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

[Anijen]

Omni 1: 20

And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

hmmm large stone with engravings on it (and no beastie I am not saying they took a stelae to the king).

[Brant Gardner]

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.

1) Not Nephite. Describe specifically as an aberrant city.

2) There was a poor class, but it doesn't mention anything about hungry or naked. The differentiator is the fineness of clothing. I assume that you are aware that clothing was a marker of status in Mesoamerica? Note that the issue that Alma has is in the social stratification, not in the fact of being poor.

3) You have taken a description that fits very well with the descriptions of social hierarchies and their definitions in Mesoamerica and somehow assumed that it supports your idea that they were, anachronously, hungry and naked (odd, since it specifically describes the problem with their clothing, not the lack thereof).

These verses do not support your thesis.

[beastie]

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.

Anijen –

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that Hasbaz, Gardner, and Nomad have a myopic view? Would any of you be vigorously defending the BoM as an ancient Mesoamerican document if you did not have a spiritual testimony of the book?

Speaking of a huge polity, look at Nomad’s comments I just cited in my last response. He’s thinking on terms of one or two millions for this Nephite polity. This would constitute a huge polity in Mesoamerica. I admit I don’t understand this reasoning – I don’t understand how people who supposedly know enough about Mesoamerica to know that the most massive, significant polity up until the Aztecs – Teotihuacan – consisted of around 200,000 people at its height, and then turn around and claim that a polity consisting of one or two million people, that lasted for several hundred years, could be viewed as a minor, insignificant polity.

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 stella, pot shards 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.

Once again, we could see their impact in the trend of the Mesoamerican worldview. The most powerful polities experienced social strain before the others, and hence moved forward this worldview. I’m going to share even more BoM verses that demonstrate how even the Lamanite polities adhered to a form of Judaism.

BTW, how in the world could a stelae be "brought unto" the king? And how could a stelae hold the book of Ether?

[beastie]

1) Not Nephite. Describe specifically as an aberrant city.

2) There was a poor class, but it doesn't mention anything about hungry or naked. The differentiator is the fineness of clothing. I assume that you are aware that clothing was a marker of status in Mesoamerica? Note that the issue that Alma has is in the social stratification, not in the fact of being poor.

3) You have taken a description that fits very well with the descriptions of social hierarchies and their definitions in Mesoamerica and somehow assumed that it supports your idea that they were, anachronously, hungry and naked (odd, since it specifically describes the problem with their clothing, not the lack thereof).

1 â?? It is an â??apostateâ? Nephite city that still adheres to a form of Judaism. Besides, the question is whether or not this type of poverty makes sense in ancient Mesoamerica, not whether or not it is specifically Nephite, Lamanite, or apostate â?? it is a polity described in the BoM.

2 â??

Alma 32

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?

Alma 35

8 Now the people of the Zoramites were angry with the people of Ammon who were in Jershon, and the chief ruler of the Zoramites, being a very wicked man, sent over unto the people of Ammon desiring them that they should cast out of their land all those who came over from them into their land.

9 And he breathed out many threatenings against them. And now the people of Ammon did not fear their words; therefore they did not cast them out, but they did receive all the poor of the Zoramites that came over unto them; and they did nourish them, and did clothe them, and did give unto them lands for their inheritance; and they did administer unto them according to their wants.

Your first charge was that there was no â??poor classâ? described in the BoM. Now when I cite verses that, in fact, used those very words, you now assert it was only the differentiation in clothing. Now youâ??re saying the issue is â??socially stratificationâ? and not â??being poorâ?, when the verses I cite here says â??because of their poverty as to the things of the world.â? The solution offered is that the Nephites â??nourish themâ? and â??clothe themâ?.

3 â?? This description only fits Mesoamerica when you are very selective in your attention.

[Anijen]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that Hashbaz, Gardner, and Nomad have a myopic view?

Actually it has occurred to me. We all have biases, I have admitted this before. However this is an LDS apologetic board, they are here to defend their views. The last I checked they do not go out and find atheist boards and develop web pages to thwart the origin of species by Darwin.

Would any of you be vigorously defending the BoM as an ancient Mesoamerican document if you did not have a spiritual testimony of the book?

I doubt it, but with spiritual testimonies first then after we can find relationships and harmonies in our hypothesis of the geography of the BoM the people and culture.

[cdowis]

Cdowis:

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?

We have some disagreement on the definition of "human sacrifice".

A recent newspaper article indicated, among other things, that decapitation is used by drug lords in Mexico. Now, is it your assertion that they are practicing human sacrifice? Murders are frequently committed in a ritualized manner, by certain groups and individuals. I asked you a question, and I lost interest in continuing that discussion when you basically responded, "Well, here is a web site, go read it and I will let the experts speak for me."

I have a policy of responding to posts, to direct answers. I do not respond to a url.

Now I am curious.........

are you going to answer my question on decapitation as human sacrifice.............. You claimed that it was.......

Are you going to give me a direct answer, my dear fellow.

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.

Beastie, you are free to postlate any theory you wish. So far, you have not been very successful with your other arguments, so you might try that one.

It may fare better than what you have done so far.

Simply because everything can’t be known is no justification for pretending that all theories are equally plausible.

You have "proven" to yourself that the BOM is false, and now we have shown you that your pet arguments are garbage.

I understand that you are very angry. I hear the desperation in your voice....... Moonmen, indeed!

I really do understand.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

So you just chalk it up with coincidence that the "hits" still apply to mesoamerican archaeology. Intersting.

[cdowis]

And how could a stelae hold the book of Ether?

Sigh.

So in your cartoon version of the BOM, the book of Ether was written on the stone stela, was it? Why don't you read what the real Book of Mormon says.

[Anijen]

BTW, how in the world could a stelae be "brought unto" the king? And how could a stelae hold the book of Ether?

I doubt it could be (well not easily). beastie I am not saying it was a stelae. I am once again trying to make a correlation see big stone with carvings on it see BoM has a verse about a big stone with carvings on it. Just a simple comparison.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And how could a stelae hold the book of Ether?

If she knows mesoamerica as well as she knows the Book of Mormon...

[cjonesrr]

I am not saying that you did not have "eyewitnesses". My point is that you do not have any ancient physical manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon. No Gold Plates and no ancient manuscript evidence.

OK so we have just under 10% of the cities mentioned in the Bible that we can be certain about.

How many cities in the Book of Mormon can you be certain about?

""LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case.

It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Ramah. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites."

EARLY BRETHREN LOCATE CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK. It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3 Chapter 12

[beastie]

So you just chalk it up with coincidence that the "hits" still apply to mesoamerican archaeology. Intersting.

"Hits" that apply to many different areas, including nineteenth century America, are meaningless in terms of supporting the contention that the BoM happened in Mesoamerica. (see the above discussion about the importance of evidence unique to Mesoamerica)

Sigh.

So in your cartoon version of the BOM, the book of Ether was written on the stone stela, was it? Why don't you read what the real Book of Mormon says

I understand the book of Ether was written on plates. However, the verse that anijen shared and speculated that it could be a stone stelae state that the stone also contained the story of Coriantumr:

20 And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

21 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.

22 It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward.

Certainly the stone may not have contained the entire book of Ether, but apparently it contained the most important parts.

We have some disagreement on the definition of "human sacrifice".

A recent newspaper article indicated, among other things, that decapitation is used by drug lords in Mexico. Now, is it your assertion that they are practicing human sacrifice? Murders are frequently committed in a ritualized manner, by certain groups and individuals. I asked you a question, and I lost interest in continuing that discussion when you basically responded, "Well, here is a web site, go read it and I will let the experts speak for me."

I have a policy of responding to posts, to direct answers. I do not respond to a url.

Now I am curious.........

are you going to answer my question on decapitation as human sacrifice.............. You claimed that it was.......

Are you going to give me a direct answer, my dear fellow.

I've known you too long to be surprised by this behavior. I provided direct evidences of human sacrifice - I copied quite a few from my own books. I did not simply direct you to an url. You have ignored each and every one. I'm not going to answer any more of your questions until you respond to the evidence I've already provided.

Beastie, you are free to postlate any theory you wish. So far, you have not been very successful with your other arguments, so you might try that one.

It may fare better than what you have done so far.

Yes, I guess it's easy to dismiss a theory when you won't even read the evidences provided for it.

You have "proven" to yourself that the BOM is false, and now we have shown you that your pet arguments are garbage.

I understand that you are very angry. I hear the desperation in your voice....... Moonmen, indeed!

I really do understand.

Here we have the inevitable. You're "angry", you're "desperate". Perhaps you are projecting your own emotional state unto me, because I am experiencing none of those.

I understand your perception is that you've "proven my arguments are garbage", but my perception is quite different. I think very few of you have even responded to my arguments. There's been a lot of rabbit holes and diversions in the meantime. What's even more ironic about your comments is that you seem to agree with one of the most important elements of my argument - that the Nephites were actually a powerful polity that exercised some control over their citizens - like forcing military service.

anijen:

Actually it has occurred to me. We all have biases, I have admitted this before. However this is an LDS apologetic board, they are here to defend their views. The last I checked they do not go out and find atheist boards and develop web pages to thwart the origin of species by Darwin.

I see. So the mere fact that I choose to participate here, and the fact that I've chosen to share knowledge that I was in the position of seeking out in the past, and would have appreciated having, means that I'm more biased, more myopic???? That's part of the reason I abandoned this board as long as I did previously. This board is set up with the purpose of allowing for critics to state their views so that apologists can respond to these criticisms. Yet, often the mere fact that a critic does just that is seen as evidence against the critic's character.

BTW, I participated for years on an atheist board, and we had regular visits from believers who wanted to debate atheism with us - including mormons. What's even more interesting about that is that the atheist board was not deliberately set up to invite debate between theists and atheists - it was just a board for atheists. In addition, LDS apologists have written articles criticizing atheism and published them on the web. (btw, do you realize that many believers accept the origin of the species, including quite a few LDS on this site?)

These silly little tidbits aren't pertinent to the discussion, and I'm going to try to ignore them in the future, since responding to things like "you're angry and desperate" are a waste of time and a diversion. I'll continue to share the BoM evidences that share information about the various polities described therein, and maybe someone will actually respond to that if I ignore what I consider "noise".

[Honorentheos]

"Hits" that apply to many different areas, including nineteenth century America, are meaningless in terms of supporting the contention that the BoM happened in Mesoamerica. (see the above discussion about the importance of evidence unique to Mesoamerica)

Exactly.

As unique a culture as that found in mesoamerica during the period attributed to the BoM should have some tell-tale signs that the narrative can only be describing this location. And if this is not the case, the most probable answer to any and all apologetics locating the narrative here is confabulation.

The arguments for sa pro-meso setting of the LGT seem to rely more on what we don't know about mesoamerican cultures or that they are so diverse that one could hide just about anything in the cracks of knowledge and diversity of social structure one wished. So now we have beastie pointing out, from the BoM text, where this is contradicted by the narrative itself. Granted one can suggest that mormon or moroni may have interjected pionts in the book from their own understanding that account for this, but unless one's will is to prove the BoM, the more likely option that this is not describing a mesoamerican setting seems the more prudent and rationally correct approach. When items like the recent discussion on poverty and class structure included a direct quote from the BoM to refute that there was not a poor class of people and the exception taken was that hunger and nakedness were not directly listed as attributes of these "poor", one should be willing to ask themselves how far they are willing to go in the name of supporting an argument at the expense of reason.

The best manner for the apologetics to take the argument out of the arena of the will and subjectivity and move the discussion onto more favorable ground for a meso-LGT is to present items from the BoM narrative that could only describe a mesoamerican setting.

I respect Brant, especially for his gerneral tone and knowledge in this debate. I would hope that he, and those others who wish to have a meaningful disucssion, would see this is really the logical direction this debate should go. There is a difference between seeking honest truth and digging up intellectual brain sugar to excite the senses of the suseptable, on either side of a discussion.

Frankly, as a non-believer, I see beastie's arguments as being fairly specific and being attacked with general, broad dismissals and odd attempts to side-line the discussion (ball courts, stone stella, etc.), which tends to tilt the argument in her favor in my view. It's an interesting discussion, both for what has been shared as well as how it is presents. Engaging a rapier with a volley of pebbles may drive someone back off of the board, but what does it say for the developmental state of the theory being defended?

[Brant Gardner]

1 â?? It is an â??apostateâ? Nephite city that still adheres to a form of Judaism. Besides, the question is whether or not this type of poverty makes sense in ancient Mesoamerica, not whether or not it is specifically Nephite, Lamanite, or apostate â?? it is a polity described in the BoM.

Have you noticed that we spend most of our time on either how to read a text, or the logic of applying data to analysis? This is another example. There is a huge difference between what the Nephites are doing and what they consider apostasy, precisely because Nephite apostasy leads in a single direction, which is closer to the Mesoamerican model, not farther away.

That is the reason that using apostate cities as a model for Nephite culture and politics is exactly backwards. It shows what they feared, not what they embraced.

What about the idea that they still adhered to a form of Judaism? That makes no difference whatsoever to the discussion of Nephite culture and politics. World history tells us that changes in political form can occur while retaining some of the old religion. Religion and politics were much the same in the ancient world, but they were both plastic and subject to change. Trying to use the evidence from the Book of Mormon as though it all represented a single culture and a single time inevitably leads to misreading the text.

That is the reason that I have no interest in continuing the discussion of particular scriptures. We have fundamentally different ways of reading them. What I find in your method is that it lacks precision, caution, and grounding in the kinds of issues that occur in culture change.

Your first charge was that there was no â??poor classâ? described in the BoM. Now when I cite verses that, in fact, used those very words, you now assert it was only the differentiation in clothing. Now youâ??re saying the issue is â??socially stratificationâ? and not â??being poorâ?, when the verses I cite here says â??because of their poverty as to the things of the world.â? The solution offered is that the Nephites â??nourish themâ? and â??clothe themâ?.

Of course, our original discussion was about the Nephites. They didn't have a poor class because they eschewed classes in general. The major social conflict in the Book of Mormon is the resistance of Nephite egalitarianism to the pressures for social hierarchies. Therefore, in Lamanite society, you see classes, in Nephite apostates you see classes. You see, within Nephite preaching, the prophetic warnings against the social classes.

Now for the problem of feeding and clothing. We have a fundamental problem with the verse you cited. It is, of course, about the "poor class" that was converted (in religion, politics, and place) to Nephitism. When we first see them, they are a "poor class," specifically defined by their poor clothing, not their lack of clothing. That was a crucial social factor among the Zoramites.

When they leave and show up in Nephite territory, they are "clothed and nourished." Now we have the problem of discerning whether or not that is a phrase that is to be read literally (that they really needed clothing and food) or if it is a figure of speech for a type of care and acceptance. Obviously, you read that literally. I don't. One reason I believe that we are allowed to see it as figurative is that it is directly contrasted to the conditions were we last saw them. Where text provides two different descriptions, and one is essential to a description of their class and the second essential to a description of Nephite magnanimity, the time when the text cares specifically about the clothing should be our model, not one that is easily seen as a figure of speech.

Now, if you are wondering whether or not it is "cheating" to not take every statement in a text literally, it is a normal problem in dealing with ancient texts. We must always be asking of the text the information that will help us understand how to understand the text. It is simply part of the normal process, whether you are tying to interpret the Chilam Balam of Chumayel or the Book of Mormon.

[Brant Gardner]

As unique a culture as that found in mesoamerica during the period attributed to the BoM should have some tell-tale signs that the narrative can only be describing this location. And if this is not the case, the most probable answer to any and all apologetics locating the narrative here is confabulation.

This is problematic for two reasons. The first is that, regardless of what Mormons declare to be the ancient foundation of the text, it was clearly written in 1830, in English, in an imitative KJV style, and using vocabulary and phraseology that was part of Joseph Smith's referential world.

The second reason is that we tend to be pretty imaginative readers. If there is enough flexibility, we can read the same thing multiple ways, including ways that the author never intended (I remember a statement from Robert Frost expressing some concern that people interpreted his poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" in a certain way that he hadn't indended).

Our recent experience with the debates leading to the presidential election should also inform us that our prior dispositions that are brought to the issue inform our opinions. Republicans almost always thought a Republican "won" the debate. Democrats almost always thought a Democrat "won."

For the Book of Mormon, the problem is sufficiently complex that there is no way to cover it in a message board. It is not that there will be a condition that is uniquely described in the Book of Mormon that fits only one cultural background, because we read the evidence so differently. Notice that beastie and I are reading the same text--but very, very differently.

The real argument is very carefully building a case of how the text reads against either production culture and finding out which provides the picture that best explains the majority of the text. I doubt that there will be anything that will be universally considered as proof of one position or another, because we still have the problem of believing that "our side" won the debate (just like the political ones, and pretty obviously evidenced on message boards like this one <grin>).

The evidence to make that kind of case is long and complex and simply can't be done on a message board. However, I will tell you that I have been through the data and made those arguments as part of a more complete commentary on the Book of Mormon. Most people don't want to spend the money for 6 volumes to dig through a commentary for the cultural stuff. I'm working on something that will put all of it in a more compact argument, but it will take a while.

The thing that impresses me is that the Mesoamerican context provides a production culture that explains the text much better than the 19th century production culture theory. Regardless of how you want to read specific items of archaeology, the logic of peoples actions in the text follow the "rules" of the more ancient culture in ways that make no sense if we limit the context to the 19th century. If the Book of Mormon were a novel written in 1830, it would be one that has huge conceptual gaps and people who do not act according to our understanding of how they should respond. Read against the Mesoamerican culture, however, actions that are nearly nonsensical without that context become not only natural, but quite understandable. It is what I call a productive convergence; where the interpretive framework tells you something about the text over and above what can be learned without that intepretive framework--very much in the same way that you learn more about the New Testament if you understand the culture of that time and place.

The arguments for sa pro-meso setting of the LGT seem to rely more on what we don't know about mesoamerican cultures or that they are so diverse that one could hide just about anything in the cracks of knowledge and diversity of social structure one wished.

Not at all. The arguments are built on what we do know, but without trying to make inappropriate inferences across time periods and cultures. Some of that is always done, but must be done with caution. The Preclassic was the birthplace of the Classic and there were more of the Classic features that appeared in the Preclassic than was originally thought. Nevertheless, assuming that the full development of the Classic was also in the Preclassic overextends the data (as an example).

What is true is that we miss texts. We learn a lot when we can read what a people say about themselves. The understanding of the Maya has blossomed in the last 30 years since the translation of their writing began in earnest. Sadly, we have way too few texts even for the Classic, and way, way less for the Preclassic. They recently found a text in San Bartolo (painted, not carved--suggesting that there were many painted texts that simply didn't survive). The problem is, we can't read it. There are glyphs similar to later ones, but it isn't the same system.

Without accompanying texts, we have to leave what we can from potsherds, building styles and arrangements and tracing trading patterns. That can tell us a lot, but it is necessarily a reconstructive art, not a science. That is again why it is a delicate task to use what has been used to explain one site as normative for another site, particularly if it is in a different cultural area.

Frankly, as a non-believer, I see beastie's arguments as being fairly specific and being attacked with general, broad dismissals and odd attempts to side-line the discussion (ball courts, stone stella, etc.), which tends to tilt the argument in her favor in my view.

beastie and I have had discussions on this topic for years, with some time periods between. We have never agreed. She has, very much to her credit, done what virtually no one else has--which is read in the subject to understand the culture that we are talking about.

You will notice, however, that the nature of my problem with beastie's arguments are not so much with what she has read, but how she has read and the way the data are applied to the solution of the problem. As with the issue of the "poor class," she tends to over-generalize. We have the same problem with the issue of "powerful" polities. She began by saying that any kind of powerful polity was anachronistic for the time period of the Book of Mormon. Then she read that Chiapa de Corzo was influential at that time period. While that should have told her that there was something incorrect about her assumptions, she has continued with the assertion that influential polities should influence everything. She uses Tikal, Calakmul, and Teotihuacan as examples of cities where they influenced a wide areas. She therefore asserts that Nephite polity should have been similarly influential--ignoring, of course, that there were thousands of polities in time and space that never had the impact of those three, yet had some "influence," such as Chiapa de Corzo. Again, it is an argument built upon over-generalization and misapplication of the data.

The old problem of apologetic proof-texting happens on both sides of the apologetic fence. It isn't any stronger on either side, particular when discussing complex historical reconstructions.

[beastie]

She began by saying that any kind of powerful polity was anachronistic for the time period of the Book of Mormon.

It's quite discouraging to see such a blatant misrepresentation of my statements. If you believe this fairly represents what I said, it is no wonder we disagree over the interpretation of the BoM text. I say things such as "a polity that exercised control over a 423,970 square kilometers region would be anachronistic for that time period in Mesoamerica". You read that as "any kind of powerful polity was anachronistic for the time period of the BoM."

I read the verses that explicitly state there was a poor class (and, btw, in a discussion over whether or not a "poor class" would fit Mesoamerica has nothing to do with whether the polity was Nephite or apostate, but I'll come back to that later) and you say it's "figurative". I read the verses that explicitly state that the Nephites were governed by a strict set of laws, enforced by a formal hierarchy, and you say... well, you say nothing. Perhaps that's figurative, too?

At any rate, I'll try to make time later this afternoon to reply more, but I just had to take the time right now to protest over your blatant misrepresentation of my argument. Sheesh. We've even argued over Kaminaljuyu being too powerful to fit the City of Nephi in the past, and now you're saying my argument was "any kind of powerful polity was anachronistic for the time period of the Book of Mormon"??????? Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect you just aren't paying attention.

[Brant Gardner]

It's quite discouraging to see such a blatant misrepresentation of my statements.

All of this time and you assume the worst when I make a statement about what you think? I am saddened by that. You might ask yourself why I got that impression, rather than simply accuse me of misrepresentation.

If you believe this fairly represents what I said, it is no wonder we disagree over the interpretation of the BoM text. I say things such as "a polity that exercised control over a 423,970 square kilometers region would be anachronistic for that time period in Mesoamerica". You read that as "any kind of powerful polity was anachronistic for the time period of the BoM."

I have no interest in pouring over the thread to show you what you have said. It really isn't important. The issue is that you are not careful in the way you are interpreting data. For example, you are still assuming that the Nephites had "control" over that large a territory. That point was at issue from the first part of the thread.

I read the verses that explicitly state there was a poor class (and, btw, in a discussion over whether or not a "poor class" would fit Mesoamerica has nothing to do with whether the polity was Nephite or apostate, but I'll come back to that later) and you say it's "figurative".

You see, misunderstanding what someone says cuts both ways. You cannot have any kind of "class" unless you have a classed society. Once you create a social hierarchy, someone is at the bottom, and those get called "poor." Apparently you are loading that class with your western assumptions of what "poor" must mean. I am making no such assumption. The problem I am dealing with is the nature of a classed versus classless society. As I have said several times, that is one of the singular issues in the Book of Mormon (and representative of what many cities in the Mesoamerican Preclassic were also dealing with).

So, Nephites don't have a poor class because their society is expressly defined as anti-social hierarchies. That apostate cities develop a hierarchical system, and therefore have an upper and lower class, is perfectly understandable if one of the features of the apostate cities is to develop a socially stratified, classed, political and social organization.

If we can agree on those basic definitions (and the definitions of classed and classless should not be controversial as they are independent of the Book of Mormon), we simply have to determine what the nature of the "poor class" really is.

In the New Testament they actually had a couple of definitions of poor, which English tends to lump together. That tells us that when we read a text, in English, that simply uses the word "poor," that we may or may not be able to assume that we know what the word means because of the connotations we bring to it. Was there a "poor class" in Mesoamerica? Absolutely, as a contrast to the rich class. There were clearly differences between them--the very definition of classed societies. Can we assume that if we call them "poor" that all of our connotations apply? Heavens no. As you are well aware, the Mesoamerican poor class was the one with the food (though not the variety and perhaps not the quantity) as the rich. Nevertheless, in an agricultural economy, defining poor by the terms we have learned in a monetary economy immediately leads to interpretive issues.

I read the verses that explicitly state that the Nephites were governed by a strict set of laws, enforced by a formal hierarchy, and you say... well, you say nothing. Perhaps that's figurative, too?

You should know by now that I don't use "figurative" to get out of textual issues. If you don't know that, please assume it. On the other hand, if you think that texts are always read literally, please read more in how scholars read and interpret texts (which won't have been much of your reading because you are reading archaeology, and not textual analysis).

We have discussed the problems of the nature of polities before and we do not agree. I base my conclusions on anthropological readings of the various ways political structures are created and maintained. One of the major differences is the ability to enforce decisions. In a village, for example, a Big Man may influence, but usually by shaming others into doing what should be done. There is no enforcement mechanism. Nevertheless, there are social rules that everyone is supposed to obey. The nature of power comes in the display of how the rules are enforced. That is where we are seeing the difference of opinion. You are equating rules with the power to enforce them. The anthropological data do not support that hypothesis and the Book of Mormon text does not support it for the particular case you are making.

Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect you just aren't paying attention.

Frankly, given the number of times I have promised to drop out of this conversation, I am surprised I am still responding. All simple renderings of long arguments over-simplify and over-generalize. I accept that you see my synopses as fitting into those categories. I apologize for that appearance.

[beastie]

Have you noticed that we spend most of our time on either how to read a text, or the logic of applying data to analysis? This is another example. There is a huge difference between what the Nephites are doing and what they consider apostasy, precisely because Nephite apostasy leads in a single direction, which is closer to the Mesoamerican model, not farther away.

That is the reason that using apostate cities as a model for Nephite culture and politics is exactly backwards. It shows what they feared, not what they embraced.

What about the idea that they still adhered to a form of Judaism? That makes no difference whatsoever to the discussion of Nephite culture and politics. World history tells us that changes in political form can occur while retaining some of the old religion. Religion and politics were much the same in the ancient world, but they were both plastic and subject to change. Trying to use the evidence from the Book of Mormon as though it all represented a single culture and a single time inevitably leads to misreading the text.

That is the reason that I have no interest in continuing the discussion of particular scriptures. We have fundamentally different ways of reading them. What I find in your method is that it lacks precision, caution, and grounding in the kinds of issues that occur in culture change.

Brant,

The side-discussion about the poverty described in the BoM and class system was triggered by my comment that this sort of poverty â?? a lower class consisting of hungry and naked people, even during times of economic well-being for the larger culture â?? didnâ??t really fit in Mesoamerica. Itâ??s not that it doesnâ??t fit Mesoamerica only if itâ??s describing the Nephites. It just doesnâ??t fit anywhere. This is why the fact that it was an apostate city is irrelevant to my point. Apostate city, Lamanite city, Nephite city â??whatever â?? they were all supposedly in Mesoamerica, and they contained perpetually needy people that the upper class were neglecting. That is one of the major themes of the BoM (and one of its messages I admire, btw). You seem to be arguing that this would fit Mesoamerica if it were an apostate Nephite city, which doesnâ??t make any sense. This particular point doesnâ??t have to do with religion, it has to do with the economic system of ancient Mesoamerica, and how people were largely self-sufficient, and how the material goods that differentiated between classes were largely luxury items, often associated with religious ceremony. Of course if there were a drought, the royalty would be better fed than the commoners, and the royalty would always have more access to meat and other luxury food items, but in terms of basic survival â?? the commoners took care of their own needs with hunting and gardening. So where did these perpetually hungry and needy people â?? who were hungry and needy during overall times of economic wellbeing for the polity - come from? Thatâ??s my point, and the religious association of the particular polity is irrelevant.

Of course, our original discussion was about the Nephites. They didn't have a poor class because they eschewed classes in general. The major social conflict in the Book of Mormon is the resistance of Nephite egalitarianism to the pressures for social hierarchies. Therefore, in Lamanite society, you see classes, in Nephite apostates you see classes. You see, within Nephite preaching, the prophetic warnings against the social classes.

Iâ??ll be quoting more BoM verses to illustrate this point. I think your statement that â??they didnâ??t have a poor class because they eschewed classes in generalâ? is in direct contradiction to the text, with the exception of some specific periods of supposedly idyllic, egalitarian conditions. The prophets in the Bom arenâ??t just warning against a class system â?? theyâ??re fussing at their people for neglecting the poor. The poor can only be neglected if you already have a class system that produces the poor.

And, as I said, whether or not the group was Lamanite, Nephite, or apostate is irrelevant to my point. They were all in Mesoamerica, supposedly. The idea of a starving lower class, during a period of economic wellbeing for the host polity, is not consistent with the economic system of Mesoamerica in general.

Now for the problem of feeding and clothing. We have a fundamental problem with the verse you cited. It is, of course, about the "poor class" that was converted (in religion, politics, and place) to Nephitism. When we first see them, they are a "poor class," specifically defined by their poor clothing, not their lack of clothing. That was a crucial social factor among the Zoramites.

When they leave and show up in Nephite territory, they are "clothed and nourished." Now we have the problem of discerning whether or not that is a phrase that is to be read literally (that they really needed clothing and food) or if it is a figure of speech for a type of care and acceptance. Obviously, you read that literally. I don't. One reason I believe that we are allowed to see it as figurative is that it is directly contrasted to the conditions were we last saw them. Where text provides two different descriptions, and one is essential to a description of their class and the second essential to a description of Nephite magnanimity, the time when the text cares specifically about the clothing should be our model, not one that is easily seen as a figure of speech.

Now, if you are wondering whether or not it is "cheating" to not take every statement in a text literally, it is a normal problem in dealing with ancient texts. We must always be asking of the text the information that will help us understand how to understand the text. It is simply part of the normal process, whether you are tying to interpret the Chilam Balam of Chumayel or the Book of Mormon.

This is quite creative.

All of this time and you assume the worst when I make a statement about what you think? I am saddened by that. You might ask yourself why I got that impression, rather than simply accuse me of misrepresentation.

I have no interest in pouring over the thread to show you what you have said. It really isn't important. The issue is that you are not careful in the way you are interpreting data. For example, you are still assuming that the Nephites had "control" over that large a territory. That point was at issue from the first part of the thread.

I didnâ??t say you were doing the misrepresentation deliberately or maliciously. Aside from that, I was also saddened that, after all the times I tried to clarify my point on this thread, you still interpreted it in the way you did. I truly, truly, do not understand how you could have possibly interpreted my comments in the manner that you did.

In this reply you do show that you are keeping track of the different elements of the conversation, but yet you completely ignored those different elements in your misrepresentation of my stance. I really do feel like Iâ??ve explained this ad nauseum. The reason I brought up control is because you brought up my original point about the anachronistic nature of such a polity (although you misrepresented what I actually said, of course). So Iâ??m not trying to re-argue the point of control â?? as I said, the same case can be made with influence. But to correct your misrepresentation of my stance required me to remind readers of what I was actually saying â?? that a polity that controlled such a mass region would be anachronistic, not that â??any kind of powerful polityâ? would be anachronistic.

To try to build the argument from the loose federation, I talked about the real example of a regional capital over a loose federation for the purpose of protection, Monte Alban. I pointed out that Monte Alban was the regional capital of an area of about 1,500 square kilometers, versus the 423,970 square kilometers that Zarahemla would be the regional capital over. I asked you for evidence of the existence of a polity in Mesoamerica that was the regional capital over such a vast region and you seemed to respond that it would be impossible to prove â?? yet scholars have done just that with Monte Alban, albeit with a much smaller region.

You see, misunderstanding what someone says cuts both ways. You cannot have any kind of "class" unless you have a classed society. Once you create a social hierarchy, someone is at the bottom, and those get called "poor." Apparently you are loading that class with your western assumptions of what "poor" must mean. I am making no such assumption. The problem I am dealing with is the nature of a classed versus classless society. As I have said several times, that is one of the singular issues in the Book of Mormon (and representative of what many cities in the Mesoamerican Preclassic were also dealing with).

So, Nephites don't have a poor class because their society is expressly defined as anti-social hierarchies. That apostate cities develop a hierarchical system, and therefore have an upper and lower class, is perfectly understandable if one of the features of the apostate cities is to develop a socially stratified, classed, political and social organization.

As I stated above, prophets were chastising their members for not taking care of the poor, which indicates that there were poor. The egalitarian society was their aspiration, but they obviously repeatedly fell short of that aspiration.

I also hope Iâ??ve clarified enough why it is irrelevant whether the polity with the poor is Nephite, Lamanite, or apostate. The starving, neglected poor, during times of economic well-being, doesnâ??t make sense in Mesoamerica due to the economics of the region, regardless of religious affiliation of the polities in question.

One of the major differences is the ability to enforce decisions. In a village, for example, a Big Man may influence, but usually by shaming others into doing what should be done. There is no enforcement mechanism. Nevertheless, there are social rules that everyone is supposed to obey. The nature of power comes in the display of how the rules are enforced. That is where we are seeing the difference of opinion. You are equating rules with the power to enforce them. The anthropological data do not support that hypothesis and the Book of Mormon text does not support it for the particular case you are making.

I truly do not understand how you can read the BoM and insist that the Nephites didnâ??t have the power to enforce their rules. They used military might to force military service, and they imprisoned offenders, and, at times, executed offenders.

Anyway, Iâ??ll share a few more scriptures in my next post before I have to take a break.

[beastie]

In Alma chapter 4 we are reminded of the ongoing social stratification:

12 Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted.

13 Now this was a great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christâ??s sake, who should come according to the spirit of prophecy;

As I said, this certainly sounds like a permanent underclass. Apparently the larger culture was doing well, economically, allowing the rich to be â??lifted upâ?, and having the means to help the poor, if they would only choose to do so.

We learn more about the government in the same chapter:

16 And he selected a wise man who was among the elders of the church, and gave him power according to the voice of the people, that he might have power to enact laws according to the laws which had been given, and to put them in force according to the wickedness and the crimes of the people.

17 Now this manâ??s name was Nephihah, and he was appointed chief judge; and he sat in the judgment-seat to judge and to govern the people.

18 Now Alma did not grant unto him the office of being high priest over the church, but he retained the office of high priest unto himself; but he delivered the judgment-seat unto Nephihah.

Not only does the chief judge have power to enforce laws, but to enact them, as well. Clearly this is a society governed by a strict set of laws, including a method to develop more laws.

We see more evidence that apostate Nephite groups still adhered to a form of Judaism in Alma 7:

1 BEHOLD my beloved brethren, seeing that I have been permitted to come unto you, therefore I attempt to address you in my language; yea, by my own mouth, seeing that it is the first time that I have spoken unto you by the words of my mouth, I having been wholly confined to the judgment-seat, having had much business that I could not come unto you.

2 And even I could not have come now at this time were it not that the judgment-seat hath been given to another, to reign in my stead; and the Lord in much mercy hath granted that I should come unto you.

3 And behold, I have come having great hopes and much desire that I should find that ye had humbled yourselves before God, and that ye had continued in the supplicating of his grace, that I should find that ye were blameless before him, that I should find that ye were not in the awful dilemma that our brethren were in at Zarahemla.

4 But blessed be the name of God, that he hath given me to know, yea, hath given unto me the exceedingly great joy of knowing that they are established again in the way of his righteousness.

5 And I trust, according to the Spirit of God which is in me, that I shall also have joy over you; nevertheless I do not desire that my joy over you should come by the cause of so much afflictions and sorrow which I have had for the brethren at Zarahemla, for behold, my joy cometh over them after wading through much affliction and sorrow.

6 But behold, I trust that ye are not in a state of so much unbelief as were your brethren; I trust that ye are not lifted up in the pride of your hearts; yea, I trust that ye have not set your hearts upon riches and the vain things of the world; yea, I trust that you do not worship idols, but that ye do worship the true and the living God, and that ye look forward for the remission of your sins, with an everlasting faith, which is to come.

17 And now my beloved brethren, do you believe these things? Behold, I say unto you, yea, I know that ye believe them; and the way that I know that ye believe them is by the manifestation of the Spirit which is in me. And now because your faith is strong concerning that, yea, concerning the things which I have spoken, great is my joy.

18 For as I said unto you from the beginning, that I had much desire that ye were not in the state of dilemma like your brethren, even so I have found that my desires have been gratified.

19 For I perceive that ye are in the paths of righteousness; I perceive that ye are in the path which leads to the kingdom of God; yea, I perceive that ye are making his paths straight.

Once again, this is significant information that tells us that Zarahemla was far from the only Nephite polity that adhered to Judeo-Christianity. Even the apostate polities adhered to a form of Judaism, and still shared the Lehite origin story.

Ammonihah is one of the apostate Nephite polities that we can learn quite a bit about in the BoM. From Alma, chapter 8:

7 Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them; and thus it was with the land of Ammonihah.

8 And it came to pass that when Alma had come to the city of Ammonihah he began to preach the word of God unto them.

9 Now Satan had gotten great hold upon the hearts of the people of the city of Ammonihah; therefore they would not hearken unto the words of Alma.

10 Nevertheless Alma labored much in the spirit, wrestling with God in mighty prayer, that he would pour out his Spirit upon the people who were in the city; that he would also grant that he might baptize them unto repentance.

11 Nevertheless, they hardened their hearts, saying unto him: Behold, we know that thou art Alma; and we know that thou art high priest over the church which thou hast established in many parts of the land, according to your tradition; and we are not of thy church, and we do not believe in such foolish traditions.

12 And now we know that because we are not of thy church we know that thou hast no power over us; and thou hast delivered up the judgment-seat unto Nephihah; therefore thou art not the chief judge over us.

Iâ??ve shared this verse before because it demonstrates that a distant polity, socially complex in its own right, viewed Zarahemlaâ??s chief judge as their chief judge as well. But we also learn that Ammonihah, despite being an apostate polity, shared the same founding story as Zarahemla, in Alma 9:

9 Do ye not remember that our father, Lehi, was brought out of Jerusalem by the hand of God? Do ye not remember that they were all led by him through the wilderness?

10 And have ye forgotten so soon how many times he delivered our fathers out of the hands of their enemies, and preserved them from being destroyed, even by the hands of their own brethren?

11 Yea, and if it had not been for his matchless power, and his mercy, and his long-suffering towards us, we should unavoidably have been cut off from the face of the earth long before this period of time, and perhaps been consigned to a state of endless misery and woe.

12 Behold, now I say unto you that he commandeth you to repent; and except ye repent, ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. But behold, this is not allâ??he has commanded you to repent, or he will utterly destroy you from off the face of the earth; yea, he will visit you in his anger, and in his fierce anger he will not turn away.

22 Yea, and after having been delivered of God out of the land of Jerusalem, by the hand of the Lord; having been saved from famine, and from sickness, and all manner of diseases of every kind; and they having waxed strong in battle, that they might not be destroyed; having been brought out of bondage time after time, and having been kept and preserved until now; and they have been prospered until they are rich in all manner of thingsâ??

We see a resident of Ammonihah verifying this in chapter 10:

1 NOW these are the words which Amulek preached unto the people who were in the land of Ammonihah, saying:

2 I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was that same Aminadi who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God.

3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.

In Alma 10, we learn that the citizens of Ammonihah actually abided by the laws established by Mosiah:

1 NOW it was in the law of Mosiah that every man who was a judge of the law, or those who were appointed to be judges, should receive wages according to the time which they labored to judge those who were brought before them to be judged.

2 Now if a man owed another, and he would not pay that which he did owe, he was complained of to the judge; and the judge executed authority, and sent forth officers that the man should be brought before him; and he judged the man according to the law and the evidences which were brought against him, and thus the man was compelled to pay that which he owed, or be stripped, or be cast out from among the people as a thief and a robber.

3 And the judge received for his wages according to his timeâ??a senine of gold for a day, or a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold; and this is according to the law which was given.

4 Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah.

20 Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did stir up the people against Alma and Amulek.

This is notable in two ways â?? one is that it demonstrates that the Nephites did have the power of police, so to speak. The government had the right and power to take offenders by forth, strip them of their property, and cast them out. We also learn that Ammonihah, an apostate polity, still followed the same monetary measures and laws established by Mosiah. This contradicts Brantâ??s assertion that Ammonihah was totally separate from Zarahemlaâ??s authority except in an advisory sense. We also learn that Ammonihah was a very socially complex society, complete with â??lawyersâ? who worked to obtain riches through their â??employâ?.

In Alma 12, we learn that one of Ammonihahâ??s chief ruler refers to Jewish scripture:

20 But there was one Antionah, who was a chief ruler among them, came forth and said unto him: What is this that thou hast said, that man should rise from the dead and be changed from this mortal to an immortal state, that the soul can never die?

21 What does the scripture mean, which saith that God placed cherubim and a flaming sword on the east of the garden of Eden, lest our first parents should enter and partake of the fruit of the tree of life, and live forever? And thus we see that there was no possible chance that they should live forever.

This information is important because one of the primary assertions of LGTists is that the Nephite polity is minor, insignificant, and could not be expected to exert notable influence on the over-all region. One way they support this assertion is to state or imply that just because polities are listed as Nephite in the BoM does not imply that they share the same religious background as Zarahemla. Yet the BoM itself tells us otherwise. First, it tells us explicitly who they call Nephite:

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 forthâ??

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

Second, the information it provides about other polities affirms that even if these polities reject the â??trueâ? Nephite religion, they still adhere to a form of Judaism and still embrace the same founding story â?? exodus from Jerusalem. So it is not valid to attempt to limit the possible Nephite influence to one supposedly small, minor polity. Rather one must look to the entire spread of polities listed as Nephite in the BoM, which encompasses a significant portion of Mesoamerica in general.

In Alma 14, we learn that Ammonihah did follow their strict laws, even while using the law for religious persecution:

1 AND it came to pass after he had made an end of speaking unto the people many of them did believe on his words, and began to repent, and to search the scriptures.

2 But the more part of them were desirous that they might destroy Alma and Amulek; for they were angry with Alma, because of the plainness of his words unto Zeezrom; and they also said that Amulek had lied unto them, and had reviled against their law and also against their lawyers and judges.

3 And they were also angry with Alma and Amulek; and because they had testified so plainly against their wickedness, they sought to put them away privily.

4 But it came to pass that they did not; but they took them and bound them with strong cords, and took them before the chief judge of the land.

5 And the people went forth and witnessed against themâ??testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; and also testified that there was but one God, and that he should send his Son among the people, but he should not save them; and many such things did the people testify against Alma and Amulek. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land.

Apparently they could not solely make the case on religious grounds, but had to prove that these people were â??reviling against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land.â? Once again, this gives us information to help us determine how socially complex this polity was.

[Brant Gardner]

The side-discussion about the poverty

They all seem to be side discussions--with the same general theme. We read things, both in the Book of Mormon and in the archeology, very differently.

a lower class consisting of hungry and naked people, even during times of economic well-being for the larger culture â?? didnâ??t really fit in Mesoamerica.

And we return to the problem of reading and applying the reading. You are seeing the word poor and deciding that there is a class of hungry and naked people. I make no such assumption. For example, I am very well aware that an entire class of deprived people doesn't fit well in an agricultural system. I mention that in my commentary (at least the published version, I don't remember that far back for the online version).

The problem is when you use the word class. That word has very specific meanings and there is an important distinction between cultures having class markers and those that do not.

I confess that I never understood your issue about the poor class before. You are assuming systematized poverty. You are correct that it doesn't fit Mesoamerica. It also doesn't fit the Book of Mormon. Once again, it is an issue of how to read a text.

You seem to be arguing that this would fit Mesoamerica if it were an apostate Nephite city, which doesnâ??t make any sense.

Because we are talking about two very different things. I am talking about the nature of class systems. You are talking about a particular definition of poverty, which I strongly suspect is defined by western systems and monetary societies. That isn't surprising, since that is also what we find in the New Testament, but the very nature of the definition of "poor" is dramatically different in agricultural societies.

It is possible to have some who are hungry and naked in agricultural systems, but usually only a few and usually because of some natural disaster. They are not a class of people defined by those circumstances. The egalitarian definitions of hopitality require the communal assistance for those who find themselves in those circumstances (which is what we get from Benjamin's discourse).

It really seems that you are using a very different definition of "poor" and then confusing it with classed societies. I am simply trying to be precise, not difficult. These are all issues social scientist are interested in, and they do care about the fine distinctions in the definitions.

Iâ??ll be quoting more BoM verses to illustrate this point. I think your statement that â??they didnâ??t have a poor class because they eschewed classes in generalâ? is in direct contradiction to the text, with the exception of some specific periods of supposedly idyllic, egalitarian conditions.

You are aware, I assume, that most texts produced by the dominant party in a society tend to record the ideal rather than the norm? That is, they tell us what the people should be like, not what they were like. We get this in the Bible as well. What that means is that we find in Nephite society clear preaching against social hierarchies and attempts to create a political system that functions without hierarchies. Of course, with larger populations, this becomes increasingly difficult, even while it remains the ideal. Nevertheless, the Nephite intent (officially) is egalitarian. The "enemy," at least in cultural terms, is class.

Therefore, when you examine you scriptures about classes, please make sure you understand them with the following categories:

Cities in apostate conditions are decried for their stratification. You should find classes there (and you will). However, official Nephites officially don't like it.

Inside Nephite normative society, there was a constant pressure for hierarchies. You will find this with the Kingmen. This will give you another place where there are Nephites pushing for a hierarchical society--but again one that is considered dangerous to the general Nephite culture.

Make sure that your examples demonstrate the point you are making. In one of your last barrages of scripture, you attempted to prove the poor classes by examining precisely the places where they exist--in non-normative Nephite cities. That shows that there were hierarchies among people once having ties to Nephite culture, but it doesn't tell us that classes were normative for the Nephites (and strongly argues against it).

The prophets in the Bom arenâ??t just warning against a class system â?? theyâ??re fussing at their people for neglecting the poor.

You apparently haven't read much on agricultural societies. There is a social mechanism for caring for those who endure misfortune (individuals, not classes). This is often under the umbrella of hospitality, but there are established social rules of assistance. These are not enforced by any power save social pressure, and the reiteration of those social norms by important people reinforces them without either suggesting class or that there were large numbers of hungry and naked people. You may need to read more on the nature of agricultural communities. You are misapplying definitions from the wrong model.

The poor can only be neglected if you already have a class system that produces the poor.

!!! Well, I know now why we aren't communicating. This statement is absolutely incorrect for an agricultural community. It has no basis in history or modern observation. Conditions or relative poverty, in an agricultural society, are much more often due to natural disaster than human neglect. Social pressures for communal support are much stronger than that (these principles drove social interactions into the mid-1800's in non-urban US).

The Book of Mormon describes an agrarian culture. This begins with sets of known assumptions about communities; strong kin ties, mutual support, classless societies, etc. You have to interpret what the text says against the kind of culture it claims to be. When you force interpretations on it that it doesn't start with, it is no wonder that it feels "untrue" to you. It isn't the text, it is your reading. You are starting with the wrong definitions.

I truly, truly, do not understand how you could have possibly interpreted my comments in the manner that you did.

From what I am seeing, it is because we both read each other with assumptions that are incorrect. I'm not sure how to start on a level field. Our differences are much deeper than evidence--they go to the nature of how one sees and understand the evidence. That is a big gap.

I really do feel like Iâ??ve explained this ad nauseum.

I seem to feel the same. Strange, huh?

The reason I brought up control is because you brought up my original point about the anachronistic nature of such a polity (although you misrepresented what I actually said, of course).

To try, one more time, to get to the same starting place. When anthropologists study political systems, they make important distinctions based on the nature of control. It isn't the presence of law that makes the changes, it is the way the laws are enforced.

For example, there is a community of Boy Scouts that have laws. There are lots of Boy Scouts who obey those laws. What happens in the breach of one of them? Well, for many, they are not even noticed. There are some that would exclude you from the community of Boy Scouts, but most people would simply elect to disassociate from them. That is why the existence of laws doesn't tell you anything about the political structure.

You know how evolved the political structure is when you see how they control or enforce. That is the reason that it is an important point. It is also important to make the distinction between when disparate communities accept temporary conditions for mutual defense that they wouldn't accept at other times (no intentional reference to the Patriot Act, really). That is why you have to look at the control exercised in normal conditions. You will notice, I hope, that none of that is any change at all from what I have been saying since the beginning of this discussion.

So Iâ??m not trying to re-argue the point of control â?? as I said, the same case can be made with influence. But to correct your misrepresentation of my stance required me to remind readers of what I was actually saying â?? that a polity that controlled such a mass region would be anachronistic, not that â??any kind of powerful polityâ? would be anachronistic.

Gulp. There it is again. The very issue under discussion is now used as the definition of the discussion. That, beastie, really is academic cheating. If we cannot agree that they "controlled" the region, then you cannot claim that it is anachronistic that they controlled the region. (And that - again - is the very point I have been making from the beginning)

[Nomad]

What with my "real life," as well as the time change we undergo tonight, I only have a few moments right now to say anything, so I decided that I will comment briefly on this thread rather than address beastieâ??s response in the ball game thread in the Punditâ??s forum.

I can more or less understand beastieâ??s inability to view the Book of Mormon via any other paradigms than those afforded by her exmormon presuppositions. She has, after all, summarily rejected any possibility that the book could be an authentic ancient text!

Nevertheless, I think she fails to appreciate the extent to which her dogmatic approach to the Book of Mormon is beginning to thoroughly taint her ability to comprehend and assess the rapidly evolving picture of Mesoamerica that is emerging from the most recent advances (and, if you will, admissions) in scholarship in the relevant fields.

In addition, textual criticism would appear to be a discipline to which she has not dedicated near as much time as she has to meticulously poring over popular Mesoamerican primers (Iâ??m echoing Hashbazâ??s criticisms here, of course) in search of tidbits to cite in her quasi-obsessive anti-Book of Mormon crusade.

As it relates to the question of whether or not there was a distinct stratification of poor and rich in Nephite society, I can also understand how it might be difficult for her to distinguish between the kinds of discrimination that would result in her not being admitted to an elite nightclub in Las Vegas (on account of her inability to meet its stringent requirements of fashion, looks, and popular notoriety) and the kinds of social stratification seen in mid-19th century England at the height of the industrial revolution.

The fact is that there is much better reason, from both a logical and a textual criticism standpoint, to view the Zoramite outcasts in terms of those who might be refused admittance to LAX at the Luxor rather than those whom the local police would prevent from entering the public library on account of their pungent poverty.

Letâ??s revisit the common prayer of the Zoramites upon ascending to their appointed place of worship:

Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.

Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.

But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.

And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

Note carefully that the â??chosenâ? ones uttering this prayer say nothing of the fact that they are better dressed than their unfortunate brethren. No. It is simply a question of cosmological doctrine to them. They have a better understanding of the meaning of life than the simple folk whom they are, by consensus, denying access to the â??holyâ? place.

(So much could now be said in reference to how this scenario is SO consistent with what we know of Mesoamerican cultural practices and how a system like that of the Nephites might have interacted with it! But I am convinced that this is neither the time, nor the place, nor the opponent with whom to pursue the discussion.)

But returning to the topic of the Zoramites: there is little doubt that they were better dressed than their â??poorâ? brethren, but that wasnâ??t the issue at all! It was all a question of politics, when it comes right down to it. One party was liberated from the â??foolish traditions" of the "fathers,â? and the other stubbornly adhered to them â?? at the expense, apparently, of losing access to the best suites and the posh parties going on inside them.

Of course, no one likes being told theyâ??re just â??not good enoughâ? to enter in the doors of the most popular places downtown, but that doesnâ??t mean that their â??povertyâ? is a measure of their actual hunger and nakedness. And, in the case of the â??poorâ? Zoramites, it at least positioned them to be more receptive to the message that Alma and Amulek came to deliver -- a message of faith and equality for all.

At any rate, this is obviously veering into a realm of nuanced discussion for which beastieâ??s training and inclination has not prepared her, so I will desist pursuing the concepts further. I just hope that those (and there are apparently quite a few) who are following this debate will stop to consider the possibility that there is, in fact, much more detail and nuance to the Book of Mormon narrative than people like beastie would have us believe. And that the detail therein contained can, as Brant has done so extensively and admirably in his recent publications, be favorably compared to what little we now know about Preclassic Mesoamerican history.

I will return as soon as time permits and reply to beastieâ??s post in the ball game thread in the Punditâ??s forum.

[Anijen]

I have a friend that is so annoying it frustrates me to a point that I just have to quit talking about certain things. What say you is my frustration?

When he argues a point he absolutely knows everything and cannot possibly be wrong. He is right sometimes but when he is wrong he will not give up, if he says 2+2= 5 nothing you do or say will ever change his mind. I could bring in a hundred math teachers and he wouldn't budge. With real sincere belief on his part (for he knows he is right) he cant understand for the life of him why I cant see that 2+2 isn't 5.

Often the weird thing is six months later he will say 2+2=4 and I am the one who argued it was 5 and nothing I do or say could make him wrong. I could tape record the conversation (and I have been tempted) and play it back, he would do one of two things and will argue that it is 5 or he will instantly change and look at me straight in the eye and say I told you so. Either way the guy cannot admit he is wrong, ever.

It caused a divorce from his 1st wife and his current wife just gives up and ignores him.

Perhaps you know the type.

edited to add; I have never debated 2+2 with this friend of mine, it is usually a little more complex than that. I felt a little offended from beasties last post about me and felt she was a tad bit condescending. I think I need to retire also from this thread before I let emotion overcome. Its been fun guys, and I am learning a whole lot and that has been appreciated. Thanks again.

Anijen

[beastie]

They all seem to be side discussions--with the same general theme. We read things, both in the Book of Mormon and in the archeology, very differently.

The primary discussion is whether or not the BoM describes a polity that had extensive influence in Mesoamerica. Thatâ??s why Iâ??ve been sharing so many verses, to try and guide the discussion in that direction, yet there is a great deal of resistance to dealing with that in particular, and more interest in minor points, such as poverty or ballgames.

And we return to the problem of reading and applying the reading. You are seeing the word poor and deciding that there is a class of hungry and naked people. I make no such assumption. For example, I am very well aware that an entire class of deprived people doesn't fit well in an agricultural system. I mention that in my commentary (at least the published version, I don't remember that far back for the online version).

The problem is when you use the word class. That word has very specific meanings and there is an important distinction between cultures having class markers and those that do not.

I confess that I never understood your issue about the poor class before. You are assuming systematized poverty. You are correct that it doesn't fit Mesoamerica. It also doesn't fit the Book of Mormon. Once again, it is an issue of how to read a text.

Yes, there is a problem of reading and applying the reading. You see the words â??hungry, nakedâ?, you see the words â??nourished, clothedâ? and decide it is figurative. The question is whether you are justified in making that determination. As Iâ??m demonstrating in sharing specific scriptures, one of the major themes of the BoM is taking care of the poor, in particular, feeding and clothing them. You insist this does not refer to an entire class of poor â?? like nineteenth century poverty â?? but rather to isolated individuals here and there. When I share a verse that explicitly states there was a class of poor, you tell me it doesnâ??t count because they werenâ??t Nephites, and that the â??nourishing and clothingâ? was figurative.

Perhaps, even if you cannot concede my point, you can understand why I regard your decision to view it as â??figurativeâ? as more a manner of convenience that knowing how to read an ancient text. It seems to me that â??how to read a textâ? ends up simply allowing you to ignore contradictory evidence.

Because we are talking about two very different things. I am talking about the nature of class systems. You are talking about a particular definition of poverty, which I strongly suspect is defined by western systems and monetary societies. That isn't surprising, since that is also what we find in the New Testament, but the very nature of the definition of "poor" is dramatically different in agricultural societies.

It is possible to have some who are hungry and naked in agricultural systems, but usually only a few and usually because of some natural disaster. They are not a class of people defined by those circumstances. The egalitarian definitions of hopitality require the communal assistance for those who find themselves in those circumstances (which is what we get from Benjamin's discourse).

It really seems that you are using a very different definition of "poor" and then confusing it with classed societies. I am simply trying to be precise, not difficult. These are all issues social scientist are interested in, and they do care about the fine distinctions in the definitions.

I am not confusing issues. I am actually listening to the text when it specifically states there was a classed society, and you silence the text on that point by insisting itâ??s â??figurativeâ?.

BTW, I want to emphasize that I agree with you that classed systems are what we find in the New Testament as well as nineteenth century New England. I also want to emphasize that I agree with you that this is inconsistent with Mesoamerica.

Beastie:

Iâ??ll be quoting more BoM verses to illustrate this point. I think your statement that â??they didnâ??t have a poor class because they eschewed classes in generalâ? is in direct contradiction to the text, with the exception of some specific periods of supposedly idyllic, egalitarian conditions.

brant

You are aware, I assume, that most texts produced by the dominant party in a society tend to record the ideal rather than the norm? That is, they tell us what the people should be like, not what they were like. We get this in the Bible as well. What that means is that we find in Nephite society clear preaching against social hierarchies and attempts to create a political system that functions without hierarchies. Of course, with larger populations, this becomes increasingly difficult, even while it remains the ideal. Nevertheless, the Nephite intent (officially) is egalitarian. The "enemy," at least in cultural terms, is class.

Therefore, when you examine you scriptures about classes, please make sure you understand them with the following categories:

Cities in apostate conditions are decried for their stratification. You should find classes there (and you will). However, official Nephites officially don't like it.

Inside Nephite normative society, there was a constant pressure for hierarchies. You will find this with the Kingmen. This will give you another place where there are Nephites pushing for a hierarchical society--but again one that is considered dangerous to the general Nephite culture.

Make sure that your examples demonstrate the point you are making. In one of your last barrages of scripture, you attempted to prove the poor classes by examining precisely the places where they exist--in non-normative Nephite cities. That shows that there were hierarchies among people once having ties to Nephite culture, but it doesn't tell us that classes were normative for the Nephites (and strongly argues against it).

My examples have demonstrated the point Iâ??m making. You simply determine that you can ignore the verses that make my point by declaring that theyâ??re â??figurativeâ?, or literally ignoring them (the verses that explain the Nephites were ruled by a strict set of laws enforced by hierarchy).

The â??idealâ? that the Nephites aspire to is an egalitarian society, wherein the needs of all are met, and there is no pride based on access to material goods. I agree that this is telling the people what they should be like, not what they were like. The words of the prophets, that Iâ??m sharing in BoM verses, tell us that the reality was that there was pride, there was neglect of the poor. There was a class of people who felt superior to others based on access to material goods. The Nephites struggled with this problem as much as the apostate cultures did.

Once again, I want to point out that in making the point that a poor class that is starving and naked is anachronistic in Mesoamerica â?? a point with which you agree â?? it is irrelevant whether or not that described poor class is Nephite, Lamanite, or apostate.

You apparently haven't read much on agricultural societies. There is a social mechanism for caring for those who endure misfortune (individuals, not classes). This is often under the umbrella of hospitality, but there are established social rules of assistance. These are not enforced by any power save social pressure, and the reiteration of those social norms by important people reinforces them without either suggesting class or that there were large numbers of hungry and naked people. You may need to read more on the nature of agricultural communities. You are misapplying definitions from the wrong model.

The only reason you have allowed yourself to assume that what is described in the BoM is not an entire class of poor, but rather isolated individuals, is because you have decided that the verses that explicitly state there was a class of poor were â??figurativeâ?. And telling me that this was an apostate city does not eradicate this point â?? it was describing a Mesoamerican polity.

!!! Well, I know now why we aren't communicating. This statement is absolutely incorrect for an agricultural community. It has no basis in history or modern observation. Conditions or relative poverty, in an agricultural society, are much more often due to natural disaster than human neglect. Social pressures for communal support are much stronger than that (these principles drove social interactions into the mid-1800's in non-urban US).

The Book of Mormon describes an agrarian culture. This begins with sets of known assumptions about communities; strong kin ties, mutual support, classless societies, etc. You have to interpret what the text says against the kind of culture it claims to be. When you force interpretations on it that it doesn't start with, it is no wonder that it feels "untrue" to you. It isn't the text, it is your reading. You are starting with the wrong definitions.

It is the text. I donâ??t decide, for example, that I can ignore verses that explicit state there was a class of poor because it is â??figurativeâ?.

From what I am seeing, it is because we both read each other with assumptions that are incorrect. I'm not sure how to start on a level field. Our differences are much deeper than evidence--they go to the nature of how one sees and understand the evidence. That is a big gap.

Yes, our differences are much deeper than evidence. Somehow you are able to read my statements that a polity that controlled over 400,000 square kilometers would be anachronistic to Mesoamerica and interpret it as â??any kind of powerful polity would be anachronistic to Mesoamericaâ?. You are able to read verses that explicitly state there was a poor class of people and decide it doesnâ??t count because itâ??s figurative. I understand that there is a disconnect here that is not likely to be resolved in the course of this discussion, and am continuing for the sake of interested readers who may actually be weighing the evidence for a Mesoamerican setting.

In the meantime, we have agreed one side issue: a class of poor people who would need food and clothing is anachronistic to Mesoamerica. Readers can decide whether or not the BoM describes that situation.

Beastie:

The reason I brought up control is because you brought up my original point about the anachronistic nature of such a polity (although you misrepresented what I actually said, of course). So Iâ??m not trying to re-argue the point of control â?? as I said, the same case can be made with influence. But to correct your misrepresentation of my stance required me to remind readers of what I was actually saying â?? that a polity that controlled such a mass region would be anachronistic, not that â??any kind of powerful polityâ? would be anachronistic.

Brant:

To try, one more time, to get to the same starting place. When anthropologists study political systems, they make important distinctions based on the nature of control. It isn't the presence of law that makes the changes, it is the way the laws are enforced.

For example, there is a community of Boy Scouts that have laws. There are lots of Boy Scouts who obey those laws. What happens in the breach of one of them? Well, for many, they are not even noticed. There are some that would exclude you from the community of Boy Scouts, but most people would simply elect to disassociate from them. That is why the existence of laws doesn't tell you anything about the political structure.

You know how evolved the political structure is when you see how they control or enforce. That is the reason that it is an important point. It is also important to make the distinction between when disparate communities accept temporary conditions for mutual defense that they wouldn't accept at other times (no intentional reference to the Patriot Act, really). That is why you have to look at the control exercised in normal conditions. You will notice, I hope, that none of that is any change at all from what I have been saying since the beginning of this discussion.

Gulp. There it is again. The very issue under discussion is now used as the definition of the discussion. That, beastie, really is academic cheating. If we cannot agree that they "controlled" the region, then you cannot claim that it is anachronistic that they controlled the region. (And that - again - is the very point I have been making from the beginning)

You did exactly what I figured you would do. I explicitly stated that I wasnâ??t trying to reopen the control debate, because my point can be made with influence instead of control. I brought up the control debate simply to clarify your gross misrepresentation of my original point. I did not say that â??any kind of powerful polityâ? would be anachronistic. I said one particular type of polity would be anachronistic, - one that controlled a region of over 400,000 square kilometers would be anachronistic. I suspect you actually agree that would be anachronistic for Mesoamerica, and that is why you argue so strenuously that the BoM does not describe â??controlâ?, despite verses that explicitly state that the Nephites used military might to force individuals into military service and used the power of law to execute people. But it is pointless to debate that point when you have demonstrated your willingness to ignore the evidence that does demonstrate control, like those two I just mentioned.

Instead, I am trying to get you to recognize and concede that, even outside the issue of control, that the Nephites had notable influence over an extended region. Thatâ??s why Iâ??m sharing scriptures that show that even apostate and Lamanite polities still self-identified with the origin story of the Nephites. Apostate and Lamanite polities still say their fathers came from Jerusalem, too. They still adhere to a form of Judaism. This is Judeo-Christian influence, and it extended beyond the Nephites through the entire region.

[beastie]

Nomad -

I've already replied to Brant on this issue, but for you want to emphasize a scripture I just shared from Alma chapter 4:

12 Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted.

13 Now this was a great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christâ??s sake, who should come according to the spirit of prophecy;

Both you and Brant keep assuring me that the poverty described in the BoM was nothing more than isolated cases of need, not an entire class of poor. Yet these verses explicitly tell us that there was great inequality among the people - and this inequality was directly connected to neglect of the poor. So while I have no doubt you and Brant will still be utterly convinced you are correct, perhaps other readers will appreciate why I do not find your argument particularly persuasive.

Remember, folks, Brant agrees with me that an underclass of starving poor would be anachronistic in Mesoamerica. The only question left is whether or not that is the situation described in the BoM. Why, if the society was egalitarian and unranked, would GREAT INEQUALITY AMONG THE PEOPLE be directly connected to neglect of the poor???

(ps - anijen - I'm sorry I've offended you. When posters start dwelling on my personal character flaws instead of the topic, I should simply ignore it rather than risk returning offense.)

[Nomad]

beastie,

I'll be on the run most of today, but I wanted to pose one question to you pursuant to the discussion above:

Within the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, over the course of the past century or so, how would you characterize the relative prevalence of poor among us? Would you say that there are only "isolated cases of need," or do we see distinct strata of rich and poor, with a well-defined "class" of the latter?

I will look forward to your answer.