Meso-Americans Pagans or Christians?

[beastie]

QUOTE 

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?

It depends on the topic of conversation. In terms of interpreting the spiritual meaning of their texts, of course they are not only reliable but probably the best authorities.

In terms of historical facts - IOW, issues closely related to their fundamental beliefs - their bias would neuter their authority when their opinion is counter to the opinion of other experts in the field - as the link I provided clearly stated.

But aside from all that, whether or not the appeal to authority seen on this thread is a logical fallacy, it is a way of avoiding the issues I have raised.

As amusing and predictable of a sideline this is, ("desperate attempt to discredit Brant in order to justify my lifestyle" LOL!! - CI, in case you haven't realized it yet, I am a complete and total atheist. Not one particle of one of my brain cells believes a God exists) - yes, let's return to topic. Tell me why we find such details about the canannite religion in the Bible, yet it is completely illogical of me to expect to see something similar in the BoM.

[Dale]

Hi,

Beastie when you face death will your current beliefs give you any comfort? I would send you a Book of Mormon if you wanted one. Why not give God another chance? I figure there's a chance God exists or that He doesn't exist. And if my hope is a false hope then it will accomplish as much as atheism will. And if God exists perhaps my hope was not without a purpose. Ponder how pointless life really is. If you want a point for living & agree life for you is pointless get Rick Warren's a Purpose Driven Life & compare how that book's makes you feel in comparison to books written by atheists.

When I read stuff from Signature Book's books on The Book of Mormon I get depressed. I can live with not knowing Mes-Americans were Christian. From a believers standpoint I would love to see a Book of Mormon place name, or Christian artifact uncovered. But does it really hurt anything to believe in spiritual myth if that's what it is. Of course I am excited by FARMs books like Echoes & Evidences of The Book of mormon.

At the FARMs website it's Review of Book's are online to read. Have you read it's reviews of The New Mormon Challenge? Zondervan published a book seeking to discredit believing Book of Mormon scholarship. I think FARMs beat off the essays myself. I am not sure of the issue but I can get you the number if you can't find it. The Book of Mormon may be viewed as ancient.

Sincerely,

Dale

[beastie]

Dale -

You are very kind to be so concerned about me. Even though we usually see things from completely different viewpoints, I've never sensed a combative or mean spirited purpose from you, and I do appreciate that, because often in these discussions we do tend to polarize and become combative (and one person on this thread is the most "all fists" internet personality I've ever met!) I noticed you expressed concern about my emotional peace with atheism on another thread, although I did not have time at that moment to respond. I know this is off topic, but I hope the moderators will allow me to respond to your kind offer.

It took me years to become an atheist, even after leaving the church, due to the intense spiritual experiences/epiphanies I had experienced over the years, mainly as a mormon (although not exclusively so, I was a convert at 19 and also remained a Christian for a few years after leaving the church). I never "chose" atheism at all, whether due to emotional comfort or intellectual comfort. I can't force myself to believe something I just don't, and after years of struggling with God - first as a devout LDS losing my faith, and then trying to figure out what the heck that whole LDS thing had been about for me, in regards to truth and God - after struggling for literally years, I suddenly realized one day I no longer believed in God at all. And in an instant, all my emotional angst and turmoil melted away like a snowball in the hot sun. The emotional angst and turmoil had been a result of my inability to reconcile all the contradictions within my belief, and so when I no longer believed in a God, the need to reconcile any of it disappeared. It was a great relief, but not a state I sought out. In fact, just as I feared, for so long, losing my ability to believe in "the one true church", I had long feared losing my ability to believe in God, either. Yet, when both happened, my emotional state actually improved (after a period of natural grieving). I am much, much happier as an atheist than I ever was as a believer. Of course, there have been a couple moments in my life when I wished I COULD believe in God again, due to the emotional comfort it could have given me, when my son was diagnosed with a serious illness and one of my best friends died from cancer, leaving behind two young children. But even WISHING I could believe for comfort in those moments, I never actually believed or even tried to. I just don't believe. I think that generally people either believe or they don't, and it's not something we can will to change. (that's why, if there were such a thing as a God who judged us for holding wrong beliefs, I would refuse to worship such an unjust God, because we normally don't "choose" our beliefs).

Believe me, you aren't the first believer who has tried to bring me back into the fold,and as long as it's someone whom I believe has genuine care for me, I don't get angry or irritated, but feel grateful they care enough about me to be concerned. (now when I feel my atheism is being used as a weapon against me, then I get irritated) And despite how vocal I am about my atheism on the internet, only my most intimate friends and family know I'm an atheist in real life. I live in an area surrounded by believers, and I don't want to burden them with worrying about my eternal state. I'm going to be fine, one way or the other.

Regarding the Book of Mormon - I have several, including the original one the missionaries gave me, the combination I took on my mission (I served in France in 79), and a paperback one with the "gold plate" cover. Even today, after all these years, I have read no other book in my life as many times as I read the BoM. (although I have read some of my old favorites as many as three times, I read the BoM at least once,and often more than once, every year that I was a member for fifteen years). And yes, I do read LDS/BoM apologetics, and think Brant is the best, which is why I focus on him.

And I'm not a religiously intolerant atheist. I view religion as part of our human evolution,and think it is part of human nature, and enjoy ritual myself. (although I like the mass) I will defend atheism if I feel it has been misrepresented or attacked unfairly, and sometimes I'm sure that feels like attacking religion in general. The problem I have with the Book of Mormon is NOT that people view it as a sacred text - I'm fine with that. The problem I have is with the insistence that it is an historical text from ancient Mesoamerica. I have a problem with that for two reasons - I think BoM apologetics tend to make problematic use of facts (examples: Sorenson's footnote and Clark's talk, both of which I have criticized) and hence misleads people who don't have ANY background experience in the subject, and that is not fair to people who are sincerely seeking out information about the historicity of the BoM. The second problem I have is that I think insisting that the BoM is historical pastes a nineteenth century Christian primitivism on top of the history of a real people, who really did exist, and who really have their own history. I think it disrespects them. There IS a voice in the dust - it speaks to us from their own land, their own past cities, their own monuments, their precious few records, and in the lives of their real ancestors today. Let's let them be who they were, and stop trying to remake them in our own image.

Anyway, that turned out to be much longer than I had planned, as usual. Thank you for your concern, and I mean that quite sincerely, but you don't have to worry about me. And I won't worry about you. But I will argue with you about the historicity of the BoM. I hope these discussions don't harden you, as sometimes I think it tends to do.

[Dale]

Hi,

Beastie thanks for telling me your story. I try & avoid combative posts anymore. I have study projects. Tonight I am studying Mormonism Shadow or Reality? by Jerald & Sandra Tanner.

My background is LDS. But I ran accross a set of Community of Christ scriptures in the LDS seminary's library. For some of us living LDS standards was more than we felt we could do. I find the RLDS Church much more accepting of me. I never fit the typical LDS kid ideal. I admit I never lived all LDS standards. I am a sinner. I try to live God's standards but I confess my sins. I had ran into anti-Mormon literature & that caused me to have serious questions & doubts. Over the years I considered being an atheist but I found belief much more appealing. I also found answers to my basic anti-Mormon trivia.

I ran into stuff that I never knew existed. I was shocked. My tender Book of Mormon testimony was destroyed in a brief period of time. Over time I learned to resolve doubts & questions & have become a stronger believer as a result. A book I got from Amazon is If I Really Believe Why Do I Have These Doubts by Lynn Anderson. I like the book so much I gave two to my local congregation. I bought one years ago but did not remain ahold of it.

This year my focus is on trying to understand the arguments for & against the Book of Mormon. I think it will be years before I can feel adequate debating the subject. I know enough to have faith. But I know I also have doubts & questions that I face up to honestly. Doubts & questions can be healthy. But I want to become an expert on the Tanners writing which will be quite the task for me. At the end of my study I will remain an ameteur apologist.

Within the last two years I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I have my mobility but it has effected the stamina in my legs. I was told my illness won't kill me, but my illness is a struggle for me. Life is not easy we all have ups & downs.

I don't put down your beliefs I just reccomend you remain open to faith.

Sincerely,

Dale

[beastie]

Dale - good luck with your search, and good luck with your health issues. One difference between our experiences seems to be that I never "chose" atheism or belief - I just either believed or didn't.

Now, back to the battle.

John Sorenson suggests that El Mirador could be Ammonihah, around 82 BC (see Alma . Ammonihah, apparently, was an apostate Nephite city, although it was later rebuilt and reused by Nephites. (I don't recall the BoM suggesting a founding date, but it is already a well established city by 82 BC) As I already stated, the difficulty facing BoM apologists, when trying to suggest feasible Nephite cities, is that they

[beastie]

As I think it is obvious Brant "responded" to my El Mirador post on his thread about panMesoamerican traits in the Bom and artifacts, he protests that my answer is off topic so I will transfer it here.

Brant,

Was this meant as a response to the information I provided about El Mirador on the "mesoamerican/pagans" thread? If it is, could you please clarify something: why would a city that was actually ruled by an apostate universalist Nephite sect become so powerful in Mesoamerica (where politics and religion were deeply enmeshed) that it became the seat of the "may", or the major religious capitol of the region?

And why would El Mirador, which was actually an apostate Nephite city, use the very same format as the other Mesoamerican religious centers in many details - such as the soltice orientation of the buildings?

Also, on that same thread, you've ignored the evidences I provided from the OT that clearly demonstrate that the ancient text, itself, provides clues of its place of origin in the borrowing it did from the Assyrians and Sumerians, even to the names of the deities.

This is another example of how BoM apologetics renders the BoM unfalsifiable. There is absolutely no way to detect the presence of this people at all in Mesoamerica, and we can't expect to see anything other than the most generic principles (like rich people wear fancy clothes and kings pass on their kingship to sons or relatives) in the text.

[beastie]

Again, it is obvious brant wants to respond to my El Mirador post, but not on this thread. I have no idea why, when this is the most appropriate place to discuss it.

I will ask again: even if we accept Brant's contention that there was such a complete borrowing of the material culture of the panMesoamericans that a Nephite city or an apostate, universalist Nephite city would literally be indistinguishable from any other mesoamerican city, including features based in religious beliefs, such as the orientation of the buildings and the deities pictured - then we must confront the fact that El Mirador wasn't the city of some small, backwater, minority sect. It was the most powerful city in the region by far, and served as the ceremonial center.

So why did the other inhabitants of the region look to a city filled with and ruled by apostate universalists Nephites to be their major ceremonial center and capitol?

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

We'll trade. I comment on El Mirador. You can comment on why you insist on a hypothesis about the presence of foreign gods that contradicts evidence.

I have no idea whether El Mirador was a Book of Mormon location or not. Sorenson suggests it. I know that John Clark agrees with Sorenson's general location but not some of the specifics.

However, I will assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a Book of Mormon location.

1) It is dominant in the region (not because it was a ceremonial center - you continue to have an interesting idea about what that means).

2) It has regular Mesoamerican deities (which you appear to think means something - again contra evidence of the way material culture might relate to a text).

3) Ammonihah was apostate Nephite - ergo not following Nephite political patterns of egalitarianism.

4) Ammonihah was withdrawing religiously and politically from the Nephites.

With that background, why would surrounding areas look to a power like Ammonihah/El Mirador? I suggest any of the normal economic and political reasons.

Why does El Mirador show that the Nephites weren't a backwater? It doesn't. I shows that part of the Nephite apostasy is to adopt more of the hierarchical nature of the world around them. We are talking about El Mirador as possibly Ammonihah, a fringe city, not part of the heartland of the Nephite holdings. Certainly if Ammonihah were El Mirador there was pretty good reason to believe that they didn't need to listen to Zarahemla.

Now - I don't really care in which thread you answer, but please justify your continuing hypothesis that the presence of Mesoamerican iconography precludes Nephite presence. We have expert evidence for Israel indicating that you are incorrect. We have only your opinion that you are correct - and yet this hypothesis fuels much of your analysis.

Please - somewhere - justify it.

[beastie]

Brant,

One of your arguments has been that the apostate Nephites did not share religious ideas with the panmesoamerican religion. Now you seem to be arguing the opposite.

Have you read Rice's book Maya Political Science?

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Rather than try to account for your misunderstanding of my arguments, I will repeat the request for a response the the problem with your fundamental hypothesis.

[beastie]

I think it's obvious we need more clarity regarding ceremonial centers - not just any ceremonial center, but the major "capitol" ceremonial center - ie, the seating of the may. Therefore, I'm going to return later today with more extensive quotes from Prudence Rice which describe what the may seating actually meant, to illustrate the illogic behind Brant's attempt to disassociate this seating with panMesoamerican religion.

[Brant Gardner]

Please don't. Please answer the question. If your hypothesis is wrong - all of the evidence you marshall for the hypothesis must be incorrectly applied.

[beastie]

To begin, there is a quote from Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, p 27, that I

[beastie]

Please don't. Please answer the question. If your hypothesis is wrong - all of the evidence you marshall for the hypothesis must be incorrectly applied.

Oh, yes, and the "evidence" you provide to support your "counter" to my hypothesis is based on a "fact" that scholars don't even accept, Brant.

[beastie]

I'm bumping this thread up for Juliann. Whether or not I will continue to respond to her depends on whether her comments are substantive.

[juliann]

I've been asking for the same thing all along. Dates and places. You continue to pump out a few quotes and lots of chatter....but you never relate it to the BOM with dates and places.

You have to do that to make anything you are saying meaningful. You not only can't....you are obviously unaware that you even need to.

Meanwhile.....the ever growing list of unanswered questions grows...

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? 

Now - I don't really care in which thread you answer, but please justify your continuing hypothesis that the presence of Mesoamerican iconography precludes Nephite presence. We have expert evidence for Israel indicating that you are incorrect. We have only your opinion that you are correct - and yet this hypothesis fuels much of your analysis.

Please - somewhere - justify it.

All dates and all places. You have to start with that before anyone can respond. Still waiting.

[cdowis]

Beastie: 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.

Cdowis: The issue is whether Coe is an expert, or even familiar with, the text of the BOM.

Let us start with a basic question --> Has he ever read the text of the BOM completely? Has he made a detailed study of a comparison of the BOM text with his expert knowledge in Mesoamerica? Are we able to read a copy of that study to see how he drew his conclusions.

An expert comes to a conclusion and is it unreasonable for us to see how he came to that conclusion?

Brant's comments are open for all to read, and we can question him on his facts and conclusions. Now provide us something from Coe.

[beastie]

I've been asking for the same thing all along. Dates and places. You continue to pump out a few quotes and lots of chatter....but you never relate it to the BOM with dates and places.

Given my lengthy discussion of El Mirador (aka "Ammonihah"), this is just a bizarre accusation, and demonstrative of why discussions with you are a waste of time.

Cdow, Coe wrote two essays on the BoM for Dialogue. I don't know how to access those articles online. Perhaps others do.

[juliann]

Given my lengthy discussion of El Mirador (aka "Ammonihah"), this is just a bizarre accusation, and demonstrative of why discussions with you are a waste of time.

Kudos for your "lengthy discussion". Now get busy and supply the rest of the dates and places. Didn't even you say this?

Beastie:  We can

[juliann]

Cdow, Coe wrote two essays on the BoM for Dialogue. I don't know how to access those articles online. Perhaps others do.

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

[juliann]

But I do want it noted the extent to which I have gone to provide support for my assertions, 

You don't supply what is indespensible support in scholarship. You just keep throwing out more verbiage. Do you really not understand that yet?

while Juliann has refused even to offer the full paragraph as context for her Schele citation,

The Schele quote was the "full paragraph". Do you want the entire page? What the heck is this about?

and both Brant and Juliann have refused to explain the difference between my

[cdowis]

Beastie: Coe wrote two essays on the BoM for Dialogue. I don't know how to access those articles online. Perhaps others do.

Cdowis: I do not subscribe to the idea that when someone publishes an article on a subject, he is now an expert on that subject.

You put Coe forth as an expert, an authority, in this matter.

[beastie]

I have had a very busy day and haven't had time to read all the new posts. So I will be back either later tonight or tomorrow to address points raised. Yes, I do have a life outside this board, and some days are more demanding than others.

PS, cdowis, you need to review this thread, particularly the Coe portion.

[Hemidakota]

Hi,

The new world inhabitants of Book of Mormon times look all like idolators. How do we handle this issue?

Sincerely,

Dale

Given your answer is a personal perception of the native american, you need to read and study the Book of Mormon for more clarity regarding the belief of Jesus the Christ was indeed taught. Not only that, read some of the historical accounts of Cook and Cortez, not foergetting others who encountered your pagen native americans as the white GOD who returned.

[Dale]

Hi,

Steve I am reading the Book of Mormon. My reading of Jerald & Sandra Tanners objection that all New Worlds inhabitants during Book of Mormon times were idoloatrous pagans caused me to raise the issue.

Sincerely,

Dale