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

[Anijen]

According to Joseph Allen in Sacred Sites Yax Nun Ayin son of Smoking Frog (kin) is the king that Mormon probably wrote his epistle, proposing a battle at Cumorah and in Helaman 2:13-14 we read;

13 And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.

14 Behold I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but I mean the end of the book of Nephi, from which I have taken all the account which I have written.

which also interesting enough corresponds with Forest of Kings (Shele/Freidel) on page 153 this comment;

Smoking Frog and his kin reigned, the people of Uaxactun would be cut off from the loving guidance of their ancestors, a people stripped of their very gods.

Possibly curl snout was the king (Forest of Kings pg 156) was the kin he also fits time and place.

[hagoth7]

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

Most people would only say that if they believed that being Judeo-Christian was somehow an insult.

[Brant Gardner]

The BoM describes a powerful polity, compared to other Mesoamerican polities in the time and region.

Except you are now suggesting that Chiapa de Corzo is just that kind of polity. You can't have it both ways. Select one. We can argue about the meaning of influence, but if you are going to accept Chiapa de Corzo as a regional center at the time of the Book of Mormon, you must abandon the thesis that the Book of Mormon describes something that wasn't in that time or region.

This isn't a question of inconsistency, it is a question of mutually untenable positions. You have presented Chiapa de Corzo as a direct contradiction to your thesis, yet you return to that thesis. How?

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.

This is another hypothesis that you keep repeating, but never provide any evidence. What is the evidence that Chiapa de Corzo influenced Tikal? You have given us Chiapa de Corzo as an influential polity. Now you can use it to support your thesis. What did Chiapa de Corzo contribute rather than absorb?

After you answer that, then you can begin to discuss the rest of your thesis of what you think the polity should have done. So far, you have presented absolutely zero evidence for this most important assertion.

As for particular sites as locations of Book of Mormon cities, no apologist that I know of has ever said anything but that assignments are tentative and apply to the right place and time. I follow Sorenson out of convenience. I know that Clark doesn't think Zarahemla and Santa Rosa are the same, yet he still thinks the overall correlation is correct.

Still, if we are to return to your thesis, you have two ways to go. You can withdraw your evidence that Chiapa de Corzo was influential (difficult to do) or you can demonstrate how that influence resulted in the kind of influence you suggest wasn't there.

If you can pull that one off, then you have to deal with the problem that will have just proven your thesis wrong that a city in the Book of Mormon region at that time couldn't have been that influential.

I think you have painted yourself into a corner.

[beastie]

Most people would only say that if they believed that being Judeo-Christian was somehow an insult.

So you wouldn't mind if, one day in the distant future, the alien archaeologists declared that the inhabitants of Salt Lake City were really adherents of the religious Zimax? You wouldn't think that doing so would deny the actual heritage of the inhabitants of Salt Lake City?

[beastie]

Except you are now suggesting that Chiapa de Corzo is just that kind of polity. You can't have it both ways. Select one. We can argue about the meaning of influence, but if you are going to accept Chiapa de Corzo as a regional center at the time of the Book of Mormon, you must abandon the thesis that the Book of Mormon describes something that wasn't in that time or region.

This isn't a question of inconsistency, it is a question of mutually untenable positions. You have presented Chiapa de Corzo as a direct contradiction to your thesis, yet you return to that thesis. How?

You still fundamentally misunderstand my position. If I try to clarify it again, I will be accused of repeating myself, but I’ll try.

There are two issues at play here, and both have to do with the issue of power and influence. Both have to do with what kind of polity is described in the BoM. You’re conflating two different types of responses I’ve made.

1- Does the BoM describe a polity that it as the level of state, with an extended control over various polities that would encompass a region around the size of the later Aztecs?

2- If position 1 is denied, then does the BoM describe a polity that would have notable influence and impact in its region?

At the beginning of this thread I defended position 1. I still think you have not adequately refuted that position, btw, and still need your clarification on the scriptures I cited in post 288. I still believe that the BoM does, indeed, describe such a polity, and that type of polity would be anachronistic for the time and region.

However, many pages ago I stated that I don’t believe it’s even necessary to argue from position 1 to prove my larger point. My larger point is the one I keep repeating – if a Judeo-Christian polity, with the extended influence and power described in the BoM – existed in ancient Mesoamerica, it would have influenced the evolution of the Mesoamerican world view. I believe it is possible to demonstrate that would be the case arguing from position 2, so to simplify the discussion, I began arguing from that position. That is the stance I am currently arguing from, and have been for pages. I thought I made that clear many pages ago, but it’s easy to miss details in a thread this size. I do not believe a polity with extended influence and power, rather than direct control, is anachronistic for the time and region – but it would be the most powerful that would have that level of influence and power.

I have not stated, or implied, that Chiapa de Corzo would have influenced Tikal, and I have no idea where you got that idea from. But the evidence points to Chiapa de Corzo as being the most precocious and thereby powerful in that particular region, and hence, is called a ceremonial center. Do you dispute that? However, I do not believe Chiapa de Corzo would have been able to do the things attributed to Zarahemla in the BoM, either. Do you think that Chiapa de Corzo would have been able to arrange for polities over 160 miles away to abandon their homes and camp out for seven years in the Chiapa de Corzo region? Or that Chiapa de Corzo would be able to decide that a group of newcomers would live in a region 160 miles away? Or that the chief judge of Chiapa de Corzo would be influential enough to be a legal advisor to a polity 100 miles away – Mirador???

64,000 dollar question: which polity in the Oaxaca region actually did have the power and influence to direct a "confederacy" of polities for defense?

And you cannot ignore Kaminaljuyu. Do you dispute that Kaminaljuyu was an extremely powerful polity?

How about San Lorenzo? La Venta? Mirador? Powerful polities or not?

Whether or not you, or any other apologist, agrees with the specific polities cited, there is a reason someone like Dr. Sorenons chooses powerful polities as candidates.

[beastie]

Anijen,

You have completely lost me. I'm still trying to figure out how the Forest of Kings reference supports the first quote from Allen, much less the later ones. Could you be more specific in what you think Forest of Kings supports? And what edition are you using? I have the 1990 edition and can't figure out how pages 142-145 support Allen at all. Moreover, some of the basic assertions are called into question, like whether or not spear-thrower was a ruler in Teotihuacan in the first place.

[Anijen]

Anijen,

You have completely lost me. I'm still trying to figure out how the Forest of Kings reference supports the first quote from Allen, much less the later ones. Could you be more specific in what you think Forest of Kings supports? And what edition are you using? I have the 1990 edition and can't figure out how pages 142-145 support Allen at all. Moreover, some of the basic assertions are called into question, like whether or not spear-thrower was a ruler in Teotihuacan in the first place.

I did not say or implied it supports Allen's views I simply made a correlation of the time Allen speaks about in his book Sacred Sites and compared those with the time frame I was reading in Forest of Kings. I found it interesting that Allen opines that the son of Smoking Frog was the king Mormon wrote his epistle to. When I checked Allen's footnotes and time frame and then checked that same time frame and Mayan ruler I found that quote which would correspond greatly to what was happening in the Book of Mormon at that precise time. The BoM was speaking about the end of the Nephite people and I quoted Helaman 2 then I juxtaposed that with the quote from Forest of Kings. Here is Scheles quote again;

Smoking Frog and his kin reigned, the people of Uaxactun would be cut off from the loving guidance of their ancestors, a people stripped of their very gods.

I dunno, I found it interesting but then taste is fickle thing and to each his own...

1990 edition

[beastie]

anijen-

If I understand you correctly, you are impressed that Forest of Kings makes an argument for the intrusion of a foreign king at Tikal, supposedly interrupting the royal line.

Unfortunately for your case, it was later demonstrated that the king installed at Tikal at that time period was actually native to Tikal. It's been speculated since Schele's writing that Teotihuacan may not have actually "taken over" Tikal in the way Schele impled, but that the influence seen may have been largely due to trade. There's a lot of uncertainty over the topic currently, but I'm pretty sure that the evidence is now pretty conclusive that the Tikal leader was native.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displ...&aid=318299

[Anijen]

anijen-

If I understand you correctly, you are impressed that Forest of Kings makes an argument for the intrusion of a foreign king at Tikal, supposedly interrupting the royal line.

Unfortunately for your case, it was later demonstrated that the king installed at Tikal at that time period was actually native to Tikal. It's been speculated since Schele's writing that Teotihuacan may not have actually "taken over" Tikal in the way Schele impled, but that the influence seen may have been largely due to trade. There's a lot of uncertainty over the topic currently, but I'm pretty sure that the evidence is now pretty conclusive that the Tikal leader was native.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displ...&aid=318299

Thank you for the link I will study it. I did not know of this.

Anijen

[Brant Gardner]

There are two issues at play here, and both have to do with the issue of power and influence. Both have to do with what kind of polity is described in the BoM. Youâ??re conflating two different types of responses Iâ??ve made.

1- Does the BoM describe a polity that it as the level of state, with an extended control over various polities that would encompass a region around the size of the later Aztecs?

Of course, we have disputed your evidence for this. The Book of Mormon doesn't support an Aztec style near-state (or state, depending upon whom you ask). So, your first thesis is a) based almost entirely on evidence from war, which is an unusual circumstance that creates situations different from peacetime and the evidence form peacetime contradicts rather than corroborates your strong polity theory, and strongly exaggerates the type of influence that would be exerted by an influential city (taking your evidence for Chiapa de Corzo as an example). I don't see that there is much reason to continue to discuss hypothesis 1. While you obviously continue to hold it, it is based on very tenuous readings of bot the text and the archaeological evidence.

2- If position 1 is denied, then does the BoM describe a polity that would have notable influence and impact in its region?

Again, a point in question. Particulary in question is the nature of influence. You have suggested that influence is equivalent to control or power, which the evidence of the text does not support. You have claimed that there shouldn't be an influential city in this time period, yet you claim Chiapa de Corzo is influential. Position 2 is mired in contradiction.

However, many pages ago I stated that I donâ??t believe itâ??s even necessary to argue from position 1 to prove my larger point. My larger point is the one I keep repeating â?? if a Judeo-Christian polity, with the extended influence and power described in the BoM â?? existed in ancient Mesoamerica, it would have influenced the evolution of the Mesoamerican world view.

Now we get to the newer thesis. The problem with this one is that it is wholly based upon your opinion of what should happen. While we all get to have our opinions, I feel no compulsion to accept one for which you have offered nothing save your opinion. Since your opinions on the other two theses hasn't been overwhelmingly based on evidence that we can agree on, I doubt that we will agree upon an opinion that doesn't even have that much evidence behind it.

What is the contrary evidence? 1) the known trajectory of iconographic representations of the Judeo-Christian tradition have tended, particularly in early years and in situations where they were in the minority of the population, to be adoption and adaptation of the dominant iconography. The Judeo-Christian religion was not a purveyor of iconography until it had reached the point where it was the dominant religion of the dominant governmental body--and even that took time. There is nothing in the text of the Book of Mormon that suggests that the Nephites were ever influential over more than a limited region (the largest city count of beholding cities is seven - which doesn't indicate a very large region). Therefore, it shouldn'thave the influence you are suggesting.

So, known history is against you, and nothing is for you, save your opinion. Not a very strong platform.

I do not believe a polity with extended influence and power, rather than direct control, is anachronistic for the time and region â?? but it would be the most powerful that would have that level of influence and power.

We agree on that one point then. We can dismiss the anachronistic polity argument. Now we have the second position, which is that a notable polity is influential. We can probably agree on that, except that I know that your definition of influential and mine differ.

Therefore, we are back to the problem of defining influence. You are suggesting that it should have influence and doesn't (though you admit that Chiapa de Corzo did, but wasn't as influential or as powerful as Tikal). Ergo, you can have influence without the large apparatus apparent at Tikal or Calakmul. Now we inch closer to the position I have argued all along, which is that the Book of Mormon polity doesn't have to be as spectacular as you suggest to fit the text or the archaeology.

Now, we are left with the last remnant of the argument, which is that a Judeo-Christian polity that was influential should have influenced someone. The problem here is that you cannot find any marker that we could use to even test your hypothesis. You suggest that we might use Book of Mormon stories, but we only now those that a single man thought worth redacting at the end of Nephite civilization. We have no way of knowing if those stories were important to the people at the time. We also don't know, if they decided to glorify battle scenes, how a Judeo-Christian battle would be different from a pagan battle.

We are left with your opinion of what should have happened, and since you don't find what you think you would have, you declare that the Book of Mormon couldn't have taken place. There is a long history of people who have written that kind of history who are no longer read because they turned out to be dead wrong.

But the evidence points to Chiapa de Corzo as being the most precocious and thereby powerful in that particular region, and hence, is called a ceremonial center. Do you dispute that?

No, why should I? There is nothing about its existence as a ceremonial center that alters any of the way I read the text.

However, I do not believe Chiapa de Corzo would have been able to do the things attributed to Zarahemla in the BoM, either.

Now we are at the point where some evidence would be good. On what evidence? What is your evidence for suggesting that Chiapa de Corzo could not have mounted an army, that it couldn't have cooperated with other threatened cities against a common enemy? I am unaware of any way to test those statements, so I am really curious as to your evidence for your opinion.

Do you think that Chiapa de Corzo would have been able to arrange for polities over 160 miles away to abandon their homes and camp out for seven years in the Chiapa de Corzo region?

Do you think that if any city offered protection against a threat that was going to destroy the people, that the people would have refused it? Feudal Europe was built on the idea that this would happen. Why do you think it wouldn't? (by the way, I might argue the 160 miles, but I don't think it is really germane to the issue).

Or that Chiapa de Corzo would be able to decide that a group of newcomers would live in a region 160 miles away?

Here we are back to the problem of how you read the text. You are assuming way too much into that text and basing an entire theory on the way you read it. Authentic historical documents from other peoples do not support that type of reading. You are basing a heavy argumentative weight on something that is not known from world historical literature. That is why ethnohistorians try to balance their arguments with examples from other areas--it provides a check against too free speculation.

And you cannot ignore Kaminaljuyu. Do you dispute that Kaminaljuyu was an extremely powerful polity?

Why do you think I would? As I told you, apostasy began early in that city and was complete by 200 B.C. As for the times in between, it is a naive reading of the text to assume that it was wholly faithful druing the intervening years--see the history of Israel. As Dever points out, the Bible is a minority report - showing what the religion would have been if the people who wrote the book had been the only ones around. Ethnographic analogy again. We have to read texts the way texts are known to have been read/written in other cultures. Special pleading doesn't get us very far.

So, were are we in this long thread?

You began by asserting that a powerful polity in the Book of Mormon was anachronistic. You have abandoned that position. Good.

You moved to the assertion that an influential polity should have demonstrated a discernible influence. The problem here is that you cannot define what that influence would have been. If it was limited to pottery, then we agree that this is how the connections are traced (remember the evidence for Chiapa de Corzo). However, when you venture to suggest that there should be some nebulous Judeo-Christian iconography, you have moved away from the evidence and are basing your argument entirely on your opinion. Your opinion is contradicted by known iconographic history. Position 2 doesn't look very good.

So, you can't use the argument of anachronism. You can't insist that there should be something you aren't finding, because you don't even know what it is you are looking for to be able to say that you haven't found it.

What is left?

[LK2009]

Mr. Gardner or anyone who cares to answer this:

My daughter was assigned (an english course) to find logical fallacies in "the Tempest in a teapot", but it is obviously a very complicated article and subject for someone who has never read about this topic. She is at a loss. Can anyone give pointers in the right direction?

[Hamba Tuhan]

We are left with your opinion of what should have happened.... There is a long history of people who have written that kind of history who are no longer read because they turned out to be dead wrong.

Ah, but without 'omniscient' historians who somehow just know how things 'should have happened,' then I wouldn't have a really cool topic for my PhD thesis: actually reading the primary texts and then pointing out repeatedly that other scholars' assumptions about what would have happened, whilst perhaps useful for demonstrating these scholars' personal biases, have no connection whatsoever to what actually did happen.

[beastie]

Brant,

I'll respond more fully to your points later, after work. In the meantime, I would really like you to explain your thoughts on the following:

First -

The following verses tell us what the government devolved into, prior to the destruction at the crucifixion. (3 Nephi)

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.

I've asked you to respond to these verses several times. Since you have yet to do so, I did an amazon search in your book to see if you explained it there. What I found was that you stated that the tribal factions described therein match ancient Mesoamerica, but - at least in the part I read - you were silent on how well the description of the Nephite government prior to its dissolution matched ancient Mesoamerica.

Second -

What polity in the general region of Chiapa de Corzo do we know had the power to direct a confederacy of polities for self protection? I can only think of one, and it isn't Chiapa de Corzo.

[Brant Gardner]

Mr. Gardner or anyone who cares to answer this:

My daughter was assigned (an english course) to find logical fallacies in "the Tempest in a teapot", but it is obviously a very complicated article and subject for someone who has never read about this topic. She is at a loss. Can anyone give pointers in the right direction?

I confess that I am at a loss as well. Had I known of any, I would have corrected them. Please let me know the results.

[Brant Gardner]

What polity in the general region of Chiapa de Corzo do we know had the power to direct a confederacy of polities for self protection? I can only think of one, and it isn't Chiapa de Corzo.

And we return to opinion. We return to "how influential is influential"? Since I can't see either of us changing our opinions, I don't see any reason to continue to present them without new evidence.

[beastie]

Are you seriously still not going to reply to the scriptures I cited yet again?

beastie

What polity in the general region of Chiapa de Corzo do we know had the power to direct a confederacy of polities for self protection? I can only think of one, and it isn't Chiapa de Corzo.

Brant:

And we return to opinion. We return to "how influential is influential"? Since I can't see either of us changing our opinions, I don't see any reason to continue to present them without new evidence.

Opinion??? Brant, I'm quite certain you know the answer to my question. In fact, I seem to recall you referencing this particular polity to support your assertions in the past, about the Nephites being a confederacy for self protection. I'll see if I can find our past discussion to trigger your memory.

edit on: ezboard has such a horrid search engine there is no way I'll ever find it. To cut to the chase, the only polity in that general region that scholars posit was directing a confederacy of other polities for the purpose of defense is Monte Alban. Monte Alban was, predictably, an extremely powerful polity that many scholars posit was a very early Mesoamerican state.

Does anyone have evidence supporting the contention that a smaller ceremonial center such as Chiapa de Corzo could also have managed such a feat?

[beastie]

Mr. Gardner or anyone who cares to answer this:

My daughter was assigned (an english course) to find logical fallacies in "the Tempest in a teapot", but it is obviously a very complicated article and subject for someone who has never read about this topic. She is at a loss. Can anyone give pointers in the right direction?

I would suggest PMing the poster "the dude" for help on this.

[Sargon]

Mr. Gardner or anyone who cares to answer this:

My daughter was assigned (an english course) to find logical fallacies in "the Tempest in a teapot", but it is obviously a very complicated article and subject for someone who has never read about this topic. She is at a loss. Can anyone give pointers in the right direction?

That is a VERY strange assignment for an english course.

[beastie]

I have several comments to make about Brant’s response, but want to start here:

Beastie:

However, many pages ago I stated that I don’t believe it’s even necessary to argue from position 1 to prove my larger point. My larger point is the one I keep repeating – if a Judeo-Christian polity, with the extended influence and power described in the BoM – existed in ancient Mesoamerica, it would have influenced the evolution of the Mesoamerican world view.

Brant

Now we get to the newer thesis. The problem with this one is that it is wholly based upon your opinion of what should happen. While we all get to have our opinions, I feel no compulsion to accept one for which you have offered nothing save your opinion. Since your opinions on the other two theses hasn't been overwhelmingly based on evidence that we can agree on, I doubt that we will agree upon an opinion that doesn't even have that much evidence behind it.

What is the contrary evidence? 1) the known trajectory of iconographic representations of the Judeo-Christian tradition have tended, particularly in early years and in situations where they were in the minority of the population, to be adoption and adaptation of the dominant iconography. The Judeo-Christian religion was not a purveyor of iconography until it had reached the point where it was the dominant religion of the dominant governmental body--and even that took time. There is nothing in the text of the Book of Mormon that suggests that the Nephites were ever influential over more than a limited region (the largest city count of beholding cities is seven - which doesn't indicate a very large region). Therefore, it shouldn'thave the influence you are suggesting.

So, known history is against you, and nothing is for you, save your opinion. Not a very strong platform.

Known Mesoamerican history is supportive of my assertion. I spent some time on this earlier in the thread, and referred to my website for more detail, but evidently I failed to explain this adequately.

The entire history of Mesoamerica demonstrates that the most powerful polities influence the other polities, hence strongly influencing or even directing the evolution of the Mesoamerican worldview.

I am quite certain Brant would agree with that assertion. In fact, I think he agreed with it earlier on this thread, although I don’t think it’s worth the bother to look up. No one with even a cursory awareness of Mesoamerican history would deny this assertion. Here’s a basic, simplified summary of what scholars think happen in Mesoamerica, as per my understanding of their writings.

In about the mid-range of the PreClassic period (which coincides roughly with the BoM time frame), certain polities began to experience social stress due to increasing social stratification. The increased social stratification was a result of increasing population and often access to a particularly desirable good or technology (like obsidian). Whereas previously, in these same polities, the community was fairly egalitarian, even with a Big Man who may have more influence than the other members, these later, more populated polities began to experience a noticeable differentiation between access to material goods and influence. These polities dealt with the resultant social strain by developing a powerful idea – this was the real genius of ancient Mesoamerica. The powerful idea was what developed into what I’ll call, for ease of reference, Holy Lordism. Holy Lordism explained why the leaders of the polity had the right to more material goods, luxury items, and social power. They were the shamans by which the community would communicate with and appease the gods who influenced the wellbeing of the entire community. This, along with governing the polity, was their “job”.

Again, it was the precociously developed polities that created this idea, although it built upon the beliefs of their ancestors as well. This idea was a direct response, an “answer” to the dilemma that social stratification began to create.

Other, less powerful polities were heavily influenced by Hold Lordism. They borrowed the idea from the more powerful polities and applied it themselves as their own development and social stratification evolved. It was a very successful worldview, in terms of pervasiveness and persistence. It worked well for hundreds of years.

Now let’s draw in the BoM. Very early in the BoM, stress is attributed to social stratification. In fact, Jacob begins mentioning this problem as early as 544 BC:

15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

16 Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride.

Jacob, Chapter 1, BC 544

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a bland of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to ado good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

Jacob, Chapter 2, BC 544

544 BC is quite early to be experiencing this level of social stress due to material differentiation. This would indicate that the City of Nephi was fairly complex for the time period. This may also be the reason apologists like Dr. Sorenson suggest a polity as powerful as Kaminaljuyu as a valid candidate.

In fact, apologists often point to this social stress in the BoM as evidence that it matches the Mesoamerican time period. Of course, social stress due to social stratification is nearly universal once certain levels of complexity are attained, so it’s hardly an unusual phenomenon to describe. So I assume that posters here will concede this point, which is as early as 544 BC the Nephites were experiencing the type of social strain that results from material discrepancies.

So as early as 544 BC, the Nephite polity would have been among the precociously developed, subject to the exact stress that resulted – in the real Mesoamerica – in the development of Holy Lordism. Of course, the Nephites dealt with this social stress in an entirely different manner, an increasingly egalitarian society where even the king labored for his living.

We know about Holy Lordism not solely due to iconography, but also due to the remarkable persistence of the ideology, which meant that it would be recorded in some detail in later time periods.

So here’s the trajectory:

Some polities experience social strain earlier than others ----> those same polities developed the idea of Holy Lordism to effectively deal with that social strain -----> other polities that developed later were heavily influenced by the precocious polities and also embraced Holy Lordism ----> Holy Lordism was persistent and pervasive and was recorded in later time periods in some detail.

Brant’s argument seems to be that – for some unexplained reason – this trajectory would not also have held true with Judeo-Christianity. Let’s just take the same trajectory and insert Judeo-Christianity instead of Holy Lordism:

Some polities experience social strain earlier than others ----> those same polities embraced the idea of Judeo-Christianity to effectively deal with that social strain ----> other polities that developed later were heavily influenced by the precocious polities and also embraced Judeo-Christianity ----> Judeo-Christianity was persistent and pervasive and was recorded in later time periods in some detail.

As readers may note, this theory is not dependent entirely upon the interpretation of iconography as Brant seems to insist. The fact is that we know many details of Holy Lordism due to later text, and to its continued influence at the time of Conquest.

quick edit: I'm going to take some time to write another post about Chiapa de Corzo's power, comparing it to Monte Alban in particular

[Brant Gardner]

Are you seriously still not going to reply to the scriptures I cited yet again?

Seriously.

I don't see anything that we haven't discussed before, either in those scriptures or in the references to Mesoamerican archaeology.

[beastie]

I don't see anything that we haven't discussed before, either in those scriptures or in the references to Mesoamerican archaeology.

Well, I would say this goes quite a bit towards explaining our failure to communicate.

I read these verses:

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.

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.

And understand them to mean that â?? prior to its dissolution the Nephite government had a strict set of laws, enforced by a structured hierarchy. After its dissolution the people divided into tribes.

And you say that these verses have no impact at all on your assertion that the Nephite polity was a minor polity.

Well, all righty then.

[beastie]

I'm going to respond to other portions of Brant's reply in bits and pieces.

Beastie

But the evidence points to Chiapa de Corzo as being the most precocious and thereby powerful in that particular region, and hence, is called a ceremonial center. Do you dispute that?

Brant

No, why should I? There is nothing about its existence as a ceremonial center that alters any of the way I read the text.

A ceremonial center that, btw, buried sacrificial victims with its kings. But aside from that, the important thing to keep in mind in this conversation is that when we’re talking about power and influence, we’re talking about power and influence relative to the other polities. So if Chiapa de Corzo, around 400 BC, was a small ceremonial center, the question is: did that fact still make it a powerful polity for that time period? The answer is yes, it did, according to the scholars I’ve already cited (see post 403 for full references):

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.

Chiapa de Corzo also began building stela and community platforms fairly early, comparatively speaking. So while Chiapa de Corzo may not have grown to the size of Monte Alban, during the specified time period, it was a powerful polity in the region. And that is, of course, part of my point - even apologists consistently choose powerful polities as BoM candidates.

The next question is whether or not Chiapa de Corzo, as a regional center that controlled trading routes in the area, could have been able to do the things attributed to Zarahemal, or whether an even more powerful polity would be required. Brant has suggested there is no way to test this, but there is - through population levels, which are directly connected to what a polity can and cannot do.

(edit on - I posted this quickly this morning before work and forgot to add that I'm going to take the next few days to work on a post discussing what sort of population levels and political complexity would be required for being able to do things like off protection for numerous polities at significant distances. I'll do this by discussing the polity that actually did have the power to do this, monte alban)

[Anijen]

bump

[beastie]

I think it may take me a few days to put together my Chiapa de Corzo response, but I will share this from Deanne Matheny, Does the Shoe Fit, in the meantime:

The relation of Santa Rosa to other sites in the area is another means of comparing Santa Rosa and Zarahemla. Sorenson suggests a correlation between Chiapa de Corzo, another site in the area, and Sidom. Santa Rosa was the largest site on the south side of the Grijalva within its immediate area, but it is much smaller than Chiapa de Corzo. Delgado has noted that "Santa Rosa, in spite of its relative grandeur compared to most early sites on the upper Grijalva, was rather poor when compared with Chiapa de Corzo at the lower end of the Central Depression. The latter was apparently a far richer and better-constructed ceremonial center, probably as a result of its position at a more important cultural crossroads" (1965, 79). Thus for Sorenson's correlation of sites to work, Zarahemla would need to have been a small, rather isolated regional center while Sidom was the major population and trade center in the areaâ??a major revision of the profile suggested by the Book of Mormon.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/book/chapter8.htm

Again, I'm learning more about Chiapa de Corzo, and - again, relative to the polities around it - it does appear to be an important, influential center.

[beastie]

If I understand Brantâ??s theory correctly, he is suggesting that Zarahemla was the center of a loose confederation of polities that worked together solely for the purpose of self-defense. At the very least, however, he must admit that Zarahemla was extremely influential over these polities, given the fact that Ammonihah regarded Zarahemlaâ??s chief judge as their chief judge, and given that Zarahemla could dictate the settlement of an alien group in a location near one of these other polities, over a hundred miles away.

Whatâ??s interesting about this theory is that there actually is a well-known polity in Mesoamerica that was, indeed, the center of a loose confederation of polities that worked together for the purpose of self defense. Of course, predictably, given Mesoamericanâ??s history, this polity eventually grew to control these other polities as well, but at the beginning of its power cycle, it did appear to be the center of a loose confederation of polities. That polity is Monte Alban, and is actually quite close to the general region suggested for the BoM. So it seems to me that taking a closer look at Monte Alban could help us to learn what kind of polity could function as this sort of regional capital. The following information is obtained from Ancient Mesoamerica â?? A Comparison of Change in Three Regions by Blanton, Kowalewski, Feinman and Finsten.

During the Middle Formative period, the Guadalupe phase (850-600 BC) and the Rosario phase (600-500 BC), there were roughly seventy known settlements, and fewer than ten of those contain evidence for civic-ceremonial structures. These can be divided into two tiers, with San Jose Mogote at the top, which was â??tens of hectares in extent and had a wide array of different nonresidential structures. The second tier was composed of several sites that were less than ten hectares in size and that featured more modest public architecture. All other sites were three hectares in size or smaller, and contained no evidence of public architecture that can be dated securely to the Rosario phase.â?

There is some uncertainty as to the exact political relationship between these polities at this point in time, but there is evidence that â??San Jose Mogote may have served, for at least part of the region, some of the same functions that were carried out at Monte Alban beginning in Monte Alban I. Evidence for this is a carved stone called a Danzante, that was uncovered at San Jose Mogote and that resembles the Danzantes from Monte Alban. This monument depicts a man, naked and in a contorted position, who appears to be a slain or sacrificed captive. The monument was positioned at the threshold of a corridor running between two large public buildings, so that anyone passing through the structure would tread on it. It thus seems likely that similar sacrificial and/or military activities were commemorated at the valleyâ??s largest centers in both the Rosario phase and Monte Alban I. The efficient coordination and management of these activities at the regional level may have been one important factor fostering the development of a valley-wide political institution centered at Monte Alban.â?

So far this sounds hopeful for the BoM. San Jose Mogote was not a state but a chiefdom. But how far did its influence extend? These polities that joined in a confederation, that eventually created Monte Alban were situated in the Valley of Oaxaca, roughly 1,500 square kilometers.

Once again we have to refer to Sorensonâ??s suggested map to get an idea of the rough square kilometers that would be included in the Nephite â??confederation.â? Even easier, we can just refer to a FAIR article which states:

The Limited Geography Theory (or LGT) is a non-traditional interpretation of the text, but one that has gained wide acceptance among the Book of Mormon scholars and readers over the last 60 years.[1] It is based on a close reading of the text, which indicates that the lands inhabited by the Lehites could be traversed on foot in only a few weeks, making the area no larger than present-day California.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_ge...eography_Theory

California has roughly 423,970 square kilometers. I was much more generous with my estimated 120,700 square kilometers (75,000 square miles). Using FAIRâ??s estimate, the region over which Zarahemla served as a regional capital as San Jose Mogote and the later Monte Alban did, was 282 times the size of the San Jose Mogote region.

So we do know, from Monte Alban/San Jose Mogote, that it is possible for a chiefdom with two tiers of hierarchical settlements to serve as a regional capital for a region of 1,500 square kilometers. It defies reason to suggest that a similar chiefdom could serve as a regional capital for a region of 423,970 square kilometers.