Meso-Americans Pagans or Christians?

[beastie]

Unbelievable how you twist and distort when you have to defend your nonsense.

[beastie]

All the while convinced this will make absolutely no difference, and Juliann will continue as she has so far in this thread, I will attempt to either answer or show my earlier answers to these questions, despite the fact that neither Juliann nor Brant have ever answered my very simple question about how they interpret Michael Coe's statement about All Mesoamerican Indian.

Beastie assumes: 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. 

Brant asks: And your evidence for this is? Please let me know how this principle worked in Egypt, Babylon, and Israel.

Well, let

[beastie]

I doubt Juliann will ever provide the entire paragraph as context, so I will. I believe the paragraph she cited is likely the same one used as a footnote in the Forest of Kings, p 429.

There are as many modern myths about the Precolumbian ballgame as there are ancient ones.  The most persistent is that the winner was sacrificed, because the loser was considered unworthy.  There is absolutely no evidence supporting that curious idea, and the stories of the Popol Vuh, our most detailed information on the game, clearly demonstrates that the loser not the winner was the victim of sacrifice.

Note that the entire paragraph does not dispute my statement that the ballgames included human sacrifice - it disputes one particular idea, that the winner instead of the loser was sacrificed.

Another irony, always abundant with juliann - she used this verse to chastise ME for "not knowing my own source".

Now that this bit of diversion has been dispensed, my next post will focus on the idea that I believe Juliann wants to encourage - that ballgames only took place in the Classic Period.

[beastie]

Ball game "dates".

Let

[juliann]

Whoever this mysterious "Juliann" was, she ridiculed my claim that Mesoamericans would be aware of their ritualistic practices and beliefs by saying "they would just jump on their private jet" to see it. To which I replied perhaps, just perhaps, it had to do with the settlement patterns of ancient Mesoamerican.

Are we having fun yet? I can keep this up as long as you can. Now you are pretending that you weren't talking about knowledge about modern temples to explain how events you cannot even date were universally known. (Right....we know that universal no longer means...universal. )

Still waiting for dates and places.....but thanks for keeping us entertained while we wait.

[juliann]

Note that the entire paragraph does not dispute my statement that the ballgames included human sacrifice - it disputes one particular idea, that the winner instead of the loser was sacrificed.

Note that Beastie is again amusing us by rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Your own expert said it...not me. And you have not produced any "historical or ancient source" that she said was not there. You just keep quoting modern sources. Have you noticed that? We do.

[juliann]

Now let

[beastie]

Note that Beastie is again amusing us by rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Your own expert said it...not me. And you have not produced any "historical or ancient source" that she said was not there. You just keep quoting modern sources. Have you noticed that? We do.

juliann,

Do you really not see the significance of the entire quote?

Here's what she said:

There are as many modern myths about the Precolumbian ballgame as there are ancient ones.  The most persistent is that the winner was sacrificed, because the loser was considered unworthy.  There is absolutely no evidence supporting that curious idea, and the stories of the Popol Vuh, our most detailed information on the game, clearly demonstrates that the loser not the winner was the victim of sacrifice.

Here's how you quoted her:

Many modern myths have grown up about the ballgame.  The most popular says that the Maya sacrificed the winners so as to give a perfect gift to the gods.  There is no evidence for this interpretation in any of the ancient or historical sources. 

She is saying there is no evidence the winner was sacrificed. She is not saying there was no evidence for sacrifice associated with the ball games, she says our most detailed information CLEARLY demonstrates that the loser, not the winner, was the victim of sacrifice.

Do you really not understand this, or are you just ignoring what is obvious? That you lopped off the portion of the quote that actually agrees with what I originally said? And you call my pointing this out "rearranging the chairs on the Titanic?"

For some reason, a certain Monty Python scene that involves a knight keeps coming to mind.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

The political systems described sound similar to those described in the Bible, or seen in some European monarchies of the nineteenth century, combined with the US national enthusiasm of the period for democracy.

That is your answer? That is a quick repeat of common misperceptions. While kingship has common features in most of the world, the idea that the Book of Mormon has any resemblance to democracy can only come from a superficial reading of the text. Close reading of the political arrangements show absolutely no features of democracy.

Your suggestion that they appear similar to the enthusiasm for democracy is simply repeated incomplete analysis. If this is the way you read for evidence, it calls into question all of your analyses as being potentially similarly superficial.

Of course you may redeem yourself by demonstrating democracy in the Book of Mormon. When you do that, please concentrate on reconciling the concept of voting for judges who appear to receive their appointments through heredity. I would love to hear the explanation for that from the "national enthusiasm of the period for democracy." It would seem to violate that enthusiasm.

[beastie]

Brant,

I'd certainly like to hear your opinion on how Juliann used the Schele quote in this thread. You say that my seeing nineteenth century enthusiasm for democracy in the BoM calls into question all of my analyses. What does Juliann's understanding of and use of Schele's quote indicate about her? Please don't ignore this question, I'd really like to see you address this.

I'd also like you to address her apparent idea that ballgames did not take place during the Preclassic period. Because it seems clear to me that scholars do NOT take this position, but rather take this position:

http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/exhibits/g...aframedoc1.html

The ball game has been played in Mesoamerica for more than 3000 years, and a form of it is still played in areas of northwestern Mexico. Evidence of the broad distribution of the Mesoamerican ball game has been found in archaeological sites from the southwest United States to northern South America, and on the islands of the Caribbean, spanning a period of more than 3,000 years. Some scholars trace the origin of the Mesoamerican ball game to the Gulf Coast because of the many ball game related artifacts found there, and because rubber trees are native to the area.

If you want to see enthusiasm for democracy in the BoM, just check out the scriptures in which Mosiah talks about how much preferable it would be to NOT have a king. Despite the fact that they wanted a king, Mosiah clearly would have preferred democracy.

Mosiah 29

16, 17 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.

for behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!

21 And behold, now i say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.

25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, which were given them by the hand of the Lord.

Sure, Brant, it's superficial, all right.

[juliann]

I'd certainly like to hear your opinion on how Juliann used the Schele quote in this thread.

[juliann]

2nd request for answers from Beastie. Stop avoiding and take care of business. I'll even shorten it.

Beastie assumes: 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. 

Brant asks: And your evidence for this is? Please let me know how this principle worked in Egypt, Babylon, and Israel.

Brant asks:  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.

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.

Since we are discussing converts, what is your background on the sociology of conversion?

[beastie]

Juliann,

Yes, it was so easy getting you to admit your error, and you were so good humored about it. BTW, is my paragraph the same as the one in your book?

I already directed you to where I answered those questions.

And you don't want "secondary sources" for the early PRECLASSIC period? I already offered you links to sites with LATE preclassic primary evidence, and to sites with Olmec primary evidence, but that isn't enough. If the real problem is you're just can't be bothered to click on the links and read the information, then it is your problem, not mine.

You don't have a problem with MY assertions, you have a problem with the assertions of Mesoamerican archaeologists in general.

So, just for you, I will drop the "universal" ball games, and instead switch to Michael Coe's statement:

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.

[Calm]

beastie, perhaps it would be easier to understand juliann's request if you abandon the temple analogy (doesn't work because you are choosing an extremely cohesive group under one form of leadership and comparing it with a much less cohesive group under multiple leaders, all restorationists groups would be a better analogy and temple worship is not universal among them) and go to something in a closer fit...perhaps the Greek situation and their shared religious framework.

While the Greek city-states and outlying areas are looked on as sharing a common religion, up close there are differences--sometimes dramatic--between regions, some even very close. To know whether it is appropriate to apply one of the common standards of the Greek religious framework or even better, how to apply it, one needs to examine what is known about a specific location at a specific time. For example, while the Zeus cult was often seen as primary in some areas, Apollo was in others. Variations in myths and how they were acted out by the worshippers arose because of what each group viewed as primary importance as I'm sure you are aware. Many practices were absent in one area while present in others because of how the broad religion was all integrated/absorbed into the local level.

While the pan-meso religious framework is fundamentally different from the Greek form, the idea that time and place needs to be identified first in any discussion about specific practices is present here as well. Brant is dealing with a specific time/location frame; a generic rebuttal without a demonstration that it works for his specific is ineffective.

Generic statements may start a discussion, but specifics are needed to continue it. If you dont' have the specifics for the dates and places you want to examine, that is unfortunate, but has to be taken into account in the comparison between the 'dirt' and the BoM text that is being examined. You have some good information that may or may not be able to inform our reading of the BoM, you need to provide more details before I feel comfortable making any sort of judgment on what you have provided.

[beastie]

Cal,

Have you read the entire thread? I have provided numerous statements by extremely well respected experts regarding the pan-Mesoamerican religion. These traits listed are already generic enough to cover the fact that specifics - like the particulars of a myth, the rules of the game, etc, may differ - that there is no need to strain at the differences in details. Ball games - and Juliann has pointed out that they may have been recreational, which is fine, and doesn't alter my point - are part of that tradition, although it is just one example.

I have sincerely tried to respond to Juliann - I ran out of time this weekend because of my audacious desire to spend time with "real life" people , but I had already begun to compile the various quotes and statements I already offered on this thread.

Like these:

Responses regarding dates and places

Page 2

In what time periods and areas? Is there agreement on this? Is there agreement on the nature and meaning of the games? Do educate us on the specifics.

my answer:

Ritualistic ball games and ritualistic sacrifices, including bloodletting, are found throughout Mesoamerican culture, from the Olmec through the Classic period. I have yet to read any disagreement on this point. The rules of the game are not exactly understood, but it is accepted that the game is likely related to a mythical story shared by Mesoamerican religions, and definitely included human sacrifice. The following quotations may be helpful, from a variety of sources. A quick google search will likely provide many more references.

Some of these issues have already been raised on the thread a "Mayan Lamanites". The thread suffered quite a bit of derailment, but the basic idea is similar. A FAIR search will provide the link.

Michael Coe, in The Maya, 1999 states that:

[Confidential Informant]

I'm still just trying to figure out why your supposition (Beastie) of how the Nephites should have acted is in any way definitive.

It seems to me that Brant had provided several examples of where the ancients did not act in a manner that we would expect. Moreover, he has provided example of how they did respond, you simply claim -- with no backing whatsoever -- that his examples are too general and forced.

Why your conlcusions are authoritative while Brant's, who has actually been to mesoamerica and published articles in respected journals dealing w/ mesoamerica, are not.

C.I.

[beastie]

I'm still just trying to figure out why your supposition (Beastie) of how the Nephites should have acted is in any way definitive.

It seems to me that Brant had provided several examples of where the ancients did not act in a manner that we would expect. Moreover, he has provided example of how they did respond, you simply claim -- with no backing whatsoever -- that his examples are too general and forced.

Yes, there is no backing for saying that the connections of "rich people wear fancy clothes" and "kings pass on their kingship to relatives, usually sons" are too generic to be meaningful - other than common sense and even a vague awareness of the world around you. (forced I save for ones like the Gadianton Robbers and the Aztec Jaguar Knights).

Why your conlcusions are authoritative while Brant's, who has actually been to mesoamerica and published articles in respected journals dealing w/ mesoamerica, are not.

And then there's always the appeal to authority.

[beastie]

BTW, as fatigued as I am with some of the direction of this thread, I'm still preparing some information on El Mirador.

[juliann]

Why your conlcusions are authoritative while Brant's, who has actually been to mesoamerica and published articles in respected journals dealing w/ mesoamerica, are not.

And then there's always the appeal to authority.

And then there is the complete refusal to give anyone any reason why they should listen to your stream of consciousness, unsupported and very weird conclusions that fit no other study of comparative ancient societies.

Since you present nothing but disjointed and general disembodied quotes a little authority is needed. So I remain puzzled as to why you don't just provide it. Stiiilllll waiting......

Since we are discussing converts, what is your background on the sociology of conversion?

[juliann]

BTW, as fatigued as I am with some of the direction of this thread, I'm still preparing some information on El Mirador.

Which I am sure you will provide dates and places for while relating them in time and place to your "Nephite" cities so that you can provide evidence that there was contact. Come on....what it is? They have family reunions? Trade? Write to each other? Smoke signals? The Nephites regularly took prisoners and interrogated them? Or is it that convert thing that you refuse to give any information on whatsoever (beyond the wild eyed claim, of course.)

[Archon]

While I have not read the entire thread I fail to see how anything is being accomplished by any of the participants on this thread. It seems it is rapidly digressing into name calling and noise.

If anyone has anything to say I suggest that you say it and get a worthwhile discussion going - or drop the thread.

Archon

[Confidential Informant]

And then there's always the appeal to authority.

As Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe once so nicely pointed out to me, the appeal to authority is not wrong if the person appealed to is, indeed, an authority. Brant qualifies, therefore my appeal to his expertise is not a fallacy.

C.I.

[beastie]

As Dav Vogel and Brent Metcalfe once so nicely pointed out to me, the appeal to authority is not wrong if the person appealed to is, indeed, an authority. Brant qualifies, therefore my appeal to his expertise is not a fallacy.

There are qualifiers to this statement:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-authority.html

The person in question is not significantly biased.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.

Call me crazy, but I think God telling you that the BoM is "true" constitutes creating a bias in assessing the data.

Besides, sooner or later, you have to address the specifics, and can't just appeal to authority.

For example, Michael Coe's authority far outweighs Brant's. Yet you don't accept his verdict on the Book of Mormon. Why? Because you think he has erred on specifics, despite his authority. (ie, you think he doesn't really know enough about current BoM apologetics) Otherwise, each time you and Brant and others appeal to Brant's authority to dismiss my assertions, I could simply trump you with Coe. That gets us nowhere. Hence, we need to discuss the specific assertions being made.

My assertion is that a connection relying on something as generic as "rich people wear fancy clothes" or "Kings pass on their kingship to their sons or relatives" is meaningless, at least as far as ascertaining the historicity of the BoM is concerned.

Or another reason the appeal to authority will be fallacious:

There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.

You really think Brant's opinions on the historicity of the BoM would not be under dispute by other experts in the field?

IMO - which is just my opinion - when you simply resort to referring to Brant's authority without addressing my specific assertions, which are hardly wild eyed and illogical, you're conceding that you can't build a strong argument against the assertions themselves, and hence, instead try to focus on the originator of the argument (me). (I've seen a lot of that on this thread)

I keep asking you all to look at the examples in the Bible - this seems the most logical thing to do. These were both small Judeo Christian groups, surrounded by enemies who worshipped strange gods. Look at how fanatical the Biblical Jews were about trying to keep their faith pure. Wouldn't the Nephite Jews/Christians also be as concerned about the purity of their faith? Yet, despite that fanatism, we can find out specific details about the religion of the "enemies" - either by stories that involve the enemy's god (like a contest between the two gods) or by noticing how, despite their fanatisicm, the OT Jews still managed to borrow religious ideas from their enemies.

Look at this page for a list of Canaanite gods:

http://phoenicia.org/pagan.html#anchor119863

How many do you think we can find mentioned in the Bible, or even incorporated into Judaism?

EL: The Father of the Gods, the Creator of Created Things, The Kindly, Kodesh. Asherah is his wife. When he was young, El went out upon the sea, and there met Asherah and Her companion Rohmaya. He then roasted a bird and asked them if They would be His wives or daughters. They chose to be His wives. El mates with these Goddesses and Shachar and Shalim (Dawn and Dusk) are born. This family then builds a sanctuary and lives in the desert for eight years. This episode may be the closest we have to a Creation story involving El. El wears bull horns upon his helmet, and He is a grey haired and bearded patriarch. He resides at "the Source of Two Rivers" upon Mt. Lel.

BAAL: He is the Canaanite Ruler God (like Marduk). Baal and Yam-Nahar origonally competed for kingship of the gods. The matter was brought before El, who decided in favour of Yam. Yam then proceeded with a reign of tyranny over the gods, and none of them felt they had the power to defeat Yam. So, they sent Asherah to entreat him to lossen his grip. Asherah even offered herself to Yam. Upon hearing this, Baal was enraged, and decided to defeat Yam. Yam got wind of Baal's plan and sent messengers to El with the demand that Baal be delivered to him. El, afraid, agreed. Baal then taunted the gods for their cowardice and went to face Yam. He had two weapons made, Yagrush (chaser) and Aymur (driver). He struck Yam on the chest with Yagrush to no avail. Then he struck him on the forehead with Aymur and fell Yam to the earth. After Yam's defeat, Baal had a palace built for himself; closely resembeling the story of Marduk. It also resembles Marduk's story in that the Primeval Waters threatened the gods, and the High God and others were afraid to face them, with the exception of the soon-to-be Ruler God. The Baal epic then continues to describe his fight against Mavet. Baal is also a Storm God like Marduk, and a fertility god like Tammuz. Dagon is his father. Baal is the Canaanite God-force (the goddess force seems to be split between Anath and Asherah). Baal's proper name is Hadad, relating to his storm-god aspect. Baal is really a title, meaning "Lord". Baal's residence is upon Mt. Zaphon. He is known as Rapiu (Shade) during his summer stay in the underworld.

YAHWEH: Yahweh is added here because there was a short time in which He was simply part of the Canaanite pantheon. He was a Son of El; and he was part of the court of El as cupbearer along with Baal. Later, as the National God of Israel, Yahweh was equated with El, and Asherah became His wife. H.

Those three need no explanation.

Yet there are others, less familiar:

SHACHAR: "Dawn". God of dawn. Either a son of Asherah, or of Rohmaya. According to Isaiah 14:12, He is the father of Helel (or Lucifer) the Light-Bringer and Morning Star.

DAGON: A vegitation God (especially corn). Father of Baal.

(my insert - Judges 16:23 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain

 

  23Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice: for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand.

You all keep telling me I have no justification for my view that if the BoM were a document that originated in Mesoamerica, we would be able to learn meaningful facts about their enemies. Yet this is exactly what we see in the Bible.

[Dunamis]

Call me crazy, but I think God telling you that the BoM is "true" constitutes creating a bias in assessing the data.

Are you disqualifying every believer when they study texts central to their religion? Are Jews not reliable authorities on the Torah? Muslims on the Q'uran? Catholics on the Bible?

Return to the topic. If there is one.

[Confidential Informant]

I understand all of that beastie. However, do you even know if Coe has read the Book of Mormon?

Moreover, John Clark at the very least equals Coe in authority, therefore since it appears that the field in question is in dispute, you cannot cite to Coe as an authority.

IMO - which is just my opinion - when you simply resort to referring to Brant's authority without addressing my specific assertions, which are hardly wild eyed and illogical, you're conceding that you can't build a strong argument against the assertions themselves, and hence, instead try to focus on the originator of the argument (me). (I've seen a lot of that on this thread)

IMO, Brant has shown time and time again that you don't understand the very sources you are quoting from. That has been Brant's biggest frustration here is that you think you know what you are talking about when, in fact, your analysis is shallow and unmeaningful. You act as if Brant is totally ignorant of all that you throw up in your quotes, when it is quite clear that he is not. You know just enough to make yourself look silly to a competent scholar like Brant.

I'm sure you disagree and I'm sure all your objection make perfect sense in the little world you've constructed for yourself. But you have absolutely no authority to declare anything Brant has presented as "forced" or any other appelation. Now, if you can convince Coe or some other real mesoamerican expert to participate here, then you might get my attention. As it is, you appear to me to be nothing short of desperate to discredit Brant in order to justify your own life decisions.

C.I.