Throw Out The Dates, Mayan Mystery

[Rob Osborn]

I have always been intrigued with the great ruins of a people we have called the "Maya". I have also been greatly intrigued with how we go about deciphering their text and calendar system. Of note is that they have a start date of some obscure 3114 bc date. Assuming the Maya to either be BoM peoples or having great influence with them, I find it all the more troubling that this start date we have assigned doesnt really line up with anything of great biblical note. The Jaredites most likely used a calendar system carried on by tradition from the creation, flood, tower of Babel, etc. The nephites used a calendar system of having been so many years removed from Israel up to the time of Christ and then starting a new count after Christ.

In doing some research into the matter I found out there have been around 50 different correlation dates assigned with the Mayan calendar. These dates differ by as much as thousands of years. Where the rubber meets the road however, the GMT correlation has been the one accepted because it seems to best agree with C14 dating. However, anyone familiar with this dating process knows that it has many variables into the unknown. Scientists are often required to give a sampke to be dated along with a guess as to what they believe it to be so that dates that are returned outside of this guess are discarded as scientific error- no joke! Well, its also no joke that certain Mayan sites have returned dates more than a thousand years older than expected or guessed upon and so, these dates get "corrected". There is a process of correcting dates scientifically. This process includes the process of discarding dates outside of the generally assumed or guessed upon antiquity!

This got me to thinking. Supposing the Mayan calendar is built from or has a start date of the actual creation and the fall of Adam and Eve then it backs up the dates associated with their society a thousand years or greater. This thus would have a drastic effect on just who the Mayans really were.

[Anijen]

Ok Rob, now please site your source for this information so we can read the article ourselves and not just go by what you say in your post. Thank you.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have always been intrigued with the great ruins of a people we have called the "Maya". I have also been greatly intrigued with how we go about deciphering their text and calendar system. Of note is that they have a start date of some obscure 3114 bc date. Assuming the Maya to either be BoM peoples or having great influence with them, I find it all the more troubling that this start date we have assigned doesnt really line up with anything of great biblical note. The Jaredites most likely used a calendar system carried on by tradition from the creation, flood, tower of Babel, etc. The nephites used a calendar system of having been so many years removed from Israel up to the time of Christ and then starting a new count after Christ.

The 3114 B.C. date for the start of the Maya Long Count is a date they inherited from the much earlier Olmec civilization, along with the complex calendar system and math which they also inherited from the Olmec long before the Maya Formative, Pre-Classic, and Classic eras.  The reason why the Olmec begin the system at that early date is indeed obscure, but (perhaps not coincidentally) it is nearly the same date for the beginning of the first dynasty in Egypt (ca. 3100 B.C.) and of the Kali Yuga in India (3102 B.C.).  It is also quite close to the invention of writing in Mesopotamia.  This was the true dawn of civilization in the Old Word, and perhaps the seeding of another one in the New World.

 

The Jaredites, of course, never mention "Babel," which would be an anachronism in any case.  What the Book of Mormon says is "Great Tower."  You need to pay attention to the actual text, Rob.

In doing some research into the matter I found out there have been around 50 different correlation dates assigned with the Mayan calendar. These dates differ by as much as thousands of years. Where the rubber meets the road however, the GMT correlation has been the one accepted because it seems to best agree with C14 dating. However, anyone familiar with this dating process knows that it has many variables into the unknown. Scientists are often required to give a sampke to be dated along with a guess as to what they believe it to be so that dates that are returned outside of this guess are discarded as scientific error- no joke! Well, its also no joke that certain Mayan sites have returned dates more than a thousand years older than expected or guessed upon and so, these dates get "corrected". There is a process of correcting dates scientifically. This process includes the process of discarding dates outside of the generally assumed or guessed upon antiquity!

This got me to thinking. Supposing the Mayan calendar is built from or has a start date of the actual creation and the fall of Adam and Eve then it backs up the dates associated with their society a thousand years or greater. This thus would have a drastic effect on just who the Mayans really were.

The GMT correlation is accepted by nearly all Mayanists for a host of reasons, some of which I mention in my “The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya,” 2011, online at 

http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/74773355-Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya .  The differences with previous theories are quite small and never involve thousands of years.  There have never been 50 different correlations.  Only one or two small divergences in opinion among scholars.  Moreover, your description of the scientific process of establishing dates is utter nonsense.  Your speculation about Creation and Adam & Eve is one I expect from someone baying at the moon.  By gosh and by golly reasoning doesn't get us anywhere.  If you really want to talk about science, I suggest several courses in science at your local college before you start pontificating on the subject.  You clearly know nothing of science nor about how it is done.

[Rob Osborn]

The GMT correlation is accepted by nearly all Mayanists for a host of reasons, some of which I mention in my “The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya,” 2011, online at 

http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/74773355-Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya .  The differences with previous theories are quite small and never involve thousands of years.  There have never been 50 different correlations.  Only one or two small divergences in opinion among scholars.  Moreover, your description of the scientific process of establishing dates is utter nonsense.  Your speculation about Creation and Adam & Eve is one I expect from someone baying at the moon.  By gosh and by golly reasoning doesn't get us anywhere.  If you really want to talk about science, I suggest several courses in science at your local college before you start pontificating on the subject.  You clearly know nothing of science nor about how it is done.

The great tower spoken of in the Jaredite record is the tower of Babel- that is what we in our time reference that event. We can sort of track down the tower of Babel event to about 2000-2300 bc. Neither this date nor the flood, several hundred years prior, match up with the start date we have given the Maya. Records of both Nephite and Jaredite have dates established after biblical events. Nothing of note or importance happened at 3114 bc.

Carbon dating is at complete odds with a 6,000 year temporal age of the earth. From what I understand, the entire validity of the GMT mayan correlation rests upon c14 dates aligning with astronomical recordings of which there is some variance.

[theplains]

The nephites used a calendar system of having been so many years removed from Israel up to the time of Christ and then starting a new count after Christ.

 

What do you mean exactly?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Rob Osborn]

What do you mean exactly?

 

Thanks,

Jim

The Nephites counted out days and years they were removed from Jerusalem by Lehi ans family. After Christ came they counted from that time forward.

[Robert F. Smith]

The great tower spoken of in the Jaredite record is the tower of Babel- that is what we in our time reference that event. We can sort of track down the tower of Babel event to about 2000-2300 bc. Neither this date nor the flood, several hundred years prior, match up with the start date we have given the Maya. Records of both Nephite and Jaredite have dates established after biblical events. Nothing of note or importance happened at 3114 bc.

If the Book of Mormon used the phrase "tower of Babel," biblical scholars would be laughing at it for containing an anachronism.  Because you don't know what that means, you just assume that they must be one and the same.  The tower of Babel is a late ziggurat familiar to the Jews in the 6th century B.C., so they put the story in that late context (kind of like updating a story to make it comprehensible, something that biblical editors did all the time).  You just don't read the text carefully enough, and it shows painfully throughout your comments.

 

Of course, you are very self-assured in saying that nothing of note happened in 3114 B.C.  For you, the invention of writing, the foundation of the first Egyptian dynasty, and the great migration of the Jaredites at that time, etc., have  no importance.  You might have noted that the 1981 LDS edition of the Bible has a "Bible Dictionary" which does not even hazard a guess on the dates of the Flood or Tower of Babel, and on page 635 it wisely observes:

Chronology. Bible chronology deals with fixing the exact dates of the various events recorded.  For the earliest parts of O.T. history we rely entirely on the scripture itself; but the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint or Greek translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch do not agree together, so that many dates cannot be fixed with certainty.  From the time of David onwards we get much assistance from secular history, e.g., inscriptions on monuments and other state records.  Much work has still to be done in this direction.  The dates found at the top of many printed English Bibles are due to Archbishop Ussher.  Some of them have been shown to be incorrect.

Carbon dating is at complete odds with a 6,000 year temporal age of the earth. From what I understand, the entire validity of the GMT mayan correlation rests upon c14 dates aligning with astronomical recordings of which there is some variance.

There are three major ways in which the GMT correlation is proven to be accurate (historical, astronomical, and archeological), and C-14 is the last on the list -- even though it confirms the more exact methods as summarized  here:

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

Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count

The Maya and Western calendars are correlated by using a Julian day number (JDN) of the starting date of the current creation – 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw, 8 Kumk'u.^{[n 4]} This is referred to as a correlation constant. The generally accepted correlation constant is the Modified Thompson 2, "Goodman, Martinez, Thompson" – GMT correlation of 584,283 days. Using the GMT correlation, the current creation started on September 6, 3114 BC in the Julian Calendar or August 11 in the Proleptic Gregorian calendar. The study of correlating the Maya and western calendar is referred to as the correlation question.^{[10][11][12][13][14]} The GMT correlation is also called the 11.16 correlation.

In Breaking the Maya Code, Michael D. Coe writes: "In spite of oceans of ink that have been spilled on the subject, there now is not the slightest chance that these three scholars (conflated to GMT when talking about the correlation) were not right...".^[15] The evidence for the GMT correlation is historical, astronomical, and archaeological:

Historical: Calendar Round dates with a corresponding Julian date are recorded in Diego de Landa's Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (written circa 1566), the Chronicle of Oxcutzkab and the books of Chilam Balam. Oxcutzkab and de Landa record a date that is a Tun ending in the Short Count. Regarding these historical references in The Skywatchers Aveni writes: "All the assembled data are consistent with the equation November 2, 1539 = 11.16.0.0.0. Thus for the GMT, or [an alternate term:] 11.16 correlation we find that A = 584,283...".^[16] The fall of the capital city of the Aztec Empire, Tenochtitlan, occurred on August 13, 1521. A number of different chroniclers wrote that this was aTzolk'in (Tonalpohualli) of 1 Snake. Post-conquest scholars such as Sahagun and Duran recorded Tonalpohualli dates with a calendar date. Many indigenous communities in the Mexican states of Veracruz, Oaxaca and Chiapas^[17] and in Guatemala, principally those speaking the Mayan languages Ixil, Mam, Pokomchí, and Quiché, keep the Tzolk'in and in many cases the Haab'.^[18] These are all consistent with the GMT correlation.

Astronomical: Any correct correlation must match the astronomical content of classic inscriptions. The GMT correlation does an excellent job of matching lunar data in thesupplementary series.^[19] For example: An inscription at the Temple of the Sun at Palenque records that on Long Count 9.16.4.10.8 there were 26 days completed in a 30 day lunation.^[20] This Long Count is also the entry date for the eclipse table of the Dresden Codex^{[21] [n 5]} which gives eclipse seasons when the Moon is near its ascending ordescending node and an eclipse is likely to occur. Dates converted using the GMT correlation fall roughly in this eclipse season. The Dresden Codex contains a Venus table which records the heliacal risings of Venus. The GMT correlation agrees with these to within a less than half a day which is as accurately as these can be observed.^[30]

Archaeological: Various items that can be associated with specific Long Count dates have been isotope dated. In 1959 the University of Pennsylvania carbon dated samples from ten wood lintels from Tikal.^[31] These were carved with a date equivalent to 741 AD, using the GMT correlation. The average carbon date was 746±34 years. Recently one of these, Lintel 3 from Temple I, was analyzed again using more accurate methods and found to agree closely with the GMT correlation.^[32]

If a proposed correlation only has to agree with one of these lines of evidence there could be numerous other possibilities. Astronomers have proposed many correlations, for example: Lounsbury,^[33] Fuls, et al.,^[34] Böhm and Böhm^[35][36][37] and Stock.^[38]

Today, 12:01, Saturday September 21, 2013 (UTC), in the Long Count is 13.0.0.13.14 (GMT correlation).

[Robert F. Smith]

The Nephites counted out days and years they were removed from Jerusalem by Lehi ans family. After Christ came they counted from that time forward.

He asked you for exactitude, and you give him this?

What exact year did Lehi leave Jerusalem?  What exact year was Jesus born?

[Bikeemikey]

This got me to thinking. Supposing the Mayan calendar is built from or has a start date of the actual creation and the fall of Adam and Eve then it backs up the dates associated with their society a thousand years or greater. This thus would have a drastic effect on just who the Mayans really were.

At best you would be able to propose that they started their dating at a point they believes was the fall.

You would then have to show they had justification for such a date. This would be almost totally impossible.

If you are going to expend faith believing in history and principles that have no empirical support I suggest you pick stuff that matters.

[Rob Osborn]

"If the Book of Mormon used the phrase "tower of Babel," biblical scholars would be laughing at it for containing an anachronism. Because you don't know what that means, you just assume that they must be one and the same. The tower of Babel is a late ziggurat familiar to the Jews in the 6th century B.C., so they put the story in that late context (kind of like updating a story to make it comprehensible, something that biblical editors did all the time). You just don't read the text carefully enough, and it shows painfully throughout your comments."

Take your case to the church then. Hete is what the introduction to the BoM states-

"The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

[Anijen]

Carbon dating is at complete odds with a 6,000 year temporal age of the earth.

This is true. So are other forms of dating.

 

The simple fact is that the earth is older than 6000 years. 

[cursor]

Carbon dating is at complete odds with a 6,000 year temporal age of the earth. From what I understand, the entire validity of the GMT mayan correlation rests upon c14 dates aligning with astronomical recordings of which there is some variance.

 

I think you got it backwards, Rob. The irrational belief that there is "a 6,000 year temporal age of the earth" is at complete odds with the current pool of scientific knowledge. When we realize that the world is indeed not flat, it makes logical sense to adjust our perspective, no?

Edited September 26, 2013 by cursor

[Rob Osborn]

I think you got it backwards, Rob. The irrational belief that there is "a 6,000 year temporal age of the earth" is at complete odds with the current pool of scientific knowledge. When we realize that the world is indeed not flat, it makes logical sense to adjust our perspective, no?

This reminds me of the mystery of the auroras. For so many years the best scientists in the world had figured out all aspects of why the northern/southern lights happened. Then one lovely day NASA happened upon the enigma of the polar fountains blowing mass from the polar regions and it was this material that was actually the source for causing the auroras.

Think what you want but the age of life on this earth is far less than what science has had to say.

[Rob Osborn]

There are three major ways in which the GMT correlation is proven to be accurate (historical, astronomical, and archeological), and C-14 is the last on the list -- even though it confirms the more exact methods as summarized  here:

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

Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count

The Maya and Western calendars are correlated by using a Julian day number (JDN) of the starting date of the current creation – 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw, 8 Kumk'u.^{[n 4]} This is referred to as a correlation constant. The generally accepted correlation constant is the Modified Thompson 2, "Goodman, Martinez, Thompson" – GMT correlation of 584,283 days. Using the GMT correlation, the current creation started on September 6, 3114 BC in the Julian Calendar or August 11 in the Proleptic Gregorian calendar. The study of correlating the Maya and western calendar is referred to as the correlation question.^{[10][11][12][13][14]} The GMT correlation is also called the 11.16 correlation.

In Breaking the Maya Code, Michael D. Coe writes: "In spite of oceans of ink that have been spilled on the subject, there now is not the slightest chance that these three scholars (conflated to GMT when talking about the correlation) were not right...".^[15] The evidence for the GMT correlation is historical, astronomical, and archaeological:

Historical: Calendar Round dates with a corresponding Julian date are recorded in Diego de Landa's Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (written circa 1566), the Chronicle of Oxcutzkab and the books of Chilam Balam. Oxcutzkab and de Landa record a date that is a Tun ending in the Short Count. Regarding these historical references in The Skywatchers Aveni writes: "All the assembled data are consistent with the equation November 2, 1539 = 11.16.0.0.0. Thus for the GMT, or [an alternate term:] 11.16 correlation we find that A = 584,283...".^[16] The fall of the capital city of the Aztec Empire, Tenochtitlan, occurred on August 13, 1521. A number of different chroniclers wrote that this was aTzolk'in (Tonalpohualli) of 1 Snake. Post-conquest scholars such as Sahagun and Duran recorded Tonalpohualli dates with a calendar date. Many indigenous communities in the Mexican states of Veracruz, Oaxaca and Chiapas^[17] and in Guatemala, principally those speaking the Mayan languages Ixil, Mam, Pokomchí, and Quiché, keep the Tzolk'in and in many cases the Haab'.^[18] These are all consistent with the GMT correlation.

Astronomical: Any correct correlation must match the astronomical content of classic inscriptions. The GMT correlation does an excellent job of matching lunar data in thesupplementary series.^[19] For example: An inscription at the Temple of the Sun at Palenque records that on Long Count 9.16.4.10.8 there were 26 days completed in a 30 day lunation.^[20] This Long Count is also the entry date for the eclipse table of the Dresden Codex^{[21] [n 5]} which gives eclipse seasons when the Moon is near its ascending ordescending node and an eclipse is likely to occur. Dates converted using the GMT correlation fall roughly in this eclipse season. The Dresden Codex contains a Venus table which records the heliacal risings of Venus. The GMT correlation agrees with these to within a less than half a day which is as accurately as these can be observed.^[30]

Archaeological: Various items that can be associated with specific Long Count dates have been isotope dated. In 1959 the University of Pennsylvania carbon dated samples from ten wood lintels from Tikal.^[31] These were carved with a date equivalent to 741 AD, using the GMT correlation. The average carbon date was 746±34 years. Recently one of these, Lintel 3 from Temple I, was analyzed again using more accurate methods and found to agree closely with the GMT correlation.^[32]

If a proposed correlation only has to agree with one of these lines of evidence there could be numerous other possibilities. Astronomers have proposed many correlations, for example: Lounsbury,^[33] Fuls, et al.,^[34] Böhm and Böhm^[35][36][37] and Stock.^[38]

Today, 12:01, Saturday September 21, 2013 (UTC), in the Long Count is 13.0.0.13.14 (GMT correlation).

They cant correctly correlate the two calendars because of the diaconnect between ancient Mayan dates and later ones. From what I have studied, the main problem is matching up heavenly events as recorded anciently with the correct cycle of those events. Thus, trying to ensure their good guess with carbon dating is problematic. Am I wrong?

[cinepro]

This reminds me of the mystery of the auroras. For so many years the best scientists in the world had figured out all aspects of why the northern/southern lights happened. Then one lovely day NASA happened upon the enigma of the polar fountains blowing mass from the polar regions and it was this material that was actually the source for causing the auroras.

Think what you want but the age of life on this earth is far less than what science has had to say.

 

"Think what you want" being the operative phrase.

[Rob Osborn]

As I recall, didnt they have a big issue with trying to carbon date ancient Egyptian stuff where they knew the dates? Im gonna have to check that avenue out

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have always been intrigued with the great ruins of a people we have called the "Maya". I have also been greatly intrigued with how we go about deciphering their text and calendar system. Of note is that they have a start date of some obscure 3114 bc date. Assuming the Maya to either be BoM peoples or having great influence with them, I find it all the more troubling that this start date we have assigned doesnt really line up with anything of great biblical note. The Jaredites most likely used a calendar system carried on by tradition from the creation, flood, tower of Babel, etc. The nephites used a calendar system of having been so many years removed from Israel up to the time of Christ and then starting a new count after Christ.

In doing some research into the matter I found out there have been around 50 different correlation dates assigned with the Mayan calendar. These dates differ by as much as thousands of years. Where the rubber meets the road however, the GMT correlation has been the one accepted because it seems to best agree with C14 dating. However, anyone familiar with this dating process knows that it has many variables into the unknown. Scientists are often required to give a sampke to be dated along with a guess as to what they believe it to be so that dates that are returned outside of this guess are discarded as scientific error- no joke! Well, its also no joke that certain Mayan sites have returned dates more than a thousand years older than expected or guessed upon and so, these dates get "corrected". There is a process of correcting dates scientifically. This process includes the process of discarding dates outside of the generally assumed or guessed upon antiquity!

This got me to thinking. Supposing the Mayan calendar is built from or has a start date of the actual creation and the fall of Adam and Eve then it backs up the dates associated with their society a thousand years or greater. This thus would have a drastic effect on just who the Mayans really were.

I have never used the term "Mayan", nor heard in in a class, as doing som would be speculation. Now in other publications and Apologetics, I have and even then no one claims to know this is where BoM events took places, at least with 100% confidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

I said:

"If the Book of Mormon used the phrase "tower of Babel," biblical scholars would be laughing at it for containing an anachronism. Because you don't know what that means, you just assume that they must be one and the same. The tower of Babel is a late ziggurat familiar to the Jews in the 6th century B.C., so they put the story in that late context (kind of like updating a story to make it comprehensible, something that biblical editors did all the time). You just don't read the text carefully enough, and it shows painfully throughout your comments."

You said:

Take your case to the church then. Hete is what the introduction to the BoM states-

"The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

 

 

The introductions are not canonical and change from one edition to another.  Even the quote you just gave me here has been changed since it first came out in 1981.  Can you tell me which phrase has been changed?

You need to be aware that your own uninformed thinking on such matters may reflect widespread ignorance.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

As I recall, didnt they have a big issue with trying to carbon date ancient Egyptian stuff where they knew the dates? Im gonna have to check that avenue out

Carbon 14 testing is very reliable worldwide.  However, it only provides a statistical likelihood for a range of years.  It should always be used in concert with other means of dating.

[cursor]

 

The introductions are not canonical and change from one edition to another.  Even the quote you just gave me here has been changed since it first came out in 1981.  Can you tell me which phrase has been changed? You need to be aware that your own uninformed thinking on such matters may reflect widespread ignorance.

 

Reference to "coins" for instance (initially shown in the 1920 edition), has since been [smartly] removed.

[Robert F. Smith]

They cant correctly correlate the two calendars because of the diaconnect between ancient Mayan dates and later ones. From what I have studied, the main problem is matching up heavenly events as recorded anciently with the correct cycle of those events. Thus, trying to ensure their good guess with carbon dating is problematic. Am I wrong?

I don't know what you are talking about here.  Maybe you could cite a source for these notions -- which go against the accepted norms which I cited and quoted for you, Rob.

[prismsplay]

Following this conversation is like watching a greased pig contest, with all participants readily able to tackle and pin down the pig except for the applied grease allowing the pig to wiggle free. In serious conversations I do not like wiggle room. Like Sherlock Holmes, I like to see all possibilities gradually eliminated until only one, however improbable, remains as the truth. When the subject runs away and is covered with grease, a pursuit is not worth the energy, unless it is all just for fun, which is the whole point of greased pig contests.

[strappinglad]

doesn't Ether 1: 33 tie the Jaredites to the tower of Babel/Great Tower and the confusion of tongues? It seems that is what Mormon assumed.

[Rob Osborn]

The introductions are not canonical and change from one edition to another.  Even the quote you just gave me here has been changed since it first came out in 1981.  Can you tell me which phrase has been changed?

You need to be aware that your own uninformed thinking on such matters may reflect widespread ignorance.

Why must you endlessly split hairs? The great tower, tower of Babel.... everyone knows what event we are talkibg about.

[Robert F. Smith]

doesn't Ether 1: 33 tie the Jaredites to the tower of Babel/Great Tower and the confusion of tongues? It seems that is what Mormon assumed.

Of course it does, with the proviso that the "tower of Babel" is a late glosse, added to the story thousands of years later in order to make it comprehensible to the Jews in Exile or post-Exile.

For the same reason, we would not expect the Brass Plates to have that phrase, because it is post-Lehi.