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

[beastie]

Brant,

You mentioned having read somewhere about the possibility of glyphs at a great distance. Perhaps this is what you are referring to, from Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World, as cited on my webpage:

Superstates

By the 1990s, the increasingly refined readings of the hieroglyphic texts enabled Mayanists to understand far more about political relationships than permitted by the emblem glyphs alone. The new information suggests that there may have been immense political territories, as envisioned by proponents of the regional state theory. On the other hand, the texts suggest that such political territories, far from being integrated states, constituted only a confederacy of autonomous city-states. Any city-stateâ??s autonomy, however, lasted only as long as the city-state cooperated with the confederacy; autonomy came with a price tag: tribute payments.

The decipherments demonstrate that dynastic rulers of cities with emblem glyphs were sometimes subservient to another. Some were members of the dynastic nobility that had been appointed to govern dependencies. Some rulers were installed under the auspices of a ruler not through dynastic ties but through conquest or marriage alliances. Yet these rulers, apparently subservient to a greater state, continued to fight wars, receive their own tribute to build immense palatial complexes, and take on all the appearances of autonomous city-states. These texts suggest that city-states combined into regional confederations, but the local rulers were permitted to act as if their authority had not been compromised.

The superstate theory is still being refined, but it suggests that the Maya city-states sometimes participated in large territorial confederacies controlled by one of the great military powers Tikal or Calakmul. Tikal and Calakmul were surrounded by extensive territories â?? at least 120 square kilometers (27 square miles) for Calakmul â?? in which no other city employed an emblem glyph. Their power may have originated from the vast territorial resources under their direct control, which included many bureaucratic tiers of other cities and towns. As such, they were powerful, independent city-states. The dynasties of these two great military states intermarried with dynasties at other states, conquered yet others and controlled the installation of their rulers, and forged a network of trade and tribute. In the process, these two states created large confederacies, or superstates.

The power of these states was such that smaller ones gained considerable prestige through the association. Also, the inscriptions suggest that the states participating in these confederations did not war with one another. Under this view, there were two different kinds of states in the Late Classic Period: somewhat autonomous city-states and larger superstates that included these semi-independent city-states. This might be roughly comparable to the current situation in Europe where many independent nations have joined the European Union, mostly for economic reasons, but also for the peace that it insures. In the case of the European Union, however, membership in the confederacy is completely voluntary. For the Maya superstates, military coercion was probably used as often as political persuasion. (page 133)

This is reminiscent of your statements regarding a â??confederacyâ? and glyphs found in extended areas. However, two things need to be pointed out about this:

1- Only the most powerful city-states, like Tikal and Calakmul, are suspected of having this sort of extended sort of territory

2- Even those most powerful city-states had extensive territories of 120 square kilometers, which doesnâ??t begin to touch the â??confederacyâ? described in the BoM

At some point it should appear problematic that these suggestions of yours seem to end up requiring a massive Nephite polity, akin to Tikal or Calakmul, particularly since that is exactly what I am suggesting would be required (or more so, given the larger territory described in the BoM).

[Brant Gardner]

Any city-stateâ??s autonomy, however, lasted only as long as the city-state cooperated with the confederacy; autonomy came with a price tag: tribute payments.

You seem to have missed the important part. There is a dependency created by tribute, and lack of paying tribute had to have had consequences, else it would not be paid.

There is not only no evidence of tribute to Zarahemla, there is internal evidence that it was considered an evil. So, while I agree that there is evidence of confederacies, you are using the example of types of confederacies that are maintained by force and therefore require both a greater control and a territory that the "force" can cover.

If you don't have the issue of centralized control, you also don't end up with the emblem glyphs in the client cities.

We are back to the original problem. You are using an example that is not comparable to the Book of Mormon and then complaining that the Book of Mormon shouldn't meet that model. It shouldn't, doesn't, and there is no indication that it even attempts it.

1- Only the most powerful city-states, like Tikal and Calakmul, are suspected of having this sort of extended sort of territory

Right. Add Teotihuacan to your list. Now ask yourself what the Mesoamerican definition of power was. Military might. Remember? Remember the wars of dominance among the Maya, the "entrada" of Teotihuacan?

Powerful. Your word. Exactly what we don't see among the Nephites. We even have them suggesting that they should not initiate conflict. How would that create a "powerful" state?

Now, if you suggest that a confederacy cannot be held together voluntarily, that is a very different argument. However, the "problem" of comparison of the Book of Mormon to the complex political situations you are using simply does not exist, based on the textual evidence.

2- Even those most powerful city-states had extensive territories of 120 square kilometers, which doesnâ??t begin to touch the â??confederacyâ? described in the BoM

Among the Maya. That we know of. At that time. See Teotihuacan, which was significantly larger (and also based on military might).

One of the problems in the Aztec empire was the distances that had to be controlled. It was easier for the far periphery to rebel. Aztec armies used intermediate cities as supply depots in order to handle the distances. That is the problem of distance - one of how far you can get your military. A voluntary economic cooperative (if that is what it was) has no such limitation (trade covered very large regions).

[beastie]

Brant,

You're not addressing my points. It is irrelevant if the BoM suggests a different model for extended territorial control. The question is whether or not the BoM describes extended territorial control. And to address this point, this question needs to be answered:

Who was the chief judge over Ammonihah?

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

You're not addressing my points.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the way it goes with our conversations. I think I am addressing them directly and that you are missing key connections and data. You are sure you see the right connections and that I am not seeing the connections you see.

I'll see if I can address them, but it may not satisfy you.

It is irrelevant if the BoM suggests a different model for extended territorial control. The question is whether or not the BoM describes extended territorial control.

Let's get the talking points correct. The Book of Mormon talks of a territory. It does not speak of, nor indicate, control. That is where we are having the problem. There was a group of cities that considered themselves similar and shared a language, culture, and apparently only a beginning base of religion. The text does not tell us what holds them together. We can only examine the "bonds" linking them when those bonds break. We have three cases where the cities have a divergent religio-political system, regardless of similarities. They don't appear to assume that they must follow the lead city. Remember that divergence of religion is tantamount to divergence of politics. Alma says several times that if Nehorism takes over, the Nephite way is destroyed. The two are incompatible. Ammonihah and Antionum were religiously/politically incompatible. They left/ignored Zarahemla. There were no consequences except that they had a very small number of missionaries come to try to return them to Nephite religion. No control.

Who was the chief judge over Ammonihah?

According to Alma 8:12, it was Nephihah, in Zarahemla. Now, a question for you. When does the chief judge become involved in a city? To answer for you, only when the city brings the case up. They have their own judges which operate independently of the chief judge.

Again, according to everything we know in the Book of Mormon, what did Nephihah do to control the rebellious cities of Ammonihah and Antionum? If we apply your model, there would have been tribute due and if the rebellious cities stopped the tribute, that would be significant.

Tikal and Calakmul used force. We suspect that Teotihuacan used force. We know that the Aztecs used force.

What did Nephihah do? Absolutely nothing.

If you are going to interpret historical texts as evidence, then you have to pay attention to what happens, not simply to titles that you may or may not understand how they operated. You can only tell how the title operated when you see it in action. That is the difference between using secondary and primary sources. The secondary sources have already interpreted the data. In the primary source, you must do it, and do it based on what is in the source, not assumptions you bring to it.

[Anijen]

The BoM is a spiritual book to bring people to Christ. It is not a history of the political factions and how they were organized, ran, controlled or governed. it does get into sub territories like that of King Lamoni etc, but the focus was on his conversion and not how the politics were handled. To critic the BoM because it does not match the political sections, quadrants, kingdoms, class, rebellions, and various takeovers public, secret or not does nothing to take away from the book.

Though some of these things are mentioned in passing there is very little detail to make a judgment and certainly not enough to obtain a political history.

There are approximately five million LDS in the United States which is very large for a congregation of a religious voice, the Catholics are even more numerous. When writing of the political system of the United States we will read about republicans, democrats, etc, religion hardly ever will make more than one or two pages in the history books even less if your trying to point out a specific people. When were talking about a span of nearly three thousand years then even less of the polity will show up in a religious book.

Why oh why would one assume and criticize a religious book because it is not a political history?

Speaking of the Mayan glyphs all have yet to be translated (some still cannot be). And most of what we know from the Glyphs are calendarical in which provides a specific time of calendar fields such as year, month and day. It also shows a history of people coming in and destroying the past history that was there, this is especially true of the Spanish in which they destroyed much of the written culture and history.

Just thinking out loud. On control you will see usually a incentive or coercive type or both, I cannot remember if either type is mentioned in the BoM (as a political control).

[Brant Gardner]

The BoM is a spiritual book to bring people to Christ. It is not a history of the political factions and how they were organized, ran, controlled or governed. it does get into sub territories like that of King Lamoni etc, but the focus was on his conversion and not how the politics were handled. To critic the BoM because it does not match the political sections, quadrants, kingdoms, class, rebellions, and various takeovers public, secret or not does nothing to take away from the book.

While it is true that it was written for a very different purpose, the idea of the analysis of historical texts is that they often contain information about things that were not the main focus. That is, while the Book of Mormon has an overt religious goal, it nevertheless couches that goal in history. In the sparse history are details that can be teased from the text. It is precisely because they are implicit rather than explicit that makes this task less that simplistic.

Though some of these things are mentioned in passing there is very little detail to make a judgment and certainly not enough to obtain a political history.

Not a political history, but general outlines of the political structures, the interplay between politics and religion, and the reaction against social trends.

Speaking of the Mayan glyphs all have yet to be translated (some still cannot be). And most of what we know from the Glyphs are calendarical in which provides a specific time of calendar fields such as year, month and day.

It is no longer true that we understand only the calendar and numbers. Linda Schele wrote an entire book on verbs as encoded in the glyphs. There is quite a bit that is understood (and sadly, still quite a bit that is not). Still, there is enough to provide real insight into what the important people (who could commission the kind of writing that would last) thought was important.

It also shows a history of people coming in and destroying the past history that was there, this is especially true of the Spanish in which they destroyed much of the written culture and history.

All Mesoamericanists wish that the Spaniards had preserved more. Still, there is enough to get some very good ideas, in general.

The problem is how to apply what we know to the Book of Mormon. We know that the Maya don't act particularly Israelite. What does that imply for the Book of Mormon? For many, it has suggested that the Book of Mormon cannot be a record of the Maya. I think I would agree with that. However, it doesn't tell us whether or not the Book of Mormon is the record of someone else.

At issue is what can be seen in the text that reflects what we know were the cultural norms of the region. At issue is whether or not we can assume that the presence of Book of Mormon peoples implies (or requires, even) that there be an overt Israelite presence in Mesoamerica (or wherever else the text might be placed).

Since none of these things are susceptible to proof, but only reasoned argument, we have no agreement (even among faithful members of the church who are working on the subject).

[Anijen]

While it is true that it was written for a very different purpose, the idea of the analysis of historical texts is that they often contain information about things that were not the main focus. That is, while the Book of Mormon has an overt religious goal, it nevertheless couches that goal in history. In the sparse history are details that can be teased from the text. It is precisely because they are implicit rather than explicit that makes this task less that simplistic.

Not a political history, but general outlines of the political structures, the interplay between politics and religion, and the reaction against social trends.

It is no longer true that we understand only the calendar and numbers. Linda Schele wrote an entire book on verbs as encoded in the glyphs. There is quite a bit that is understood (and sadly, still quite a bit that is not). Still, there is enough to provide real insight into what the important people (who could commission the kind of writing that would last) thought was important.

All Mesoamericanists wish that the Spaniards had preserved more. Still, there is enough to get some very good ideas, in general.

The problem is how to apply what we know to the Book of Mormon. We know that the Maya don't act particularly Israelite. What does that imply for the Book of Mormon? For many, it has suggested that the Book of Mormon cannot be a record of the Maya. I think I would agree with that. However, it doesn't tell us whether or not the Book of Mormon is the record of someone else.

At issue is what can be seen in the text that reflects what we know were the cultural norms of the region. At issue is whether or not we can assume that the presence of Book of Mormon peoples implies (or requires, even) that there be an overt Israelite presence in Mesoamerica (or wherever else the text might be placed).

Since none of these things are susceptible to proof, but only reasoned argument, we have no agreement (even among faithful members of the church who are working on the subject).

Thanks Brant, I only wanted to emphasize that if I wanted to read a history book of the Mayans I wouldn't pick up a Mayan recipe book, I am having trouble articulating my thoughts (I edited my post about six times LOL) I will change some of my ideology. I am presently only about 1/4 of the first book you advised me to get (been busy lately). Thanks again mi amigo.

[beastie]

Unfortunately, that seems to be the way it goes with our conversations. I think I am addressing them directly and that you are missing key connections and data. You are sure you see the right connections and that I am not seeing the connections you see.

I'll see if I can address them, but it may not satisfy you.

Yes, that’s the way these things work. As I said, I don’t expect us to come to an agreement.

I’m trying to differentiate between two items:

1- whether or not the Nephites had control over an extended territory

2- how the Nephites controlled that territory

We can discuss number 2 (and I do intend to discuss the standing army), but I’d rather establish number 1 first.

Let's get the talking points correct. The Book of Mormon talks of a territory. It does not speak of, nor indicate, control. That is where we are having the problem. There was a group of cities that considered themselves similar and shared a language, culture, and apparently only a beginning base of religion. The text does not tell us what holds them together. We can only examine the "bonds" linking them when those bonds break. We have three cases where the cities have a divergent religio-political system, regardless of similarities. They don't appear to assume that they must follow the lead city. Remember that divergence of religion is tantamount to divergence of politics. Alma says several times that if Nehorism takes over, the Nephite way is destroyed. The two are incompatible. Ammonihah and Antionum were religiously/politically incompatible. They left/ignored Zarahemla. There were no consequences except that they had a very small number of missionaries come to try to return them to Nephite religion. No control.

Yes, Mesoamericans completely enmeshed religion and politics, but at some point in their history, the Nephites separated the two. So the assertion that a polity may diverge in terms of religion (like Ammonihah) does not necessarily equate political divergence (again, like Ammonihah). I know that the separation of religion and state did not occur in ancient Mesoamerica, but if you’re positing that the Nephite polity as described in the BoM really did exist in ancient Mesoamerica, you’re already positing a dramatically different polity than the others.

According to Alma 8:12, it was Nephihah, in Zarahemla. Now, a question for you. When does the chief judge become involved in a city? To answer for you, only when the city brings the case up. They have their own judges which operate independently of the chief judge.

Again, according to everything we know in the Book of Mormon, what did Nephihah do to control the rebellious cities of Ammonihah and Antionum? If we apply your model, there would have been tribute due and if the rebellious cities stopped the tribute, that would be significant.

Tikal and Calakmul used force. We suspect that Teotihuacan used force. We know that the Aztecs used force.

What did Nephihah do? Absolutely nothing.

If you are going to interpret historical texts as evidence, then you have to pay attention to what happens, not simply to titles that you may or may not understand how they operated. You can only tell how the title operated when you see it in action. That is the difference between using secondary and primary sources. The secondary sources have already interpreted the data. In the primary source, you must do it, and do it based on what is in the source, not assumptions you bring to it.

First, a question: do the Supreme Court Justices have some control over the United States, despite the fact that localities have their own judges?

Second, you are ignoring the fact that, according to the BoM, religion and state were separated.

Third, I was not using the Aztec model as a way to assert that the Nephites ruled in the same way the Aztecs did. I was using the size of the territory as a comparison.

I’ll come back later with another example of extended control.

[beastie]

dup

[Brant Gardner]

Iâ??m trying to differentiate between two items:

1- whether or not the Nephites had control over an extended territory

2- how the Nephites controlled that territory

Except you cannot, because you are talking about control. This board consists of a large number of readers who come here. What kind of control does the board exercise? It can deny, but cannot compel. If I choose to read or post, that is fine. I cannot be compelled to read or post. I can be excluded, and if I value the participation, I may try to obey the rules that allow participation.

What kind of hegemony of people is the board? Now, compare that to a company. The company can compel my time because they pay me. I value the pay, so I give them the time. Most of us would be unhappy if the company decided they no longer wanted to pay us. They exercise control.

Now compare that to the military. What happens if I elect not to show up? Force.

There is your range. You can have organizations that are loose confederations or you can have organizations that can compel obedience. As you move up the scale, the rules are more stringent and the effect of separation much more severe.

The Book of Mormon is at the low end, based on the evidence of the control exercised to maintain the confederation. Tikal, Calakmul, Teotihuacan and the Triple Alliance are all much higher on the list. The problem isn't in the differences, it is when you use a different type of organization as the model for the Book of Mormon. You are assuming political complexity because of numbers. It is an assumption you bring to the text, just as many have brought to the text the assumption that it speaks of democracy. You have to judge the text on the evidence it presents to you.

We can discuss number 2 (and I do intend to discuss the standing army), but Iâ??d rather establish number 1 first.

That will be interesting, since I think we both know that neither the Book of Mormon nor most Mesoamerican cities had one. The point in the Book of Mormon isn't the makeup of the army. They had one. The point is that there are only very rare instances of even internal "police." Although the Nephite collection of cities has a number of cities listed (in Alma it is seven) none of them seem to have an extremely complex political structure. Those who do, are the ones who are leaving the coalition.

Yes, Mesoamericans completely enmeshed religion and politics, but at some point in their history, the Nephites separated the two. So the assertion that a polity may diverge in terms of religion (like Ammonihah) does not necessarily equate political divergence (again, like Ammonihah).

Separable, but not separate. The division allows for a secondary religion inside the polity. It does not believe that its political structure could survive unless the Nephite religion continued as the dominant religion of the government.

I know that the separation of religion and state did not occur in ancient Mesoamerica, but if youâ??re positing that the Nephite polity as described in the BoM really did exist in ancient Mesoamerica, youâ??re already positing a dramatically different polity than the others.

No, because I am not positing any kind of control mechanism that comes near to state level for the Book of Mormon. When Teotihuacan became the dominant force in the Maya area, it transformed politics, warfare, and official religion. However, the figurines in the outlying areas indicated a perseverence of the older form. All peoples that I am aware of who are in a region where there is some difference in belief systems have a means of allowing the integration of those competing religions. Look at the Aztecs, who actively incorporated the deities of conquered cities by "inviting" the deities to come to Tenochtitlan.

It is unsurprising that there is a different religion among the Nephites. The form of the dissident religion is also unsurprising. It is also very clear that the government in Zarahemla (where we have the record) feared that divergent religion and considered it the potential destruction of the Nephite nation. Nevertheless, when they have within their midst an entity that they feared would destroy them, they only responded militarily after a military provocation.

First, a question: do the Supreme Court Justices have some control over the United States, despite the fact that localities have their own judges?

I will respond with a question. If any state goes against a Supreme Court ruling, what happens?

Second, you are ignoring the fact that, according to the BoM, religion and state were separated.

No. I am neither ignoring what the text says, nor admitting that they were completely separate. There was a formal recognition that they couldn't control the divergent religion and it was allowed to exist. When that divergent religion controlled the political structure, the official Nephite nation considered it both a disaster and a destruction. That should tell us that the nature of the "separation" is different than what we suspect from modern separation of church and state.

Third, I was not using the Aztec model as a way to assert that the Nephites ruled in the same way the Aztecs did. I was using the size of the territory as a comparison.

Except that you keep using size as a marker of political complexity. That is the correlation that I am suggesting is incorrect. I am suggesting that it is incorrect because the nature of centralized control typically dictates size (and except in spectacular cases, keeps the region smaller). Distance is not a problem for a trading community because the controlling force doesn't need to be supplied on the way. It is a non-issue.

What you have to do in the Book of Mormon is discuss the political structure as defined. You can look at the area covered, but the area only requires that we question the nature of the hegemony, the hegemony is not defined by it. It is certainly a marker, but not a definer. The significant marker for a complex centralized government is control (see the Lamanites as an example where we do see that kind of control being exercised).

[beastie]

Except you cannot, because you are talking about control. This board consists of a large number of readers who come here. What kind of control does the board exercise? It can deny, but cannot compel. If I choose to read or post, that is fine. I cannot be compelled to read or post. I can be excluded, and if I value the participation, I may try to obey the rules that allow participation.

What kind of hegemony of people is the board? Now, compare that to a company. The company can compel my time because they pay me. I value the pay, so I give them the time. Most of us would be unhappy if the company decided they no longer wanted to pay us. They exercise control.

Now compare that to the military. What happens if I elect not to show up? Force.

There is your range. You can have organizations that are loose confederations or you can have organizations that can compel obedience. As you move up the scale, the rules are more stringent and the effect of separation much more severe.

The Book of Mormon is at the low end, based on the evidence of the control exercised to maintain the confederation. Tikal, Calakmul, Teotihuacan and the Triple Alliance are all much higher on the list. The problem isn't in the differences, it is when you use a different type of organization as the model for the Book of Mormon. You are assuming political complexity because of numbers. It is an assumption you bring to the text, just as many have brought to the text the assumption that it speaks of democracy. You have to judge the text on the evidence it presents to you.

This is an oversimplification. You mentioned earlier that scholars suspect Teotihuacan used force. Some scholars are very tentative about their use of force, and speculate the Teotihuacanâ??s touch is seen elsewhere due to its influence rather than military might. That influence can be attained through trade, for example, and some scholars heavily lean towards that theory. While I think you are wrong and are purposefully minimizing the political control exercised by the Nephites, even if we change the focus and accept influence rather than direct political control, you still have the same problem. Your problem is that the Book of Mormon, at the very least, presents a case in which the Nephite polity is influential enough to have a â??chief judgeâ? over a polity over a hundred miles away, and influential enough to create a significant military confederacy â?? and yet at the same time you assert that the Nephite polity was minor and should not be expected to leave a recognizable footprint.

You canâ??t have it both ways.

That will be interesting, since I think we both know that neither the Book of Mormon nor most Mesoamerican cities had one. The point in the Book of Mormon isn't the makeup of the army. They had one. The point is that there are only very rare instances of even internal "police." Although the Nephite collection of cities has a number of cities listed (in Alma it is seven) none of them seem to have an extremely complex political structure. Those who do, are the ones who are leaving the coalition.

I know that Mesoamerican cities during the BoM time period had no standing armies, but the BoM certainly describes a standing army.

From my website here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpo...anding%20Armies

Many portions of the Book of Mormon time-table deal with active warfare, and other sections address the fear of oncoming warfare, which requires certain preparations. These preparations can also provide background information that can be compared to actual ancient Mesoamerican history.

5 And now, Teancum saw that the Lamanites were determined to maintain those cities which they had taken, and those parts of the land which they had obtained possession of; and also seeing the enormity of their number, Teancum thought it was not expedient that he should attempt to attack them in their forts.

6 But he kept his men round about, as if making preparations for war; yea, and truly he was preparing to defend himself against them, by casting up walls round about and preparing places of resort.

7 And it came to pass that he kept thus preparing for war until Moroni had sent a large number of men to strengthen his army.

8 And Moroni also sent orders unto him that he should retain all the prisoners who fell into his hands; for as the Lamanites had taken many prisoners, that he should retain all the prisoners of the Lamanites as a ransom for those whom the Lamanites had taken.

9 And he also sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side.

10 And Moroni also sent unto him, desiring him that he would be faithful in maintaining that quarter of the land, and that he would seek every opportunity to scourge the Lamanites in that quarter, as much as was in his power, that perhaps he might take again by stratagem or some other way those cities which had been taken out of their hands; and that he also would fortify and strengthen the cities round about, which had not fallen into the hands of the Lamanites.

11 And he also said unto him, I would come unto you, but behold, the Lamanites are upon us in the borders of the land by the west sea; and behold, I go against them, therefore I cannot come unto you.

Alma 52, BC 66

2 And Moroni went to the city of Mulek with Lehi, and took command of the city and gave it unto Lehi. Now behold, this Lehi was a man who had been with Moroni in the more part of all his battles; and he was a man like unto Moroni, and they rejoiced in each otherâ??s safety; yea, they were beloved by each other, and also beloved by all the people of Nephi.

3 And it came to pass that after the Lamanites had finished burying their dead and also the dead of the Nephites, they were marched back into the land Bountiful; and Teancum, by the orders of Moroni, caused that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch round about the land, or the city, Bountiful.

4 And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they cast up dirt out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers; and thus they did cause the Lamanites to labor until they had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and earth, to an exceeding height.

5 And this city became an exceeding stronghold ever after; and in this city they did guard the prisoners of the Lamanites; yea, even within a wall which they had caused them to build with their own hands. Now Moroni was compelled to cause the Lamanites to labor, because it was easy to guard them while at their labor; and he desired all his forces when he should make an attack upon the Lamanites.

6 And it came to pass that Moroni had thus gained a victory over one of the greatest of the armies of the Lamanites, and had obtained possession of the city of Mulek, which was one of the strongest holds of the Lamanites in the land of Nephi; and thus he had also built a stronghold to retain his prisoners.

7 And it came to pass that he did no more attempt a battle with the Lamanites in that year, but he did employ his men in preparing for war, yea, and in making fortifications to guard against the Lamanites, yea, and also delivering their women and their children from famine and affliction, and providing food for their armies. (note to Brant â?? this obviously describes a standing army)

8 And now it came to pass that the armies of the Lamanites, on the west sea, south, while in the absence of Moroni on account of some intrigue amongst the Nephites, which caused dissensions amongst them, had gained some ground over the Nephites, yea, insomuch that they had obtained possession of a number of their cities in that part of the land.

9 And thus because of iniquity amongst themselves, yea, because of dissensions and intrigue among themselves they were placed in the most dangerous circumstances.

Alma 53, BC 64

Both of these sections clearly describe a standing army, that is, an army that remains organized and structured while waiting for active battle. Again, this does not strike a modern reader as unreasonable, yet there is no evidence of such a practice in ancient Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time frame.

Payson Sheets explains in his essay â??Warfare in Ancient Mesoamerica: A Summary Viewâ?, contained in the book Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare:

Warfare should not be seen as a monolithic repetitive entity among Mesoamerican societies. Rather, warfare varied considerably, depending on factors such as the degree of political centralization, presence or absence of competitive nearby polities, demographic and ecologic processes, ritualization of warfare, resource unpredictability, and economic and technological changes. Hassig deals with some of these factors, and I anticipate that future warfare research will both broaden and deepen them. Are there correlations between the degree of political centralizaton and the nature of warfare? In a general sense, there is a relationship, as both of the most highly urbanized and centralized civilizations, Teotihuacan and the Aztecs, waged war with standing armies against external polities. Hassig characterizes Teotihuacan and the Aztecs as meritocratic states with some social mobility for individuals based on their military successes. Both states were relatively innovative in military techniques and technology, and both developed large standing armies that expanded over much of Mesoamerica, but neither society lasted for a long time. In contrast, the Maya waged aristocratic wars, were more conservative, avoided having large standing armies of commoners, and as a result were less expansionistic and in the long run more stable. I believe that we can include the Olmec with the Maya in these characteristics. Additionally, I believe that the Zapotecs more closely resemble the Maya than the Basin of Mexico states. (page 295)

The existence of a standing army as described in the book of Alma would have been highly unusual in ancient Mesoamerica, and would have required a highly urbanized and centralized polity, which did not exist in ancient Mesoamerica during the specified time period.

A related problem can be demonstrated in how these Book of Mormon standing armies were maintained.

13 And now these are the cities of which the Lamanites have obtained possession by the shedding of the blood of so many of our valiant men;

14 The land of Manti, or the city of Manti, and the city of Zeezrom, and the city of Cumeni, and the city of Antiparah.

15 And these are the cities which they possessed when I arrived at the city of Judea; and I found Antipus and his men toiling with their might to fortify the city.

26 And thus, with their forces, they were determined to maintain those cities which they had taken.

27 And now it came to pass in the second month of this year, there was brought unto us many provisions from the fathers of those my two thousand sons.

28 And also there were sent two thousand men unto us from the land of Zarahemla. And thus we were prepared with ten thousand men, and provisions for them, and also for their wives and their children.

29 And the Lamanites, thus seeing our forces increase daily, and provisions arrive for our support, they began to be fearful, and began to sally forth, if it were possible to put an end to our receiving provisions and strength.

Alma 56, BC 65

The fathers of these sons would have been from Jershon, which had been earlier given to the Lamanite converts. Jershon was approximately 160 miles from Zarahemla, and Judea, where the army was stationed, was another 54 miles further south. They were sending provisions for a large number of people over a distance of 210 miles away. Diane and Arlen Chase, in their essay â??Texts and Contexts in Maya Warfare: A Brief Consideration of Epigraphy and Archaology at Caracol, Belizeâ?, in Ancient Mesoamerican Warfares state:

We have previously used archaeological data, ethnohistorical inference, hieroglyphic statements of aggression, warfare distance, and military theory to argue that Maya warfare could be broken into wars between primary centers and wars for border control. Border wars between primary and secondary centers are recorded as formal star-wars had an average distance of 36 kilometers between the two antagonistic centers. In contrast, the distance between primary centers who warred with each other averaged 96.5 kilometers. Both of these distances are in accord with military theory concerning marching distance and suggest that Maya polities could reasonably maintain physical and territorial borders to a radius of 60 kilometers, which translates into the distance that could be effectively marched by an army in three days. The direct territorial control implied by effective marching distance, in turn, has implications for the average size of Classic Maya polities. Following the logic of this military theory, polities that were dominated by primate centers (such as Caracol) could approach a spatial size of approximately 11,300 square kilometers. Larger-size polities could have been accommodated but likely would have been correlated with hegemonic control, more like that undertaken by the later Aztecs. (page 187)

An army could march 60 kilometers, or 37 miles, in three days. Keep in mind, however, that this was not simply a marching army, but one carrying provisions. From the book Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions, Richard Blanton explains:

We need to specify more precisely why Mesoamericaâ??s elite found it desirable to interact, and what their exchange included. Human carriers moved raw materials and finished items of jade, crystal, metal, feathers, jaguar skins, cotton, and cacao, and the costliest pottery types. Knowledge of writing and the calendar was limited to the elite, yet was pan-Mesoamerican in distribution, as were the ball game and its paraphernalia. Certain pieces of rank-status apparel â?? headdresses, ear spools, nose plugs, shields â?? were made to regional sumptuary specifications, but they were likely to be crafted from imported materials. Furthermore, they were universally recognized as symbolic statements about the human versus the animal realm, and about the purity and degree of power of their wearers. In fact, many sacred concepts and their physical representations, rituals, and cult figures â?? such as the feathered serpents, lords of the underworld, rain-lightening deities (Chaco, Tlaloc, Dzahui, Cocijo), Eehcatl, and Totec â?? were transregional. The significance of self-sacrifice, ancestor veneration, and funeral rituals were explicitly understood among the elite across all across Mesoamerica.

The elite prestige system did not comprise all of the interregional exchange in Mesoamerica. In addition to the rich trade, some consumer goods flowed among regions. Obsidian, for example, was mined in only two main mining areas (the northern basin of Mexico and highland Guatemala), turned into cores and tools, and carried to all parts of Mesoamerica. Regional economies then saw to its distribution, which was usually differential â?? in some contexts restricted to the elite, in some places not. Cotton, cacao, and certain other food items may have had interregional distributions, but evidence for this prior to the fifteenth century is scarce.

Apparently the elite exchange provided the stimulus, opportunity, procedures, and established structure for a more irregular traffic in bulk commodities or items in mass demand. There is little evidence for the formation of regular interregional dependencies for goods in common use. Mesoamericaâ??s relatively high cost of transport undoubtedly made a macroregional-scale food economy less feasible transport undoubtedly made a macroregional-scale food economy less feasible than it was in Europe or China. To illustrate, we may consider the problem of supplying maize, a common food, to the Valley of Mexico from Tuxtepec, an important trade center on the Papaloapan River. It had to be moved by tameme, human carriers, who typically carried a load of thirty kilos and who traveled twenty-four kilometers a day, according to sixteenth century evidence. Over the most convenient trails, the journey to Mexico would take eighteen days. A person will consume, however, the equivalent of at least two-thirds of a kilo of corn per day. If we look at the food energy alone, we see that our tameme will consume 80 percent of the load over the round trip. This is not to say that bulk items never moved among regions, for other considerations beside the total energy cost may have at times been involved â?? for example, the providers, not the consumers, may have sometimes paid the cost of transport, as in the Aztec tribute systems. These â??noneconomicâ? conditions, however, place the question back in the realm of exchange determined by elite relationships. That is why the Mesoamerican rich trade is not simply an archaeologically preserved proxy for trade in basic commodities. It had a purpose of its own. There is nonetheless a more subtle connection between elite exchange and basic production.

Specific, rational goals and strategies lie behind the exchange of goods, people, and information among Mesoamericaâ??s regional elites. Many of the material items, such as jade or feathers, were important in the scheme of rewards. Control over these prestige items was a key aspect of rulerâ??s power, because the ability to mass and direct large numbers of people was the measure of greatness. In Mesoamerica, people were the major factor in the production of wealth. More followers meant that more food could be produced, more craft items could be manufactured, and more warriors could be dispatched to the fields of battle. In the absence of coercion, followers had to be enlisted and their captains rewarded with the universally recognized badges of prestige. (page 220)

This means that the army carrying provisions would travel at an even slower rate, around 14 miles a day. It would take fifteen days to transport these provisions to Judea, during which time the transporters would have consumed the majority of the provisions. The sending of provisions to the army is mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon, and presents the same inconsistencies. However, the problem is increased with a different scenario, again including the idea of travel and provisions:

21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

22 And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

23 And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land Zarahemla and the land Bountiful, yea, to the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation.

24 And there were a great many thousand people who were called Nephites, who did gather themselves together in this land. Now Lachoneus did cause that they should gather themselves together in the land southward, because of the great curse which was upon the land northward.

25 And they did fortify themselves against their enemies; and they did dwell in one land, and in one body, and they did fear the words which had been spoken by Lachoneus, insomuch that they did repent of all their sins; and they did put up their prayers unto the Lord their God, that he would deliver them in the time that their enemies should come down against them to battle.

3 Nephi 3, AD 17

Once again, the Nephite region would have covered 75,000 square miles. People from throughout this region were traveling, carrying provisions with them. Yet only those from very nearby would not consume a majority of the provisions en route. With so many people living in a much smaller region than normally, it would have been very difficult to provide for all their needs, so they certainly would have needed those provisions. Yet, at the end of this seven or nine year period (3 Nephi 4:4), the Nephites still had plenty of provisions left over!

1 And now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them.

2 And it came to pass that they had not eaten up all their provisions; therefore they did take with them all that they had not devoured, of all their grain of every kind, and their gold, and their silver, and all their precious things, and they did return to their own lands and their possessions, both on the north and on the south, both on the land northward and on the land southward.

3 Nephi 6, AD 26

Note also that these scriptures demonstrate the type of control the Nephite leaders exercised over the other polities in their â??confederationâ?. Iâ??m going to repeat a few of the scriptures that highlight this issue:

2 And Moroni went to the city of Mulek with Lehi, and took command of the city and gave it unto Lehi. Now behold, this Lehi was a man who had been with Moroni in the more part of all his battles; and he was a man like unto Moroni, and they rejoiced in each otherâ??s safety; yea, they were beloved by each other, and also beloved by all the people of Nephi.

Moroni is able to â??take commandâ? of a city and place another leader in charge. While it is conceivable that this occurred in ancient Mesoamerica, it would have most likely occurred after 400 AD, and when it occurred, the polity that was doing the â??taking chargeâ? and installing another leader would have been incredibly powerful â?? in fact, the most powerful in the region.

13 And now these are the cities of which the Lamanites have obtained possession by the shedding of the blood of so many of our valiant men;

14 The land of Manti, or the city of Manti, and the city of Zeezrom, and the city of Cumeni, and the city of Antiparah.

15 And these are the cities which they possessed when I arrived at the city of Judea; and I found Antipus and his men toiling with their might to fortify the city.

Now the problem is compounded, because not only were the Nephites powerful enough to actually take possession of and rule conquered cities, but so were the Lamanites â?? in multiple locations.

That requires an immensely powerful polity.

22 And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

Imagine. The Nephite polity was powerful enough, or influential enough, to persuade multiple polities to leave their homes and stay in the appointed spot for seven to nine years.

Yet this same polity was not powerful or influential enough to leave a recognizable footprint, according to LGT.

I know I havenâ??t addressed all your points, but since I went ahead into the standing armies point, this is already so long I doubt many will read it, so I will come back later for the rest.

[beastie]

Separable, but not separate. The division allows for a secondary religion inside the polity. It does not believe that its political structure could survive unless the Nephite religion continued as the dominant religion of the government.

I disagree. One of the judges of Ammonihah was â??after the order of Nehorâ?. Clearly the political structure was separate from religion. What Alma asserts is that they wonâ??t survive if others seek to â??destroy the liberty of the people, which is confirmed in statutesâ?. (Alma 8:17) The Nephites upheld the idea of freedom and equality, and the â??voice of the peopleâ?.

Of course, there are Christians today who assert that our political structure wouldnâ??t survive without Christianity as the dominant religion, but since our political structure separates religion and state, their assertions are irrelevant.

I said:

I know that the separation of religion and state did not occur in ancient Mesoamerica, but if youâ??re positing that the Nephite polity as described in the BoM really did exist in ancient Mesoamerica, youâ??re already positing a dramatically different polity than the others.

Brant replied:

No, because I am not positing any kind of control mechanism that comes near to state level for the Book of Mormon.

You are positing a dramatically different polity because of the separation of church and state. That is aside from the control mechanism.

When Teotihuacan became the dominant force in the Maya area, it transformed politics, warfare, and official religion. However, the figurines in the outlying areas indicated a perseverence of the older form. All peoples that I am aware of who are in a region where there is some difference in belief systems have a means of allowing the integration of those competing religions. Look at the Aztecs, who actively incorporated the deities of conquered cities by "inviting" the deities to come to Tenochtitlan.

It is unsurprising that there is a different religion among the Nephites. The form of the dissident religion is also unsurprising. It is also very clear that the government in Zarahemla (where we have the record) feared that divergent religion and considered it the potential destruction of the Nephite nation. Nevertheless, when they have within their midst an entity that they feared would destroy them, they only responded militarily after a military provocation.

Yes, Teotihuacan had tremendous influence on the region. That the scholars are not persuaded this influence was the result of direct military intervention indicates that scholars are able to visualize a different, yet also powerful, form of influence and, at times, control. The BoM asserts that Nephites enshrined freedom and the voice of the people. This could be why they allowed divergence without resorting to force. The fact that they did not resort to force does not automatically mean they were not capable of using force. As you say, they certainly did respond with force when they were militarily provoked, and usually handily bested their confronters â?? sometimes with force approaching â??shock and aweâ?.

The US is capable of great force, but the US does not always choose to use force to deal with confrontations and challenges.

I will respond with a question. If any state goes against a Supreme Court ruling, what happens?

It depends on how the state â??goes against a Supreme Court ruling.â? There are legal maneuvers available to states and lesser courts, and even possible impeachments. If you are implying that the US would immediately respond with a show of force, youâ??re wrong. The Nephites also had a legal maneuver available to lesser courts: Mosiah 29:29

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

Again, just because a polity does not respond with force to a confrontation does not mean that they are not capable of responding with force. It sometimes means that they have other ideals they seek to uphold first. It seems to me that the Nephites dealing with the Amlicites (as well as their partner Lamanites) ought to demonstrate that they clearly had the prerequisite force.

No. I am neither ignoring what the text says, nor admitting that they were completely separate. There was a formal recognition that they couldn't control the divergent religion and it was allowed to exist. When that divergent religion controlled the political structure, the official Nephite nation considered it both a disaster and a destruction. That should tell us that the nature of the "separation" is different than what we suspect from modern separation of church and state.

The judge who was â??after the order of Nehorâ? was allowed to function and even judge Alma.

Except that you keep using size as a marker of political complexity. That is the correlation that I am suggesting is incorrect. I am suggesting that it is incorrect because the nature of centralized control typically dictates size (and except in spectacular cases, keeps the region smaller). Distance is not a problem for a trading community because the controlling force doesn't need to be supplied on the way. It is a non-issue.

What you have to do in the Book of Mormon is discuss the political structure as defined. You can look at the area covered, but the area only requires that we question the nature of the hegemony, the hegemony is not defined by it. It is certainly a marker, but not a definer. The significant marker for a complex centralized government is control (see the Lamanites as an example where we do see that kind of control being exercised).

I believe my comments have been addressing the political structure supplied in the BoM. Any Mesoamerican polity that would have had the control and/or influence to persuade multiple polities to abandon their homes, travel long distance, and gather together for safety near Zarahemla for seven to nine years would have been a polity with truly impressive powers.

[Brant Gardner]

7 And it came to pass that he did no more attempt a battle with the Lamanites in that year, but he did employ his men in preparing for war, yea, and in making fortifications to guard against the Lamanites, yea, and also delivering their women and their children from famine and affliction, and providing food for their armies. (note to Brant â?? this obviously describes a standing army)

I'm splitting things up to make it easier to deal with issues. In this case, we are back to the old problem of how one reads a text. First, I agree that there was a Nephite army in the field. However, there is a significant difference between troops in the field as part of a current war, and a standing army. The definition of a standing army is a professional unit that is ready and staffed at all times. The Aztecs did not have a standing army, but called up commoners as needed.

This is what happens in the Book of Mormon:

Alma 43:26

26 And he caused that all the people in that quarter of the land should gather themselves together to battle against the Lamanites, to defend their lands and their country, their rights and their liberties; therefore they were prepared against the time of the coming of the Lamanites.

There is no standing army to call upon. Rather, they must call upon "all thepeople on that quarter."

Further, at the end of an engagement:

Alma 3:1

1 And it came to pass that the Nephites who were not slain by the weapons of war, after having buried those who had been slainâ??now the number of the slain were not numbered, because of the greatness of their numberâ??after they had finished burying their dead they all returned to their lands, and to their houses, and their wives, and their children.

When the war is over, the army disbands.

So, the text tells us that they were called up when needed and disbanded when the war was over. Those are indications fo the lack of a standing army. Provisioning an army already in the field is a different issue altogether.

[Brant Gardner]

The fathers of these sons would have been from Jershon, which had been earlier given to the Lamanite converts. Jershon was approximately 160 miles from Zarahemla, and Judea, where the army was stationed, was another 54 miles further south. They were sending provisions for a large number of people over a distance of 210 miles away.

For the sake of argument, I'll take your distances. However, you do quote:

To illustrate, we may consider the problem of supplying maize, a common food, to the Valley of Mexico from Tuxtepec, an important trade center on the Papaloapan River. It had to be moved by tameme, human carriers, who typically carried a load of thirty kilos and who traveled twenty-four kilometers a day, according to sixteenth century evidence. Over the most convenient trails, the journey to Mexico would take eighteen days. A person will consume, however, the equivalent of at least two-thirds of a kilo of corn per day. If we look at the food energy alone, we see that our tameme will consume 80 percent of the load over the round trip.

The distance from Tuxtepec to Mexico City, over modern roads, is 270 miles, so we have to cut times and consumption rates. Secondly, while the provisions for the army come from Jershon, that doesn't suggest that there was no way to provision the carriers at friendly cities on the way, which decreased the attrition on the supplies. In short, it really isn't much of a condemnation. That is why, right after this quotation, we have the following:

This is not to say that bulk items never moved among regions, for other considerations beside the total energy cost may have at times been involved â?? for example, the providers, not the consumers, may have sometimes paid the cost of transport, as in the Aztec tribute systems.

The problem wasn't so much in what was provided, but how much of it arrived. The solution for the Aztecs, was for someone else to provide the difference. In their case, the same city. In the case of a Nephite war, it could easily be cities on the way--which is the way the Aztecs tended to provision their marching armies.

Diane and Arlen Chase, in their essay â??Texts and Contexts in Maya Warfare: A Brief Consideration of Epigraphy and Archaology at Caracol, Belizeâ?, in Ancient Mesoamerican Warfares state:

In contrast, the distance between primary centers who warred with each other averaged 96.5 kilometers. Both of these distances are in accord with military theory concerning marching distance and suggest that Maya polities could reasonably maintain physical and territorial borders to a radius of 60 kilometers, which translates into the distance that could be effectively marched by an army in three days.

Your argument is that the distances of the Nephite hegemony are too large. However, this is a problem of how far an army could travel away from its line of supply support. That returns to the question of control. A political entity requiring control could only effectively control that amount of territory. That says nothing of a cooperative body that doesn't care about control.

[Brant Gardner]

Moroni is able to â??take commandâ? of a city and place another leader in charge. While it is conceivable that this occurred in ancient Mesoamerica, it would have most likely occurred after 400 AD, and when it occurred, the polity that was doing the â??taking chargeâ? and installing another leader would have been incredibly powerful â?? in fact, the most powerful in the region.

What happens in the middle of a war against a common enemy is not prescriptive for how the government worked. Remember Sparta and Athens against Persia.

[Brant Gardner]

22 And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

Imagine. The Nephite polity was powerful enough, or influential enough, to persuade multiple polities to leave their homes and stay in the appointed spot for seven to nine years.

This at least comes closer to a governmental decision. Except that it was in response to a dire outside threat. It is still an issue of fighting a common enemy. That fact changes the rules and does not indicate common government. Again, Sparta and Athens.

Yet this same polity was not powerful or influential enough to leave a recognizable footprint, according to LGT.

There are very few of the larger polities which left enough of a footprint to be found, and most of those have been discovered only recently, and for later times, and in different areas. So, we have a couple of problems. First, your examples are all cases of defense against a very threatening common enemy. That is a very different situation and does not, in and of itself, indicate governmental control (or influence) in other times.

Second, you are assuming that if there were evidence we would have already found it. We only find that information where there is either writing or emblem glyphs. Both of those come from different locations and much later times. The very nature of what we look for doesn't exist in the time and place where we would have to find it - ergo, not finding it is no indication that there was no kind of connection at all.

Third, the looser connections the text confirms (save for mutual defense) doesn't require the kind of "footprint" you suggest.

[Brant Gardner]

I disagree. One of the judges of Ammonihah was â??after the order of Nehorâ?. Clearly the political structure was separate from religion. What Alma asserts is that they wonâ??t survive if others seek to â??destroy the liberty of the people, which is confirmed in statutesâ?. (Alma 8:17) The Nephites upheld the idea of freedom and equality, and the â??voice of the peopleâ?.

Hold on. How does suggesting that a judge in Ammonihah was after the order of Nehor indicate a division between government and religion? The governmental structures in Ammonihah were embedded in the way they interpreted religion (Welch reviews the ways in which the case of Alma indicates the way they read "the Law"). I read both the goverment and religion as Nehorite, which is why the official judge questioning dealt with Nehorite issues.

[Brant Gardner]

Yes, Teotihuacan had tremendous influence on the region. That the scholars are not persuaded this influence was the result of direct military intervention indicates that scholars are able to visualize a different, yet also powerful, form of influence and, at times, control. The BoM asserts that Nephites enshrined freedom and the voice of the people. This could be why they allowed divergence without resorting to force. The fact that they did not resort to force does not automatically mean they were not capable of using force. As you say, they certainly did respond with force when they were militarily provoked, and usually handily bested their confronters â?? sometimes with force approaching â??shock and aweâ?.

The US is capable of great force, but the US does not always choose to use force to deal with confrontations and challenges.

No wonder we don't seem to communicate. You are presenting evidence for my argument. The US is absolutely capable of great force, and at times demonstrates it by using that force. There are other times, when simply the threat is sufficient.

Teotihuacan's entrada into Tikal is euphemistically an "entrance," but all of a sudden the ruler changes and a Teotihuacano is ruling. That is some "influence." I suspect that it was also related to their ability to back up their influence militarily.

You don't have to use you army every time, only when the people don't roll over. See the Aztecs -- they did the very same thing.

[beastie]

I'm splitting things up to make it easier to deal with issues. In this case, we are back to the old problem of how one reads a text. First, I agree that there was a Nephite army in the field. However, there is a significant difference between troops in the field as part of a current war, and a standing army. The definition of a standing army is a professional unit that is ready and staffed at all times. The Aztecs did not have a standing army, but called up commoners as needed.

The Mesoamericans didnâ??t have long term wars. When the wars last for literally years during which time the army is either actively serving or ready to be called up, that can fairly be called a standing army. Starting with the Amlicite revolt, the Nephites were in a constant state of war for over a decade. Just how long does the army have to be fighting or engaging in readiness for war before it can fairly be called a â??standing army?â?

The distance from Tuxtepec to Mexico City, over modern roads, is 270 miles, so we have to cut times and consumption rates. Secondly, while the provisions for the army come from Jershon, that doesn't suggest that there was no way to provision the carriers at friendly cities on the way, which decreased the attrition on the supplies. In short, it really isn't much of a condemnation. That is why, right after this quotation, we have the following:The problem wasn't so much in what was provided, but how much of it arrived. The solution for the Aztecs, was for someone else to provide the difference. In their case, the same city. In the case of a Nephite war, it could easily be cities on the way--which is the way the Aztecs tended to provision their marching armies.

Even your resolutions donâ??t resolve the core problem â?? youâ??re describing a powerful, influential polity. If the Nephites were able to stop at cities along the way and obtain provisions without problems, that would indicate that the Nephite polity was, yes, powerful and influential.

Your argument is that the distances of the Nephite hegemony are too large. However, this is a problem of how far an army could travel away from its line of supply support. That returns to the question of control. A political entity requiring control could only effectively control that amount of territory. That says nothing of a cooperative body that doesn't care about control.

You seem to think that substituting the word â??cooperativeâ? resolves the core problem. It doesnâ??t. The core problem isnâ??t whether or not the Nephites used force or cooperation â?? in fact, Iâ??ve already said that the Nephites enshrined certain ideals that would indicate a preference for cooperation over force. But this doesnâ??t change the fact that a polity that could develop this type of extended cooperation would be â?? yes, you guessed it â?? a powerful and influential polity.

What happens in the middle of a war against a common enemy is not prescriptive for how the government worked. Remember Sparta and Athens against Persia.

No, itâ??s not prescriptive for how the government works, but it does indicate what the government is capable of doing. A weak polity wouldnâ??t be able to respond forcefully in face of a threat, even if it wanted to.

[beastie]

This at least comes closer to a governmental decision. Except that it was in response to a dire outside threat. It is still an issue of fighting a common enemy. That fact changes the rules and does not indicate common government. Again, Sparta and Athens.

I didnâ??t say anything about a common government in this scenario. I said:

Imagine. The Nephite polity was powerful enough, or influential enough, to persuade multiple polities to leave their homes and stay in the appointed spot for seven to nine years.

Was or was not the Nephite polity powerful or influential enough to persuade multiple polities to leave their homes and stay in the appointed spot for seven to nine years?

There are very few of the larger polities which left enough of a footprint to be found, and most of those have been discovered only recently, and for later times, and in different areas. So, we have a couple of problems. First, your examples are all cases of defense against a very threatening common enemy. That is a very different situation and does not, in and of itself, indicate governmental control (or influence) in other times.

Second, you are assuming that if there were evidence we would have already found it. We only find that information where there is either writing or emblem glyphs. Both of those come from different locations and much later times. The very nature of what we look for doesn't exist in the time and place where we would have to find it - ergo, not finding it is no indication that there was no kind of connection at all.

Third, the looser connections the text confirms (save for mutual defense) doesn't require the kind of "footprint" you suggest.

Now weâ??re getting down to what I consider the core issue.

You, and other apologists, seem to suggest that there is always the possibility that we may yet discover this large and influential polity that could arguably be the Nephites. We just havenâ??t found it yet.

But the point is that the BoM does describe a powerful, influential polity. You yourself have resorted to using Teotihuacan and Tikal as examples of extended influence. You canâ??t use some minor inconsequential polity as an example, because that minor, inconsequential polity would not have the type of extended influence that the Nephites did. You have tried to avoid the extended influence by dwelling on whether or not the Nephites used force, control, or cooperation. It doesnâ??t matter.

Any polity as influential as what the BoM describes would have a discernable impact on other polities and over-all Mesoamerican cultural evolution â?? just like Teotihuacan. IOW, if we now have a "Nephite hole", we can still know the shape of that hole. Nothing indicates a Nephite shaped hole in Mesoamerica.

[beastie]

No wonder we don't seem to communicate. You are presenting evidence for my argument. The US is absolutely capable of great force, and at times demonstrates it by using that force. There are other times, when simply the threat is sufficient.

Teotihuacan's entrada into Tikal is euphemistically an "entrance," but all of a sudden the ruler changes and a Teotihuacano is ruling. That is some "influence." I suspect that it was also related to their ability to back up their influence militarily.

You don't have to use you army every time, only when the people don't roll over. See the Aztecs -- they did the very same thing.

Clearly we’re not communicating, and I did expect that outcome. As I said, I hope this is helpful to silent readers who are weighing and considering evidence.

I am dumbfounded that you think I am presenting evidence for your argument. Here is my specific argument on this point:

1- The Nephites were capable of exercising great force, as is witnessed repeatedly in their wars.

2- The Nephites, due to their other ideals, did not always respond to problems with force.

3- The Nephites would have been able to respond with force, if they had not chosen to adhere to other ideals (see number 1)

I may be misunderstanding your argument. I thought you were arguing that the Nephites were not capable of strong shows of force to deal with rebellions and other issues due to the lack of a strong government. Were you not? If we actually agree that to the three points I outlined above, we can proceed from there. (tomorrow, too late tonight)

[beastie]

Hold on. How does suggesting that a judge in Ammonihah was after the order of Nehor indicate a division between government and religion? The governmental structures in Ammonihah were embedded in the way they interpreted religion (Welch reviews the ways in which the case of Alma indicates the way they read "the Law"). I read both the goverment and religion as Nehorite, which is why the official judge questioning dealt with Nehorite issues.

First, there is no â??suggestingâ?, the BoM flat out states it.

You have agreed that Nephihah was the chief judge of Ammonihah, which indicates he was a judge â??overâ? the lesser judges within Ammonihah itself, like the Nehorite judge.

[Brant Gardner]

You, and other apologists, seem to suggest that there is always the possibility that we may yet discover this large and influential polity that could arguably be the Nephites. We just havenâ??t found it yet.

You are putting words in my mouth. What I said what that in the area where we think the Book of Mormon took place, and at the time, it is too early for the kind of evidence that supports your contention. I'm not saying evidence will turn up. I am saying that the kind of evidence you are citing is not available in the time and location for the Book of Mormon.

But the point is that the BoM does describe a powerful, influential polity.

Which is why we seem to be at an end, again. I certainly don't see that and have explained why. You cannot see my point, so continuing to make it won't move us forward.

You yourself have resorted to using Teotihuacan and Tikal as examples of extended influence. You canâ??t use some minor inconsequential polity as an example, because that minor, inconsequential polity would not have the type of extended influence that the Nephites did.

See, you are doing it again. You are taking the argument I was making against seeing the Nephites as a polity with any kind of forcible influence, and then assuming that the must be similar because you believe the Nephites were a powerful polity. Your conclusion, definitely not mine.

Any polity as influential as what the BoM describes would have a discernable impact on other polities and over-all Mesoamerican cultural evolution â?? just like Teotihuacan. IOW, if we now have a "Nephite hole", we can still know the shape of that hole. Nothing indicates a Nephite shaped hole in Mesoamerica.

Except the only time you can define any kind of influence is during a time of war when the cities are facing a common enemy. Without that context, all of the evidence points the other way.

Sadly, I think we have finished. Again.

[Brant Gardner]

You have agreed that Nephihah was the chief judge of Ammonihah, which indicates he was a judge â??overâ? the lesser judges within Ammonihah itself, like the Nehorite judge.

You are forgetting your arguments. You suggested that this proved a separation of politics and religion. It doesn't. There is certainly an issue of what kind of relationship the chief judge had over the city judges. However, that is something to investigate, not assume.

There is very little evidence. We have one case where Gideon brought Nehor to Alma. That suggests a voluntary escalation, not a top-down control. In the case in Ammonihah, there is no indication that Zarahemla attempts to adjudicate for Alma. Surely Alma was in favor with Nephihah, but the chief judge did absolutley nothing.

[beastie]

You are putting words in my mouth. What I said what that in the area where we think the Book of Mormon took place, and at the time, it is too early for the kind of evidence that supports your contention. I'm not saying evidence will turn up. I am saying that the kind of evidence you are citing is not available in the time and location for the Book of Mormon.

Your response is somewhat vague, so Iâ??m guessing as to your meaning when you say that â??the kind of evidenceâ? I am citing is â??not available in the time and location for the Bom.â? This doesnâ??t make sense to me because Iâ??m citing evidence that clearly is available during the specified BoM time frame. Your statement would have been accurate prior to the decoding of the Maya glyph, but since that decoding, the database of information concerning ancient Mesoamerica has increased geometrically, and we can clearly recognize the footprints of various powerful polities.

I said:

But the point is that the BoM does describe a powerful, influential polity.

Brant:

Which is why we seem to be at an end, again. I certainly don't see that and have explained why. You cannot see my point, so continuing to make it won't move us forward.

I never expected us to come to an agreement on this issue because whether or not the Nephite polity, as described in the BM, is powerful and influential directly impacts one of the most important elements of LGT: reduced expectations. According to LGT, one should not expect to find a Nephite footprint, and believers should not be dismayed that no such footprint has been found, because the Nephites were a minor polity who would not leave such a footprint in the first place. Conceding that the Nephites were a powerful, influential polity would create immense problems for the rest of LGT. But, as I said, this discussion is an avenue by which we can both share information that may be helpful to other individuals who are undecided on this question and actively seeking more information to help them decide.

I said:

You yourself have resorted to using Teotihuacan and Tikal as examples of extended influence. You canâ??t use some minor inconsequential polity as an example, because that minor, inconsequential polity would not have the type of extended influence that the Nephites did.

Brant replied:

See, you are doing it again. You are taking the argument I was making against seeing the Nephites as a polity with any kind of forcible influence, and then assuming that the must be similar because you believe the Nephites were a powerful polity. Your conclusion, definitely not mine.

Letâ??s review when you brought up Teotihucan. In response to my comparison of the size and power of the Nephite polity to the later Aztecs, and my use of Riceâ??s statements to support my assertion that satellite polities were roughly within one dayâ??s walking distance, you said:

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.

Once I clarified that I wasnâ??t asserting that the Nephites would have used similar methods of control as the Aztecs, and even if the â??controlâ? issue was murky (of course, I donâ??t believe it as murky as you are presenting, but just proceeding from that point regardless), that the extended influence was as important and, in the end, very problematic for LGT, you immediately reminded me of the extended influence of Teotihuacan. Using Teotihuacan as an example of extended territorial influence to demonstrate that territories close to the BoM time period could have such extended influence does not constitute an argument against the Nephites as a polity with extended geographic influence. I find it incredible that anyone as schooled in ancient Mesoamerica as you are would not view a polity capable of the following (just off the top of my head) to be a very powerful polity during the BoM time frame:

1. the Nephites were able to persuade multiple polities spreading over a hundred miles to abandon their homes and live in one specified location for 7-9 years

2. the Nephites were able to obtain provisions for their army, as well as the traveling civilian population, from multiple cities along the way

3. the Nephites were able to sustain a massive army for over a decade while battling â??Lamanitesâ? across the region

4. the Nephites were important enough that a polity over a hundred miles distant would seek the advise and legal counsel from their shared â??chief judgeâ?

5. the Nephites were able to â??giveâ? land appr. 160 miles away (Jershon) to some allies for relocation

6. the Nephites were able to â??take possessionâ? of vanquished polities and install leaders

Except the only time you can define any kind of influence is during a time of war when the cities are facing a common enemy. Without that context, all of the evidence points the other way.

Why does this negate the extended influence as evidence of their power and status? As I already clarified, the actions of a polity during a time of stress, such as war, reveal what the polity is capable of.

You are forgetting your arguments. You suggested that this proved a separation of politics and religion. It doesn't. There is certainly an issue of what kind of relationship the chief judge had over the city judges. However, that is something to investigate, not assume.

There is very little evidence. We have one case where Gideon brought Nehor to Alma. That suggests a voluntary escalation, not a top-down control. In the case in Ammonihah, there is no indication that Zarahemla attempts to adjudicate for Alma. Surely Alma was in favor with Nephihah, but the chief judge did absolutley nothing.

The fact that Zarahemla did not attempt to adjudicate for Alma is evidence of the separation of church and state. Alma was only functioning as leader of the church, hence, he was vulnerable. The inhabitants of Ammonihah made it clear that they would have felt compelled to show him respect if he had actually still be chief judge, but since he was now only a religious leader, they no longer felt any such compunction.

In the â??realâ? Mesoamerica, the highest religious leader was also the highest political leader. This is completely inconsistent with the Ammonihah story.