Mayan Lamanites

[Brant Gardner]

truth dancer:

So.. how could the question be more clearly framed?

Would you say that the Lamanite culture fit within the commonly held understanding of the Mayan culture?

Or... Were the Lamanites part of the Mayan culture/society?

Or... Did the Mayan culture include the Lamanites?

Or... Were the Lamanites distinct and seperate, or a part of the Mayan culture?

If you still are not sure of what the question is... maybe you could just explain how you see the Lamanites fitting into the Mayan culture.

All of those are much better questions because they allow for the understanding that we have variation in what is happening. Many times the Lamanites that the Nephites worry about are those who are located over the mountain pass guarded by Manti - and area roughly south. Nevertheless, at one point they are worried about Lamanites on the southeast who were not a threat while the Zoramite city was part of the Nephite hegemony - but when it wasn't, all of a sudden there were Lamanites in that area. The Book of Mormon doesn't use the term to describe a people, and when we attempt to equate the generic term with a specific people we distort the text.

However, recognizing that these generic Lamanites lived in a cultural area does allow us to say that they participated in the overall culture of other people in the area. They lived in areas occuped by Maya, hence they participated in Maya culture. I see that as an important distinction between saying that the were Mayal because I can't tell you which city they came from. It could have been several different ones in different wars. In fact, I am certain that the "Lamanites" who raided the early city of Nephi were very different from those who waged war on Zarahemla.

Nevertheless, in gross terms, Lamanites were located in areas that were part of the Maya culture. Nephites, assuming Sorenson's correlation with the valley of the Grijalva, were in a Zoquean territory. Zoque had cultural ties that were stronger to the ancient Olmec on the north than to the Maya on the south.

[Mighty Curelom]

Beastie-

This is an excellent question, but you're not going to get anything resembling a straight answer.

Brant said-

I am saying that the way you are framing the question tells me that you are looking at an agenda rather than history.

You can tell that from a simple 3 word question?

To the apologist, the question "were lamanites mayans?" looks like a baited trap. It LOOKS simple and harmless, but they know by answering it plainly they leave themselves open to follow-up questions that they prefer not to bother with. Once you get pinned down on an issue, it's harder to dance around the implications of that issue.

[Brant Gardner]

Mighty Curelom:

It LOOKS simple and harmless, but they know by answering it plainly they leave themselves open to follow-up questions that they prefer not to bother with.

Wrong. It looks like answering the question simplistically acquiesces to an a-historical perspective of ancient peoples. If you read my response to truth dancer you will notice that I don't mind making certain types of correlations between Book of Mormon peoples and people from secular history. What I object to is being required to define exactly who "gentiles" are. It is a useless question and indicates a lack of understanding in the person who asks it.

It appears you share in that lack of understanding, among others.

[beastie]

No - let's understand that when people are speaking of gross cultural characteristics that it has one analytical value, and when they are speaking of historical connections among cities there is a different set of values. There are Americans who share general cultural values and even a very large set of material goods. Then you have "little" regional differences such as north and south. They are very different flavors of the American culture. Then you have pockets in Appalachia that preserve much older cultural data.

Since the Lamanites did stretch across a large area, multiple cities, talking about gross cultural characteristics is specific enough, in fact preferable, for my question. These gross cultural characteristics were useful and accurate enough for scholars to use in their explorations of Mayan culture. So whether or not there may have been smaller differences depending upon city/dialetc, Mayans still shared these gross cultural characteristics. So these gross cultural characteristics can help us in formulating ideas about Lamanite culture.

For one specific example, you and Sorenson believe that Kaminaljuyu was the City of Nephi. After the righteous Nephites abandoned the city, it was taken over by the "bad guys", ie, people whom the Nephites would then refer to as Lamanites. Correct? Kaminaljuyu was inhabited by Mayans, according to these gross cultural characteristics. Hence, it is not inaccurate to state that Lamanites were Mayans in this case, and since most of the BoM cities seemed to be placed within the Mayan area, it would not be inaccurate to say that Lamanites in general were Mayan, in culture and religion, with some possible exceptions, as you say, for the regions closer to the Olmec center. (although Olmecs did share some of these cultural traits, anyway)

Other conversations with you lead me to conclude that you do not believe we can form reasonable expectations about what Nephite Christianity would look like, since it was a minority religion now extinct (although I'm not certain how accurate it is, given a culture/religion that stretched across numerous cities in this region over a long time period, to relegate that to a small, insignificant minority, when it would have been notable for one sort of kingship to rule over so many cities). However, Lamanites, which included the portion of the "pre-existing others" who would not follow Nephi, and hence, remained loyal to their native culture and religion, are a different case. The information extant about the Mayan culture and religion should, logically, inform our expectations about what the Lamanite religion/culture would "look like".

While Lamanites are not the authors of the BoM, and the Nephites were too ethnocentric to actually dignify the Lamanite belief system with an explanation, certainly the Lamanite belief system is reflected in the Nephite's sermons and comments about the religious errors of their day. Clearly, the error of universalism and atheism were an issue for the Nephites to battle, for example. Or the error of denying Christ. Obviously, these are errors completely unrelated to actual mayan culture and religion. If the Lamanites, who participated in Mayan culture and religion, were engaged in error practices such as engaging in ritual bloodletting in order to invoke mystical experiences that invited the beings of the Otherworld to visit them and bless their lives, why wouldn't Nephites preach against that idea, rather than against universalism and atheism, neither of which make a speck of sense in the context of Mayan history? Or why wouldn't Nephites warn their people, or preach to the Lamanites, against the sin of symbolic ball games in which the end result was human sacrifice? Or why wouldn't they warn their people against the idea that the stars actually reflected the lives and movements of the gods of the otherworld? The Nephite converts and adherents, being mostly nonSemitic actually from Mesoamerica, would be at high risk to incorporate these false ideas into their new religion.

IOW, I am saying that we should be able to see the Lamanite culture/religion at least reflected in the BoM, in terms of fighting religious errors of the time. You know, like the preachers in JS' area railed against universalism, which was a religious "error" in that time and period. Preachers normally not only encourage their people to hang on to the iron rod, but they warn their people against the errors that might otherwise infiltrate and taint the 'true' religion, whatever that is for them.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Other conversations with you lead me to conclude that you do not believe we can form reasonable expectations about what Nephite Christianity would look like. . .

From my perspective, those conversations told me that you do not understand how iconography works, hence this is a doomed conversation from the beginning.

Please tell me how you could predict, based on Greek culture, that Apollo would be used as a representation of Jesus. Please tell me, based on Greek civilization, how you could predict that Christians would appropriate Orpheus.

Of course, based on our previous conversations, your ability to "see" iconography is much better looking backwards that forward. The last time I asked you to predict Nephite iconography you "predicted" things that our Old World Christians could have selected and did not - so your track record isn't very good on this.

If you can't predict how a Christian community will select their borrowed icons, why do you think I can? At least I honestly admit that it is a guessing game that ought not be played.

since it was a minority religion now extinct

And we have further evidence that you miss the point. Thet were a minority religion, but that isn't the point. The point is that religions often borrow and re-conceptualize iconography from other cultures. The Aztec feathered serpent is certainly a modification of the one from Teotihuacan. Huitzilopochtli has appropriated certain stories to himself that used to belong to other gods. The process of borrowing among religions and the malleability of iconography tells us that it is difficult to know how an icon was used without a key to it.

If you intend this thread to be a continuation of your attempt to demonstrate that you can tell when it is Orpheus and when it is Jesus by a missing flute, I pass. I can trace some of the development of the feathered serpent symbol in meaning - but the iconography is basically the same - which has led a number of people into the error of assuming that all of the meaning was the same. You make the same mistake they have. Understandable perhaps, but a mistake nevertheless.

However, Lamanites, which included the portion of the "pre-existing others" who would not follow Nephi, and hence, remained loyal to their native culture and religion, are a different case. The information extant about the Mayan culture and religion should, logically, inform our expectations about what the Lamanite religion/culture would "look like".

At least we have some agreement here. We agree that Lamanites would have exhibited the cultural traits of the people around them.

IOW, I am saying that we should be able to see the Lamanite culture/religion at least reflected in the BoM, in terms of fighting religious errors of the time.

Close. There is some of this in the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, however, it isn't Lamanite religion that is the focal point of the issue with Nephite prophets, but rather apostate Nephite religion (later codified as the order of the Nehors). There is a lot of that, but very little contra the religious pressure from the outside. There is quite a bit about the social pressure surrounding them, but just not religion.

Now, is this unexpected? You need only return to the Bible. There is a lot of concern in the Bible with Canaanite religion, but not with Babylonian or Egyptian. Why? Because the Canaanite was so near and so similar. The others were completely foreign and not as threatening. So the Book of Mormon precisely parallels the concerns of Biblical prophets in discussing only religious elements that were part of their own land and "dangerously close" to their own beliefs.

That rules out Maya religion - which seems to be where you are going. I don't know what line of thought you were approaching, but biblical history suggests that you are already on a sandy foundation in the suggestion, let alone the demonstration.

[beastie]

From my perspective, those conversations told me that you do not understand how iconography works, hence this is a doomed conversation from the beginning.

Please tell me how you could predict, based on Greek culture, that Apollo would be used as a representation of Jesus. Please tell me, based on Greek civilization, how you could predict that Christians would appropriate Orpheus.

Of course, based on our previous conversations, your ability to "see" iconography is much better looking backwards that forward. The last time I asked you to predict Nephite iconography you "predicted" things that our Old World Christians could have selected and did not - so your track record isn't very good on this.

If you can't predict how a Christian community will select their borrowed icons, why do you think I can? At least I honestly admit that it is a guessing game that ought not be played.

I didn't have any intention on rerunning that conversation here. I will simply say that you continue here, as you did on the original thread, to ignore the importance of the context of the iconography. You agreed, at the end, that it was possible to recognize painted Biblical scenes, using the Bible, and Mayan mythological scenes, using the Popol Vuh. I will allow others to make their own decisions whether or not it would be possible to do so in the catacombs, especially given the large number of biblical scenes pictured therein.

Context creates meaning and understanding. Omitted context can seriously alter meaning, as LDS are wont to point out when they feel the context of their own history has been ignored. Yet it does not seem to be unusual for you to ignore context. In your essay "A Social History of the Nephites", for example, you state:

There is a condition, however, that explains all of Jacob's economic problems. That condition is trade. As will be noted, not just any trade, but trade in Mesoamerica at this particular point in time. As noted for the coastal region of Guatemala, there were others in the land when the Lehites arrived, and archaeology tells us that there are other populations and cities in the general land when the Nephites arrive at the location of their city, presumed to have been in the Guatemalan highlands. If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them, then these worked goods would have exchange value with other cities, and the resulting importation of goods creates a situation where those engaged in the trade accumulate more unique prestige goods than those who do not trade outside of their own city. Thus trade provides precisely the conditions Jacob is combating.

http://www.ldsmag.com/sci_rel/030731fair.html

What's the missing context, Brant?

And we have further evidence that you miss the point. Thet were a minority religion, but that isn't the point. The point is that religions often borrow and re-conceptualize iconography from other cultures. The Aztec feathered serpent is certainly a modification of the one from Teotihuacan. Huitzilopochtli has appropriated certain stories to himself that used to belong to other gods. The process of borrowing among religions and the malleability of iconography tells us that it is difficult to know how an icon was used without a key to it.

If you intend this thread to be a continuation of your attempt to demonstrate that you can tell when it is Orpheus and when it is Jesus by a missing flute, I pass. I can trace some of the development of the feathered serpent symbol in meaning - but the iconography is basically the same - which has led a number of people into the error of assuming that all of the meaning was the same. You make the same mistake they have. Understandable perhaps, but a mistake nevertheless.

It's not I who intends this thread as a continuation, it is you. This thread isn't about iconography. But there is a connection, nonetheless. Yes, new religions borrow images and style from the pre-existing dominant religions of the period. Your stance seems to be that, without a long history of interpretation, that renders it impossible to recognize that the iconography has been used in a different way, connected to different mythology. I disagree. But the connection to this thread does exist.

Prophets and teachers of new religions recognize that one of the greatest dangers it that their new converts will continue their old traditions beyond a borrowing of imagery. The new wine can't be placed in old bottles, there must be a cleansing of error. So what errors would most naturally leak into the new Christian religion in Mesoamerica? From where would those errors come??? Not from nineteenth century universalism - the errors would come from the same place where they borrowed iconography. The pre-existing dominant religion.

At least we have some agreement here. We agree that Lamanites would have exhibited the cultural traits of the people around them.

Religious traits as well?

Close. There is some of this in the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, however, it isn't Lamanite religion that is the focal point of the issue with Nephite prophets, but rather apostate Nephite religion (later codified as the order of the Nehors). There is a lot of that, but very little contra the religious pressure from the outside. There is quite a bit about the social pressure surrounding them, but just not religion.

Now, is this unexpected? You need only return to the Bible. There is a lot of concern in the Bible with Canaanite religion, but not with Babylonian or Egyptian. Why? Because the Canaanite was so near and so similar. The others were completely foreign and not as threatening. So the Book of Mormon precisely parallels the concerns of Biblical prophets in discussing only religious elements that were part of their own land and "dangerously close" to their own beliefs.

That rules out Maya religion - which seems to be where you are going. I don't know what line of thought you were approaching, but biblical history suggests that you are already on a sandy foundation in the suggestion, let alone the demonstration.

I see. The converts to the new Nephite Christian religion were coming from their own history with the Mayan religion, but when they formed an apostate form of the new Christian religion, it had nothing to do with their former religion. Does that sum up your view?

[Addictio]

In response to Truth Dancer, Brant said in part:

The Book of Mormon doesn't use the term ("Lamanite") to describe a people, and when we attempt to equate the generic term with a specific people we distort the text.

Earlier, in response to Beastie, he asks rhetorically:

What nationality are gentiles? What language do they speak. 

It is ironic for Brant to speak of distorting the text. Unfortunately for the most recent apologetic accounts of who the "Lamanites" are, the term doesn't function in the text as a mere exonym (like "gentile") referencing those who are generically "other." As Brent Metcalfe has pointed out, every time the descent of any Nephite or Lamanite is mentioned, it is from another Israelite. Every time a Lamanite self-identifies, he does so in terms of an Israelite origin. As Richard Bushman has shown in detail, it is possible (indeed, quite easy) to identify the "Lamanite ideology" which animates the story. Its content is consistently traced to the disagreements and enmity between the Lehite family founders. Moreover, the Lamanites are repeatedly referred to not in some contentless, generic way, but as the "brethren" of the Nephite record keepers. Their purpose in writing and preaching is to reclaim and "restore" their brethren to the true religion and ideology they have forgotten.

The simple truth is this: apart from the Jaredite story, the BoM is written as if it tells the story (only) of ancient Israelites and their descendants. Not surprisingly, that's how it was interpreted and understood for the first 150 years people read it.

In my view, the current debate is mainly about that parenthetical "only." (Take out the "only" and I think most every fair-minded reader would assent.) If we leave the word "only" in, and ask why the Book is written that way, most critics of BoM historicity would say that the answer is simple: because the person or persons who wrote it thought that it did provide a history of only Israelites and their descendants. (That same belief is carried forward into the D&C, and so on.) If we leave the "only" in and ask contemporary apologists their opinions, the answers are still being formulated and refined. (I'm thinking here of the differences between Sorenson in 1992 and Roper alone, and also with Sorenson, in 2003.) That's not surprising, because the scope of the apologetic task on this issue did not become clear until Sorenson wrote his 1992 "Others" article.

Anyway, the rhetorical swipe I took at Brant above, about distorting the text, hasn't been substantiated in detail here. For the record, I'm referring to the claim that the term "Lamanite" in the BoM merely refers to and describes "generic others" who might just as well be Maya, Zoque, or any other mesoamerican cultural or linguistic group. The passages that give Israelite ethnic content to the term, and to the people to which it refers, are legion. And the problems don't end there. For example, the modern-era equivalent in the BoM, the "remnant of the house of Israel," similarly does not -- contrary to Meldrum and Stephens -- refer to generic "others" -- from Inuit to Inca, and beyond -- whose ancestors magically became members of the house of Israel when Moroni died.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

I see. The converts to the new Nephite Christian religion were coming from their own history with the Mayan religion, but when they formed an apostate form of the new Christian religion, it had nothing to do with their former religion. Does that sum up your view?

No. It also doesn't represent an accurate picture of what the Book of Mormon says is going on.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

It is ironic for Brant to speak of distorting the text. Unfortunately for the most recent apologetic accounts of who the "Lamanites" are, the term doesn't function in the text as a mere exonym (like "gentile") referencing those who are generically "other." As Brent Metcalfe has pointed out, every time the descent of any Nephite or Lamanite is mentioned, it is from another Israelite.

I am sure that Brent is pleased that you agree with him. I happen to disagree with him, and therefore with you.

Let's begin with your statement that "the term doesn't function in the text as a mere exonmym." I would love to see your analysis on that point. I have actually done that analysis. I have looked at what happens when people "become" Lamanites and "become" Nephites. According to everything I have ever seen about such terminologies, it functions precisely as an exonym (save at least one case that I remember were it is also a patronym). Thank you for your assertion, but the evidence doesn't support you.

How about Brent's contention that since Lamanites are classified as Israelites they can't be anythign but Israelites. That is a wonderful explanation that has no relationship to any ancient people of whom I am aware. Malina and Neyrey (neither are LDS) in Portraits of Paul discuss this collectivist personality and the way that "others" are categorized by assumptions. The proposed reading of "Lamanite" fits with the collectivist personality and fits the data in the Book of Mormon. What does not fit is the explanation that since something isn't mentioned it cannot be a fact. That assumption flies in the face of known ethnohistory - so I see no reason to accept it when the available data fit so well with ethnohistorical principles.

Every time a Lamanite self-identifies, he does so in terms of an Israelite origin.

One of the first things historians need to do is question their sources. Who wrote the Book of Mormon - Lamanite or Nephite? When the "self-identity" was stated, who crafted it, the person putatively making the statement or the person making the record? Please support your position.

As Richard Bushman has shown in detail, it is possible (indeed, quite easy) to identify the "Lamanite ideology" which animates the story. Its content is consistently traced to the disagreements and enmity between the Lehite family founders. Moreover, the Lamanites are repeatedly referred to not in some contentless, generic way, but as the "brethren" of the Nephite record keepers. Their purpose in writing and preaching is to reclaim and "restore" their brethren to the true religion and ideology they have forgotten.

See Malina and Neyrey on collectivist personalities. While you are at it, you might read Malina on the tendency of modern readers to impose their worldview on ancient texts. You are reading conclusions from the text that are based on your assumptions about what a history should be.

The simple truth is this: apart from the Jaredite story, the BoM is written as if it tells the story (only) of ancient Israelites and their descendants.

Does it surprise you that I agree? Where I disagree is in the assumption that things that are not stated cannot be applicable. Why do I disagree with that? Because secularly accepted history tells us that we need to watch for precisely such things. The Aztecs discuss the Chichimeca - given as a specific name. However, it is clear that this is an exonym and categorizes an entire class of people. The Aztecs even describe them the way Malina and Neyrey suggest a collectivist personality would.

History is on my side.

Not surprisingly, that's how it was interpreted and understood for the first 150 years people read it.

I am amazed that this continues to be used as an argument. Can you imagine presenting a historical analysis of any document by indicating what non-professionals thought about it? Shall we marshall the long list of ways the Bible has been "understood" by its readers that were entirely incompatible with its secular history?

If we leave the "only" in and ask contemporary apologists their opinions, the answers are still being formulated and refined. (I'm thinking here of the differences between Sorenson in 1992 and Roper alone, and also with Sorenson, in 2003.) That's not surprising, because the scope of the apologetic task on this issue did not become clear until Sorenson wrote his 1992 "Others" article.

I find it instructive that the current state that you consider being formulated comes from those with the most secular training in how to deal with documents and archaeological data. Why is it that those with the most training to deal with an issue must be wrong, and those who have no training at all must be right?

I would love to see how you explain that to professors in universities.

[Addictio]

Ah, Brant, some things never change. Heaven and earth may pass away, but not Brant Gardner's empty appeals to authority.

I'm busy with other things, so I'll take your points in order of interest.

I said:

If we leave the "only" in and ask contemporary apologists their opinions, the answers are still being formulated and refined. (I'm thinking here of the differences between Sorenson in 1992 and Roper alone, and also with Sorenson, in 2003.) That's not surprising, because the scope of the apologetic task on this issue did not become clear until Sorenson wrote his 1992 "Others" article.

To which Brant responded:

I find it instructive that the current state that you consider being formulated comes from those with the most secular training in how to deal with documents and archaeological data. Why is it that those with the most training to deal with an issue must be wrong, and those who have no training at all must be right?

I would love to see how you explain that to professors in universities.

How embarrassing for you, Brant. Here I am, speaking in shorthand about three recent articles that offer somewhat different, evolving explanations for why the BoM is silent (or almost completely silent) about the "others." I wasn't even addressing the merits of the arguments. I was noting that these differences are understandable, because, in terms of debate about the historicity of the BoM, the issue is relatively recent, arising out of an article written in 1992.

In response, displaying the lack of focus I've come to expect from him, Brant mistakenly imagines (1) that I have presented some argument on the merits addressing any one of those articles' differing explanations for why the BoM is silent about the Native American "Others," and (2) that he can respond to this imaginary argument (in advance, whew, wiping the anticipatory sweat on his brow) simply by an empty appeal to authority. Imagine how (deceptively) simple and uninteresting the world would be if every argument on the merits degenerated into such mere appeals to authority. (Yep, just like we should/must believe Einstein was correct, only because he worked at the Princeton Institute; how fortunate for us that the merits don't matter. No, it's rather worse than that for Brant. This is not exactly rocket science.)

Should I go on? Ok, let's go back to Brant's first point. The beginning and the end. That has a kind of symetry.

I previously said:

It is ironic for Brant to speak of distorting the text. Unfortunately for the most recent apologetic accounts of who the "Lamanites" are, the term doesn't function in the text as a mere exonym (like "gentile") referencing those who are generically "other." As Brent Metcalfe has pointed out, every time the descent of any Nephite or Lamanite is mentioned, it is from another Israelite.

To which Brant responded:

I am sure that Brent is pleased that you agree with him. I happen to disagree with him, and therefore with you.

How tiresome. (See above about Brant's problem with focus. This is no exception.) The claim I attributed to Brent M. was this: "Every time the descent of any Nephite or Lamanite is mentioned, it is from another Israelite."

This is an ultra-simple factual claim about what the text says. Do you disagree with that factual claim, Brant? If so, please provide (even) a single counterexample.

I'll respond to the remainder of your arguments later, as time permits.

[beastie]

QUOTE 

I see. The converts to the new Nephite Christian religion were coming from their own history with the Mayan religion, but when they formed an apostate form of the new Christian religion, it had nothing to do with their former religion. Does that sum up your view?

No. It also doesn't represent an accurate picture of what the Book of Mormon says is going on.

Then I have no idea what you're trying to say. You say that the Nephites weren't concerned about the false religion of the Mayans, although that is where their convert pool came from, and not only that, the majority of their members. The apostate Nephite religion, also, apparently had nothing to do with that same dominant Mayan religion. Somehow, the apostate Nephites created a totally new religious error in universalism, which, coincidentally are the same religious thoughts in JS' period and personal life. Although they, as to be expected, probably borrowed iconographic images from their old religion, they didn't borrow anything else. How unimaginative of them, and how surprisingly at odds with human behavior. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised, though, since the apostate Nephites were able to come up with the innovative idea of universalism while ignoring their own personal and ethnic history.

I'd like to see you sell this story to mesoamerists.

I'd also like to repeat my earlier example of Brant omitting crucial context.

Context creates meaning and understanding. Omitted context can seriously alter meaning, as LDS are wont to point out when they feel the context of their own history has been ignored. Yet it does not seem to be unusual for you to ignore context. In your essay "A Social History of the Nephites", for example, you state:

QUOTE 

There is a condition, however, that explains all of Jacob's economic problems. That condition is trade. As will be noted, not just any trade, but trade in Mesoamerica at this particular point in time. As noted for the coastal region of Guatemala, there were others in the land when the Lehites arrived, and archaeology tells us that there are other populations and cities in the general land when the Nephites arrive at the location of their city, presumed to have been in the Guatemalan highlands. If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them, then these worked goods would have exchange value with other cities, and the resulting importation of goods creates a situation where those engaged in the trade accumulate more unique prestige goods than those who do not trade outside of their own city. Thus trade provides precisely the conditions Jacob is combating.

http://www.ldsmag.com/sci_rel/030731fair.html

The omitted context is that, while this is an interesting piece of fiction, there is no evidence of such "metal working skills" in Mesoamerica in that time period. There are other examples of important omitted context from that one same article, btw. The end result is very misleading, although only those who had bothered to read a bit about the Mayan on their own would recognize the problems.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I was noting that these differences are understandable, because, in terms of debate about the historicity of the BoM, the issue is relatively recent, arising out of an article written in 1992.

Except that you are offering a very revisionist and slanted "history" of those articles. This "issue" is hardly recent and certainly doesn't stem from anything written in 1992. They stem from scholars attempting to seriously examine something that claims to have been written around A.D. 400.

So we return to "empty appeals to authority." When is it an "appeal"? When is one "empty" or full? Is there any reason why we should have any respect for those who spend time to become proficient in a field? Remember, you are contrasting a lay population's reaction to a text to scholars who are supposed to have better tools. If you are going to decide that appeals to authority are necessarily invalid, please let Beastie know that he needs to stop reading Coe. I would be amused to have you do so - since I certainly would never suggest it.

Let's put the statement very simply so everyone can understand the issues. We'll take away the issue of religion that seems to cloud judgment in such things:

If you were to read someone's interpretation of the Popol Vuh, would you suggest we read the work of a scholar or of 20 people without any scholarly training who read it and are willing to give an opinion? Please let me know. It may make a big difference the next time I have to use that text for cultural information.

In response, displaying the lack of focus I've come to expect from him, Brant mistakenly imagines

I certainly apologize for mistakenly imagining that you were discussing how we should interpret the Book of Mormon. It appears that you assume that I was discussing articles when I thought I was discussing the larger issue of how scholars approach the Book of Mormon.

I will be very focused for you. You put forth the hypothesis that readers of the text should be used as determinant of textual meaning. Your hypothesis suggests that uneducated readers are a better guide to a text than trained scholars who specifically work in the fields relevant to such textual analysis.

That may not have been the issue you thought I was responding to - but there is the focus. If find it an amazingly simplistic thesis and I would never try to support it myself. Nevertheless, you are basing an entire analysis on it. I have seen you denigrate authority before, but do you really prefer non-authority to authority? Do you really think that opinions about a text are determinative of what the text was intended to mean?

You are certainly welcome to that opinion, but since it flies in the face of any secular, scholarly "authority" of whom I am aware, I would really love some justification. Please - appeal to some authority, because I simply cannot accept that one simply because you say so.

This is an ultra-simple factual claim about what the text says. Do you disagree with that factual claim, Brant? If so, please provide (even) a single counterexample.

Please understand that this is not an ultra-simple claim about what the text says. It is a value-laden interpretation of data from the text. I am not disputing what the text says and rather encourage you to go to the text to find out if the interpretation based on the data is correct or incorrect. I disagree that the way Brent uses that data represents an accurate picture of history. I support my conclusion based on other historical studies of how people interact and use exonyms. So I do go back to an appeal to authority. I am appealing to non-LDS social historians and a wide examination of literature produced by human populations over time. I suggest that when we read the Book of Mormon it should be read in comparison to known tendencies of human writers. I base my analysis on social historians who have pointed out that reading such texts with only modern sensibilities distorts them.

I am not even apologetic for referring to the scholarly literature on the subject, because I am certain that you wouldn't want to take my word on it (which is why I gave you Malina and Neyrey's book). On the other hand, such scholars are very much the reason that I am unwilling to take your word on the subject. While you may wish I didn't appeal to authority - I sincerely wish you would.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Then I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I could have predicted that.

You say that the Nephites weren't concerned about the false religion of the Mayans, although that is where their convert pool came from, and not only that, the majority of their members.

Yup, you have no idea. I am using the text to tell me what happened. You are using your intuition to tell you what should have happened. Personally, I don't trust your intuition. I haven't seen any evidence that you have much background in ethnohistorical studies that might have honed that intuition, since many of your guesses are contrary to what has been known to have happened in other locations.

Please tell me, what do you really think is the correct way to analyze a text? Should we use the tools of scholarship or should we analyze a text based on we think it should have said but doesn't?

The apostate Nephite religion, also, apparently had nothing to do with that same dominant Mayan religion.

If you read the Book of Mormon you will find where there is correspondence with the Maya world and where there is not. Your first mistake is your perception of religion. I have finally realized that you are using modern conceptions of relgion and that is why you aren't finding the things you are looking for. Religion used to be an encompasing worldview that covered what we call religion, science and politics. You are making an artificial division.

In the Book of Mormon there is a particular issue of Nephite apostasy that is reiterated and that is the denial of the atoning mission of the Messiah. Above that, the list of religious heresies fall into social categories in our modern divisions. They worry about costly apparel, kings, having people support you and other markers of social hierarchy. Every one of those social factors is part of the Maya culture and part of the social pressures that were increasing during the times of the Book of Mormon. The ancient world included such things as religion - you are excluding them because you are using the wrong definition and hence looking in the wrong place.

Somehow, the apostate Nephites created a totally new religious error in universalism, which, coincidentally are the same religious thoughts in JS' period and personal life.

Hmmm. Somehow the text is remarkably accurate on geography, topography, hydrology and climate for an area that Joseph Smith didn't know existed. Somehow it is accurate for the distribution of linguistic/cultural groups over that geography, getting the times and interconnections correct. It accurately notes that the Zarahemla area should be more culturally influenced by an older culture to the north, but in later times influenced by a newer culture to the south. It provides four points of description for a particular location north of Nephite lands that fits only one place - and that place is there in the right time - and does the "right" things according to the Book of Mormon text.

As for religious conflict, it accurately notes the conflict between egalitarianism and social hierarchies which began to dominate the area during the time of the Book of Mormon - so if you want to use an ancient formulation of religion, they really did deal with the outside issues. The problem is in what we call doctrine they were more concerned with local problems than external - and I gave you historical precedent for people who do that. What response do you have when I give you historical precedent? You don't understand what I am talking about and return to your "if I were a duck" analysis.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

The omitted context is that, while this is an interesting piece of fiction, there is no evidence of such "metal working skills" in Mesoamerica in that time period.

That is what happens when you read narrowly. You seem to think that I shy away from this information. I don't - I haven't. It is there, in electronic print, in my commentary. It will be there in print when it is published. I really can't accept your insinuation that I am leaving out any data.

I am interpreting the data from the text, and I don't see you arguing with that. So we have the current lack of metal working information for that time period. That is correct. However, we have linguistic evidence of metal that long precedes the Nephites, so I am comfortable that something was going on.

The implied question you are asking is whether or not a valuable skill might be 1) localized rather than general, and 2) lost. History says yes to both.

1) valuable skills - paticularly those that create an economic advantage - are often hoarded and kept from outsiders. Not doing so diminishes the economic value and is counterproductive.

2) the list of skills that were once known and then lost is pretty long. I hope that isn't even an issue.

[beastie]

Yup, you have no idea. I am using the text to tell me what happened. You are using your intuition to tell you what should have happened. Personally, I don't trust your intuition. I haven't seen any evidence that you have much background in ethnohistorical studies that might have honed that intuition, since many of your guesses are contrary to what has been known to have happened in other locations.

Please tell me, what do you really think is the correct way to analyze a text? Should we use the tools of scholarship or should we analyze a text based on we think it should have said but doesn't?

It's interesting that you embrace the concept that new religions heavily borrowed iconography from the pre-existing, usually dominant, religion, but now you scorn the idea that new religions also have to guard against heavily borrowing more than iconography from the pre-existing, usually dominant, religion, and this is what founders of new religions often guard against.

Once again - the vast majority of Nephites would have been, culturally and religiously, Mayan, prior to their conversion. Their entire lives, and the lives of their ancestors, were spent in certain traditions. You agree they would have borrowed from those traditions to create their iconography for their new religion. Yet you balk at the fact that they potentially would borrow other ideas for their new religion as well. This is nothing but unhoned "intuition", you claim. Look at the history of the LDS church, Brant. Look at the cautions in the OT. What were the prophets and teachers worried about? That their flock would revert to errors of their past and try to incorporate those errors into the new faith. Do you deny this in general, or just in regards to the BoM????

If you read the Book of Mormon you will find where there is correspondence with the Maya world and where there is not. Your first mistake is your perception of religion. I have finally realized that you are using modern conceptions of relgion and that is why you aren't finding the things you are looking for. Religion used to be an encompasing worldview that covered what we call religion, science and politics. You are making an artificial division.

I am absolutely not making that artificial division.

In the Book of Mormon there is a particular issue of Nephite apostasy that is reiterated and that is the denial of the atoning mission of the Messiah. Above that, the list of religious heresies fall into social categories in our modern divisions. They worry about costly apparel, kings, having people support you and other markers of social hierarchy. Every one of those social factors is part of the Maya culture and part of the social pressures that were increasing during the times of the Book of Mormon. The ancient world included such things as religion - you are excluding them because you are using the wrong definition and hence looking in the wrong place.

No, I am not excluding them. That is the reason I began to criticize your statements in the linked talk. You base your argument on the social stratification upon the idea of the Nephites working with gold and silver and trading those things. Yet there is no evidence of this in Mesoamerica at that time period. This is the first problem. There are a couple of others that I will bring up later tonight (I don't have your paper or my notes with me now) that will demonstrate that you keep making these meaningful omissions at critical points in your argument.

But, aside from that, I emphasizing the very things that were emphasized in Mayan religion. These are the things that the Nephites would have to worry about, not some nineteenth century concept of universalism or atheism.

Hmmm. Somehow the text is remarkably accurate on geography, topography, hydrology and climate for an area that Joseph Smith didn't know existed. Somehow it is accurate for the distribution of linguistic/cultural groups over that geography, getting the times and interconnections correct. It accurately notes that the Zarahemla area should be more culturally influenced by an older culture to the north, but in later times influenced by a newer culture to the south. It provides four points of description for a particular location north of Nephite lands that fits only one place - and that place is there in the right time - and does the "right" things according to the Book of Mormon text.

Remarkably accurate???????????? I'd like you to provide a link to where you expound these ideas in more detail, to see if you continue to base these conclusions on omitting crucial information about Mesoamerica. Somehow I suspect there should be quite a few qualifications on this astounding statement of accuracy. (like, "if you accept, contrary to the vast majority of mesoamerican scholars, that there was metal working skills at this particular period, then.....")

That is what happens when you read narrowly. You seem to think that I shy away from this information. I don't - I haven't. It is there, in electronic print, in my commentary. It will be there in print when it is published. I really can't accept your insinuation that I am leaving out any data.

Where was it in this article? I couldn't find it.

I am interpreting the data from the text, and I don't see you arguing with that. So we have the current lack of metal working information for that time period. That is correct. However, we have linguistic evidence of metal that long precedes the Nephites, so I am comfortable that something was going on.

Interesting. Why is it that the most notable mesoamerican scholars do not seem to be comfortable with drawing that same conclusion?

The implied question you are asking is whether or not a valuable skill might be 1) localized rather than general, and 2) lost. History says yes to both.

No, that's not my implied question. I don't have any question. My statement is that there is no evidence of metal working skills in Mesoamerica at that time period. Hence, your entire argument is based on a fallacy. I just finished a book by a somewhat fringie Mesoamerican researcher, John Major Jenkins, Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, and when he goes out on a limb and takes a stance contrary to accepted knowledge in the field, he notes that he is doing so. My opinion is that you should, also, not just somewhere, electronically, but in each and every article where you base an argument on a highly questionable assertion.

Here's an example of why I state that it is your ethical obligation to provide the necessary qualifications when you go out on a fringie limb. I see believers repeating the statements they've undoubtedly read by you or some other BoM apologists, made without those qualifications, offering those statements as if they are unassailable facts. (just this morning I read, yet again, another believer claim the boM chronology matches mesoamerican chronology, which is just not true, unless you add a heck of a lot of qualifiers). The people who listen to your talks or read your online articles are normally not doing research on their own in this subject area, and do not recognize, on their own, when you've gone out on a limb. It is your responsibility to make sure there is no misunderstanding when you do so. It is your every right to formulate your own theories and speculations, but it is your responsibility to note when those same theories and speculations are based on statements that most mesoamerican scholars would reject.

[Confidential Informant]

No, that's not my implied question. I don't have any question. My statement is that there is no evidence of metal working skills in Mesoamerica at that time period. Hence, your entire argument is based on a fallacy.

Ah yes, now if 7 of 9 shows up, the whole ZLMB gang will be together again. I always loved the conversations where the group of uneducated know-it-alls start telling the people who have actually studied the topic and taken the time to make themselves proficient in the field exactly why they are wrong. They read a couple of books and think they understand all the issues.

The above quote is a classic. While we have no actual example of said metal-working, we do know from the linguistic evidence that metal was known. So, if we know from their language that they were aware of metal, why is it such a stretch that they'd have known uses for it also? So yes, while Brant does speculate, his speculation is not without basis or merit. Thus, your dogmatic statement is senseless.

C.I.

Let the Uneducated-Know-It-All (the UKIA for short) resume their carping.

ci

In the "For What It's Worth" Department. Beasties statement abouts "no evidence" of metalworking from the time period in quesion appears to be, of course, false:

Incan Metallurgy Pushed Back 1000 Years

Interesting quote from the article:

Their findings, published in the Nov. 6 issue of the journal Science, push back the date that the Central Andes are believed to have become the "hearth of metalworking" in Latin America, he said. The skills perfected by artisans there later became important in the religious life of the Incas of Peru and may have influenced the Aztec and Maya civilizations in Mexico beginning about 2,000 years ago, Burger said.

Things that make you go "hmmmmmm...."

ci

[beastie]

CI,

We are talking about Mesoamerica, not Peru.

In addition, there is a difference between "metal" and "metal working". I have no doubt that words identifying certain metals that existed as natural outcrops existed in the Mesoamerican languages. What I strongly doubt is that words that indicated the process of metal working existed. Of course, Brant is free to provide evidence otherwise, but in doing so he should note why this is not commonly accepted as proof for metal working in the given time and area by experts in the field.

It's for people such as you, whom I doubt has read one book on the subject, that I think Brant needs to pay closer attention to qualifying his speculations, identifying them as speculations not accepted by mesoamerican scholars in general. Because of Brant's qualifications, you accept what he says without question, and then back it up with an article about Peru.

BTW, at this point I've read more than a "couple" of books on the subject. It's my new obsession.

[Addictio]

Thanks for the attempt to focus, Brant. But you're still not quite there, on my reference to the three articles. You said:

Except that you are offering a very revisionist and slanted "history" of those articles. This "issue" is hardly recent and certainly doesn't stem from anything written in 1992. They stem from scholars attempting to seriously examine something that claims to have been written around A.D. 400.

Let me remind you what the issue is. Sorenson's 1992 article is the first time he or any other apologist made the claim that principles of population growth, together with certain features of the BoM text, make it impossible, or at least highly unlikely, that the BoM can make sense as a historical narrative without a large influx of Native Americans among both the Nephites and Lamanites. Among other things, he offers reasons for why these unmentioned NA "others," though they are necessary actors in the text (turns out), are not mentioned "more expressly" in the Book. Do you know of any apologist before that time who offered any explanation for that silence, or relative silence, about the necessary, inferred NA's? If so, then I'm happy to reconsider my claim that Sorenson's 1992 set of explanations was the first.

Now, my comments about the three subsequent articles were merely that the reasons/explanations for the near-silence (or "not express" mentioning) are not exactly the same as those offered in Sorenson's original article. My observation was not an argument that this makes the 2003 proffered reasons suspect or wrong, but rather that the apologetic explanation for the failure to expressly mention isn't fully determined or developed yet. I went on to say that this isn't surprising, because the first "cut" at that specific issue did not occur until 1992. (The only other earlier candidate is Sorenson's 1985 book, but in that work he doesn't deal with explanations for silence or reticence about any influx of NA's on the Nephite side of things. In any event, if the date were 1985 rather than 1992, my observation about the 2003 reasons would be the same.)

Again, in response to my observation about the additional explanations in the 2003 articles, you said:

I find it instructive that the current state that you consider being formulated comes from those with the most secular training in how to deal with documents and archaeological data. Why is it that those with the most training to deal with an issue must be wrong, and those who have no training at all must be right?

I would love to see how you explain that to professors in universities.

That is an empty -- would you prefer "naked"? -- appeal to authority, Brant. Unlike Beastie using Coe, you don't even bother to report what any of the articles even say by way of explanation. Much less how and why the authors' degrees or experience put them in a privileged, authoritative position on this particular issue. (In fact, I don't recall that any of them rely on archaeological data for explaining the text's silence/reticence.) On the merits of the proferred explanations for the text's silence/reticence, then, which I wasn't even arguing, surely you can do better than that. Try starting with a summary of what you think the explanations are. Why so anxious to avoid the merits?

As far as appeals to authority go, Brant, you're back to your usual m.o., which is to talk in general, in the abstract, and failing that, to argue by analogy. With respect to the first, all appeals to authority are not suspect, or pointless, as you know perfectly well. Your argument by analogy gets a bit more specific, and goes like this:

If you were to read someone's interpretation of the Popol Vuh, would you suggest we read the work of a scholar or of 20 people without any scholarly training who read it and are willing to give an opinion? Please let me know. It may make a big difference the next time I have to use that text for cultural information.

We read them both, Brant, if we're going to argue the merits of some disagreement between them. Again, the weight we give to the scholar's argument can't be determined in the abstract. What issues are "in play" and on what is he opining? Further, your analogy is inapposite, and question begging. The issue "in play" between critics and LDS apologists regarding BoM historicity is wholly different from the situation with the Popol Vuh. The latter wasn't dictated by one person in the 19th Century, whose identity is known. Accordingly, so far as I know, no one argues that the PV actually is entirely the religious creation of a single modern person. Moreover, as you know, the Popol Vuh is accepted and actaully used by scholars to interpret and make sense of mesoamerican artifacts and to draw conclusions, for example, about the nature of ancient mesoamerican religion. There is scholarly consesnsus that it reports the myths of real people who actually lived in mesoamerica. To put it mildly, no such scholarly consensus about the BoM exists.

So I don't think the analogy to the PV does any logical work, Brant. As we both know, if the contents of the BoM functioned in the useful manner the PV's do, it is unlikely we would be having this conversation. Then you would also not have to resort to this kind of boot strapping and question begging about who is or is not (who can or can't be) an "authority" on the merits of the current "others" interpretation of the BoM.

Btw, if you want me to respond to your comments invoking Malina's book, you'll have to do a better job of explaining the nature of the argument you're making, and how you're using that particular book. That's the only way I can judge (1) the nature of the argument you're making and (2) whether the portions of the book you rely on actually support your argument. I must insist on this because I have learned through past experience that you sometimes are (yes, only in my view/opinion) quite clueless about the extent to which a source actually supports the particular argument you're making.

Finally, you also say:

I will be very focused for you. You put forth the hypothesis that readers of the text should be used as determinant of textual meaning. Your hypothesis suggests that uneducated readers are a better guide to a text than trained scholars who specifically work in the fields relevant to such textual analysis.

No, that's not my position or view. Briefly, my contention about the first 150 years of BoM interpretation is this. The current arguments about "others" are actually the fourth stage of understanding the relationship between BoM peoples and ancient and modern NA's. The previous consensus, of course, does not mean it was right. The fact that no one realized for 150 years that (in terms of body count) the large majority of people who function as actors in the Lehite portion of the text actually are descendants of people who did not come from Jerusalem, and were not Israelite, is significant in itself, for purely sociological reasons. Anyway, I think it indicates two things: (1) how significant and unprecedented a change in understanding the BoM story is presented by the current "others" interpretation and (2) while the fact that such a long and uniform consensus would exist is explained by many things, including the statements Roper considers at the beginnning of his "Neighbors" article, I believe one of those is the relatively subtle and oblique nature of the textual support now used by apologists to justify the new interpretation. You may disagree with that characterization of the textual support, but that's a different issue, and argument.

No more time.

[Confidential Informant]

We are talking about Mesoamerica, not Peru.

And as noted in the quote I provided, the metal working in Peru was specifically noted to have influenced the mayans. The establishes a contact between Peru and Mesoamerica. Thus, you have linguistic evicence for metal and evidence of contemporaneous metal working.

Moreover, Olmec iron mining operations of a fairly large scale appear to have been confirmed.

Your dogmatic statement is clearly false the and the evidence supports Brant's supposition.

In addition, there is a difference between "metal" and "metal working".  I have no doubt that words identifying certain metals that existed as natural outcrops existed in the Mesoamerican languages.  What I strongly doubt is that words that indicated the process of metal working existed. 

Who cares what you doubt? The evidence shows metal working. The Olmecs were using iron mirrors. There is evidence for small-scale smelting operations and even large-scale (i.e. upwards of 10 tons of iron ore) mining operations. If they had it, if they named it and if the evidence shows they worked it, then Brant's suppositions find support and are not simply whimsical flights of fancy.

Of course, Brant is free to provide evidence otherwise, but in doing so he should note why this is not commonly accepted as proof for metal working in the given time and area by experts in the field.

Who the hell are you to speak for "experts in the field?" Brant has done post-graduate work in the area and has published his work in the proper journals. He IS one of the experts in the field.

It's for people such as you, whom I doubt has read one book on the subject, that I think Brant needs to pay closer attention to qualifying his speculations, identifying them as speculations not accepted by mesoamerican scholars in general.

Are you saying that Brant did not do so? Gee th we must be reading two different papers. Here's what Brant wrote:

If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them,

The term "assume" is defined as:

1: take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof;

In other words, Brant specifically notes that he's making a supposition! It just happens to be a supposition supported by the evidence.

Because of Brant's qualifications, you accept what he says without question, and then back it up with an article about Peru.

Except that the article I quoted specifically notes an influence into mesoamerica. It's hardly a jump in logic to assume that if they knew about it in Peru they knew about it in Guatemala at that time also.

BTW, at this point I've read more than a "couple" of books on the subject.  It's my new obsession.

And? Reading the books in no way means you've acquired the tools necessary to engage in a conversation on the topic. Get published, (and Ancient American doesn't count) then you can crow about how much you know about the subject.

C.I.

[beastie]

CI,

You have a tendency of making pointless, and baseless, accusations. I have not claimed any expertise. I have asked questions and made points that, if baseless themselves, Brant can easily resolve. I know you would prefer that I simply not speak up, but that is not going to happen regarding areas that interest me. If that makes me a "know it all", then so be it. It doesn't bother me in the least that some person on the internet mutters disparaging things about me.

And as noted in the quote I provided, the metal working in Peru was specifically noted to have influenced the mayans. The establishes a contact between Peru and Mesoamerica. Thus, you have linguistic evicence for metal and evidence of contemporaneous metal working.

Time period, CI. Time period. Context. This evidence from Peru isn't brand new, I remember reading it way back when this first conversation arose on ZLMB, btw. Peru and Mesoamerica developed at separate rates.

Except that the article I quoted specifically notes an influence into mesoamerica. It's hardly a jump in logic to assume that if they knew about it in Peru they knew about it in Guatemala at that time also.

Yes, it is a jump in logic. If this were all as obvious as you are presenting it, it would be accepted within the mesoamerican community right now. Please present evidence that it is.

Moreover, Olmec iron mining operations of a fairly large scale appear to have been confirmed.Your dogmatic statement is clearly false the and the evidence supports Brant's supposition

Please provide evidence. It shouldn't be difficult for you, since my statement is "clearly false" and the evidence supports Brant.

Who cares what you doubt? The evidence shows metal working. The Olmecs were using iron mirrors. There is evidence for small-scale smelting operations and even large-scale (i.e. upwards of 10 tons of iron ore) mining operations. If they had it, if they named it and if the evidence shows they worked it, then Brant's suppositions find support and are not simply whimsical flights of fancy.

Again, evidence should not be difficult to reference or provide. Do so. I'm familiar with the small iron mirrors, Coe mentions them several times in his book Mexico. But the smelting operations? Please provide evidence.

Who the hell are you to speak for "experts in the field?" Brant has done post-graduate work in the area and has published his work in the proper journals. He IS one of the experts in the field.

Brant himself admits that there is no evidence of metal working in the time and period. And are you saying that his Book of Mormon essays are published in the proper journals? Can you give me a reference?

In other words, Brant specifically notes that he's making a supposition! It just happens to be a supposition supported by the evidence.

"If we assume" does not do the same job as a qualification explaining that this is not accepted in the mainstream community, and why. As I said, in the last book I just read, the author made certain that the reader was aware when he was engaging in speculation that the mainstream would not accept.

And? Reading the books in no way means you've acquired the tools necessary to engage in a conversation on the topic. Get published, (and Ancient American doesn't count) then you can crow about how much you know about the subject.

Oh, please. We're on an internet board, for heaven's sake. At least I take the time to try to educate myself on topics that interest me. If Brant should not be questioned by the dirty masses, he shouldn't post on an internet board. If my questions and statements are ridiculously uninformed, exposing them as such will be no problem.

On to other points -

More questions from the unwashed masses for Brant. Perhaps if I shuffle a bit, cast down my eyes, and say "yassuh" now and then, I will not offend CI.

In addition to language and writing systems, the cultural heritage of Zarahemla would have included the religion of the Olmec region. We may see some of the religious clash between the Nephite gospel and the Mesoamerican religion of the Zarahemlaites in the contentions to which Mormon refers for Benjamin's political struggles.23 One of the passages that may receive a greater explication from the Mesoamerican context is found in Words of Mormon 1:15. Mormon indicates that there had been false Christs among the people.

While we cannot be certain of the meaning of this phrase, the presence of multiple "false Christs" in a culture undergoing a conflict between a new and an old religious system at least suggests that the false Christs may be related to this religious conflict. The Nephites considered Christ as their God, and a false Christ would be a man impersonating that deity. This is the precise definition of the Mesoamerican concept of god-impersonators. We find both Olmec and Maya depicted in the garb of various deities. Among the later Aztecs, these god-impersonators were known as the ixiptla. It is not difficult to imagine the internal contentions revolving around the retention or rejection of the old religion. Whether the god-impersonators were attempting to continue the old gods, or attempting to merge the religious form of the old religion with the new, the god-impersonators of that old religion are direct conceptual matches for the false Christs Mormon describes. This particular interpretation of the false Christs as god-impersonators explains why there are multiple false Christs, why they become an issue at precisely this time (early in the merger between the Zarahemlaites and the Nephites), and why we should have false Christs appearing in a community where only the smaller number of people had a tradition of a belief in Christ at all.

This is another problematic point in Brant

[Addictio]

A few more comments in response to Brant, and then I've got to stop responding for at least a few days.

Your response to my use of the Lamanite self-reports of origin is, so far as I can tell at present, only a convenient form of ad hoc reasoning. If you want to pick and choose between what you take at face value (e.g., "Lamanite x said Y") either you can do so in a principled, consistent, and hence potentially defensible way, or on an ad hoc basis. I have no way of judging at present which you're doing.

It is a truism, of course, that the Nephites were the recordkeepers. What follows? According to Bushman, nothing that prevents him from taking at face value the statements of the recordkeepers and the reported statements of Lamanites regarding the content of Lamanite ideology. If doing so is naive, or wrong-headed, it's not self-evident. So please spare us further conclusory ex cathedra comments about what "historians" in general do.

Apparently you want to say that, for example, when King Lamoni says his forbears came from Jerusalem, that cannot simply be taken at face value, as something he actually said or believed. He also says he believes in the Great Spirit, and a number of other things. How does a historian, on your view, go about deciding, in a principled way, which of Lamoni's statements in the narrative can be taken at face value and which must be reinterpreted because they are the result of the recordkeeper's own inferred proclivities or ideology? The same issue arises in connection with Ammonihah's reported statement that he is descended from Zoram. I suspect the only way for anyone to be able actually to judge the justification for and use of some sort of (assertedly) principled approach to sorting between reported Lamanite statements is for you to write an article.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

It's interesting that you embrace the concept that new religions heavily borrowed iconography from the pre-existing, usually dominant, religion, but now you scorn the idea that new religions also have to guard against heavily borrowing more than iconography from the pre-existing, usually dominant, religion, and this is what founders of new religions often guard against.

It isn't interesting because you are misunderstanding. I suppose I am not surprised. You have created a scenario in your head and are finding any possible way to defend it despite the fact that the textual evidence and evidence from social history is against you.

1: Cultures do borrow iconography. This is a well accepted fact and you supported that fact with the evidence from the catacombs. You even admitted to it, while subscribing to the interesting theory they one could predict what cultural icons could be borrowed - a point that very few iconographers would attempt.

2: It is a historical fact that the most dangerous religion is the one that is closest to yours. Read history. Go to any church in America with an anti-anything campaing and find me one that is concerned with Jainism. Since we are talking history, go through the Bible and show me how the Israelite prophets argued against Osiris.

On this point, I am citing accepted principles and known histories. You are returning to "if I were a duck." I prefer the historians, thank you.

Once again - the vast majority of Nephites would have been, culturally and religiously, Mayan, prior to their conversion.

So sorry, you really don't understand much of the history, do you. The only time this has direct relevance is from 600 B.C. to 200 B.C. At that point the Nephite society was a lot smaller. At 200 B.C. we actually have a funnel where a limited number - not given in the text - leaves the region of Maya influence and heads to Zoque influence where they join with non-Maya influenced people who greatly outnumber them.

So, for over 600 years of Book of Mormon history, and the time period for which we begin to have more firm Maya evidence, your statement is incorrect. Completely incorrect.

Now, think about the issue of the Nephites leaving the city of Nephi. Suppose that we take the assumption that they left and their city was completely Mayanized. How much would a people who rejected that city have to teach against it? From 200 B.C. on, it was a moot point.

So - if you want to deal with Maya cultural ideas and influences, you need to stick to what is known of pre-200 B.C. Maya and you have to stick to texts prior to the end of Omni. The next problem is that what I have speculated is that Mosiah flees precisely because of that encroachment, hence I predicted that Mayanization is precisely what I should see during that time period. Since you agreed with me that religion was all encompasing in the ancient world, then you would agree that the evidence I see of encroaching social ideas through trade is precisely the type of "religious" influence you seem to suggest that ought to be there.

So where are we? I am citing the text and you are arguing that the text doesn't say something you think should be there.

You are using a wide range of Maya culture without specific timeframes, and I am correlated specific time periods from that area with the same timeframe in the Book of Mormon.

You are making gross overstatements about the relevance of the Maya to the Book of Mormon and I am following both text and geogrpaphy to find the right correlations to the right peoples.

All of this tells me that you are guessing, and not all that well.

Brant. Look at the cautions in the OT. What were the prophets and teachers worried about?

Isn't it amazing that you would say this when this is the very thing I have asked you to do several times? Did you miss that? I know exactly what those prophets were worried about, and it wasn't completely foreign religion. It was Canaanite religion that was extremely close to their own and therefore dangerous. Take a look as the Ugaritic texts.

The fact that you can even ask this tells me that you are not taking this conversation seriously.

The evidence you are asking me to look up supports my position, not yours. It does not increase my confidence in your analysis of Maya history when you get OT history this dramatically wrong.

(re a linked article) You base your argument on the social stratification upon the idea of the Nephites working with gold and silver and trading those things.

No. Once again you are having a hard time following an argument. I base the particular nature of the issues in early Nephite society to outside influences that are brought in by trade. I speculate that the reason that gold and silver were mentioned is that Nephi's ability to work metals would have led to a competitive advantage. All of those things explain the text.

In another place (where it was much more relevant than the paper you were reading) I note the problem of a lack of metal. However, as Confidential Informant noted, there are hints. It is a very dangerous thing in archaeology to base an entire article on something that hasn't been found - yet. The Teotihuacanos and their feathered serpent temple were wonderfully peaceful people , until they found the sacrificed Teotihuacano warriors in the temple. Since there is linguistic evidence that has a word for metal very early, I am not too worried about not finding metal-working yet. Since I see it as a craft giving the Nephites a trade advantage, I wouldn't expect it to be widespread.

However, the analysis was based on the influence of culture and trade. Working gold and silver was a hypothesized mechanism. You do see the difference, do you not?

But, aside from that, I emphasizing the very things that were emphasized in Mayan religion. These are the things that the Nephites would have to worry about, not some nineteenth century concept of universalism or atheism.

1) You still miss the point about what kinds of religion are threatening to a population. Please read some history. You might read the OT that you thought supported your position. Ugaritic documents would be very instructive.

2) I do believe that aspects of "religion" were part of what the Nephite prophets compalined about. Since I see religion quite widely in the ancient world, the concepts of social hierarchy that were supported by religion are the things I see emphasized in the Book of Mormon. I don't think it is coincidental that the set of things that are constantly attacked are social innovations apparent in Mesoamerican culture - with one exception. The prophets also emphasize the atoning Messiah. Any religion that denies the atoning Messiah is condemned. Most of those are internal apostasies.

3) Your assumption about universalism is that it is a unique philosophical conception that is available only in the time period of Joseph Smith. Apart from that particular issue, how do you support or deny universalism archaeologically? Lacking a text - please tell me where I would find it. In the Book of Mormon it is an argument that flows naturally and directly from the denial of the atoning Messiah. Is that the context in the 19th century? Are you sure that they are structurally and functionally the same?

BG previous: Somehow the text is remarkably accurate on geography, topography, hydrology and climate for an area that Joseph Smith didn't know existed. Somehow it is accurate for the distribution of linguistic/cultural groups over that geography, getting the times and interconnections correct. It accurately notes that the Zarahemla area should be more culturally influenced by an older culture to the north, but in later times influenced by a newer culture to the south. It provides four points of description for a particular location north of Nephite lands that fits only one place - and that place is there in the right time - and does the "right" things according to the Book of Mormon text. end previous.

Remarkably accurate???????????? I'd like you to provide a link to where you expound these ideas in more detail

http://frontpage2k.nmia.com/~nahualli/commentary.htm. I apologize that the evidence is dispersed throughout the commentary. Feel free to go fishing.

to see if you continue to base these conclusions on omitting crucial information about Mesoamerica.

As I have noted more than once, I not only do not omit it, I specifically note it. Wrong again.

Somehow I suspect there should be quite a few qualifications on this astounding statement of accuracy.

Wrong again.

(like, "if you accept, contrary to the vast majority of mesoamerican scholars, that there was metal working skills at this particular period, then.....")

Oh, this is fun. Wrong again. See what happens when you jump to conclusions based on too little information? You set yourself up.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

My observation was not an argument that this makes the 2003 proffered reasons suspect or wrong, but rather that the apologetic explanation for the failure to expressly mention isn't fully determined or developed yet.

My apologies. You really are talking about this very minor question of why there is no mention of the "others." I am amazed that you are so interested in it. I can tell you why the idea isn't "fully determined or developed yet." Since it discusses silence, there isn't much of a way to provide proof of anything. Different people see different aspects of the issue, but explaining something that isn't there is always more difficult than explaining what is.

I went on to say that this isn't surprising, because the first "cut" at that specific issue did not occur until 1992. (The only other earlier candidate is Sorenson's 1985 book, but in that work he doesn't deal with explanations for silence or reticence about any influx of NA's on the Nephite side of things. In any event, if the date were 1985 rather than 1992, my observation about the 2003 reasons would be the same.)

What you miss is that you are speaking of published history. This information circulated in unpublished format for a long time prior. I was not privy to most of those discussions, but I am aware that they occurred. Certainly an understanding of the role of "others" in the Book of Mormon was being discussed in the 1950's (per Sorenson). Whether or not anyone voiced speculation on why they were not mentioned I cannot tell. That they understood that they were there is certain.

Much less how and why the authors' degrees or experience put them in a privileged, authoritative position on this particular issue.

Good. We do understand that authorities on a subject are useful. We even agree that training that is relevant is useful. Your issue isn't with the authorities, it is that you want references. Good to know. Please make your statements clearer in the future.

As far as appeals to authority go, Brant, you're back to your usual m.o., which is to talk in general, in the abstract, and failing that, to argue by analogy.

Let's see. When I argue larger issues without citing references I am talking in general and in the abstract. Unlike when you do the same thing?

As for argument by analogy, it appears that you are unaware that this is rather standard procedure in anthropology and ethnohistory. When you are dealing with the dearth of written data that we have in Mesoamerica, the reference to how other peoples have done things in history becomes quite relevant. I suspect I could find similar arguments in nearly every Mesoamerican book I could pull from my shelves. While it may not be a familiar technique to you, it is part and parcel of what is expected in ethnohistory. We argue from analogy to make sure that we don't come up with explanations for human behavior that are unique (unless there is better data than we usually get). The benchmark is that if other people in similar circumstances do similar things, the analysis of a particular people is not far off. If you have to resort to special pleading, you are probably wrong.

So yes, I do use analogy and will continue to do so. If someone, such as beastie, suggests an explanation for behavior in the Book of Mormon that doesn't fit with known behavior in other human populations - and if he has no better evidence than his opinion, anthropologists would not accept that opinion and prefer to go with the analogy.

Btw, if you want me to respond to your comments invoking Malina's book, you'll have to do a better job of explaining the nature of the argument you're making, and how you're using that particular book. That's the only way I can judge (1) the nature of the argument you're making and (2) whether the portions of the book you rely on actually support your argument. I must insist on this because I have learned through past experience that you sometimes are (yes, only in my view/opinion) quite clueless about the extent to which a source actually supports the particular argument you're making.

You want professional papers on a discussion board? I'm not interested.

Anyway, I think it indicates two things: (1) how significant and unprecedented a change in understanding the BoM story is presented by the current "others" interpretation

I agree that it is a significant change in the popular understanding. It is not unprecedented. In this history of LDS ideas, it has had a long history that gets us to the current formulation. I agree that the current formulation is more mature, better articulared, and more emphasized in a public forum.

and (2) while the fact that such a long and uniform consensus would exist is explained by many things, including the statements Roper considers at the beginnning of his "Neighbors" article, I believe one of those is the relatively subtle and oblique nature of the textual support now used by apologists to justify the new interpretation. You may disagree with that characterization of the textual support, but that's a different issue, and argument.

I disagree here. There is a parallel development in the application of academic standards to the text. There is a dichotomy between popular and scholarly approaches to the text that have always existed, but which are quite pronounced in the current population. The difference you are seeing is less the subtle than the scholarly. Scholars see things where other people aren't even looking - and somethings see the same thing quite differently. The more rapid advance in the recent years can be easily traced to the greater number of trained scholars with diverse backgrounds who are tackling the issue.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Another important omission, which is crucial to understanding the

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Your response to my use of the Lamanite self-reports of origin is, so far as I can tell at present, only a convenient form of ad hoc reasoning.

Perhaps it would be easier if you let us know what your training in history might be. While I agree that one should support positions, I understand that you are trained in the law. I suspect that should you be discussing points of law I might not question whether or not you were interpreting law correctly.

On principles of history, I do have some background - except you don't like it when I appeal to such training.

If you want to pick and choose between what you take at face value (e.g., "Lamanite x said Y") either you can do so in a principled, consistent, and hence potentially defensible way, or on an ad hoc basis. I have no way of judging at present which you're doing.

The principles are pretty simple. You take a document and make sure you know who wrote it and why and how that might influence the record. You realize that when ancients wrote "history" they often invented conversations (as did Thucydides). Historians treat any text critically.

It is a truism, of course, that the Nephites were the recordkeepers. What follows?

What follows in the rest of the world is that the recordkeepers write history according to their own interests and worldview. Do you know any exceptions to this in the ancient world?

According to Bushman, nothing that prevents him from taking at face value the statements of the recordkeepers and the reported statements of Lamanites regarding the content of Lamanite ideology.

Any statement has to be understood in its context. Since the writers of the Book of Mormon craft their text one should take into account how the account is influenced by the writer. It is very clear to me that Mormon colors his account of Noah in a way that Noah's own "court reporters" would not. If such data are correct for any part of the text it warns us that we need to be cautious in accepting any part of text as unvarnished history. I suspect that were Bushman and I to talk about such issues we would not be far apart - but since I haven't had that conversation I can't guarantee it.

If doing so is naive, or wrong-headed, it's not self-evident. So please spare us further conclusory ex cathedra comments about what "historians" in general do.

No - I won't. If we can't found our discussions in principles that are accepted by secular academics I don't want to participate.

Apparently you want to say that, for example, when King Lamoni says his forbears came from Jerusalem, that cannot simply be taken at face value, as something he actually said or believed.

He may have believed that. There are lots of cities in Mesoamerica and lots of people with lots of ancestry. However, it is also in the interests of a Nephite historian to emphasize their particular definition of culture. What I do not believe is that an analysis that suggests that the identification of Lamanites in the Book of Mormon with Israelites is any kind of evidence that the term is used in any way other than as an exonym. When the weight of the evidence of the usage of the term in the context of events in the Book of Mormon says that the term is generically related to external political units - regardless of how those units designate themselves - then I go with the stronger evidence of the text.

Using the self-desisgnation of Lamanite to demonstrate that no one else was there is ingenious, but not convincing.

He also says he believes in the Great Spirit, and a number of other things. How does a historian, on your view, go about deciding, in a principled way, which of Lamoni's statements in the narrative can be taken at face value and which must be reinterpreted because they are the result of the recordkeeper's own inferred proclivities or ideology?

Historians discover invented discourse when they examine the nature of the records for the possible recorders. It is easiest when no one is there to record the invented speech. When texts report data that are related to a specific worldview, they are susceptible to authorial influence. When they report information that is foreign to that worldview, there are greater chances that the reporting is more accurate. Read Sahagun on native practices. Somethings he reports correctly. The closer what he reports is to what he perceives of his own history, the more than history colors what he writes. Ixtlilxochitl is wonderful because he does this in reverse and intentionally recasts native stories in European clothing. Still, there is native information available.