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

[Brant Gardner]

Aside from disputes about how much the king controlled the economy, this was an agricultural based society wherein individuals largely provided for themselves through gardening and hunting. Of course royalty would always eat better than the underclass, particularly in terms of access to meat, but that doesn't mean the underclass was actually starving, except in times of actual drought, which would affect the entire community. That isn't the situation described in the BoM. In the BoM, during times of general economic well-being in the society, there was still a starving underclass.

Please note that what you are suggesting is that there is a class that is defined by hungry and naked, not individuals who might be so described. I do not know where you read that from. Here are some examples from the text:

(Jacob 2:19) 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 do goodâ??to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

(Mosiah 4:26) And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto youâ??that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before Godâ??I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

(Alma 1:30) And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

Notice that while all of these speak of the hungry and naked, they also speak of other categories at the same time, treating them as equivalent. While it is entirely possible for individuals to be hungry or naked (in an agricultural society, one person's crops could be devastated by some natural disaster while others remained unaffected), they are not a class any more than there is a social class of "the sick." These admonitions are about individuals and do not support the idea that there was a poor/hungry/naked class. The entire argument is built upon an interesting but unsupportable reading the text, then extrapolating that reading into a problem because it should have been a problem.

[Chronos]

Tone it down, lostindc.

~Chronos

[lostindc]

Tone it down, lostindc.

~Chronos

Sorry, I will not post in this thread anymore

[Hashbaz]

I originally was a little hesitant in referring to you throwing scholars such as Demarest and Coe under the bus, but I see my hesitation was unwarranted.

That's just how we archaeologists roll.

You will not name the Mesoamericanist who is more prominent than Demarest who has asserted that Demarest has â??lost itâ?, so all have is your interpretation of his comments

In fairness, I once heard another scholar (I'll call her Scholar B ) say that the particular Mesoamericanist I mentioned above (I'll call him Scholar A) had said some things that were "out there" earlier in his career. I later heard a different scholar (Scholar C) say of Scholar B's inexperience, "she still needs some seasoning in the field". In other words, everybody in the field seems to thinks everybody else is a crackpot at one level or another. As to the comment that Demarest has "lost it", it was, ironically, in a conversation regarding Demarest's public admission that he is a difussionist. I say ironically because this statement from Demarest goes against you in the debate you had with Brant earlier in the thread. Says Demarest:

"Within orthodox academics there are a lot of people who simply dismiss the argument out of hand on the ground that the mechanics of overseas diffusion themselves are too difficult. But there are others -- and I put myself in that group -- who don't doubt there's been contact. I don't think that the transport problems are such that they prevented people from moving between continents. What we doubt is the transformative impact of ephemeral contact. These visitors, whoever and wherever they were, simply didn't transform the societies they found here."

So if you feel inclined to defend Demarest, please defend the views he expressed in the above quote. That there was transoceanic contact. That those who came over did not transform the larger Mesoamerican culture (as you demand that they must). Nephite polities were not major players in the larger Mesoamerican system.

Coe, likewise, has gone diffusionist. In the first six editions of his book "The Maya" he held strictly to the Bering Strait theory for the populating of the Americas around 14,000 BC. In his seventh and most recent edition (2005), he adds

"boats must have been available to the peoples of Eurasia...The presence or absence of a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska is thus not necessarily relevant to the problem, for the first Americans may well have taken a maritime route" (p. 41)

I also have in my possession a personal letter from Coe to John Sorenson where he says he can no longer deny trans-oceanic contact. So by all means, keep citing Coe.

Anyone who wants to get an idea of how bogglingly complex the ancient political landscape was in ancient Mesoamerica should download the following map.

http://mayagis.smv.org/1MM%20Master%20Map%...%20NOV%2008.pdf

or go to http://mayagis.smv.org/maps_of_the_maya_area.htm and scroll down and click the "Very Large Maya map" link.

It's a massive file, but worth the wait. The more you enlarge it, more and more sites appear. There are thousands upon thousands of sites on this map, and these are just the ones we've taken the time to name (and we've only excavated a few dozen of them, and of those, we've only done limited excavation. There are no sites that have been completely excavated). Each polity was essentially an independent player, with it's own rulers, gods, and religions. To deny that there were Nephites because they didn't leave an impact on the larger civilization is naive. There were thousands of cities there, most of which never had any impact on each other. Only two major players in the Classic period (AD 250-900), Tikal and Calakmul, had what could be considered "widespread" influence. That, of course, does not mean that Palenque or Copan never existed (or any of the other thousands of sites). What it means is that Palenque and Copan, like 99.99% of other sites, did not have widespread influence on the larger Mesoamerican culture. To demand that Nephites did, based on a narrow reading of the text, is unfounded.

[cdowis]

The problem with these statements are that they also apply with equal, if not greater, force to the fitting of the BoM narrative to the mesoamerican setting.

You are absolutely correct.

We suggest mesoamerica for two basic reasons, we can virtually eliminate other locations which do not have the same level of technology suggested by the BOM civilization, and the description of the geography also fits mesoamerica (more or less).

Again, it seems that the core of beastie's argument is that the Nephite culture described in the BoM should have left an influence of fairly large significance on the surrounding mesoamerican culture for which we should be able to find evidence today.

Beastie's argument is based on faulty logic. The BOM describes towers used in religion, extensive writing, a knowledge of astronomy, a complex religious structure, the use of cement in buildings, extensive fortifications, etc. Do we find these things in mesoamerica (relative to other areas in the Americas)

Beastie says "I think, I assume, I suppose, I opine" and "I do not find what *I* expect to find". She is basing her conclusions on insufficient data, basically vapor and smoke, on expert opinion which can change with new discoveries. Do you really think that archeologists will have the same opinions in fifty years that they have today? And if we were to find a hidden cache of written records, do you suppose that would have no effect on how we view the religion, politics, etc?

Many of her conclusions cannot be independently verified without a written history, written records, which describe ideas, concepts, and other things which can only be speculated thru PHYSICAL artifacts.

I asked many times, and will ask again, how do you identify a jade necklace on whether it was Nephite, Lamanite, or something else. We have a physical artifact, and how do you identify its pedigree?

Would that evidence consist of adaptation of judeo-christian themes or beliefs? old world technology or social structures? the absence of conflicting mesoamerican traditions with those consistent with the Nephite culture described?

The BOM text tells us that there were many traditions, many religions, which are not described in the BOM. The cartoon version of the BOM sez only Christianity, the real BOM mentions many conflicting religions.

snip

[Nomad]

Hashbaz:

Anyone who wants to get an idea of how bogglingly complex the ancient political landscape was in ancient Mesoamerica should download the following map.

http://mayagis.smv.org/1MM%20Master%20Map%...%20NOV%2008.pdf

or go to http://mayagis.smv.org/maps_of_the_maya_area.htm and scroll down and click the "Very Large Maya map" link.

It's a massive file, but worth the wait. The more you enlarge it, more and more sites appear. There are thousands upon thousands of sites on this map, and these are just the ones we've taken the time to name (and we've only excavated a few dozen of them, and of those, we've only done limited excavation. There are no sites that have been completely excavated). Each polity was essentially an independent player, with it's own rulers, gods, and religions. To deny that there were Nephites because they didn't leave an impact on the larger civilization is naive. There were thousands of cities there, most of which never had any impact on each other. Only two major players in the Classic period (AD 250-900), Tikal and Calakmul, had what could be considered "widespread" influence. That, of course, does not mean that Palenque or Copan never existed (or any of the other thousands of sites). What it means is that Palenque and Copan, like 99.99% of other sites, did not have widespread influence on the larger Mesoamerican culture. To demand that Nephites did, based on a narrow reading of the text, is unfounded.

Wow! Wow!

Folks, this is, quite simply, the most ad rem statement thus far on this thread. (And the map puts it all in stark relief.)

Anyone in 2009 who presumes to make authoritative blanket statements concerning the nature of the ancient Mesoamerican political landscape is operating at the acme of na

[Anijen]

Hashbaz:

Wow! Wow!

Folks, this is, quite simply, the most ad rem statement thus far on this thread. (And the map puts it all in stark relief.)

Anyone in 2009 who presumes to make authoritative blanket statements concerning the nature of the ancient Mesoamerican political landscape is operating at the acme of na

[Nomad]

I am excited for Hashbaz. It almost makes me want to go back and change my major to Mesoamerican studies. BTW does Hashbaz have a specific meaning?

As I understand it in this particular context, it means "Man who is hurrying with all his might to finish his dissertation so that he can get down to the real business of uncovering buried treasures."

See here.

[cdowis]

Well, this is interesting. I originally was a little hesitant in referring to you throwing scholars such as Demarest and Coe under the bus, but I see my hesitation was unwarranted. BTW, I don’t think anyone’s work is “beyond reproach”, and of course recognize that there is healthy debate about many things. I deliberately chose statements that, in my experience, fairly reflect the consensus of respected Mesoamerican scholars. If you can demonstrate how those exact statements are erroneous or untrustworthy, then, by all means, do so.

You will not name the Mesoamericanist who is more prominent than Demarest who has asserted that Demarest has “lost it”, so all have is your interpretation of his comments.

etc etc etc

It's all about the experts, who is throwing whom under the bus, who is the "most respected" scholar, "healthy debate", "beyond reproach", etc

I understand the difference between fact and opinion/speculation/assertion/ even from "respected experts". In 50 years facts do not change, the artifacts still exist, but the interpretation of those artifacts can indeed change dramatically.

[Honorentheos]

So if you feel inclined to defend Demarest, please defend the views he expressed in the above quote. That there was transoceanic contact. That those who came over did not transform the larger Mesoamerican culture (as you demand that they must). Nephite polities were not major players in the larger Mesoamerican system.

What constitutes ephemeral contact in Demarest's description? Wouldn't the Nephites, in establishing permanent habitation of some population size effective enough to be considered a nation of some sort and carry out the battles described in the text be more perennial? Without reading the rest of the background to the quote, this stands out as a key question when these researchers indicate there was transoceanic travel.

Anyone who wants to get an idea of how bogglingly complex the ancient political landscape was in ancient Mesoamerica should download the following map.

http://mayagis.smv.org/1MM%20Master%20Map%...%20NOV%2008.pdf

or go to http://mayagis.smv.org/maps_of_the_maya_area.htm and scroll down and click the "Very Large Maya map" link.

It's a massive file, but worth the wait. The more you enlarge it, more and more sites appear. There are thousands upon thousands of sites on this map, and these are just the ones we've taken the time to name (and we've only excavated a few dozen of them, and of those, we've only done limited excavation. There are no sites that have been completely excavated). Each polity was essentially an independent player, with it's own rulers, gods, and religions. To deny that there were Nephites because they didn't leave an impact on the larger civilization is naive. There were thousands of cities there, most of which never had any impact on each other. Only two major players in the Classic period (AD 250-900), Tikal and Calakmul, had what could be considered "widespread" influence. That, of course, does not mean that Palenque or Copan never existed (or any of the other thousands of sites). What it means is that Palenque and Copan, like 99.99% of other sites, did not have widespread influence on the larger Mesoamerican culture. To demand that Nephites did, based on a narrow reading of the text, is unfounded.

Perhaps you and Brant could each contribute to putting together a list of sorts that describes the specific items in the BoM narrative that are not only supported by a Mesoamerican setting, but would preclude any other setting for the BoM?

[cdowis]

Perhaps you and Brant could each contribute to putting together a list of sorts that describes the specific items in the BoM narrative that are not only supported by a Mesoamerican setting, but would preclude any other setting for the BoM?

This is truly a silly request since we make no claim to prove the BOM thru archeology.

Christ could have appeared to Caesar, Pilate, the Sandedrian, if He chose to do so. That is not how things work in the spiritual realm. That is something between you and the Lord, and that is your responsibility. Each of us will be held individually accountable for our decision regarding the BOM.

My choice to participate in these discussions is to demonstrate the logical flaws in the arguments of the BOM critics.

[Nomad]

Honorentheos:

What constitutes ephemeral contact in Demarest's description?

He gives his apparent definition immediately following the "ephemeral contact" reference:

"These visitors, whoever and wherever they were, simply didn't transform the societies they found here."

So, for Demarest, "ephemeral contact" means simply any infusion that did not succeed in transforming the already-present societies they encountered.

This, of course, leads to the much more relevant question of how much influence would have been required to "transform" those societies. beastie (and you, apparently) would have us believe that the Book of Mormon describes such a polity. Therefore you would have us believe that a shipload of immigrants, numbering two or three dozen people, landed on the shores of Mesoamerica, found themselves a relatively isolated pocket in which to settle and grow for a few hundred years, reached their apex of size and power between about 100 B.C. and 300 A.D. -- at which time they could not have numbered any more than perhaps one or two million total people -- and then were essentially obliterated by groups around them that were always described as being far greater in number than the Nephites themselves.

This polity you describe, in the context of what we know of Mesoamerica, would not only have been up against an impossible task in attempting to "transform the societies they found here," but also to have left a substantially discernible mark after they were gone, especially considering the time in which they lived. We still know next to nothing about that time period in Mesoamerica. The overwhelming majority of the field work has focused on the more monumentally-oriented societies of the Classic onward. The smaller, more egalitarian and agriculturally-oriented Preclassic sites are routinely ignored because they hold so little promise of the kinds of monumental finds for which museums pay a premium.

[beastie]

Brant

Please note that what you are suggesting is that there is a class that is defined by hungry and naked, not individuals who might be so described. I do not know where you read that from. Here are some examples from the text:

And

Notice that while all of these speak of the hungry and naked, they also speak of other categories at the same time, treating them as equivalent. While it is entirely possible for individuals to be hungry or naked (in an agricultural society, one person's crops could be devastated by some natural disaster while others remained unaffected), they are not a class any more than there is a social class of "the sick." These admonitions are about individuals and do not support the idea that there was a poor/hungry/naked class. The entire argument is built upon an interesting but unsupportable reading the text, then extrapolating that reading into a problem because it should have been a problem.

Since Iâ??m posting this information in parts, I hadnâ??t quite gotten to this part, from Alma chapter 32:

1 And it came to pass that they did go forth, and began to preach the word of God unto the people, entering into their synagogues, and into their houses; yea, and even they did preach the word in their streets.

2 And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparelâ??

3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.

4 Now, as Alma was teaching and speaking unto the people upon the hill Onidah, there came a great multitude unto him, who were those of whom we have been speaking, of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world.

5 And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially by our priests; for they have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do?

[beastie]

Cdowis:

Of course", "I think", "it just does not fit (my concept of )mesoamerica".

Thanks for giving us your opinions on the matter. In case you had not noticed, there are no written records from this time period, so you opinions are based on very thin evidence.

I do know the difference between fact and speculation/opinion/guesses.

Beastie, it does not matter what YOU think, it does not matter that EVERY archeologist agrees with your opinions, it only matters what is FACT. Without these written records, we are almost blind when we speak in ****general*** terms of an agricultural society, where you make GENERAL CONCLUSIONS, applying them to a SPECIFIC time period and culture.

I see that you are having some difficulty graspinmg that concept. You throw out names and opinions as if it they were actual facts. I am not impressed.

First, satisfy my curiosity. If you had never intended to even recognize, much less respond to, evidence of early Mesoamerican human sacrifice, why did you bother to ask for the evidence?

Second, given your reasoning, then I should be able to, without any protest from you, postulate any theory about ancient Mesoamerica. I can postulate, for example, that Moon aliens dressed like quakers visited the ancient Mesoamericans and taught them how to build pyramids.

Simply because everything canâ??t be known is no justification for pretending that all theories are equally plausible.

[beastie]

As to the question of divine kingship, I have no doubt that the Maya practiced it. But I also see evidence for divine kingship all over the Book of Mormon. I reject the concept of the shaman-king, as does virtually every other Mesoamericanist other than David Freidel (see 'The Role of Shamanism in Mesoamerican Art' by Klein et al 2002 for a scathing critique). Divine kings are typically those who have a pedigree that traces back to a culture hero/dynastic founder, they interact with supernatural beings, act as intermediaries between their people and the gods, often by means of blood sacrifice, who receive a new name upon taking the throne (typically that of a celestial deity), and who will be deified after death because they are descended from gods themselves. We need only turn to King Benjamin, a man who has to reinforce his humanity to his people, a man who interacted with supernatural beings (he told his people that he was merely repeating the message that was given to him by an angel), he was descended from Nephi (the culture hero/dynastic founder/deified ancestor), and when his people are convinced by his message they cry out to him, not to God, to "apply the atoning blood" (Mosiah 4:2-3) that they might be forgiven. Benjamin, on the day of his son Mosiah's accession, wants to disabuse his people of the divine kingship mentality. He gives them all a divine pedigree that day - they become "children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters" because he had spiritually begotten them, and they were given a new name, the name of Christ (their Celestial deity), and they are all set on the trajectory to the glorious afterlife. In my view, the curious case of Benjamin buttons the Book of Mormon into Mesoamerica (sorry for the pun). The murals of San Bartolo depict the progress to divine kingship in a way that should resonate with temple Mormons. It begins in the paradise of creation, continues with scenes of sacrifice, progresses to scenes of resurrection, and ultimately depicts the enthronement of a divine king. The murals date to the first century BC, the time of King Benjamin. I am not saying the murals have anything to do with Benjamin; but I'm saying Benjamin's words and his people's reaction fit much more plausibly within a larger Mesoamerican population than Beastie seems to understand.

First, whether or not the king can fairly be called a shaman is a peripheral point. It is one of those details that isnâ??t particularly crucial to my case. Second, I know that you are incorrect that â??virtually every other Mesoamericanistâ? other than Friedel rejects the case for shaman-king because Iâ??ve read other Mesoamericanists referring to the same concept. Perhaps you were engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

Aside from that, this summary you offer:

Divine kings are typically those who have a pedigree that traces back to a culture hero/dynastic founder, they interact with supernatural beings, act as intermediaries between their people and the gods, often by means of blood sacrifice, who receive a new name upon taking the throne (typically that of a celestial deity), and who will be deified after death because they are descended from gods themselves.

is perfectly satisfactory for my case.

As far as King Benjamin â?? sure, you can make the case that the anti-kingship tone of the BoM could fit for a community rebelling against divine kingship, but an equally strong case can be made that the anti-kingship tone in the BoM could also fit for nineteenth century America.

Perhaps you, unlike Brant, will actually respond to some of the BoM verses Iâ??ve shared that demonstrate an advanced polity. Iâ??m particularly interested in how you deal with the verses that explicitly demonstrate that the Nephites were governed by a strict set of laws that were enforced by a formal hierarchy.

[Honorentheos]

Honorentheos:

He gives his apparent definition immediately following the "ephemeral contact" reference:

So, for Demarest, "ephemeral contact" means simply any infusion that did not succeed in transforming the already-present societies they encountered.

I don't think this is the case; otherwise he used the wrong word.

ephemeral -

â??adjective 1. lasting a very short time; short-lived; transitory: the ephemeral joys of childhood.

2. lasting but one day: an ephemeral flower.

â??noun 3. anything short-lived, as certain insects

There has to be more to his description for this to make sense.

[beastie]

That's just how we archaeologists roll.

I see.

In fairness, I once heard another scholar (I'll call her Scholar B ) say that the particular Mesoamericanist I mentioned above (I'll call him Scholar A) had said some things that were "out there" earlier in his career. I later heard a different scholar (Scholar C) say of Scholar B's inexperience, "she still needs some seasoning in the field". In other words, everybody in the field seems to thinks everybody else is a crackpot at one level or another. As to the comment that Demarest has "lost it", it was, ironically, in a conversation regarding Demarest's public admission that he is a difussionist. I say ironically because this statement from Demarest goes against you in the debate you had with Brant earlier in the thread. Says Demarest:

Well, my goodness. I am almost speechless, which is quite a feat. I do appreciate you sharing this crucial detail first omitted from your rendition.

First, I have no idea which debate you’re referring to in which Demarest’s openness to diffusionism “goes against me”. Of course I’m aware that he, and Coe are both open to transoceanic contact. It’s not some deep, dark secret. But I’m now wondering if you understand the case I’ve been building at all. I’m not arguing against the possibility of transoceanic contact. I think it’s possible. I’m also not arguing against the possibility of a very small group of immigrants being completely subsumed within the larger culture to the point of leaving no trace of their existence. Of course that is possible as well. So how Coe and Demarest’s position on diffusionism “goes against me” is, well, beyond me. But the fact that you were willing to use the “lost it” comment without sharing the crucial detail on what, exactly, the Mesoamericanist had thought Demarest “lost it” about is a bit troubling, much like you quoting Friedel in saying that Forest King was obsolete, without recognizing that the quote I offered was about the nature of kingship, and Friedel would obviously not agree that particular statement of his was obsolete.

So if you feel inclined to defend Demarest, please defend the views he expressed in the above quote. That there was transoceanic contact. That those who came over did not transform the larger Mesoamerican culture (as you demand that they must). Nephite polities were not major players in the larger Mesoamerican system.

I bolded the crux of the argument. It’s not enough for you, and Brant, to simply assert and reassert that the Nephites were a minor, insignificant polity. You need to engage with the text to explain how that could be so given some of the details shared in the text. Start with the verses that assert that the Nephites were governed by strict laws, enforced by a formal hierarchy. I have pages and pages of other verses to share as well.

I also have in my possession a personal letter from Coe to John Sorenson where he says he can no longer deny trans-oceanic contact. So by all means, keep citing Coe.

For heaven’s sake, Coe admitted as much in his book The Maya. Like I said, hardly a deep, dark secret that had to be revealed in email. Where did you get the idea that I was arguing against the possibility of transoceanic contact?

It's a massive file, but worth the wait. The more you enlarge it, more and more sites appear. There are thousands upon thousands of sites on this map, and these are just the ones we've taken the time to name (and we've only excavated a few dozen of them, and of those, we've only done limited excavation. There are no sites that have been completely excavated). Each polity was essentially an independent player, with it's own rulers, gods, and religions. To deny that there were Nephites because they didn't leave an impact on the larger civilization is naive. There were thousands of cities there, most of which never had any impact on each other. Only two major players in the Classic period (AD 250-900), Tikal and Calakmul, had what could be considered "widespread" influence. That, of course, does not mean that Palenque or Copan never existed (or any of the other thousands of sites). What it means is that Palenque and Copan, like 99.99% of other sites, did not have widespread influence on the larger Mesoamerican culture. To demand that Nephites did, based on a narrow reading of the text, is unfounded.

Do you deny that the precociously developed polities had an impact on the evolution of the overall Mesoamerican worldview?

Once again, if my reading of the text is "narrow", I invite you to offer a more coherent interpretation of these verses I'm sharing. Start with the verses that assert that the Nephites were governed by a strict set of laws, enforced by a formal hierarchy.

[beastie]

This is truly a silly request since we make no claim to prove the BOM thru archeology.

Christ could have appeared to Caesar, Pilate, the Sandedrian, if He chose to do so. That is not how things work in the spiritual realm. That is something between you and the Lord, and that is your responsibility. Each of us will be held individually accountable for our decision regarding the BOM.

My choice to participate in these discussions is to demonstrate the logical flaws in the arguments of the BOM critics.

You are conflating the spiritual claims with the temporal claims in the BoM.

One can accept, for example, that there is good historical and archaeological evidence supporting the ancient Israelite origin of the Bible without accepting the spiritual claims contained therein. What we are debating here is whether or not there is good historical and archaeological evidence supporting the ancient Mesoamerican origin of the BoM, not its spiritual claims.

[Honorentheos]

This is truly a silly request since we make no claim to prove the BOM thru archeology.

One has to consider my last post, cdowis, to understand the request. If the BoM narrative is so maellable that it can be overlaid onto any culture and there will be matches, debating the location or the reality of the BoM narrative seems to become pointless. What that means will, I suppose, end up being the choice of the individual and fall back on their particular worldview as it pertains to the truth claims of the BoM.

On the otherhand, portions of the BoM narrative that ONLY fit into the mesoamerican context and no where else (including the mind of 19th century JS), then LGT takes on a significant relevance.

Most of the current debate revolves around points that lend themselves to confabulation. The mind is very adept at constructing connections and finding plausiblity where there is an underlying, limbic "sense" that the point being validated it true.

Getting to facts like mesoamerican-only contexts within the BoM force the discussion away from the will and into the objective.

My choice to participate in these discussions is to demonstrate the logical flaws in the arguments of the BOM criticmalleables.

I would hope, as you read my post above, that you would see the reality of any mesoamerican-only points in the narrative as helping your choosen aim. On the otherhand, the lack of these mesoamerican-only points suggests arguments like this will will last for quite a while, going nowhere.

[beastie]

continuing sharing BoM verses that describe the Nephite/Lamanite polities

The story of the Mulekites themselves also provide evidence of what would be a precociously developed polity for the time period in Mosiah 11:

8 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;

9 And he also built him a spacious palace, and a throne in the midst thereof, all of which was of fine wood and was ornamented with gold and silver and with precious things.

10 And he also caused that his workmen should work all manner of fine work within the walls of the temple, of fine wood, and of copper, and of brass.

11 And the seats which were set apart for the high priests, which were above all the other seats, he did ornament with pure gold; and he caused a breastwork to be built before them, that they might rest their bodies and their arms upon while they should speak lying and vain words to his people.

12 And it came to pass that he built a tower near the temple; yea, a very high tower, even so high that he could stand upon the top thereof and overlook the land of Shilom, and also the land of Shemlon, which was possessed by the Lamanites; and he could even look over all the land round about.

13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom, which had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land; and thus he did do with the riches which he obtained by the taxation of his people.

Not only do we see signs of a socially complex polity by the fact that Noah built many public buildings, but also in that there was a priest class. So already we see signs of at least three polities that would be considered quite socially complex and likely powerful for that time period: the Nephites themselves, the Lamanites, and the Mulekites. All of these people shared a common origin story associated with Judaism and Israel. We see evidence that the Mulekites adhered to a form of Judaism in Mosiah 12:

17 And it came to pass that king Noah caused that Abinadi should be cast into prison; and he commanded that the priests should gather themselves together that he might hold a council with them what he should do with him.

18 And it came to pass that they said unto the king: Bring him hither that we may question him; and the king commanded that he should be brought before them.

19 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words.

20 And it came to pass that one of them said unto him: What meaneth the words which are written, and which have been taught by our fathers, saying:

21 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings; that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good; that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth;

22 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion;

23 Break forth into joy; sing together ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem;

24 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God?

25 And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean?

26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord.

27 Ye have not applied your hearts to understanding; therefore, ye have not been wise. Therefore, what teach ye this people?

28 And they said: We teach the law of Moses.

29 And again he said unto them: If ye teach the law of Moses why do ye not keep it? Why do ye set your hearts upon riches? Why do ye commit whoredoms and spend your strength with harlots, yea, and cause this people to commit sin, that the Lord has cause to send me to prophesy against this people, yea, even a great evil against this people?

We learn more about the powerful Lamanite polity in Mosiah 24:

1 AND it came to pass that Amulon did gain favor in the eyes of the king of the Lamanites; therefore, the king of the Lamanites granted unto him and his brethren that they should be appointed teachers over his people, yea, even over the people who were in the land of Shemlon, and in the land of Shilom, and in the land of Amulon.

2 For the Lamanites had taken possession of all these lands; therefore, the king of the Lamanites had appointed kings over all these lands.

3 And now the name of the king of the Lamanites was Laman, being called after the name of his father; and therefore he was called king Laman. And he was king over a numerous people.

Yes, indeed, this was an incredibly powerful king over an immense polity. Of course, weâ??ll hear more about this incredibly powerful king later.

[beastie]

On the otherhand, portions of the BoM narrative that ONLY fit into the mesoamerican context and no where else (including the mind of 19th century JS), then LGT takes on a significant relevance.

I've been having these sort of discussions for literally years, and I've yet to see one piece of BoM narrative that could ONLY fit the mesoamerican context. But perhaps someone will finally step up to that bat on this thread.

What is offered as "hits" is usually hopelessly generic, or equally applicable to nineteenth century Americans (see: opposition to kingships)

[beastie]

This time period is interesting because of the implementation of the judges versus kingship. This is, of course, completely opposite what was occurring in ancient Mesoamerican at this time period. Brant is correct in positing that some polities were experimenting with kingship, and obviously polities were at different places in their social development, anyway. So my point isn’t that each and every polity in Mesoamerica had to show signs of Holy Lordism, but rather that the most powerful polities in Mesoamerica were the very ones who influenced the Holy Lord trend of the entire region, and if equally powerful polities of the time period were actually implementing a Judeo-Christian alternative, we would reasonably expect to see that influence in the Mesoamerican worldview as well. We begin to learn about the judge system in Mosiah 29:

11 Therefore I will be your king the remainder of my days; nevertheless, let us appoint judges, to judge this people according to our law; and we will newly arrange the affairs of this people, for we will appoint wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God.

25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

28 And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law which has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge.

29 If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people.

38 Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.

39 Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.

Whether or not this describe a democracy as we would conceive it today, clearly some sort of polling was taking place that was not merely symbolic. We can see this in the reference to “the lesser part of the people”, which indicates an actual polling. Of course this is in complete opposition to Holy Lordism, but another reason these verses are important is because of the information it provides regarding the government of the Nephites. They were governed by a strict set of laws, and had a hierarchy developed to enforce those laws, complete with a system of appeals. Once again, this fits quite well the definition of state I shared long ago from Michael Coe (from my website):

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpower.htm

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.

[The state]: A special function institution of some stratified societies that legitimizes stratification through governing bodies, laws, and police structures to maintain internal order and control class conflict.

We learn more about this governmental system in Alma, chapter 1:

1 NOW it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, from this time forward, king Mosiah having gone the way of all the earth, having warred a good warfare, walking uprightly before God, leaving none to reign in his stead; nevertheless he had established laws, and they were acknowledged by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the laws which he had made.

14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.

The power of execution, encoded in a formed set of laws, also sounds typical of the power of state.

In the same chapter, we learn that the previously noted social stratification continues, as does their alternative means of dealing with it:

27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.

28 And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions.

29 And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.

30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

31 And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy than those who did not belong to their church.

32 For those who did not belong to their church did indulge themselves in sorceries, and in idolatry or idleness, and in babblings, and in envyings and strife; wearing costly apparel; being lifted up in the pride of their own eyes; persecuting, lying, thieving, robbing, committing whoredoms, and murdering, and all manner of wickedness; nevertheless, the law was put in force upon all those who did transgress it, inasmuch as it was possible.

33 And it came to pass that by thus exercising the law upon them, every man suffering according to that which he had done, they became more still, and durst not commit any wickedness if it were known; therefore, there was much peace among the people of Nephi until the fifth year of the reign of the judges.

Here again we see social classes, including a seemingly permanent underclass that requires charity and attention. We also see the importance of the law in governance.

We learn more about the how the “voice of the people” functions in Alma 2:

1 AND it came to pass in the commencement of the *fifth year of their reign there began to be a contention among the people; for a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world, he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword, who was executed according to the law—

2 Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people.

3 Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people.

4 Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God.

5 And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.

6 And thus they did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges.

7 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people.

Again, there was obviously some sort of direct polling going on, given the efforts of each side to persuade the people.

In the same chapter, we learn more about governance and armed forces:

12 Therefore the people of the Nephites were aware of the intent of the Amlicites, and therefore they did prepare to meet them; yea, they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows, and with stones, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons of war, of every kind.

13 And thus they were prepared to meet the Amlicites at the time of their coming. And there were appointed captains, and higher captains, and chief captains, according to their numbers.

14 And it came to pass that Amlici did arm his men with all manner of weapons of war of every kind; and he also appointed rulers and leaders over his people, to lead them to war against their brethren.

15 And it came to pass that the Amlicites came upon the hill Amnihu, which was east of the river Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla, and there they began to make war with the Nephites.

16 Now Alma, being the chief judge and the governor of the people of Nephi, therefore he went up with his people, yea, with his captains, and chief captains, yea, at the head of his armies, against the Amlicites to battle.

We learn here that the armies on both sides were massive enough to require a hierarchy to manage, and we learn that being chief judge and governor also entailed heading the armies.

We learn something extremely important in Alma 3: what does the term “Nephite” mean?

11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—

12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

Contrary to what apologists assert or imply, the term Nephite does not just mean a political ally: it means people who believed the records brought out of Jerusalem and the tradition of their fathers. This explains why even apostate groups adhere to some form of Judaism and refer to Jewish scriptures. This is particularly important in combination with later verses that define the Nephite region, from Alma 22:

27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.

30 And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.

Again, I invite readers to go to my previously linked website to see a map that shows this region. Compare it to a map of the general region of Mesoamerica, and you will understand my point: the Nephite region encompasses a significant percentage of Mesoamerica. Also remember that we were just informed as to the definition of Nephite “used from that time forth”.

[Honorentheos]

I've been having these sort of discussions for literally years, and I've yet to see one piece of BoM narrative that could ONLY fit the mesoamerican context. But perhaps someone will finally step up to that bat on this thread.

What is offered as "hits" is usually hopelessly generic, or equally applicable to nineteenth century Americans (see: opposition to kingships)

Given the high expectation on new research we were privy to witness today, perhaps we can hope for more.

[beastie]

This, of course, leads to the much more relevant question of how much influence would have been required to "transform" those societies. beastie (and you, apparently) would have us believe that the Book of Mormon describes such a polity. Therefore you would have us believe that a shipload of immigrants, numbering two or three dozen people, landed on the shores of Mesoamerica, found themselves a relatively isolated pocket in which to settle and grow for a few hundred years, reached their apex of size and power between about 100 B.C. and 300 A.D. -- at which time they could not have numbered any more than perhaps one or two million total people -- and then were essentially obliterated by groups around them that were always described as being far greater in number than the Nephites themselves.

This polity you describe, in the context of what we know of Mesoamerica, would not only have been up against an impossible task in attempting to "transform the societies they found here," but also to have left a substantially discernible mark after they were gone, especially considering the time in which they lived. We still know next to nothing about that time period in Mesoamerica. The overwhelming majority of the field work has focused on the more monumentally-oriented societies of the Classic onward. The smaller, more egalitarian and agriculturally-oriented Preclassic sites are routinely ignored because they hold so little promise of the kinds of monumental finds for which museums pay a premium.

No wonder we're talking past one another. You seem to think "one or two million people" could have been a minor, insignificant polity in Mesoamerica.

Just for comparative purposes, the population of Teotihuacan was estimated to be around 200,000.

[Anijen]

I've been having these sort of discussions for literally years, and I've yet to see one piece of BoM narrative that could ONLY fit the mesoamerican context. But perhaps someone will finally step up to that bat on this thread.

Well Hashbaz will soon have his doctorate, Gardner has a Masters in Anthropology and is a dissertation away from a PhD, Nomad is a pundit and very well respected poster with much too add on this subject, all have tried to penetrate the armour of your myopic view. Perhaps its not their weakness for not seeing your point but perhaps its the weakness of your point. Your idea that there just absolutely must be a huge polity coming out of the BoM people and its influence should be felt throughout all of Mesoamerica and that we should be able to see it through archaeology and because we cant, you use this as a gotcha.

I agree that any people should leave remnants of their life I guess the major problem is recognising those remnants as Nephites or Lamanites or any ites from the Mayan people. They would eat the same food, use the same language, have the same problems and discuss the same weather. The only way I could really tell is from epigraphy and iconography (FAMSI has some excellent links) and even still we need to still distinguish the writing stelae, pot shards etc the Nephite from Mayan a not so simple task. Hashbaz in his link to that dreadfully long downloaded map but well worth the wait, has kindled excitement and there is so much not yet unexcavated and studied, it is literally a sliver in a forest of kings redwoods.

I guess beastie all I am saying is add a little patience and perhaps endeavor to widen your view to give these [LDS] experts some wiggle room. I think you will find it in the very least plausible. After just finishing up Forest of Kings and to find out it is out dated one would think great that was a waste of time but I found it refreshing and has roused some renewed curiosity for this field which seems like we find something new every time I turn on the computer.

Anijen who hopes this thread continues for a long time.