Grains In Mosiah 9:9

[Ariarates]

The assumption/declaration that the text has a clear and self-apparent meaning, and appealing all discussion to that self-apparent meaning.

That's a strange definition of fundamentalism. But hey, if it works for you, knock yourself out.

[Ariarates]

Here is my summary of the counterpoints to the wheat and barley issue:

1- Wheat and barley grow fine in Mesoamerica, and there is no reason to doubt that Mesoamericans cultivated it there for at least 400 years. There is no problem regarding the fact that wheat and barley went extinct to the area and left no physical evidence of having ever been there.

2- Thinking that the Nephites actually cultivated what we call wheat and barley is based upon a fundamentalist reading of the text, which contradicts the very assertion that the text is legitimate.

3- Using the philosophy of Kuhn, we can comfortably place the whole issue on the shelf and focus on other things more in line with our paradigm.

You know what would be fun? An apologist rewrite of the BoM.

The BoM 2.0 - loosely translated from tumbaga plates by the power of pseudo-scientific sophistry. To be read as literal history but not to be confused with real history; to convince all people of hoopla-group X descent that tapirs are horses and their remains will return to the earth in the latter days.

[KevinG]

You know what would be fun? An apologist rewrite of the BoM.

The BoM 2.0 - loosely translated from tumbaga plates by the power of pseudo-scientific sophistry. To be read as literal history but not to be confused with real history; to convince all people of hoopla-group X descent that tapirs are horses and their remains will return to the earth in the latter days.

Why not? It could compete with the constant rewrites/reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon the critics engage in at every opportunity.

(Note: this is not a blanket endorsement of apologists arguments)

[Ariarates]

It could compete with the constant rewrites/reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon the critics engage in at every opportunity.

I think you're giving the critics way too much credit. No way they can match 150 million copies in some 140 languages!

[ERayR]

Here is my summary of the counterpoints to the wheat and barley issue:

1- Wheat and barley grow fine in Mesoamerica, and there is no reason to doubt that Mesoamericans cultivated it there for at least 400 years. There is no problem regarding the fact that wheat and barley went extinct to the area and left no physical evidence of having ever been there.

2- Thinking that the Nephites actually cultivated what we call wheat and barley is based upon a fundamentalist reading of the text, which contradicts the very assertion that the text is legitimate.

You assertions that wheat and barley are not grown in Mesoamerica seems a bit premature. From an article on Guatemalan Cusine the following: http://www.arecetas.com/gastronomy/guatemalan_cuisine.html "The south coast is especially appropriate for producing crops such as sugar cane and different types of citrus fruits. In the highlands, the lower temperature is ideal for growing wheat, sorghum, barley and, especially, Guatemala's famous coffee, the best in the world."

From an article by Joseph L. Allen, PhD: http://www.bmaf.org/node/413: "As a child growing up in Grover, Utah, threshing time was both exciting and hard work. The farmers would go from place to place and the women would cook “enough food to feed the threshers. As a result, it always intrigues me to travel through the beautiful Guatemala highlands in November and December during Guatemala’s golden season.

Maya farmers still carry their bundles (shocks) of wheat and barley on their backs and pile them along side the road where an old fashioned threshing machine separates the grain from the straw (chaff). The straw is then used for mattresses. This land ranges in elevation from 8,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level."

(Dr. Allen has led hundreds of tours through the Guatemalan Highlands in all seasons of the year)."

From: http://www.surfinguatemala.com/ourcountry.php: "...The south coast is especially appropriate for producing crops such as sugar cane and different types of citrus fruits. In the highlands, the lower temperature is ideal for growing wheat, sorghum, barley and, especially, Guatemala's famous coffee,..."

Here is another of the many I found, Do your own Google search if you would like more: wheat and barley in guatemalan highlands http://apps.cimmyt.org/english/docs/proceedings/barleyellow/pdfs/breedResistance.pdf ; "Typical areas include the highland regions of Kenya and similar climatic settings in neighboring countries in the Eastern African Highlands, such as Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Uganda. Also the wetter regions in Mediterranean North Africa may encounter occasional epidemics, such as in Algeria, Tunisia, and the cooler Atlas Mountain region of Morocco (El Yamani and Hill, 1990). In Latin America BYDV is common in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile (Ramirez, 1990), and in the cooler highlands of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico (Burnett and Mezzalama, 1990), and Guatemala."

[ERayR]

bump

[Analytics]

You assertions that wheat and barley are not grown in Mesoamerica seems a bit premature. From an article on Guatemalan Cusine the following: http://www.arecetas.com/gastronomy/guatemalan_cuisine.html "The south coast is especially appropriate for producing crops such as sugar cane and different types of citrus fruits. In the highlands, the lower temperature is ideal for growing wheat, sorghum, barley and, especially, Guatemala's famous coffee, the best in the world."

From an article by Joseph L. Allen, PhD: http://www.bmaf.org/node/413: "As a child growing up in Grover, Utah, threshing time was both exciting and hard work. The farmers would go from place to place and the women would cook “enough food to feed the threshers. As a result, it always intrigues me to travel through the beautiful Guatemala highlands in November and December during Guatemala’s golden season.

Maya farmers still carry their bundles (shocks) of wheat and barley on their backs and pile them along side the road where an old fashioned threshing machine separates the grain from the straw (chaff). The straw is then used for mattresses. This land ranges in elevation from 8,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level."

(Dr. Allen has led hundreds of tours through the Guatemalan Highlands in all seasons of the year)."

From: http://www.surfinguatemala.com/ourcountry.php: "...The south coast is especially appropriate for producing crops such as sugar cane and different types of citrus fruits. In the highlands, the lower temperature is ideal for growing wheat, sorghum, barley and, especially, Guatemala's famous coffee,..."

Here is another of the many I found, Do your own Google search if you would like more: wheat and barley in guatemalan highlands http://apps.cimmyt.org/english/docs/proceedings/barleyellow/pdfs/breedResistance.pdf ; "Typical areas include the highland regions of Kenya and similar climatic settings in neighboring countries in the Eastern African Highlands, such as Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Uganda. Also the wetter regions in Mediterranean North Africa may encounter occasional epidemics, such as in Algeria, Tunisia, and the cooler Atlas Mountain region of Morocco (El Yamani and Hill, 1990). In Latin America BYDV is common in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile (Ramirez, 1990), and in the cooler highlands of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico (Burnett and Mezzalama, 1990), and Guatemala."

I concede that yes, modern farmers with modern seed now successfully grow a small amount* of wheat in certain parts of Guatemala.

However, there is no evidence that wheat or barley was ever grown there before those grains were introduced in modern times. Furthermore, I still find it unlikely that ancient farmers would have had success in Mesoamerica with wheat and barley. But I concede that it's hypothetically possible that they could have had success in the right spots with the right variations of grains, if that's your point. However there is no evidence that they even tried, much less were successful at it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* In Guatemala, 97% of the wheat they consume is imported. See http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/mexnca.nsf/$webindex/554E7E7BDCB5928D06256B130059CC2C?opendocument&print=1

[Zakuska]

I concede that yes, modern farmers with modern seed now successfully grow a small amount* of wheat in certain parts of Guatemala.

However, there is no evidence that wheat or barley was ever grown there before those grains were introduced in modern times. Furthermore, I still find it unlikely that ancient farmers would have had success in Mesoamerica with wheat and barley. But I concede that it's hypothetically possible that they could have had success in the right spots with the right variations of grains, if that's your point. However there is no evidence that they even tried, much less were successful at it.

The tiny seeds are edible, and this plant was part of the Eastern Agricultural Complex of cultivated plants used in Pre-Columbian times by Native Americans. Before being displaced by maize agriculture, little barley may have been domesticated. Today it can be found in grassland and at the borders of marshes, as well as in ruderal habitats like roadsides.^[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_barley

[Analytics]

The tiny seeds are edible, and this plant was part of the Eastern Agricultural Complex of cultivated plants used in Pre-Columbian times by Native Americans. Before being displaced by maize agriculture, little barley may have been domesticated. Today it can be found in grassland and at the borders of marshes, as well as in ruderal habitats like roadsides.^[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_barley

According to your sources, Little Barley was eaten by the "pre-historic Eastern Woodland Native Americans in the eastern United States and Canada." We are discussing the theory that Lehites lived in Mesoamerica, not in the woodlands of the Eastern United States and Canada.

[Ariarates]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even if y'all keep ignoring it: little barley is not the same as barley - at least not agronomically. For apologetic purposes, it's like identical twins.

[Zakuska]

According to your sources, Little Barley was eaten by the "pre-historic Eastern Woodland Native Americans in the eastern United States and Canada." We are discussing the theory that Lehites lived in Mesoamerica, not in the woodlands of the Eastern United States and Canada.

Pre-Historic?

No "Pre-Columbian:

Edited August 24, 2011 by Zakuska

[LeSellers]

little barley is not the same as barley - at least not agronomically.

They're not the same, to be sure, agronomically. You cannot pretend that "agronomically" is anything but a modern concept. Do you actually believe that the Nephites would care that "little barley" wasn't the same as "barley", I mean "agronomically"? They wanted something to eat, not a scientific treatise on grains.

For apologetic purposes, it's like identical twins.

Hardly. We do believe that, for the Nephites, they were seen in the same way: as food.

Lehi

[Ariarates]

Do you actually believe that the Nephites would care that "little barley" wasn't the same as "barley", I mean "agronomically"?

As a matter of fact: I do. They would much rather cultivate barley than little barley. Little barley seeds are very small, much smaller than regular barley.

[Ariarates]

You cannot pretend that "agronomically" is anything but a modern concept.

As a matter of fact: I can. Selective plant breeding is probably as old as humanity itself.

[Analytics]

Pre-Historic?

No "Pre-Columbian:

When talking about the Native Americans in the eastern U.S. and Canada, doesn't "pre-historic" and "pre-Columbian" mean the same thing?

From your link:

The Eastern Agricultural Complex describes the agricultural practices of the pre-historic Eastern Woodland Native Americans in the eastern United States and Canada.

In any case, what does the "pre-columbian" agriculture of the folks in the "Eastern Agricultural Complex" have to do with this thread? Are you suggesting that Zeniff lead his group to what is now the Eastern United States and Canada?

Edited August 24, 2011 by Analytics

[Analytics]

They're not the same, to be sure, agronomically. You cannot pretend that "agronomically" is anything but a modern concept. Do you actually believe that the Nephites would care that "little barley" wasn't the same as "barley", I mean "agronomically"? They wanted something to eat, not a scientific treatise on grains.

If they wanted something to eat and lived in Mesoamerica, why would they be messing around with a marginal food source from thousands of miles away, rather than feasting upon the maize, beans, squash, etc. that were indigenous to their area?

[Anijen]

When talking about the Native Americans in the eastern U.S. and Canada, doesn't "pre-historic" and "pre-Columbian" mean the same thing?

From your link:

The Eastern Agricultural Complex describes the agricultural practices of the pre-historic Eastern Woodland Native Americans in the eastern United States and Canada.

In any case, what does the "pre-columbian" agriculture of the folks in the "Eastern Agricultural Complex" have to do with this thread? Are you suggesting that Zeniff lead his group to what is now the Eastern United States and Canada?

Pre-historic and Pre-columbian are not the same thing. Pre-historic means before approximately 5000 years ago, pre-columbian simply means before 1492. The main point is writing. If we are speaking about the Eastern US as you pointed out then you would be correct that pre-historic is = to pre-columbian. However one cannot say that about Mesoamerica since they had writing systems long before 1492.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Anijen

[Analytics]

Pre-historic and Pre-columbian are not the same thing. Pre-historic means before approximately 5000 years ago, pre-columbian simply means before 1492. The main point is writing. If we are speaking about the Eastern US as you pointed out then you would be correct that pre-historic is = to pre-columbian. However one cannot say that about Mesoamerica since they had writing systems long before 1492.

That's what I thought "pre-history" meant. But I suppose if one is arguing that the barley-eating, history-writing Zeniff did in fact immigrate to the eastern coast of present-day USA, then the distinction does in fact matter.

[cinepro]

If they wanted something to eat and lived in Mesoamerica, why would they be messing around with a marginal food source from thousands of miles away, rather than feasting upon the maize, beans, squash, etc. that were indigenous to their area?

And remember, they're using barley in Mosiah which is 400 years after the Lehites landed. So it's not a matter of the first generation just preferring what they had in the old world. This is an industry that was perpetuated for hundreds of years.

[T-Shirt]

If they wanted something to eat and lived in Mesoamerica, why would they be messing around with a marginal food source from thousands of miles away, rather than feasting upon the maize, beans, squash, etc. that were indigenous to their area?

I haven't spent much time with this, but in just a few minutes I came across the following quote from a website about Guatemala:

The south coast is especially appropriate for producing crops such as sugar cane and different types of citrus fruits. In the highlands, the lower temperature is ideal for growing wheat, sorghum, barley and, especially, Guatemala's famous coffee, the best in the world.

See Here.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 24, 2011 by T-Shirt

[ERayR]

I haven't spent much time with this, but in just a few minutes I came across the following quote from a website about Guatemala:

See Here.

Best,

T-Shirt

We have gone from this in Analytics post 6 days ago: "My understanding is that Mayan food only grows in the Mayan lands of the tropics and sub-tropics. In contrast, "little barley" grows in the mutually exclusive climate of desert grasslands. The Mayan and the little barley were in mutually exclusive parts of Mexico." to this in Analytics post also 6 days ago "It isn't grown in Mesoamerica. Unless there have been recent genetic alterations that I haven't heard about, it can't grow in Mesoamerica." and finaly to this today, after it was shown that Barley does grow in Mespamerica and in the very region we are concerned with: "I concede that yes, modern farmers with modern seed now successfully grow a small amount* of wheat in certain parts of Guatemala.However, there is no evidence that wheat or barley was ever grown there before those grains were introduced in modern times. Furthermore, I still find it unlikely that ancient farmers would have had success in Mesoamerica with wheat and barley. But I concede that it's hypothetically possible that they could have had success in the right spots with the right variations of grains, if that's your point. However there is no evidence that they even tried, much less were successful at it.".

In other words we have gone from, its the wrong climate to it doesn't grow there at all to yes they can grow a small amount with modern seeds. Modern seeds? Nowhere in the articles posted does it say anything about modern seeds. Nowhere does it say small amounts. Nowhere does it speak of a great climate change that made barley production possible now and impossible 1000 years ago. All we have is Analytics fancy footwoek and straw mwn to assure us that, yes they grow barley now but the surely didn't back then.

I thunk that the hybridization of barley is probably less then 75 years ago. Not sure and don't have time to research but as I remember it is post WW II.

[Kemara]

Laying this onto a Mesoamerican framework, I read it as saying that around 200 B.C., a Mayan and his people planted corn, wheat, barley, and some other things, including "neas" and "sheum". I consider this a solid strike against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon being an historical account, because the Mayan didn't have wheat and barley...*We know they didn't have wheat and barley for a couple of reasons. First, if they had wheat and barley there would be archelogical evidence of it.

The Maori from New Zealand grew Ti Pore and Ti Para through the North Island, however no archeological evidence of its cultivation has been found. Maori also grew Kumara but only two separate growing sites have ever been archeologically verified, quite a sparse finding considering Kumara was the Maori’s principal food crop and was grown until the early 1800’s.

We have the Maori’s oral traditions and we have the European settler’s written record attesting to the fact that Ti Pore, Ti Para and Kumara were grown, so we have a historical record. In the case of Ti Pore and Ti Para we have no archeological evidence and precious little to support the position that Kumara was the principal food crop grown by the Maori. So, I have two questions for the archeological crowd.

1. Did the Maori in fact grow Ti Pore and Ti Para and was Kumara their biggest crop?

2. Due to there being no archeological evidence for it, is this considered a solid strike agaisnt the authenticity of the historical accounts affirming it?

Second, (and more importantly), wheat and barley don't grow in the tropics or subtropics, which encompass all Mayan lands. Even if Nephi did bring wheat and barley seeds with him, it wouldn't have grown in Mesoamerica.

“Don’t grow”, “can’t grow” and "wont grow" WOW these are very big claims. “Don’t” and “cant” and “wont” are words that need to be used with a little more caution as it relates to this thread. Indeed a few references have been provided in this thread that give reason for pause on these claims. Let me ask the “don’t”, “cant”, “wont” group a quick question. Can sugarcane grow in a zero degree climate? (Yes it is a trick question, if you answer no you will be wrong.) I bring up the sugarcane scenario simply to highlight that a whole lot can be accomplished with just a little bit of know how.

The Green Revolution allowed farmers in 1961 to grow a crop in an area where previous generations of farmers had failed.

In many instances the “Green Revolution” was really a reintroduction of methodologies that were thousands of years old and/or acceptance of agronomy findings from the early to mid-1800’s. The Romans and Chinese had standard agricultural practices that have only recently been reintroduced on a commercial scale, some of which would have made it plausible to grow crops in less than ideal climates. Did the Lehites have this sought of knowledge? Maybe, Maybe not.

Again, I refer you to Guns, Germs and Steel, where it chronicles westerners trying and failing to grow barley and wheat in the tropics and subtropics from the 1600's to the 1800's.

Not enough is known about the westerners who failed to grow barley and wheat in the tropics and subtropics to draw any more than anecdotal conclusions because we really do not know “why” they failed. The move West no doubt introduced the crops to difficult climatic conditions, but climatic issues can be overcome through a number of means. So possibly this had more to do with a lack of growing know how than the plants inability to grow. Why should we expect farmers moving to a totally different region to be successful using methodologies from the previous region, perhaps these methodologies would have been successful but for the climatic issue, perhaps they wouldn’t. It might have been a soil issue, soil west and soil east might have been totally different, soil west may have been lacking in the elements critical to the climatic issues being discussed. I really don’t know why, there could be lots of reasons, but there is no reason to suppose that it had to be because barley and wheat couldn’t grow. I will bet anything that I could get it to grow, using only methodologies that were known in the world at the time. Fair warning though, to anyone who wants to take me up on the bet, please refer to trick question above.

[Calm]

The Maori from New Zealand grew Ti Pore and Ti Para through the North Island, however no archeological evidence of its cultivation has been found. Maori also grew Kumara but only two separate growing sites have ever been archeologically verified, quite a sparse finding considering Kumara was the Maori’s principal food crop and was grown until the early 1800’s....

Kemara, I was hoping you would show up with your always fascinating and informative posts.

I got a question that's been gnawing at me, who is your avatar picture of?

[ERayR]

The Maori from New Zealand grew Ti Pore and Ti Para through the North Island, however no archeological evidence of its cultivation has been found. Maori also grew Kumara but only two separate growing sites have ever been archeologically verified, quite a sparse finding considering Kumara was the Maori’s principal food crop and was grown until the early 1800’s.

We have the Maori’s oral traditions and we have the European settler’s written record attesting to the fact that Ti Pore, Ti Para and Kumara were grown, so we have a historical record. In the case of Ti Pore and Ti Para we have no archeological evidence and precious little to support the position that Kumara was the principal food crop grown by the Maori. So, I have two questions for the archeological crowd.

1. Did the Maori in fact grow Ti Pore and Ti Para and was Kumara their biggest crop?

2. Due to there being no archeological evidence for it, is this considered a solid strike agaisnt the authenticity of the historical accounts affirming it?

“Don’t grow”, “can’t grow” and "wont grow" WOW these are very big claims. “Don’t” and “cant” and “wont” are words that need to be used with a little more caution as it relates to this thread. Indeed a few references have been provided in this thread that give reason for pause on these claims. Let me ask the “don’t”, “cant”, “wont” group a quick question. Can sugarcane grow in a zero degree climate? (Yes it is a trick question, if you answer no you will be wrong.) I bring up the sugarcane scenario simply to highlight that a whole lot can be accomplished with just a little bit of know how.

In many instances the “Green Revolution” was really a reintroduction of methodologies that were thousands of years old and/or acceptance of agronomy findings from the early to mid-1800’s. The Romans and Chinese had standard agricultural practices that have only recently been reintroduced on a commercial scale, some of which would have made it plausible to grow crops in less than ideal climates. Did the Lehites have this sought of knowledge? Maybe, Maybe not.

Not enough is known about the westerners who failed to grow barley and wheat in the tropics and subtropics to draw any more than anecdotal conclusions because we really do not know “why” they failed. The move West no doubt introduced the crops to difficult climatic conditions, but climatic issues can be overcome through a number of means. So possibly this had more to do with a lack of growing know how than the plants inability to grow. Why should we expect farmers moving to a totally different region to be successful using methodologies from the previous region, perhaps these methodologies would have been successful but for the climatic issue, perhaps they wouldn’t. It might have been a soil issue, soil west and soil east might have been totally different, soil west may have been lacking in the elements critical to the climatic issues being discussed. I really don’t know why, there could be lots of reasons, but there is no reason to suppose that it had to be because barley and wheat couldn’t grow. I will bet anything that I could get it to grow, using only methodologies that were known in the world at the time. Fair warning though, to anyone who wants to take me up on the bet, please refer to trick question above.

Thank you. That is what I have been saying throughout this thread, only not so well as you have said it.

[Analytics]

Thank you. That is what I have been saying throughout this thread, only not so well as you have said it.

Why don't you relate this all back to Mosiah 9:9 then. Based upon the scientific evidence, what do you think about the proposition that a group of folks living in Mesoamerica in 200 B.C. cultivated wheat and barley? A factual certainty? Likely? No evidence either way? Unlikely? Impossible?

For the reasons that Michael Coe has explained in the podcast, and further supported by the Jared Diamond's insights on how civilizations grow, I find it highly unlikely. It’s not that there is merely "absence of evidence," but rather, there is strong evidence of absence. I've done an awful job of explaining my thoughts here, and it seems to have caused you some consternation. For this I sincerely apologize.