Grains In Mosiah 9:9

[LeSellers]

As far as named animals, my opinion is the same as for named grains. I consider them translation issues. However, as for a diet lacking in protein, I follow the example of Maya and Aztec cultures who similarly kept some animals for meat, but typically only at the higher levels of society. The majority subsisted with very little meat. So the historical situation would be similar to that apparently described in the Book of Mormon.

That would be true for the lower classes of any age (prior to the mid XIX). My Anglo-Saxon ancestors were probably serfs (slaves) until the mid-XVII, and would grow grains for the lord of the manor. A few animals that were probably held back for major religious feasts.

Meat is a luxury we take for granted. It is probably because meat is now more widely available (i.e.., cheap) that we are taller than our ancestors, and that our brains have become more effective. (Fats are, after water, the most common element of nerve (brain) tissue. The push to eliminate fats from our diets may be counter-productive.)

Lehi

Edited August 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[Vance]

If you define subtropics that way, all of Kansas is in the subtropics. That certainly isn't what I meant to imply.

So allow me to be more precise: Between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, it is very difficult to grow wheat and barley, as your maps demostrate.

Perhaps you are not familiar with Brazil, nor did you avail yourself of the map provided.

The northern most province shown to grow barley and wheat is no more that 20° south of the Equator.

Sorry, but Kansas is no closer than 36° to the Equator.

You are WAY OFF!

Edited to add,

Just to make it clear the tropics go from 23.44° north of the Equator to 23.44° south of the Equator.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

It is probably because meat is now more widely available (i.e.., cheap) that we are taller than our ancestor, and that our brains have become more effective. (Fats are, after water, the most common element of nerve (brain) tissue. The push to eliminate fats from our diets may be counter-productive.)

Lehi

That gives new meaning to the term "fat head".

[LeSellers]

That gives new meaning to the term "fat head".

Indeed. As one of which I have been known for decades, at least since first grade. And I'm proud to be among them, especially if I'm also considered to be an arrogant, lazy, disingenuous twerp around whom the world revolves.

Lehi

Edited August 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ariarates]

As far as named animals, my opinion is the same as for named grains. I consider them translation issues.

Brilliant argument. I am at a loss for words. Even my 7-year old doesn't fall for such a cheap trick anymore. I wish I could live in a fairy-tale world like that.

However, as for a diet lacking in protein, I follow the example of Maya and Aztec cultures who similarly kept some animals for meat, but typically only at the higher levels of society. The majority subsisted with very little meat. So the historical situation would be similar to that apparently described in the Book of Mormon.

That actually is an interesting argument. If only the BoM would make such class distinctions when discussing cattle and livestock. I guess that's another translation issue. Problem solved. Who said apologetics is hard work?

Reminds me of a line in the movie King Ralph, where John Goodman says something like: "There's no problem in the world that you can't ignore if you really put your mind to it".

[Ares]

Brilliant argument. I am at a loss for words. Even my 7-year old doesn't fall for such a cheap trick anymore. I wish I could live in a fairy-tale world like that.

Watch your tone. This is needlessly insulting.

[Vance]

Reminds me of a line in the movie King Ralph, where John Goodman says something like: "There's no problem in the world that you can't ignore if you really put your mind to it".

Nor is there any inconsequential issue that can not be blown out of proportion.

[Analytics]

Again, you are talking from a point of ignorance of agriculture. As Zakuska pointed out above "All it takes to grow a plant is a little dirt,enough water (but not TOO much water), good sunlight, a little cultivation".

Sigh. Sources I deam more reliable than you say otherwise. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The failure of the northern push of settlers from South Africa while the success of the American push westward had more to to with the terain they were pushing into than with crop failure. Anybody should be able to understand that it is much more difficult to settle dense jungle than it is open forest and unforrested prairie.

The settlers in question cleared farmland and planted wheat. It didn't grow.

Perhaps you are not familiar with Brazil, nor did you avail yourself of the map provided.

The northern most province shown to grow barley and wheat is no more that 20° south of the Equator.

Sorry, but Kansas is no closer than 36° to the Equator.

You are WAY OFF!

Edited to add,

Just to make it clear the tropics go from 23.44° north of the Equator to 23.44° south of the Equator.

The map shows that in 1975 and 1990, 100% of Brazil's barley came from the temperate zones in the southern-most states, and that in 2006, 99.8% came from the temperate zones in the southern-most states. That shows implies that I’m at least 99.8% right in my assertion that it is very hard to grow in the tropics.

[ERayR]

Sigh. Sources I deam more reliable than you say otherwise. We'll have to agree to disagree.

From one who spent several years as a farmer all I can say is I tried. If you are bent on staying ignorant then I have done all I can. Goodby

Edited August 19, 2011 by ERayR

[Brant Gardner]

Brilliant argument. I am at a loss for words.

Well then, mission accomplished (reference intended).

[Analytics]

From one who spent several years as a farmer all I can say is I tried. If you are bent on staying ignorant then I have done all I can. Goodby

I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me. I'm not even a gardner and don't pretend to have any expertise in these areas, so I appologize for expressing myself poorly and any confussion that may have caused.

Unlike myself, Dr. Jared Diamond knows some things about plants, so if you get the chance to read Guns, Germs, and Steel, I hope you take advantage of doing so.

[Analytics]

Well then, mission accomplished (reference intended).

LOL

[Analytics]

Let's see. The fact that there are no other examples of something that claims to be unique is evidence that it didn't exist?

What do you mean it claims to be unique? The Book of Mormon claims there were so many different sets of plates with records, the editors needed to put a special explanation in the front to help the reader keep track of them all. The Book of Mormon even tells of people walking around and finding metal plates lying on the ground written by previous civilizations.

The lack of golden plates in a region where the Spanish melted down tons of gold art doesn't add to the problem of finding any kind of text?

Of course it adds to the problem, but this rings as being a little too convenient. After all, they melted gold, but gold artifacts still exist. They burned books, but a few Mayan books survived.

Finally, the fact that we have so little writing of any kind from Chiapas doesn't seem to strike you as odd in any case? Surely you are not suggesting that they were illiterate? Prior to the find at San Bartolo, it might have been suggested that they didn't have access to writing that early, but now that is known to be incorrect. What we have learned is that there was writing on perishable materials long before there was writing on the stone monuments. So a set of documents intentionally hidden, and (according to the text) apparently in danger from enemies, becomes evidence of non-existence rather than absence?

I'm not suggesting they were illiterate, but I would guess that their writing system is closely related to Mayan and has nothing to do with Hebrew and Egyptian. Am I wrong about that? What are you suggesting, that the pre-classic Mayan writing that's been discovered is Reformed Egyptian (or derived from it)? Or is your point that new things are being discovered, so it’s possible that a Reformed Egyptian discovery is right around the corner?

Edited August 20, 2011 by Analytics

[cdowis]

I think this is an excellent, to-the-point summary of BoM apologetics: the point is to prove what could have happened, not what actually did happen.

Actually this is a summary of the science of archeology as well, filling the holes with reasonable speculation. And taking away the "there is only one explanation" argument of the antis.

Edited August 20, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

dup

Edited August 20, 2011 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

What do you mean it claims to be unique? The Book of Mormon claims there were so many different sets of plates with records, the editors needed to put a special explanation in the front to help the reader keep track of them all. The Book of Mormon even tells of people walking around and finding metal plates lying on the ground written by previous civilizations.

The problem with your assumption is that because we have two cultures using them that they were therefore common. For all that records have been recorded on metal plates throughout history, it has never been the typical mode of writing. It is always rare, almost always related to the higher classes if not the government--precisely because of the expense (in material and effort) they represent.

So yes, the Nephites mention that they had lots of records, and that that all but one set were kept together. That should tell us that it was limited as a medium if all examples can be housed in a single location. That won't happen with perishable records, and certainly not with materials having wider distribution (see the pots with writing on them).

Of course it adds to the problem, but this rings as being a little too convenient. After all, they melted gold, but gold artifacts still exist. They burned books, but a few Mayan books survived.

Convenient if you want to read it that way. Historical if you read it that way. They burned books, which had a significantly wider distribution and significantly larger numbers, and out of that large set of more accessible writing media, so few remained. Pre-classic Maya writing disappeared so completely that it was unknown until the recent fortuitous find in San Bartolo.

Now, let's add in some more history. Tlacaelel had Aztec records destroyed (he was an Aztec). This was ostensibly to allow for the reformulation of history without contradiction. So, knowing that model, knowing the ritual destruction of enemy's gods, and given the war of destruction waged against the Nephites, there is no reason for any non-Nephite nation to preserve any records they might have found and every reason to destroy them. Convenient or not, that is what the history of the area tells us is the most likely scenario.

I'm not suggesting they were illiterate, but I would guess that their writing system is closely related to Mayan and has nothing to do with Hebrew and Egyptian.

Although I don't disagree with you, on what evidential basis might you be making that statement? Are you aware of how little there is from the Grijalva valley that has any writing at all?

Now, of course, if only we knew what "reformed Egyptian" was, we might be able to know if we have found samples, but the text gives us no hint whatsoever (save that no one else could read it, and that fits with a few of the recovered Mesoamerican scripts).

What are you suggesting, that the pre-classic Mayan writing that's been discovered is Reformed Egyptian (or derived from it)?

No. Two things. One is that we have no idea what reformed Egyptian was. It wasn't Hebrew and it wasn't Egyptian. That is about all we can say. Even with the Egyptian example, we have the hieroglyphic system and demotic. If you don't know the language the scripts encoded, seeing the two writing methods would not suggest that they were related, so "reformed Egyptian" --even for Egyptian--has such a broad meaning as to tell us that speculation isn't enough to base any theory on.

Second, the point of my response was that the Grijalva river valley tells us so little about their writing system. If you are suggesting that because we haven't found plates that there were no plates is the same as saying that since there was no recovered writing in the Grijalva river valley that they didn't write on anything. That isn't an acceptable conclusion. In this case, the absence of a writing medium cannot tell you that other media were not used, and in the case of the Grijalva river valley, the absence of virtually all records of writing should not suggest that they were illiterate.

In other words, absence of plates is simply the absence of evidence not the negation of presence.

[altersteve]

I'm not suggesting they were illiterate, but I would guess that their writing system is closely related to Mayan and has nothing to do with Hebrew and Egyptian. Am I wrong about that? What are you suggesting, that the pre-classic Mayan writing that's been discovered is Reformed Egyptian (or derived from it)? Or is your point that new things are being discovered, so it’s possible that a Reformed Egyptian discovery is right around the corner?

It's called "reformed Egyptian," not "Reformed Egyptian." The latter makes the implication that it is the name of a language; it is not.

[KevinG]

The Spanish efforts to wipe out native codeces and other communication forms was pretty thorough. For example Inca khipu that would not have survived except for a few people with enough foresight to disobey the Catholic Churches orders to destroy them.

[cdowis]

Of course it adds to the problem, but this rings as being a little too convenient. After all, they melted gold, but gold artifacts still exist. They burned books, but a few Mayan books survived.

Please tell us how many of the pre-classic (BOM period) records are extant. Perhaps "A Forest of Kings" will help us when they tell us how little we know of the pre-classic time period because of the lack of records. You find it convenient, I find it as reality.

It is also "convenient" that we have no way to identify whether artifacts are from the Nephites, Lamanites, or somebody else. Those who say that there are no BOM artifacts are simply blowing hot air.

And as was mentioned above, it is unlikely that the Lamanites would have even preserved any record of the Nephites. The BOM writers made that very clear when they took special efforts to preserve the records. It is indeed convenient that we have the BOM survive at all.

[Ariarates]

Watch your tone. This is needlessly insulting.

Isn't all insulting needless? I apologize for the fairy-tale remark. I still think it's a cheap trick though. Anyway, kudos to Brant for not striking back. He is much more mature than I am.

[Ariarates]

Well then, mission accomplished (reference intended).

Well played, even if it's a forced move...

Anyway, what about the second part of my post? If the majority of the Maya and Aztec cultures subsisted with very little meat, why doesn't the Book of Mormon text reflect this? Doesn't it look like the BoM's 19th century authors take meat for granted, because it was more widely available, like Lehi said?

[cdowis]

Anyway, what about the second part of my post? If the majority of the Maya and Aztec cultures subsisted with very little meat, why doesn't the Book of Mormon text reflect this?

Well, a few thoughts.

1. We don't really know whether meat protein played a major part in their diet, only that they did raise animals. It is possible that this was restricted only to the wealthy. Just because the king had flocks did not mean that this was common. Indeed, these animals were being stolen which would suggest that they had a special value worth the risk.

Your question assumes that they were abundant and universal.

2. If they were relatively restricted, we don't know how the great war would affect the sparse supply of those animals. It was probably at this time, for example, that horses became extinct.

[Brant Gardner]

Anyway, what about the second part of my post? If the majority of the Maya and Aztec cultures subsisted with very little meat, why doesn't the Book of Mormon text reflect this? Doesn't it look like the BoM's 19th century authors take meat for granted, because it was more widely available, like Lehi said?

Your question got me curious about some of the aspects of food in the text. There isn't much. First, however, to answer the question about what the text says. I would not expect it to spend a lot of time discussing the lives for the poorest. Those who could write lived in different circumstances and tend to report on events moving in those higher circles, so I wouldn't even expect any information about meat use among the poor - though I do expect that ethnographic analogy serves as a reasonable explanation.

The principal textual function of mentioning most grains or animals is to describe beginnings. Nephi's reference in 1 Ne. 8:24 is to seeds, without specifying which seeds, and it occurs as a beginning. Then, in Mosiah 9:9, the textual function is again to establish that Zeniff's people are successful.

Barley is the most interesting because it shows up as a standard of value measurement (Alma 11:7), though why it is mentioned why other grain is only referenced I don't know.

Wheat only shows up twice--once in Mosiah 9:9 and next in a quotation from Jesus where the reference is a New Testament text.

There are mentions of grains as tribute (Mosiah 7:22) and as being spoils of war (Mosiah 9:14).

Alma is served bread and meat in Amulek's home (Alma 8:21). Amulek is specifically declared to be wealthy, and this may be an indication of that wealth when it is specifically mentioned. Of course, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on that because it could also be a translation assumption (I would argue that the word "bread" certainly is).

Other references to meat are really interesting because they are actually in a pejorative context. It is suggesting that it is a bad thing that they had only meat! See Enos 1:20 and 3 N3. 4:19.

There are flocks and herds, but unlike the KJV OT, the use of the collective term doesn't help us know of what animals the flocks and herds consisted (particularly the phrase "flocks of herds" (Enos 1:21). Interestingly, horses show up in Enos' list of animals that otherwise we know as meat providers. That occurs later in the Book of Mormon as well. By implication of its place in such list, it is probable that one of the major functions of the horse was as a food source.

[cdowis]

Interestingly, horses show up in Enos' list of animals that otherwise we know as meat providers. That occurs later in the Book of Mormon as well. By implication of its place in such list, it is probable that one of the major functions of the horse was as a food source.

Which may explain why these animals went extinct. During the final conflict certainly there was rampant starvation as well as the natural effects of war.

So, the consumption of meat was reserved to the wealthy, and the food animals were sparse. The Great War pretty much wiped out them out their relatively small numbers and the ancestors of the Mayan, etc, were left to use crops alone.

Ariarates, I think we answered your question within the context of an ancient text, rather than that 19th century production that you continue to assert. I'm sure you could have figured it out yourself, but chose instead to continue your agenda.

Happy to help you out.

Edited August 20, 2011 by cdowis

[ERayR]

Well, a few thoughts.

1. We don't really know whether meat protein played a major part in their diet, only that they did raise animals. It is possible that this was restricted only to the wealthy. Just because the king had flocks did not mean that this was common. Indeed, these animals were being stolen which would suggest that they had a special value worth the risk.

Your question assumes that they were abundant and universal.

2. If they were relatively restricted, we don't know how the great war would affect the sparse supply of those animals. It was probably at this time, for example, that horses became extinct.

Note also that the animals were valuable enough that they would steal from the king, an act that I would deem very dangerous. Also if domesticated animals were plentiful they would have stolen from someone with less power to retaliate.