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

[Brant Gardner]

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.

As you note, you are using evidence that relies upon the decipherment of the Maya glyphs. That is also dependent upon finding texts that are written in the Maya glyphs. There are very, very few of those that exist prior to the end of the Book of Mormon. All of the evidence on which the discussion of widespread polities is based depends upon texts that were written after the close of the Book of Mormon. During all but the last couple of hundred years of the Book of Mormon (when the Nephite polity was significantly reduced, at least in geography), there are simply no texts. You cannot read what wasn't written.

Secondly, the evidence you are citing is from Maya monuments. The time period and location we are positing for the Book of Mormon is Zoquean. While there is a reasonable assumption that there are some similarities, how many and what kind can only be discussed on the basis of evidence that exists--and there are very few texts, none of which supply the type of evidence that you are using to build your case. Hence my issue with time and place.

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

May I assume that you are not going to address the fact that the case of mutual defense against a common enemy alters the rules of collaboration? I have mentioned this several times and given you historical reasons for my comment. You still return to the same military situations to assert political control in times when there was no such threat. History tells us that this is an incorrect assumption. As of the points, you are repeating your evidence, to which I have alreadly responded. I'll not repeat the responses.

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.

Do you actually read my responses? I noted that the counter-evidence is that this "trial" occurred with the political leaders, but on religious grounds. There was no separation of who had jurisdiction over religion or politics. The political judges sat in judgement on religious issues--ergo no separation.

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

That is an interesting reponse, since the text of the Book of Mormon actually tells us that they understood it to be a different solution. They had the same solution as other Mesoamericans--for around 500 years. Then they changed.

Interestingly, at least to me, is that there is also an indication that later cultures (I am thinking Chichen Itza here) were governed by a collective rather than a king. Even with the kings, there were courts with power (see the example of Copan). The political elements were in place. There was an allowance for diversity in the hegemony, but whenever the Nephite religion was out of power, the entire polity was considered at danger. In fact, after the Gadiantons take over, Mormon makes it clear that the Nephite polity collapsed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

At this point it seems beastie may be repeating what she has left at the bottom of her bag. FWIW.

[beastie]

Don't worry, there's more coming. As I've repeatedly stated, I don't expect to any apologist, including Brant, to ever concede these points. I'm not presenting them for his benefit.

However, I do have real life to attend to this evening, so I probably won't share the more until tomorrow.

In the meantime, can Brant - or anyone - present evidence that a minor, insignificant polity from anywhere in Mesoamerica could exert the influence I cited above?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't worry, there's more coming. As I've repeatedly stated, I don't expect to any apologist, including Brant, to ever concede these points. I'm not presenting them for his benefit.

However, I do have real life to attend to this evening, so I probably won't share the more until tomorrow.

In the meantime, can Brant - or anyone - present evidence that a minor, insignificant polity from anywhere in Mesoamerica could exert the influence I cited above?

I guess Brandt isnt expecting any apologists, Which include Beastie, to ever concede those points either.

What a cop out of an excuse here.

Im sure you can do better here.

[Brant Gardner]

In the meantime, can Brant - or anyone - present evidence that a minor, insignificant polity from anywhere in Mesoamerica could exert the influence I cited above?

In case you haven't noticed, I have explained several times that much of your evidence for influence is either miscontrued or taken from the context of a common military foe that provides a context that is sufficiently extraordinary that it cannot be used to make your point.

So, I am not going to try to prove your case for you, since I don't believe the hypothesis.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Don't worry, there's more coming. As I've repeatedly stated, I don't expect to any apologist, including Brant, to ever concede these points. I'm not presenting them for his benefit.

Perhaps I should expect no apologist, including you, to ever concede his as well?

I guess Brandt isnt expecting any apologists, Which include Beastie, to ever conced those points either. What a cop out of an excuse here.Im sure you can do better here.

Beat me to the punch.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Beat me to the punch.

Beastie claimed, "

Don't worry, there's more coming. As I've repeatedly stated, I don't expect to any apologist, including Brant, to ever concede these points. I'm not presenting them for his benefit."

Acutally to add to the pain only some one who did not believe what they are peddling would say this.

I would never say that " I dont expect to have you ever concede a point" Why is your position so week? Or do you not think it that unimportant? And if it isnt important why do it?

Sorry but Beastie you opened yourself up to this. Forgive me if it sounds harsh. I have seen you make better cases on things on diffrent topics than this before.

I really hope you change your mind atleast on this one point.

Oh and just for kicks I really dont expect you to concede your point here. Lol.

[beastie]

In case you haven't noticed, I have explained several times that much of your evidence for influence is either miscontrued or taken from the context of a common military foe that provides a context that is sufficiently extraordinary that it cannot be used to make your point.

So, I am not going to try to prove your case for you, since I don't believe the hypothesis.

Of course a military threat is going to require any polity to extend itself as far as possible. But the key words are "as possible". What a polity is able to do under the threat of war definitely tells us something about that polity.

[beastie]

For the inattentive, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

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.

[LifeOnaPlate]

beastie, I think you have been providing Brant with an excellent opportunity to state his views as well. I think other individuals who pay attention will be helped, of course. As it stands, Brant has made points to which you have yet to respond. From my view, he's got a leg up right now.

[e=mc2]

I have been thoroughly enjoying the discussion, and I might add, absolutely seriously enjoying reading Brant's BofM Commentary, "Second Witness." VERY well done Brant. I find your ideas truly inspiring. They also help me produce decent BofM videos on You Tube. Woo hoo!

Best,

Kerry

[Brant Gardner]

Of course a military threat is going to require any polity to extend itself as far as possible. But the key words are "as possible". What a polity is able to do under the threat of war definitely tells us something about that polity.

Yes. Like Athens and Sparta against the Persians. Combined against a common enemy. Otherwise, pretty antagonistic towards each other.

Therefore, based on historical precedence, you cannot use the military situation to assume political unity or influence.

[beastie]

Yes. Like Athens and Sparta against the Persians. Combined against a common enemy. Otherwise, pretty antagonistic towards each other.Therefore, based on historical precedence, you cannot use the military situation to assume political unity or influence.

Military situations certainly can be used to assume how powerful a polity is.You can also tell something about the distribution of power amongst allied polities by the way they conduct warfare... including which polity calls the shots.

In case you haven't noticed, I have explained several times that much of your evidence for influence is either miscontrued or taken from the context of a common military foe that provides a context that is sufficiently extraordinary that it cannot be used to make your point.

I just stated events from the BoM. Do you disagree that these events occurred?

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

[wenglund]

You cannot read what wasn't written.

...or so you might reasonably think. However, in the numerous online discussions I have had with Beastie over the years, she has demonstrated a remarkable consistency in reading into my comments things that I not only did not say, had not thought, and even on ocassion had intentional phrased in such a way so that she wouldn't misread things the way she did. And, even after repeatedly pointing out what I had actually said and didn't say, and clarifying and reclarifying my meaning further, she has remained undaunted in claiming I said what I didn't say.

So, if she exibits this kind of pathology with someone she has been in direct conversation with, who lives in the same time period and comes from relatively the same culture as her, it seems reasonable to expect that she would most definately "read what wasn't written" in the writings of those who lived some time ago and who came from vastly different cultures from her.

Not that this says yea or nay to the arguments being presented, I just wanted Brant and others to understand the kind of "thinking" they are up against, if they didn't already know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

Do you actually read my responses? I noted that the counter-evidence is that this "trial" occurred with the political leaders, but on religious grounds. There was no separation of who had jurisdiction over religion or politics. The political judges sat in judgement on religious issues--ergo no separation.

I think the text can be read in a different way. Alma 14:2 asserts that they were imprisoned due to â??reviling against their law and also against their lawyers and judgesâ?. Yes, there was religious persecution, as well, but thereâ??s been religious persecution in the US, as well, so that doesnâ??t prove that there wasnâ??t an attempt to separate church and state.Iâ??m not even sure why we are debating this point. You earlier conceded that there was â??someâ? separation, just not like the modern conception (which I never claimed). You stated that they were doing something â??differentâ?. So what is the point of disagreement here? The reason I brought this up was to demonstrate that the BoM, by its nature, asserts a dramatically different polity than existed in Mesoamerica. Do you really disagree, or are we disagreeing on this point out of habit?

Next point:

Did the â??Lamanitesâ? share the Nephites mythology about their origins?

Amulek lived in the â??apostateâ? city of Ammonihah. Here is how he described himself:

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

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

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

Alma 10

And of course weâ??re all familiar with King Lamoni and his father. Apologists have asserted that the fact that there was an â??over-kingâ? demonstrates a higher level of social complexity among the Lamanites and have postulated that the Lamanites were a more powerful and significant polity. So did this powerful king over a powerful polity share the Nephite mythology?First, we are told that the polity â??Jerusalemâ? was named after the Israel Jerusalem:

1 Now, as Ammon was thus teaching the people of Lamoni continually, we will return to the account of Aaron and his brethren; for after he departed from the land of Middoni he was led by the Spirit to the land of Nephi, even to the house of the king which was over all the land save it were the land of Ishmael; and he was the father of Lamoni.

Alma 22

7 And Aaron answered him and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And the king said: I know that the Amalekites say that there is a God, and I have granted unto them that they should build sanctuaries, that they may assemble themselves together to worship him. And if now thou sayest there is a God, behold I will believe.

8 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God.

9 And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?

[beastie]

As you note, you are using evidence that relies upon the decipherment of the Maya glyphs. That is also dependent upon finding texts that are written in the Maya glyphs. There are very, very few of those that exist prior to the end of the Book of Mormon. All of the evidence on which the discussion of widespread polities is based depends upon texts that were written after the close of the Book of Mormon. During all but the last couple of hundred years of the Book of Mormon (when the Nephite polity was significantly reduced, at least in geography), there are simply no texts. You cannot read what wasn't written.

This is a common argument among defenders of the faith, but I admit I am somewhat surprised to read it from you. Are you asserting that, without written texts, we really cannot learn much of anything about ancient cultures? Or that we can learn so little that any speculation is justified? Do you view the assertions of the many scholars in the field as nothing more than guesses? (which another believer recently asserted)

Secondly, the evidence you are citing is from Maya monuments. The time period and location we are positing for the Book of Mormon is Zoquean. While there is a reasonable assumption that there are some similarities, how many and what kind can only be discussed on the basis of evidence that exists--and there are very few texts, none of which supply the type of evidence that you are using to build your case. Hence my issue with time and place.

So what would be different in the Zoquean area that could help resolve these issues? Iâ??m assuming youâ??re referring in particular to the Oaxaca region. I have read Ancient Oaxaca by Blanton, Feinman, Kowalweksi and Nicholas, and donâ??t recall reading anything that would be supportive of the existence of the Nephite polity. Iâ??ll look through my notes on it again to refresh my memory. Most importantly, would you believe one would be justified in looking for a Nephite footprint in the Oaxaca area, or would you still argue that the Nephite polity was a relatively minor one and would not be expected to leave any footprint at all?

BTW, Iâ??m sure youâ??re aware that a good portion of Sorensonâ??s map is in the Maya region.

[beastie]

The case of Lamoni and his father are very instructive. Both were Lamanite kings who converted to the Nephiteâ??s religion, and brought several Lamanite polities with them into the fold. These people became known as Anti-Nephi-Lehites.

I already cited part of the scripture that talks about Lamoniâ??s father conversion, but here are some more pertinent verses:

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

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

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

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

31 And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a halfâ??s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

33 And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward.

34 Therefore the Lamanites could have no more possessions only in the land of Nephi, and the wilderness round about. Now this was wisdom in the Nephitesâ??as the Lamanites were an enemy to them, they would not suffer their afflictions on every hand, and also that they might have a country whither they might flee, according to their desires.

35 And now I, after having said this, return again to the account of Ammon and Aaron, Omner and Himni, and their brethren.

Alma 22

Note: Kaminaljuyu has been identified by Sorenson and others as a possible candidate for the city of Nephi. Kaminaljuyu is one of the most powerful polities in the region at that time period.

I share these verses to demonstrate that Lamoniâ??s father was king over a significant portion of land.

Of course, Alma 23 goes on to list all the Lamanite cities that converted with their King:

8 Now, these are they who were converted unto the Lord:

9 The people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Ishmael;

10 And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Middoni;

11 And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the city of Nephi;

12 And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Shilom, and who were in the land of Shemlon, and in the city of Lemuel, and in the city of Shimnilom.

13 And these are the names of the cities of the Lamanites which were converted unto the Lord; and these are they that laid down the weapons of their rebellion, yea, all their weapons of war; and they were all Lamanites.

14 And the Amalekites were not converted, save only one; neither were any of the Amulonites; but they did harden their hearts, and also the hearts of the Lamanites in that part of the land wheresoever they dwelt, yea, and all their villages and all their cities.

15 Therefore, we have named all the cities of the Lamanites in which they did repent and come to the knowledge of the truth, and were converted.

16 And now it came to pass that the king and those who were converted were desirous that they might have a name, that thereby they might be distinguished from their brethren; therefore the king consulted with Aaron and many of their priests, concerning the name that they should take upon them, that they might be distinguished.

17 And it came to pass that they called their names Anti-Nephi-Lehies; and they were called by this name and were no more called Lamanites.

Again, a significant number of polities converted with the King.

These people needed a new place to live, so the Nephites took care of that, as well, in Alma 27:

20 And now it came to pass that Alma conducted his brethren back to the land of Zarahemla; even to his own house. And they went and told the chief judge all the things that had happened unto them in the land of Nephi, among their brethren, the Lamanites.

21 And it came to pass that the chief judge sent a proclamation throughout all the land, desiring the voice of the people concerning the admitting their brethren, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

22 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful; and this land Jershon is the land which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance.

23 And behold, we will set our armies between the land Jershon and the land Nephi, that we may protect our brethren in the land Jershon; and this we do for our brethren, on account of their fear to take up arms against their brethren lest they should commit sin; and this their great fear came because of their sore repentance which they had, on account of their many murders and their awful wickedness.

24 And now behold, this will we do unto our brethren, that they may inherit the land Jershon; and we will guard them from their enemies with our armies, on condition that they will give us a portion of their substance to assist us that we may maintain our armies.

25 Now, it came to pass that when Ammon had heard this, he returned to the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, and also Alma with him, into the wilderness, where they had pitched their tents, and made known unto them all these things. And Alma also related unto them his conversion, with Ammon and Aaron, and his brethren.

26 And it came to pass that it did cause great joy among them. And they went down into the land of Jershon, and took possession of the land of Jershon; and they were called by the Nephites the people of Ammon; therefore they were distinguished by that name ever after.

Letâ??s review:

1. the father of Lamoni is a Lamanite king who, by virtue of being a â??king-overâ? is king of a powerful, more complex polity

2. the land later described as being under Lamanite/father of Lamoni control represents a significant percentage of the region ascribed to the Lehites over-all

3. the father of Lamoni identifies with the origin story of the Nephites (fathers came from Jerusalem) prior to his conversion

4. the king of this significant Lamanite polity converts and helps to convert the inhabitants of several polities under his jurisdiction

5. Aaron returns to Zarahemla and tells the chief judge of Zarahemal the situation

6. the chief judge orders a proclamation, and the â??voice of the peopleâ? give the new converts Jershon, 160 miles away

None of this is consistent with a minor polity that could not be expected to leave a discernable footprint.

[beastie]

beastie, I think you have been providing Brant with an excellent opportunity to state his views as well. I think other individuals who pay attention will be helped, of course. As it stands, Brant has made points to which you have yet to respond. From my view, he's got a leg up right now.

Of course it provides Brant with an opportunity to state his views, as well. I have zero doubt that many believers will find his views to be very persuasive. There are other readers who may be â??on the fenceâ? about the historicity of the BoM, however, who may not be as persuaded.

[Anijen]

For the inattentive, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

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.

It does seem you are making theory from some sources that are from post BoM times and trying to squeeze that thought into that time. I have also noticed you will refer us to your web page which from what I have read you tend to just rehash your same arguments here but in a longer version. You have read and quote many books (I am growing fond of Schele, Freidel, and Susan Toby Evans) but as good as they are, none of them have tried to find Mesoamerica in the BoM. I really don't expect them to and am not surprised when nothing comes up in their books to parallel with the BoM, that again was not their goal at all. Brant Gardner does attempt to finding Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, his convergences are brilliant. His knowledge of the BoM and Mesoamerica has given him the skill set to do just that, very few can say that.

Anijen

[Bender]

wenglund Posted Today, 07:01 PM

...or so you might reasonably think. However, in the numerous online discussions I have had with Beastie over the years, she has demonstrated a remarkable consistency in reading into my comments things that I not only did not say, had not thought, and even on ocassion had intentional phrased in such a way so that she wouldn't misread things the way she did. And, even after repeatedly pointing out what I had actually said and didn't say, and clarifying and reclarifying my meaning further, she has remained undaunted in claiming I said what I didn't say.

So, if she exibits this kind of pathology with someone she has been in direct conversation with, who lives in the same time period and comes from relatively the same culture as her, it seems reasonable to expect that she would most definately "read what wasn't written" in the writings of those who lived some time ago and who came from vastly different cultures from her.

Not that this says yea or nay to the arguments being presented, I just wanted Brant and others to understand the kind of "thinking" they are up against, if they didn't already know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ad Hominem - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his/her argument.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see this type of post from you Wade.

[lostindc]

Ad Hominem - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his/her argument.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see this type of post from you Wade.

I am not surprised to see this from you, Bender, you seem to really offer very little

[Bender]

lostindc Posted Today, 09:04 PM

I am not surprised to see this from you, Bender, you seem to really offer very little

LOL I see all you can do is make an attack. That's fine. I have stayed out of this interesting thread due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. I only commented on a very clear ad hominen that I was surprised by who made it.

[Brant Gardner]

Military situations certainly can be used to assume how powerful a polity is.You can also tell something about the distribution of power amongst allied polities by the way they conduct warfare... including which polity calls the shots.

This really will be the last I comment. Everything is recycling. You continue to repeat the same argument. This one is slightly different, but still unsupported by any evidence. You suggest that "which polity calls the shots" is important. OK. Who calls the shots?

Zarahemla? Bountiful? Ammonihah? Gershon? All of those are polities. All call themselves Nephites because there is a commonality among them, but based upon a religio-political similarity. We are still trying to find evidence for the uber-polity you are suggesting. Using that assumption to read the evidence to support the assumption doesn't really count.

As an example, we know that Captain Moroni called the shots. We know that it was a Nephite army. Which city did he come from? The text doesn't say. Since it doesn't, you can't say which city called the shots. We know who, but not who was above him (there there wasn't much).

So, we are still left with the military context being exceptional. You are still relying heavily on that one context for your uber-polity. It isn't supported by history, therefore you cannot make assumptions on that basis alone.

Remember, the argument has nothing to do with whether or not the Nephites considered themselves somehow allied. Your issue is the complexity of the government and you still haven't anything that demonstrates it.

So, again, to what you consider your evidence:

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

And the context was? This is a perfect example of "rallying the wagons" against a common enemy. This is the precise context you cannot use as a demonstration of the power of a polity because history tells us that it can be the situation and not the polity that creates the unity of action.

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

Notice the word "army." What is the context?

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

Notice the word "army."

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?

This is a more subtle distinction, but an important one. The question is the nature of polity control. There is a significant difference between a loose confederation and a hegemony that is controlled by a central entity. Please note that you clearly say "seek the advise and legal counsel." That is appropriate to a respected entity, but not to a dominant one. In Greece we know that cities were separate, even though they shared a language and much of the same culture. Nevertheless, many would seek the advise and counsel from the oracle at Delphi, not because of coercion or centralized government, but because of respect for the position.

What you are attempting to prove is that the Book of Mormon had a complex government that they shouldn't have had. That is an interesting argument, but before you get to the "shouldn't have had" you really have to have a strong case that they really had what you suggest. So far, you evidence does not support it, and contrary data exist to suggest that it is not correct. When historians find themselves in the position where a hypothesis has only weak support (if any) and there are clear indications against the hypothesis, it is time to abandon the hypothesis.

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

This is probably the best example, except it really isn't clear how to take it. We don't really know what happened when the "gave" that land. If it were occupied and the occupants were required to leave, that would be a pretty good demonstration. That isn't in the text. If the land is empty and the "giving" is "move along to that point, there is empty land there that no one has claimed" then the "giving" doesn't show much influence at all.

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

We are back to the military theme. Notice how many of your points require the military context?

[noel00]

I wondered how long it would take before someone like Wegland would offer his psychoanalysis of Beastie just as the argument was getting interesting. Now Brant wants to pick up his spade and bucket and leave. I am surprised how long the board has allowed Beastie to contribute. The same type of thing is happening in the Trinity thread.

[beastie]

Zarahemla? Bountiful? Ammonihah? Gershon? All of those are polities. All call themselves Nephites because there is a commonality among them, but based upon a religio-political similarity. We are still trying to find evidence for the uber-polity you are suggesting. Using that assumption to read the evidence to support the assumption doesn't really count.

Based also on a shared lineage story.

Long ago on this thread I told you that even if, to move the discussion forward, we agreed to only focus on influence rather than actual control, your problem is not eliminated. While some on this thread wonâ??t notice due to their eagerness to claim victory for believers (and who likely would have been ready to declare victory before Brant uttered one word), you have pretty much conceded the extended influence point, as your quote above demonstrates.

Of course, you only listed four of the polities that have a â??commonality based on religo-political similarityâ?. There are many more, and they extend across the region. Multiple polities sharing a â??religio-political similarityâ? equals extended influence, and equals recognizable footprint. Thatâ??s my entire point.

Iâ??ll be back to address other details later.