Mayan Lamanites

[juliann]

And I see that your habit of selective reading has not changed.

You mean you did produce the name of one anthropologist as evidence? I must have missed it. Along with the multiple other requests on the previous page. All he is asking for is documentation, for cryin' out loud. If you would start responding instead of giving speeches his point about a false Christ might become evident.

[juliann]

Now can you refute my other, ignored, argument that the primary difference between the Aztec impersonators and the Mayan leaders is that the Aztecs were actually being sacrificed, while the Mayan leaders were obviously not?

[Addictio]

Brant, a few comments:

I noticed that you felt so proud of this deeply confused and question-begging characterization of what adopting the modern-author hypothesis must entail that you repeated it to Beastie as a summary of what I am arguing. A rather sad performance, this.

If, however, you do not allow the text to be historical, then these "others" are simply an error the author makes, which is then followed by a similar error in describing social conditions that could not exist without the others. The modern author hypothesis must take data that are mutually supportive in the historical context and dismiss them as unrelated mistakes. All of the textual evidence that shows these "others" in action are mistakes, even though they are internally consistent. However, the ascription of Lamanite/Israelite is correct precisely because it is internally consistent. So there we have it, one internal consistency is always because the author made mistakes, but the other one is because the author did something intentionally (that was a mistake historically).

It really isn't a strong argument.

It might help if you stopped trying to characterize what's going on under both hypotheses simulataneously, and in such conclusory terms. I suggest you try to clear your head and start over. Consider the hypothesis that JS is the modern author. Under that hypothesis, try to see if you can explain the contents of the text. With respect to the "Others" interpretation, are there any passages that can't be explained if JS is understood as the author?

Finally, for some reason you are also mischaracterizing my position (in the same defensive way) regarding the significance of reports in the text that individual Lamanites are descended from named Israelites. The significance is not that the "ascription" is "internally consistent," whatever that might mean.

[beastie]

QUOTE (beastie @ Dec 27 2004, 09:57 PM)

Now can you refute my other, ignored, argument that the primary difference between the Aztec impersonators and the Mayan leaders is that the Aztecs were actually being sacrificed, while the Mayan leaders were obviously not?

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I noticed that you felt so proud of this deeply confused and question-begging characterization of what adopting the modern-author hypothesis must entail that you repeated it to Beastie as a summary of what I am arguing. A rather sad performance, this.

You know, after several days of this type of argument I fear I will fall into the same trap. I really don't enjoy discussions that begin with insults and I deeply apologize that I have done it myself. I will answer this one and put an end to it.

Note the irony of the following:

I suggest you try to clear your head and start over. Consider the hypothesis that JS is the modern author. Under that hypothesis, try to see if you can explain the contents of the text. With respect to the "Others" interpretation, are there any passages that can't be explained if JS is understood as the author?

Trying to ignore the opening sentence, I find it amazing that you come up with this solution to the situation I presented, since that is precisely the problem I presented to you. If we are dealing with a text we have to deal with the whole text. The problem with your question is that you focus on a single issue and that very focus distorts the overall issue. Any single issue might be argued one way or another. That is the reason why a case has to be built on all of the data and the more data that fit the case the stronger it is.

Could authorial error account for the "others" statements? Sure. Did they? That is where the weight of evidence comes in. When the "others" statements consistently fit into an overal context that has external confirmation that was unavailable as a model for the text, then I see that evidence verifying the "others" statements as authentic rather than errors. This is particularly true when the only evidence you can offer that they are authorial errors in another assumed authorial error. In other words, if you do not begin with the assumption of authorial error, you have no evidence at all - it is circular and entirely based on the presumption that you can determine what is an error on the basis of the beginning assumption.

I find that a very weak argument.

[juliann]

BTW, Juliann, since Forest of Kings has a later date than your Blood of Kings, do all citations from this book trump yours?

.

And this is a picture perfect example of why it is impossible to have any kind of meaningful interaction with you. How simple is a reference? How difficult can it be to read two lines that have appeared repeatedly?

Linda Schele and Peter Mathews, The Code of Kings:The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs (New York: Scribner, 1998).

I think that even this date is a bit old for this particular field. Are you now going to claim that nothing has happened in this field in the last ten years? Have you used anything beyond ridicule of Brant to account for progress in this fast moving field?

Actually, your Schele quote demonstrates that the mayan kings personified the World tree, which makes complete sense. 

Uh huh. That is why I used it.

The World Tree was the......

ZZZZZzzzzzzzz......When you can't back up your irrelevant points...filibuster! What the World Tree is is or is not is completely, totally irrelevant to the point you think you are making.

Odd that she even uses the word "world view" in this summary, yet, according to Juliann, she doesn't talk about a shared Mesoamerican worldview.

When you can't back up your irrelevant points...distort by leaving out key words! What I really said....

Schele does not speak of a unified "shared Mesoamerican worldview"....a perfect example of what Brant has identified in your methodology...a relentness need to over-generalize. The "core" factor is seen in their sacred centers and war, according to Schele. (see pg 38 from above referenced source) Anyone who is remotely familiar with the study of ancient texts would see the necessity in dealing with the myth of origin and the changes and varieties throughout time.

I do see your problem now. If you move an inch beyond that "core" shared worldview into the myth of origin and the changes and varieties you are in big trouble because that is when it starts to look uncomfortably BOM-ish. Sooo...the obvious solution is to overgeneralize! Don't allow for those pesky differences! Just say everybody believes exactly the same thing always and forever. That was easy.

How can it be any more clear that these two - Mayan kings and Aztec impersonators - performed vastly different functions? 

How can it be more clear that you are trying to argue both sides when you claim there is a "shared worldview" and then turn around and make meaningless distinctions in that shared worldview? Pul-leeze read up on ANE kingship ritual to get a little perspective.

So if we wanted to obtain actual information regarding how many Nephites there were, the Bom is flawed. 

Flawed? Only your expectations that are flawed.

In the future I will keep in mind that this board apparently has citation requirements similar to a formal paper.

Oh, brother. You were asked for citations by your respondents. If you don't want to provide access to your sources, lecture on! Your choice.

It's interesting that you like Schele. Do you realize that she doesn't have a degree in this subject?

Do you realize that she is actually knowledgable in the language she speaks about as well as being published and active in the field...and an art professor to boot? Kinda fits in considering much of the primary source material is...art. Was there something else you require?

[juliann]

If we are dealing with a text we have to deal with the whole text. The problem with your question is that you focus on a single issue and that very focus distorts the overall issue. Any single issue might be argued one way or another. That is the reason why a case has to be built on all of the data and the more data that fit the case the stronger it is.

This principle is so universal in scholarship that there is absolutely no excuse for not being aware of it.

In this book we do not claim that everyone, even or especially the two of us who are writing it together, must agree on all such gospel layers.  We do claim and we do agree that layering decisions are demanded both in archaeology and in exegesis, that disagreements about them do not negate but only emphasize their importance, and that they are correlatively crucial for excavating Jesus. 

John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed,  Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts  (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), 13, 14.

[Confidential Informant]

So Beastie has been harping on the Sorensen citation from Sigvuld Linne regarding a small-scale find that indicated possbile smelting activity. Like her, I've been do doing some searching for the actual article without much luck. However, it appear tht Mr. Linne was no hack.

I have access to a anthropology database. I just did a search on his name under the author section.

It apears that Mr. Linne has published some 61 articles in various publications. (Some, I am sure, are duplicate publications of one article that appears in separate venues. Others appear to have been published in German and others in Finnish).

A sampling of some of his works:

Linné, Sigvald.Teotihuacan symbols.In: Ethnos. -- Stockholm, 1941. v.6, p.174-186. 6 illus. Anthropological Literature, Harvard University

Linné, Sigvald. Bird-nets of Lake Texcoco, Mexico Valley. In: Ethnos. -- Stockholm, 1940. v.5, p.122-130. 6 illus. Anthropological Literature, Harvard University

Linné, Sigvald. A Mazapan grave at Teotihuacan, Mexico. In: Ethnos. -- Stockholm, 1938. v.6, p.167-178, 10 illus. Anthropological Literature, Harvard University

I'm struck my the "Harvard Universy" there. That's not an institution known for shoddy research.

One of the cites is currently available at the BYU library: Mexican highland cultures; archaeological researches at Teotihuacan, Calpulalpan and Chalchicomula in 1934/35 Date: 1942 (Call Number: F 1219 .L6).

Oh, this last search showed that Mr. Linne has published 11 books.

Thus, from this admittedly peripheral information, it appears that Mr. Linne is considered to be a competent authority. Perhaps if I find some time this week I shall take the quick drive up to BYU and view this book.

C.I.

[Addictio]

Brant said:

Could authorial error account for the "others" statements? Sure. Did they? That is where the weight of evidence comes in. When the "others" statements consistently fit into an overal context that has external confirmation that was unavailable as a model for the text, then I see that evidence verifying the "others" statements as authentic rather than errors. This is particularly true when the only evidence you can offer that they are authorial errors in another assumed authorial error. In other words, if you do not begin with the assumption of authorial error, you have no evidence at all - it is circular and entirely based on the presumption that you can determine what is an error on the basis of the beginning assumption.

Actually, Brant, in the course of our most recent discussion my thinking about the way to articulate the analysis has changed and become more clear to me. "Authorial error," as I see things now, is a misleading way to articulate what the critical position is. If JS is hypothesized as the modern author, he didn't get some things right about history (real past events) and some wrong. So it doesn't make sense, it now seems to me, to talk in the way we both have in the past, about "authorial error," for example. If we are addressing the text under the hypothesis that JS was the modern author, it doesn't make sense to say that the kind of archaeological evidence you're invoking here confirms anything under that hypothesis. If JS is treated as the modern author, nothing archaeological can in principle ever confirm that he "got something right" about history. What you're actually claiming, rather, is that the archaeology supporting the "others" reading supports the historicity of the text when Nephi is understood to be the ancient author.

This also explains how you are misunderstanding the nature of the critical arguments under the JS-author hypothesis. Just as you are not in a position to "confirm" as authentic historical writing anything JS dictated as the modern author, since you're not claiming he ever authored a history, the critic similarly isn't identifying individual instances where JS committed an error in historical accuracy. This doesn't mean that nothing can count for or against the hypothesis that JS was indeed the modern author, just that neither side is involved in arguing or proving that JS did or didn't compose accurate empirical statements about past events. Hence, your contention that the critic is simply begging the question by "assuming authorial errors" isn't a useful way of describing what's going on. Similarly, because we know a great deal about JS and his views independent of the text, those may be used to explain the contents of the BoM under this hypothesis without assuming anything about whether JS was "making mistakes" as an author.

If I'm right about this, then when issues of verisimilitude arise under the JS-author hypothesis, the argument is not about historical accuracy vel non, since that category only applies when the BoM is assumed to be the translation of an ancient text, but whether the passages in question can best be interpreted and their occurrence in the text best explained under the JS-author or ancient-recordkeeper hypotheses.

[beastie]

Juliann,

I do apologize for misreading your reference, thinking it was The Blood of Kings. Mea Culpea.

I do see your problem now. If you move an inch beyond that "core" shared worldview into the myth of origin and the changes and varieties you are in big trouble because that is when it starts to look uncomfortably BOM-ish. Sooo...the obvious solution is to overgeneralize! Don't allow for those pesky differences! Just say everybody believes exactly the same thing always and forever. That was easy.

Look at my past comments on this issue. (uncomfortably BoMish is a riot, btw)

But this is truly a diversion, although it has nearly overtaken the thread. I don't care what terms you use, religion X, Y, and Z, to label the pre-existing religious beliefs of whoever the Lamanites happened to be at that time. As your story of the false christ demonstrates, when a new religion moves into an area, there is a reaction, an attempt to mix the new religion with the old. I don't care what you call the old religion, or even if you, contrary to Coe, Schele, and Carrasco, want to call it a totally different religion. It doesn't change my underlying point, and the only time you addressed that underlying point is to insist that we would only see this influence in the very first time that the Nephite religion ever moved into the Mesoamerican region, ever, anywhere. After that, it is no longer valid expectation, in your view. Ad hoc.

Believers on this thread have pretty consistently ignored this point, all the while complaining about critics ignoring the main thrust of Brant's article. (yet when I specifically addressed that main point, no comment was made) I do not care if you do not want to accept the idea that there are underlying core beliefs reflected in Mesoamerican religion, across varities of language and specific stories.

How can it be more clear that you are trying to argue both sides when you claim there is a "shared worldview" and then turn around and make meaningless distinctions in that shared worldview? Pul-leeze read up on ANE kingship ritual to get a little perspective.

It is clear from this response that, despite your assertions otherwise, you do not understand what is meant by the shared worldview. When you can't support your point, create a diversion, all the while accusing others of doing so.

The point is that Mormon was pointing to a specific phenomenon that he saw in the recent past, false Christs. The only false Christs could be the Mayan kings. The Aztec god impersonators are irrelevant, although certainly a better fit. They were the ones actually sacrificed and presented as a specific deity, rather than, by your own quote, the personification of the conduit to the Otherworld. (that you dismiss that point as irrelevant is telling) Now tell me, which really looks like a false Christ? Of course I expect you will completely ignore this point. The fact that it is the Aztec god impersonators who were actually labeled god impersonators and were actually killed in a ritual sacrifice is, to you, completely irrelevant in discussing a false Christ. A meaningless distinction. Brant tends to litter his arguments with additions like this one, which tend to mislead people without any background knowledge. There is no reason he could not have inserted one sentence clarifying the important distinction between the two roles, just as there is no reason he could not have also inserted one sentence noting the highly controversial mechanism of metallurgy. CI and Brant have maintained this mechanism was fairly irrelevant to brant's primary point, but I notice no one has yet suggested what other mechanism he could have used that would make sense within the context of the BoM.

I think that even this date is a bit old for this particular field. Are you now going to claim that nothing has happened in this field in the last ten years? Have you used anything beyond ridicule of Brant to account for progress in this fast moving field?

You have an interesting definition of "ridicule", which is odd since it is an area in which you excel. I haven't ridiculed Brant, I have challenged his assertions. I have accused him of being misleading, although I specified I do not believe it is deliberate.

But yes, the last ten years has revealed a lot. This is why Coe updates his book, The Maya, and why I deliberately chose his sixth edition, dated 1999, reprinted in 2002. You ignore the fact that I've also referred to Diehl's book, The Olmecs, dated 2004. However, I do also believe that Schele is not outdated, nor is Coe's book Mexico. The field is fast moving, but that does not automatically render any book older than a few years irrelevant. I've noted in the past that Brant has also used the same book I use from Schele.

However, it is interesting that you bring up this point, since while searching for the ever elusive Linne article, I happened upon a reference on a popular BoM apologetics site mentioning pre-columbian smelting. This is a good example of your point.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

New Evidence for Pre-Columbian Smelting of Metals! is declared, with a link to a description of an MIT research project. Intriguing, I thought, but I wondered why there were no updates since 2000. So I went to famsi.org, and within seconds found the update.

http://www.famsi.org/reports/01058/section02.htm

Note that the update tentatively dates the smelting evidence at 1300 AD.

This research project will constitute a long-term undertaking, in part because we are working in an area that is virtually unknown archaeologically. The location of El Manchon, as well as the material remains (pottery, architecture) suggests that this was not a metal production site dominated by any of the well-documented contemporary social groups (Tarascan, Matlatzinca, Mexica). We do have two preliminary dates that cluster around 1300 A.D., but these should be considered very approximate

Absolutely this is a fast moving field. If you have evidence that directly contradicts my assertions as dated or misunderstood, please provide it. So far you have not done so, although it is clear you think you have. But by your own admission, you are simply throwing out quotes without clear understanding.

QUOTE

[A Random Catholic]

Completely OT but I gotta ask: Linda Schele had no degree? Watchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis? You mean she was technically an art historian or something, not an archaeologist or linguist? Or that she literally had no graduate training? If it's the latter, enjoy blowing my sub-par mind...

[USU78]

beastie, please to clarify for us noncognoscenti. You said: "The point is that Mormon was pointing to a specific phenomenon that he saw in the recent past, false Christs. The only false Christs could be the Mayan kings."

Why do you say the foregoing must and can only be the case? My understanding was the stele and other in situ [stone carving for the most part] evidence of Maya kings and related practices don't go back nearly far enough to account for Mormon's statement. Am I mistaken?

[beastie]

Completely OT but I gotta ask: Linda Schele had no degree? Watchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis? You mean she was technically an art historian or something, not an archaeologist or linguist? Or that she literally had no graduate training? If it's the latter, enjoy blowing my sub-par mind...

If you really want to blow your mind, think about David Stuart, who wasn't even 13 when he already figured out how to decipher glyphs. Of course, his parents were Mayanists so he had been immersed in the studies in his youth, but still!!! At 18 he was made a MacArthur fellow, receiving an award of 128,000. (p239)

According to Coe, in Breaking the Mayan Code, published by Thames and Hudson, 1999 (second edition), p 201, 202, Schele began her undergrad studies in commercial art and switched to Fine Arts her second year, for her degree. She spent six weeks in a graduate programin literature before quitting, declaring it "nit picking BS". After working as a draftsman she returned to get a graduate degree, I believe in education. Her life changed when she went on vacation to Mexico. She was later awarded a PhD in Latin American Studies, but this was after her work in the field was well under way. A remarkable person.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/bi...hele_linda.html

beastie, please to clarify for us noncognoscenti. You said: "The point is that Mormon was pointing to a specific phenomenon that he saw in the recent past, false Christs. The only false Christs could be the Mayan kings."

Why do you say the foregoing must and can only be the case? My understanding was the stele and other in situ [stone carving for the most part] evidence of Maya kings and related practices don't go back nearly far enough to account for Mormon's statement. Am I mistaken?

I'm not really a "cognoscenti", but I'll answer to the best of my ability. My answer should have been qualified by "if one accepts Brant's premise", then the only possibility is the Mayan kings. If we take the 130 BC date, then it does precede the date Schele provides for the beginning of the formal institution of kingship. (50BC) However, kings did exist before this point, and rituals such as bloodletting existed since the time of the Olmecs, so it doesn't seem to strain logic to accept that there could be rituals going on with the kings of that period that seemed to be "false christs", if you want to be as generic about what it means to be a Christ as possible. Of course, it doesn't make sense to say that they were "punished according to their crimes", because if the false Christs were the kings, they were outside the Nephite community and hardly being punished for a 'crime'. So yes, I think it is a weak connection. However, between the two functions Brant mentioned, the Aztec god impersonators and the Mayan kings dressed in sacred garb, the only possibility, however strained, are the Mayan kings.

In regards to my primary point, that one could expect to see some reflection of the Mayan culture/religion in the BoM, Brant has replied that the most dangerous religion is the one closest to one's own, the others are disregarded, although making his own case for social influence. But to judge whether that would be true, ie, that the Mesoamerican religion(s) would be too alien to be incorporated into the new religion, and hence, seen as a threat, all we have to do is look at more recent history in the area. Ie, did the natives incorporate elements of their native religions when the Europeans converted them to Christianity/Catholicism after the conquest? The answer is a resounding yes.

Whoops, hit enter too soon. In Religions of Mesoamerica, published by Waveland press, 1990, David Carrasco, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, devotes his entire last chapter to a discussion of just this. I'll try to put together some quotes later tonight to demonstrate, but an interesting quickie is that the catholic priests were well aware of, and sometimes concerned, about this tendency. From p 137

the Franciscans and Dominican priests, who spoke Nahuatl and observed the indigenous people adjusting painfully to the colonial order, realized that the Indians were not merely adopting Spanish Catholic practices.

[Addictio]

I'll now finish explaining why Brant's previous post does not reflect my position, and why he is deeply confused. I'm taking the time to do this because it is irritating to have someone who is not thinking clearly misdescribe my views along with what the issues are, without an apparent clue that he's done so.

Brant and I have discussed the "Others" interpretation of the text for a long time now, but until recently, always in the context of the ancient author hypothesis.

In this post, however, Brant is attempting to wax polemical about the same theory in connection with the hypothesis that JS was the modern author of the text. What he fails to recognize, among other things, is that the issues presented by the text are dramatically different and conceptually distinct, depending on which hypothesis (ancient authors or JS as modern author) we are addressing.

If you allow the text the possilbility of being historical, the presence of the "others" are declared obliquely in the text through the rather obvious social developments that require a larger population than the few named individuals. Ergo - the "others" that were mentioned have textual support in the social descriptions of the text.

Here, Brant is talking about the text under the "ancient authors" hypothesis. He then turns to characterize what my position must be if we consider the text under the JS-author hypothesis.

If, however, you do not allow the text to be historical, then these "others" are simply an error the author makes, which is then followed by a similar error in describing social conditions that could not exist without the others.

No. This is not what happens if we consider the same part of the text under the hypothesis that JS wrote it as a modern author. How does the situation change? For one, we have many other statements by JS that are relevant to his belief about the relationship between BoM peolples and Amerindians. Next, the whole nature of the analysis of Nephi's "all who would go with me" language changes. If this part of the text was authored by Nephi, an ancient author, we have one set of contentions and reasons for why it should be understood as a reference to indigenous "others." If JS is the author, the analysis changes dramatically. In my view there are obviously much weaker reasons for concluding that, if JS composed this passage, he was obliquely referencing not real people whom he had met, as Nephi would have been, but pre-existing Native Americans whom he had conceived as existing and had decided to incorporate into his narrative.

So the short answer to Brant is no, I'm not claiming JS made a "mistake" by using the "all those who would go" phrase. What has changed is that Brant's reasons for interpreting that phrase as a reference to indigenous "others" when the narrrative is written by Nephi don't apply when JS is the author. The analysis and his burden of peruasion changes. With respect to the social descriptions which follow in the text, the analysis is along the same lines. Sure, my view is that when considering the evidence pertinent to the issue, it is highly likely that JS failed to recognize the problem he was creating for the narrative. (Sorenson provides a number of other examples where the hypothesis that there were "others" present is needed to explain the narrative as historical.) That's a point to be argued, however, it doesn't simply follow from adopting the JS-author hypothesis.

Brant continues:

The modern author hypothesis must take data that are mutually supportive in the historical context and dismiss them as unrelated mistakes.

Brant doesn't explain why the modern-author hypothesis "must" do this. (It sounds nice though, if you're trying to create the impression that you know what position your interlocutor is logically required to adopt.) Moreover, it's not clear what in this context "dismissing" data as "mistakes" even means. (Yes, well, on second thought, it likely means for Brant simply that we disagree about the meaning of a particular passage.) Also, as I've noted, the same passages get examined and interpreted differently under each hypothesis. They obviously are not the same "data" at all, though I expect Brant knows this.

Brant again:

All of the textual evidence that shows these "others" in action are mistakes, even though they are internally consistent. However, the ascription of Lamanite/Israelite is correct precisely because it is internally consistent.

On the first sentence, see above. My view is that, considered as the compostion of JS, there are no good reasons for concluding that indigenous "others" are being obliquely introduced into the narrative. So the subsequent textual "evidence" in the form of their continuing actions is not consistent with what preceeds it. In the second sentence, I'm guessing that Brant is referring to the fact that I have claimed that individual Lamanites are uniformly reported as having an Israelite ancestor. Brant doesn't disagree with this, only with what can be inferred from it.

Brant triumphantly concludes:

So there we have it, one internal consistency is always because the author made mistakes, but the other one is because the author did something intentionally (that was a mistake historically).

It really isn't a strong argument.

Brant's caricature of what necessarily "follows" from merely adopting the JS-author hypothesis shows he doesn't understand or isn't interested in the conceptual situation, or my arguments about how and why to interpret the passages at issue.

Near the end of his post Brant says:

The problem with the kind of "errors" Addictio is suggesting are being made is that they are precisely the places where the author isn't paying as much attention. They are the places where it is easy to get things wrong - except that they are precisely right in a historical context.

Eventually perhaps you'll get it, Brant. The entire analysis and what is at issue changes when we move from the ancient to the modern. Under the JS-author hypothesis, we're not assessing whether JS the author "got things right" about any historical or archeological information. So your latest archaeological evidence regarding the availability of mesoamerican others, for example, whom Nephi could encounter is logically, conceptually unrelated to the arguments being made under the JS-author hypothesis.

Finally, one of Brant's most tiresome habits is his referring to the reasoned positions or conclusions of others which he wants to dismiss as "assumptions." He apparently thinks it's not just a transparent rhetorical device. At the end of his post, Brant continues:

They are only "wrong" if you begin with the assumption that the author was modern and had already made a huge mistake in defining Amerindians. That assumption of the "big wrong" then requires that all of the other things that might otherwise be right must be wrong because they don't support the hypothesis of the "big wrong."

That is hardly good historical analysis. That is apologetics at its worst. It is apologetics for a different position, but apologetics none the less - and not good apologetics.

JS's beliefs about the relationship of BoM peoples to Amerindians, and his beliefs about the origin of Amerindians, are matters for historical inquiry and argument, Brant, not assumption. The role that his beliefs can legitimately play in interpreting the text under the modern-author hypothesis is then determined one issue at a time. To imagine and pronounce otherwise is well, more than a "bit wrong."

[beastie]

Once again, these citations are from David Carrasco

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Whoops, hit enter too soon. In Religions of Mesoamerica, published by Waveland press, 1990, David Carrasco, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, devotes his entire last chapter to a discussion of just this.

It gets worse instead of better. Beastie, do you understand the difference in the social pressues when an established population deals with neighboring peoples and when a conqueror forces a new religion on a population? If you believe that the situation of the conquest was even remotely the same as the 600 years of Zarahemla's history, then I suggest you need to reread the literature on the conquest or the Book of Mormon. When you pull data out of context and apply it to the wrong situation it doesn't help your position.

You continue to assume that you understand the situation in Zarahemla to be one where you would expect to see an influence of religion - and when there is one element that appears to do so (the false Christs) you come up with a fascinating explanation of how the Maya and Aztec meaning of wearing a god's costume were dramatically different. You have yet to cite an anthropologist who agrees with you. Personally, I can't imagine you will find one. The functional use of the mask/representation is too obviously similar and the sacrificial theme nearly identical.

You might have a case for a similarity between the conquest and the entry of the Nephites into Zarahemla. The difference is that there was a division in Zarahemla where the religions split and the foreign one was ousted. In the conquest there was no where for native religion to go other than underground (save for the more remote holdout locations). So even in the one very limited place where there is enough similarity to attempt a comparison, the details are sufficiently different that the situation is not comparable at all.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Rather than attempt to follow your post I thought I would attempt to reconstruct your newly constructed hypothesis and see I can restate it. I doubt I will do it so that you will agree, but I fear we are destined to disagree on many things.

This is not what happens if we consider the same part of the text under the hypothesis that JS wrote it as a modern author.

It appears quite obvious that you are stating that you take a beginning point that Joseph Smith is the modern author. Rather than raise this as a question, it becomes the assumption. Rather than test the hypothesis you are suggesting that a sufficiently well constructed hypothesis may be maintained by defining the data in such a way as to support the hypothesis. This includes dismissing contrary data by assuming that the reason that it is contradictory is that the modern author wasn't very good and made mistakes.

How does the situation change? For one, we have many other statements by JS that are relevant to his belief about the relationship between BoM peolples and Amerindians.

The second part of the hypothesis is that opinions about the text are more important than the text itself. Since this is a thesis that is true if and only if Joseph Smith is a modern author, it is another tautology. His opinions are assumed to be the meaning, and any contradiction in the text must be a mistake because it doesn't support that hypothesis.

Next, the whole nature of the analysis of Nephi's "all who would go with me" language changes. If this part of the text was authored by Nephi, an ancient author, we have one set of contentions and reasons for why it should be understood as a reference to indigenous "others." If JS is the author, the analysis changes dramatically. In my view there are obviously much weaker reasons for concluding that, if JS composed this passage, he was obliquely referencing not real people whom he had met, as Nephi would have been, but pre-existing Native Americans whom he had conceived as existing and had decided to incorporate into his narrative.

Here we agree on the nature of the conclusion if we begin with the same hypothesis. If Joseph Smith were the author, he was sloppy and made a major misstatement in both the "all who would go with me" passage as well as all other passages where the social structure requires that there be more people than the named set. Unforunately, this is correct if and only if you begin with the assumption of the author and don't examine evidence to the contrary. I can't imagine how a good case for anything can be made if all contrary data are excluded from the examination and the only conclusions that can be entertained are those that support the initial hypothesis.

Of course those phrases are an error if Joseph is a modern author. However, that is the real question, and beginning with that assumption violates everything I understand about how to conduct historical research.

I'm not claiming JS made a "mistake" by using the "all those who would go" phrase.

Then I am at a loss. You certainly don't consider it to be an accurate statement. You have continually neglected the social indicators that corroborate a larger population. If you are assuming a smaller population, how are these statements not a mistake? How does evidence that implies a larger population in both language and social description not constitute a miskate if the assumption is a smaller population? Where in any anthropological literature would you find the expectation of kingship (or even a chief) in a population that small - and then find the construction of public buildings? Either those data indicate a larger population or they are a mistake. I don't see any other option.

What has changed is that Brant's reasons for interpreting that phrase as a reference to indigenous "others" when the narrrative is written by Nephi don't apply when JS is the author.

No. If this were the only statement and there were no other evidence, I might agree with you. The problem is that the reading of "others" as a larger population is corroborated very soon thereafter by social activities and structures that belong to much larger populations that the named people who leave. If there are no assumed others, then there is a much larger numberof passages that have no good explanation and are, at least anthropologically, incorrect.

The analysis and his burden of peruasion changes. With respect to the social descriptions which follow in the text, the analysis is along the same lines. Sure, my view is that when considering the evidence pertinent to the issue, it is highly likely that JS failed to recognize the problem he was creating for the narrative. (Sorenson provides a number of other examples where the hypothesis that there were "others" present is needed to explain the narrative as historical.) That's a point to be argued, however, it doesn't simply follow from adopting the JS-author hypothesis.

A point to be argued! Why isn't that the beginning of the issue instead of a point used to evade a complication in the hypothesis! Why isn't the authorship of Joseph Smith a point to be argued? Why is it preferable to assume authorship and then argue contrary evidence? That sounds very backwards to me. I would expect that the major point to be argued should be evaluated by data, not by presumptions.

Now, note how the logic works out. If we assume Joseph Smith was the author, then all evidence in the text that contradicts what we think he should have written is the result of his mistake. Addictio claims this as his position - that "my view is that when considering the evidence pertinent to the issue, it is highly likely that JS failed to recognize the problem he was creating for the narrative."

What evidence is mustered for this conclusion? Only the fact that if we assume that Joseph Smith is the author, then this must be the case. Why? Because otherwise it would contradict the assumption.

So here we see how Addictio's new methodology decides how to deal with contradictory evidence. If it doesn't support the initial hypothesis, declare it an authorial error and therefore evidence that Joseph was the author because he wasn't very good at it!

My view is that, considered as the compostion of JS, there are no good reasons for concluding that indigenous "others" are being obliquely introduced into the narrative.

Here we have the restatement of the essential methodology. To be clear "My view is that. . . " (self-definition, not one I am imposing) "considered as the composition of JS. . ." (taking what should be the question and having already decided the issue) there are no good reasons for concluding that indigenous "others" are being obliuely introducdd into the narrative." (since all places that might be evidence of the presence of others are due to mistakes in the narrative made by an inept author).

Cleaning up the method: 1) Assume the conclusion; 2) assume contradictory evidence is actually positive evidence of a poor author. 3) Provide no evidence, only the assumed conclusion.

The entire analysis and what is at issue changes when we move from the ancient to the modern. Under the JS-author hypothesis, we're not assessing whether JS the author "got things right" about any historical or archeological information.

In other words, rather than text the hypothesis of historicity by examining the text against history, we dismiss historicity by assuming a modern author. That excludes any reason to even look at external data.

So your latest archaeological evidence regarding the availability of mesoamerican others, for example, whom Nephi could encounter is logically, conceptually unrelated to the arguments being made under the JS-author hypothesis.

Restated: An examination of whether or not the text meets the text of history is irrelevant if we assume that Joseph Smith was the author and only read the data with that assumption.

OK, Addictio. I understand that will believe that I have caricaturized your position.

Please help us understand how your understanding of your position differs from mine.

1) Do you contend that you are beginning with the assumption of a modern author?

2) Do you contend that you are reading the text according to the assumption of the modern author?

3) Do you contend that it is likely that you will come to a conclusion contrary to your assumption with this method?

[beastie]

Brant,

First, clarify: Are you saying that one could only expect to see syncretism when a new religion has been forced on a people? Syncretism doesn't just result in a situation where the native religion is forced to go underground. Surely that isn't your contention, yet it sounds like it is.

Syncretism results even in a converted population. I think you accept this, and it's why you referred me to the Bible earlier as an example. This is human nature. You take an individual who has had a lifelong experience with religion X, and has lived in a culture completely imbued in religion X, even if that person converts to religion Y, he/she will tend to take certain habits with him/her that the "purists" of religion Y may object to.

Besides, your original point was that we could not expect to see concern about the mesoamerican religious traditions in the Nephite leaders because it was too different to be a threat. Have you abandoned that argument, and are now saying we would only see that sort of worrisome influence if the religion were forced on the population?

(btw, regarding false christs, it's interesting that you also regard the fact that the Aztec god impersonator was actually killed in a sacrificial ritual to be an irrelevant distinction. So tell me, how would Mayan royalty be punished by the Nephites for being "false christs"?)

[USU78]

beastie said:

"I'm not really a "cognoscenti", but I'll answer to the best of my ability. My answer should have been qualified by "if one accepts Brant's premise", then the only possibility is the Mayan kings. If we take the 130 BC date, then it does precede the date Schele provides for the beginning of the formal institution of kingship. (50BC) However, kings did exist before this point, and rituals such as bloodletting existed since the time of the Olmecs, so it doesn't seem to strain logic to accept that there could be rituals going on with the kings of that period that seemed to be "false christs", if you want to be as generic about what it means to be a Christ as possible. Of course, it doesn't make sense to say that they were "punished according to their crimes", because if the false Christs were the kings, they were outside the Nephite community and hardly being punished for a 'crime'. So yes, I think it is a weak connection. However, between the two functions Brant mentioned, the Aztec god impersonators and the Mayan kings dressed in sacred garb, the only possibility, however strained, are the Mayan kings."

I'm still not tracking. No doubt limited by my dilettantism. Here's the problem I'm having: If we assume "foreign ideas" are the sole and only source for the "false christs" referred to by Mormon, then Aztecs and Mayas (or copycats thereof) are the probable suspects for the foreign ideas' source. If, however, we assume a "home-grown" source, then we need look no further than the parallel developments in late NT -> post NT times in the Levant and other areas of Christianization. "False messiahs" were a dime a dozen in the Levant both before and after NT times. This has long been my understanding of Mormon's text . . . that we were seeing people act the same in both the Old and New Worlds. The false [militant] christs of the Levant led to Masada, the Temple's destruction, and the Diaspora. I see a connection between the "false christs" mentioned by Mormon and the militantism of his own era which led to the destruction of Nephite polity. And we don't need parallels to or borrowings from Mayas, Aztecs or Olmecs to get us there.

So . . . help me understand why 1) the false christs must have their genesis in cultural/religious borrowings from Lehite neighbors; and 2) the sources must either be Mayan or Aztec [or even Olmec]?

[Brant Gardner]

[beastie]

First, clarify: Are you saying that one could only expect to see syncretism when a new religion has been forced on a people? Syncretism doesn't just result in a situation where the native religion is forced to go underground. Surely that isn't your contention, yet it sounds like it is.

[Brant Gardner]

USU78:

So . . . help me understand why 1) the false christs must have their genesis in cultural/religious borrowings from Lehite neighbors; and 2) the sources must either be Mayan or Aztec [or even Olmec]?

Beastie has been discussing a point in an article posted on FAIR. I speculated that the false christs who were part of the problem of religious conflict between Mulekites and Nephites during Benjamin's reign were practitioners of the old religion. Placing the text in a plausible historical context raises the question of what a false messiah might have been. One expects the Jewish and Christian versions of the false messiah only if Judaism or Christianity was the base religion. The Mulekites has lost their god - and the logical reason as the adoption of the local religion. If that were the case, what might a false messiah be? Since the Book of Mormon messiah is considered to be God, then a false god is logical. The most likely false gods to cause the kind of problem indicated would be religious practitioners donning the garb of and representing the pagan god.

[USU78]

USU78:

So . . . help me understand why 1) the false christs must have their genesis in cultural/religious borrowings from Lehite neighbors; and 2) the sources must either be Mayan or Aztec [or even Olmec]?

Beastie has been discussing a point in an article posted on FAIR. I speculated that the false christs who were part of the problem of religious conflict between Mulekites and Nephites during Benjamin's reign were practitioners of the old religion. Placing the text in a plausible historical context raises the question of what a false messiah might have been. One expects the Jewish and Christian versions of the false messiah only if Judaism or Christianity was the base religion. The Mulekites has lost their god - and the logical reason as the adoption of the local religion. If that were the case, what might a false messiah be? Since the Book of Mormon messiah is considered to be God, then a false god is logical. The most likely false gods to cause the kind of problem indicated would be religious practitioners donning the garb of and representing the pagan god.

So . . . it's a minor point of speculation blown all out of proportion? Okeydokey.

I don't argue, BTW, that it is not possible or even probable that the speculation might end up being proved correct some day. It might provide some insight into the text, however. It is nicely consistent with my own understanding of the Nephite/Mulekite milieu.

My own thoughts on the "false christs" have been that they arise out of the kingmen [Jaredite/Jewish/Olmec [?] pretenders to Davidic/Messianic kingship/godhood] which were supplanted by the Nephite invasion and accompanying superimposition of religion and leadership.

[Addictio]

Hmm, it appears you continue to suffer from hardening of the rhetorical categories, Brant.

Let me say it as simply as possible. I'm inviting you to stop confusing arguments made under one hypothesis with arguments made under the other. (That's only part of what you were doing in your caricature of my position. If you were more interested in clarity and less in declaring victory, things would go better.)

Here's what you appear not to recognize still. I have reasoned positions -- perhaps you do too, but I can't tell -- under both hypotheses. [sidebar: Good grief, Brant, you and I have debated the "others" interpretation of the text under the ancient-author hypothesis on-and-off for years now. Out of that context, in apparent response to my earlier observations about the self- and other textual reports of Lamanite ancestry, you suddenly embarked on a polemical effort to mischaracterize what anyone who adopts the modern-author hypothesis is logically committed to, and then to caricature my position as a question-begging adoption of the JS-author hypothesis as a conclusion.]

Here's the way things are, and work, I think, if we leave polemics aside for a moment and talk about the conceptual situation. To be sure, the fundamental debate about historicity ultimately comes down to whether the BoM text is best understood as something recorded by ancient authors as history or composed (authored) by JS in the 19th Century. One way the debate proceeds is by both parties provisionally adopting the ancient-author hypothesis and arguing about the merits of the apologetic position in that context. That's what we have done for some time on the set of issues raised by the "others" reading of the text. A second way is for both parties to adopt provisionally the JS-author hypothesis in just the same manner, and argue about the different set of issues and extra-textual evidence that result (as a matter of logic) from that provisional adoption.

Note how this works regarding extra-textual evidence. Under the ancient author hypothesis, Brant can rely on archaeological evidence without anyone claiming that he is begging the question. He is entitled to because it becomes relevant when we provisionally adopt that hypothesis. Similarly, if the JS-author hypothesis is provisionally adopted, I can use extra-textual evidence of what JS believed (it is now relevant because he is assumed to be the author) to support the critical account of the text as a modern creation without Brant or anyone else claiming that in doing so I am begging the question.

Ok, so how does it work when I point out, for example, that as a matter of fact, Lamoni's father says his ancestors came from Jerusalem? When Brant says that what is really going on is that for the ancient recordkeepers and in their inferred historical context, this is recorded precisely because it is not true of all Lamnites. I don't accuse Brant of begging the question because I understand what he's doing. He's just articulating one apologetic position when the ancient-author hypothesis is provisionally adopted. Similarly, if I were to argue -- which I haven't on this thread -- that if JS is assumed to be the author, the uniform reports of Lamanite ancestry are consistent with and can be explained by, for example, statements by JS about the contents of the BoM, I am also not begging the question. I would be doing exactly what Brant is doing when he relies upon exra-textual evidence that ancient recordkeepers would have behaved in certain ways when making their record.

As I've said before, to me this doesn't mean that we can never argue, for example, about whether the apologetic account of historicity under the ancient-author hypothesis is weak or strong, coherent or not. Brant and I have done that for some time in connection with the "others" reading of the text. But if Brant wants to switch gears and talk intelligently about how well the "others" reading fares under the JS-author hypothesis, he should for starters stop conclusorily asserting that I am begging the question or that he knows what my position is and (worse) what it must be if I provisionally adopt the hypothesis.

I'm not at this point going to respond to Brant's latest post in detail because I don't have the time and it's clear he still doesn't "get it."

From his post:

I had said:

The entire analysis and what is at issue changes when we move from the ancient to the modern. Under the JS-author hypothesis, we're not assessing whether JS the author "got things right" about any historical or archeological information.

And Brant responded:

In other words, rather than test the hypothesis of historicity by examining the text against history, we dismiss historicity by assuming a modern author. That excludes any reason to even look at external data.

No. Brant continues to project his own confusion onto me. See above. Yes, if we're a critic and acting utterly stupid, I suppose, we could say that if we adopt the JS-author hypothesis there's no point in further debate because, by magic, all the apologists' extra-textual evidence (which is also pertinent under the ancient-authors hypothesis) becomes irrelevant. Please.

Added by edit: Let me clarify. The reason I had said we're not arguing about whether JS "got something right" about archaeology or history is because I was thinking that such information is usually handled in debate under the ancient-author hypothesis. I didn't mean to imply it becomes entirely irrelevant to historicity. If JS were the modern human author, instead of translator of an ancient record, any connections between the BoM and mesoamerican archaeology would be the result of happenstance. So, in responding to positive arguments by critics under the JS-author hypothesis, the apologist can still invoke and argue for the alleged connections between mesoamerican archaeology and the Bom. Upon further reflection, I now see this was a bad example for me to use in identifying differences in the nature of argumentation under each hypothesis. That is, the debate about what JS knew or could have known often occurs under the ancient author hypothesis, and, contrary to topics like the existence of "others" in the text, the nature of the interpretive issues and the relevant extra-textual evidence doesn't change significantly depending on which hypothesis is being considered. End of edit.

Brant, I was and am trying to clarify the conceptual territory. I am not making bone-headed arguments in which the critical account prevails by mere assumption or by definition.

At the end of his post Brant says:

Please help us understand how your understanding of your position differs from mine.

See above. Each of us can provisionally adopt either hypothesis and argue the merits under it. We have been doing that for years under the ancient-author hypothesis. We can do the same thing under the JS-author hypothesis without suddenly turning into boneheads who think that provisionally adopting a hypothesis means partisan "victory" for one party.

1) Do you contend that you are beginning with the assumption of a modern author?

The answer to this should be clear by now. It depends on what is being argued. When I respond to your arguments about why Nephi wrote as he did, I never assume I can handle the merits of your arguements by baldly asserting or assuming that JS is the author. Why would anyone think so? Any assumption I make about JS-authorship is of the provisional kind explained above.

2) Do you contend that you are reading the text according to the assumption of the modern author?

Modern author to me means JS. The only time I assume JS is the author is for purposes of my own positive arguments about evidence of 19th Century origin within and outside the Book. When I do, I take myself to be adopting that hypothesis provisionally, just as you do when you assume an ancient recordkeeper. By the way, I am fully aware of your frequent contentions that, in criticizing your position under the ancient-author hypothesis, I am unconsciously assuming a modern rather than an ancient context. The merits of those arguments can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.

3) Do you contend that it is likely that you will come to a conclusion contrary to your assumption with this method?

Really, Brant, can't you stop being merely partisan for a single moment? Provisionally adopting the JS-authorship hypothesis is not my "method." My point is that we can provisionally adopt either one. Most all of our previous arguments about "others" and the text, as you know, have been in the context of provisionally adopting the ancient-author hypothesis. Most all the arguments in my Sunstone presentation provisionally adopted that hypothesis as well. To me, the apologetic account under that hypothesis has major, fundamental problems. When we adopt a hypothesis, ancient or modern, we do so for the purpose of assessing the strength of competing arguments on the merits. So if you're asking a rather pointless personal or psychological question, you should ask yourself the same question about your use of the ancient hypothesis. The answer should be clear enough. Unless we're looking for pointless partisan advantage, I suppose, we don't conclude that provisionally adopting a hypothesis guarantees anything about the outcome on the merits.

[beastie]

Syncretism happens all of the time and in various ways. The circumstances of the contact dictate the nature of the process. Syncretism occurs when you have a point in common and that commonality leads to the adoption or extension of a current idea. This requires a point of commonality if the process is peaceful. If there is no coercion, I don

[USU78]

The problem is that Brant constructs his essays to find connections between the BoM and known Mesoamerican history entirely upon minor points of speculation, which often are problematic upon inpsection.

I didn't say Brant was the blower.