Mayan Lamanites

[Calm]

But you're simply ignoring the origin of that first apostate movement.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

The BoM should rather be allowed to speak for itself regarding its contents and the express purposes of the writers.

Believe it or not, we completely agree on this statement. Obviously, however, we completely disagree on how the text speaks or what the purposes of the writers were. We are clearly approaching the text from divergent worldviews.

The Book repudiates, in myriad ways, the notion that the writers and their intended audience share the same immediate spatial or temporal context and social information.

There are certainly times when the text addresses a future population. However, it never does it outside of the available context of current assumptions. The sermons that Mormon inserts are used for a future purpose, but are clearly delivered to a present audience. I heartily disagree with your statement that the text is not written in the context of its own worldview. All of the quoted speeches and letters are for present audiences. The prophesied uses of the text in future generations are for a future version of the same culture - they are written to future Lamanites (Mormon clearly indicates that he writes first for the Lamanites and only secondarily to the gentiles in the book of Mormon).

There is no indication that even when someone from a culture writes prophetically that they do so in the idiom of the target audience rather than their own time. Biblical prophecies are for future times, but are encoded in the understanding of the day. There is no historical precedent of which I am aware that supports your idea that writing for a future audience alters the forms available to the writer. I know several (including the Bible) that contradict that idea.

The major writers/editor Nephi, Mormon and Moroni, for example, all know it is being writtten to their future descendants, and to the modern-era Gentiles.

And yet Nephi couches his record in such a way as to imitate Old Testament stories that would be relevant to his own people, not to a future generation. Nephi also includes information about the process of his own history and uses that history as a moral for the future, but uses information from the present/past. Mormon writes the text to prove the Messiah to future generations, but there is no indication that he alters his writing style to accommodate them. On the contrary, he assumes them to be people just like himself (usually Lamanites). When Mormon crafts his work he does so with inserted sermons - which as noted above - are written to present audiences.

So - I can agree that there is a forward emphasis, but I see no indication that the structure or form of the text was altered by that perspective. You may assert so, but I would need to see evidence of where forms were written for the sensibilities of the modern reader. I can certainly see vocabulary that is, but I see that as Joseph Smith's contribution, not that of the original writers. When you combine the lack of evidence for your forward-written=altered hypothesis with the evidence for cultural-bound uses of texts and situations that relate to the present time of the writers, I suggest the weight of the text comes down heavily contra your position.

That future audience is even seen in vision and and is repeatedly addressed directly.

Agreed, but I still don't see where you find evidence that this means that forms are altered. Since Biblical literature does not show the tendency you indicate, on what are you basing your conclusion? What evidence do you find that the addressing of a future population alters the conceptual form of the text? It simply does not. I cannot imagine how a person conceiving a high-context document would alter their worldview to create a low-context text based on the future vision. It not only doesn't happen, there are no traits of low-context texts apparent in the Book of Mormon.

In this respect, let's remember, the BoM claims to be a unique document like no other in the world,

I think you are misapplying the nature of its differences. It was never assumed to be so unique that no one could understand it. Remember that it contains a large number of sermons that were given to people who certainly were supposed to understand it.

Given this uniquenss and the self-conscious spatio-temporal distance between writer and audience, Malina's categories are (1) completely inapposite for classifying an avowedly sui generis document,

Since your premise is incorrect, the conclusion is incorrect. The document will be one or the other. Documents that are mixed become specific only in cases where there is an assumed misunderstanding. In such cases the document will tell you where it shifts. Malina's categories are appropriate becauses they define conceptual types. I see no reason to suppose that the Book of Mormon was intended to be so unique that no human analysis could approach it. It simply isn't that kind of unique. You are misapplying the concept.

(2) even if applied to the Book, would support the conclusion that it is a low-context document, and self-consciously so.

Since we clearly disagree on this you might provide some evidence of where it is a low-context text. Where are the detailed explanations of meaning? When the text mentions the controversial horse, why isn't there more detail about what is happening with them? Where are the descriptions of the things that we expect to be there?

Let us take your premise that it is a low-context text representing the cultural milieu of the 19th century. It tells a story that is supposed to be foreign to that culture. Please indicate where the text delineates the differences and describes them in such a way to show them as clearly foreign to the 19th century? You might compare the scene of the dog sacrifice in the View of the Hebrews. That is a text that goes into some detail on an unusual cultural event. The differences are highlighted so that a reader might understand how foreign the event is. The Book of Mormon lacks that self-conscious foreignness that is appropriate to a low-context novel such as you are suggesting.

What it does is assume cultural data without explaining it. What is interesting about the cultural data is that when the correct contextual background is replaced, there are texts in the Book of Mormon that begin to improve in reading. That is indicative of a high-context text. The stories of Ammon at the waters of Sebus (part of my FAIR paper this year) and the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies (presented at the BMAF conference this year) are examples of stories that improve in meaning against the cultural background supplied by Mesoamerica. That is very difficult to do with random readings against history, and virtually impossible were it a low-context text such as you suggest.

So - to turn the table on your typical line of argumnet, I hear what you have suggested, but I see no evidence for it. You have provided several assertions without any support whatsoever. While I haven't cited chapter and verse, you should find sufficient grist for direct discussion on the issues. You might begin by trying to explain how Alma 32 is directed exclusively to a modern audience according to the textual evidence.

[beastie]

Don't forget that Laman, Lemuel and Ishmael's sons were adults when they left Jerusalem and could easily have been exposed to apostate ideas that Lehi preached against and were the reason that he was directed to leave Jerusalem (the people weren't living righteously). Those who looked to Laman as leader appear to have naturally favoured these and looked on Jerusalem as 'good' place to live for more than one reason. Simply because they removed themselves from the vicinity, they would not have removed themselves from the influences.

So they were leaders with that kind of impact, and yet we see no trace of that impact in Mesoamerican history. IOW, you can't just claim that they had an impact that can be seen in the apostate Nephite religion in mesoamerica without accepting that means that they must have had an influence that would be recorded. But both the Nephite religion and the Nephite apostate religion inspired by Laman and Lemuel seem to have disappeared without a trace, anywhere.

Also do not forget that Brant did utilize the idea of the Nephite apostate religion being affected by the Mayan practices (see false Christs). If he embraces that notion for the benefit of his own argument, there is no reason to reject it as silly intuition when I use the same reasoning. I know Brant wants to parse between different areas and dialects, while I don't agree that the differences are significant enough to be a necessary factor in this discussion, in terms of general cultural traits. But even if I were to accept Brant's parsing, all we would have to do with be use a different reference for the mayan religion - say Olmec religion instead. The main point remains - the dominant religion of the time would be the threatening one, and that would be reflected in the anxious preaching of the leaders of the new religion.

QUOTE 

the religious competition from indigenous religion wouldn't simply disappear with the move to Zarahemla 

This is not what Brant is saying.

Then what IS he saying? I'd love to hear your translation. Why has he demarcated the Lamanite/Mayan influence to 200 BC? Or is he simply nit picking and wanting us to use a different referent, like Olmec? Or a referent indicating dialect?

[Calm]

So they were leaders with that kind of impact, and yet we see no trace of that impact in Mesoamerican history.

What kind of impact are you talking about? Probably not the same that I am thinking of. They had influence on their immediate group that would probably be diluted as generation passed, but the first apostates might have continued to embrace ideas they once had in the Old World as the idea of polygamy had been carried over.

Why would you assume that this impact would been seen in a wider Mesoamerican history?

And what is your prediction of how this impact would be expressed and preserved?

[beastie]

What kind of impact are you talking about? Probably not the same that I am thinking of. They had influence on their immediate group that would probably be diluted as generation passed, but the first apostates might have continued to embrace ideas they once had in the Old World as the idea of polygamy had been carried over.

Why would you assume that this impact would been seen in a wider Mesoamerican history?

And what is your prediction of how this impact would be expressed and preserved?

First, since apparently Lamanites were the nemesis of the Nephites throughout BoM, and the Nephite kingdom extended over quite a few cities and hundreds of miles, it's hard to understand what apologists mean when they talk about "their immediate group", or whatever term you want to use. Even under the LGT or LTT, this was not an insignificant group, and apparently, their nemesis was at least as large as they were. So would a dominant group in this particular area NOT be seen in a wider Mesoamerican history?

Aside from that, even if, as Brant claims, no speculated Nephite cities had writing (???), or rather, no evidences of writing exist in those cities in the correct time frame, and Lamanite cities had no writing either in the correct time frame, there are other ways of determining beliefs and practices. Obviously. So if the lamanites really weren't affected by the Mesoamerican religions of the period, but rather were affected by Old World ideas shared by their powerful leaders, then in that area, we should see some sort of serious diversion from the run-of-the-mill mesoamerican religions and world views. Unlike the Nephites, who were eventually wiped out, the Lamanites "won", persisted, and could write history to reflect as such. And if their religion was different than the Mesoamerican religions, then we'd see something different in that area of hundreds of miles, stretched across numerous cities.

Instead, as far as I know, we don't see anything out of the mesoamerican ordinary for that area and time period. And you've got yourself in a corner here, because if you now want to take the position we don't see anything out of the ordinary because the lamanites were, actually, just run-of-the-mill mesoamericans, then you lose whatever benefit you get from your first argument, ie, that we don't see Nephite concern about mesoamerican religions because the Lamanites weren't run-of-the-mill mesoamericans, and instead had morphed a religion more like their past one in the Old World.

In terms of diluted influences, there are some very strong, consistent themes through mesoamerican history, which is why Coe made the statement he did that I cited above.

[USU78]

Expecto patronam!

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Aside from that, even if, as Brant claims, no speculated Nephite cities had writing (???), or rather, no evidences of writing exist in those cities in the correct time frame, and Lamanite cities had no writing either in the correct time frame, there are other ways of determining beliefs and practices.

For others' sake I will not let the misrepresentation stand. As is well known in Mesoamerican studies, writing on monuments does not appear until late in the preclassic. For most of the period of the Book of Mormon we do not have texts from any Maya culture that were written in a permanent medium. The early date was pushed back by the San Bartolo murals (estimated at A.D. 100), but they are the earliest an currently unique. As far as I know, they are also untranslated/untranslatable at present. They represent an earlier form of the language and while there are some recognizable glyphs there are a large number without later analogues.

That is very different from saying that no one had writing, which is an interesting misreading of what I said. I suspect that all Mesoamericanists suppose writing on perishable media prior to the time of writing on monumental structures. Unfortunately, none of the early perishable writing exists and if we are going to use texts to help our analysis we are pushed back to the very late preclassic and usually to the classic (most of which postdates the Book of Mormon).

I would strongly urge anyone reading this thread not to accept beastie's representation of my opinions. I do not remember one that correctly restated what I have said, let alone understood the implications of the argument.

[beastie]

For others' sake I will not let the misrepresentation stand. As is well known in Mesoamerican studies, writing on monuments does not appear until late in the preclassic. For most of the period of the Book of Mormon we do not have texts from any Maya culture that were written in a permanent medium. The early date was pushed back by the San Bartolo murals (estimated at A.D. 100), but they are the earliest an currently unique. As far as I know, they are also untranslated/untranslatable at present. They represent an earlier form of the language and while there are some recognizable glyphs there are a large number without later analogues.

That is very different from saying that no one had writing, which is an interesting misreading of what I said. I suspect that all Mesoamericanists suppose writing on perishable media prior to the time of writing on monumental structures. Unfortunately, none of the early perishable writing exists and if we are going to use texts to help our analysis we are pushed back to the very late preclassic and usually to the classic (most of which postdates the Book of Mormon).

Brant,

How do you do that? Ie, how do you quote what I said and then proceed to ignore it?

Note what I actually said:

Aside from that, even if, as Brant claims, no speculated Nephite cities had writing (???), or rather, no evidences of writing exist in those cities in the correct time frame, and Lamanite cities had no writing either in the correct time frame, there are other ways of determining beliefs and practices.

[Addictio]

Brant:

Thanks for the detailed response. I have ordered the Malina book you cite and may respond after I've read it. The concepts are interesting but I'm not sure how much time I might want to invest exploring or arguing about the outcome under the high vs low context inquiry. Since I'm not assuming the text is modern or ancient for purposes of the others" analysis, but am just bracketing the issue, the outcome of any analysis under the Malina categories may be academic (and any dispute merely verbal) and so not matter to me. Based on your use of the criteria in your response, that's the way it appears. I need to be clearer, though, about the substantive content and strictness of the determining criteria before I decide that.

Btw, and fwiw, I think the better critical argument is not that the "all those who would go" reference is authorial error, which it needn't be, and I don't think is. Rather, it's the "propogation rates" problem embedded in the narrative that creates the problem.

[Brant Gardner]

How do you do that? Ie, how do you quote what I said and then proceed to ignore it?

Note what I actually said:

Aside from that, even if, as Brant claims, no speculated Nephite cities had writing (???), or rather, no evidences of writing exist in those cities in the correct time frame, and Lamanite cities had no writing either in the correct time frame, there are other ways of determining beliefs and practices. 

I am apparently accustomed to greater precision than you are. When I read "had no writing," particularly with the question marks, it appears that you are saying that didn't have access to the art. That is worlds away from saying that it doesn't appear in permanent media until later.

Since we are speaking of lack of precision, I note that you are still very limited in what you define as religion. I have said several times that the social hierarchies that were espoused in the worldview of surrounding cultures was clearly preached against. Since you nominally agreed that this was part of religion, I have given you exactly what you asked for. I believe you have ignored it twice if not three times.

So I will continue to urge others to disregard the way you portray my position. I have yet to see it done accurately. I do find it amusing that your defense is that I am misreading what you say. Perhaps that is further indication that the conversation has no future.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I have ordered the Malina book you cite and may respond after I've read it.

I sincerely hope you enjoy it. It approaches the New Testament from the perspective of social science as well as history and has some very interesting interpretations of the milieu that created the texts. Of course it is not directly related to LDS studies, but I find the principles applicable. I hope you find them useful and interesting even if you never read it in the context of LDS apologetics.

Btw, and fwiw, I think the better critical argument is not that the "all those who would go" reference is authorial error, which it needn't be, and I don't think is. Rather, it's the "propogation rates" problem embedded in the narrative that creates the problem.

The way I read the text it is too early for propagation rates to have any influence on the discussion. Since Nephi and others certainly have children by this time who are not listed, the question would be whether they were assumed in the named families or part of the "others." Since none of the children are listed they are assumed to go with the parents. Since the "others" appear to have volition to go or not go, that does not fit children directly dependent on the families.

I cannot find any way that a normal human population could go from half of the Lehite family to the description of the city of Nephi in a single generation. One might argue propagation rates over time, but the first generation could not make up a sufficient population for the social descriptions in the city of Nephi.

The evidence of the text gives you two possibilities:

1) The text is a modern creation - therefore the implication of the city of Nephi is simply a mistake.

2) The text is an accurate depiction of events and others were present.

While this single datum might fall into either category, the combination of elements makes the first conception difficult to hold. Once you decide that the author has made mistakes in his presentation, you can't make very many arguments that require consistency in the text because you have denied that it exists.

[beastie]

I am apparently accustomed to greater precision than you are. When I read "had no writing," particularly with the question marks, it appears that you are saying that didn't have access to the art. That is worlds away from saying that it doesn't appear in permanent media until later.

Accustomed to greater precision? The kind of precision that allows you to use a highly controversial "mechanicism" to demonstrate your theory without alerting your audience that you have done so? Perhaps it is your reading that isn't precise, enough, Brant - "or rather" usually connotes a clarification.

The question marks signified that I find it odd that Nephites, who had such an advanced writing system and wrote on metal plates for literally centuries before the rest of the Mayan world began their writing, managed to disappear in all those cities without one trace of that writing.

I neglected to respond to an earlier question:

from your article:

The Mesoamerican context can supply the meaning behind each of these perplexing issues. The particular Mesoamerican feature that provides the backdrop for the events related to the Anti-Nephi Lehies is the cult of war. The recent translations of the glyphic texts serve to highlight the degree to which the cult of war permeated Maya society, even in the late Pre-Classic that is the time period for the Book of Mormon.

The cult of war glorified combat and capture. The function of warfare was multiple, with the expansion of influence being only one of the purposes. The glyphs tell of shifting political influence of major city-states as they gain or lose influence over other city-states. Combined with this territorial and economic purpose, however, was a religious one. The cult of war fed on captives, and particularly the sacrifice of captives. Mesoamerican religion was seldom far from human sacrifice, and the cult of war literally fed the sacrificial rites of the victors.

I questioned:

Another important omission, which is crucial to understanding the

[beastie]

While looking through some of my old files, I found some pertinent citations regarding metallurgy in Mesoamerica.

Here are a few quotes that delve further into this issue, taken from Jared Diamond

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

I will admit that I haven't always read every post I've responded to as carefully as I ought. However, if I misrepresent a person I try to apologize and correct it - I really try not to compound the problem my contuing to misrepresent.

From your most recent:

Accustomed to greater precision? The kind of precision that allows you to use a highly controversial "mechanicism" to demonstrate your theory without alerting your audience that you have done so?

Controversial mechanism? Really? Which one and controversial to whom? Are you suggesting that trade is controversial? Are you suggesting that it is controversial that trade brings contact with other peoples that can lead to exchange of other ideas?

I suppose you continue to be fixated on metals - where you are unhappy that in one article where the purpose was for a very narrow audience I didn't mention that metals at that time were controversial. As I have noted repeatedly, I have so indicated in other places so you can hardly suggest that I am hiding the fact. I have also indicated that there are data that indicate that the archaeological absence may be more to the luck of the find rather than reality. We have linguistic evidence that you ignore, and actual archaeological evidence that you want to deny without any contrary evidence except general statements that weren't intended to deal with the specifics at hand.

Now - you attempt to answer by creating a sarcastic response that fails because it demonstrates that you still don't handle the data.

Yes - I am used to much greater precision than that. I expect that someone who wants to deal with data actually do so rather than assume that a general statement is sufficient contradiction for a specific artifact. Please find me anyone in archaeology that would suggest that if there is an authenticated artifact it can be dismissed because we don't believe it should have existed. I am used to people making at least some attempt to accurately portray the information they are dealing with rather than consistently misrepresent it.

The question marks signified that I find it odd that Nephites, who had such an advanced writing system and wrote on metal plates for literally centuries before the rest of the Mayan world began their writing, managed to disappear in all those cities without one trace of that writing.

Yes, that is exactly how I understood your issue. That is exactly why I indicated that you have completely misunderstood both my statements and the data at hand. Do you know I have been literate for nearly a half century and have never written on any permanent medium? You are making an incredibly naive assumption that the lack of writing on permanent media equates with the lack of writing at all. I would have hoped you knew better but since you have just reiterated the idea that Nephites were writing before the Maya. I don't know of any Mesoamericanist who would agree. The assumption is that there are written languages much earlier than when we find them on the Maya monuments.

You have repeated this statement several times. Please learn. It is incorrect. It is not supported by archaeologists. If you could ask Coe he would tell you the same thing. Writing systems existed prior to the time a record of them has been preserved. What was done on perishable materials perished. Your adamant restatement of something that it is contrary to what would be obvious to any Mesoamericanist continues to demonstrate that you misunderstand the data and therefore misrepresent it.

Another amazing misrepresentation is underlined in the following section from your post

I neglected to respond to an earlier question:

from your article:

[bG article]

The Mesoamerican context can supply the meaning behind each of these perplexing issues. The particular Mesoamerican feature that provides the backdrop for the events related to the Anti-Nephi Lehies is the cult of war. The recent translations of the glyphic texts serve to highlight the degree to which the cult of war permeated Maya society, even in the late Pre-Classic that is the time period for the Book of Mormon.

The cult of war glorified combat and capture. The function of warfare was multiple, with the expansion of influence being only one of the purposes. The glyphs tell of shifting political influence of major city-states as they gain or lose influence over other city-states. Combined with this territorial and economic purpose, however, was a religious one. The cult of war fed on captives, and particularly the sacrifice of captives. Mesoamerican religion was seldom far from human sacrifice, and the cult of war literally fed the sacrificial rites of the victors. [end quotation]

I questioned:

[beastie previous]

Another important omission, which is crucial to understanding the

[beastie]

Controversial mechanism? Really? Which one and controversial to whom? Are you suggesting that trade is controversial? Are you suggesting that it is controversial that trade brings contact with other peoples that can lead to exchange of other ideas?

I'm not sure what the purpose this serves since you clearly understand what portion of your mechanism is highly controversial.

suppose you continue to be fixated on metals - where you are unhappy that in one article where the purpose was for a very narrow audience I didn't mention that metals at that time were controversial. As I have noted repeatedly, I have so indicated in other places so you can hardly suggest that I am hiding the fact. I have also indicated that there are data that indicate that the archaeological absence may be more to the luck of the find rather than reality. We have linguistic evidence that you ignore, and actual archaeological evidence that you want to deny without any contrary evidence except general statements that weren't intended to deal with the specifics at hand.

This excuse doesn't cut it. You are in a position of some authority in the apologist community in regards to this particular aspect of BoM apologetics. I have found, on these internet boards at least, believers who do have some interest and awareness of these issues often repeat statements you have made in an authoritative manner. (such as the chronology of the bom being such a great match to mesoamerican history) When you are in a position of authority with people with less knowledge referring to you to bolster their arguments, you have a responsibility to warn your audience - even this "narrow" one (how narrow can it be, since it's on the meridian site, btw?) - when you are engaging in generally unaccepted speculation. You cannot assume that your audience already knows this.

I am a bit mystified why you feel comfortable making the statements you do about metallurgy in Mesoamerica when I'm beginning to suspect you haven't done much research on that pariticular topic, in regards to archaeological evidence. Else why in the world would you not have further investigated those two "hints" that were so suggestive? You know, when I googled this researcher's name, Sigvald Linne, along with smelting, there are seven results, six of which are LDS apologetics sites which simply repeat Sorenson's footnotes. Who has actually read these old articles which are so favored among apologists? If critics were this sloppy, you'd be all over them like white on rice and you know it.

And the linguistic evidence? Do you have something more than Sorensons' statement I cited? If not, this is evidence of the existence of metal, not metallurgy.

Yes - I am used to much greater precision than that. I expect that someone who wants to deal with data actually do so rather than assume that a general statement is sufficient contradiction for a specific artifact. Please find me anyone in archaeology that would suggest that if there is an authenticated artifact it can be dismissed because we don't believe it should have existed. I am used to people making at least some attempt to accurately portray the information they are dealing with rather than consistently misrepresent it.

What authenticated artifact are you talking about? Sigvald Linne's? If you are going to invest so much in those finds, shouldn't you at least do some research to figure out exactly what he did find, and why, if it was clear evidence of smelting, have later mesoamerican scholars not utilized it in some way?

Yes, that is exactly how I understood your issue. That is exactly why I indicated that you have completely misunderstood both my statements and the data at hand. Do you know I have been literate for nearly a half century and have never written on any permanent medium? You are making an incredibly naive assumption that the lack of writing on permanent media equates with the lack of writing at all. I would have hoped you knew better but since you have just reiterated the idea that Nephites were writing before the Maya. I don't know of any Mesoamericanist who would agree. The assumption is that there are written languages much earlier than when we find them on the Maya monuments.

I've also read Breaking the Mayan Code, so I will come back with specific quotes later (although I'm now procrastinating some Christmas chores so it may be a while) that I believe demonstrate you are being misleading here. Certainly they may have used nonpermanent media, but that does not give you the flexibility you seem to want to inject in this conversation. We are talking about a culture that wrote on metal plates, using a very advanced form of writing and literacy for literally centuries before the simplest forms of writing began to show up in Mesoamerica.

You are concerned about women and children. That was your first objection. In my reply I noted that the capture of women and children was late. Your response is to suggest that since I spoke about the cult of war with reference to the Anti-Nephi-Lehies (the fact that you get their name wrong further demonstrates a lack of familiarity with data and precision) that I must be speaking of the capture of women and children. You state very specifically that I suggest that they go to Ammonihah to get women and children to sacrifice.

Please provide that statement. I know I didn't make it. I did suggest that the cult of war was the reason they went to Ammonihah, but I certainly don't remember defining the nature of the captives. There is no textual indication of gender or age - they simply had captives. If you can provide the place where I specifically stated that the captives mentioned in the text (which are not identified by sex or age) must have been women and children, I would apologize. Until that time, I will go with my very clear recollection.

Since you have read my article available on the FAIR website entitled Social History of the Early Nephites, I looked through it to see what you were misreading. The only mention of women and children in connection to the Anti-Nephi-Lehies refers to the idea that women and children appear to be considered "murderers" in their self-declaration of their need to repent. I suggest that it is because they participated in the religion that condoned human sacrifice - not that they were human sacrifices.

All right, then tell me what evidence there is, in the specified time period, that the Mayans would have gone to another city, unrelated to the actual combat, to obtain human sacrifices, period. In addition, explain why you connect this to the Teotihuacano influence, which was actually not a factor until centuries later, speaking of precision.

[Confidential Informant]

I'm not sure what the purpose this serves since you clearly understand what portion of your mechanism is highly controversial.

And what if he'd chosen some other mechanism, something "less controversial" in your view? Then where would your argument be? Nowhere. No matter what mechanism he chooses, you are failing to address the point he was making by focusing on the minutia of his argument rather than the thrust of it.

This excuse doesn't cut it.  You are in a position of some authority in the apologist community in regards to this particular aspect of BoM apologetics.  I have found, on these internet boards at least, believers who do have some interest and awareness of these issues often repeat statements you have made in an authoritative manner.  (such as the chronology of the bom being such a great match to mesoamerican history)

Gee, and I've heard no less an authority than John Clark state the exact same thing. And I suspect Clark's credentials are even better than Brants and even begin to rival Coe's.

When you are in a position of authority with people with less knowledge referring to you to bolster their arguments, you have a responsibility to warn your audience - even this "narrow" one (how narrow can it be, since it's on the meridian site, btw?) - when you are engaging in generally unaccepted speculation.  You cannot assume that your audience already knows this. 

Of course, if Brant were engaging in this exact same speculation in regards to any other topic besides the B of M, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Then again, before you trashing his thesis, it would have behoved you to actually find out that evidence does exist to support Brant's thesis (a fact you continue to violently ignore).

I am a bit mystified why you feel comfortable making the statements you do about metallurgy in Mesoamerica when I'm beginning to suspect you haven't done much research on that pariticular topic, in regards to archaeological evidence.

Well he's obviously done more than you. You appear to have been completely unaware of the linguistic evidence and you blissfully ignored the evidence from Peru (which you think was somehow insulted from the portion of mesoamerica we are referring to but provide to no evidence of this imagined cross-cultural barrier). And when presented with the evidence and provided the citation your sole response to try and discredit it by mocking the source and stating that it isn't sufficient. Well, I'm unsure on what basis you autoritatively claim that it is insufficient as I've scientific advancements with as much or less evidence. (Geez, I've seen the timeline of the emergence of man pushed back a millenia based on a jaw bone!).

Else why in the world would you not have further investigated those two "hints" that were so suggestive?

Further ignoring the fact that metal working is merely tangental to Brant's argument.

You know, when I googled this researcher's name, Sigvald Linne,  along with smelting, there are seven results, six of which are LDS apologetics sites which simply repeat Sorenson's footnotes.  Who has actually read these old articles which are so favored among apologists?  If critics were this sloppy, you'd be all over them like white on rice and you know it.

More deprication of the source w/o actually addressing it. Is it really so hard to admit that Brant thesis is, at the very least, plausible?

And the linguistic evidence?  Do you have something more than Sorensons' statement I cited?  If not, this is evidence of the existence of metal, not metallurgy.

And if he does have it, so what? You don't speak or read the relevant language. He could show you a word and say that it says, "Kilroy was here" and you wouldn't know the difference.

What authenticated artifact are you talking about?  Sigvald Linne's?  If you are going to invest so much in those finds, shouldn't you at least do some research to figure out exactly what he did find, and why, if it was clear evidence of smelting, have later mesoamerican scholars not utilized it in some way? 

Hold on cowgirl. Who ever said it was "clear" evidence? The cite I provided from Sorenson doesn't say that at all. The artifact in question I'm thinking of was a small vessel of some sort that had a metallic mass inside that appeared to show evidence of primative smelting. No one, not I, not Brant, not even Sorenson, has claimed that its "clear evidence" of smelting. It's a clue, a hint that suggests something more may have been going on, nothing more.

We are talking about a culture that wrote on metal plates, using a very advanced form of writing and literacy for literally centuries before the simplest forms of writing began to show up in Mesoamerica.

A complete misunderstanding of what the B of M actually says.

C.I.

[Addictio]

Brant:

Yes, the initial morph from family to society is crucial in part because this dictates the timing of the entry/infusion point for the Native Americans. Sorenson's failure to address the infusion point and its implications in his initial article was surprising to me. Later, in Before DNA, he and Roper acknowledge the issue, remarking that "We who are confident of the historicity of the Book of Mormon are assured from these incidents and other textual refereences that substantial numbers of local "native" residents had joined the immigrant parties." Hmm, an artful sentence, don't you think? I won't belabor the point, since you and I have been the rounds ad nauseum on the implications of this for the text and disagree about its significance.

Anyway, I don't follow what you're saying in your final paragraph here:

The evidence of the text gives you two possibilities:

1) The text is a modern creation - therefore the implication of the city of Nephi is simply a mistake.

2) The text is an accurate depiction of events and others were present.

While this single datum might fall into either category, the combination of elements makes the first conception difficult to hold. Once you decide that the author has made mistakes in his presentation, you can't make very many arguments that require consistency in the text because you have denied that it exists.

Care to clarify the last sentence? Denied that what exists?

Added by edit: I expect you mean "consistency." If so, I don't see how finding one inconsistency impairs one's ability to identify others, or make inferences about how each one bears on the historicity question.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

This is getting very tiring. Remember that I went through a list of things that you misread, misunderstood and misrepresented? I suppose it should be no surprise that the trend has continued in your last. I really don't want to continue discussing with you. I have tried to stop twice - but I do find it hard to allow personal accusations to stand. Therefore I will try again.

I'm not sure what the purpose this serves since you clearly understand what portion of your mechanism is highly controversial.

I am not sure what you discussion serves. You pulled a small part of a large argument out of context and have entirely ignored the actual argument. What you seem unhappy about is that I neglected to add a footnote that you thought should be there. I am happy to apologize for the lack of the footnote. I will make sure that it is anything I write about such things in future just to make you happy. However, that doesn't deal with the actual issue of the argument.

I find it offensive that you continue to play on this as though I were attempting to hide something - and then you continue to suggest something infamous when I demonstrate that I have nothing to hide.

This excuse doesn't cut it. You are in a position of some authority in the apologist community in regards to this particular aspect of BoM apologetics.

Interesting. I hadn't know that. Is that why you strapped on your sixguns and came looking for a showdown?

When you are in a position of authority with people with less knowledge referring to you to bolster their arguments, you have a responsibility to warn your audience - even this "narrow" one (how narrow can it be, since it's on the meridian site, btw?) - when you are engaging in generally unaccepted speculation. You cannot assume that your audience already knows this.

Well, you might make an attempt to understand the audience the article was intended for before you get too excited. That paper was presented to a FAIR conference several years ago. Even more than the more recent ones, the earlier conferences were gatherings of believers who were looking for more information. So yes, it was a narrow audience. The inclusion in Meridian came much later.

Now, if you look at the entire argument you will notice that the idea of metalworking is an explanation for the Nephite interest in ores and a speculation of what they might be doing ith the metal. The actual argument was about trade. Since the speculation was about the text and in that case not a Mesoamerican connection I still don't see it as compromised. I'll discuss your interesting position about evidence later.

I am a bit mystified why you feel comfortable making the statements you do about metallurgy in Mesoamerica when I'm beginning to suspect you haven't done much research on that pariticular topic, in regards to archaeological evidence.

Let me see. Have you made statements about metallurgy in Mesoamerica? To date I have read every book you have mentioned you are looking through, so my understanding cannot be more limited than yours. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be speaking about Mesoamerican metallurgy? Please solve this for me because I am not sure I understand why it is OK for you to make baseless assertions simply because you have read a couple of books, but I cannot make any kind of comment on the same topic although I have read the same books. I really don't understand.

Else why in the world would you not have further investigated those two "hints" that were so suggestive?

The last time I explained this to someone they were shocked, if I remember. The simple fact is that I am not particularly interested in the issue. Since there is very little evidence for metalworking and it is pretty clear that whatever was beging done with metals did not supplant stone as the implement of choice, I find it a non-issue. I am not interested in proving the Book of Mormon. I don't see that anyone has done it (short of spiritual witness) so I prefer to explain it. Of course I think it deserves explanations that follow academic standards, but that is quite different from proof.

So I haven't researched metals because it isn't very interesting to me. To tell you the truth, I really don't see any imperative that I should do so. Sorry to disappoint you.

And the linguistic evidence? Do you have something more than Sorensons' statement I cited? If not, this is evidence of the existence of metal, not metallurgy.

Of course. Did you think I said anything different? What I have said is that an argument from silence is dangerous when there are indications of metal at earlier periods. It suggests that the archaeological void may not be to a lack of knowledge of metallurgy but a lack of finding very much.

What authenticated artifact are you talking about? Sigvald Linne's? If you are going to invest so much in those finds, shouldn't you at least do some research to figure out exactly what he did find, and why, if it was clear evidence of smelting, have later mesoamerican scholars not utilized it in some way?

Yes. Until I see the evidence that there is something wrong with the report, I have to deal with it. You should deal with it. However, instead of dealing with it you attempt to make it go away with an appeal to authority that Addictio would wince to see. You are suggesting that because neither Coe nor Schele mentioned Linne that therefore there must be something wrong with Linne's find. That is an improper conclusion from the data at hand. The only thing you can say is that they didn't mention it. You may not conclude that since they are later that they or someone else has dismissed it. That goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

If you were to ask why Coe and Schele wouldn't mention it, you could look at the statements you posted where they mentioned that Mesoamericans weren't metal users. That is quite true, and true even if everyone accepts Linne's find as evidence that there was knowledge of mettalurgy. They were discussing the general orientation to stone implements rather than metal. They were not intending their statements to be a categorical denial of any possible data. You are misrepresenting them and confusing the issues. You are demonstrating the truth of the aphorism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I've also read Breaking the Mayan Code, so I will come back with specific quotes later (although I'm now procrastinating some Christmas chores so it may be a while) that I believe demonstrate you are being misleading here.

I have read it as well. I will be very interested in seeing how you demonstrate that the Maya never learned to write until they decided to carve words on rock monuments. Please - it will be very interesting.

Certainly they may have used nonpermanent media, but that does not give you the flexibility you seem to want to inject in this conversation.

What flexibility? I have said that writing among the Maya preceded the time when they were writing on stone monuments. That isn't a flexible statement. It is pretty solid. I have said that there are evidences of earlier writing systems than the Maya. That is a pretty firm statement. I am not looking for flexibility, only accuracy. You have made assertions that are known to be incorrect. I would really like to see you correct them. If you go back to your books and read carefully, you will find it.

We are talking about a culture that wrote on metal plates, using a very advanced form of writing and literacy for literally centuries before the simplest forms of writing began to show up in Mesoamerica.

We need to deconstruct this sentence.

1) metal plates. You seem to imply that if the Nephites had them then everyone did. Please refer to the use of metal plates for writing in the Old World to note when they were used, by whom, and what percentage of writing materials they comprise. You will find that they are rare and typically associated with wealthy people/rulers. Then look at the end of the book of Omni where the plates aren't continued because they are runnign out. The large plates of Nephi never run out. Why? The text doesn't say, but if you use the enthohistoric analogy of the Old World the answer is that Jacob's descendants didn't have the wherewithal, but the large plates stayed with rulers who did. Now, combine that with a guarded technique that was kept from others to improve an economic advantage and you have a very parsimonious explanation for Nephite plates that are not widely replicated.

2) a very advanced form of writing and literacy for literally centuries before the simplest forms of writing began to show up in Mesoamerica. I think most linguists would have problems with that statement. Writing is pretty sophisticated. However, suggesting that Mesoamerican writing couldn't have been sophisticated based on the absence of evidence is a dangerous hypothesis. Every time a writing system is found that replicates vocabulary and grammar, it has been sophisticated. One more time you are creating an argument based on a lack of evidence. In this case, however, there are enough hints available in Mesoamerica that what data do exist contradict your position.

For instance, Kauffman and Justeson suggest that Epi-Olmec glyphs hold keys to the development of Maya glyphs. There are Maya glyphs that have a phonetic value that do not appear to match the probable pictogram of the glyph. However, in Zoquean the phonetics/meaning/graphics all match. This strongly suggested to them that the Maya glyphs are adopted from an earlier culture that was more closely related to the Olmec. This at least opens the possibility of a sophisticaed Olmec glyphic writing which has not been preserved on the monuments. All of it is in direct contrast to your reading.

[following my request that beastie show where I made the statements he erroneously ascribed to me]

All right,

That isn't much of an apology or admission, but I guess it is as good as I will get. In case anyone else missed it, beastie is admitting that he misread an article and misrepresented it.

then tell me what evidence there is, in the specified time period, that the Mayans would have gone to another city, unrelated to the actual combat, to obtain human sacrifices, period.

Since writing on monuments comes from later periods and the only data for this comes from those monuments, one cannot supply data for the correct time period. It isn't available. However, data for later periods indicate that this is a fairly common occurence and cultural conservativism suggests that it is not unfair to suggest that earlier people would have reacted in the same way. For those interested in Maya accension rituals I would recomment Martin and Grube's Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens. I found the information about finding an easy mark there and that is what suggested the Ammonihah scenario to me.

In addition, explain why you connect this to the Teotihuacano influence, which was actually not a factor until centuries later, speaking of precision.

I speak of precision because you continually confuse things. The Teotihuacano influence is later and that is when we see the sacrifice of women and children, a practice that is noted as unusual at that time. I mentioned this when I was informing you that you had misunderstood me. I know the difference in times and I gave you the only case in the Book of Mormon where the situation you described occurs - and I mentioned that it had nothing to do with the Ammonihah incident. Now you are asking me why I link Ammonihah and Teotihuacan? Please try to read a little more carefully. I would think it embarassing if I were to make such simple and obvious mistakes.

To make things very simple for you, I never associated Teotihuacan with Ammonihah. You did that. I am not responsible for your mistakes in reading, remembering or comprehending.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I expect you mean "consistency." If so, I don't see how finding one inconsistency impairs one's ability to identify others, or make inferences about how each one bears on the historicity question.

If you are going to suggest that "errors" in the text are due to the modern author, then you lose the ability to use the text as a source of meaning. If the meaning is dependent upon a modern author who doesn't handle the situation and shows his ignorance in places where errors are made, then that very inconsistency in the text tells you that it is dangerous to make arguments that rely upon textual consistency. In the case in point, if it is authorial error that has too many people leaving with Nephi rather than an actual record of "others," then how do you know that the self-identification of Lamanites as Israelites represents a reality of the text or an authorial error?

The moment that you suggest that the presence of the Lamanite=Israelite argument is dependent upon the external intention of an authtor, you are using exactly the same argument I was using, but changing the historical date of the author a few thousand years.

Tell me if you come up with more than the following three posssibilities:

1) The self-declaring Lamanite was accurately describing his genealogy. If this is the case, then the Book of Mormon must be an ancient document since that is the only way the statement could be literally correct.

2) A modern author put that declaration in the mouth of the speaker to serve his authorial intent/cultural understanding.

3) An ancient author put that declaration in the mouth of the speaker to serve his authorial intent/cultural understanding.

Since we know that number 3 has happened in other literature in the past, it cannot be ruled out without other factors. Since 2 is certainly possible, it cannot be ruled out without other factors - but similarly it cannot be considered determinative because it is so closely related in logic to 3.

Any other options?

[beastie]

I am not sure what you discussion serves. You pulled a small part of a large argument out of context and have entirely ignored the actual argument. What you seem unhappy about is that I neglected to add a footnote that you thought should be there. I am happy to apologize for the lack of the footnote. I will make sure that it is anything I write about such things in future just to make you happy. However, that doesn't deal with the actual issue of the argument.

I find it offensive that you continue to play on this as though I were attempting to hide something - and then you continue to suggest something infamous when I demonstrate that I have nothing to hide.

Brant,

Both you and CI have insisted that the metal working was an innocuous, apparently insignifcant part of your talk, actually not necessary to your larger point. If that is the case, then why didn't you choose a mechanism without the baggage of metal working? It seems obvious to me that you were using the BoM as your guide, which does, of course, say that Nephi taught his people metal working.

What I am suggesting is that you make statements that are very easy for believers without any background in the subject to misconstrue. This is one example. The challenges to creating a justification for BoM historicity are much more complex than you present. Another example is you saying that the BoM chronology is a great match for mesoamerican history, including the end period of destruction. Yet that statement requires a great amount of qualification to be anything other than extremely misleading. The only reason I continue to bring it up is because you, ironically, continue to accuse me of lack of precision, when this talk of yours demonstrates that very problem. I also bring this up because I think it is not an uncommon problem in BoM apologetics. It's faith promoting, but over simplified to the point of being misleading.

Interesting. I hadn't know that. Is that why you strapped on your sixguns and came looking for a showdown?

No. Ironically again, you triggered my interest in learning more about Mesoamerican history. This, in turn, triggered a genuine fascination with these people and their history. This, in turn, triggers my irritation when I see you making statements that, while faith promoting, are misleading. I don't care how you justify it, giving a talk that is later published and saying "let's assume nephi taught his people metal working skills" without ONE WORD about what a highly speculative, controversial proposition that is, can only be called misleading.

Actually, I wish more believers and nonbelievers had background in this topic, it would be more interesting if more people participated. I'm not gunning for "you", I'm gunning for BoM apologetics. To be more specific, I'm gunning for BoM historicity apologetics. It doesn't bother me a bit when people regard it as a spiritual document. Sorry, it's about the only mormon topic that interests me anymore.

Let me see. Have you made statements about metallurgy in Mesoamerica? To date I have read every book you have mentioned you are looking through, so my understanding cannot be more limited than yours. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be speaking about Mesoamerican metallurgy? Please solve this for me because I am not sure I understand why it is OK for you to make baseless assertions simply because you have read a couple of books, but I cannot make any kind of comment on the same topic although I have read the same books. I really don't understand.

The only comments I have made is to quote what the notable scholars have said. You are the one who is going out on a limb, going against the scholarly tide, and seeming to insist that it's quite possible, and there exist suggestive "hints", that metallurgy existed in mesoamerica during the BoM period. If someone is going against the accepted tide in this way, it seems to me incumbent on that person to be (A) somewhat interested in the topic and ( to have done some background research on the topic in order to feel comfortable going against the opinions of notable scholars on the subject.

Besides, you're the expert, not me. I don't understand why you and CI never fail to point this out, and then hold me to a standard you resist me imposing on you.

The last time I explained this to someone they were shocked, if I remember. The simple fact is that I am not particularly interested in the issue. Since there is very little evidence for metalworking and it is pretty clear that whatever was beging done with metals did not supplant stone as the implement of choice, I find it a non-issue. I am not interested in proving the Book of Mormon. I don't see that anyone has done it (short of spiritual witness) so I prefer to explain it. Of course I think it deserves explanations that follow academic standards, but that is quite different from proof.

So I haven't researched metals because it isn't very interesting to me. To tell you the truth, I really don't see any imperative that I should do so. Sorry to disappoint you.

Gee, then I suggest staying away from using metal working skills as a mechanism in the future.

QUOTE 

And the linguistic evidence? Do you have something more than Sorensons' statement I cited? If not, this is evidence of the existence of metal, not metallurgy. 

Of course. Did you think I said anything different? What I have said is that an argument from silence is dangerous when there are indications of metal at earlier periods. It suggests that the archaeological void may not be to a lack of knowledge of metallurgy but a lack of finding very much.

Of course what? Of course you have something more than Sorensons' statement? Or of course the only evidence is for the existence of metal, not metallurgy. I think you mean the latter, in which case this is another example of oversimplifying or omitting important information that totally alters the strength of the evidence. No one is contesting that Mayans used metals obtained through outcrops. That is mentioned over and over. What people are contesting is that they used metallurgy, which is what is described in the BoM.

Yes. Until I see the evidence that there is something wrong with the report, I have to deal with it. You should deal with it. However, instead of dealing with it you attempt to make it go away with an appeal to authority that Addictio would wince to see. You are suggesting that because neither Coe nor Schele mentioned Linne that therefore there must be something wrong with Linne's find. That is an improper conclusion from the data at hand. The only thing you can say is that they didn't mention it. You may not conclude that since they are later that they or someone else has dismissed it. That goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

If you were to ask why Coe and Schele wouldn't mention it, you could look at the statements you posted where they mentioned that Mesoamericans weren't metal users. That is quite true, and true even if everyone accepts Linne's find as evidence that there was knowledge of mettalurgy. They were discussing the general orientation to stone implements rather than metal. They were not intending their statements to be a categorical denial of any possible data. You are misrepresenting them and confusing the issues. You are demonstrating the truth of the aphorism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Unbelievable. I'll have to come back to this later, right now anything I say will be truly inflammatory.

have read it as well. I will be very interested in seeing how you demonstrate that the Maya never learned to write until they decided to carve words on rock monuments. Please - it will be very interesting.

That is not what I said, is it? You know it's not, due to your this comment:

What flexibility? I have said that writing among the Maya preceded the time when they were writing on stone monuments. That isn't a flexible statement. It is pretty solid. I have said that there are evidences of earlier writing systems than the Maya. That is a pretty firm statement. I am not looking for flexibility, only accuracy. You have made assertions that are known to be incorrect. I would really like to see you correct them. If you go back to your books and read carefully, you will find it.

I think part of our problem is that you tend to be very vague and ambigious in many of your responses, until pinned to the wall. My impression is that you were trying to present the case that it would not be unreasonable to assume that Mayans could have a complex writing system at the time the BoM presents, yet we would not see evidence of that on stone (or ceramics) until many centuries later. If that was not what you were trying to imply, I have no idea what your point was.

You were somehow trying to explain how it would be reasonable for nephites to have a complex system of literacy for centuries, extending over hundreds of miles and several cities, and yet we see no trace of it, smack within a greater culture that not only used perishable materials for writing, but nonperishable ones as well. (not to mention metal plates!)

1) metal plates. You seem to imply that if the Nephites had them then everyone did. Please refer to the use of metal plates for writing in the Old World to note when they were used, by whom, and what percentage of writing materials they comprise. You will find that they are rare and typically associated with wealthy people/rulers. Then look at the end of the book of Omni where the plates aren't continued because they are runnign out. The large plates of Nephi never run out. Why? The text doesn't say, but if you use the enthohistoric analogy of the Old World the answer is that Jacob's descendants didn't have the wherewithal, but the large plates stayed with rulers who did. Now, combine that with a guarded technique that was kept from others to improve an economic advantage and you have a very parsimonious explanation for Nephite plates that are not widely replicated.

I never stated or implied they would be "widely replicated". In a history that extended over many centuries, throughout several cities, it wouldn't have to be widely replicated.

2) a very advanced form of writing and literacy for literally centuries before the simplest forms of writing began to show up in Mesoamerica. I think most linguists would have problems with that statement. Writing is pretty sophisticated. However, suggesting that Mesoamerican writing couldn't have been sophisticated based on the absence of evidence is a dangerous hypothesis.

Congratulations on slightly changing my argument, just enough to suit your purposes.

How likely is it that a culture that had a very advanced form of writing and literacy for literally centuries, that definitely wrote on metal plates, and was smack in the middle of a culture that used stone and ceramics for pictorial representations, and later for writing, would disappear without a single trace of that advanced literacy?

QUOTE 

All right,

That isn't much of an apology or admission, but I guess it is as good as I will get. In case anyone else missed it, beastie is admitting that he misread an article and misrepresented it.

This is an amusing aside from the person who blantantly misread my own comments ("or rather" ring a bell?), and insisted he apologizes when he does so, but then proceeds to tell me how the problem is my lack of reading comprehension?

Anyway, I have to go now, I don't have anymore time for this right now. I'm not sure I'll have time tomorrow, either. But I will be back.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

The last several threads are becoming quite repetitious with no new information being presented. Since we seem to have come to an end of the current set of issues, I went back over the thread and tried to pull out the particular issues that have been discussed. Obviously this is my perspective on them and I am sure yours differs.

1) On the issue of the Lamanites being Maya: You have dropped your original point. I have consistently indicated that it is misleading to suggest a direct correlation, but that it is reasonable to say that Lamanites participated in Maya culture (those that were in the Maya area).

Nephites were in the Maya area until around 200 B.C. when they left. They went to Zarahemla which was not a Maya area. Hence it is erroneous to assume Maya culture for Nephites after 200 B.C. Zarahemla would have been dominated by Zoqueans and that is a different language and culture. Again, it is resonable that they were part of the general Mesoamerican area, but calling Zoqueans Maya is akin to calling Germans French.

2) On the issue of religious influence from Mesoamerica on the Nephites: I have suggested that the socio-religious complex identified with costly apparel and not working with one's own hands/paid preists (social hierarchies) were influential in the land of Zarahemla and that they constitute the particular aspects of Mesoamerican religion that Nephite prophets preached against. You have never responded. I have also suggested that when matters of theological import were discussed that the prophets were concerned with apostates from Nephite beliefs because their ideas were close to their own and therefore dangerous. This is supported by the history of the Biblical prophets and their targets. You have had an intersesting response that hasn't actually dealt with this issue. You attempted to redefine "close" as proximate and to attempt yet again to bolster your assertion that Maya religion should have influenced the Nephites.

In the case of social pressures, it did. In the case of theology, it was too distant to be dangerous. Historical precedent supports my reading. Your reading is based solely on your assumption of what should have happened. I see no reason to prefer your guess to the evidence of historical peoples.

3) On the issue of metals: You asked for archaeological evidence of smelting and it was provided. You then attempted to re-support your case by trying two different tactics. On the one hand you asserted that Coe and Schele must have had some evidence discrediting the archaeological evidence because they didn't mention it. You also began a second line of argument that scolded me for not putting in a footnote you thought I should have.

On the first issue, you still have physical evidence of smelting sitting there that you have not specifically discredited. The best you can do is assert that Coe and Schele must not believe it because they have made generalized statements about Mesoamericans using stone tools rather than metal. That far overreaches what they have said. They did not, and you have not, specifically discredited physical evidence. I understand that you were surprised, but that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. It is still a fact that metallurgy was not widespread and that Mesoamericans preferred stone tools. Coe and Schele are perfectly correct in that. However, an actual artifact cannot be dismissed by the kind of generalities you are attempting.

As for my relationship to the study of Mesoamerican metallurgy, if you wish to slap my wrist for not footnoting something you think I should have, I will accept that. I will remind you, however, that it still does not deal with physical evidence.

You set out a hypothesis about metals and you have a huge piece of contradictory evidence which does not go away when you attempt to recast someones words to mean something other than what they say. What is your final argument against the evidence that contradicts your position? "Now, you state, the burden is mine to overturn your references. I'm sorry, CI, you simply have not provided enough information." Let's see. Direct evidence, with citations, that absolutely contradicts your position and does so with a specific artifact. Please let me know how that could possibly not be enough?

4) You intimated that I thought that there were no more than a 1,000 Nephites. This was demonstrated to be a misreading of what I had said. You did apologize. Thank you.

5) You suggested that a document that is "riddled with ethnocentricity" such as the Book of Mormon couldn't be ancient/authentic. The fact is that this is precisely what is expected of an ancient text. This statement is contrary to accepted ethnohistorical understanding.

6) You asserted that I made a point of women and children being sacrificed in the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. This was shown to be another misreading. You compounded that problem my continuing to misread and assume I mentined Teotihuacan in connection with the events at Ammonihah. That entire line of reasoning because with a misreading and continued with misreadings. Thankfully, you let it drop after your errors were disclosed.

7) It is a very minor point, but you suggested that the iron mirrors were a fashion accessory. That suggests a limited understanding of their importance in Mesoamerican society. Perhaps a misunderstanding if not a misreading?

You have attempted to make some point about early writing in Mesoamerica. Where your original arguments indicated that you didn't think that Mesoamericans had writing systems that early, you have backed off that point. That is good, because you were running contrary to current understandings of Mesoamerica. Now you have shifted to an argument that emphasized Nephite metal plates and argues by insinuation that they should have been widely used. You have ignored the list of data I provided from the Old World showing how such plates were used - that contradicts your theory that they should have been widespread. I also showed how the Book of Mormon text demonstrates rarity rather than commonplace availability. You have ignored all of the substance and simply altered your argument - but in a way that is still contrary to historical data.

9) You brought up an example I gave of "false Christs" referring to an early version of the Aztec ixiptla. Unfortunately, you confused Maya with Zoque and Nephite with Mulekite. Since you didn't take care in dealing with the textual descriptions of who was doing what and when, you misread the entire argument. Thankfully, you have dropped this point as well.

10) You stated: "For some reason, Brant limits the possible effect of Mayan/Lamanites to up to 200 BC, without explanation." The fact that you could state such after reading the post where are gave the explanation suggests that you misread/misunderstood that post. That has been a theme in this thread. Way too frequently your arguments are based on either a misreading or misunderstanding. By the way, for a quick refresher - since the Nephites left the Maya area and went to Zarahemla at this time (which was Zoquean) then the potential Maya influence is limited to the time when they were in contact. That should be simple.

==========

That appears to be the summary of issues discussed. Of all of them, your strongest point is that there is no widespread metallurgy during the time period of the Book of Mormon. However, since I have no problem with that statement, I don't see much reason to continue the discussion. My point is that the current absence of evidence is not a commanding silence such as you assume it to be. Nevertheless, I don't see any new issues here and the most recent trend in this part of the thread is to acrimony rather than analysis. I will stop playing.

In the entire list of issues there is nothing where I can see that you have held a demonstrable point. In many cases, you are asserting your opinion against the contrary evidence of human populations. In other cases, you are simply making arguments that are based on misreading/misunderstanding/misrepresenting statements and data.

If you have something new, you could present it. I have no interest in further rehashing any of the above.

[Quinn]

beastie:

The last several threads are becoming quite repetitious with no new information being presented. . . . <snip>

. . . which is exactly how several posters on ZLMB felt in "discussions" with a poster going by the user name of "seven of niine."

Hmmmmm....This thread seems oddly reminiscent of many of the exchanges with her about Mesoamerica....

2 + 2 =

[juliann]

Although most are open about their identity, I suspect that we have several ZLMB sock puppets in our midst.

Good thread, Brant...I am eagerly awaiting your commentary series.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

The last post I left for you discussed the problem of attemting to make too much out of the self-identification statements. If they are used as statements of the modern author then they are clearly indicative of a hisotrical mistake. However, since there are other options we need to dig further.

Let's take a couple of issues from the early history of the Nephites. We have discussed the mentioned-but-unnamed "others" that when with Nephi. Either that is an authorial mistake as you suggested, or it is a place where the "others" show up in the way that we might expect from a high-context document that treats all outsiders as categories. We still have options, so we dig further.

The next place where we have a problem in the text is in the city of Nephi. Nephi is installed as a king and there is a building project for some type of larger scale community project (the temple). This description is problemmatic because it should not be there if we have only half of the direct relations of anyone who came over on the ship.

Susan Toby Evans, Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Culture 2004, p. 108 describes some of the basics of political evolution:

"This evolutionary transformation from egalitarian to hierarchichal society has taken place many times in human history, and almost as many time, these chiefdoms soon unraveled into a set of autonomous tribal villages. However, the process of developing a chiefdom out of a tribal vilaage would recur each time circumstances were ripe for it, and once the general trend toward greater social copmlexity had become well-established in a region, it would tend to persist. Eventually, a chiefdom would gain relative permanency, and the centralized hierarchy of villages around the chiefly village was accompanied by a social hierarchy in which individuals, and whole goups, occupied statuses relative to each other."

Evans doesn't place any particular population numbers with this, but Frederick Bove did give an indication of the relative sizes of communities. He indicates that hamlets contain 10-75 households and villages 90-300 households. (Frederick Joseph Bove, The Evolution Of Chiefdoms and States on the Pacific Slope of Guatemala: A Spatial Analysis, (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1981),80-81.)

This tells us that the anthropological expectation of a "city" large enough to support a king - and we can be generous and assume chief rather than king, is still going to be something that evolves out of a village-level community. That tells us that the textual expectation of the social position and the communal architecture is about 90-300 households, or 180-600 adults. All of this occurs before Nephi writes 2 Nephi, so less than 40 years after the separation we somehow have to textually account for the apparent addition of at least 170 adults, although the higher number would be a better fit for the evidence.

How do we explain this feature of the text?

1) It is an authorial error made because Joseph didn't really know what he was talking about.

2) It demonstrates that the "others" who went with Nephi were a larger number than those who came over on the boat and therefore demonstrate that the others had to have been an existing population.

While we may not have a lock on the argument yet, here is how the line of reasoning is developing. In order to hold that the Book of Mormon is a modern creation we have to explain two features of the text as mistakes the author made. However, if we allow that the text might be ancient, then both of those texts are not errors and are mutually supporting.

Somehow an argument that suggests that everything Joseph got right was because he got it wrong seems like a thin argument.

[beastie]

1) On the issue of the Lamanites being Maya: You have dropped your original point. I have consistently indicated that it is misleading to suggest a direct correlation, but that it is reasonable to say that Lamanites participated in Maya culture (those that were in the Maya area).

Nephites were in the Maya area until around 200 B.C. when they left. They went to Zarahemla which was not a Maya area. Hence it is erroneous to assume Maya culture for Nephites after 200 B.C. Zarahemla would have been dominated by Zoqueans and that is a different language and culture. Again, it is resonable that they were part of the general Mesoamerican area, but calling Zoqueans Maya is akin to calling Germans French.

You're right, we got side-tracked. Since you agree it is reasonable to say that the Lamanites participated in the Maya culture, then it is reasonable to see Nephite prophets warning against the false religion of the area. This was, indeed, the primary point of my thread, and I'm glad you returned to it. Initially you argued with me on this point, saying that it would actually be the apostate Nephite religion they would fight against. However, this simply moves the chess piece one square, since the apostate Nephite religion would have likely become apostate due to the taint of the dominant Mayan religion.

In regards to your last point, I have shared several quotes by notable Mayan scholars who state that:

Although there were important variations in the different regions and periods of Mesoamerican history it is fair to say that certain general patterns of worldmaking, worldcentering, and worldrenewing were shared by nearly all Mesoamerican cultures.

Unless you are claiming that Nephites went entirely out of the Mesoamerican region, this point is moot.

2) On the issue of religious influence from Mesoamerica on the Nephites: I have suggested that the socio-religious complex identified with costly apparel and not working with one's own hands/paid preists (social hierarchies) were influential in the land of Zarahemla and that they constitute the particular aspects of Mesoamerican religion that Nephite prophets preached against. You have never responded. I have also suggested that when matters of theological import were discussed that the prophets were concerned with apostates from Nephite beliefs because their ideas were close to their own and therefore dangerous. This is supported by the history of the Biblical prophets and their targets. You have had an intersesting response that hasn't actually dealt with this issue. You attempted to redefine "close" as proximate and to attempt yet again to bolster your assertion that Maya religion should have influenced the Nephites.

In the case of social pressures, it did. In the case of theology, it was too distant to be dangerous. Historical precedent supports my reading. Your reading is based solely on your assumption of what should have happened. I see no reason to prefer your guess to the evidence of historical peoples.

Your own article contradicts this point. To accept 'false Christs', inspired by the Mayan leaders dressed in sacred garb (not actually claiming to be Gods, of course), is a theological point. I have reminded you of this several times, that you, yourself, accept my basic premise when it served you, but reject it when you feel it doesn't serve your point. And although you disparage my "intuition", the "fact" remains that the vast majority of those who became Nephites when Nephi converted them were products of the Mayan culture and religion, as had their ancestors been. As you admit yourself, Mayan religion and culture is heavily intertwined, and it defies logic to insist that if Nephites apostasized, they would not be doing so by intermixing their past, very famliar religion with their new religion.

3) On the issue of metals: You asked for archaeological evidence of smelting and it was provided. You then attempted to re-support your case by trying two different tactics. On the one hand you asserted that Coe and Schele must have had some evidence discrediting the archaeological evidence because they didn't mention it. You also began a second line of argument that scolded me for not putting in a footnote you thought I should have (etc)

In regards to the "evidence" - how can I refute a piece of evidence when all the information I have about it is two brief footnotes copied over and over from Sorenson's original article? I did my best to find more information about this find, and it simply is not out there. All apologists do is repeat Sorenson's footnotes, as has been done on this thread. This is why I told CI he didn't provide enough information, nor did you. The only way I can refute evidence is by reading what the experts say on the subject. None of them addess those single pieces, but the fact that these pieces were found literally decades ago, and the fact that Mayan studies has escalated during those decades, and none of the notable experts have changed their stance on the fact that Mayans had no metallurgy in their culture is refutation enough, until and unless you, or CI can come up with some more information about those finds. It still surprises me you haven't bothered to investigate this in the least, despite being involved in Mayan studies for 30 years, and despite being willing to use metal working in your article.

4) You intimated that I thought that there were no more than a 1,000 Nephites. This was demonstrated to be a misreading of what I had said. You did apologize. Thank you.

You're welcome. I wish that I could thank you for apologizing for your blatant misreading on this thread. Instead, you have insisted that I have a reading comprehension problem.

5) You suggested that a document that is "riddled with ethnocentricity" such as the Book of Mormon couldn't be ancient/authentic. The fact is that this is precisely what is expected of an ancient text. This statement is contrary to accepted ethnohistorical understanding.

Again, a misreading I attempted to correct. I never said this meant the text wasn't historical. I said that this meant the text was not reliable as an historical resource in terms of figuring out exactly what happened. You cannot rely on a text that exaggerates, omits crucial information, etc, for accurate historical information, even if it is an authentic text. We have discussed this at length before, and the fact that you repeat the same misinterpretation of my comment is as frustrating to me as I am to you. In fact, on ZLMB, I went to great lengths to talk about how it is common sense to realize that any authentic historical text can be fiction, nonfiction, or a combination of both. The accuracy of the historical information of the text is a different question from the authenticity of the text. This is not a difficult point to grasp.

6) You asserted that I made a point of women and children being sacrificed in the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. This was shown to be another misreading. You compounded that problem my continuing to misread and assume I mentined Teotihuacan in connection with the events at Ammonihah. That entire line of reasoning because with a misreading and continued with misreadings. Thankfully, you let it drop after your errors were disclosed.

I did misunderstand the women and children reference. However, I still intend to come back to this point. Christmas has simply interferred with my ability to do so, and I really shouldn't even take the time to write this, either, but I'm weak willed.

7) It is a very minor point, but you suggested that the iron mirrors were a fashion accessory. That suggests a limited understanding of their importance in Mesoamerican society. Perhaps a misunderstanding if not a misreading?

It is a minor point, and I am well aware of their religious uses as well. I should have corrected this point earlier, but it seemed too insignificant. Anyone who has done even the most modest reading on the subject would know this, but I have to remember that you view me akin to some sort of disabled person when it comes to reading comprehension, so next time I will take the time to clarify.

) You have attempted to make some point about early writing in Mesoamerica. Where your original arguments indicated that you didn't think that Mesoamericans had writing systems that early, you have backed off that point. That is good, because you were running contrary to current understandings of Mesoamerica. Now you have shifted to an argument that emphasized Nephite metal plates and argues by insinuation that they should have been widely used. You have ignored the list of data I provided from the Old World showing how such plates were used - that contradicts your theory that they should have been widespread. I also showed how the Book of Mormon text demonstrates rarity rather than commonplace availability. You have ignored all of the substance and simply altered your argument - but in a way that is still contrary to historical data.

You either completely ignored my last post or didn't bother to read it. Part of the reason I end up repeating myself in these conversations is because this is a habit with you.

9) You brought up an example I gave of "false Christs" referring to an early version of the Aztec ixiptla. Unfortunately, you confused Maya with Zoque and Nephite with Mulekite. Since you didn't take care in dealing with the textual descriptions of who was doing what and when, you misread the entire argument. Thankfully, you have dropped this point as well.

10) You stated: "For some reason, Brant limits the possible effect of Mayan/Lamanites to up to 200 BC, without explanation." The fact that you could state such after reading the post where are gave the explanation suggests that you misread/misunderstood that post. That has been a theme in this thread. Way too frequently your arguments are based on either a misreading or misunderstanding. By the way, for a quick refresher - since the Nephites left the Maya area and went to Zarahemla at this time (which was Zoquean) then the potential Maya influence is limited to the time when they were in contact. That should be simple.

Unless you are saying that Zoquean was not mesoamerican, then you continue to ignore this:

Although there were important variations in the different regions and periods of Mesoamerican history it is fair to say that certain general patterns of worldmaking, worldcentering, and worldrenewing were shared by nearly all Mesoamerican cultures

In regards to false Christ, I assumed that since the Aztecs were of a much, much later period, you were actually referring to the Mayan leaders who were often represented in sacred garb. But now you insist it was only the Aztecs to whom you referred. What the heck do they have to do with the apostate nephite religion condemned in the BoM?

To Juliann and Quinn, whoever that is:

I haven't denied being seven of niine. I wanted a new name to indicate my new focus on one particular topic. It is true I often end up having to repeat myself in these conversations. I don't know what else to do when Brant so often completely ignores the points I've made. For example, how many times have I had to repeat this:

Although there were important variations in the different regions and periods of Mesoamerican history it is fair to say that certain general patterns of worldmaking, worldcentering, and worldrenewing were shared by nearly all Mesoamerican cultures

I've used three different notable mayan scholars who say basically the same thing. Despite the variants in languages, and some variants in details, the Mesoamerican religions of all these groups shared certain fundamental principles. I have yet to see Brant even recognize this point. So I repeat it, sometimes using a different author.