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

[Areabird]

Does this strike anyone else as a little odd sounding?

It's like saying our proof is that we don't have any proof.

[Scott Lloyd]

P.S. I don't have the time to debate you, Kevin, Bill and Scott. So if you guys could just select a spokesman I would appreciate it . (this is a joke)

Loren

Since Kevin, Bill and Brant have forgotten more than I've ever learned, I'll leave the heavy lifting to them and sit back and enjoy the show.

[LifeOnaPlate]

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

I cannot.

Now how does this have anything whatsoever to do with my argument as outlined?

It is safe to conclude by your standards there were no Olmec...

[LifeOnaPlate]

Assuming that you would accept the scholarly consensus on something like the Histoire du Mechique, would you not be willing to accept similar "proof" for another document? If not, why not?

I think it was implied earlier in the thread; the answer being that one being true makes demands on someone whereas the other doesn't.

Does this strike anyone else as a little odd sounding?

Not me. I see faith in pretty much every discipline under the sun, the so-called "religious" and otherwise.

[cdowis]

It is up to the church to demonstrate its claims. If the church does not satisfy the burden of proof it has already lost.

What exactly has it lost if it cannot convince you of "its claims"?

Please tell me, what is it losing, dear fellow.

[beastie]

The question of the Book of Mormon isn't whether or not Mesoamerican would exist without it. That makes an assumption that the people in the text caused cultural transformations. I really doubt that happened.

The polity described in the BoM would roughly be possess the size and power of the later Aztec polity. That this size polity would not cause cultural transformations in the rest of the region is unthinkable.

Take, for example, this, from my website here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpo...tical%20Control

The first example is from Alma, chapter 8, around BC 82. Alma abdicated his position as chief judge in order to focus his full attention on spreading the church in the land of Zarahemla. One of the cities he visited was Ammonihah.

2 And thus ended the ninth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.

3 And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness.

4 And he began to teach the people in the land of Melek according to the holy order of God, by which he had been called; and he began to teach the people throughout all the land of Melek.

5 And it came to pass that the people came to him throughout all the borders of the land which was by the wilderness side. And they were baptized throughout all the land;

6 So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed thence, and traveled three daysâ?? journey on the north of the land of Melek; and he came to a city which was called Ammonihah.

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.

13 Now when the people had said this, and withstood all his words, and reviled him, and spit upon him, and caused that he should be cast out of their city, he departed thence and took his journey towards the city which was called Aaron.

Verse twelve is extremely clear. The people who lived in the city of Ammonihah recognized the authority of the chief judge seated in Zarahemla. I used Deanne Mathenyâ??s map from her essay â??Does the Shoe Fit?â? and compared it to mapquestâ??s maps of Chiapas, Mexico. The approximate distance from Zarahemla to Ammonihah is 110 miles, as the crow flies (the distance would likely be even longer were I to factor reasonable walking paths). Therefore, Zarahemlaâ??s chief judge was also the ruling authority figure for a city 110 miles away. In todayâ??s modern world, that assertion does not cause concern. However, it causes a great deal of concern in regards to the history of ancient Mesoamerica.

Prudence Rice, in Maya Political Science â?? Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos, states:

Analysis of spatial distances between Classic centers does not qualify as creating â??modelsâ? of political organization, but it can reveal hierarchies of sites. Many authors have commented on the geographic spacing between Classic centers and its implications for political organization and administration. The distances between sites in the lowlands generally range from 12 to 20 miles, roughly the distance that could be walked in a day. Similar spacing of archaeological sites has been noted in other regions of the world, such as Europe and the Near East, and may represent a common logistical factor that facilitates administration in early states lacking vehicular or animal transport systems. (page 35)

At the apex is a large primary site with scores of plazas and a population in the tens of thousands, which dominated a territory of thousands of square km. These primary cities interacted with smaller secondary sites through royal marital ties and other alliances, perhaps economic, ritual, or military. Secondary sites were, in turn, surrounded by even smaller tertiary and quaternary level sites, perhaps dower houses and tiny farming homesteads were interspersed around all of these. (page 36)

There are other examples, of course, but this will do for now.

[Uncertain]

It is safe to conclude by your standards there were no Olmec...

What how so? I have already conceded the inability to locate a Nephite city may not necessarily be a good reason to suppose Nephite cities never existed. I said that in my first post I think you may be misunderstanding what my argument was.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[hagoth7]

It's like saying our proof is that we don't have any proof.

No. That's not at all what he's saying.

[Brant Gardner]

1 â?? It is possible to use the BoM to ascertain a rough level of social complexity and political power of the described polities. To demonstrate the existence of the Nephite polity, one would first have to find evidence a polity roughly the size and possessing the political power of the later Aztecs.

We continue to disagree on how to read the nature of polities in the Book of Mormon. I would suggest that we discuss the details, but I suspect that we will simply end up disagreeing on how to read both the Book of Mormon and the archaeological evidence.

In addition, given the fact that this polity would indisputably have been the most powerful polity in the region, and given the complete enmeshment of religion and politics in Mesoamerica, we would expect to see a Judeo-Christian trajectory in the over-all region, not just in one city.

Two problems. First, "indisputably" is certainly over-reaching, since I have disputed it with you before. Hyperbole accepted, but qualified.

Second, the idea that "we would expect to see a Judeo-Christian trajectory" absolutely begs an iconogrpahic definition by which that might be decided. Since the tradition from which the Lehites came was aniconic and the region currently accepted as plausibly Nephite is similarly pretty aniconic, what do you really expect to find?

This trajectory would be detected in the myths that were not only recorded on the codex and utilized in stelae, but would also be detected in the stories and myths that the Mesoamericans still taught and believed at the time of the conquest.

If your hypothesis were true, then it would have to be on stela that were in the right place, correct? Pray tell, which?

If your hyptothesis were true, then we would have to assume that New World peoples never appropriated mythology and adapted the graphic depictions to their own meaning. Since we know that the Aztecs did this, you hypothesis starts off in the hole. If you look at Christianity's adoption of Greek mythological symbols, you are even deeper in the hole.

However, one must exercise caution in terms of the Spaniardâ??s conception of the Mesoamerican religion, since their perceptions were heavily biased, and instead rely on actual Mesoamerican sources, like the Popul Vuh.

On this we agree, save that the Popol Vuh is still limited as a source. It is being read backwards onto iconography because there is no other guide, but the general trajectory of oral tradition would suggest that it cannot be an accurate representation. There have been some indications that the reading backwards should be done cautiously.

[Uncertain]

I think it was implied earlier in the thread; the answer being that one being true makes demands on someone whereas the other doesn't.

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

This is not at all correct. If party X makes new claim Y then it is up to party X to provide positive evidence for claim Y. Regardless of what "demands" are associated with claim Y. The church explicitly recognizes this. Which is why missionaries ask investigators to read and pray about the BOM so that they can gain positive evidence (i.e. personal spiritual experiences) concerning the claims of the church. In addition as I pointed out in post #125 the scholarly consensus does have a great deal of weight to a non expert like me.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[robuchan]

The final question is not where the burden of proof lies, but what one expects as a proof.

I'm starting to identify this as a recurring theme in nearly every aspect of LDS apologetics. The tactic is always to whittle away at expectations.

[Uncertain]

Since Kevin, Bill and Brant have forgotten more than I've ever learned.

I doubt this.

Uncertain

[Brant Gardner]

I'm starting to identify this as a recurring theme in nearly every aspect of LDS apologetics. The tactic is always to whittle away at expectations.

It has very little to do with apologetics and everything to do with the nature of the social sciences. If you are going to propose that you will live by the sword of those sciences, you accept the underlying premises. What is a recurring theme in apologetics is that people typically ask for proofs that are impossible, even were religion not an issue. There is a linguistic hypothesis that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Zoquean. It has not been proven and cannot be proven. However, there are good arguments and at the moment they are accepted.

There are hypotheses about the language of the Teotihuacanos. Those are more varied and less generally accepted. Certainly it has not been proven.

There is so little in history that should even be associated with the word "proof." That is the mistake here. It isn't to whittle away at expectations, it is to prune away erroneous assumptions about the task at hand.

Let's set a reasonable expectation. Shouldn't we expect that the same kinds of evidence and argument used to establish the currently accepted site of Troy as the one mentioned in the Iliad be a reasonable base for establishing a hypothesis?

[beastie]

I don't interpret my actions in the same way that you do. I have never made that claim, nor would I. They are not working in concert to suppress evidence. They are just not concerned, which tends to mean, they have not bothered to seriously define what would and what would not be significant evidence for or against the Book of Mormon, based on a close reading of the text in an appropriate context. Coe's PBS interview is wonderfully telling in that regard. For him the problem remains in the hands of Fawn Brodie and Tom Ferguson. I understand the perspective. I just find it weak, relative to impressive progress in the several decades since those two mattered.

Kevin,

My point has nothing to do with the BoM in the first place, other than to find certain claims within the text that can be verified or dismissed by experts. The claims are simple, and do not necessitate any speculation whatsoever on who authored the BoM. One example is the possession of the technology of metallurgy during the specified time period. Another is the existence of horses. Another is the existence of a polity that possessed the social complexity and political power of the polity described in the BoM. Archaeologists donâ??t have to know a blessed thing about the BoM to present evidence that would support those claims. So the fact that scholars have not offered evidence that would validate these claims has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, and everything to do with ancient Mesoamerica. If an archaeologist actually found legitimate evidence of any of these factors, that archaeologist would happily and eagerly share it with the rest of the scholarly community, making a name for him or herself in the meantime.

If metalurgy were the only thing that mattered in contexualizing the Book of Mormon, perhaps I'd worry more than I do.

Itâ??s not the â??only thingâ?, but it certainly is a very important thing. Do you deny this?

BTW, others have suggested the Genesee River in NY for Sidon. I think the specific claims that Poulsen makes regarding the prerequisites for the River Sidon can also be argued, because theyâ??re based on a specific interpretation of verses that are arguably open to more than one interpretation.

And when I look, I like the way that Clark puts open issues in perspective in his Joseph Smith Conference talk. The trend is toward resolution of open issues.

I assure you that trend is a matter of debate.

[Brant Gardner]

In addition as I pointed out in post #125 the scholarly consensus does have a great deal of weight to a non expert like me.

Except you have admitted that you don't know enough to answer any of the issues involved in a scholarly consensus. You have no idea what the scholarly consensus consists of and what evidence has been examined. For all you know (and for the most part it is correct) that consensus was built on the evidence that you have admitted could be the wrong way to look at the problem.

What you are saying is that you are abdicating your responsibility to discern the answer based upon a conclusion that is built upon a prior prejudice rather than evidence. Except, doesn't that contradict that very point you thought you were making? Shouldn't you be making decisions based on better stuff than assumptions?

[hagoth7]

Yes. If there were already indigenous peoples here in the Americas, then the Lehits were likely swallowed by the residents. That at least would explain why you don't jewish DNA. But it doesn't explain why Joseph and Spence Kimball keep referring to the American indians as Lamanites.

Actually, it does.

In ancient Jewish thinking, one was either a Jew or a Gentile. All outsiders were/are considered Gentiles.

In ancient Nephite thinking, one was either a Nephite or a Lamanite. All outsiders were/are considered Lamanites.

DNA has nothing to do with it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LifeOnaPlate,This is not at all correct. If party X makes new claim Y then it is up to party X to provide positive evidence for claim Y. Regardless of what "demands" are associated with claim Y. The church explicitly recognizes this. Which is why missionaries ask investigators to read and pray about the BOM so that they can gain positive evidence (i.e. personal spiritual experiences) concerning the claims of the church. In addition as I pointed out in post #125 the scholarly consensus does have a great deal of weight to a non expert like me. All the Best, Uncertain

I think you may have missed my point. But can you answer Brant rather than trying to answer me?

I'm starting to identify this as a recurring theme in nearly every aspect of LDS apologetics. The tactic is always to whittle away at expectations.

Actually it's a fundamental aspect of scientific, historical, religious, etc. inquiry. I suspect you notice it recurring most because it is your expectations that are often being questioned even as you attempt to question the expectations (and conclusions) of others. (See the "plain and precious" thread for an excellent example of this.)

[beastie]

We continue to disagree on how to read the nature of polities in the Book of Mormon. I would suggest that we discuss the details, but I suspect that we will simply end up disagreeing on how to read both the Book of Mormon and the archaeological evidence.

In the past, when we discussed whether or not Zarahemla exerted political control over Ammonihah, you stated that I was misinterpreting the scripture, and the scripture does not imply or state that Zarahemla exerted political control over Ammonihah. Later I visited your website and you stated there that Zarahemla did exert control over Ammonihah. I think that the scripture is quite clear, and Zarahemla did exert political control over Ammonihah. Do you agree?

Two problems. First, "indisputably" is certainly over-reaching, since I have disputed it with you before. Hyperbole accepted, but qualified.

Second, the idea that "we would expect to see a Judeo-Christian trajectory" absolutely begs an iconogrpahic definition by which that might be decided. Since the tradition from which the Lehites came was aniconic and the region currently accepted as plausibly Nephite is similarly pretty aniconic, what do you really expect to find?

Mesoamerican scholars have been able to identify specific traits and beliefs within the Mesoamerican religious worldview. The manner in which they have been able to do this, which is partly by using later sources to identify points of similarity with earlier sources, could be utilized to identify a Judeo-Christian influence. If your argument was correct, then the scholars would not have been able to draw the conclusions they have about the Mesoamerican worldview.

If your hypothesis were true, then it would have to be on stela that were in the right place, correct? Pray tell, which?

If your hyptothesis were true, then we would have to assume that New World peoples never appropriated mythology and adapted the graphic depictions to their own meaning. Since we know that the Aztecs did this, you hypothesis starts off in the hole. If you look at Christianity's adoption of Greek mythological symbols, you are even deeper in the hole.

No, it would not be on just one stela, Brant â?? that is the point. The most powerful polities in Mesoamerica exerted tremendous influence on the entire region, and we see recurrent themes on all stelae. And it wouldnâ??t matter if they borrowed iconography or mythology â?? scholars could still detect the Judeo-Christian influence. If this were not so, then scholars would not have been able to construct the details that they have â?? just about a different religion.

On this we agree, save that the Popol Vuh is still limited as a source. It is being read backwards onto iconography because there is no other guide, but the general trajectory of oral tradition would suggest that it cannot be an accurate representation. There have been some indications that the reading backwards should be done cautiously.

Cautiously, but it still has been done with success. If you were correct, and it would not be possible to detect a Judeo-Christian influence, then scholars would not have had the success they have in formulating specific details about the Mesoamerican religious worldview.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There is so little in history that should even be associated with the word "proof." That is the mistake here. It isn't to whittle away at expectations, it is to prune away erroneous assumptions about the task at hand.

Exactly. Check out the "apologists" position of a few historians (non-LDS) from one of those "important" schools back east.

James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle described the everyday view of history in the intro of their excellent book After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection ("art" a deliberate choice). The intro starts the book off by challenging the assumptions. Robuchan finds such an approach to be evidence of dissembling or having a weak case (in his vocab, being an "apologist.") Let's listen:

"History is what happened in the past."

...[This view] supposes that historians must return to the past through the surviving records and bring it back to the present to display as "what really happened." The everyday view recognized that this task is often difficult. But historians are said to succeed if they bring back the facts without distorting them or forcing a new perspective on them. In effect, historians are seen as couriers between the past and the present. Like all good couriers, they are expected simply to deliver messages without adding to them. This everyday view of history is profoundly misleading...

History is not "what happened in the past;" rather, it is the act of selecting, analyzing, and writing about the past. It is something that is done, that is constructed, rather than an inert body of data that lies scattered throughout the archives...(Davidson, Lytle, After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, (1992) xvii, xxi. Read the full chapter here.

I largely subscribe to their views on that subject; I believe that the "noble dream" of objectivity is practically impossible. As Davidson and Lytle explain, "historians generally deal with probabilities, not certainties," and like them, I "leave you to draw your own conclusions" after I have related my own.

For better or for worse, historians inescapably leave an imprint as they go about their business: asking interesting questions about apparently dull facts, seeing connections between subjects that had not seemed related before, shifting and rearranging evidence until it assumes a coherent pattern. The past is not history; only the raw material of it.

[Uncertain]

It has very little to do with apologetics and everything to do with the nature of the social sciences. If you are going to propose that you will live by the sword of those sciences, you accept the underlying premises. What is a recurring theme in apologetics is that people typically ask for proofs that are impossible, even were religion not an issue. There is a linguistic hypothesis that the Olmec spoke Mixe-Zoquean. It has not been proven and cannot be proven. However, there are good arguments and at the moment they are accepted.

There are hypotheses about the language of the Teotihuacanos. Those are more varied and less generally accepted. Certainly it has not been proven.

There is so little in history that should even be associated with the word "proof." That is the mistake here. It isn't to whittle away at expectations, it is to prune away erroneous assumptions about the task at hand.

Let's set a reasonable expectation. Shouldn't we expect that the same kinds of evidence and argument used to establish the currently accepted site of Troy as the one mentioned in the Iliad be a reasonable base for establishing a hypothesis?

Hi Brant Gardner,

Well in my case I assume when an apologist says he is using standard scholarly techniques. I take them at their word. The problem is I am a graduate student in the sciences I know a moderate amount in my field of study. But very little about say Mesoamerican linguistics or iconography. Therefore I can evaluate the various arguments for and against a Mesoamerican setting in the BOM only in a superficial fashion. I must depend primarily on the study done by experts. The problem of course is that the mainstream experts view of Mesoamerica does not include the Nephites. Now you (and others) who are also experts claim there is sufficient evidence to doubt the current consensus in the field. You may be right or you may be wrong given my limited knowledge I have no real basis to judge. This is why I stated to convince someone like me first convince some of those experts who do not already agree with you. If you cannot convince those who spend their lives studying this stuff why should I be convinced?

Now failure to convince mainstream experts in no way means you are wrong. But it does not mean you are right either. It could be you cannot convince them because your evidence is weak. Or it could be the experts for various reasons will not engage in a fair fashion with your argument. As a non expert I have no way to tell which option is the truth. And the safest position is agnosticism(i.e. pick neither side) or go with the consensus of mainstream scholars.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[beastie]

In ancient Nephite thinking, one was either a Nephite or a Lamanite. All outsiders were/are considered Lamanites.

According to the BoM, Lamanites also self-identified as Lamanites, equally proud of their genealogy. This implies not only a Nephite polity that possessed this worldview and chosen history, but an equally or more powerful "outsider" polity that also possessed a similar worldview and chosen history.

[Brant Gardner]

The polity described in the BoM would roughly be possess the size and power of the later Aztec polity.

OK, we will discuss this assertion.

That this size polity would not cause cultural transformations in the rest of the region is unthinkable.

You have to demonstrate that the text supports it before you can come to this conclusion.

The first example is from Alma, chapter 8, around BC 82. Alma abdicated his position as chief judge in order to focus his full attention on spreading the church in the land of Zarahemla. One of the cities he visited was Ammonihah. . . .

Verse twelve is extremely clear. The people who lived in the city of Ammonihah recognized the authority of the chief judge seated in Zarahemla.

And we have a very significant difference in how we read. The text clearly indicates that they were not willing to accept the authority of the representative of the official religion of the polity. That would be (and in their case was) tantamount to a rebellion, since religion and politics are not separable in the ancient world.

Here is where the evidence for the Aztec style polity ought to show up, and doesn't. You have an official from the "head" city visiting a city deemed to be separatist. There is no army. There is no coercion. There is nothing to compel any obedience to the polity. The same occurs later with the Zoramites. The same occurs with Morianton's people (although they were stopped by an army that was already fighting--nevertheless, they felt no other reason to stay in the polity).

The Aztec realm was very certainly held together by force. It simply would have fallen apart without it. If tended to fission in any case. What you are seeing in the Nephites is not a strong polity, but a loose hegemony. The tendencies to fission were there (as they were in later Aztec society), but there was nothing to prevent them. There was no strong state.

The Aztec model completely fails to fit what we see in the Book of Mormon. What we have is your reading of a verse in the way you want to read it, but without looking at the rest of the data in the text.

I used Deanne Mathenyâ??s map from her essay â??Does the Shoe Fit?â? and compared it to mapquestâ??s maps of Chiapas, Mexico. The approximate distance from Zarahemla to Ammonihah is 110 miles, as the crow flies (the distance would likely be even longer were I to factor reasonable walking paths). Therefore, Zarahemlaâ??s chief judge was also the ruling authority figure for a city 110 miles away. In todayâ??s modern world, that assertion does not cause concern. However, it causes a great deal of concern in regards to the history of ancient Mesoamerica.

So many assumptions. You assume that it was claimed land. The text does not indicate that. Archaeology doesn't support the population densities in that area that would require that it were already claimed land. You are also reading a mandate where the greater likelihood was consensus.

I don't remember the source at the moment, but they are finding emblem glyphs that indicate some connection in some widespread and otherwise thought-to-be-unconnected lands. This is the problem of making too many inferences about the Maya past based on what little we have been able to glean. It seems to have been much more complex.

Still, the issue is one of complexity and control. There is no evidence for control. There is evidence of cooperation when it suits, but nothing that can control dissent. Without that mechanism, you cannot maintain a large dependent territory. Not only is there no mechanism of control in the Book of Mormon, that lack of a mechanism is demonstrated by the easy separation of peoples from the hegemony. It is difficult to determine from the text alone what the nature of the interdependence of Book of Mormon cities was. The best evidence for a widespread cooperation is Captain Moroni's army, but that is a regional response to a common threat -- which even made friends of Sparta and Athens for a while.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, it does.

In ancient Jewish thinking, one was either a Jew or a Gentile. All outsiders were/are considered Gentiles.

In ancient Nephite thinking, one was either a Nephite or a Lamanite. All outsiders were/are considered Lamanites.

DNA has nothing to do with it.

Moreover, it is pretty much a mathematical certainty that within a relatively few generations descendancy can be dispersed throughout entire populations. Thus, it is not at all unreasonable for Latter-day Saints to believe, even today, that all or virtually all American Indians today are descended from father Lehi, whether or not DNA evidence is present.

Areabird's is an invalid argument that the critics just can't seem to get past, because they haven't thought it through.

[Uncertain]

Except you have admitted that you don't know enough to answer any of the issues involved in a scholarly consensus. You have no idea what the scholarly consensus consists of and what evidence has been examined.

Hi Brant,

This is entirely correct. It is also correct I have no idea what evidence has been examined to arrive at the conclusion the Universe started with a Big Bang. But I still accept the scholarly consensus on the matter. I think the absolute best case would be to have sufficient expertise to rigorously evaluate every claim. The problem of course is that this is impossible. No one can be an expert in everything. Well second best is to go with what the majority of the experts in the field think. I dare say you do this all the time. When you get on a plane I doubt you fully understand all that goes into making a Jet. But you trust the consensus of those who do know all about making jets.

For all you know (and for the most part it is correct) that consensus was built on the evidence that you have admitted could be the wrong way to look at the problem.

Yes the consensus could absolutely be wrong that does not make you right. In other words you claim the mainstream experts are missing something important. You could indeed be right but you could be wrong. I do not have the necessary training to tell the difference. Therefore I depend on those who do which again is why I suggest you first focus on convincing those who study this stuff for a living. Before you worry about convincing the lay person.

What you are saying is that you are abdicating your responsibility to discern the answer based upon a conclusion that is built upon a prior prejudice rather than evidence. Except, doesn't that contradict that very point you thought you were making? Shouldn't you be making decisions based on better stuff than assumptions?

No what I am saying is I do not have the necessary training to properly evaluate the evidence. Hence I should not make hard and fast conclusions based on the evidence. Usually what I would do when I do not have the necessary training is depend on the conclusion of those that do. But in this case there is to some extent "dueling" experts. That is you claim the majority of scholars are not examining the evidence in the right way hence their conclusions are suspect you could be right I don't know. In addition I think you may be misunderstanding what my conclusions are. At this point I am agnostic concerning this question that is I do not have the necessary training to know who is right. Therefore the proper position is to chose neither side.

(edited because the universe was not started by a Big Band )

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brant Gardner]

In the past, when we discussed whether or not Zarahemla exerted political control over Ammonihah, you stated that I was misinterpreting the scripture, and the scripture does not imply or state that Zarahemla exerted political control over Ammonihah. Later I visited your website and you stated there that Zarahemla did exert control over Ammonihah. I think that the scripture is quite clear, and Zarahemla did exert political control over Ammonihah. Do you agree?

No. I still disagree.

Mesoamerican scholars have been able to identify specific traits and beliefs within the Mesoamerican religious worldview. The manner in which they have been able to do this, which is partly by using later sources to identify points of similarity with earlier sources, could be utilized to identify a Judeo-Christian influence. If your argument was correct, then the scholars would not have been able to draw the conclusions they have about the Mesoamerican worldview.

No. They have traced a set of beliefs through the iconography. One might suggest that it could be done with Apollo as well, and that we could reconstruct Roman mythology (or parts of it) from the art. That would be correct.

What would be incorrect is reading all Apollo iconography as reflective of Roman mythology and miss that it was adopted by Christianity. Because we know of the history of Christianity, we can discern the differences, but the very clear point is that the iconography, without the proper interpretive context, only tells us about the context we bring to it. Mesoamericanists interpret through the Popol Vuh because it is all there is. However, there must have been much more. Even at that, it is still possible to appropriate iconography. The Jews did it. The Christians did it. We know they did because we have living descendants of those traditions to help us interpret it. But that information doesn't necessarily come from the iconography itself.

No, it would not be on just one stela, Brant â?? that is the point. The most powerful polities in Mesoamerica exerted tremendous influence on the entire region, and we see recurrent themes on all stelae.

You miss the point. The location of the plausible Nephite lands doesn't have stelae. They don't have discovered wall art. They don't have carved monuments or deity heads on temples. They don't have figurines lying about (there are a few, a couple which were clearly imported, much as you would find Egyptian artifacts in Israel).

You are generalized beyond the data. You would be correct for the places that have that kind of evidence. You are over-reaching when you apply that kind of evidence to an area where it is absent.

And it wouldnâ??t matter if they borrowed iconography or mythology â?? scholars could still detect the Judeo-Christian influence.

That is a wonderful assertion. Confident. Not easily demonstrable. If we didn't have a Christian text to go to, what would a painting of fish and bread indicate? How would you get from food to Christian miracle from the picture of fish? Are all fish representative of the New Testament? Did pagans never paint bread?

Cautiously, but it still has been done with success. If you were correct, and it would not be possible to detect a Judeo-Christian influence, then scholars would not have had the success they have in formulating specific details about the Mesoamerican religious worldview.

Of course. That cannot preclude the presence of a different worldview, particularly where you have a city that shows no iconographic support for the Mesoamerican worldview. You might suppose that from the monumental architecture and location that it participated in the religion as well, but then you would miss Israelite religion entirely because it used common pan-Mediterranean temple architecture and other similar features. Nevertheless, there was something quite different about Israelite religion--known from the texts, but not from the dirt.