Meso-Americans Pagans or Christians?

[USU78]

beastie:

Michael Coe, in The Maya, 1999 states that:

All the Mesoamerican Indians shared a number of traits which were more or less peculiar to them and absent or rare elsewhere in the New World: hieroglyphic writing, books of fig-bark paper or deerskin which were folded like screens, a complex permutation calendar, knowledge of the movements of the planets (especially Venus) against the background of the stars, a game played with a rubber ball in a special court, highly specialized markets, human sacrifice by head or heart removal, an emphasis on self-sacrifice by blood drawn from the ears, tongue, or penis, and a highly complex, pantheistic religion which included nature divinities as well as deities emblematic of royal descent.  Also in all Mesoaermican religions was the idea of a cosmic cycle of creation and destruction, and of a universe oriented to the four directions with specific colors and gods assigned to the cardinal points and to the center. (Maya, p 13)

Sounds rather like circumcision. Maybe the Nephite writers didn't think this was so much of a problem as other matters, as it was ( a) voluntary and ( consonant with the central, observable emblem of the Abrahamic Covenant.

[Brant Gardner]

USU78:

Right part of the body - very different method. I don't think anyone familiar with what the Maya did would confuse it with circumcision (or volunteer for it themselves!).

[beastie]

The problem isn't the idea that there is a pan-Mesoamerican culture, but that you derive more information from that statement than is warranted. I took a look at ball courts, just to check. Susan Toby Evans suggests that they are markers of elite architecture. While they have a long history and are widespread, I didn't find any in Santa Rosa or Chiapa de Corzo. That doesn't say that they aren't a part of the pan-Mesoamerican culture catalogue, only that being part of the general culture area doesn't guarantee that they exist in all locations.

I want to be clear on your point - are you saying that you do not believe the ball games were an integral part of Mesoamerican religion/culture?

Edit on:

As far as the Book of Mormon goes, there are some problems with your ball court example. 1) as elite architecture it would be anthithetical to Nephite ideas and therefore not something that Mormon would want to emphasize. He argues against elitism and social hierarchied but doesn't mention ball courts. 2) The Grijalva river basin is the location where the largest extent of Nephite civilization took place (lasting for only about 200 years). In that river valley is where we find Santa Rosa and Chiapa de Corzo. Neither reported a ball court in the field reports. 3) You are making an assumption that a given text will report on all aspects of a culture. That is simply incorrect and particularly incorrect when the text is constructed for purposes that are completely other than cultural description.

My point remains unchanged since the Mayan Lamanite thread. I don't intend to rehash the entire argument, but here is a summary of my position:

1) the predominant religion in the area in which the Nephites lived had certain notable features, such as bloodletting, sacrifice, ritualistic ball games.

2) The majority of the people who followed Nephi were from the pre-existing population, and would have been exposed, their entire lives, to the Mesoamerican religion and culture.

3) If alterations were made in that religion that threatened the purity of the religion, those alterations would have logically been connected to their past religion and traditions. Hence, the "apostate Nephite" religion should have some points of connection with the dominant Mesoamerican religion.

4) The traditions of the dominant religion would have been viewed as wicked and evil by the Nephites. The keepers of the Nephite traditions, like any other Jews, would have been very anxious for their people not to pollute the "true religion" with the evil, wicked ways from the dominant religion. This is another reason to expect to see some reflection of the mesoamerican religion in the BoM text.

IOW, a text like the BoM doesn't just tell us about the Nephites - it tells us about the Lamanites, too. Since LGT demands that the Lamanites are actually just any group who does not support the Nephites, and the common story attributed to the Lamanites is just an insertion of ethnocentric Nephites and not a reflection of an actual relationship between the various "Lamanites" confronted throughout the BoM, then those Lamanites would have been followers of the predominant religion of Mesoamerica.

Concerning atheism and universalism. These are modern labels that are applied to the text and are not part of the text itself. In the case of atheism I think it is over-reading into the text. There is denial of the Nephite God, but that doesn't necessarily equate to atheism.

Go reread the questioning of Korihor.

It's not the labels that are the problem, brant. It's the ideas attached to the labels. They did not exist in Mesoamerica, as far as I can tell. If you want to argue that they DID exist in Mesoamerica, then I would expect to see some support for that assertion.

more about the association between ball games and human sacrifice:

http://www.chrysler.org/wom/wom0903.asp

What was the ball game?

In Mayan and Aztec cultures, the ball game was heavily influenced by religion and mythology. The ball, made of solid rubber, symbolized the sun and moon, while the courts represented the Earth. The goal was to maneuver the ball from one side of the court to the other through two stone rings on the side walls. Successful players became famous and were given rich rewards. Nobles and priests watched the games, and spectators placed wagers on their favorite teams. The Mayans and Aztecs took these matches very seriously, often gambling goods, land, and slaves. It was not uncommon for one of the losing players to be sacrificed

[juliann]

Go to page three, scroll down to "As for the ballgame sacrifice itself", etc. I don't think the case is closed against the possibility that actual sacrifices were enacted as part of the ball game ritual. ("captive as ball")

You continue to miss the point. You don't know your own sources. You substitute thorough research with dogmatic pronouncements and accusations. I'm sure the "case" for the possibility of anything is "open". But the fact is, if we are to believe a scholar you selected as an authority, there is currently no evidence for what you need to steady your hobby horse.

Now, this is the second time I have been able to pull one book off my shelf and point out how you do not even know your own sources by contradicting your excited assumptions with your own expert, Beastie.

[beastie]

You continue to miss the point. You don't know your own sources.

My own sources? Where have I referred to Code of the Kings by Schele? I've never even read that particular one.

You pulled ONE source who makes one claim. Other sources disagree. So what is your point again? And how does it impact my primary point? Do you have another source that denies bloodletting and human sacrifice in general? Once again, I'm willing to take Schele's opinion as the final word and discard the element of sacrifice associated with ball games - that doesn't change my point at all. The only reason I continue to look it up is that now I'm curious.

more on ballgames and human sacrifice

http://gallery.sjsu.edu/sacrifice/precolumbian.html

Figure 34 and Figure 35 are details from the walls of the ball court at Chichen Itza, a Mayan site which flourished in the 9th and 10th century.

All Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures--from the Olmec to the Aztecs--seem to share the ballcourt game as a common element. Kathleen Cohen (Web of Art and Culture, Pre-Columbian 81) argues that the ball court game took on sacrificial overtones when the Mayans were influenced by the Toltecs.

The ball game was played in an "I" shaped field with a hard rubber ball. Players were not allowed to touch the ball with their hands or feet. They could however, strike the ball with their knees, elbows, buttocks or "yokes" which they wore around their waists. Spectators would wager much on the outcome.

There are several interpretations on what the ball games symbolized. Some experts believed that it was a ritual representing the movement of the stars and planets. Others, such as Colin McEwan in Ancient Mexico in the British Museum, seem to think it was a way of settling disputes or making important decisions between tribes.

The sinister, sacrificial aspect of the ball game was that the captain of the losing team was decapitated. Hence, the skull rack and the decapitation scene depicted in Figure 34 and Figure 35.

Oh, just have to add this link, too, for others who are curious:

http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/chinx.html

scroll down to "ball game links"

[juliann]

My own sources? Where have I referred to Code of the Kings by Schele? I've never even read that particular one.

That is a response? That your own chosen expert just said it in a different book? Are you kidding?

You pulled ONE source who makes one claim.  Other sources disagree.  So what is your point again?

That your own expert whom you pulled says "There is no evidence for this interpretation in any of the ancient or historical sources." You can theorize all you want (as we well know). There is no evidence. Are you disputing your own expert??

Do you have another source that denies bloodletting and human sacrifice in general?

Did she deny it? Or did she say there was no evidence? Any wonder why it is impossible to any kind of meaningful dialogue with you involved?

[beastie]

That is a response? That your own chosen expert just said it in a different book? Are you kidding?

Well, I know it must shock you for someone to say that they don't know EVERYTHING one scholar states on various subjects, even if he/she hasn't read ALL their books, but it's a fact most people feel comfortable with. I've read one of Schele's books, and it was very impressive. I don't recall her disputing the association of sacrifice with ballgames.

That your own expert whom you pulled says "There is no evidence for this interpretation in any of the ancient or historical sources." You can theorize all you want (as we well know). There is no evidence. Are you disputing your own expert??

QUOTE 

Do you have another source that denies bloodletting and human sacrifice in general? 

Did she deny it? Or did she say there was no evidence? Any wonder why it is impossible to any kind of meaningful dialogue with you involved?

I don't even know how to respond to you, Juliann. It's incredible. I state that sacrifice and ball games are two examples of common characteristics in Mesoamerica. I'm quite willing to discard the sacrifice associated with ball games. But there are plenty of other examples of sacrifice in Mesoamerica, so my original point is not affected.

I agree it is not possible to have meaningful discourse between us. Of course we will differ on why.

[USU78]

USU78:

Right part of the body - very different method. I don't think anyone familiar with what the Maya did would confuse it with circumcision (or volunteer for it themselves!).

Yes . . . yet the concept of blood sacrifice by the Master, presaged by both animal sacrifice and by the ritual bloodletting at the circumcision of every male Abrahamite, has been noted by Christian observers from the beginning in the Old World.

I have no trouble believing the Nephite observers, keenly aware of this parallel, would be little troubled by voluntary ritual bloodletting by their "Lamanite" neighbors as adults. They would, of course, recognize its ineffectualness, given it would not have been conducted by the Nephite functional equivalent of mohel.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

I want to be clear on your point - are you saying that you do not believe the ball games were an integral part of Mesoamerican religion/culture?

No. The ballgame was a part of Mesoamerican culture. It was not, however, ubiquitous in that all cities must have had a ballgame. That is where your conclusion exceeded the data. You have taken a generalization and made it an absolute. There is not only no reason to do so, it is contradicted by other evidence.

In specific, I went to the archaeological record of the excavation of two sites that LDS scholars would believe were in the Nephite area (not the non-Nephite area where you continually draw your conclusions) and found that there was no evidence in the field reports of a ball game. Perhaps they played it on an open field - one was found in the Formative period and Susan Toby Evans indicated it might have been for a ball game or dancing - one or the other (no more evidence than that the cleared space exits).

When we get to the specific area and specific time for Nephites in Zarahemla (the largest extent of their influence - whatever that might have been) we don't find ball games.

Further, the ball game was associated with the social hierarchies and elite, which we see the Book of Mormon preaching against. Therefore, it might not be surprising that Santa Rosa and Chiapa de Corzo don't have ball game fields.

Specific evidence in contrast to your generality. That was my point.

My point remains unchanged since the Mayan Lamanite thread. I don't intend to rehash the entire argument, but here is a summary of my position:

Hardly surprising.

1) the predominant religion in the area in which the Nephites lived had certain notable features, such as bloodletting, sacrifice, ritualistic ball games.

Returning to my point. This is a general statement. In the specifics, the time and place indicated for the Book of Mormon, it does not appear to be true for at least the ball game. This is illustrative of the problem of taking general statements and making more of them than the authors intended.

2) The majority of the people who followed Nephi were from the pre-existing population, and would have been exposed, their entire lives, to the Mesoamerican religion and culture.

Your argument might hold true for perhaps 300-500 people and a period of perhaps 50 years (to be generous). After than point, this specific statement is no longer relevant and completely unrelated to the situation in the Book of Mormon. You are oversimplifying - and in this case in both time and space.

3) If alterations were made in that religion that threatened the purity of the religion, those alterations would have logically been connected to their past religion and traditions. Hence, the "apostate Nephite" religion should have some points of connection with the dominant Mesoamerican religion.

Relevant perhaps to the earliest time period, but certainly not the Zarahemla period. As far as the nature of the contrast between Nephite and apostate, the contrast is typically internal and focused on the rejection of Nephite ideals, not the adoption of another god. There are indications of some of the things that were adopted, but you argument continues to be based on assumptions that only fit a 50 year period at the beginning of the Book of Mormon and are completely irrelevant to later developments - particularly after the removal from the city of Nephi to Zarahemla.

4) The traditions of the dominant religion would have been viewed as wicked and evil by the Nephites.

On this we agree.

The keepers of the Nephite traditions, like any other Jews, would have been very anxious for their people not to pollute the "true religion" with the evil, wicked ways from the dominant religion.

No argument. In fact, the Book of Mormon spends a lot of time on what it considers the fundamental errors that are being borrowed, which include social hierarchies and social forms that they consider antithetical to their egalitarian ideal.

This is another reason to expect to see some reflection of the mesoamerican religion in the BoM text.

OK. So what do we expect and why? Why are you so certain that the ball game is one of them, if there are no ball courts in the right place at the right time? Why do you think bloodletting would be the particular aspect that they discouraged? Christ shed blood and that fits so well into the extant cosmology that it might seem natural. I don't know that it was, but I certainly couldn't say that it wasn't. The Book of Mormon does discuss very specific cultural traits related to social structure which, in ancient societies, were supported by religion and hardly distinguishable. Therefore the Book of Mormon does reflect the Mesoamerican religion - but not what you think they should have reacted to. Why are you right?

IOW, a text like the BoM doesn't just tell us about the Nephites - it tells us about the Lamanites, too.

I quite agree. We disagree on what, but not on the concept. Personally, I hesitate to assume that I know what an ancient document should be concerned with - and I have read many of them from that area.

Since LGT demands that the Lamanites are actually just any group who does not support the Nephites, and the common story attributed to the Lamanites is just an insertion of ethnocentric Nephites and not a reflection of an actual relationship between the various "Lamanites" confronted throughout the BoM, then those Lamanites would have been followers of the predominant religion of Mesoamerica.

In fact, I suggest the very same thing. My analysis of the combination of events comprising the attack on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies and the raid on Ammonihah virtually require an understanding of the Mesoamerica cult of war. Those concepts lie behind the events described.

Again - it isn't the concept where we differ. We differ in that you are confident that you know what someone should have been concerned with. I think that overreaches data and logic.

It's not the labels that are the problem, brant. It's the ideas attached to the labels. They did not exist in Mesoamerica, as far as I can tell. If you want to argue that they DID exist in Mesoamerica, then I would expect to see some support for that assertion. 

The only thing we can reasonably say is that they are not recorded for Mesoamerica in the extant data. However, in the context of the Book of Mormon they are quite logical and flow naturally from the situation described. Since the issues involved are most heavily debated in an area that the Nephites only dominated from 200 B. C. to the time of Christ, which is a time period where there are very few extant texts in the archaeological record of any part of Mesoamerica, but particularly in the region where the Book of Mormon took place, it overreaches the data to say that it did not (or could not) have been an issue in that local. It would be somewhat analogous to reading Babylonian records and assuming that there were no Hebrews because there is no discussion of Yahweh.

[beastie]

Brant,

I'm going to address your points gradually over the week, due to time constraints.

First, regarding ball courts not being present in all cities (which I never claimed, btw)

Let

[Brant Gardner]

First, regarding ball courts not being present in all cities (which I never claimed, btw)

Good. Now it isn't a question of whether or not the ballgame is part of pan-Mesoamerican traits, but whether or not it appears in the right place at the right time to be part of the Book of Mormon. Progress.

Let

[juliann]

First, regarding ball courts not being present in all cities (which I never claimed, btw)

No ball courts? Were they playing this "universal" game found "throughout MesoAmerican culture" with "common characteristics in Mesoamerica " in back alleys and sand lots? Someone just nailed up an old tire? At some point you need to stand behind what you say. We have had two pages of this and now you never said it, eh?

Yet it is silent on topics that were universal in Mesoamerica - like ritualistic bloodletting and sacred ball games. 

Ritualistic ball games and ritualistic sacrifices, including bloodletting, are found throughout Mesoamerican culture, from the Olmec through the Classic period.

1) the predominant religion in the area in which the Nephites lived had certain notable features, such as bloodletting, sacrifice, ritualistic ball games.

those Lamanites would have been followers of the predominant religion of Mesoamerica.

I state that sacrifice and ball games are two examples of common characteristics in Mesoamerica.

[beastie]

Juliann,

If I needed someone to interpret my own posts for me, believe me, you would be the last person I would choose, because you so consistently get it wrong. In fact, it often surprises and even amazes me how you choose to interpret what I say. My correcting it will predictably have little effect.

There is no reason to interpret my comments in the manner you have. It is "universal" in that it has been found throughout a wide time span - from the Olmec on - and throughout the entire region. Even the most cursory study of Mesoamerican history teaches that some cities were considered the center for ritualistic activities, which definitely includes ball games. Ie, not every location would have a ball court.

Once the LDS church has a long enough history, and if it continues its practices with temples, it would be accurate for a future historian to say that temples were universal throughout LDS history, despite the fact that there were never temples in every LDS city.

QUOTE 

First, regarding ball courts not being present in all cities (which I never claimed, btw) 

Good. Now it isn't a question of whether or not the ballgame is part of pan-Mesoamerican traits, but whether or not it appears in the right place at the right time to be part of the Book of Mormon. Progress.

QUOTE 

Let

[beastie]

QUOTE

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Once the LDS church has a long enough history, and if it continues its practices with temples, it would be accurate for a future historian to say that temples were universal throughout LDS history, despite the fact that there were never temples in every LDS city.

However, it will not be correct if that future historian suggests that because a city didn't have a temple it couldn't have had Mormons in it. That was the way you used your evidence.

I will restate. In two excavated cities that are in the location where Sorenson places the Book of Mormon there are no ball courts. There are ball courts in areas that are not considered Nephite. You not only continue to be wrong, you continue to try to justify what you said - or change it - rather than admit that you were incorrect. Remember, you are the one who excoriated Sorenson for not reading a passage the same way you did - stopping just short of calling him dishonest. What do you call yourself when you do the same thing?

(BG, previous)Your argument might hold true for perhaps 300-500 people and a period of perhaps 50 years (to be generous). After than point, this specific statement is no longer relevant and completely unrelated to the situation in the Book of Mormon. You are oversimplifying - and in this case in both time and space

(beastie response) You are ignoring the times when Lamanites converted and became the righteous ones. You are also ignoring the general fact that the Nehites engaged in heavy proselytizing and had periods of intense success. It's hardly as limited as you want to present it (as anyone who served a mission in a foreign country with a predominant religion would know)

You have an interesting interpretation of Book of Mormon history. In spite of that fact, you are still conflating the earliest of times with those that come later. Once the polity is in place the dynamics shift. Trying to argue that there is no way David could have a kingdome because Abraham was one family is absurd for the Bible and similarly absurd for the Book of Mormon.

What about Nephite proselytizing? For the Anti-Nephi-Lehies the successful conversion was enough people for one city at the most - and perhaps less. Certainly there were a very large number of Lamanites who didn't convert because they massed large armies to attack the Nephites soon thereafter. As for the time of Samuel there is very little information as to the number of converts. Mormon used the conversions for a theological point rather than specific history so he didn't clarify. If you think ancient historians followed modern rules of history I suggest you read some of them.

What you are demonstrating is that your perception of the Book of Mormon doesn't fit with your perception of Mesoamerica. That is fine, but it has very little relevance to either the Book of Mormon or Mesoamerica, since you have misperceived both of those on several occasions.

The predominant religion is going to have an effect on the minority religion in ways you want to ignore.

We have been over this several times before. I know that this is your opinion, but you have yet to demonstrate why your opinion should hold weight. I have given you historical examples and you reply with the way you think things should have been. I will wait for you do demonstrate this point.

While you are at it, wasn't the Nephite religion dominant in their own territory (at times) and shouldn't that alter the way they perceive the competing religions.

So far you have suggested that the "dominant" religion should require the Nephites to talk about ball games - in spite of the fact that there were no ball courts in two major sites Sorenson links to the Book of Mormon. I did find one farther down the Grijalva, but it was from the Late Classic - long after the close of the Book of Mormon.

You are inventing an argument based on what you think should have happened without any reliance on history to know if your hypothesis is ever correct. However, I have suggested that there are ways in which the surrounding religion did affect the Book of Mormon. You have ignored that point in favor of your opinion of what the influence should have been.

I offer history, anthropology, and the text of the Book of Mormon as evidence and you suggest that is inadequate because you don't think it should have happened that way.

Whatever apostate religion develops, over time, most likely developed in reaction to the people creating a bastardized version of the new religion with elements of the old.

And your evidence for this is? Please let me know how this principle worked in Egypt, Babylon, and Israel. Remember that post-Conquest syncretized religion was based on entirely different socio-political dynamics.

God apparently realizes this human phenomenon, since, in the OT, he often seemed to prefer killing the pre-existing predominant religion rather than risk the Hebrews being tainted with it.

Oh - so it is possible to live in an area and not be contaminated by the outside religion? If we use your example, you simply kill off the people living where you want to live, and those that live just over the hill won't effect you at all. Please show how the Book of Mormon population dynamic is significantly different from population settlements in OT Israel. If not, you have just provided an argument contrary to you thesis - that is - you have contradicted yourself (again).

We should be able to find points of contact between both the Nephite religion and the predominant religion in the apostate Nephite religion.

Yes. Social hierarchies. Kings. Wearing of costly apparel. Those are the particular facets the text talks about. Now we are back to your argument about what "should" have been there. You failed on the ball courts. Your are guessing on the rest. None of your suggestions are built on any knowledge of historical interactions of peoples, only what you think should have happened.

Instead we see reflections of the bastardized Christianity in JS' time (bastardized according to Christian primitivist, of course, it's all a matter of perspective).

And I see a version of Israelite religion that has its roots in pre-600 B.C. Israelite thought that is accurately preserved - although couched in more modern Christian language. The development of the Book of Mormon follows directly from that ancient font and does not require any other development. Certain facets of Christian doctrine that one might have expected do not show up. For instance, there is virtually no cross imagery in the Book of Mormon in contrast to early Christianity. There is no equation of baptism as death and resurrection (until after Christ) because that required Christ's death and the New World did not witness (and have to justify) a dying god (although they had lots of models for dying and resurrected gods). Pardon me if I don't think I am bound by what you think of either Mesoamerica or the Book of Mormon. I will stick with data and texts.

OK. So what do we expect and why?

Historians don't "expect" anything of their data. The more they "expect" the more they imprint their perceptions on the past rather than allow the past to explain itself. Please show me how any of the discoveries Linda Schele made (and there were many) had anything to do with what she "expected" or anyone else "expected." Instead of "expecting" and looking for what was or wasn't there according to "expectations," she dealt with data. Making large arguments based on not finding what you "expect" is not a rational method for dealing with history. If you don't find what you expect, was the culture wrong or your expectation and how do you know?

(beastie's response to the question of why her opinions have to be right)

because the hits you find are so generic and often so strained in connections that a nineteenth century origin is a much simpler explanation.

Let's see. You are right because I am wrong.

You are right because you over-generalized data and base your analysis on what should have happened - but didn't.

I am wrong because what I find are "hits" that are strained and generic.

In other words, you are right because you believe your perceptions and I am wrong because you don't believe my historical reconstructions.

I can accept that you don't believe my evidence. That does not, however, translate into any reason to suggest that your perception is correct - particularly when it is built on misperceptions of both the Book of Mormon text and Mesoamerican history.

An example we recently discussed - the social stratification. The real social stratification and the impact it had on lives on the actual Mesoamericans is far different, in substance, to the social stratification found in the BoM, other than the most generic connections.

Really? I remember that you attempted to use food production as a reason that this wasn't correct - but again you over-generalized and ignored the issue of famine. You also did not take into account the studies done on the bones of elite versus commoners which indicate a difference in diet. In other words - you over-generalized a statement and misused it in the argument.

As for what facets are preached against, they fit into a pattern of displayed wealth on clothing and social hierarchies relating to kings. Both of those fit the times (and the clothing fits with the lack of a monetized economy and Mesoamerican practice).

I think the data in the Book of Mormon fit the Mesoamerican context down to what marked the social distinctions, what led to them, and the means of accumulating visible wealth.

I quoted various scriptures that demonstrate that the social stratification in the BoM resulted in severe poverty and deprivation of basic necessities, (in times of general wealth and success of the Nephite culture) yet this does not accurately reflect the actual impact of social stratification in Mesoamerica.

Yes, that was your argument. I don't buy it because I don't buy your premise that all commoners were always well fed. I don't buy it because the Book of Mormon discusses hospitality issues, not poverty in the same sense that a monetary economy sees poverty. You are projecting a modern definition of poverty onto an agricultural society. It didn't fit in the Old World either. Read Isaiah's condemnation of the wealthy as opposed to the lower class.

(BG previous)In fact, I suggest the very same thing. My analysis of the combination of events comprising the attack on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies and the raid on Ammonihah virtually require an understanding of the Mesoamerica cult of war. Those concepts lie behind the events described. 

(beastie response) Another example of the "bull's eye". No, it doesn't require an understanding of the cult of war. The text is perfectly reasonable and comprehensible without that background knowledge. Knowledge of the Mesoamerican cult of war is only necessary when you intend to go draw a bull's eye around the arrow.

Really? Please explain the facets of the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies and the attack on Ammonihah so that they represent rational human actions. You just said you could do it and that it was a better explanation than mine. I would love to see it. My contention is that the background of the cult of war fills in motivations that explain all of the relevant actions that are otherwise unexplained. Have at it.

Well, at least you admit that the notions of universalism and atheism are not recorded in Mesoamerica in the extant data.

Convenient summary. Misses the point, but it conveniently supports your view of the world.

Now, if these were issues that were unique to Nephite religion and there is no extant record of Nephite religion other than the Book of Mormon, why is their absence surprising in contexts where they were inapplicable?

You think if one read an extensive Bablonian text that recorded not only history but its own myths would ring some bells in connection to hebrew myth?

Before you go any farther with this example you would have to explain your understanding of the development of religion in the Middle East. Then, if you want to use this example in Mesoamerica, you would have to demonstrate comparable conditions of religious development. Even if you can get the first, the second is completely inapplicable.

BTW, it doesn't have to be ball games or bloodletting, these are just possibilities,

Good. Drop them. Move on to another guess and see if you can do better. Apparently you don't need to be right to be convinced that you are right. There must be something - if you keep looking and guessing.

Interesting methodology.

if there were other clear reflections of Mesoamerican religion - not the drawing of the bull's eye sort.

If there were other clear reflections of what you think should be religious reflections - not the ones I think are there. Right.

Perhaps we would see a version of the Hero Twin myth reflected somewhere in the BoM.

Hero Twin mythology is structurally widespread. You have the creative twins in the Popol Vuh, but you also have the Quetzalcoatl/Tezcatlipoca "twins" later. There is evidence that they also functioned as creator twins in Mixtec codices. The twins may have celestial aspects in the creation of the suns (known for Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca) but the main function is in the establishment of the current world. They do their "work" by opposition.

Nephi and Laman function as opposed brothers in the establishment of the Nephite world. They exist among other brothers, just as to Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca. Are you sure that their stories were never recast into creator twins? Doesn't Book of Mormon theology suggest that the known world was created by the opposition of these two brothers ("twins" mythologically)?

May be you are right - maybe we should see them as "twins." Their function in the text is the same as in other Mesoamerican creation stories.

Perhaps we would see a reflection of the importance of calendrics, the idea of recurring creation cycles. Anything other than items that reflect more of ninteenth century New England than Mesoamerica.

We do see the text marking years like the annal-style texts from Mesoamerica - which mark the years but don't deal with the esoterics of calendar-based prognostication.

As for things that differ from the 19th century, how about political systems? Please tell me how the political systems described in the Book of Mormon are at all reflective of the 19th century.

[beastie]

QUOTE

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Would you just think for one moment about what you just said? They converted enough for "one city at the most". A city, Brant. What you are asking me to believe is that an entire city of Lamanites, who came from a long-term tradition with Mesoamerican religion, did not have any "issues" with incorporating past, "heathen" traditions into their new religion? Why do these people act like no other people on earth have acted?

I know quite well what I said. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies where pulled from multiple locaitons and gathered together in Lamanite lands, but they were not in the majority. When the arrived in the land of Zarahemla they congregated in a single location, Jershon. They might have been enough for a city - but we really don't know how many there were. We may suppose in the thousands since they had 2000 sons to send to war (excpet that the 2000 might not be a count - but that is a different issue).

When those Lamanites-become-Nephites entered the Nephite area they seem to have made their own break with their past. There is no preaching against it because they didn't bring it with them. That is what the text says.

Please tell me where the Book of Mormon suggests that there was anything about the Anti-Nephi-Lehies/people of Ammon had trouble integrating - or where they attempted to bring their old religion with them.

Since we are discussing converts, what is your background on the sociology of conversion? It seems that you are expecting something that doesn't happen.

Why do these people act like no other people on earth have acted?

They don't. Just because they don't behave the way you think they would have certainly doesn't qualify as acting differently than other people. We have not yet established that your expectations are normative for all people.

[juliann]

There is no reason to interpret my comments in the manner you have. It is "universal" in that it has been found throughout a wide time span - from the Olmec on - and throughout the entire region. Even the most cursory study of Mesoamerican history teaches that some cities were considered the center for ritualistic activities, which definitely includes ball games. Ie, not every location would have a ball court.

Oh, give it up. These threads go round and round because you are restacking the deck chairs on the Titanic every other post when you get caught in another doozy of a claim. Now we are supposed to listen to you rearrange the English vocabulary?

It was so obvious that you were off on yet another snipe hunt that my first post asked you "In what time periods and areas? Is there agreement on this? Is there agreement on the nature and meaning of the games?" You have been wrong on each and every point relating to this (those that you even answered). What was it you said about being sloppy? At no time did you come in and clarify that you did not really mean "universal" in response to what areas.

Beastie: Yet it is silent on topics that were universal in Mesoamerica - like ritualistic bloodletting and sacred ball games.

Main Entry: [1]uni

[juliann]

The Lamanites who surrounded the Nephites were the ones with the ball courts, and the Nephites would have been well aware of this practice, would have considered it evil, wicked, dangerous, and likely would have included mention of it in their anti-laminate rhetoric.

The Lamanites who surrounded the Nephites....well, that clears it up. One more time. What areas? After you clear that one up....you can move on to documenting:

1. Nephites were well aware of games.

2. They considered a ball game evil, wicked, dangerous.

3. They would have "mentioned" it.

[beastie]

I'm very tired tonight so am just going to address one of Juliann's points about my use of the word "universal".

Earlier in this thread I quoted the highly respected scholar Michael Coe. He stated:

Michael Coe, in The Maya, 1999 states that:

QUOTE 

All the Mesoamerican Indians shared a number of traits which were more or less peculiar to them and absent or rare elsewhere in the New World: hieroglyphic writing, books of fig-bark paper or deerskin which were folded like screens, a complex permutation calendar, knowledge of the movements of the planets (especially Venus) against the background of the stars, a game played with a rubber ball in a special court, highly specialized markets, human sacrifice by head or heart removal, an emphasis on self-sacrifice by blood drawn from the ears, tongue, or penis, and a highly complex, pantheistic religion which included nature divinities as well as deities emblematic of royal descent.  Also in all Mesoaermican religions was the idea of a cosmic cycle of creation and destruction, and of a universe oriented to the four directions with specific colors and gods assigned to the cardinal points and to the center. (Maya, p 13) 

So, Juliann, would you please explain how you interpret the words "All the Mesoamerican Indians"?

If you were to apply the same standard to Coe's words as you do mine, you would demand evidence that each and every mesoamerican participated in these practices.

[juliann]

Give it up, Beastie. Start answering some of Brant's questions. There are plenty. Stop avoiding them.

[beastie]

I asked Juliann this:

So, Juliann, would you please explain how you interpret the words "All the Mesoamerican Indians"?

If you were to apply the same standard to Coe's words as you do mine, you would demand evidence that each and every mesoamerican participated in these practices.

And here is Juliann's response:

Give it up, Beastie. Start answering some of Brant's questions. There are plenty. Stop avoiding them.

Thus saith the person who just completely ignored my question.

This is the same approach I've seen you utilize on other threads, both here and on Z. You pick around the edges at points you think you can discredit, even if it doesn't make a whit of difference to the larger argument. You do your best to present me as someone who "claims to be an expert" and then try to discredit me on minor points. You dart from little point to little point, and rarely address the larger issue. Every time you show up on a thread, I am truly divided on whether the most productive tactic would be to ignore you altogether rather than get into this annoying little dance with you.

I'm not avoiding Brant's questions. I am in the process of answering them, except for the fact that you keep getting in the way. I am partly to blame for not being able to simply ignore you, of course.

Regarding to the location of these events:

Brant has informed me in the past that he basically accepts Sorenson

[beastie]

Back to Brant -

QUOTE

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

This is getting crazy. I'm not sure what you are reading or how you are interpreting what you read - but it isn't coming out in a way that makes sense. I don't see much point in continuing this considering this last strange post.

Here are the parts that are confusing:

Brant has informed me in the past that he basically accepts Sorenson

[Benjamin McGuire]

Having my name bandied about usually gets my attention ..... : )

I haven't been following this thread in its minutiae, but I wanted to make a couple of observations.

First, Above everything else, we are dealing with a text. While Beastie introduces the Israelites as an example (and I think a good example), there are issues with that example. Yes, Israel absorbed a lot from its neighbors - and that in and of itself is a classic presupposition for those who are quite liberal with the history. It presupposes that the Israelites were in fact distinct from their neighbors. But, the text is something altogether different.

The Israelites, for example, for hundreds of years worshipped a goddess (even to the point of making offerings to her in the temple in Jerusalem). What evidence of this practice is seen in the Old Testament. The point I make here is that there is absolutely no doubt that for most of the Old Testament, the popular religion practiced by the people, and the religion described in the text, are very different things.

So, this is an issue. We note though, that once placed in an appropriate context, references to these beliefs can be carefully drawn from the text.

I don't want to get sucked into the other debate right now. I have other things on my plate. But Beastie makes this comment that I did want to respond to:

In all the times I read the BoM, or discussed the BoM in sunday school classes, I don't recall anyone saying, "gee, this story just doesn't make sense. We're obviously missing information." The fact is that the story makes sense on its own. I already stated this, but you keep repeating I ignore your evidences.

I know the Old Testament better than the vast majority of LDS members. This is a simple fact which I doubt anyone would be willing to contest. I am sure there are several who are more familiar than I am, but there are not many.

I read the text of the Book of Mormon far differently in places than you do. There is another thread going on right now about the ethics of Nephi killing Laban. I'ld comment there but I think the effort would be wasted in that thread (although I'ld be interested in a provate conversation with Golden Tapir on the topic perhaps). The narrative there quotes and alludes to a number of different Old Testament texts. The entire sequence is presented in a way that shows a clear reliance on the Old Testament narrative of David killing Goliath. This isn't coincidental, but an intentional feature of the text - and its purpose is not this great lesson in blind obedience (that the LDS manuals typically explain) but rather it is a political statement demonstrating Nephi's right to rule in the context of a dynastic change or the foundation of a new dynasty. Nephi portrays himself as chopping of Laban's head with his own sword (independant of whether the events really occured in this fashion or not) precisely because David decapitates the Phillistine champion with his own sword.

Yes, the text makes perfect sense without such a reading. Yes, the text makes sense with such a reading. Individuals and groups have what is called a verbal repertoire. This is a set of words and phrases that a person could use or can understand. Communication occurs when a person makes an utterance (using his/her own verbal repertoire) and the audience interprets that utterance (using their own verbal repertoire). However, different individuals and groups can have different meanings associated with overlapping elements in their verbal repertoire. This is why it can be confusing to encounter a 17th century poet referring to someone's "plastic arm". If we read this as referring to our modern polymers, then we have a problem. We may even recognize the problem, and be unable to resolve it (because we may not know the meaning he was referring to). But if we didn't have the date, and merely had the poem, we might well infer a meaning (and have it sound quite natural) that was never intended. Despite the fact that both the author of the poem and the modern reader can have an overlapping element in their respective verbal repertoires (in this case the word "plastic"), this does not mean that both will read the text in the same fashion.

Have you ever read 1 Nephi 2:1?

"FOR behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life."

I cannot read that verse without thinking of Number 12:6

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream."

It seems quite clear to me that Nephi is quoting the text in Numbers - in part because he wants the reader to draw the inferenence that Lehi is a prophet. More importantly, this is the fundamental definition of a prophet which Nephi invokes.

So, I think that the text can be read in many ways, and the fact that the text makes sense to you as a reader is not an indicator that you have arrived at the intent of the author. If, of course, you think that all meanings are of equal value, then it wouldn't make a difference. But within the context of the debates and discussions we have, the intentions of the author (be it ancient or modern) is a critical element in the discussion as far as we can decipher it.

So, you may not find conflict when you read the text, it may make perfect sense to you. But, part of that is simply the fact that you have appropriated the text into your own social and cultural expectations, and are reading it in that light. Just as much to the point, with your strongly displayed aversion to reading the text as an ancient work, I think that this is also a consideration.

Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh discuss this in their recent book: Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (2003). It is easy, they suggest, for us to imagine the over-booked hotel when we read of Jesus being born in the stable - because there was no room at the inn. They note:

That such a