Mayan Lamanites

[beastie]

I didn't say Brant was the blower.

I didn't say you did. I stand by my statement. Go read his essay on the Gadianton Robber connection to the jaguar knights of the Aztec military for a good example.

[Addictio]

Having gone back and read your response again, Brant, I should add a few more comments.

In the passages regarding "others" you are commenting on, I am not making an argument on the merits about historicity. Why you can't grasp the difference between exploring and explaining the conceptual framework within which argumetation occurs and making arguments on the merits, I can't fathom. Once more, try to focus. If we interpret the "all those who would go" phrase as a statement written by Nephi as an ancient author, one body of evidence is relevant to interpreting it, including the presumed historical context in which he wrote, which includes his actual contact with these real people. His purpose and intent as an ancient recorder is relevant to that inquiry as well.

If we interpret the same phrase under the provisional hypothesis that JS was its author, different evidence becomes relevant to its interpretation. We no longer assume, for example, that the person writing/dictating the phrase had any contact with ancient Amerindians. Whether JS believed in the existence of Amerindians who pre-dated the arrival of the Lehites also becomes relevant to the interpretive inquiry. Full stop. What I have just said is not an argument about how the phrase should be interpreted if JS wrote it. It is a contention about how the nature of the evidence relevant to interpreting the phrase varies, depending on whether we are assuming that ancient Nephi or modern JS wrote it. I really can't believe you disagree with that rather simple conceptual point, but given the poor quality of your responses, it shouldn't matter.

Do I characterize this phrase as a "mistake" by JS, as you have argued I must? No. Actually, I interpret it in much the same way whether Nephi or JS wrote it, but the evidence I have in the case of JS is stronger than what I have for Nephi. It is an insignificant phrase used as part of a formulaic passage. Full stop. I could go on and explain all of the reasons why I interpret it that way if JS is deemed to be the author, but I'm not trying to persuade anyone about the strength of those reasons at present. That's a different issue from the conceptual point I'm making. Got it?

Ignoring the entire conceptual point I'm discussing, which I've summarized again for you above, you state, after I refer to provisionally adopting the JS-author hypothesis:

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.

Yes, Brant, I am provisionally assuming it in exactly the manner you provisionally assume Nephi is the author when we discuss the text under the ancient-author hypothesis.

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.

It's quite frustrating trying to converse with such a willful interlocutor, frankly, but I'll continue. No, Brant, if we jointly and provisionally adopt the JS-author hypothesis, we do it with the understanding that it forms the common basis for the discussion which follows. We have done that literally hundreds of times when we discuss the "others" interpretation of the text while jointly assuming ancient Nephi to be the writer. Why is it suddenly so difficult for you to understand what's going on? No, I'm not "defining the data to support the hypothesis." If you understood what I'm doing (actually I think you do, but have a high perversity index) you'd understand that when we provisionally adopt the JS-author hypothesis, we don't need to justify or support having done so, precisely because it is understood (among intelligent people who are not being perverse) that nothing determinative of the merits results from doing so.

Ok, your reference to my "dismissing contrary data," and what you go on to say, is merely childish. Let me translate for those unused to this kind of behavior: when Brant says that I'm

dismissing contrary data by assuming that the reason that it is contradictory is that the modern author wasn't very good and made mistakes

he's referring to a simple disagreement about how to explain what everyone recognizes is an anomaly in the narrative. (The number of people actually identified in the text couldn't accomplish what they are described as accomplishing.) Instead of just proceeding in the usual manner, making an uncontroversial joint assumption about the identity of the author, for discussion purposes, and offering interpretations of the key passages, Brant alleges again that merely by assuming JS is the author I'm begging the question -- his first sentence -- and then in his second that my interpretations of the relevant text must involve the same kind of error, "dismissing data" that is relevant and, his favorite word, "assuming" that the author made a mistake.

Ok, one more example of Brant's willful refusal to separate conceptual issues from arguments actually addressing the merits of BoM historicity, and then I'll leave off.

Elaborating on the conceptual point about how adopting the JS-author hypothesis changes the kind of evidence that may be relevant, I had said:

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.

Note that I'm not making any argument about how much weight these as-yet unidentified statements by JS should be given, in the context of any particular textual passage. That is because the point I'm making is general and conceptual. Instead of saying anything intelligent which might bear on that conceptual point, Brant declares:

The second part of (Addictio's) hypothesis is that opinions about the text are more important than the text itself.

Note that I have said no such thing. Let's see. We're talking about statements by JS. Does Brant take a position on whether such statements can or cannot ever be relevant to any interpretive issue presented by the text? No, that might require him to have focused on what I actually said. Instead, he attributes to me a general, abstract claim I did not and would never make. Brant continues:

Since this is a thesis that is true if and only if Joseph Smith is a modern author, it is another tautology.

(Yes, I'll turn away from this painful spectacle in a moment.) I suppose these are the kinds of things people say when they have no idea what to, but speak anyway, perhaps to fill the void? Look, Brant, if you want to hit the ball back straight on this one, try to decide if you have an opinion on whether (under the JS-author hypothesis) statements by JS about BoM peoples, the BoM narrative, or, say the identity or origin of Amerindians, can ever be relevant to an interpretive issue raised by arguments about BoM historicity. If not, why not? Finally, Brant says, apparently in further mischaracterization of my position:

His (JS's) opinions are assumed to be the meaning, and any contradiction in the text must be a mistake because it doesn't support that hypothesis.

Now, for no apparent reason, Brant is again talking about weight, not relevance. Again, Brant, all I've claimed is that such statements by JS are relevant. You can't begin to judge the weight I or anyone else might urge for them except in the context of an interpretive argument. The pointless pretense of your claiming to know the weight I would urge they be given, before I've made any argument using them, is par for the course.

[noel00]

This would have to be the most excriciating thread I have read in FAIR message board. I am just an average person who did undergraduate studies and have done nothing else since. This discussion between Beastie, Addictio and Brant Gardener is really strange to follow. Brant you obviousley accept the BOM as true, do u ever in your mind have doubts as you try to fit this book into the larger context of mesoamerica? I think I heard someone once say that you look for Mesoamerica in the BOM rather than the BOM in Mesoamerica. You debate with people here who no longer believe in the BOM. You would probably say you have a testimony of the truthfullness of the BOM. What kind of spiritual experience is that? When I was in the LDS church I never experieced anything like that. I have experienced in a AOG church being prayed for and this power flowing through me again and again. It was real. I read the writings of C S Lewis & G K Chesterton and feel like they are really speaking to my situation. Nothing I saw or read by LDS leaders touched me like that. In fact speakers like Bruce R McConkie, Apostle Peterson and Boyd Packer gave me a negative experience. The only writer that impressed me was Lowell Bennion who was kind enough to write 2 letters to me. Do u ever think when you spend you life trying to fit the BOM in among the Mayans etc that it may be pointless? I am not saying this to be anti just trying to see where u are coming from. Give me say five points that you think that make the historicity of the BOM plausible.

[Brant Gardner]

noel00:

This would have to be the most excriciating thread I have read in FAIR message board.

It has certainly felt like it.

Brant you obviousley accept the BOM as true, do u ever in your mind have doubts as you try to fit this book into the larger context of mesoamerica?

Of course. What is invisible in what I write on the boards is the process I went through to get here. You are looking at an after-the-fact, not the "during." I started my process of examining the Book of Mormon against history when I was an undergrad and wanted to read all of the wonderful confirming stories about Quetzalcoatl as Christ in the Book of Mormon. They weren't there. I still don't believe that they are there. My introduction to the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica was particularly positive.

I read a draft of Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon/i] about 9 or 10 years before it was published. That convinced me that it was possible to see the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica although I hadn't worked out the details. Frankly, I didn't (and don't) always agree with Sorenson. The percentage of disagreement is relatively small however.

For the next 20 years I didn't say too much about the connections, didn't write anything about it, and basically kept reading in Mesoamerica to learn what I could. I started writing a commentary on the Book of Mormon as an on-line article for the Scripture-L list (our collective memory places it somewhere in 1995 - I don't do well with dates that are younger than a thousand years ago <grin>).

That project was fascinating to me because I started at the beginning with the idea that I would read the text against a Mesoamerican background. I hadn't done it before I started. I didn't know how it would turn out. I didn't look forward to any later chapters (other than my obvious basic knowledge of them) and I started writing. I was frankly pretty worried about what would happen because at the level I was working at an incorrect assumption would distort the readings pretty quickly and I would have problems with the later texts. It didn't happen. What I found was that placing the text in that cultural area not only didn't require any analytical gymnastics, it actually improved the sense of the text. The text itself made better sense. Sermons that were otherwise difficult to see arising from the context had an explanation. Actions that otherwise had no logical motivation became not only explicable but consistent.

So - when you read anything I write now about the Book of Mormon you are reading the end of a very long, very intense, and very close experience with the text. I have applied every principle of ethnohistory I know. I have rejected any number of "proofs" for the text because I can't support them. I can't promise that I have looked at every pro and con argument for the text, but it is close. I have considered all of them and weighed them against available data.

I think I heard someone once say that you look for Mesoamerica in the BOM rather than the BOM in Mesoamerica.

Yes. That was a major turning point when I realized that looking for signs of Jerusalem culture in Mesoamerica was backwards. Much of the way LDS have approached the Book of Mormon has been to assume that since they love it, it must have been even more important. Hence it must be the explanation for all Amerindians, it must be the reason anyone had civilization or writing or anything. I can understand the impetus to think that, but it simply isn't correct and cannot be for the size of introduced population the text talks about. If we take the text seriously, then we look at the text. It is long enough and detailed enough that there ought to be hints of its production culture in it, whether ancient or modern. Hence I look at the text to see what evidence the text holds to declare who it was that wrote it.

You debate with people here who no longer believe in the BOM. You would probably say you have a testimony of the truthfullness of the BOM. What kind of spiritual experience is that?

Usually not too bad. Sometimes frustrating. I learned several years ago that I wasn't going to convince many (if any) of the conversants to change. I tried to stop this thread several times, but noticed how many times it is being read. Someone is interested in the topic and I suspect that their are those among the readers-but-non-participants who get something from the exchange.

It is also true that I have had some good questions that have required me to go back to my sources and make sure of my analysis. That is a valuable exercise.

When I was in the LDS church I never experieced anything like that. I have experienced in a AOG church being prayed for and this power flowing through me again and again. It was real. I read the writings of C S Lewis & G K Chesterton and feel like they are really speaking to my situation. Nothing I saw or read by LDS leaders touched me like that.

I rejoice that you have found that. There is power in Christ and different people feel it in different ways and communicate it differently. When it touches you it is the same power and it is good.

In fact speakers like Bruce R McConkie, Apostle Peterson and Boyd Packer gave me a negative experience. The only writer that impressed me was Lowell Bennion who was kind enough to write 2 letters to me.

And I know people who would give similar testimonials for the apostles you don't favor. I suspect I could find a long list of Christian writers from any time period who do not touch me - and those who do.

Do u ever think when you spend you life trying to fit the BOM in among the Mayans etc that it may be pointless? I am not saying this to be anti just trying to see where u are coming from.

I started work on the historical context of the Book of Mormon long after I had answered the fundamental question of whether or not it would be pointless. I looked at everything I could think of. I took my family tradition and history and realized that the way I had inherited my religion didn't work. It was nice, but it simply didn't fit. When I was in graduate school in Anthropology I was specializing in religion (my research interest was Aztec religion). I had a colleague ask how I remained a believer since the vast majority of grad students in anthropology of religions become agnostic at best. There wasn't and isn't a simple answer.

I saw a movie during one class where a Kalahari bushman was going through a trance as the gods spoke to him. The very next week I saw a film on Appalachian snake handlers as they were beset by the Holy Spirit. The physical symptoms were the same. I suppose my understanding of the relationship of religion to physical experience changed dramatically after that. I finally came to the point where I could easily not believe or believe. I chose belief. Above all of the data on worldwide religious experience, in the end I am a believer because of personal religious experence. They were small, but sufficent to tell me that I can and should believe.

Give me say five points that you think that make the historicity of the BOM plausible.

I get asked this kind of question a lot, and it really is a difficult one. It isn't difficult to find five points, it is how to explain that it isn't those five points but the five hundred. It isn't the five hundred, but the interrelationships among the five hundred.

I will try to explain. Diane Wirth recently published her book Parallels where she shows fascinating similarities between the Middle Eastern cultures and Mesoamerica. There are a large number of them that are new to the literature of parallels between the two areas. I have one problem with many of them. They can just as easily be explained by independent invention based on a similar response to something in nature. For instance, she notes that in both ares of the world spirits are depicted as fish - particularly spirits waiting to be born. That is really quite fascinating - until you remember that the developing fetus has a very fish-like stage. That common experience places a natural feature in a place where the resulting iconography flows from nature, not necessarily from contact.

On the other side, here is a second one that I can't explain yet. I have an Indonesian Garuda sitting on my desk. I have it because the similarities between the man-eagle who is the central figure has so many correspondencies with Quetzalcoatl that there must be some kind of connection. Both wear a bird mask that has a nose (not just breath-holes) and the beak is toothed. In both there is a long backwards-curving tooth at the back of the beak. Each beak is fringed with a beard. Both figures appear in connection to a dragon. That is a very arbitrary set of symbolic markers that have no known relationship to nature. One of them is random. That set is difficult to come up with once, but independent invention of that same arbitrary set of symbols, combined in the same way, defies the logic of independent invention. The problem is, at the moment I can't find the time period or method of contact. That makes it a fascinating possibility and one I would love to explore, but it is only a possibility. I wouldn't write that up for anyone - save as a question to see if anyone knew more and could solve the riddle.

The Book of Mormon presents the same kind of interrelated and arbitrary complexes as does my garuda - except that I can make the connections through the Book of Mormon. I can take relatively innocuous statements in the text and see that they represent time-appropriate cultural data. When they do so in places where the author isn't paying attention to what the text says, then I see them as strong evidence of a production culture. When I see that the known history of the development of trade and social hierarchies in southern Mesoamerica is replicated in the Book of Mormon at the same basic time period, If find that non-arbitrary. When the Mesoamerican political background explains Ammon at the waters of Sebus (which is otherwise an inexplicable story) and the Anti-Nephi-Lehies (which is also other wise difficult to explain) then I see a correct context. When I can geographically explain how the people of Lehi-Nehi could get lost trying to find Zarahemla and end up among the Jaredites, I think I have non-arbitrary relationships.

So - back to the five points. I don't know how to list five points. Five points without the interrelationships, without the data that supplies the necessary non-arbitrariness, are not very impressive. They are also arguable by focusing on a single detail and running it to the ground, which has already happened way too much on this thread.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I will focus on a very limited statement you made. Maybe if I limit the amount of comment it will work better.

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. 

1) I understand that beginning with different assumptions leads to different results.

2) I understand that I could take your assumed meaning for the text and create an argument that at least appeared to read the data consistently.

3) I also understand that the ability to debate both sides of an issue doesn't resolve the issue.

4) I understand that by limiting a discussion to a very narrow focus I could remove contrary or potentially contary data from consideration.

5) I also understand that by removing the text from any responsible anchor I could invent any number of explanaitions. They might even be mutually contradictory but internally consistent.

Would you like me to say that if you begin with the assumption you are making, and create the argument that you are using that it is consistent? It is. Would you like me to say that it is correct? I can't do that. The moment I accept a hypothesis that a priori accepts the conclusion from the beginning, I will simply ignore contrary data by finding a way to fold it into my hypothesis.

I simply can't accept a methodology that is designed to come up with the beginning assumption. I see no value in it, even for the purposes of a provisional discussion.

Please, rather than restate your position, would you explain how the method you are proposing could possibly come up with any other conclusion? What kind of control are you using on your data and analysis? I certainly understand beginning with a hypothesis, but please tell me how yours could possibly change? What stops you from inventing arguments to cover contrary data that would otherwise discredit the hypothesis? How do you know when you have a real explanation for a variance or an excuse for the variance?

I am well aware that I must answer the same questions and I assure you that I have. I am interested in how you handle those issues for the method you are suggesting?

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Well, there you go. Obviously there are points in common between Mesoamerican religion and Christianity.

Unfortunately, this sentence is typical of the way you appear to read your data. You go through a detailed explanation of why you have misapplied the data and see in it a confirmation of your opinion. How did you miss the little discussion of the nature of the Conquest and the required response? How did you miss that this unusual circumtance has only one possible analog in the Book of Mormon and even that one is sufficiently different as to make the Conquest data inapplicable?

You missed all of that and came up with a confirmation of your theory.

I really do appreciate your willingness to read Mesoamerican studies. I hope you find them interesting for themselves. It is a fascinating culture area.

[beastie]

Brant,

Have you or have you not insisted during this thread that the Mesoamerican religion was too dissimilar to the Nephite religion to pose a threat, in terms of people native to mesoamerica attempting to incorporate elements from their former religion into the new?

Did you or did you not admit that there are points of similarity between the two, else syncretism would not have occured, even under the circumstances of the conquest?

[juliann]

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 inspection.

And you construct your essays with disconnected prooftexting followed by endless plagiarizing from a couple of books (which I see you are reusing in another thread). Do you really expect us to believe that you are coming up with all of this? You have no idea how to put them together, you have no idea how to layer an argument. Sooooo.....you just substitute this:

I’m still waiting for Brant to explain how the Nephites punished the Mayan kings for their “crime”.

And my personal favorite...

Did you or did you not admit that there are points of similarity between the two, else syncretism would not have occured, even under the circumstances of the conquest?

He is supposed to salute first? I have not seen you provide one piece of evidence when you are asked. And you have been asked repeatedly to supply one....just one anthropologist who can support your nonsense. What is it...you can't find one or you only have access to three books?

Here is just some of what we are waiting for from Beastie:

What response do you have when I give you historical precedent? You don't understand what I am talking about and return to your "if I were a duck" analysis.

And we get more "I think....you are wrong..." quacking.

But do you really believe, as you seem to say, that the Limited Geography Theory has emerged in order to evade such things as DNA data? If so, do you have any evidence to support that contention?

More quacking.

Please tell me what anthropological literature you are using to make such a statement. One of the very common elements of ethnocentricity is an emphasis on the internal and the objectification of "others." What have you read that suggests otherwise? Read Bruce Malina on the pan-Mediterranean culture as a starting point.

Quack.

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

And more quacking....

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

Not much you can say to that...although this is only from the first 3 pages of this thread, Brant nailed your methodology immediately.

You helped kill ZLMB with your endless "you are wrong and so I'm very very right because I can talk and talk and talk and you are wrong and I've read three books and I'm smarter anyway". This sort of thing really doesn't go over well here....there are too many who suffered through it on Z. And left.

[beastie]

Juliann,

If FAIR prefers your sort of sideline sniping, with little to no substance, that will be apparent to me soon enough. I know you prefer uninformed critics, or, better yet, uninformed evanglicals with their own baggage to defend, rather than someone who actually has some background knowledge in topics, but that says more about you than about anyone else.

And you construct your essays with disconnected prooftexting followed by endless plagiarizing from a couple of books (which I see you are reusing in another thread). Do you really expect us to believe that you are coming up with all of this? You have no idea how to put them together, you have no idea how to layer an argument. Sooooo.....you just substitute this:

This is hilarious. You are again accusing me of cribbing, all the while saying my arguments are lame and ridiculous. Why would I have to crib lame and ridiculous arguments? And where am I cribbing this information? You certainly can't be referring to referenced quotations as plagiarizing, although anything is possible with you.

I asked you specifically which question you want me to answer of Brant's, as I don't recall ignoring any. Nor can I figure out just what point you want me to support with another citation (so you can accuse me of plagerism?). I can't read your mind, and even if I could, would refrain from such a frightening ordeal. But it is totally predictable that you don't mind the questions Brant has left unanswered, nor do you mind that Brant and CI use nothing more than a footnote referencing an article neither has ever read to support an extremely speculative assertion.

And why you would find my question about the Nephites, punishing the Mayan royalty strange, I have no idea. Do you understand which scripture Brant is referencing?

And it came to pass that after there had been false christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes

(Words of Mormon, 15)

Now Brant has construced an argument maintaining that these false Christs are none other than Mayan royalty. So my question is logical.

Now why don't you go figure out who else you can call a fundamentalist. I'm surprised you haven't called me one yet. That will make you feel much better, and of course, inordinately superior.

[Confidential Informant]

I know you prefer uninformed critics, or, better yet, uninformed evanglicals with their own baggage to defend, rather than someone who actually has some background knowledge in topics, but that says more about you than about anyone else.

Since when does simply reading a few books mean you have "background knowledge." You haven't shown any ability to actually synthesize the information you are reading or apply it in any meaningful manner.

This is hilarious.  You are again accusing me of cribbing, all the while saying my arguments are lame and ridiculous.  Why would I have to crib lame and ridiculous arguments?

Because you don't understand the argument being fronted in your source texts and thus you misapply them in regards to your arguments against Brant.

But it is totally predictable that you don't mind the questions Brant has left unanswered, nor do you mind that Brant and CI use nothing more than a footnote referencing an article neither has ever read to support an extremely speculative assertion.

What reason have you given to doubt the citation? I've already shown that the archeologist in question was competent and respected enough to be published by Harvard. I grant that doesn't "prove" anything but it certainly adds to his credibility. BYU has one of the books in question. When I find time, I shall get it. But I can already predict you plan to dismiss it no matter what it might say.

And it came to pass that after there had been false christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes

(Words of Mormon, 15)

Now Brant has construced an argument maintaining that these false Christs are none other than Mayan royalty. So my question is logical.

Why do I doubt that Brant will agree with your assessment?

Now why don't you go figure out who else you can call a fundamentalist.  I'm surprised you haven't called me one yet.

So far, you haven't tried to make Brant responsible for making his idea square with something Joseph Smith may have said on the B of M geography. When you start in with that, then you'll qualify.

Personally, I've enjoyed your conversation with Brant and it's unfortunate that it's bogged down. I'm just not convinced that you are interpreting your data correctly. I've read at least 4 or 5 books on RICO law. I wouldn't dare pretend that I'm capable of sparing the nuances of that law with season prosecutors who have worked it and tried it for years. Yet you seem to think that reading three or four books gives you a firm grasp on all the relevant issues. I'm not convinced it does.

Anyway....please continue.

C.I.

[beastie]

Since when does simply reading a few books mean you have "background knowledge." You haven't shown any ability to actually synthesize the information you are reading or apply it in any meaningful manner.

My ability to synthesize and apply information in a meaningful manner is not a point worthy of discussion, particularly since I doubt you have the capability to judge that in this particular discussion. Of course, discussions like these tend to jump around quite a bit, so it is easy to get lost. At any rate, I suspect opinions on my posting would be highly partisan, and pretty meaningless to me, personally.

But the "background knowledge" comment is interesting, and I'd like you to defend it. Note I said "some background knowledge". I haven't claimed to be an expert, and in fact, specifically denied being one. I have read the following books:

The Maya, Michael Coe, Thames and Hudson, 1999

Mexico, Michael Co, Thames and Hudson, 1994

Breaking the Maya Code, Michael Coe, Thames and Hudson, 1999

Religions of Mesoamerica, David Carrasco, Waveland Press, 1990

A Forest of Kings, Linda Schele and David Freidel, Quill William Morrow, 1990

Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, John Jenkins, Terence McKenna, 1998

I have not quite finished the following three books:

The Olmecs, Richard Diehl, Thames and Hudson, 2004

Popol Vuh, translated by Dennis Tedlock, Simon & Schuster, 1996

Ancient Msoamerican Warfare, edited by Brown and Stanton, Alta Mira, 2003

I also regularly read articles on the internet from famsi and mesoweb. Just how many books does one have to read to be able to have "some background knowledge"?

[kolobian]

I saw the old movie with Cheeseman (sp?). Does that count?

More seriously, I think this is a good thread. Brother Gardner's post above regarding his study and conversion I found particularly compelling. Thank you. More of personal narrative on this board I think I would enjoy. That's the extent of my comment here, given my obvious dearth of "background."

[juliann]

I also regularly read articles on the internet from famsi and mesoweb. Just how many books does one have to read to be able to have "some background knowledge"?

I don't think that you will even begin to understand...but you need to read enough to be overwhelmed by how much you don't know rather than being impressed with yourself. Then you have to have some means of discovering if you have left something out or mangled something. That requires some sort of mentor who knows a lot more than you.

If you asked Brant to name the books and articles that he read wouldn't even be able to remember them all. And as irritating as it is to you...you cannot completely get into the heads of those you study without knowing their language. That will take you another couple of years.

I will almost always state right up front that I am not studied in Mormon history...and especially not this sort of stuff to avoid the situation you are in even though you don't even know enough to know what situation you are in. That is why it really, really helps to not crib. When you have to give an author credit for her research, theories and data when you are rambling on about what you read....it is an inescapable visual of who it is that really knows the stuff. You don't know any of this stuff anymore than those you criticize for knowing the church is true. Until you do work with primary documents you only know what someone has told you.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Now Brant has construced an argument maintaining that these false Christs are none other than Mayan royalty. So my question is logical.

I really wish you would cease completely misreading what I wrote and twisting it in your discussion.

I have never - repeat never - said that the false Christs were Maya royalty. In fact, as I have tried to tell you more than once, at the time period we are talking about they could not have been Maya because the Nephites were not in Maya territory.

This is an incorrect statement. I see no reason to justify something I never said, never meant and do not believe.

[Brant Gardner]

kolobian:

. . . regarding his study and conversion. . .

Thank you for the kind words. However, I should make sure that it is clear that any conversion was to an interpretation of data, not the to gospel. I grew up in it.

[pseudogratix]

...but you need to read enough to be overwhelmed by how much you don't know rather than being impressed with yourself.

Quote of the year! I remember as a missionary being impressed at my ability in Japanese. Now many years have passed and I am more impressed with how much I don't know about the Japanese language and culture despite living here for over 1/3 of my life.

[beastie]

I really wish you would cease completely misreading what I wrote and twisting it in your discussion.

Well, that's one thing we agree upon, that the other completely misreads and distorts what each one of us says. For example, I still can't believe you interpreted my words about the world view in the manner you did. It is such a gross misreading it felt, to me, like it was deliberate. I think it's safe to say we have difficulty communicating, and the fault likely lies with each of us.

So let's look back at your article to see where I misread you.

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

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

You say that I distort your words when I interpreted these words to mean that the false Christ were the postOlmec/or Mayan who would dress in sacred garb. It was the royalty who did this. So where have I gone so wrong? Just what were you trying to say? If your argument is simply that I used the word "Mayan" instead of postOlmec, then I apologize, but to act as if that fundamentally twists your words is silly.

I will almost always state right up front that I am not studied in Mormon history...and especially not this sort of stuff to avoid the situation you are in even though you don't even know enough to know what situation you are in. That is why it really, really helps to not crib. When you have to give an author credit for her research, theories and data when you are rambling on about what you read....it is an inescapable visual of who it is that really knows the stuff. You don't know any of this stuff anymore than those you criticize for knowing the church is true. Until you do work with primary documents you only know what someone has told you.

Note what Juliann seems to be implying. It is simply not possible for anyone but someone who is a professional in the area to obtain enough background knowledge to be able to judge if various theories seem to be coherent with actual known history (in regards to the BoM). This reminds me of the elders who once told me that I was not in the position to make any judgments regarding the BoM unless and until I actually went to Central America and excavated myself. Let the experts do the thinking for you, (pat pat). Don't bother to try and learn some information on your own that could help you evaluate the reliability of what the particular expert claims, because you can't, unless you become an expert, too. (pat pat)

Certainly self education in terms of reading various books is not adequate to be a professional in the area. But it is adequate in terms of obtaining enough background information to have a more informed reaction to floated theories. To imply otherwise encourages the passivity of the general population to simply accept whatever the current experts want to dole out without further investigation. Due to the fact that I dislike protracted conversations with Juliann, for all the reasons evident on this thread, I hereby state I agree to disagree with her on this point and see no reason to continue discussing it with her, or even acknowledging her complaints.

Like most internet threads, this one has jumped into various different directions, some of them pretty irrelevant. I would like to try to return to my primary point. My point was that it is logical, reasonable, and consistent with history to expect to see some affect of the Mesoamerican religious system in the BoM. Religions are living systems that interact with the people within them to evolve in varying directions. It is illogical to accept that a Christian religion, transplanted in the Mesoamerican world that was permeated with that religious world view* would not have been impacted by that world view in some way, in terms of beliefs or practices, not simply socio/economics. Brant has stated, over and over, on this thread that the Mesoamerican religion was simply too dissimilar for us to expect to see that effect. Yet we see that effect after the conquest. Brant tries to emphasize the conquest aspect, but yet admits himself that this principle - connecting points of similarity - holds true even in such circumstances. He now does not understand why I say this proves that my original statement was true. I don't understand his lack of understanding.

Most religions share some common ideas, albeit expressed in different manners. The idea of some sort of deity engaging in an activity that saves humankind in some way is an example. The hero twins, or the gods originally sacrificing themselves in a fire to create mankind, are two examples of that within Mesoamerican religion. The critical element of blood in Mesoamerican religion could also find a point of similarity within Christianity, ie, Christ's blood. Perhaps the native converts, so imbued in a world view that regarded spilling one's own blood in ritual ceremonies to feed the gods in some way so they could, in turn, continue to feed humans, would have attempted to transplant that within a new framework, and continued to engage in self mutilation in order to "feed" Christ in some way, to return blood to him. This is nothing more than speculation, who knows what form the syncretism would have actually taken in that specific time period. My point is that it would have taken place, and it is logical to expect to see that in the BoM, in some form, either the cautioning against the attempts to incorporate old practices into the new, or accepting that syncretism as a group and altering the religion. But what we actually see in the BoM is a religion that seems to reflect nineteenth century christian primitivism, right down to the revival swoonings.

I have been accused of repeating myself on these threads. That is true to a certain extent, but it is due to the desire to move the conversation away from irrelevant side tracks, the sort which have nearly overwhelmed this thread.

My second important point was that I often see missing context in BoM apologetics. Because he is here to explain himself, I used brant's essay as an example. In showing examples of missing context, I have been accused of ignoring the main point. Although I tried to do this a couple of days ago and was ignored, I will try to return to brant's main point in that particular portion of the essay again. Is his main point that increased trade results in social stratification? If that's his only point, then all the BoM connections are absolutely irrelevant to his point. No one is going to argue with the fact that increased trade results in social stratification. But it seems to me that by referring so much to the BoM story that Brant is really trying to make the case that Nephi's arrival on the scene, and his ability to teach his people a skill that makes increased trade likely, with the resultant increased social stratification, fits within the time period. He has not supported that argument. To do so in a fashion more coherent with known history, he needs to construct his argument utilizing details from the specific city. Is there evidence that Kaminaljuyu experienced increased trade and social stratification in the correct time frame to be consistent with Nephi's appearance? And to construct a less speculative argument, he needs to theorize Nephi teaching something to the people that history actually shows would be consistent with that time period. What Old World knowledge could Nephi have imparted to these people that is consistent with Mesoamerican history?

If all Brant wanted to do was to say "increased trade results in increased social stratification", without going in to specifics that are coherent with the known history of the time period, then his essay ill served him. The essay is misleading, if that was his only point. (or rather that porition of his essay)

*please note, I am not conflating world view with the various roles and specific myths within that world view, please do not derail the thread anymore in that direction, and if you cannot accept "world view", then substitute "whatever religious system was in place at that particular time and area

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

You say that I distort your words when I interpreted these words to mean that the false Christ were the postOlmec/or Mayan who would dress in sacred garb. It was the royalty who did this.

That sentence will do for clarification of where you are misreading.

1) Olmec are not Maya

2) I never said it was only royalty who dressed as gods. You said that, and I don't agree with that particular reading of the data either.

Brant has stated, over and over, on this thread that the Mesoamerican religion was simply too dissimilar for us to expect to see that effect. Yet we see that effect after the conquest.

Does anyone else notice that beastie repeats this statement multiple times but never deals with the several responses I have given? Beastie, I will repeat one more time for you - the conditions are dramatically different and inapplicable.

Please give me some authority who would suggest that the conditions of a violent conquest are in any way similar to two contentious nations living next to each other.

[juliann]

Does anyone else notice that beastie repeats this statement multiple times but never deals with the several responses I have given?

Uh huh. I compiled several of your quite reasonable requests from the first couple of pages. The response was more of the same. I have not seen her once provide what you ask for. She just buries everyone in chatter and the thread eventually dies under the weight of it.

I'll just tack your latest probe onto the others she is refusing to answer:

What response do you have when I give you historical precedent? You don't understand what I am talking about and return to your "if I were a duck" analysis.

But do you really believe, as you seem to say, that the Limited Geography Theory has emerged in order to evade such things as DNA data? If so, do you have any evidence to support that contention?

Please tell me what anthropological literature you are using to make such a statement. One of the very common elements of ethnocentricity is an emphasis on the internal and the objectification of "others." What have you read that suggests otherwise?

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

Please give me some authority who would suggest that the conditions of a violent conquest are in any way similar to two contentious nations living next to each other.

[beastie]

Brant,

For heaven's sake. I know the Mayan weren't Olmec. I wish you would simply explain how I misunderstood you.

2) I never said it was only royalty who dressed as gods. You said that, and I don't agree with that particular reading of the data either.

Well, this is something actually solid. Can you give me specific references that explain how nonroyalty dressed as gods?

Does anyone else notice that beastie repeats this statement multiple times but never deals with the several responses I have given? Beastie, I will repeat one more time for you - the conditions are dramatically different and inapplicable.

Please give me some authority who would suggest that the conditions of a violent conquest are in any way similar to two contentious nations living next to each other.

Does anyone else notice that Brant ignores my point? Yes, I know that the situations are totally dissimilar. I never tried to insist otherwise. I used the example of the syncretism after the conquest to demonstrate the very point with which you now seem to agree - that there did exist points of similarity between the two religious systems for syncretism to result.

Let's look at your own past statements on this thread:

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

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

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

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.

In the case of religious influence I have pointed out repeatedly that you are assuming a kind of religious influence that is atypical of human population interactions. I see no reason for special pleading - particularly to explain why there is no evidence to support your hypothesis.

All these responses were to explain to me why I was incorrect in stating that it would be reasonable to see syncretism, or some evidence of warning against it, in the transplanted Christian religion.

Once I provided actual examples demonstrating syncretism did occur after the conquest, Brant responded:

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

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

He noted that even under a forced conquest, points of similarity are required for syncretism to occur. Hence, points of similarity exist between the Mesoamerican religion(s) and the Christian religion.

Once again your response it to reassert your original thesis. You haven't dealt with the issue of forced conquest except to agree that the conditions are very dissimilar. Now please deal with the question of why you think that completely unrelated circumstances will yield the exact same results.

However, since you want to talk about syncretism along lines of similarity, we might return to an earlier discussion about the nature of symbols. What was the nature of Mesoamerican syncretism? The expressive culture is dominantly Catholic. What happened in much of the syncretism is that certain ritual procedures were grafted on to Christian symbols and frequently pagan meanings were attached to the overtly Christian symbols. This is precisely the kind of influence in iconography that I have been talking about. The religion that must exist inside the more dominant religion adopts the visual/iconographic culture of the dominant religion. This happened from with the Mesoamericans adopting/adapting Christian iconography. It happened with the Christians adopting/adapting Greek iconography. It is precisely the reason I suggested that we might not be able to see a Christian symbol if it were adopted from a non-Christian source.

So here we have one of your arguments completely contradicting a different one. The problem with trying to make arguments based on limited data is that you tend to hit problems like this. Where I an argument might appear valid in isolation, when you place it into the greater context it simply won't fit.

You have two incompatible theses. I have no idea how you mighit reconcile them.

[juliann]

You have two incompatible theses. I have no idea how you mighit reconcile them.

Well, let's see......let's take a vote. She will either:

1. Be responsive to your requests for evidence and documentation.

2. Keep talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking....

After 17 pages of evasion it is depressingly evident that it won't be #1.

[juliann]

I suppose the best thing to do is simply quit wasting time in attempting to self educate, no matter what the subject (say, for example, trying to figure out the contradictory claims regarding global warming, or economic principles), and simply trust the experts. But the dilemma: sometimes experts present contradictory theories. Do we then trust the expert with the loudest voice? Or the one that makes us feel good? Or the one with the highest degree? What a decision, given our hopelessness of self education in an attempt to obtain enough knowledge to make informed judgments.

Best wishes in your self-education on global warming. However, the topic is the Mayans and the first step in education is to determine who to listen to. I'm not surprised that you can't even figure that out. As I said, you are not educated until you realize that you need the input of others because books don't carry on teaching dialogues. People do. But arrogance and disdain for those who are educated is always a good substitute for knowing I suppose....and it sure is a heck of a lot easier.

[juliann]

My response was to offer an historical example of syncretism between Mesoamerican religion and Christianity.

I think that we can all agree that you have no intention of answering any necessary and legitimate concerns about evidence. This "answer" was priceless, "Either way, it is not a topic that interests me particularly." It is also nice to know what all the other posters said but the request was made to you because it is you making the claims. This is all we are getting after pages and pages of evasion...and it obviously is not even helping to gather questions in one post so you can't ignore them.

1. Brant's request for information:

Please tell me what anthropological literature you are using to make such a statement. One of the very common elements of ethnocentricity is an emphasis on the internal and the objectification of "others." What have you read that suggests otherwise?

[beastie]

Once again your response it to reassert your original thesis. You haven't dealt with the issue of forced conquest except to agree that the conditions are very dissimilar. Now please deal with the question of why you think that completely unrelated circumstances will yield the exact same results.

When and where did I say the circumstances would yield the