another iron-age technology, with fire arms and canon being the main additional advantage, and more or less subjugated the region should provide another counter-example.

Other technologies we seem to be in need of finding include a writing system, near eastern economic strategy (wasn't lehi's family wealthy and probably skilled in the merchant arts?), and trans-oceanic capable sea travel. A "hole" from which these technologies all seem to originate would probably be the place where one would expect to find nephite.

The implication, as I understand it, is that the existence of advanced technology of one polity within a geographic region will invariably precipitate the advancement in technology of other polity within that same region. In other words, if the Nephites were a reality, and were they to have been advanced technologically, then one would expect to find evidence of the advanced Nephite technology among the "native population" in their same region and time. However, such is not the case. There is a technological "hole" where one would expect to find Nephites. Thus, the absense of this expected evidence among the pre-classic "native population", may be evidence that the Nephites weren't real.

I am challenging, by use of analogy, this argument, using known cicumstances today. To do so:

a- The Nephites mentioned by Honorentheos are represented in my analogy by today's equivolent of technologically advanced civilizations in Africa and Central and South America.

b- On the other hand, the "native populations" mentioned by Honorentheos are represented in my analogy by today's "primitive native villagers" in Africa and Central and South America.

The point being, for various reasons (not all of which may be ascertained from archeology or historical data), the existence of advanced technologies of certain polity within a given region in modern times, has NOT precipitated the advancement of technology in other polity within that same region during modern times (i.e. the "primitive native villagers" in particular), and since it is reasonable to presume that the same may be true for other times and regions, then it does NOT necessarily follow that the absence of advanced technology among pre-classic "native population" in meso-american, is evidence that the Nephits weren't real.

In short, Honorentheos' use of your argment in relation to technological advancement, doesn't fly. I hope this helps.

Anyway, I see that you have your hands full addressing Nomad's and Brant's and other apologists' queries, and since they are far more informed on the issue than me, if not also more articulate and easier for you to follow, perhaps it may be best to leave off discussing with me and focus your attentions on what they may have to say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

First, I am not going to do any more research and typing in response to your demands when you are willing to disregard the evidence I do provide. I already knew this would likely be the case with you, as your pattern of posting on this thread demonstrates, but as long as I believed the information was pertinent to my assertions and would help others, I was willing to do it. But the information you’re currently demanding is not pertinent to my assertions, and I don’t think it will be particularly helpful to readers. So please, if you can make your case, go ahead and make it yourself instead of asking me to do your work.

Your seemingly desperate dump of largely irrelevant citations, designed apparently to wow the casual observer by sheer mass what it lacks in substance, is a disappointment.

Really? This response of yours is as empty as your response to my citation of the BoM verses demonstrating a government of strict laws enforced by a hierarchy. Your response? My interpretation was “extreme and atextual”. That’s it. There’s no explanation of how it was extreme or atextual, no attempt to demonstrate a more reasonable interpretation. You draw conclusions without building the prerequisite case, first, and you’re doing the same thing here.

None of what you have posted bears upon the question at hand:

Your task is to demonstrate that the “ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesoamerican creation myth” … “would result in human sacrifice.”

And this obviously means, within the context of our discussion, that you must demonstrate this to have been the case during pre-Classic times.

Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with Mesoamerican archaeologists and scholars. Way back on post 300, I tried to address this issue with explanations from these scholars clarifying how “we know what we know”. This was Linda Schele’s comment (see post 300 for complete reference):

The lowland Maya began raising sacred mountain-pyramids of their own by at least 600 BC. They soon became masters at sculpting in plaster, the abundantly available architectural material of the region. By around 300 BC Maya master builders were decorating their human-made mountains with extraordinary cosmic images. These artisans, like their Olmec counterparts, did not yet put lengthy texts on their buildings. Nevertheless, we can identify the meaning of their designs because the Classic-period Maya who followed them retained the strategic symbolism of the early Maya builders quite faithfully. And these later descendants put text on much of their art – ranging from single glyphs to entire histories. We can extrapolate the meaning of these symbols and images backwards into the Preclassic Maya world with considerable confidence. (139)

Now, obviously you disagree with her. Obviously, the fact that there is very strong evidence of ballgame sacrifice in the Classic and Postclassic period, that there is sufficient text from those periods to explain why they engaged in ballgame sacrifice during those time periods isn’t sufficient for you to extrapolate backwards into the Preclassic Maya world with considerable confident. You’re certainly free to have whatever opinion you’d like, but I feel more comfortable listening to Linda Schele, an extraordinarily well-respected Mesoamerican scholar, than I do to you.

Very little of it is even pertinent to the question of human sacrifice during Classic times.

Most of it doesn’t even touch upon the connection between the accepted ritual and the question of human sacrifice, as though you are still persuaded that one automatically proves the other.

And I’m sure you know that.

Indeed, a substantial number of the sources you have cited consist not of “textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise”, but simply conclusions with no reference to the evidence. That simply will not do, especially when I suspect you probably know what the evidence is, and from where and when it comes.

Let’s look at this one citation:

From the essay Ballgames and Boundaries, by Susan Gillespie, from the book The Mesoamerican Ballgame, page 321 (I’m going to snip the internal references to make it easier to read):

Decapitation and Sacrifice

Paramount in these interpretations is the notion that the sacrifice of a player was necessary to bring about the desired benefits which the game was thought to produce. “The ball game cult of the Middle Classic period was essentially a sacrificial cult”. The sun (or moon) was sacrificed, as represented or caused by the player, in order that it die so that it could be reborn, continue its cyclical movement, and rejuvenate seasonal agricultural fertility.

The evidence for ballgame-related sacrifice is overwhelming, and only a few examples of this evidence can be listed here. At the Aztec annual Panquetzaliztli ceremony dedicated to the rebirth of Huitzilopochtli, an avatar of the sun, victims were sacrificed in the ballcourt. There is a sacrificial scene (probably decapitation) on a bas-relief panel at El Tajin’s South Ballcourt. Depictions of the act of decapitation and disembodied heads or skulls are found on ballcourt reliefs at Chichen Itza and Monja Ballcourt; with ballcourt representations in codices; on a gold pendant from Tomb 7 at Monte Alban with a skull depicted in the center of a ballcourt; on Maya vases with ballgame scenes; and on ballgame related objects, such as the Aparicio stela of a decapitated ball player, a palma with a decapitation scene, and the Bilbao stelae which portray ball players with disembodied heads. There are stone hachas, worn at the waist of ball players, in the shape of heads and skulls. The Mixtec “decapitated goddess” is shown in the codices with a ballcourt among her insignia. There is also an architectural construction known as the tzompantli (skull rack), on which human skulls were displayed, located immediately adjacent to ballcourts at some sites (eg, Chichen Itza, Late Postclassic Tula, Tenochtitlan). Actual skulls have also been found associated with ballcourts as the result of archaeological investigations at various Mesoamerican sites.

Mythical evidence of ballgame-related sacrifice is said to be founding the Popol Vuh, in which the “father” and “son” twin pairs were killed by their ballgame opponents and one twin of each pair was decapitated. A similar story of decapitation occurs in an Aztec myth in which the goddess Coyolzauhqui was beheaded by Huitzilopochtli. Although this act was not a ballgame sacrifice, it did occur in a ballcourt, at its center, the itzompan- “place of the skull”.

Almost all of the evidence for ballgame sacrifice concerns decapitation. Either the act itself is depicted or else the disembodied heads or skulls are shown. Thus it is widely supposed that ballgame-related decapitation as sacrifice was a major aspect of the ritual game.

I’m going to pull out portions for discussion:

The evidence for ballgame-related sacrifice is overwhelming

I’m not an archaeologist, and I’m certainly no expert in this field. I’m simply a layperson who has been interested enough in the topic to attain a certain level of background knowledge. So I’m not offering my own conclusions, but rather relying on the conclusions drawn by those who have studied this topic professionally for many years, often decades.

This particular book was published in 1991. At that time, here were the credentials of Susan Gillespie, who asserted that “the evidence for ballgame-related sacrifice is overwhelming.” (from the introduction to the book)

Susan D. Gillespie is research associate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where she received a Ph. D. in 1983. She participated in the Komchen Project in Yucatan, and she has directed archaeological excavations at Charco Redondo on the coast of Oaxaca and at Llano del Jicaro, an Olmec monument workshop in Veracruz. Her special interests are the role of ideology and the structure of native conceptions in the functioning of pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican society. She has given particular attention to mythological narratives and iconography of New World peoples in order to understand their cosmology. The ballgame, a pan-New World institution intimately related to these concerns, has proved a valuable focus for yielding insights into this topic. In addition to several articles on the role of ideology in Mesoamerican society, she is the author of The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexica History (University of Arizona Press 1989)

Since that time, her resume has been updated:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/sgillesp/

Susan D. Gillespie joined the faculty at the University of Florida as an Associate Professor of Anthropology in August 2001. She became Associate Department Chair in 2003, serving in that capacity until 2009. Also in 2003 she was elected President-Elect of the Archaeology Division of the American Anthropological Association, serving as President from 2005 to 2007. She was certified with the Register of Professional Archaeologists in 2006. Dr. Gillespie received her Ph.D. in Anthropology in 1983 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, specializing in the archaeology and ethnohistory of Mesoamerica. That year she was hired as Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Illinois State University, Normal, where she was promoted to Associate Professor in 1990. During part of that time she also served as Acting Director of the Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, a contract archaeology program focusing on the Euroamerican period in the Midwest. In 1994 she was hired as Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois, and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2000. She has directed archaeological projects in the states of Oaxaca and Veracruz, Mexico, and has conducted ethnohistorical studies of both the Aztec and Maya peoples and iconographic analyses of Mesoamerican artworks in general. Dr. Gillespie is the recipient of the 1990 Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin Prize from the American Society for Ethnohistory for The Aztec Kings (1989), and the 2002 Gordon R. Willey Prize from the American Anthropological Association.

I simply don’t have the expertise or the access to detailed information that would allow me to confirm or disconfirm every piece of evidence that every scholar I’ve read presents. Now, if one particular scholar was making an assertion that contradicted what the majority of other scholars assert, and if it was in regards to an important or particularly interesting issue, I would do my best to find the primary sources to verify the scholar’s use of those sources. I did so in the past with some of Dr. Sorenson’s controversial claims. But when every scholar I’ve read on the subject has the same viewpoint on this issue, I’m willing to trust that they actually know what they’re talking about.

Of course, since you are particularly suspicious of the claim that the evidence for ballgame sacrifice is overwhelming, then you may actually want to do some detective work for yourself. But asking me to do detective work on an uncontroversial and widely accepted assertion when I have no reason to be suspicious of the sources is not reasonable.

There is a sacrificial scene (probably decapitation) on a bas-relief panel at El Tajin’s South Ballcourt

This timing of this one varies a bit from author to author, depending on how the timeline is formulated. This author:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1011250n52652qr/

labels it Classic. (650-1000 AD for the specific site) Here’s one excerpt from this link, for those who won’t bother to click and read:

El Tajin was the capital of a regional culture that flourished in north central Veracruz (Mexico) from C. AD 650-1000. During that period, ballcourt construction and ballgame-related accouterments were a major facet of the regional culture. The center of El Tajin contained 11 masonry courts, and the regional culture produced large quantities of finely carved stone objects called yokes, palmas, and hachas that were closely associated with ballcourt ritualism. The imagery associated with these objects and courts emphasize the decapitation of a sacrificial victim in a ballcourt context.

Numerous depictions of ballcourt sacrifice in Classic Veracruz public art show the victim dressed in ballplayer equipment, seated in the middle of the court, and decapitated. While the practice of decapitation associated with the ballgame can be traced back to the Late Preclassic in Central Veracruz, during the Epiclassic (650-1000), this codified ballcourt imagery featuring the decapitation ceremony appears on some of the most important ballcourt and ballcourt-related programs in the region, including Las Higueras and Aparicio as well as El Tain. Interestingly, several other areas of Mesoamerica also participate in this specific ballcourt decapitation iconography at this time (Pasztory, 1972, 1978:138, Taube, 1994:228-229).

Here’s a link to a very clear picture of the sacrificial scene at El Tajin:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3HDprRxXs...lt#PRA1-PA75,M1

Here’s an interesting blurb from the above noted Taube:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_bjLIFFJj...result#PPA11,M1

From Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks, page 11:

It has been noted that the San Lorenzo sculpture known as Tenochtitlan Monument 1 portrays a ballplayer atop a bound captive. The seated upper figure wears the costume typical of Olmec ballplayers, including a mirror pectoral and, most importantly, the thick, protective belt used to strike the ball with the hip. The playing of hip ball with padded belts was by far the most common form of the Mesoamerican ball game and continues to be played in Sinaloa to this day. The San Lorenzo monument indicates that as with later Mesoamerican peoples, human sacrifice was to the Olmec an important component of their ball-game ritual.

More on the Classic Veracruz evidence:

http://books.google.com/books?id=OfjNOPNnz...2&ct=result

At any rate, what did you expect to accomplish, besides bluff, with your cited sources concerning Kaminaljuyu and San Bartolo?!!

I tried to be explicit and clear, but apparently I wasn’t as explicit and as clear as circumstances require. I will try again.

There is strong evidence of ballgame sacrifice in the Classic period. There is strong evidence that the ballgame was the ritual reenactment of the Hero Twin myth ballgame.

You seem to accept these points, although you quibble about the Classic evidence.

There is strong evidence of ballcourts in Pre-classic Mesoamerica. Again, you seem to accept this evidence.

Now, if the Classic ballgame was meant to represent a reenactment of the Hero Twin Ballgame myth, and that the ritual sacrifice was connected to that fact, then if Preclassic ballgames were similar to Classic ballgames, then it has to be shown that the Preclassic period inhabitants also accepted the Hero Twin myths. I shared the information from San Bartolo and Kaminaljuyu to demonstrate that they did, indeed, accept the same myths. You appear to accept this point.

So if we accept this trajectory for the Classic period:

Hero Twin Myths -->contain creation myth ballgame --> formal ballgame meant to be a reenactment of Hero Twin Myth --> results in human sacrifice

Then we should accept the same trajectory for the PreClassic period.

Hero Twin Myths --> contain creation myth ballgame --> formal ballgame meant to be a reenactment of Hero Twin Myth --> results in (fill in the blank)

The trajectory is the same. We are analyzing the last step, human sacrifice. What justification do you have for insisting that this last step did not exist in the PreClassic period?

Now, as to your questions. I already answered a couple of them, but you have a habit of not reading my responses carefully. I am not going to do research to provide citations to support my answers, because I think they are irrelevant to the question of whether or not ballgame human sacrifice occurred. You have yet to make that case, although you keep assuring us you can do so.

I will briefly repeat my answers, and equally briefly answer whatever I did not already address:

• How do we know of the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts?

We don’t know the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts. There are some scholars who do believe they have figured out some of the rules for games in certain regions, but there is no widespread agreement on this point, as far as I know. The fact that we do not know rules and specific manner of play is irrelevant in terms of whether or not there is reason to believe human sacrifice took place. We don’t have to know, for example, how many points constituted a “win”, or what constituted a “foul” in order to know whether or not human sacrifice occurred in these games (the formal ritual reenactments, that is).

• What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the game during pre-Classic times?

See above.

• What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during pre-Classic times?

See above.

• What is the meaning of the glyphs surrounding the early-Classic (ca. 350 A.D.) panels at Yaxchilan depicting the King playing the ball game?

See this portion of my previous reply:

Here’s an excellent summary from an extremely reliable source that discusses the connection between the ballgame and the Hero Twins (it also mentioned Nomad’s glyphs, that he somehow imagines changes the entire scenario):

(snipping all but part referencing glyphs)

Maya ballgame images carved on stone reliefs usually label the ball with what appears to be a "gauge": 9-Nahb or 14-Nahb, or other numerals apparently indicating the ball's size -Nahb can mean "palm of the hand" (or "pool of water"), which suggests different games with different-sized balls.

Here’s a lengthier essay just dealing with the glyphs. I have no idea why you think this supports your decoupling of human sacrifice with the ballgame, but perhaps, one day, maybe in the millennium, you’ll actually make your case. This author, for example, makes the case for the glyphs referring to ball-size rather than number of sacrificial victims, and yet accepts that captive sacrifice did take place.

http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/j...04/Handspan.pdf

Enough stalling. If you have a case, make it. If you continue to simply demand additional evidence from me, then I will have to conclude you never had a case to make and are simply blowing smoke.

[beastie]

Brant,

Since you've reappeared, I was hoping you would respond to two posts of mine that I'll duplicate here for ease:

I was curious about this assertion of yours:

QUOTE

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:

QUOTE

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:

QUOTE

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?

[beastie]

I think Iâ??ve provided enough evidence that, at the very least, the Nephites had significant influence in their region, so I want to return momentarily to the question of what we can figure out about their government.

The following verses tell us what the government devolved into, prior to the destruction at the crucifixion.

QUOTE

20 And there began to be men inspired from heaven and sent forth, standing among the people in all the land, preaching and testifying boldly of the sins and iniquities of the people, and testifying unto them concerning the redemption which the Lord would make for his people, or in other words, the resurrection of Christ; and they did testify boldly of his death and sufferings.

21 Now there were many of the people who were exceedingly angry because of those who testified of these things; and those who were angry were chiefly the chief judges, and they who had been high priests and lawyers; yea, all those who were lawyers were angry with those who testified of these things.

22 Now there was no lawyer nor judge nor high priest that could have power to condemn any one to death save their condemnation was signed by the governor of the land.

23 Now there were many of those who testified of the things pertaining to Christ who testified boldly, who were taken and put to death secretly by the judges, that the knowledge of their death came not unto the governor of the land until after their death.

24 Now behold, this was contrary to the laws of the land, that any man should be put to death except they had power from the governor of the landâ??

25 Therefore a complaint came up unto the land of Zarahemla, to the governor of the land, against these judges who had condemned the prophets of the Lord unto death, not according to the law.

26 Now it came to pass that they were taken and brought up before the judge, to be judged of the crime which they had done, according to the law which had been given by the people.

27 Now it came to pass that those judges had many friends and kindreds; and the remainder, yea, even almost all the lawyers and the high priests, did gather themselves together, and unite with the kindreds of those judges who were to be tried according to the law.

28 And they did enter into a covenant one with another, yea, even into that covenant which was given by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil, to combine against all righteousness.

29 Therefore they did combine against the people of the Lord, and enter into a covenant to destroy them, and to deliver those who were guilty of murder from the grasp of justice, which was about to be administered according to the law.

30 And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings.

QUOTE

1 Now behold, I will show unto you that they did not establish a king over the land; but in this same year, yea, the thirtieth year, they did destroy upon the judgment-seat, yea, did murder the chief judge of the land.

2 And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land.

3 And every tribe did appoint a chief or a leader over them; and thus they became tribes and leaders of tribes.

4 Now behold, there was no man among them save he had much family and many kindreds and friends; therefore their tribes became exceedingly great.

5 Now all this was done, and there were no wars as yet among them; and all this iniquity had come upon the people because they did yield themselves unto the power of Satan.

6 And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because of the secret combination of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets.

7 And they did cause a great contention in the land, insomuch that the more righteous part of the people had nearly all become wicked; yea, there were but few righteous men among them.

8 And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire.

9 Now this secret combination, which had brought so great iniquity upon the people, did gather themselves together, and did place at their head a man whom they did call Jacob;

10 And they did call him their king; therefore he became a king over this wicked band; and he was one of the chiefest who had given his voice against the prophets who testified of Jesus.

11 And it came to pass that they were not so strong in number as the tribes of the people, who were united together save it were their leaders did establish their laws, every one according to his tribe; nevertheless they were enemies; notwithstanding they were not a righteous people, yet they were united in the hatred of those who had entered into a covenant to destroy the government.

12 Therefore, Jacob seeing that their enemies were more numerous than they, he being the king of the band, therefore he commanded his people that they should take their flight into the northernmost part of the land, and there build up unto themselves a kingdom, until they were joined by dissenters, (for he flattered them that there would be many dissenters) and they become sufficiently strong to contend with the tribes of the people; and they did so.

13 And so speedy was their march that it could not be impeded until they had gone forth out of the reach of the people. And thus ended the thirtieth year; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi.

14 And it came to pass in the *thirty and first year that they were divided into tribes, every man according to his family, kindred and friends; nevertheless they had come to an agreement that they would not go to war one with another; but they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders. But they did establish very strict laws that one tribe should not trespass against another, insomuch that in some degree they had peace in the land; nevertheless, their hearts were turned from the Lord their God, and they did stone the prophets and did cast them out from among them.

I bolded the verses I find very informative:

QUOTE

22 Now there was no lawyer nor judge nor high priest that could have power to condemn any one to death save their condemnation was signed by the governor of the land.

This tells us that the Nephite system had a strict set of laws and a way of enforcing those laws. The laws were evolved to the point that lawyers and judges were necessary for enforcement. We see a strict hierarchy established in which the governor had authority over the lawyers, judges, and high priests.

QUOTE

2 And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land.

3 And every tribe did appoint a chief or a leader over them; and thus they became tribes and leaders of tribes.

These verses tell us that they devolved into a tribal society, which implies that they were previously at a more complex level of development. We see from the description of a strict set of laws that had a bureaucracy for enforcement that this level of government sounds very much like what Arthur Demarest described as a â??stateâ? in his book The Ancient Maya, page 58:

QUOTE

Bands: small, loosely integrated groups of hunters and gatherers that possess a common territory in which they move nomadically. They have few differences in wealth or status and are characterized by reciprocal economic relations. Integration is through kinship or marriage.

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

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

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

Compare the state level of organization with the simpler levels, particular chiefdoms: what differentiates the two is a governing body or rulers, backed by LAW, force, or religious sanctions.

[Nomad]

Enough stalling. If you have a case, make it.

I hereby acknowledge your previous post (the one prior to the more recent one just above).

It was â?¦ shall I say ... fascinating to behold.

It is now quite apparent that you simply have not sought to obtain a complete understanding of the nature of the Mesoamerican ball game, but that your research has been artificially narrowed by your unremitting focus on only those things that you think might aid you in your quest to prove the ahistoricity of the Book of Mormon; you obviously donâ??t have the capacity, at present, to reply to the very specific questions I posed.

Very well, I wonâ??t press the issue further.

Current exigencies demand my attention for the next couple days, but my complete reply to your arguments will be forthcoming sometime this weekend.

I will make my case.

[beastie]

It is now quite apparent that you simply have not sought to obtain a complete understanding of the nature of the Mesoamerican ball game, but that your research has been artificially narrowed by your unremitting focus on only those things that you think might aid you in your quest to prove the ahistoricity of the Book of Mormon; you obviously donâ??t have the capacity, at present, to reply to the very specific questions I posed.

Sure. I read an entire book composed of essays about the Mesoamerican Ballgame for no other reason but to prove the ahistoricity of the BoM. As far as mindreading goes, you should keep your day job.

The fact is that the ahistoricity of the BoM is quickly apparent to all but those who are determined to believe due to their testimonies. I would never had studied Mesoamerica as much as I have without finding them genuinely fascinating. I have never claimed to be an expert, and if I have made an error in my understanding of the ballgame, I will happily correct it.

I look forward to you finally making your case.

[beastie]

That means that precisely during the time period of the final battles, we have Teotihuacanos who are in the region. We also have indications that they brought different military techniques along with them--and the Book of Mormon complains that the rules of warfare have changed. In other words, right time, right place, right "enemy."

This argument rests entirely on either ignoring or finding a creative way to interpret the BoM verses I shared in post 285 on page 15.

You are correct for the timeframe, but missing the important issue of location. Teotihuacan is not considered part of Book of Mormon lands. In the way I reconstruct the history in the Book of Mormon, I understand Mormon seeing Teotihuacanos as part of the reason for the final wars against the Nephites. That would be consonant with Mormon's disgust that women are "now" being sacrificed. The sacrifice of women appears to be attested at Teotihuacan. So, given the appropriate geography, the information about Teotihuacan actually fits precisely with what the Book of Mormon claims, contrary to your suggestion.

I don't remember reading information about women in particular, but there is evidence of very early sacrifice of children in Mesoamerica, long predating Teotihuacan's influence. IIRC, there is even some evidence of this during the Olmec period. I'll try to find time to double check this later tonight.

[James Banta]

You have two problems in this statement. The first is that you are arguing against a New York Cumorah, apparently thinking that I believe that is where the final battle happened. I don't, so your travel issues are moot.The second is that you appear to misunderstand the dating of Teotihuacan and, in particular, the impact of Teotihuacan on the region I am suggesting. Teotihuacan "enters" (considered a euphemism for a takeover, whether military or in some other way) of Tikal in A.D. 379. Teotihuacan is north of the Book of Mormon area. Tikal is to the south. That means that precisely during the time period of the final battles, we have Teotihuacanos who are in the region. We also have indications that they brought different military techniques along with them--and the Book of Mormon complains that the rules of warfare have changed. In other words, right time, right place, right "enemy."Your timeline and distance criticisms are misplaced.

You must be a BofM scholar.. As I read it, it said that there were earthquakes and darkness covered the WHOLE land and the only ones left would be those who would except Jesus.. And the BofM says they did just that at this time.. there were no Laminates in the land. All believed.. BUT This city, Teotihuacan, was still active in conducting human sacrifice during this time.. It doesn't fit the story.. Did it happen like you said it did or like the BofM said it did? You idea is much easier to justify with the history but it doesn't seen to fit into the BofM very well.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Your period key is still stuck, but you knew that, I'd guess.

Anyway, please stop telling us what our scriptures say. You're not very good at it, especially for someone who claims to have been LDS in the past.

The text gives us no indication that "their final battle" was in New York, upstate or anywhere else.

Lehi

The BofM does say that Moroni hid the plates just before joining the battle where he was killed.. Since Smith found the plates in New York, one could believe that the battle was in New York.. There are many inside your Church at hold that belief.. I was just going with the obvious..

If you care to see whhere such an idea came from look here

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2007/12/...-of-mormon-map/ It is a pro LDS site I hope it's ok to post.. IHS jim

[Anijen]

The BofM does say that Moroni hid the plates just before joining the battle where he was killed.. Since Smith found the plates in New York, one could believe that the battle was in New York.. There are many inside your Church at hold that belief.. I was just going with the obvious..

If you care to see whhere such an idea came from look here

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2007/12/...-of-mormon-map/ It is a pro LDS site I hope it's ok to post.. IHS jim

Moroni was not killed in that last battle. Most of us believe that after the last battle he had approximately forty years of wandering plenty of time to get to upstate New York and bury the plates there. Those who believe that the last battle was in New York are in the minority among those who frequent these boards. The many you speak about probably have not studied it and just assume that plates found in New York= last battle in New York.

[LeSellers]

The BofM does say that Moroni hid the plates just before joining the battle where he was killed.. Since Smith found the plates in New York, one could believe that the battle was in New York.. There are many inside your Church at hold that belief.. I was just going with the obvious..

The Book of Mormon says no such thing.

The battle to which you refer occurred many years (even several decades) before Moroni hid the plates up. Mormon hid them, the Nephite archive just prior to the battle, but gave the "Book of Mormon" (a relatively trivial, numerically, subset) to his son. There was a tiny piece of empty space that he, Moroni, wrote on, but he had to make additional plates while on the run form the Lamanites, in order for him to translate the record of Ether (which he had with him, as well, to fulfill a prophecy in Alma or Mosiah), and to engrave his own short book (a forerunner to the CHI).

That some Saints believe that the New York Cumorah is the same as the land of Cumorah has nothing to do with what you said, since your time line is significantly wrong. Nonetheless, there is more than ample evidence to support the notion that they hold this belief in error.

Lehi

[James Banta]

Moroni was not killed in that last battle. Most of us believe that after the last battle he had approximately forty years of wandering plenty of time to get to upstate New York and bury the plates there. Those who believe that the last battle was in New York are in the minority among those who frequent these boards. The many you speak about probably have not studied it and just assume that plates found in New York= last battle in New York.

Did you see the map? The author makes some interesting points that seem to fit the geography... IHS jim

[James Banta]

The Book of Mormon says no such thing.

The battle to which you refer occurred many years (even several decades) before Moroni hid the plates up. Mormon hid them, the Nephite archive just prior to the battle, but gave the "Book of Mormon" (a relatively trivial, numerically, subset) to his son. There was a tiny piece of empty space that he, Moroni, wrote on, but he had to make additional plates while on the run form the Lamanites, in order for him to translate the record of Ether (which he had with him, as well, to fulfill a prophecy in Alma or Mosiah), and to engrave his own short book (a forerunner to the CHI).

That some Saints believe that the New York Cumorah is the same as the land of Cumorah has nothing to do with what you said, since your time line is significantly wrong. Nonetheless, there is more than ample evidence to support the notion that they hold this belief in error.

Lehi

Ok straighten out my time line.. BTW the only one I gave was from 100 BC to 450 AD the time of the city of Teotihuacan.. As for the rest of the BofM I admit I am very rusty.. I haven't read it in years and I have no plans to ever read it again.. How many times does God have to tell me it's a fraud before I believe Him? If you tell me that the finally battle took place long before the plates were finished I accept that..

I still don't remember Jesus teaching human sacrifice as part of the worship of the Pre-Columbian population of the America's.. And I am NOT talking about how they changed over the years these Horrible religious sacrifices were going on when the BofM says Jesus walked in the Americas.. That proves, I mean proved, no evidence required, that the BofM is a fraud. Jesus would NEVER teach such a thing.. God was angry with idolatries not just for worshiping false gods but for offering their children on their alters.. And here in America at the time the BofM says Jesus came and walked among the people that were involved in that level of wickedness.. That is PROOF that the BofM is a fraud. IHS jim