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

[Brant Gardner]

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.

Which Lamanite text are you reading?

[beastie]

First, I think I have backed up my assertion that the Nephite polity would have roughly been the same size as the later Aztec polity. I went into excruciating detail on my website here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpower.htm

Obviously, I canâ??t go into that kind of detail on this thread, the result would be extremely long posts. So my first request is if you, or others, are really interested in discussing my assertion, please read my website page with all its detail.

I already mentioned Zarahemla exerting political control over Ammonihah, and this was your response:

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 did not use the â??Aztec modelâ?. I stated that the Nephite polity would be roughly the same size and exert extended political control like the Aztecs. I did not mean that they were using the â??Aztec modelâ? in details such as how they exercised that control.

Now, by your own admission Ammonihah was in a state of rebellion. This means that, prior to the rebellion, Ammonihah, was, indeed, under the political control of Zarahemla.

Agreed?

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 didnâ??t assume mandate or force - youâ??re going into diversions. I stated that the Ammonihah, prior to the rebellion, was under the political control of Zarahemla. Perhaps it was by consensus â?? it is irrelevant to my point. Whether or not it was by consensus or force, a polity 110 miles distant was not going to be under the political control of another polity in ancient Mesoamerica, as far as my readings indicate.

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.

If and when you find the source, Iâ??d be interested in hearing about it. Until then, Iâ??m going to trust experts such as Prudence Rice.

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.

Once again, youâ??re going into a diversion. Whether or not the control is forced or by consensus is irrelevant. The point remains that, as Rice stated:

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)

Note that Rice is not differentiating between control by force or cooperation.

Iâ??ll have to come back to your other replies tomorrow, itâ??s getting late here.

[The Dude]

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.

How about if I think it through even farther than you. If it is not unreasonable for LDS to believe that virtually all American Indians are descended from Lehi, it is just as meaningful and likely to believe that Lehite DNA has spread back through Siberia and Asia, and across the Atlantic into Europe and Africa. Why, it's a mathematical certainty that we're all Lamanites. Why not?

[hagoth7]

How about if I think it through even farther than you. If it is not unreasonable for LDS to believe that virtually all American Indians are descended from Lehi, it is just as meaningful and likely to believe that Lehite DNA has spread....across the Atlantic into Europe and Africa.

Certainly works for me.

[The Dude]

Certainly works for me.

It sure would be nice to travel back through time and enlighten Joseph Smith on the matter. Sending missionaries to the Lamanites... what a bunch of nonsense, right?

No wonder the didn't convert in droves.

[hagoth7]

Sending missionaries to the Lamanites... what a bunch of nonsense, right?

Nonsense? Not at all. Sending missionaries to Nephites made sense too. But we digress. Back to the thread.

[Brant Gardner]

First, I think I have backed up my assertion that the Nephite polity would have roughly been the same size as the later Aztec polity. I went into excruciating detail on my website here:

I read through it quickly. As usual, I have a lot of issues with the way you are using the data. Much of what you use does not really support what you are suggesting, and I certainly have a major difference of opinion in how we read the Book of Mormon data.

I don't see any reason to engage anything on that level, since we know before we begin that we won't agree.

I did not mean that they were using the â??Aztec modelâ? in details such as how they exercised that control.

Then you are misapplying the comparison. If you are talking only of the geographic extent of influence rather than control, you have many different models you have to deal with. How do you handle Teotihuacan and the Maya? What is the nature of that empire? How dependent or independent are the Maya from Teotihuacan. That empire is obviously larger than anything in the Book of Mormon, since it encompasses all of the proposed lands and quite a bit more -- and is much closer to the Book of Mormon time period.

How do you hand Tikal's influence that spread farther than you are positing in your reading of Rice?

Now, by your own admission Ammonihah was in a state of rebellion. This means that, prior to the rebellion, Ammonihah, was, indeed, under the political control of Zarahemla.

No, you are the one who quickly reads into things what you are looking for. I agree that there is a relationship between Ammonihah and Zarahemla. I see it as associative rather than dependent. The longer I look at the evidence for their political and religious structures, the more obvious that they are independent from Zarahemla. There is no textual evidence that they show anything but voluntary deference to anything that comes from Zarahemla.

The only clear place for large scale work that might imply some kind of political entity with extensive power is during war (which you mention on your site). What I noted earlier, and you have not mentioned, is that it is a particularly unusual circumstance. There is a region united against a common enemy and that condition in and of itself is sufficient to create conditions of mutual cooperation without a centralized government. Witness Athens and Sparta contra the Persians.

If and when you find the source, Iâ??d be interested in hearing about it. Until then, Iâ??m going to trust experts such as Prudence Rice.

I have read one by her that you recommended. I don't have as high an opinion of her work.

Whether or not the control is forced or by consensus is irrelevant.

The problem is one of discovering the governance mechanism. That is why there is such a difficulty in determining if any of the Maya cities achieved the status of state. Nevertheless, according to the Book of Mormon, their political system was more complex than that among the Nephites (kings over kings among the Lamanites, with no similar hierarchical centralization among the Nephites).

The issue is, if you are going to hypothesize a state-like political entity among the Nephites, what evidence can you use. One of the clear indicators, that of control, is very clearly absent. Even voluntary control is very weak, given the obvious textual evidence of fission.

In order to support a hypothesis, you need evidence. You are missing the most important. Where you have texts, we disagree significantly on what they mean. I suggest that my reading is dependent upon not only those verses, but the rest of the evidence of the text that contextualizes those verses.

As usual, it doesn't seem that we are going to get anywhere.

[Sargon]

I asked Sargon about ancient Book of Mormon manuscripts and he (see below) "pretended" in my opinion not to understand what I was asking about, so I asked him again and added a picture so it would be more clear to him.

I know I'm very late in responding to this, but life has taken me away from the message board for a while.

There was no pretending going on, I assure you. I wanted to know what constitutes "ancient manuscript evidence" in Billy's mind. I wanted to find out if your expectations were reasonable, if they took into account the challenges that modern Mesoamericanists face.

Sincerely,

Sargon

[Bill Hamblin]

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. 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. This is due to the fact that the most powerful and precociously developed Mesoamerican polities were also the polities that set the path of cultural, religious, and political evolution for the entire region. 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. 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.

2 â?? We donâ??t know the names of Olmec cities, or even what the people called themselves. I do know of one Maya city for which we know the real name - Tikal, which was known as Mutul in hieroglyphic texts. I expect as the decoding of glyphs continue we will learn more actual Maya names. But the specific names are unnecessary. We can still form certain expectations based on the description of the social and political complexity as described in the BoM, and can determine whether or not a given Mesoamerican polity fits the bill. In fact, the background descriptions are far more important than any place name, which can change over time, of course.

1- Despite all your assertions, you didn't answer my question. (What is necessary for the BOM to be historical is that a minimalist interpretation of BOM history, geography, etc. If a maximalist interpretation, (yours), is demonstrated to be unworkable, it does not demonstrate that a minimalist interpretation (Gardner) is likewise unworkable.)

2- Correct. We don't know the name of a single Olmec city. So, why do so many critics think it is damning evidence against the BOM if we can't identify a Jaredite city? The only way we can identify Jaredite or Nephite sites is by Preclassic phonetic toponymic data, which is quite rare. If there is no or limited toponymic data it is impossible to test whether Nephite toponyms match or do not match ancient Mesoamerican toponyms. There is no failure on the part of the BOM in this regard, because there is not data, and therefore is no test. Critics who wish to make such claims must first provide a complete data set of Preclassic toponyms.

[Bill Hamblin]

How about if I think it through even farther than you. If it is not unreasonable for LDS to believe that virtually all American Indians are descended from Lehi, it is just as meaningful and likely to believe that Lehite DNA has spread back through Siberia and Asia, and across the Atlantic into Europe and Africa. Why, it's a mathematical certainty that we're all Lamanites. Why not?

So? Is this supposed to be some insightful criticism of the BOM?

[The Dude]

How about if I think it through even farther than you. If it is not unreasonable for LDS to believe that virtually all American Indians are descended from Lehi, it is just as meaningful and likely to believe that Lehite DNA has spread back through Siberia and Asia, and across the Atlantic into Europe and Africa. Why, it's a mathematical certainty that we're all Lamanites. Why not?

So? Is this supposed to be some insightful criticism of the BOM?

Oh, certainly nothing as grand as that. I am only saying that the term "Lamanite" is meaningless if you base it on theoretical diffusion of Lehi's nucleic acid. What I'm saying could add to criticism of people throughout Mormon history who have identified American Indians as a remnant of BoM people, claiming they would "blossom as a rose" from accepting the gospel, and their dark skin would become white, etc. How naive, for we are all Lamanites, all one big human family.

So? Don't worry, the saving ordinances still save. You still have the priesthood. Nothing discussed in this thread truly matters in the eternal scheme.

[smac97]

So? Is this supposed to be some insightful criticism of the BOM?

Oh, certainly nothing as grand as that. I am only saying that the term "Lamanite" is meaningless if you base it on theoretical diffusion of Lehi's nucleic acid.

Well said, Dude. I would clarify this statement to this way: "The term 'Lamanite' is meaningless if you base exclusively it on theoretical diffusion of Lehi's nucleic acid."

-Smac

[Bill Hamblin]

So? Is this supposed to be some insightful criticism of the BOM?

Oh, certainly nothing as grand as that. I am only saying that the term "Lamanite" is meaningless if you base it on theoretical diffusion of Lehi's nucleic acid. What I'm saying could add to criticism of people throughout Mormon history who have identified American Indians as a remnant of BoM people, claiming they would "blossom as a rose" from accepting the gospel, and their dark skin would become white, etc. How naive, for we are all Lamanites, all one big human family.

So? Don't worry, the saving ordinances still save. You still have the priesthood. Nothing discussed in this thread truly matters in the eternal scheme.

Like all terms, Lamanite is meaningful only when understood in its context. As the context changes, the meaning of the term changes. This is clear from the BOM itself in numerous places. What you are doing is simply conflating several different contextual meanings of Lamanite into one decontextualized meaning. Sorry, real scholarship doesn't work that way. In the BOM Lamanite is a cultural, tribal, genealogical, political, and religious term. The one thing it never is, however, is a DNA-related term.

PS One of my ancestors in the early seventeenth century married a Native American woman. Should I be considered a Native American? Should I be considered a Lamanite? What are the chances that I have any mtDNA from this woman? What are the chances that I have any surviving DNA material from this woman?

[cdowis]

Hi Brant Gardner,

I'm cdowis.

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.

You are confused. For example, the "maya" were not actually called maya, it is a modern term. If they were actually called the Xslaslkdro, we would not know.

There are presumable many Nephite artifacts in museums, but they are not labeled as such. It is merely an issue of nomenclature.

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.

This was discussed in detail. Please begin with post 109 thru the end of the thread. Here

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

[robuchan]

Like all terms, Lamanite is meaningful only when understood in its context. As the context changes, the meaning of the term changes. This is clear from the BOM itself in numerous places. What you are doing is simply conflating several different contextual meanings of Lamanite into one decontextualized meaning. Sorry, real scholarship doesn't work that way. In the BOM Lamanite is a cultural, tribal, genealogical, political, and religious term. The one thing it never is, however, is a DNA-related term.

PS One of my ancestors in the early seventeenth century married a Native American woman. Should I be considered a Native American? Should I be considered a Lamanite? What are the chances that I have any mtDNA from this woman? What are the chances that I have any surviving DNA material from this woman?

Do Lamanites exist today in any sense of the word: cultural, tribal, genealogical, political, or religious?

[Bill Hamblin]

Do Lamanites exist today in any sense of the word: cultural, tribal, genealogical, political, or religious?

Yes

[robuchan]

Yes

Who are they and out of those different categories, which are they?

[lostindc]

We can put to rest all this DNA stuff by dropping the narration that was added well after the BOM was translated IMHO

[Bill Hamblin]

Who are they and out of those different categories, which are they?

If you think about it I'll bet you can figure it out.

As modern ethnicity studies have demonstrated, ethnicity is a cultural construct. There are also insider vs. outsider elements. Who is defining whom? Do we define ourselves? Is it the same as others define us?

Take, for instance, being a Jew. Is it genetic? Is it cultural? Is it religious? Is it political? Is it ethnic? Is it linguistic? Can someone become a Jew or stop being a Jew? Depending on who you ask, it could all, some, one, or none of these.

[The Dude]

What you are doing is simply conflating several different contextual meanings of Lamanite into one decontextualized meaning.

What I was doing was taking Scott Lloyd's words to their logical conclusion.

Sorry, real scholarship doesn't work that way.

Anyone who confuses an extension of a rebuttal of a criticism with scholarship definitely needs to be schooled by you. Thanks for your effort, but I'm not that confused and I don't think Scott Lloyd is either.

In the BOM Lamanite is a cultural, tribal, genealogical, political, and religious term. The one thing it never is, however, is a DNA-related term.

But we aren't talking about the term "in the BoM" -- we are talking about how Latter-day Saints might extend that term to living groups of people.

PS One of my ancestors in the early seventeenth century married a Native American woman. Should I be considered a Native American? Should I be considered a Lamanite? What are the chances that I have any mtDNA from this woman? What are the chances that I have any surviving DNA material from this woman?

Well I don't know if you are a Lamanite because I don't know what sense of the term you have in mind (since you don't seem to be following the discussion very carefully). By Scott Lloyd's definition, you are a Lamanite, but so are the people of Iceland, Uganda, Mongolia, and Tasmania because...

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.

The mathematical models Scott Lloyd has in mind don't respect national or continental boundaries, and so it is reasonable to think that everyone is a Lamanite in this DNA sense even though you can't detect it. It isn't based on observation but on mathematical theory.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe you are a Lamanite? Why/why not?

[robuchan]

If you think about it I'll bet you can figure it out.

As modern ethnicity studies have demonstrated, ethnicity is a cultural construct. There are also insider vs. outsider elements. Who is defining whom? Do we define ourselves? Is it the same as others define us?

Take, for instance, being a Jew. Is it genetic? Is it cultural? Is it religious? Is it political? Is it ethnic? Is it linguistic? Can someone become a Jew or stop being a Jew? Depending on who you ask, it could all, some, one, or none of these.

cultural, tribal, genealogical, political, and religious

Cultural: we wouldn't know how to identify it

Tribal: ditto

Genealogical: as demonstrated in this thread, it would be impossible to know. Conservatively, pockets of indigenous Central Americans. Liberally, most of the world.

Political: wouldn't know how to identify it

Religious: wouldn't know how to identify unless LDS, but then you wouldn't know how to divide LDS into Lamanite and non-Lamanite

[Uncertain]

Hi Brant Gardner,

I'm cdowis.

Hi cdowis,

Well one of us is confused and I think its you . I was responding to Brants post #138.

You are confused. For example, the "maya" were not actually called maya, it is a modern term. If they were actually called the Xslaslkdro, we would not know.

There are presumable many Nephite artifacts in museums, but they are not labeled as such. It is merely an issue of nomenclature.

Yes I am well aware there are good reasons assuming a LGT model we would not expect to be able to identify Nephite artifacts. I have repeatedly on this thread conceded this is the case. But this has no bearing on the point I was trying to make. I am in no way arguing the inability to identify Nephite artifacts means Nephites did not exist.

This was discussed in detail. Please begin with post 109 thru the end of the thread. Here

Thanks for the link. Its interesting how different individuals process the same argument. I actually thought Analytics made a strong case. But that may be because I already agree with him perhaps it is confirmation bias at work.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[beastie]

I read through it quickly. As usual, I have a lot of issues with the way you are using the data. Much of what you use does not really support what you are suggesting, and I certainly have a major difference of opinion in how we read the Book of Mormon data.

I don't see any reason to engage anything on that level, since we know before we begin that we won't agree.

If youâ??re not going to engage in the argument Iâ??ve presented, for whatever reason, then it doesnâ??t seem logical for you to challenge me to provide evidence of my assertions in the first place.

Aside from that, the fact that you and I will likely never agree on these major points is irrelevant, IMO. The point isnâ??t to come to an agreement. If I entered these discussions with the goal of persuading other posters to come to an agreement with me, Iâ??d be continually frustrated. For me, the point is that the discussion that we have can provide information for others â?? particularly lurkers â?? who are trying to evaluate various claims. Thatâ??s why I, personally, take part in these sort of discussions.

Then you are misapplying the comparison. If you are talking only of the geographic extent of influence rather than control, you have many different models you have to deal with. How do you handle Teotihuacan and the Maya? What is the nature of that empire? How dependent or independent are the Maya from Teotihuacan. That empire is obviously larger than anything in the Book of Mormon, since it encompasses all of the proposed lands and quite a bit more -- and is much closer to the Book of Mormon time period.

How do you hand Tikal's influence that spread farther than you are positing in your reading of Rice?

Brant, the fact that you had to resort to using Teotihuacan actually proves the point I was trying to make, which is if the polity described in the BoM really existed in ancient Mesoamerica, it would have been the most powerful polity around. Teotihuacan was an incredibly powerful polity, the most powerful up until the advent of the Aztecs, and yet scholars do not generally believe that even Teotihuacan was politically controlling other polities like Tikal as much as it was influencing other polities. So the first interesting avenue is exploring whether or not the Nephite polity was politically controlling other polities or simply influencing them. But even if you are successful in persuading folks that the Nephites werenâ??t really engaged in political control, you have painted yourself in a corner, because even the â??influence modelâ?, a la Teotihuacan, requires an incredibly powerful polity. Even worse, the very premise of the argument â?? that it exercised powerful influence â?? negates one of the most important premises of LGT, which is that the Nephite polity was a minor polity that had no discernable impact on the larger host culture.

What you are trying to argue is that the Nephite polity was powerful enough to INFLUENCE â?? not politically control, in your argument â?? all the other polities listed in the BoM â?? and yet was not powerful enough to leave a discernable impact on those same polities.

I said:

Now, by your own admission Ammonihah was in a state of rebellion. This means that, prior to the rebellion, Ammonihah, was, indeed, under the political control of Zarahemla.

Brant replied:

No, you are the one who quickly reads into things what you are looking for. I agree that there is a relationship between Ammonihah and Zarahemla. I see it as associative rather than dependent. The longer I look at the evidence for their political and religious structures, the more obvious that they are independent from Zarahemla. There is no textual evidence that they show anything but voluntary deference to anything that comes from Zarahemla.

The only clear place for large scale work that might imply some kind of political entity with extensive power is during war (which you mention on your site). What I noted earlier, and you have not mentioned, is that it is a particularly unusual circumstance. There is a region united against a common enemy and that condition in and of itself is sufficient to create conditions of mutual cooperation without a centralized government. Witness Athens and Sparta contra the Persians.

I am completely befuddled by how you interpret these scriptures:

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.

Simple question: who is the chief judge over Ammonihah at this point?

I have read one by her that you recommended. I don't have as high an opinion of her work.

I have no doubt, but perhaps you can appreciate why I take her seriously, given her professional credentials.

Besides, the proposition that satellite sites were within one dayâ??s walking distance is hardly controversial. Perhaps you have a higher opinion of Arthur Demarest, in The Ancient Maya:

The size and extent of polities

There have been many methods applied by scholars to estimate the territorial size and populations of Maya states. For many decades we have relied upon indirect measures based on archaeological data about the distance between sites, the volume of construction in sites, or the number of monuments, plazas, or structures. More recently we have been able to shift to the historical record of the stone monuments and their inscriptions identifying the ruling of dynasties of the Kâ??uhul Ajaw and their political alliances, rituals, and wars. Critical to such interpretations are the emblem-glyphs and titles described earlier. A few texts even mention tribute payments by vassal polities. With such detailed data, it is possible to be more specific about which centers were dominant powers in particular periods and to plot their political relationships. This epigraphic record portrays a very complex inter-elite political landscape throughout the Classic period.

As a minimal building block of Maya polities, the individual small polity, defined by a dynastic â??holy lordâ? title or emblem-glyph, has been estimated by some scholars as being one or two daysâ?? walking distances in diameter. Probably dynastic seats or â??capitalsâ? of such minimal polities were often about ten to thirty kilometers apart. We might speculate that this size for the realm of the average holy lord befits a â??theater-stateâ? in which the Kâ??uhul Ajaawâ??s personal presence and celebration of rites were central to the maintenance of his authority. For a time, epigraphers and archaeologists believed that the lowland Maya world in the Classic period consisted of only such small city-states interacting in a â??peer polityâ? system. Now, with more detailed information, we can study the tremendous variability in Maya polities and the historical development of structurally distinct regional states and pan-lowland, but short-lived, alliances.

In the Late Classic, polities had populations varying from several thousand at most major cities to several hundred thousand around some great regional capitals such as Calakmul, Tikal, and Caracol. All such demographic estimates for sites, polities, or regions are highly speculative calculations based on house mound counts, ceramic dating of mounds, ethnographic models for the number of persons per structure, and, usually, a calculation factor for â??invisibleâ? houses that lacked clearly visible substructure mounds or platforms. Combined with the epigraphic evidence on specific political formations, the speculative demography and settlement evidence allow broad, very tentative characterizations of Classic Maya political history. (page 214)

The problem is one of discovering the governance mechanism. That is why there is such a difficulty in determining if any of the Maya cities achieved the status of state. Nevertheless, according to the Book of Mormon, their political system was more complex than that among the Nephites (kings over kings among the Lamanites, with no similar hierarchical centralization among the Nephites).

The issue is, if you are going to hypothesize a state-like political entity among the Nephites, what evidence can you use. One of the clear indicators, that of control, is very clearly absent. Even voluntary control is very weak, given the obvious textual evidence of fission.

In order to support a hypothesis, you need evidence. You are missing the most important. Where you have texts, we disagree significantly on what they mean. I suggest that my reading is dependent upon not only those verses, but the rest of the evidence of the text that contextualizes those verses.

As usual, it doesn't seem that we are going to get anywhere.

Letâ??s start with my question above and move on from there: Who was the chief judge over Ammonihah?

[LifeOnaPlate]

PS One of my ancestors in the early seventeenth century married a Native American woman. Should I be considered a Native American? Should I be considered a Lamanite? What are the chances that I have any mtDNA from this woman? What are the chances that I have any surviving DNA material from this woman?

Further, did Lehi, Nephi, or other ancients understand mtDNA enough to include it in their consideration of who their seed would be? (Especially given the present idea in the book of Mormon that one can become the "seed of Christ" in certain ways other than resulting from physical sex?)

[William the Conqueror]

If you think about it I'll bet you can figure it out.

As modern ethnicity studies have demonstrated, ethnicity is a cultural construct. There are also insider vs. outsider elements. Who is defining whom? Do we define ourselves? Is it the same as others define us?

Take, for instance, being a Jew. Is it genetic? Is it cultural? Is it religious? Is it political? Is it ethnic? Is it linguistic? Can someone become a Jew or stop being a Jew? Depending on who you ask, it could all, some, one, or none of these.

Or as Houston Stewart Chamberlain said, " He who thinks like an Aryan is an Aryan."