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

[beastie]

Since I got diverted onto demonstrating the link between sacrifice and ballgames, I haven’t been taking the time to just collect evidence on nonballgame sacrifice during the Preclassic. So now I’m looking more carefully through Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks 1993, edited by David Grove and Rosemary Joyce. Before delving into the first essay, I thought it would be useful to share a citation from Grove and Joyce’s introduction, page 2:

Our purpose in organizing the conference for which the papers in this volume were prepared was to go beyond the terms set by the existing Olmec debate and ask new questions about the Pre-Classic. We begin with the assumption that repeated behaviors should be recognizable in the now abundant and well-documented material remains from good contexts in Pre-Classic sites. We use the contextual data for repetitive behavior as evidence for exploring the meaning objects and places accrued through their use in social life. We argue that patterns in the archaeological record can be understood as material traces of (among other things) the marking of social boundaries, the development of distinct social identities, and the reenactment of ceremony. This volume begins to explore the social mechanisms of the radical transformation underlying emerging social stratification that characterized the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic.

The Pre-Classic Revolution

More than any period of time that followed, the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic witnessed the development of unprecedented features in site form, artifact inventory, and use of materials. Every later Mesoamerican society developed within a framework that was laid in the Pre-Classic. The material features that we see archaeologically as typical of Mesoamerica took their essential form during this period.

This is what I’ve been trying to emphasize. The powerful polities during the Pre-Classic period were the polities that set the framework for “every later Mesoamerican society”. If a powerful Judeo-Christian polity had existed during this time period, we would see its impact in terms of spread of ideology, in terms of “setting the framework” for later Mesoamerican society. It wouldn’t matter if we never found “Zarahemla”. We could tell that Zarahemla existed through the evolution of later Mesoamerican society. All these other arguments – sacrifice, metallurgy, horses – are all interesting, but, in my view, secondary. IMO, the most crucial argument is whether or not the BoM describes what would have been a powerful polity for that time period and region.

But, back to one of those interesting secondary arguments – sacrifice.

The first essay in this text is called “Social Dimensions of Pre-Classic Burials” by Rosemary Joyce. The main purpose of this essay is to explore the remnants of Pre-Classic burial sites from two regions in order to ascertain the social differentiation. In this discussion, she mentions this interesting tidbit, pertinent to our conversation (page 40)

Children were among the subjects of distinctive practices of burial costumes identified in an analysis of more than 70 burials from Chiapa de Corzo from both mound and nonmound locations (Clark, nd). More than half of the burials were from a cemetery. All adults, except those that may be human burial goods, were accompanied by objects including pottery vessels and costume ornaments. John Clark defined strata of burials distinguished by elaborate costume and sumptuary goods, and demonstrated the presence of two sets of costume elements restricted to individuals buried in very different locations within the site. In burials placed in mound summits, sometimes including sacrificial victims, individuals wore jade earspools, jade and shell bead necklaces, some with marine shell pectorals, and bracelets, and what are described as greenstone breechcloths, perhaps a variant of the bead belt.

I’ll keep looking for other evidence of Pre-Classic sacrifice, but it may be a long, slow process.

(btw, after typing this by hand, I found a book google link to the same page:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vFSK3hbRb...&ct=result)

[Honorentheos]

Hi, Wade. I apologize for getting back to this late.

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:

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.

I do not dispute your examples in what they tell us about the adoption of technology. I would, however, dispute your interpretation of the examples.

Speaking to your analogies, the problem with your refutation is not that there are niche cultures present that have not adopted these advancement, which I would not argue against. But rather your analogy suggests that modern advanced technologies were not adopted at all in a region where they arrive. In the case of the nephites, it also suggests that these technologies not only failed to catch on, but they also failed to leave any sign they existed or had been adopted at all by anyone despite the advantage this would have given a culture for survival.

I'd prefer to think of this as more of an adaptation of success strategies. The advancement of weaponry in a region dominated by a social and religious order dependent on war would be an example of where one not only should expect to see advanced old world military technology adopted by new world competitors, but the BoM text itself says this happened. Yet, by the time of the "discovery" of the new world a millennium after BoM times, one no longer sees signs of these advancements. This differs from the example you provided in that it speaks of a loss of a better-suited advancement that increases a culture's fitness in an environment where the pressures to adopt and use this technology or potentially risk the end of that culture does not appear to have occurred, which makes it unlikely.

One does not miss the experience of flying into a modern airport with dominant modern technologies to visit these primitive cultures today that you provide as your counter argument. And the archaeologist of tomorrow will have better luck finding our remains over those of the "primitive native villagers".

So when you say

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

your are not correct. It would be more correct to say that it did not precipitate the adoption of the more advanced technology by all polities within that same region during modern times. But most regions have cultural and societal adoption of modern technology in certain regions and by certain groups. And in our modern estimation, it seems these tend to be the more dominant polities.

So the point being made is that the Nephite-shaped hole from which one would expect to find the BoM story originating should include the outward expansion of old world technologies. To be sure, if such a hole exists, it will be given the "bull's eye" badge on this board as soon as it is uncovered.

To be honest, I find the current strategy used to support BoM LGT unsavory. It seems to consist of the opposite tact - looking for a hole from which nothing can be ascertained. In other words, the less we know about a given area in pre-classic meso-america, the more likely a candidate it seems to be the Land of Nephi. And if a hole turns out to be so black and so deep that we will never determine the nature of the culture who lived there between 600 BCE and 400 CE, we may have found the permanent home of the BoM peoples.

Why? Why be satisfied with such a poor strategy? Why assume that this absence of influence suggests the presence of a culture on which you would look for the model of God's people's struggle to prosper or fall by His grace and guidance on earth?

I really do not understand that. The BoM says one thing about these people that lead the LDS people to have strong, wide-spread beliefs for a good century, and one held by many today, that this was a vastly influential people that dominated a continent. And as the challenges have arisen to this view, rather than considering whether this may be a myth, (And I am not one to say it is not able to retain its value even if untrue) we begin to shrink the whole thing down.

Why allow this to shrink your mind down to this hole?

[beastie]

In the meantime, I’ve been finding more information about Chiapa de Corzo on the web. I’ll share just two:

This is a very interesting summary of Chiapa de Corzo:

Chiapa de Corzo is an archaeological site of Mesoamerica, located in the Chiapas highlands region of present-day Mexico. At its height during the Late Formative period, it was a regional center or capital of the area and controlled trading routes through the Grijalva river valley.

The modern township of Chiapa de Corzo, founded in Colonial times and after which the site was named, is nearby.

Site history

The site shows evidence of continual occupation since the Early Formative period. The mounds and plazas at the site, however, date to approximately 700 BCE with the temple and palace constructed during the Late Formative, perhaps 400 BCE to 200 CE. Around 300 BCE, however, formal construction declined. At about the same time, Maya pottery types began to be included in elite burials, although utilitarian ceramics retained traditional patterns. This has suggested to some researchers, that the Maya culture to the east exerted influence or even control over Chiapa de Corzo, although there seems to be a waning of that Maya influence in the first centuries CE. It was during this time that the ancient platform mounds were covered with limestone and stucco.

Notable finds

The oldest Mesoamerican Long Count calendar date yet discovered, December 36 BCE, was found on Stela 2 (which is not a stela at all, but rather a misnamed, inscribed wall panel). All that survives of the original text is the day-name and the digits 7.16.3.2.13.

Chiapa de Corzo is also notable for a pottery sherd containing what is likely Epi-Olmec script. Dated to as early as 300 BCE, this sherd would be the oldest instance of that writing system yet discovered.

This is not a site I’ve read a great deal about, yet it is beginning to appear that this was not an inconsequential polity.

Not coincidentally, when BoM apologists suggest specific polities for BoM locations, they are normally significant, very consequential polities (see: Kaminaljuyu for City of Nephi).

To me, this indicates that apologists do realize that the BoM does describe a polity which would be very powerful during that time period. They must choose polities that have enough social complexity and differentiation to “match” the BoM, and that leaves them with significant, powerful polities….which is the point I’ve been trying to make.

Here’s more detailed information about Chiapa de Corzo, in an essay by Clark and Hansen, in the book Royal Courts of Ancient Maya:

Chiapa de Corzo

The data for royal compounds at Chiapa de Corzo are best for the early Middle Pre-Classic period, as discussed above, and the Protoclassic. During this latter time Chiapa de Corzo experienced a dramatic change of fortunes and construction of other royal compounds. Figure 1.10 shows the plan of later Chiapa de Corzo and the succession and southward migration of possible royal compounds. The first platform constructed at the site was soon modified to add a pyramidal platform near its southern edge about 650 BC, and a smaller, low platform was constructed to the south. By about 550BC this had been expanded into a broad platform roughly 3 meters high and 80 meters square at the base. Investigation of this platform is difficult because of the presence of a modern house on top, but limited excavations revealed some of its construction history. The upper surface has a thick plaster floor, but the limited test excavations did not reveal any evidence of superstructures. What is remarkable here is that the shift of the acropolis south of the E-Group of the site anticipates or replicates the Maya pattern notable for Nakbe and Uaxactun. With current evidence, it appears that the arrangement of Chiapa de Corzo may have been a century earlier than its appearance in the Mirador Basin. Of particular interest, this platform structure appears to have remained unmodified during the first phase of intense interaction with the lowland Maya (ca 250-50 BC), so its similarities to Maya architectural complexes cannot be attributed to later trade contacts. It is important to note that Middle Pre-Classic innovations, such as the E-Group complex, may not have been used in this period as ritual compounds in the same manner as in the lowland centers (eg, the stairways on the long mounds in Chiapas have different orientations than those in the Maya area).

Chiapa de Corzo appears to have started as an Olmec city, but the Olmec system fell apart by about 400 BC, with both La Venta and La Libertad being abandoned about this time(see Clark et al 2000). Chiapa de Corzo, however, continued on as viable as ever. About 1BC a small, multiroom palace was constructed at Chiapa de Corzo. This followed a period of intense interaction with communities in the Maya lowlands, as evident in imported pottery and changes in masonry techniques and building styles. Architectural norms and techniques shifted at Chiapa de Corzo from the puddle clay constructions typical of the Pre-Classic period to dressed limestone and plaster masonry, ideas and techniques that most likely came from the Maya lowlands – they Maya being the great innovators of stone masonry in Mesoamerica. The active core of the Chiapa de Corzo ceremonial center appears to have shifted southward at this time. The previously open plaza south of Chiapa de Corzo’s E-group became the locus of the construction of a new temple and palace complex. (Figure 1.10)

This southernmost temple at Chiapa de Corzo began as a long, low residential platform and was associated with the small mounds that were later rebuilt into a palace (Lowe 1960). Under the sway of Maya canons of civilized life, the Zoques at Chiapa de Corzo constructed what was essentially a new royal compound consisting of separate buildings, south of the acropolis that may have formerly served this function. A king was interred below the floor of one of these modest structures (Tomb 7 of Mound 1), and following this event the entombing building was converted into a temple that saw the interment of four more royal individuals over the next century (Lowe 1960). Both the temple and the adjacent palace (Mound 5) underwent numerous expansions and renovations during the first century AD.

(snipping detailed descriptions of rooms)

The remarkable state of preservation of this early palace is due to the fortuitous circumstances of its deliberate destruction about AD100. At this time the palace was razed. Noteworthy are the hundreds of pottery vessels found on the floor and in the storage chambers. Lowe (1962) suggests that this may have been a deliberate termination ritual provoked by civil strife that saw the departure from the site of its ruling elite.

(snipping lots of interesting but less pertinent information)

The proximity of royal compounds to primary temples implies that kings and other royal member of the court, including priests, were involved in rituals associated with these edifices. At La Libertad and Chiapa de Corzo, burials of kings accompanied in death by human sacrificial victims (see Lee 1969) have been exhumed from the largest pyramids closest to the royal compounds, and their burials there signal the kings’ intimate association with the sacred rites that took place at summit temples.

(page 31) The distribution of royal palaces within regions and macroregions still has to be worked out. Implicit in all our arguments is the notion that the presence of these compounds and acropolis mark a site as a regional capital. Moreover, it appears probable that some of these capitals may have exercised hegemony over others in their immediate regions. Of the dozen or so regional capitals strung along the Grijalva River Valley of central Chiapas during the Middle Pre-Classic, five stand out as exceptional: la Libertad, Acapulco, Chiapa de Corzo, Mirador, and San Isidro. Subsidiary centers in the immediate vicinity of each capital were privileged to have several small pyramids in axial alignment, but they lacked the central acropolis or other manifestations of permanent royal presence (see Clark 1988). If our inference is correct, sufficient excavations at centers with supposed royal compounds should reveal burials of bona fide kings, all other things being equal. A strong case can be made for the presence of kings at La Venta,(Clark 1997, Reilly 1999) even though conditions of preservation there are such that none has been absolutely attested with osteological remains. Middle and Late Pre-Classic royal burials have been recovered from both Chiapa de Corzo and La Libertad (Clark et al 2000, Lee 1969), with royal burials for the Mirador Basin currently known only from Late Pre-Classic contexts. We suspect that with more excavation, their presence at Mirador Basin sites will be confirmed.

I suggest reading this entire section for those interested in the possible association of Chiapa de Corzo and Zarahemla.

There is so much to be unpacked from this, but for starters – according to John Clark’s research, kings were buried with sacrificial victims.

(whoops, forgot the link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8pRjZjKj_...=result#PPA5,M1

[beastie]

To be honest, I find the current strategy used to support BoM LGT unsavory. It seems to consist of the opposite tact - looking for a hole from which nothing can be ascertained. In other words, the less we know about a given area in pre-classic meso-america, the more likely a candidate it seems to be the Land of Nephi. And if a hole turns out to be so black and so deep that we will never determine the nature of the culture who lived there between 600 BCE and 400 CE, we may have found the permanent home of the BoM peoples.

Well said.

There's another thing I find unsavory about the LGT - and that is the persistent attempt to figuratively kidnap the real history of a real people - the ones who actually lived in mesoamerica, and had their own unique worldview, and built a powerful and extremely successful culture on top of that worldview. LGTists are figuratively pasting the BoM on top of the real history of Mesoamerica - they're putting their own image on Mesoamerica. What could be more ethnocentric -and egocentric - than that? And what could be more insulting to millions of people who once lived in that region?

[Anijen]

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

Your post implies that we think Jesus would condone human sacrifice in the Book of Mormon. It does not, so knock off with that straw man. By using your same standard to prove the BoM wrong lets apply it to the Bible. Jehovah at times commanded the killing of every man woman and child, he told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Elisha commands bears to kill children for calling him bald, does that proves the bible wrong? your logic is weak.

[James Banta]

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:

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:

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:

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?

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:

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.

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 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.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2004) â?? A spectacular new discovery from an ongoing excavation at the Teotihuacan's Pyramid of the Moon is revealing a grisly sacrificial burial from a period when the ancient metropolis was at its peak, with artwork unlike any seen before in Mesoamerica. With the excavation of the pyramid nearly complete, one important conclusion is emerging: combined with past burials at the site, the new find strongly suggests that the Pyramid of the Moon was significant to the Teotihuacano people as a site for celebrating state power through ceremony and sacrifice. Contrary to some past interpretation, militarism was apparently central to the city's culture. All the human remains had their hands bound behind their backs, and the ten decapitated bodies appear to have been tossed, rather than arranged, on one side of the burial. The other two bodies Sugiyama describes as "richly ornamented" with greenstone earspools and beads, a necklace made of imitation human jaws, and other items indicating high rank..

This new find makes it clear that the human sacrifice at Teotihuacan proceeded all though the life of the City State.. Since the temple wasn't built in the city until 100 BC chances of you being correct that Human Sacrifice was only conducted in the pre-classic period is not supportable.. We can only assume that the person that the BofM says was Jesus come to establish His church in the Americas was not Jesus at all but a demon sent to pervert future chances that these people would ever turn to the Jesus of the Bible.. IHS jim

[Anijen]

Well said.

There's another thing I find unsavory about the LGT - and that is the persistent attempt to figuratively kidnap the real history of a real people - the ones who actually lived in mesoamerica, and had their own unique worldview, and built a powerful and extremely successful culture on top of that worldview. LGTists are figuratively pasting the BoM on top of the real history of Mesoamerica - they're putting their own image on Mesoamerica. What could be more ethnocentric -and egocentric - than that? And what could be more insulting to millions of people who once lived in that region?

I disagree. I have never thought, or taught (posted) that "LGTists are figuratively pasting the BoM on top of the real history of Mesoamerica" I have always thought that the BoM peoples were an addition to the Mayans, Olmec, etc. I have never tried to paste over the Mesoamerican history and as far as I know neither has the Book of Mormon experts who post on this board. I believe they intermingled with them at times and also had their own communities. The Lamanites probably were influenced by the Mayan more so than the Nephites .

On another note concerning Nomads post, I have not yet found any proof of sacrifice in the Pre classic times. That's not saying there wasn't , I just cant say. All I have found on that is miniature ball playing figurines were found that dates back to preclassic times and the hero twins story but these do not prove of sacrifice. Again i am not saying there wasn't but I haven't seen the proof that Nomad wants. I do know that the ball games were closely related to life and the spiritual realm but most every thing was in the Mayan culture.

"And what could be more insulting to millions of people who once lived in that region?"

Did you really need to say this, little incendiary.

[Anijen]

James Banta

chances of you being correct that Human Sacrifice was only conducted in the pre-classic period is not supportabl

I do not think anyone has said sacrifice was only in the preclassic period, in fact contrary to your statement we know sacrifice was well into the classic and post classic periods.

James Banta

This new find makes it clear that the human sacrifice at Teotihuacan proceeded all though the life of the City State.. Since the temple wasn't built in the city until 100 BC

Well since 100 BCE is very late preclassic almost classic period that isn't a strong argument. But don't come back and argue with me I still haven't made up my mind if I agree with Nomad on this yet, I think sacrifice was happening at the very end of the preclassic period.

James Banta

We can only assume that the person that the BofM says was Jesus come to establish His church in the Americas was not Jesus at all but a demon sent to pervert future chances that these people would ever turn to the Jesus of the Bible

This was not needed and I reported it as abuse. If you have read the BoM the Jesus is the same one as the bible (it even states that). Just because you have a problem with it doesent make it not so.

[beastie]

I disagree. I have never thought, or taught (posted) that "LGTists are figuratively pasting the BoM on top of the real history of Mesoamerica" I have always thought that the BoM peoples were an addition to the Mayans, Olmec, etc. I have never tried to paste over the Mesoamerican history and as far as I know neither has the Book of Mormon experts who post on this board. I believe they intermingled with them at times and also had their own communities. The Lamanites probably were influenced by the Mayan more so than the Nephites .

Shall I list the very long list of Mesoamerican polities that Dr. Sorenson suggests were really Nephite or Jaredite? Letâ??s look at just a few.

San Lorenzo â?? Lib

La Venta â?? Mulek

Chiapa de Corzo â?? Sorenson suggested this was Sidom, but apparently apologists now

think it was Zarahemla

Mirador â?? Ammonihah

San Isidro â?? Aaron

Kaminaljuyu â?? City of Nephi

I chose these polities for one reason- they each are Mesoamerican polities that archaeologists view as among the most powerful and advanced in the given time period and region of each.

Each time an apologists suggests one of these polities was really a Nephite city, they are figuratively pasting the BoM on top of the real history of that given polity. They are denying that cityâ??s real history, which was reflective of the same Mesoamerican worldview as other polities. Itâ??s like Jakeman and Stela 5. Stela 5, in real history, reflected the Mesoamerican worldview. All of the elements of that iconography were completely comprehensible within Mesoamerican mythology. Stela 5 was a story of religious views of the real Mesoamerican people. Jakeman takes Stela 5 and figuratively pastes Judeo-Christianity on top of it. He denies the real religious stories that stela shared, thereby denying the real beliefs of the people who created it. This is why an expert on Stela 5, Julia Guernsey said Jakemanâ??s theory "belies an obvious religious agenda that ignored Izapa Stela 5's heritage in a long and well-established Mesoamerican artistic and iconographic tradition" (from Ritual and Power in Stone, page 53).

Iâ??ll use an analogy Iâ??ve used in the past. Letâ??s say that human life in earth is destroyed, but 2,000 years in the future an alien race visits the earth and excavates various regions of it in an attempt to understand the history of human life on earth. One small group of those alien archaeologists adheres to a religious heritage that teaches that a heavenly visitor shared an ancient record with one of their â??prophetsâ?, who then translated it through the power of their gods (who are nothing like the Judeo-Christian god at all) and declared that ancient record was the record of human life in some region on earth, and, amazingly enough, that particular group of human life actually adhered to the â??trueâ? alien religion, Zimax! For ease of reference, letâ??s call this holy alien text The Book of Zima. The Book of Zima is the story of two peoples, constantly at war with one another. One group tended to be more righteous than the other, and usually adhered to the true Zimax religion. The other group is described as evil, â??dark and loathsomeâ?, and often completely amoral. That same small group of apologist archaeologists decides that Utah is the region in which The Book of Zima took place. Of course, the mainstream archaeologists have figured out some basic ideas about Mormonism, and describe the inhabitants of Utah as heavily influenced by Mormonism. The alien apologists, some of who are actually archaeologists, declare that certain cities were really cities that figured in this divinely translated ancient record that demonstrated an adherence to the true alien religion,The Book of Zima. The list is quite long, over thirty Utah polities are included. Some of the cities they list are: Salt Lake City, Provo, Orem and Logan. When other aliens who do not share this religious agenda accuse this small group of attempting to paste the Zimax religion on top of these cities that actually had their own unique worldview, the small group responds: â??No, weâ??re not. We have always thought that the people described in our holy record were an addition to the Mormons. We have never tried to paste over Utahn history. We believe they intermingled with them at times and also had their own communities. The (insert bad guy group here) probably were influenced by the Mormons more so than the adherents to Zimax.â?

I ask you: does this defense make any sense, particularly given the powerful cities this small group claims were really adherents of their true alien religion?

On another note concerning Nomads post, I have not yet found any proof of sacrifice in the Pre classic times. That's not saying there wasn't , I just cant say. All I have found on that is miniature ball playing figurines were found that dates back to preclassic times and the hero twins story but these do not prove of sacrifice. Again i am not saying there wasn't but I haven't seen the proof that Nomad wants. I do know that the ball games were closely related to life and the spiritual realm but most every thing was in the Mayan culture.

If you, like Nomad, donâ??t find Linda Scheleâ??s statement here:

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 â?? 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.

to be persuasive, then ignore the ballcourts as evidence of human sacrifice and instead focus on the other evidences for human sacrifice. That includes, btw, the repeated references I cited in post 403, that state that sacrificial victims in Chiapa de Corzo (ie, Zarahemla) were buried with kings.

BTW, I have more evidence of PreClassic human sacrifice, but will share it in bits and pieces.

beastie

"And what could be more insulting to millions of people who once lived in that region?"

Anijen

Did you really need to say this, little incendiary.

Think about this, Anijen. Do you really not see how insulting and, yes, incendiary it is for you to state that the Lamanites â?? that horrid, evil, dark and loathsome group (with minor exceptions) were the ones influenced by the Maya? Do you really not see how insulting and incendiary it is to choose some of the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica and insist they were really Judeo-Christian? Do you really not see how this dishonors the real heritage of the region?

[beastie]

James,

I think you don't understand how "limited" the BoM would be under Limited Geography Theory. So when the BoM describes universal peace in the land for 200 years after Christ's visitation, apparently that only described a very small number of polities in a very small region. While I agree that the actual text of the BoM doesn't support that interpretation, it is a complete waste of time to debate this from any other theory than LGT, because apologists will immediately dismiss it.

[beastie]

I’m going to share one quick preview teaser, and provide more details later.

From Norman Hammond’s essay The Genesis of Heirarchy: Mortuary and Offertory Ritual in the Pre-Classic at Cuello, Belize, contained in the book Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, edited by Grove and Joyce, page 59:

Sacrifice

In the Late Pre-Classic, human sacrifice may be indicated by the number and condition of those interred in the mass burials and also by four types of disarticulation (n=14): severed skull, decapitated body, disarticulated complete body, and disarticulated leg bones only. Such burials were most common in public contexts, but three skull burials, perhaps dedicatory, in the northern residential structures indicate that these possibly had a public/ceremonial function sometimes as well as a domestic one.

Individuals packaged into body bundles were unique to the mass burials. Robin and Hammand (1991:224) suggest that they lost not only their physical identity as individuals but their social identities as well, and can be interpreted as “human grave goods”. Although we cannot determine whether mutilation was the cause of death or part of postmortem ritual, such secondary burials are our best evidence for Pre-Classic Maya human sacrifice, although sometimes the context of a primary burial will also indicate it. On the evidence to hand, individual sacrifice was practiced from the Early Middle Formative onward, persisting throughout the Cuello sequences, while mass sacrifice was introduced at the same time as monumental architectural construction begins to reflect the reality of political power at the beginning of the Late Pre-Classic around 400 bc.

[Nomad]

Iâ??m going to share one quick preview teaser, and provide more details later.

From Norman Hammondâ??s essay The Genesis of Heirarchy: Mortuary and Offertory Ritual in the Pre-Classic at Cuello, Belize, contained in the book Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, edited by Grove and Joyce, page 59:

Please do us all a favor and cease and desist from this pointless layering on of paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevancies. In the first place, this has nothing to do with human sacrifice as a component of the Maya ball game (you may recollect that as our subject matter); second, you're serving up a quote that concerns offertory ritual at the sites in Cuello, Belize -- which, as anyone even casually familiar with a map of Mesoamerica knows, is NOT anywhere near the proposed sites of Nephite habitation in the Guatemalan highlands. The same goes for references to human sacrifice associated with the ball game during Aztec times, or Chich

[beastie]

Please do us all a favor and cease and desist from this pointless layering on of paragraph upon paragraph of irrelevancies. In the first place, this has nothing to do with human sacrifice as a component of the Maya ball game (you may recollect that as our subject matter); second, you're serving up a quote that concerns offertory ritual at the sites in Cuello, Belize -- which, as anyone even casually familiar with a map of Mesoamerica knows, is NOT anywhere near the proposed sites of Nephite habitation in the Guatemalan highlands. The same goes for references to human sacrifice associated with the ball game during Aztec times, or Chich

[James Banta]

I do not think anyone has said sacrifice was only in the preclassic period, in fact contrary to your statement we know sacrifice was well into the classic and post classic periods.

Well since 100 BCE is very late preclassic almost classic period that isn't a strong argument. But don't come back and argue with me I still haven't made up my mind if I agree with Nomad on this yet, I think sacrifice was happening at the very end of the preclassic period.

This was not needed and I reported it as abuse. If you have read the BoM the Jesus is the same one as the bible (it even states that). Just because you have a problem with it doesent make it not so.

Nomad stated this in a resent post..

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.

That was what I was answering.. There is evidence of Human sacrifice in all stages of the development of Tenochtitlan.. I agree with you.. As far as Jesus teaching such a method of "worship" He wouldn't and Didn't EVER!! This is why I question the BofM.. It say that when Jesus visited the Americas all the people who has survived the sever judgments that came on the Land at the time of His death in Jerusalem converted to Christianity. The saw Him desend from the heavens, they listened to Hos words and gave up the evil of their lives and walked in the commandments of God for some 500 years.. That is NOT what we find in the History of Tenochtitlan.. Human sacrifice continued from the time their temple was built in 100 BC until the fall of the City state as a major power near 450 AD..

It would be nice if the BofM had some truth to it's geography, History, DNA, something that could confirm the story but is every case the facts just don't jive with the BofM at all.. One is lead to see it with the same authority as scripture as the Book of Abraham.. A tall tale at best.. IHS jim

[Aquilifer]

Well said.

There's another thing I find unsavory about the LGT - and that is the persistent attempt to figuratively kidnap the real history of a real people - the ones who actually lived in mesoamerica, and had their own unique worldview, and built a powerful and extremely successful culture on top of that worldview. LGTists are figuratively pasting the BoM on top of the real history of Mesoamerica - they're putting their own image on Mesoamerica. What could be more ethnocentric -and egocentric - than that? And what could be more insulting to millions of people who once lived in that region?

Great. Add ethnocentric and cultural imperialism to the list of Mormon sins.

[James Banta]

Anijen said:

This was not needed and I reported it as abuse. If you have read the BoM the Jesus is the same one as the bible (it even states that). Just because you have a problem with it doesent make it not so.

You reported me for abuse for stating an observation? You can't be serious.. Where is there any attack on a person? Yes it questions the verasity of the BofM but I as I read the rules it is not improper to do so..

All I can assume by this is that you find it abusive to say anything that disagrees with you... I am happy to see that you are willing to have open and frank discussions.. Good Grief!!! IHS jim

[James Banta]

James,

I think you don't understand how "limited" the BoM would be under Limited Geography Theory. So when the BoM describes universal peace in the land for 200 years after Christ's visitation, apparently that only described a very small number of polities in a very small region. While I agree that the actual text of the BoM doesn't support that interpretation, it is a complete waste of time to debate this from any other theory than LGT, because apologists will immediately dismiss it.

I agree that the BofM does not support your ideas.. It's it strange that someone like me comes here and defends the BofM against people who actually hold it as scripture.. I believe that the peoples in the Americas before Columbus came from Asia across a land bridge that existed in what is now the Bering sea.. I don't believe Jesus ever came to this continent. I don't believe Joseph Smith saw God or Jesus or that there ever were Gold Plates, yet I defend what is in them from your baseless interpretation.. Yes that is strange indeed.. IHS jim

[beastie]

We can only assume that the person that the BofM says was Jesus come to establish His church in the Americas was not Jesus at all but a demon sent to pervert future chances that these people would ever turn to the Jesus of the Bible

Kind of like the Old Testament God in that way, eh?

I agree that the BofM does not support your ideas.. It's it strange that someone like me comes here and defends the BofM against people who actually hold it as scripture.. I believe that the peoples in the Americas before Columbus came from Asia across a land bridge that existed in what is now the Bering sea.. I don't believe Jesus ever came to this continent. I don't believe Joseph Smith saw God or Jesus or that there ever were Gold Plates, yet I defend what is in them from your baseless interpretation.. Yes that is strange indeed.. IHS jim

You oversimplify the situation. While it is true that LGT does damage, IMO, to the BoM text itself in order to try and salvage the theory (for example, insisting that the BoM does not describe a culture governed by strict laws, which were enforced by a hierarchy), the reality is that much of the BoM just doesn’t make sense as a hemispheric text, either. The distances described are too limited to justify a hemispheric model, and the population growth is fantastical without a pre-existing population.

Of course, my theory is that the BoM was written by a nineteenth century individual who didn’t have a strong grasp of things like population growth, and hence, wrote a text that doesn’t always make sense, but I can understand why someone who is wedded to the belief that it is an ancient document insists that LGT with a pre-existing population is the only feasible explanation.

You’re wasting your time ignoring LGT, and including Tenochtitlan in your list of evidences does that. In addition, continual referencing to the moral superiority of Jesus while blatantly ignoring the grotesque and violent acts either ordered, condoned, or not viewed as problematic by the OT God completely undermines your argument.

I want to point out again, that my criticism of the BoM is focused on the insistence that it’s an actual ancient, historical document – and I’m particularly critical of the Mesoamerican setting. Aside from that, however, I think Mormons have just as much right and justification for believing the BoM is divinely inspired, or “the word of God” in some way, as you have for believing the same thing about the Bible. Yes, the Bible does have an advantage in regards to evidence supporting the contention it was actually written by ancient Israelites, but that is its sole advantage, as far as I can see. Besides, even the Bible contains some pseudographia. We know the stories were not always written by the attributed author. Yet they’re still accepted as “scripture” by Christians because of the greater, moral truths those misattributed stories still teach. That’s why I think Christians have no right to criticize mormons for doing the same thing. If you want to criticize the BoM on theological grounds, have at it, but it’s going to be a hard argument to make, because it is patterned right after the Bible.

[Nomad]

I have just a few moments to post this afternoon between various obligations ...

beastie:

It is another sign of your careless reading that you missed this entire point. It was an important point, because that is what triggered the ballgame discussion. IOW, the ballgame was not the primary topic, but rather one point to support the primary topic. The primary topic is whether or not human sacrifice was widespread in Mesoamerica during the Pre-Classic period.

Not so much careless reading, Madam Star-Eating Dragon, as not perceiving that your reply was, apparently, to cdowis and not to me.

Assuming that was the case, please accept my sincere apology.

I have no idea whether or not most readers/posters here are reading this thread as carelessly as you are.

Your guess is certainly as good as mine in that respect.

â?¦ perhaps you think that cdowisâ??s point is irrelevant or erroneous in some basic fashion.

Though he and I have never become acquainted during my largely reticent career on this board, I have developed a good measure of respectful regard for Charles. He strikes me as an intelligent and sincere gentleman.

But my interest is with you and your assertion that the presence of a ball court in any given locality is prima facie evidence of human sacrifice being practiced there as well.

â?¦ please do not accuse me of posting irrelevancies when what I am posting directly addresses the issue cdowis raised.

Again, my apologies for the confusion.

You tend to post in an aggressive, authoritative manner â?¦

Yes. No doubt. I can only attribute it to some sort of genetic mutation for which I bear little responsibility. Iâ??ve been told it runs in the family. Either that or I contracted it from frequent and often unprotected encounters with materials published by FARMS over the years.

Of course, we have not lacked for pretensions to authority on this thread â?? from several quarters. I suppose weâ??ll be compelled to leave it up to the readers to discern whose authority, pretended or otherwise, is best warranted by the evidence and arguments presented.

In any event, in order that we might not further encumber this thread with our more narrowly focused discussion, I will â?? as soon as my schedule permits me to finish the lengthy post I have commenced â?? initiate a thread in the School of the Pundits forum. Then, with your willing consent of course, we can engage each other on the specific topic of our recent exchange in this thread.

I hope that Brant, Larry, and others of the Pundit persuasion, will also feel free to participate in this thread-to-be.

I certainly hope your aggressive and authoritative tone does not persuade most readers that I am posting irrelevancies when I clearly am addressing the primary topic raised.

Iâ??m reasonably confident there will continue to be principled disagreement on this particular point, but letâ??s not permit that inevitable reality to dissuade us. We can each make our arguments, as aggressive and authoritative as they might be, (adhering, of course, to accepted standards of decency, respect, and good grammar ) and then leave it to our readers to weigh those arguments in the balance of their respective judgment.

[beastie]

All right, let me know when you have it ready, Nomad.

This reply is in response to cdowis's question I cited above regarding wide-spread Mesoamerican human sacrifice prior to 300 AD:

The following information regarding Pre-Classic sacrifice is obtained from various essays in the book Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, compiled by Grove and Joyce.

1. The Genesis of Hierachy: Mortuary and Offertory Ritual in the Pre-Classic at Cuello, Belize by Norman Hammond, page 55

This was included in the section “Middle Pre-Classic Burials”: Early Middle Pre-Classic; Swasey/Bladen Phases, 1200-650 BC

There are also some distinctive traits correlated with the location of burials: Burial 1 lacked the skull, possible evidence of decapitation, or retention for veneration; it was interred, with a slab of chert where the head would have been, in the western platform, Str. 317. In Str.352 above it a decapitated adolescent burial was placed axially, and a juvenile skull burial was placed at the top midpoint of the final pyramid, Str.355, at the beginning of the Early Classic; thus mutilated burials are known from the western platform throughout the Pre-Classic and into the Early Classic. All other Middle Pre-Classic platforms contained only complete burials, although no great architectural distinctions are apparent between the western platform and those on the other sides of the patio. Thus by the end of the Middle Pre-Classic in the fourth century BC we see variability in burial format suggestive of social differentiation, and of differential treatment of some dead compatible with sacrificial and offertory burial or with veneration(see McAnany 1995), although the youth of some individuals makes their designation as “ancestors” problematic.

2. From the same essay, in the section “Late Pre-Classic Burials: Cocos Phase, 400 BC- AD 250), page 55-56

A sacrificial mass burial (Mass Burial 1: Burials 29-60) of 32 individuals was placed in the center top of the rubble fill. Two adult males were the first to be deposited; in their laps and by their feet lay body bundles of nine male adults; the bones must have been at least partly fleshed prior to burial; interpretation of any or all of these men as venerated ancestor interments is, to me, less plausible than the sacrificial alternative. Around this central group were placed 21 more individuals, all (with one possible exception) males, from young adult to old adult; not all of them were necessarily members of the Cuello community, as the capture of victims for sacrifice cannot be discounted. This holocaust marked the construction of Platform34 and a change in architectural layout from the Middle Pre-Classic patio group to the broad open platform of the Late Pre-Classic.

Successive plaza floors were constructed on Platform 34 in phases VA to XIV, and in phase XI ca. AD 100 the plain Stela 1 was erected above the locus of the mass burial. Another sacrificial mass burial (F128: Mass Burial 2, Burials 68-79), containing 12 male individuals, was deposited east of Stela 1 (Hammond 1991: fig. 10.6) Two single primary burials, a double secondary burial, and two body bundles, containing eight secondary interments, make up Mass Burial 2. In both mass burials two individuals are the first to be placed in position, had human body bundles in their laps, and the remainder of the interments were located around the central pair. Not only are the central pair the focus of each mass burial, but they also possess the most grave goods: such patterning suggests that the two individuals were not just the physical focus of the group but also its social focus.

Six other burials seem to have been sacrifices associated with the construction of Platform 34: two were decapitated adults, one male and one female (?), lying parallel to each other but on opposite orientations, their skulls and mandibles standing upright some little way from their natural position (Hammond 1991: fig.10.7). The others included two young children, one decapitated with a pot over the stump of the neck (Robin 1989: 382-384).

On the western side of the plaza in phases Vi-XIV stood a succession of apparently ceremonial buildings of which the earliest, Str. 352, was a raised platform and the later ones stepped pyramids (Strs. 351,350, 35). An axial burial of a decapitated adolescent (Burial 27) was placed in the final phase of Str. 352, the first western ceremonial structure. This is the only burial in these western structures in the Cocos phase.

3. Apparently human sacrifice not only took place during the Pre-Classic period, but

also during the Olmec period. Of course, it’s already accepted that a connection existed between the Olmec and the Maya. Some call the Olmec the “mother culture”, although there is increasing evidence that the worldview was widespread already by that point (Oaxaca). This citation is from the essay From Stone to Symbols by Ann Cyphers, page 163, discussing findings in San Lorenzo (one of the polities suggested by Sorenson as Jaredite):

Numerous vessel offerings were found on the yellow sand floor. Below it, resting on a red sand-plastered floor only a few centimeters below, were numerous vessels, broken figurines, and evidence of burning of human and animal bone. Of particular interest are burnt secondary bone offerings identified as human infant and bird, perhaps suggesting some kind of sacrifices.

From the same essay, page 64:

Child and bird sacrifices, as seen between red and yellow floors at Monument 14, are known ethnohistorically for Central Mexico and for the Maya (Broda 1971; Gonzalez 1985; Marquez and Schmidt 1984; Roman Berrelleza 1990; Rux 1968; Tompson 1970).

4. From the same essay, page 64, discussing a different burial site:

Even though a possible burial, now entirely disintegrated, may have been present in front of La Venta Altar 4 (Drucker 1952; 23-26), the closet comparison can be made with the table-top throne of Chalcatzingo excavated in situ with associated architectural patio and sacrificial burials (Flash 1987). This monument fulfilled a dual function, that of throne and mortuary monument. Of a total of 16 Cantera phase burials, five are children and one is an infant. Fash relates the child sacrifice there to later periods of rain, water, fertility, and mountains. Consistent and recurrent evidence for child burials near thrones points to sacrifice, a repetitive ritual event associated with rulership and the patron supernatural.

5. From the same essay, about a different burial site, page 173:

The third case is the excavation of a monument in situ on the western edge of the Loma del Zapote site (Los Treinta locality). Decapitated and dismembered, the human torso was at one time seated or kneeling. As found, it was facing directly west toward the setting sun (Fig. 8 ). Propped up on a pedestal of sedimentary rocks, it was located on the eastern edge of a structure. The first bentonite pavement, a well-made surface with curious faced stones forming lines and canals, was covered by a later bentonite pavement. Between the two pavements, two secondary burials without offerings were recovered. One was partially disturbed by a later intrusion, but the other was completely sealed between the pavements. Perhaps that of a sacrificial victim, the burialincludes skull and feet that are 2-3 m from the flexed limbs and articulated bones of the torso.

6. From the essay Pre-Classic Cityscapes, by William Ringle, page 185:

In addition, recent research has imparted a deeper appreciation for the sophistication and considerable ancestry of early Maya ritual. One striking feature of what we know of Formative ritual life is the degree of continuity it exhibits with that of later times. Iconographic studies have demonstrated the Pre-Classic roots of many facets of Classic period ritual practice: human sacrifice (Laporte and Fialko, 1990, 1995; Hammond, Clarke, and Estrada Belli 1992: 42; Hammond, this volume), deities such as the “Jester God”, costume, and office.

[Anijen]

beastie,

Think about this, Anijen. Do you really not see how insulting and, yes, incendiary it is for you to state that the Lamanites – that horrid, evil, dark and loathsome group (with minor exceptions) were the ones influenced by the Maya? Do you really not see how insulting and incendiary it is to choose some of the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica and insist they were really Judeo-Christian? Do you really not see how this dishonors the real heritage of the region?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never insisted that the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica were Judeo-Christian. I have said and will repeat that it is my opinion that when Lehi landed they of course were not alone and perhaps they had their own little communities and eventually were assimilated into the Mesoamerican environment. Many prophets were sent out as the Book of Mormon teaches. I have asserted in my posts that there are differing polities and the thrust of the BoM is a spiritual one with emphasis on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Though archaeologist and other scientist have yet to find such influence (Nephite) in preclassic or classic period it does not mean it was not there. My view espouses that there is relationship, convergence or parallel. I think also that influence can be shared both ways. There might come a day in the near future hopefully when more is found, perhaps not enough to persuade such a skeptic as yourself none the less it will eventually happen.

I am currently thinking of the downfall of the Nephite nation and perhaps Teotihuacan played a roll in that. The growth of Teotihuacan was from what Ive read was because of people migrating to the Mexico Valley and during late preclassic to very early classic we see a lot of activity between the land southward (BoM lands). I think it is more than coincidental that during this time in the BoM that the wicked ruler Jacob became a king over Gadiantons and went northward. I am not saying Jacob started but perhaps had some influence at Teotihuacan. We read later that Jacobugath was burned I have no problem relating his wickedness with the evil of human sacrifice.

According to Joseph Allen in Sacred Sites pg 93 he writes;

The king at Teotihuacan during these dark days of Nephite history was a man sometimes referred to as Spear Thrower Owl. He ruled Teotihuacan for sixty years. Although we don't know his real name, there is some indication that the first two letters of his name are JA. The following three letters are obliterated and followed by a name appendage. It is significant to note however, that the name KOB is common in Mayan literature. This is purely conjecture at this time, but the JA along with KOB, the possible three missing letters, may still show the secret combination society name started by Jacob and it would still be in effect 300 years after Jacob established it

I checked and compared his footnotes with Schele/ Freidel a Forrest of Kings and validated it on pages 142-145 I agree its purely conjecture but interesting none the less.

[beastie]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never insisted that the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica were Judeo-Christian. I have said and will repeat that it is my opinion that when Lehi landed they of course were not alone and perhaps they had their own little communities and eventually were assimilated into the Mesoamerican environment. Many prophets were sent out as the Book of Mormon teaches. I have asserted in my posts that there are differing polities and the thrust of the BoM is a spiritual one with emphasis on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I didnâ??t say you, personally, insist that the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica were Judeo-Christian. I said:

Think about this, Anijen. Do you really not see how insulting and, yes, incendiary it is for you to state that the Lamanites â?? that horrid, evil, dark and loathsome group (with minor exceptions) were the ones influenced by the Maya? Do you really not see how insulting and incendiary it is to choose some of the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica and insist they were really Judeo-Christian? Do you really not see how this dishonors the real heritage of the region?

Iâ??m asking if you can see, or recognize, how choosing the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica and insisting they were Judeo-Christian insults and dishonors the real heritage of the region. The people who have chosen the most powerful polities are the apologists who have been studying ancient Mesoamerica for decades â?? most notably John Sorenson, and others like Brant Gardner. They understand the general level of social complexity in ancient Mesoamerica, and they are the ones picking polities like Kaminaljuyu to be Nephite polities. While the latest, Chiapa de Corzo does not appear to be at the state level like Kaminaljuyu, it does appear to be a powerful regional center in the Grijalva region.

Do you disagree with them? If so, why?

I have more to say in reply to your other statements, but it will have to wait until later, along with the Schele reference.

[Brant Gardner]

Do you really not see how insulting and, yes, incendiary it is for you to state that the Lamanites – that horrid, evil, dark and loathsome group (with minor exceptions) were the ones influenced by the Maya? Do you really not see how insulting and incendiary it is to choose some of the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica and insist they were really Judeo-Christian? Do you really not see how this dishonors the real heritage of the region?

And later. . . .

I’m asking if you can see, or recognize, how choosing the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica and insisting they were Judeo-Christian insults and dishonors the real heritage of the region.

Now I have to note that not only do I disagree with the way you read the Book of Mormon, and sometimes with the way you apply your understanding of Mesoamerica, I have to note that I completely disagree with the way you are reading what I have written.

In the first place, I have done what I can to disabuse the idea that the Lamanites were "horrid, evil, dark and loathsome." While some of those terms fit with the ethnocentric descriptions in the Book of Mormon, your use of them distorts the original context. You have interacted with me long enough that you should have understood that I do not consider "the most powerful cities" to have been Judeo-Christian. I have said that I consider that they would have fallen under the general designation of "Lamanite," but only as that term meant "not-Nephite." Even the text of the Book of Mormon suggests that the Lamanites it knows were not Judeo-Christian.

Secondly, there is nothing that I have written that would suggest that the Lamanites influenced Maya culture--or that the Nephites influenced Mesoamerican culture. My point has been that the nature of the immigrating groups suggests that they were the ones receiving the influence. I am surprised that you seem to believe that I don't know that the trends of Mesoamerican culture were well in place before Book of Mormon times and developed without any necessary influence from the outside.

My take on the cultural context of the Book of Mormon, extending Sorenson's suggestion, is that much of what we have imagined about the Nephites and Lamanites has been both culture bound and ethnocentric (from our own perspective). Both Sorenson and I have suggested that the Book of Mormon peoples would have been very Mesoamerican in material culture, but with a different religion from their neighbors. That is a long way from the picture you have painted of our arguments and intentions.

You seem to be arguing against some personal demon here, not me. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I would appreciate it if you actually disagreed with things I have said, not things you have invented for me to have said.

While the latest, Chiapa de Corzo does not appear to be at the state level like Kaminaljuyu, it does appear to be a powerful regional center in the Grijalva region.

I was wondering if you were going to notice that your acceptance of the influence of Chiapa de Corzo completely disarms your original suggestion that an influential polity during Book of Mormon times was anachronistic. Of course, we are back to the nature of influence, which was part of the discussion, but I do hope you understand that you are now required to change your mind on the issue upon which you began so adamantly.

they are the ones picking polities like Kaminaljuyu to be Nephite polities.

As another quick note, you also appear not to have read my analysis of the Nephites at Kaminaljuyu. I read that situation as one where the city became very Mesoamericanized--to the point of rejecting the Nephites (defined as adherents of a politico-religious system). I see that process beginning around 550 B.C. and resulting in the complete separation from any relationship to "Nephites" by 200 B.C. Again, you are assuming you have read what I have said, but clearly you have missed something.

[hagoth7]

....Do you really not see how insulting and incendiary it is to choose some of the most powerful cities in ancient Mesoamerica and insist they were really Judeo-Christian? Do you really not see how this dishonors the real heritage of the region?

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Precisely how is it an insult to suggest that someone's forefathers were Judeo-Christian?

[beastie]

Now I have to note that not only do I disagree with the way you read the Book of Mormon, and sometimes with the way you apply your understanding of Mesoamerica, I have to note that I completely disagree with the way you are reading what I have written.

As another quick note, you also appear not to have read my analysis of the Nephites at Kaminaljuyu. I read that situation as one where the city became very Mesoamericanized--to the point of rejecting the Nephites (defined as adherents of a politico-religious system). I see that process beginning around 550 B.C. and resulting in the complete separation from any relationship to "Nephites" by 200 B.C. Again, you are assuming you have read what I have said, but clearly you have missed something.

I will never understand how you can say these two things simultaneously and think youâ??re being consistent.

Kaminaljuyu was a powerful polity in the region long before 600 BC. I shared this information on my website:

From Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World by Lynn Foster, page 307:

By 700 B.C.E., Kaminaljuyu had constructed an irrigation canal fed by a nearby lake. In the rainier tropical lowlands, however, massive irrigation systems were not usually necessary, although arid northern Yucatan could have used them, if only they had had the water to do so. Small-scale systems of ditches and drains have been identified at many sites in the southern lowlands; canals sometimes encircled sacred centers such as that at Cerros, serving perhaps both agricultural and defensive purposes.

From the same text:

Kaminaljuyu

One of the most powerful Preclassic cities, Kaminaljuyu occupied the highland valley now occupied by Guatemala City. Situated only 20 kilometers (12 miles) from one of the most important obsidian sources in the Maya region, Kaminaljuyu grew from a small Middle Preclassic Period settlement into the dominant city in the southern region during the Late Preclassic. Its construction included extensive canals and earthen pyramids; its rulers were buried in some of the wealthiest tombs then known; and its art included many stelae in the Izapan style. At the beginning of the Early Classic Period, the city contracted and was depopulated until the central Mexican city of Teotihuacan probably conquered it in the fourth century C.E. and used it as a base for its trade operations in the region. The city was occupied into the Postclassic Period, but after the Early Classic period, it never rose again to be a major power. It was abandoned by the time of the Spanish Conquest. (p 109)

New centers emerged in the central Guatemala highlands at this period (middle preclassic), probably because the flat plateaus became more habitable due to diminishing volcanic activity. All these new settlements were well situated for trade. Kamnaljuyu in the Valley of Guatemala, for example, could control nearby obsidian sources, but it was also in an enviable position to command trade between the Caribbean and the Pacific coast through the river routes in the Motagua Valley, and through the highland pass down to the Pacific. Cacao, obsidian, and jade were part of the valuable trade that would expand in the Late Preclassic, making Kaminaljuyu flourish into one of the most important cities of that period. By 700 B.C.E., Kaminaljuyu already had constructed a major irrigation canal, and by 500 B.C.E., it began carving freestanding stone slabs called stelae. (page 30)

Kaminaljuyu grew from a small center in the Valley of Guatemala in 500 B.C.E. to a capital city dominating the terminal Preclassic period. Although the sprawl of modern Guatemala City has destroyed much of the ancient site and made a careful reconstruction of its development impossible, Kaminaljuyu in its final phase (Early Classic) was a city of more than 200 earthen and adobe-plastered mounds in contrast to approximately 80 at Izapa. The majority of the mounds dated to the Late Preclassic period. Some were 20 meters (66 feet) high and once supported adobe or wooden temples with thatched roofs. One massive structure, judging from the rich tombs it contained, must have been an ancestor shrine dedicated to deceased rulers. An artificial canal, built c. 400 B.C.E. to replace one from the Middle Preclassic Period, fed a vast irrigation system. Great platforms with temples and what may have been a palace courtyard complex were constructed; stelae, some almost 2 meters (6 feet) tall, were carved in low relief, with hieroglyphic inscriptions.

Kaminaljuyu was more powerful and wealthier than any other city in the southern region during this period. Kaminaljuyu influences can be seen at other highland sites and from the Salama Valley to El Baul and Chalchuapa. Although population estimates for Kaminaljuyu cannot be made because of the destruction of the site, tens of thousands of laborers, probably drawn from all over the valley, were necessary to construct and maintain the city.

Many archaeologists believe that the centralized power required to organize such public works would have been beyond that of a mere chiefdom. And the stelae cult probably served to glorify the rulers of such an incipient state. One tomb â?? Bural C in Structure E-III-3 â?? is the richest yet discovered anywhere in the Maya realm for the Late Preclassic Period. Its more than 300 artifacts â?? jade, obsidian, quartz crystals, entire sheets of mica, stingray spines (known to be used by Maya royalty for autosacrifice), fish teeth, and, of course, ceramics including Usultan-ware â?? certainly suggest that its occupant, accompanied by four sacrificed individuals, was a Kaminaljuyu king. The burial contents also demonstrate the extensive trade and wealth of this strategically located city. (page 38)

Now obviously Kaminaljuyu had not reached the zenith of its power at 600 BC, but compared to the other polities in the region, was or was it not a powerful polity? Keep in mind that by 700 BC it had already built a major irrigation canal and by 500 BC was erecting stelae.

I know that you disagree with the way I read the BoM. I would really like to know the â??rightâ? way to interpret the scriptures Iâ??ve shared repeatedly on this thread (see post 288 on page 15.) I know you think that interpreting those scriptures to mean that, prior to their dissolution, the Nephites had a government regulated by a strict set of laws, and those laws were enforced by a clear hierarchy, is incorrect. But if youâ??ve shared what you think the correct interpretation is, Iâ??ve missed it.

I am curious as to how you justify your assertion that the â??process of separation beganâ? around 550 BC when the BoM asserts that as late as 399 BC â??our kings and leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord;â?? (Jarom 7).

In the first place, I have done what I can to disabuse the idea that the Lamanites were "horrid, evil, dark and loathsome." While some of those terms fit with the ethnocentric descriptions in the Book of Mormon, your use of them distorts the original context. You have interacted with me long enough that you should have understood that I do not consider "the most powerful cities" to have been Judeo-Christian. I have said that I consider that they would have fallen under the general designation of "Lamanite," but only as that term meant "not-Nephite." Even the text of the Book of Mormon suggests that the Lamanites it knows were not Judeo-Christian.

The BoM says the Lamanites were evil, dark and loathsome. I understand that you say the Nephites were exaggerating in a bigoted fashion, but unless all the acts attributed to the Lamanites in the BoM were falsehood or exaggerations, then their behavior was generally loathsome.

I know that you say that the Nephite polities were not among the most powerful in the region and period, but you â?? and Sorenson â?? consistently choose powerful polities as possible candidates for Nephite locations. Kaminaljuyu is the most obvious example. But as I read more about Chiapa de Corzo, it seems that this is a more powerful polity than the formerly suggested Santa Rosa (I seem to recall you once agreed with me that Santa Rosa was too small to be Zarahemla). Now Chiapa de Corzo may not have been as powerful as Kaminaljuyu or Monte Alban, but it wasnâ??t some â??backwaterâ? either, was it? Look at the quotes I shared on the past couple pages about Chiapa de Corzo. For one thing, it did have stelae. (speaking of stelae and Chiapa de Corzo, Iâ??d still like clarification on your aniconographic claim â?? see post 301 on page 16). For example, see post 403 which shares information asserting that Chiapa de Corzo â??at its height during the Late Formative period, it was a regional center or capital of the area and controlled trading routes through the Grijalva river valley.â?

Secondly, there is nothing that I have written that would suggest that the Lamanites influenced Maya culture--or that the Nephites influenced Mesoamerican culture. My point has been that the nature of the immigrating groups suggests that they were the ones receiving the influence. I am surprised that you seem to believe that I don't know that the trends of Mesoamerican culture were well in place before Book of Mormon times and developed without any necessary influence from the outside.

First, I was responding to anijen who said, in post 407:

The Lamanites probably were influenced by the Mayan more so than the Nephites .

I am absolutely positive you know and believe that the trends of Mesoamerican culture were well in place before the BoM times. What I have said is this:

The BoM describes a powerful polity, compared to other Mesoamerican polities in the time and region. (yes, I know you disagree, please tell me what the scriptures in my post 288 mean in that case â?? just one example among many) If Judeo-Christian polities as powerful as the ones described in the BoM existed in ancient Mesoamerica, they would have influenced the trends of Mesoamerican culture themselves. The fact is that there is no trace of Judeo-Christian influence in Mesoamerica, which you know. The fact that you know this, and know powerful polities influenced, or even created, the trends of Mesoamerican culture may be a good part of the reason you insist the BoM does not describe a powerful polity â?? and to support this contention of yours you sometimes seem to outright ignore or distort the BoM (see the earlier exchange with cdowis regarding forced military service).

And yet, even while asserting that the Nephite polities were not among the most powerful of the time period, you offer Kaminaljuyu as the City of Nephi, and you offer a regional center, Chiapa de Corzo, as Zarahemla.

Do you deny that the evidence says these polities were powerful in their region?

My take on the cultural context of the Book of Mormon, extending Sorenson's suggestion, is that much of what we have imagined about the Nephites and Lamanites has been both culture bound and ethnocentric (from our own perspective). Both Sorenson and I have suggested that the Book of Mormon peoples would have been very Mesoamerican in material culture, but with a different religion from their neighbors. That is a long way from the picture you have painted of our arguments and intentions.

You seemed to have completely missed my point. I am very well aware that you and Sorenson suggest that the BoM peoples would have been very Mesoamerican in their culture. I have no idea why you think I stated otherwise. My point is, again:

The BoM describes a powerful polity, compared to other Mesoamerican polities in the time and region. (yes, I know you disagree, please tell me what the scriptures in my post 288 mean in that case â?? just one example among many) If Judeo-Christian polities as powerful as the ones described in the BoM existed in ancient Mesoamerica, they would have influenced the trends of Mesoamerican culture themselves.

You seem to be arguing against some personal demon here, not me. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I would appreciate it if you actually disagreed with things I have said, not things you have invented for me to have said.

Given that I havenâ??t drawn the conclusions about you and Sorensonâ??s theories that you claim I have, it seems the demons may be your own. Just in case I wasnâ??t clear enough yet, let me restate what my point actually is:

The BoM describes a powerful polity, compared to other Mesoamerican polities in the time and region. (yes, I know you disagree, please tell me what the scriptures in my post 288 mean in that case â?? just one example among many) If Judeo-Christian polities as powerful as the ones described in the BoM existed in ancient Mesoamerica, they would have influenced the trends of Mesoamerican culture themselves.

I was wondering if you were going to notice that your acceptance of the influence of Chiapa de Corzo completely disarms your original suggestion that an influential polity during Book of Mormon times was anachronistic. Of course, we are back to the nature of influence, which was part of the discussion, but I do hope you understand that you are now required to change your mind on the issue upon which you began so adamantly.

What?!?!??!?! You have completely, and I mean completely, misunderstood my entire point. In case I havenâ??t made myself clear enough, let me restate my point:

The BoM describes a powerful polity, compared to other Mesoamerican polities in the time and region. (yes, I know you disagree, please tell me what the scriptures in my post 288 mean in that case â?? just one example among many) If Judeo-Christian polities as powerful as the ones described in the BoM existed in ancient Mesoamerica, they would have influenced the trends of Mesoamerican culture themselves.

For your benefit, I will repeat a list of some of the polities Sorenson has suggested for BoM candidates:

San Lorenzo â?? Lib

La Venta â?? Mulek

Chiapa de Corzo â?? Sorenson suggested this was Sidom, but apparently apologists now

think it was Zarahemla

Mirador â?? Ammonihah

San Isidro â?? Aaron

Kaminaljuyu â?? City of Nephi

Are you actually going to assert that this is not a list of very powerful Mesoamerican polities, compared to the other polities in their region and time period?

Hagoth:

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Precisely how is it an insult to suggest that someone's forefathers were Judeo-Christian?

It is an insult when suggesting someone's forefathers were Judeo-Christian necessitates ignoring their forefathers' actual heritage.