Meso-Americans Pagans or Christians?

[beastie]

All right, CD. It is YOUR assertion that there was a standardized monetary system in Mesoamerica. Please provide your sources and citations to support that assertion.

[cdowis]

The Book of Mormon tells us in some detail about their monetary system. I will be happy to give you the chapter and verse if you require it.

[SlackTime]

The Book of Mormon tells us in some detail about their monetary system. I will be happy to give you the chapter and verse if you require it.

Are you so sure? What in this scripture convices you that this is coinage? Maybe it is units of volume or weight. All I can readily see is that it is a standardized trading system. Coinage seems to me to be an assumption.

-Ed

[cdowis]

I did not say coinage.

It was a unit of (weight?) of pieces of metal by which a standardized measure of value could be placed.

It is a *monetary system*, possibly without the use of coins. One such unit equaled another such unit, and could be compared with other units of value, and a certain value (such as grain) could be placed.

[Blink]

The Book of Mormon tells us in some detail about their monetary system. I will be happy to give you the chapter and verse if you require it.

That's not what Beastie asked for. She asked for citations and sources for your assertion that there was a monetary system in Mesoamerica. You answered that the Book of Mormon gives us details about their monetary system. You answered a question Beastie did not ask, and did not answer the question she did ask. Please answer the question Beastie asked. Thank you.

[SlackTime]

OK, I just wanted that to be brought out. It is very easy to assume coinage here as that is the type of monetary system we use.

I am reminded of a common practice (or perhaps less common practice and often retold legend) of gold rush miners coming into town with the few nuggets or small bag of gold dust eeked from a river and buying drinks and supplies before heading out again.

-Ed

[cdowis]

Blink,

>your assertion that there was a monetary system in Mesoamerica.

I made no such assertion.

I will be delighted to respond to her when you can find where I made such a statement.

[juliann]

All right, CD. It is YOUR assertion that there was a standardized monetary system in Mesoamerica. Please provide your sources and citations to support that assertion.

Where did Cdowis claim a "standardized monetary system in Mesoamerica"?? Blurting out quotes does not make it magically relevant to whatever you need it to prove. You have got to start making the connections! And that means you are going to have to deal with the Old World as well as your proof-texts.

Weighing & Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon

John W. Welch

Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999. Pp. 36

[juliann]

And Juliann, no, I most certainly will not follow you down any more rabbit holes like

[beastie]

LOL!

Obviously CD has no intention of refuting my claim that there was no standardized monetary system, as described in the BoM, in Mesoamerica. While I'm certainly not an expert in the field, I've read 18 or so books on Mesoamerican history, and not one has provided evidence of a standardized monetary system. Instead, they refer to the use of cacao, exotic shells, etc, as "currency".

If my logic is that flawed, and a standardized monetary system existed in Mesoamerica along side the cacao, shells, barter, then surely at least one scholar, somewhere, has discussed it.

Even the Aztecs, one of the most advanced, in terms of legalistic government structure, didn't have the type of advanced system described in the BoM.

from The Aztecs by Richard Townsend, p 183

Barter was a means of effecting exchange.  Cacao beans were widely used as money in the market, though they may not have had a standardized value from region to region within the Aztec empire.  Other items were also used as currency, such as gold in transparent quills, tropical feathers, or small copper axes and pieces of tin.

And, again, this was in a culture far more advanced in terms of social and governmental complexity than the BoM time period.

[beastie]

Juliann,

I have absolutely no doubt that the citations I have offered appear like random quotes to you. I trust, and hope, others are able to follow them more closely and realize that my point is this: El Mirador was a regional seat of the may, and this status involved specific dealings with not only Mesoamerican iconography, but specific rituals and prophecies. Asking us to accept that El Mirador was actually ruled by apostate universalists Nephites, and yet was still placed in this position of authority, strains reason.

The pages devoted to ballgames are an excellent example of a pointless rabbit trail which I followed you down. No more. My new motto is: Just Say No.

[cdowis]

>If my logic is that flawed, and a standardized monetary system existed in Mesoamerica along side the cacao, shells, barter, then surely at least one scholar, somewhere, has discussed it.

And here is the heart of how we can know anything from mesoamerican hostory.

Please tell us how we would recognize such a system from pre-Classic mesoamerica.

No coins were used -- just pieces of metal in some container (pouch) which had a standard weight.

As mentioned in "Forest of the Kings", there are virtually no written records from that time period.

Please tell us how we would know if there were a monetary system if no coins were used, and we have no written records.

[juliann]

LOL!

Obviously CD has no intention of refuting my claim that there was no standardized monetary system, as described in the BoM, in Mesoamerica. While I'm certainly not an expert in the field, I've read 18 or so books on Mesoamerican history, and not one has provided evidence of a standardized monetary system. Instead, they refer to the use of cacao, exotic shells, etc, as "currency".

This has gotten to the point of being intentional. No one is talking about a "standardized" money system...let alone the BOM. That is a huge strawman that you are hanging onto for dear life because you have been caught in your outrageous and ridiculous stereotypes once again.

You "just say no" has been your policy all along. No surprise there. That is very admirable that you have read 18 books. Really. But when you want to get serious come back after you have read dozens if not hundreds. Are you really unaware that that is why you are having so much difficulty talking to those who have?

Now please address why you think there would be a standardized system in a region as large as Mesoamerica and defend why you are carrying on about it rather than addressing what has been presented. Otherwise, we are justified in thinking you are just blowing smoke.

If my logic is that flawed, and a standardized monetary system existed in Mesoamerica along side the cacao, shells, barter, then surely at least one scholar, somewhere, has discussed it.

For cryin' out loud....you are now trying to say that shells and barter aren't a "monetary system"? Heeerrre we go aagggaaaainnnn..anything to avoid having to move beyond your assumptions and hunches....play with word definitions, whatever it takes besides confronting an issue and dealing with it head-on.

noun: the most common medium of exchange; functions as legal tender

[beastie]

This has gotten to the point of being intentional. No one is talking about a "standardized" money system...let alone the BOM. That is a huge strawman that you are hanging onto for dear life because you have been caught in your outrageous and ridiculous stereotypes once again.

Yes, you mirror my thoughts. This has gotten to the point of being intentional. Yet I used to wonder if even the proponents of this type of reasoning were convinced by their own words, but have learned that they are. People can convince themselves of things that sound stunningly unbelievable to outsiders.

Standardized monetary system

The term standardized means to make conform to a set standard. Monetary system means a system of currency. So a standardized monetary system would be a system constructed to present an accepted standard for the system of currency.

CD accepts that this existed in the BoM, but seems to feel it would be impossible to detect in the Preclassic system. What scholars do on this, and other cultural issues, is to look at the late preclassic, early classic, postclassic, and conquest periods, and determine what would be reasonable to conclude about early and mid preclassic on that basis. So if the Mesoamericans had a standardized monetary system in the Classic period, or the post classic period, it seems reasonable we would know about it. We do know about their informal

[cdowis]

As I understand it, you are saying:

If no monetary system is found in later cultures, there was no such system in earlier cultures.

We are unable to find such a system in later cultures (e.g. Aztecs).

Ergo, there was no such monetary system during the BOM time period, and by this logic you have proven that the BOM is false.

Is that correct? Would you use different words?

[beastie]

As you did with the horse issue, you have grossly simplified the issue to the point of distortion. So I will try to help.

Given the fact that the preclassic period was less complex and advanced in terms of development of governmental control than the classic period, if no evidence of a standardized monetary system exists in the classic period, it is extraordinarily unlikely that such a system would have existed in the preclassic period.

With each of these contextual* anachronisms, the likelihood that the BoM is an ancient document originating within the claimed time period in Mesoamerica is reduced.

Given the number of these contextual anachronism, the likelihood that the BoM is an ancient document originating within the claimed time period nears zero.

*I am not referring to "labeling" issues, or language issues, which could be understandable within the translation process. I am talking about the times the context in the BoM presents an anachronism. IOW, the verses I cited explicitly claim a standardized monetary system, described in context.

[juliann]

Juliann, I'll give you one thing.

[beastie]

Juliann,

Are we posting on the same thread? Unbelievable.

More bait for diversion. I provided quotes describing the monetary system as described in the BOM. You have not even acknowledged them. Is this your tactic to avoid having to address the information I provided? Pretend I said the complete opposite?

You quoted from a FARMS article that referred one scripture:

Zeezrom's bribe was an impressive sum. A judge earned one onti of silver for seven days of work. Hence, six onties of silver would equal a judge's salary for 42 days of work; or if seven judges were involved in a case, enough to pay them all for a six-day trial. Zeezrom's six onties probably looked quite sizable, physically. If one has spent time in a village marketplace where merchants sell goods measured out by using old metal weights, one notices how bulky the weights themselves are. Because an onti of silver would purchase seven measures of barley in the marketplace (see Alma 11:6-7), it is safe to conclude that an onti represented a significant amount of silver in raw weight.

I was the one who provided the actual context of that one scripture, and that context clearly describes a standardized monetary system. I honestly do not understand why you think this citation challenges that claim.

My misunderstanding of CD's comment was understandable, given the context of the thread - we were talking about evidences in Mesoamerica, after all. He contested my references and stated they did not mean there was no standardized monetary system in Mesoamerica. So obviously I thought he meant he was asserting there WAS one. So I asked for evidence. Obviously I already believed there was a standardized monetary system in the BoM - that's part of the problem.

Here's what you said:

This has gotten to the point of being intentional. No one is talking about a "standardized" money system...let alone the BOM. That is a huge strawman that you are hanging onto for dear life because you have been caught in your outrageous and ridiculous stereotypes once again.

Forgive me for thinking this means you are claiming there is no standardized monetary system in Mesoamerica.

So just what DO you mean by this comment?

And then you DID excise "standardized" in your next response:

I said:

If my logic is that flawed, and a standardized monetary system existed in Mesoamerica along side the cacao, shells, barter, then surely at least one scholar, somewhere, has discussed it.

Your response:

For cryin' out loud....you are now trying to say that shells and barter aren't a "monetary system"?

Note the absence of the word "standardized". No, Juliann, I'm not trying to say that shells and barter aren't a monetary system, I'm saying they do not constitute a standardized monetary system.

So now you claim this:

Juliann, I'll give you one thing. I can often guess what defense believers are going to offer, but you are completely off the map. I can never even guess what you're going to come up with. I would never, never, have expected you to deny that the BoM describes a standardized monetary system, although I'm not surprised you tried to change the topic by excising the word "standardized".

Constitutes a deliberate misrepresentation of what you said.

I'm sorry, but the statement "no one is talking about a standardized monetary system... let alone the BoM" can reasonably be interpreted to mean that you deny the BoM describes a standardized monetary system.

I am quite curious as to how this complaint will be handled, as I think it is completely unfounded. On the contrary - your removal of the word "standardized" misrepresented what I had been saying, and your frequent accusations or insinuations of dishonesty on my part have long constituted harassment, as well as your ever escalating demands for data without ever dealing with the data I already presented, or presenting a coherent explanation for why the additional data is needed.

Oh, and I forgot this:

Add this to your misrepresenting what I said to start a new thread.

When this behavior is consistent it is harrassment. It is flame bait.

Are we both speaking the same language?

You said:

But when you want to get serious come back after you have read dozens if not hundreds. Are you really unaware that that is why you are having so much difficulty talking to those who have?

Aren't "those who have" posters on this board? Where else would you think I have been "having difficulty" talking about this?

I was astounded by the moderator's command that I remove your name from that post, as well. Were you NOT claiming that at least SOME people here have read dozens, or hundreds, of books on the subject?

Obviously, I do need a magic eight ball to figure out what you are saying. And I don't have one, so I am at a serious disadvantage. Help me out by taking each one of these examples and clarifying what you really INTENDED to say.

BTW, where is your post that accuses me of "conveniently" editing a response? I can no longer find it. I wanted to go back and look at the time edits to see why you concluded that I had "conveniently edited" a response to change something significant.

[juliann]

Are we posting on the same thread?

[rameumptom]

Juliann,

Are we posting on the same thread? Unbelievable.

More bait for diversion. I provided quotes describing the monetary system as described in the BOM. You have not even acknowledged them. Is this your tactic to avoid having to address the information I provided? Pretend I said the complete opposite?

You quoted from a FARMS article that referred one scripture:

Zeezrom's bribe was an impressive sum. A judge earned one onti of silver for seven days of work. Hence, six onties of silver would equal a judge's salary for 42 days of work; or if seven judges were involved in a case, enough to pay them all for a six-day trial. Zeezrom's six onties probably looked quite sizable, physically. If one has spent time in a village marketplace where merchants sell goods measured out by using old metal weights, one notices how bulky the weights themselves are. Because an onti of silver would purchase seven measures of barley in the marketplace (see Alma 11:6-7), it is safe to conclude that an onti represented a significant amount of silver in raw weight.

I was the one who provided the actual context of that one scripture, and that context clearly describes a standardized monetary system. I honestly do not understand why you think this citation challenges that claim.

My misunderstanding of CD's comment was understandable, given the context of the thread - we were talking about evidences in Mesoamerica, after all. He contested my references and stated they did not mean there was no standardized monetary system in Mesoamerica. So obviously I thought he meant he was asserting there WAS one. So I asked for evidence. Obviously I already believed there was a standardized monetary system in the BoM - that's part of the problem.

Here's what you said:

This has gotten to the point of being intentional. No one is talking about a "standardized" money system...let alone the BOM. That is a huge strawman that you are hanging onto for dear life because you have been caught in your outrageous and ridiculous stereotypes once again.

Forgive me for thinking this means you are claiming there is no standardized monetary system in Mesoamerica.

So just what DO you mean by this comment?

And then you DID excise "standardized" in your next response:

I said:

If my logic is that flawed, and a standardized monetary system existed in Mesoamerica along side the cacao, shells, barter, then surely at least one scholar, somewhere, has discussed it.

Your response:

For cryin' out loud....you are now trying to say that shells and barter aren't a "monetary system"?

Note the absence of the word "standardized". No, Juliann, I'm not trying to say that shells and barter aren't a monetary system, I'm saying they do not constitute a standardized monetary system.

So now you claim this:

Juliann, I'll give you one thing. I can often guess what defense believers are going to offer, but you are completely off the map. I can never even guess what you're going to come up with. I would never, never, have expected you to deny that the BoM describes a standardized monetary system, although I'm not surprised you tried to change the topic by excising the word "standardized".

Constitutes a deliberate misrepresentation of what you said.

I'm sorry, but the statement "no one is talking about a standardized monetary system... let alone the BoM" can reasonably be interpreted to mean that you deny the BoM describes a standardized monetary system.

I am quite curious as to how this complaint will be handled, as I think it is completely unfounded. On the contrary - your removal of the word "standardized" misrepresented what I had been saying, and your frequent accusations or insinuations of dishonesty on my part have long constituted harassment, as well as your ever escalating demands for data without ever dealing with the data I already presented, or presenting a coherent explanation for why the additional data is needed.

Oh, and I forgot this:

Add this to your misrepresenting what I said to start a new thread.

When this behavior is consistent it is harrassment. It is flame bait.

Are we both speaking the same language?

You said:

But when you want to get serious come back after you have read dozens if not hundreds. Are you really unaware that that is why you are having so much difficulty talking to those who have?

Aren't "those who have" posters on this board? Where else would you think I have been "having difficulty" talking about this?

I was astounded by the moderator's command that I remove your name from that post, as well. Were you NOT claiming that at least SOME people here have read dozens, or hundreds, of books on the subject?

Obviously, I do need a magic eight ball to figure out what you are saying. And I don't have one, so I am at a serious disadvantage. Help me out by taking each one of these examples and clarifying what you really INTENDED to say.

BTW, where is your post that accuses me of "conveniently" editing a response? I can no longer find it. I wanted to go back and look at the time edits to see why you concluded that I had "conveniently edited" a response to change something significant.

I do not believe it was a "standardized" monetary system. Why else would it have to be explained, if it was standardized? It obviously was the system used in that one city, perhaps developed by Zeezrom and his lawyers to enrich themselves, but was one that either Alma or Mormon felt needed explanation, as it was not a standard anywhere (or when) else.

[cdowis]

Rameumpton speaketh:

>I do not believe it was a "standardized" monetary system.

OK.

> Why else would it have to be explained, if it was standardized?

Because the audience/reader is unfamiliar with the BOM culture. The audience was not Nephites (who needed no explanation), but you and me.

The same reason that the Gospel writer (Luke, I believe) had to explain certain aspects of jewish customs to their readers. His audience were Gentiles, not Jews.

>It obviously was the system used in that one city, perhaps developed by Zeezrom and his lawyers to enrich themselves, but was one that either Alma or Mormon felt needed explanation, as it was not a standard anywhere (or when) else.

I cannot agree with your reasoning, but you may be correct.

The problem I have here is that there was alot of commerce going on, not only among themselves, but with the land northward. It would be likely that such extensive commerce would require standardized value system, if not a formal monetary system. Archeologists have shown a great deal of commerce going on, including a large part of the Western hemisphere.

Do a search for "commerce+mesoamerica" for sources. For example, here is a bibliography http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/dcon...mayabiblio.html

[cdowis]

Beastie:

>Given the fact that the preclassic period was less complex and advanced in terms of development of governmental control than the classic period, if no evidence of a standardized monetary system exists in the classic period, it is extraordinarily unlikely that such a system would have existed in the preclassic period.

The problem is still the same. How do you know there was no monetary system during the classic period?

>With each of these contextual* anachronisms, the likelihood that the BoM is an ancient document originating within the claimed time period in Mesoamerica is reduced.

Do you understand the difference between an extablished fact and "there is no evidence"? There is no evidence for a monetary system, but given the problems of the lack of records, etc, one cannot then come to the conclusion that there was no such system.

This is one of the problems in your syllogism -- you subscribe to the flawed logic "not found, not exist".

I agree that there is no direct evidence for such a system, but given the extensive Mayan commerce, (see my post above) it is not out of the question that such a system existed, at least within a limited time and geographical area.

The BOM does not claim that this system was universal. It could have been only for that city, a region. It may have have only been for a short period of time.

Again, your logic and conclusion (anachronism) is based on flawed assumptions.

[juliann]

With each of these contextual* anachronisms, the likelihood that the BoM is an ancient document originating within the claimed time period in Mesoamerica is reduced.

The BOM is an ancient document claiming to have come from....where? What records, what culture did they carry with them? Yet you think you have no responsibility whatsoever to address the parallels....just throw out random generalizations about "Mesoamerica", treat those who have done more than read "18 books on Mesoamerica" with disrespect until they leave the discussion in disgust.

This is not scholarship or anything close. It is a frantic scramble to prove the conclusion you began with.

[beastie]

The BOM is an ancient document claiming to have come from....where? What records, what culture did they carry with them? Yet you think you have no responsibility whatsoever to address the parallels....just throw out random generalizations about "Mesoamerica", treat those who have done more than read "18 books on Mesoamerica" with disrespect until they leave the discussion in disgust.

This is not scholarship or anything close. It is a frantic scramble to prove the conclusion you began with.

Juliann,

Have you ever, and I mean EVER, here or on Z, treated me with one modicum of respect? Not from my perspective. Have you frequently made me an "offender for a word"? More times than I can count. Two examples right on this page - my completely reasonable interpretation of CD's assertion as being connected to Mesoamerica, and my assumption YOUR reference to books ALSO had to do with Mesoamerican studies.

I am interested in the Mesoamerican portion of this equation. Current BoM apologetics makes the case that the Nephites were totally assimilated within the larger culture, with the exception of their religous beliefs. This is why they are undetectable from the larger population.

Therefore it is completely logical and reasonable to analyze that claim. Is the text of the BoM consistent with the larger culture, in terms of things such a politics, background context, and yes, things like money. If you do not think this is a reasonable avenue of exploration, then why do you continue to participate on these threads at all? It seems to me you spend at least as much time, and probably more, on my qualifications and character than you do on the actual topic.

In regards to your claim that I ignored your citation. I do not always copy and paste every portion of every previous post when I respond to those posts, because sometimes the content should make it obvious. I certainly referred to your claim, as best I understood it (and given your lack of subsequent clarification, I still have no idea what you really meant to say) and responded by offering all the verses pertinent in Alma.

In response to this generic problem, ancient kings often tried to provide standardization or curbs on inflation in their economies.6 The ancient world in Lehi's day knew virtually nothing of true coinage,7 established units of currency, or international currency exchanges.

I quoted the relevant sections of Alma. Obviously they had established units of currency, from King Mosiah

[cdowis]

>In order to maintain a standardized monetary system, a central government needs to have a certain degree of control over areas in their jurisdiction?

I agree completely.

>This statement gives one clue about determining the existence of a standardized monetary system. Did this sort of powerful central government exist in the specified time and region?

I am not an expert on mesoamerican history, but "Forest of the Kings" does indicate that there was a hierarchy of kings among the Mayans (an interesting coincidence because such a system was also among the Lamanites).

The BOM tells us that the Nephites had a central government as well.

The point here is that You call this an anachronism. Your conclusion is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

The BOM text does not tell us whether this monetary system is just in that city, or the region (Land of Ammonihah), or widely used in mesoamerica.

In the history of the US, prior to the establishment of the Fed Bank, individual banks could print money. So, even in one city you may have several different currencies.

A large scale monetary system is not required by the BOM text.

And, lacking the possibility of physical artifacts (no coins are mentioned) and records, I do not think that we can rule out the possibility that there was one or more "money" in mesoamerica based on a standard weight or volume.