Horses in Ancient America?

[Brant Gardner]

((finally got the quotes working - human error, as usual))

beastie:

Obviously, you do understand my point after all, despite your momentary diversion in the first paragraph. Is this your way of saying there is no support for the infant baptism in the Maya culture?

I understand your point. You do not appear to understand how scholars work with data in that arena - hence the reference to Freidel, Schele, and Parker. I don't know where you got the idea that the only thing you can understand about Mesoamerica is what you read in one source from one place. Mesoamerican doesn't have a rich written tradition that founded historiography in the Old World, so different methods are used. You suggested that I couldn't use the Aztec example of infant washing/baptism because it was too far removed in time and space. Maya Cosmos makes comparisons and draws similar conclusions based on a much wider difference in time, some in space, but certainly after a great deal of possible cultural contamination. Nevertheless, their work stands.

If you hold your standards to that work, we would lose it. I side with them against your assumption of methodology.

Tributary relationships

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

What Brant is attempting to do with the infant baptism is to draw conclusions about earlier Maya periods from later Aztec periods. That, it seems to me, should be far more tenuous, given that there were some serious differences between those two cultures. I have seen many references to the Aztec area in my readings, most notably in discussing the Teotihuacan influence. But I can

[ScriptureLover]

Brant Gardner:

The Maya clearly revered a whole range of deities associated with various domains. We ahve seen that at Monte Alban and Teotihuacan, and even extending back into the olmec realm, there are anthropomorphized gods with particular powers and interests. To Mesoamericans, the cosmos had multiple levels.

SL:

Hmmmmm, sounds a lot like the Egyptians as well. Re, the Sun God, Lord (Neb er djer) of the cosmos above, the sky, Osiris, the God of the Underworld, Harakhti, joining either and both along with Min to achieve immortality and power and strength of the Gods he unites with.....etc., etc.........just mullin it over is all.......

[beastie]

Brant,

Noting similarities between the Aztecs and the Maya is not the same as using known information about the Aztecs to draw conclusions about the early Maya. In the books I've read, the authors use Classic Maya information to draw conclusions about early Maya, but they tell you when they've done so. As I stated, I can't remember reading an author who used information from the Aztecs to draw conclusions about the early Maya. I can also cite passages that mention the Aztecs. That's not the point under discussion.

I'm concluding you don't have any Maya support for infant baptism. I understand you are still going to hold to your assertions, so that is a point we will disagree upon. I will return to your other points later.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Noting similarities between the Aztecs and the Maya is not the same as using known information about the Aztecs to draw conclusions about the early Maya.

Somehow I knew you would think that. I agree that you don't see as much of it as you used to because the glyphic evidence is so much better. However, it is still a known practice, even if you prefer to read the evidence in a way that denies it. You just read three places where scholars (2 different ones) pointed out similarities that are part of the cultural continuity that you are trying to suggest isn't there. If you remember, the point I made wasn't that the Maya had infant baptism because the Aztecs did. I suggested that it was a pan-Mesoamerican trait because it whas shared among the Maya and Aztecs - which is the kind of reference these scholars are making.

I am assuming that you are only interested in reading with your particular perspective.

[beastie]

Brant,

I'm working on a more detailed response to your points, but want to make one quick point.

If, as you say, it is a common practice (although less common today) to draw conclusions about the Maya from the practices about the Aztecs, and it is accepted that the Maya engaged in infant baptism like the Aztec, then you should be able to provide at least a couple of citations to support your contention. All you've shared, so far, is passages that mention some similarity between the Aztecs and the Maya, a point I've never denied. I'm just saying that, so far in my reading, I haven't encountered an author who used the Aztecs to draw conclusions about the early Maya, so I'm curious about it. So can you share some passages from scholars in the field that talk about Maya infant baptism?

I am assuming that you are only interested in reading with your particular perspective.

Sure, Brant, that's why I keep asking you, over and over, for citations from scholars that reflect your particular perspective. That's why I went out of my way to find and read Linne, who, according to Sorenson, would have stated something in conflict with my perspective about ancient Mesoamerican metallurgy. That's why I read articles from FARMS, and Sorenson's Ancient Setting. That's why I make sure I only read books from Mesoamerican scholars who would likely reject the historicity of the BoM. Oh, wait a minute, that probably is true, that really would be almost the entire field, but it's not a deliberate action on my part. It's just the nature of the beast.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

If, as you say, it is a common practice (although less common today) to draw conclusions about the Maya from the practices about the Aztecs, and it is accepted that the Maya engaged in infant baptism like the Aztec, then you should be able to provide at least a couple of citations to support your contention.

The problem I have trying to have a discussion with you is that while you read you don't seem to read the same things other people do in what you read. For instance, this is the second time you have suggested that I am saying that the Maya practiced infant baptism like the Aztecs.

1) You were the one who brought up the Maya practice. I don't have to tell you that they did it - you supplied the information.

2) I didn't suggest that they practiced it because it was an Aztec practice. I suggested that because it was both a Maya and Aztec practice that it could be considered one of the pan-Mesoamerican traits--that set of cultural data that was shared.

3) I gave other examples of places where we know that there was cultural sharing (and most likely borrowing by the Aztecs).

4) I provided citations from scholars who use the cultural similarities with the Aztecs to illustrate and flesh out Maya practice.

5) I don't quite know what you mean when you say "draw conclusions" about the Maya. If you mean that scholars "draw conclusions" that the Maya and the Aztecs shared cultural traits, then the answer is yes. If you are concerned about distance in time and space, see Maya Cosmos.

In the case of infant washing/baptism, you know that you have documentation from both the Maya and the Aztecs. Are you suggesting that the Yucatec Maya (I beleive that was your source) and the Aztecs were the only people who did this, and that no one in between them (sharing so much of the religious and intellectual culture) ever did the same thing? These cases were absolutely independent aberrations? Find me any scholar who would suggest that.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Ben, I'm sorry, the only label appropriate for this statement is nonsense. I have spent hours supporting parallels I've noted in the past, such as the masonic connection to the Gadiaton Robbers.

And in doing so, you have engaged in parallelomania.

Moreover, a supernatural explanation should only be accepted as more reasonable if there is no possible natural explanation (excluding natural explanations that are so unlikely that are, for practical purposes, supernatural).

You have to love it when someone cries "angel". Essentially (as I have noted before), since you don't believe that demonstrating the "supernatural" is even possible, for you any argument (no matter how improbable) which doesn't invoke the supernatural, is always going to be preferrable to any argument which does invoke the supernatural. Since the entire basis of this differentiation is over the issue of the supernatural, there is no focus for you on the content of your argument (i.e. its plausibility).

What BoM apologetics has descended to, as the evidence demonstrating nineteenth century correlation with the ideas therein has grown, is demonstrated by CI's comments. Now the critics have to actually place texts within JS' hands, not just demonstrate that these texts (and religious sermons) were common in JS time period.

But this is a significant issue. Take the issue of freemasonry. One of the critical elements in that debate is the nature of the phrase "secret combination". This phrase was used before the anti-masonic movement. It was used after the anti-masonic movement. In fact, as early as 1841 we have Mormon writers using it (in reference to the Book of Mormon) in a way which is exclusive of referring to masonry. So, why is it, that we should suppose that over the course of a single decade, a technical usage arises and disappears, but that the material written within that time frame should be read as referring exclusively to that technical meaning?

Perhaps you can see the irony? Joseph Smith uses the phrase "secret combination" in such a provincial way, that it should only be read in terms of an alleged technical usage of the term from a very narrow time and place. Yet, Joseph is so aware of his cultural environment that he can draw from hundreds of traditions spread out across quite a space in terms of place and time.

Ben

[beastie]

Brant,

Coe's reference is not to an infant baptism. It is a rite that took place between the ages of three and twelve. Sorry for the confusion, I thought you were aware of that. This is why I have repeatedly asked for Maya evidence of infant baptism.

QUOTE 

What BoM apologetics has descended to, as the evidence demonstrating nineteenth century correlation with the ideas therein has grown, is demonstrated by CI's comments. Now the critics have to actually place texts within JS' hands, not just demonstrate that these texts (and religious sermons) were common in JS time period.

But this is a significant issue. Take the issue of freemasonry. One of the critical elements in that debate is the nature of the phrase "secret combination". This phrase was used before the anti-masonic movement. It was used after the anti-masonic movement. In fact, as early as 1841 we have Mormon writers using it (in reference to the Book of Mormon) in a way which is exclusive of referring to masonry. So, why is it, that we should suppose that over the course of a single decade, a technical usage arises and disappears, but that the material written within that time frame should be read as referring exclusively to that technical meaning?

To be frank - I suspect your argument regarding masonry/Gad. is only convincing to those who already believe in the BoM. I suspect the connection is quite clear to others.

You have to love it when someone cries "angel". Essentially (as I have noted before), since you don't believe that demonstrating the "supernatural" is even possible, for you any argument (no matter how improbable) which doesn't invoke the supernatural, is always going to be preferrable to any argument which does invoke the supernatural. Since the entire basis of this differentiation is over the issue of the supernatural, there is no focus for you on the content of your argument (i.e. its plausibility).

I also suspect this is the same standard you use in your own life, outside of your religious convictions. At least I'd hope so.

Moreover, you altered my comments. I specifically said as long as the natural evidence is not so improbable as to approach the supernatural.

Accessing beliefs and information commonly available during in JS culture hardly is so improbably as to approach the supernatural. In fact, it is a given that people are affected by their culture and environment.

[AverageJoeFromSciForums]

Apparently not, since, as I noted, research is forthcoming that posits their existence yet doesn't follow the Diamond model that Beastie is so fond of.

Diamond? do you mean Jared Diamond of "GG&S" fame?

read the book, liked it & it makes the point that Native Peoples could not have been pastoralists like Old World peoples (Israelites), because they would have been exposed & somewhat immune to cattle diseases; namely TB, smallpox, measles. And if you know history, those were the most lethal killers of Native Peoples when Europeans finally did come in 1492, with those very diseases & cows, horses, pigs, chickens, etc....

if horses did exist there, it would have been a food product, hunted like moose, elk, since if the Native Peoples had known, they would have ridden them like the Plains Indian Culture did in the 1800's.

[beastie]

Diamond? do you mean Jared Diamond of "GG&S" fame?

read the book, liked it & it makes the point that Native Peoples could not have been pastoralists like Old World peoples (Israelites), because they would have been exposed & somewhat immune to cattle diseases; namely TB, smallpox, measles. And if you know history, those were the most lethal killers of Native Peoples when Europeans finally did come in 1492, with those very diseases & cows, horses, pigs, chickens, etc....

if horses did exist there, it would have been a food product, hunted like moose, elk, since if the Native Peoples had known, they would have ridden them like the Plains Indian Culture did in the 1800's.

Your words are falling on deaf ears. I've been making that very point about the transmission of diseases for well over a year to no avail.

And yes, it's Jared Diamond, of GG&S.

[Brant Gardner]

A couple of points to help you understand the problem of deaf ears.

beastie is the one that is arguing that a horse is a horse - but doesn't act like a horse.

Ben and I have argued that since it doesn't act like a horse it probably wasn't. If it wasn't a horse, then the issue of diseases or cultural alterations because of the horse is a moot point.

Secondly, there is apparently evidence that there were horses in the New World in pre-Columbian times. As mentioned, we have to wait for publication, but I have heard from reputable sources that the testing has been done and confirmed that there were horses. That doesn't change what I think happened in the Book of Mormon, but it creates a major problem for theories of why there could not be horses. That is the problem with building cases on negative evidence. All it takes is one positive datum and the theory is shot.

For instance, what happens to the argument about disease? Well, you now have to explain the absence of the disease alongside the presence of a horse rather than suggesting that it means the absence of a horse.

As I have before I will again - I urge caution in making proclamations about the absence of horses. That conventional wisdom seems to be about to be turned on its head. Since it isn't published I agree that we wait - but while waiting I suggest you look to other arguments.

[beastie]

beastie is the one that is arguing that a horse is a horse - but doesn't act like a horse.

Ben and I have argued that since it doesn't act like a horse it probably wasn't. If it wasn't a horse, then the issue of diseases or cultural alterations because of the horse is a moot point.

I just have to say - WHAT???? Have you been reading this thread?

For instance, what happens to the argument about disease? Well, you now have to explain the absence of the disease alongside the presence of a horse rather than suggesting that it means the absence of a horse.

Does the word "cattle" ring a bell?

As I have before I will again - I urge caution in making proclamations about the absence of horses. That conventional wisdom seems to be about to be turned on its head. Since it isn't published I agree that we wait - but while waiting I suggest you look to other arguments.

Boy, I can't wait for this one. I have a feeling it will be as much fun as actually getting Linne's book and reading what it actually said, rather than what apologists kept saying it said.

[beastie]

You have to love it when someone cries "angel". Essentially (as I have noted before), since you don't believe that demonstrating the "supernatural" is even possible, for you any argument (no matter how improbable) which doesn't invoke the supernatural, is always going to be preferrable to any argument which does invoke the supernatural. Since the entire basis of this differentiation is over the issue of the supernatural, there is no focus for you on the content of your argument (i.e. its plausibility).

Well, take up the angel issue with JS.

In regards to the preference for the nonsupernatural explanation versus a supernatural one, I found some pertinent quotes that I'm hoping will help others to evaluate our stances.

quotes from Kenneth L. Feder

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Well, take up the angel issue with JS.

Why? The angel issue is irrelevant. You introduce it as either a distraction, or as a way of lowering the bar so to speak for evidentiary claims for your own position. It isn't necessary to analyze the text. The text is there. We can analyze without worrying about the angel.

This appears to be the approach of quite a few BoM believers. If the Spalding theory can't be proven, if certain texts can't be placed in JS' hands, then the supernatural explanation is justified.

Ah yes. But this isn't the approach that LDS take. It is a caricature which you create. It may even be what you believed. But it is not typical of LDS as far as my experience leads me to believe.

This is a concise explanation of why I am simply using logic and science to state that any natural explanation should be preferred over a supernatural one (unless the natural explanation is so unlikely and bizarre that it might as well be supernatural). It's not some mindless prejudice, as Ben seems to want to portray.

In your case, when you use this notion to avoid having to defend your arguments adequately, when essentially you do not question the actual plausibility of your own arguments, your own approach becomes fatally flawed.

This is exactly what you did with the masonry issue. You were comparing your arguments to Brant's arguemtns. And rather than discuss the likelihood of your own scenario, you simply (and frequently) repeated this anthem - that no matter how good Brant's arguments were, they were going to be trumped by any explanation which didn't involve the notion that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith.

This is the problem with religious apologetics. Apologists want to use science and logic to defend something totally outside logic and science.

Amd once more you demonstrate bias. It isn't for you that the arguments forwarded might be reasonable in a discussion about a text which didn't involve an angel. That issue becomes trivialized and irrelevant in your assessment the moment you can invoke (because of the angel - which has nothing to do with the contents of the text) the notion that any explanation other than your view of the naturalistic origins of the book is immediately something beyond logic and science.

In other words, like any other anti-mormon, you believe that the only way I can maintain my belief is by being irrational ... It isn't about evidence, it is about your philosophical approach to the whole issue. No matter what evidence appears, or crops up to support the Book of Mormon (I suppose finding a road sign saying "Zarahemla -> this way"), it still won't diffuse your position that the angel keeps such belief or the justification of this belief "outside logic and science".

Ben

[beastie]

Beastie writes:

QUOTE 

Well, take up the angel issue with JS. 

Why? The angel issue is irrelevant. You introduce it as either a distraction, or as a way of lowering the bar so to speak for evidentiary claims for your own position. It isn't necessary to analyze the text. The text is there. We can analyze without worrying about the angel.

Then why did you bring it up on this thread? I mentioned parallels, and you interjected:

Beastie writes:

QUOTE 

From an article about the use of parallels:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/parallels.html

This again? It's been what, a year since our last discussion? You write:

QUOTE 

You can't divorce JS from his culture, and the ideas popular within that culture, simply because he didn't leave a library card behind. There are just too many other reasonable possibilities. Oliver Cowdery, for example, was connected to Ethan Smith's congregation, IIRC. Or Spalding was very educated in these topics. And certainly newspaper articles of the time mentioned these ideas.

All of this reminds me of a statement you made quite some time ago to me:

QUOTE 

Just proving that these ideas WERE in JS' environment is sufficient.

Typically you don't bother evaluating the parallels. You simply propose them. You engage in parallelomania. I love your notion of "reasonable possibilities". You present the unfalsifiable argument. (We note that Davila makes this statement: "Beware of unfalsifiable parallels.") You make no effort to differentiate between good and bad parallels (except perhaps on the basis of supporting or not supporting your pre-existing conclusion).

Again, if it's a pointless distraction, then why did you bring it into the conversation? I said nothing about the angel. I simply said there are many reasonable possibilities. Immediately you jump in and say, to effect, well, you'll never believe in the supernatural anyway, implying I am simply mindlessly prejudiced against the supernatural. Who lowered the bar, Ben? Who distracted us from the issue? And if this statement of mine is completely inaccurate:

This appears to be the approach of quite a few BoM believers. If the Spalding theory can't be proven, if certain texts can't be placed in JS' hands, then the supernatural explanation is justified.

.. then why did you respond to my reference to reasonable possibilities that can't be absolutely proven with your comment about the supernatural?

QUOTE 

This is a concise explanation of why I am simply using logic and science to state that any natural explanation should be preferred over a supernatural one (unless the natural explanation is so unlikely and bizarre that it might as well be supernatural). It's not some mindless prejudice, as Ben seems to want to portray. 

In your case, when you use this notion to avoid having to defend your arguments adequately, when essentially you do not question the actual plausibility of your own arguments, your own approach becomes fatally flawed.

This is exactly what you did with the masonry issue. You were comparing your arguments to Brant's arguemtns. And rather than discuss the likelihood of your own scenario, you simply (and frequently) repeated this anthem - that no matter how good Brant's arguments were, they were going to be trumped by any explanation which didn't involve the notion that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith.

We may have fundamental disagreements, but there really is no need to distort the history of our discussions. I have spent quite a bit of time offering evidences, and comparing their strengths, particularly in terms of the masonic discussion. Now you say I simply repeat, over and over, that the natural trumps the supernatural.

I will do my best to find the old link to the endless Gadianton Robbers/Masonry thread on Z, so interested readers can judge for themselves whether or not your assessment of my arguments, and willingness to defend those arguments, is correct.

QUOTE 

This is the problem with religious apologetics. Apologists want to use science and logic to defend something totally outside logic and science. 

Amd once more you demonstrate bias. It isn't for you that the arguments forwarded might be reasonable in a discussion about a text which didn't involve an angel. That issue becomes trivialized and irrelevant in your assessment the moment you can invoke (because of the angel - which has nothing to do with the contents of the text) the notion that any explanation other than your view of the naturalistic origins of the book is immediately something beyond logic and science.

In other words, like any other anti-mormon, you believe that the only way I can maintain my belief is by being irrational ... It isn't about evidence, it is about your philosophical approach to the whole issue. No matter what evidence appears, or crops up to support the Book of Mormon (I suppose finding a road sign saying "Zarahemla -> this way"), it still won't diffuse your position that the angel keeps such belief or the justification of this belief "outside logic and science".

First, I said nothing about being irrational. I said religion is a matter of faith, which is outside science and logic. The moment defenders of the faith try to fight the battle solely on the field of science and logic, you get into trouble due to the demands and structure of science and logic.

Read this quotation again:

Finally, there is another rule to hypothesis making and testing.  It is called Occam

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Then why did you bring it up on this thread? I mentioned parallels, and you interjected:

You brought up the angels when you said:

Moreover, a supernatural explanation should only be accepted as more reasonable if there is no possible natural explanation (excluding natural explanations that are so unlikely that are, for practical purposes, supernatural).

Again, if it's a pointless distraction, then why did you bring it into the conversation? I said nothing about the angel. I simply said there are many reasonable possibilities. Immediately you jump in and say, to effect, well, you'll never believe in the supernatural anyway, implying I am simply mindlessly prejudiced against the supernatural. Who lowered the bar, Ben? Who distracted us from the issue? And if this statement of mine is completely inaccurate:

Shall we review our former conversation on the topic from ZLMB? I have no real desire to go into it. You essentially made the claim that masonry in the Book of Mormon was preferrable to Brant's alternate interpretation. You did so on the basis of the supernatural versus the non-supernatural. It certainly wasn't on the basis of demonstrating that any of the claims made by others about masonry in the Book of Mormon were accurate, or even likely.

This is part of the whole issue I have with your parallels. As far as I can tell, you are simply finding parallels and throwing them in a pile. If a parallel can be found it suggests a possibility that a notion was known to Joseph Smith - and that possibility (or event he cumulative possibilities of all these parallels) provides for you an argument which will automatically trump any discussion of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon - independant of any parallels which might support that authenticity - on the simple grounds that your parallels don't involve the supernatural and thus are to be preferred unless it can be proven that the likelihood of their occuring is even more remote than the likelihood of the supernatural occuring. (This you noted most recently here).

Perhaps we should start of on a different note. When you wrote:

This is a concise explanation of why I am simply using logic and science to state that any natural explanation should be preferred over a supernatural one (unless the natural explanation is so unlikely and bizarre that it might as well be supernatural).

At what point does this occur? How unlikely and how bizarre is the supernatural? Obviously, if you think that it can be used as a baseline for making determinations like this, it should be some kind of identifiable point. Right? So let's start there.

Now you say I simply repeat, over and over, that the natural trumps the supernatural.

Do you remember this comment you made? (7/24/04):

Just as you insist that we're not really comparing two competing theories, one of which contains a supernatural component and hence has a larger burden of proof, ...

What does "larger burden of proof mean" here? When you say:

Who lowered the bar, Ben?

Is there any difference in suggesting that your opponent has a larger burden of proof and your lowering the bar for your own evidentiary claism?

Again, Ben, if you really didn't want to revisit this whole idea, that the element of the supernatural, by necessity, escalates the number of entities attached to a hypothesis, then why did you bring it back up? You just want to be able to present your distorted summary of my opinions without giving me the opportunity to speak for myself?

They aren't distorted. The record still exists. Anyone can read it. In the discussion with Brant on ZLMB over this topic, I made this comment to you (7/28/04):

But, in this case, your simple assertion that all we need to do is to show that the environment contains material which would allow such an inference to be drawn is not the same as showing how the inference is probable.

Your argument still does not follow any recognized practice in literary or higher criticism.

You responded a little later the same day with this:

Once again, you persist in having a different discussion than I am having. For the umpteenth time, I am comparing two possible sources of origin, and determining which is more likely.

Despite your assertions that you would accept the supernatural if everything else wouldn't reach even that level of possibility, it seems to me that this is a moving target. It is always beneath the horizon. There is nothing less likely than the supernatural as far as you are concerned (although there may be many things as equally unlikely). Your comments here don't give me any confidence that you aren't saying one thing to just justify your position but really believing something else entirely.

Ben

[beastie]

Continuing one of the past points I was trying to make with brant -

BoM scriptures regarding the poor

We can get a general idea of the type of problems caused by social stratification in the BoM via the chastisements of the prophets towards the rich.

Jacob 2:19

And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good

[Beowulf]

I don't think you have proved the point at all...

Rich clothing appears to be the main form of class distinction in the BofM societies, and your citations do not appear to contradict that.

The same goes for statements regarding food supplies.

Beowulf

[beastie]

Ben - two quick comments

One, if you have the link to the Gadianton Robbers ZLMB thread, please share it. I haven't found it so far.

Two, would you please respond to this author's explanation -

Finally, there is another rule to hypothesis making and testing.  It is called Occam

[beastie]

don't think you have proved the point at all...

Rich clothing appears to be the main form of class distinction in the BofM societies, and your citations do not appear to contradict that.

The same goes for statements regarding food supplies.

Do I have to define starving and naked for you? I'll help you out by putting the problematic portions in bold.

(of course, I do realize that chocolate addiction is a powerful force, but it is rather surprising that God would consider the lack of chocolate, exotic feathers and jade to be a state of starvation and nakedness)

[beastie]

FINALLY.

Here is a link to the thread in which several of us discussed the possible parallels between masonry and the Gadianton Robbers, and also discussed Brant's essay on the Gadianton Robbers.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...rt=301&stop=320

It's an extremely long thread - 18 pages, so I realize that is a bit discouraging. However, I encourage anyone who is interested in the topic to at least peruse it. I stand by my statement that the thread is sufficient proof that I don't simply throw out any old parallel, no matter how weak, and then repeat "natural trumps supernatural", which is ben's summary of that argument.

Of course I do not expect Ben's opinion to change. I'm offering this to others who are interested. I do not intend to rehash that very long discussion. It was maddening enough the first time.

[beastie]

One more post and then I'm done for the night. Trying to catch up.

Ben,

The TEXT supports the use of the Jubilee analogy as figurative. It could not be considered as literal, in the context. You refer to the fact that you

[Brant Gardner]

So, beastie. You are saying that because the sources you have read have been discussing the general case of food production that it was always that way and that there never was hunger or famine of stress on the lower classes?

When you read a text you assume that whatever condition it expreses must mean that the condition had to exist all the time. Adequate food for farmers was always available and Book of Mormon people always had naked and hungry people?

I wouldn't have read any of those texts that way, but then we have established that you and I can read the same text and see it very differently.

To my knowledge, conditions of drought and famine have always affected an agricultural population and have always had a greater impact on the farmers than on the elite. That is, by the way, one of the hypotheses for the demise of the Maya civilization - that drought and famine finally led to the farmers ceasing their support for the elite and the elite social structure collapsed - along with the public rites it sponsored.

[Beowulf]

I do not know about Mesoamerica in detail.

However, I DO know about premodern societies, having majored in ancient history in graduate school, and one thing I learned was that premodern societies ALWAYS had a social class on the verge of starvation. They barely survived even in good years, and in bad years did very badly indeed. This is in every society that I have ever examined.

I simply cannot believe that Mesoamerica would go against this pattern, as Beastie seems to think.

This is the background to my (admittedly too curt) response.

Yours respectfully,

Beowulf