Meso-Americans Pagans or Christians?

[beastie]

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).

Number one, your dating is off for a Mosiah match, and number two, these kingships did not have realms that extended to a state-like realm over other cities. In some cases, some scholars believe the "city state" existed in some precocious cities. These rulers certainly had connections to other cities. But they still did not have the type of power that results in a centralized government that is legalistic, and controls money. In fact, there is growing evidence that elites had little control over trade and barter at all, except with luxury items associated with religious ritual.

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.

No, CD, it's not based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Although I can't promise I will do it today or this weekend, due to the holiday, but I can provide references that stated there was no form of powerful centralized government in this period in Mesoamerica.

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.

Region, extending over various cities, is enough to eliminate it as a possibility.

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.

See above.

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.

There are more reasons than just this to rule it out, as I've already mentioned.

CD, how do you think scholars know that exotic shells and cacao were a form of "currency"?

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Number one, your dating is off for a Mosiah match, and number two, these kingships did not have realms that extended to a state-like realm over other cities. In some cases, some scholars believe the "city state" existed in some precocious cities. These rulers certainly had connections to other cities. But they still did not have the type of power that results in a centralized government that is legalistic, and controls money. In fact, there is growing evidence that elites had little control over trade and barter at all, except with luxury items associated with religious ritual.

beastie, you may be correct that much of the material in Forest of the Kings relates to later cities, but you are not correct in asserting that city-states and kings were not extant at that time. See the list of quotations I provided way back when that somehow you didn't see (and I don't have the time to recreate at the moment).

You are correct that there was no centralized government - but oddly enough that is exactly what the Book of Mormon portrays for the Lamanites. There is a king over kings with limited authority. See Lamoni and his father. When combined with the documented evidence of inter-site visits, the descriptions in the Book of Mormon for the inter-city relationships fit very well with the recorded data.

Concerning control of trade, I would be interested to know what you are referring to when you suggest that the kings didn't control trade relationships. I am not quite sure what archaeological data would allow you to make such a statement.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Therefore it is completely logical and reasonable to analyze that claim.

Of course it is. It is also quite logical and reasonable to ask you to support your hypothesis that you use to back up your examination. As I remember, you have avoided that question consistently. There is on the table, for a while back, evidence that one of your fundamental assumptions is incorrect. I believe you have still declined to answer.

I could have missed your response since I haven't been following these threads for a while. If so, I apologize. Please point me in the right direction if I missed it.

[beastie]

On second thought, there is a much quicker way to analyze your assertion that Zarahemla would have had an adequate centralized government to enable them to standardize the monetary system for their region.

Sorenson suggests that Santa Rosa was Zarahemla. Deanne G. Matheny provides some basic information about Santa Rosa in her essay

[Dunamis]

Beastie, there has been a common denominator among those you argue with: continued complaints that you avoid answering questions. If this was just one poster or a random thread or two, we would not take notice. But it is constant in threads that multiply into too many pages of arguing for a moderator to keep on top of.

First, this kind of provocation needs to stop immediately:

". . .even a BoM apologist,"

[beastie]

Dunamis,

Brant has asserted my theory is that when Mesoamerican iconography exists, then Nephites could not have inhabited that city. That is not my theory. I did not make that assertion. Why should I defend an assertion I never made?

It is very true that Juliann and Brant complain that I haven't answered their questions. However, I could make the same complaint about them in these threads. I don't because the last time I repeatedly asked Brant to answer a question it seemed to me he had not answered, I was chastized by the moderator. I was told there is an "asked and answered' policy on this board. IOW, if a person has made a good faith effort to answer a question, then other posters need to accept that and move on. I have made a good faith effort to answer these questions. I provided pages of data in response to Juliann's specific demands. Yet she still accuses me of not answering her questions. Brant accuse me of not justifying an assertion I never made.

I am truly in a no win situation. If I repeat questions I do not believe have been addressed, I will be chastised for nagging. If others accuse me of not answering questions that I feel I have answered, or in regards to defending assertions I never made, then those other posters are right, and I am wrong.

So tell me, Dunamis - how am I supposed to justify an assertion that I never made, or believed? That is the question Brant accuses me of ignoring.

Just how many of Juliann's demands do I have to answer before she will address even one bit of the data I provided? Am I expected to jump through endless hoops? Am I expected to never comment when others do not answer questions to my satisfaction - and I could make a list from this thread - and yet expect to be chastised when others complain that I haven't answered their questions, and I made a good faith effort to do so?

I do NOT understand why the term "BoM apologist" is provocative. The term apologist is an accepted term, not a pejorative term. Would someone be chastised for saying "even a mormon critic"?

Please do not delete this post. These are legitimate questions that I think deserve answers.

[Dunamis]

First, I have tried to turn this brawl into a simple exchange between two posters, you and Brant. There is no reason to throw in other names. It is irrelevant for now.

Second, I am not asking you to understand why it is insulting to refer to Mormon sources as "apologists" while referring to non-Mormon sources by name and "scholar". I am telling you to stop it. Refer to posters or sources by their names so the reader knows who you are referring to or don't refer to them.

Third, you continue to explain why you shouldn't have to answer a question instead of answering it. You are being asked to support your hypothesis not something anyone else "said you said" so your post make no sense to me. As I said, I am starting from the bottom of the thread to avoid getting wrapped up in the drama. You need to respond if you expect others to respond. When you require follow-up on a specific item that will be expected as well. I don't know how to make this more fair than that.

It is also quite logical and reasonable to ask you to support your hypothesis that you use to back up your examination.

Any future off-topic and argumentative posts will be deleted.

I repeat: Cheerleading posts are being deleted. If you have a complaint report it. You are not going to use this thread for a battleground over who is the biggest and baddest meanie.

[beastie]

I cannot support an hypothesis I never made.

[Dunamis]

I am quite certain that is why the question was asked. Everyone has a hypothesis whether verbalized or not. You are being asked to expound on yours so your respondent knows what the basis of your argument is. If I am correct and Brant can modify my interpretation of his question, I can see why this is necessary. If you supply the information then we can have a reasonable exchange and move to your necessary questions.

[beastie]

From page 7 of this thread, my previous comments about my theory/questions.

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

[Dale]

Hi,

Beastie perhaps Book of Mormon scholars could be wrong on certain issues. They are human beings who make the best case they can. The same is true of outsiders who arn't Book of Mormon believers & who may have no knowledge or interest in offering an opinion. When you write your book or essay I will read it. But right now with debates no final form of an argument exists because the debate goes back & forth. Arguments over who is right & who is wrong should not be the purpose of scholarship. With such negative debates tone starts to wear on everyone after a while.

Could Meso-Americans all have been pagans? Absolutely. And you presented your case to that effect. Others can dissagree with you but I see a pointless aspect to this debate. The pointless aspect has to do with either Jesus being God & the Son of God or a false Messiah. If the Book of Mormon & the Bible are myths they are just glorified inspiring fiction. To me myths that don't effect salvation because there's no such thing as God & angels are harmless myths that don't hurt anybody. Why correct inspiring fictions myths spread by Fundementalists if they don't hurt anybody ultimately? And if the scriptures are true then you fight against truth.

Sincerely,

Dale

[beastie]

Dale,

That is a good question, and one I have pondered. I really don't care if LDS, or anyone, views a piece of fiction as divine inspiration. But here's what bothers me about the attempts to defend the BoM's historicity in ancient Mesoamerica.

For some reason (and I'm not the first person this has happened to with these people), something about this ancient people and culture has grabbed my imagination. Perhaps I imagine if I can really understand them, maybe I will begin to understand what makes us all human, and what is the "core" in our cultures, in our religions - some of which are incredibly different, and seemingly contradictory. At any rate, in some inexplicable way, I feel attached to these people and their history. They were a real people. They had a real history. They had a real religious world view, and real ceremonies and rituals as sacred to them as ours are today.

The LDS church teaches that we have a some sort of moral responsibility to our ancestors. It's important to honor them, and the lives they led. I agree, maybe not for the same reasons.

Pretend that in a thousand years human beings are still around, and have developed various new religions that are as alien to us as the mesoamerican religion is to Mormonism. Pretend that they have a sacred scripture interpreted that basically says that a thousand years ago the inhabitants of Utah were practicing a form of THEIR religion, and prophesying about THEIR religion. Wouldn't this disrespect LDS and their history? Wouldn't it disrespect all the millions of people who have lived in Utah (in this example) who were passionate about THEIR religion, and who sometimes DIED for their religion?

Well, that sums up how I view attempts to defend the historicity of the BoM as an ancient Mesoamerican document does to those people. It disrespects a real people who had a real history and a real religion. It attempts to hijack the REAL voice in the dust.

Of course, believers will disagree with me. I don't expect them to agree with me. I am only explaining to you why I think there is something objectionable about the attempts to defend the historicity of the BoM, even if inspirational fiction does no one harm.

I know I am not wanted on FAIR. Juliann and I have a long, unpleasant history. I suspected her status as moderator would make my stay here even more difficult. I also knew that my posts about Sorenson would make me even more unpopular. After what has occured on this thread, I have considered - and still consider - giving up and leaving. I just don't know how to deal with rules that seem to shift depending upon who is under the microscope. It's confusing. I can't point out the times others haven't answered my questions. But they can ignore my answers and repeat their questions. I know my time here is limited, so I figured I may as well share my reasons for my passion on this subject.

[truth dancer]

Hey Beastie...

At any rate, in some inexplicable way, I feel attached to these people and their history.

Well, I think you must have had a past life as a Mayan!

I for one am really thankful for your passion, research, and knowledge. I really admire those (you) who have the energy and desire to do the in depth research, and I believe that everyone gains when one searches for understanding. You have done a lot to enlighten many of us and we have all learned a lot from these BoM thread!

Keep it up and I hope you stay for a long time!

~dancer~

[Dunamis]

I know I am not wanted on FAIR. 

Uh, how would you know that? Because people disagree with you? If you want people that only agree with you (or a cheer squad), take it to ZLMB.

Juliann and I have a long, unpleasant history. I suspected her status as moderator would make my stay here even more difficult. 

I don't believe the identities of the moderators have been revealed, have they?

I also knew that my posts about Sorenson would make me even more unpopular.

Really? I don't think the fact that you picked apart two footnotes by Sorenson made you unpopular. Really, it's not that.

After what has occured on this thread, I have considered - and still consider - giving up and leaving.

The door remains open 24/7 around here - to come in or go out.

  I just don't know how to deal with rules that seem to shift depending upon who is under the microscope. It's confusing.

It has to do with board and discussion balance; not with adhering, to the letter, to pages and pages of rules. Lots of people post here and have nver been addressed by the moderators (LDS and nonLDS alike).

I can't point out the times others haven't answered my questions.  But they can ignore my answers and repeat their questions.

Look, we've received complaints about the way "discussions" with you go (and, no, not from the participants. Ben and Brant have to be two of the most patient posters. I tried to step in and not hash it all out - simply designate a starting point to move the thread and discussion forward. Now you want to do exactly the opposite - move it backwards.

I know my time here is limited, so I figured I may as well share my reasons for my passion on this subject.

Oh, uh, OK, whatever . . .

Now, how 'bout we move this forward.

[beastie]

Juliann didn't hide her status as moderator on FAIR on Zion's board. I didn't know it was a secret. She has been extremely unpleasant to me from the moment I came to this board, calling me dishonest in various forms. (liar, plagerist, someone who "conveniently" edits posts) This is why I concluded that I was not wanted on this board - not

[Dale]

Hi,

Beastie interesting thoughts. I personally in defending Book of Mormon historicity allow for my history of faith. But I also allow Meso-American history to speak for itself. The only problem I see is everybody in the Book of Mormon debate argues for an interpretation that either fits, or doesn't fit the Book of Mormon.

This year I decided to dig into Book of Mormon historicity debates. One book I am reading off & on is The Word of God Essay's on Mormon Scriptured edited by Dan Vogel. I also have Mormon Apocrypha & New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. I have never been satisfied they discredited Fundemental Book of Mormon scholarship. But I read both sides & admit I will never have the ability to argue against the liberal or Fundementalist positions on the Book of Mormon. I am satisfied I feel the Fundemental side is better.

I bet if I studied everything I would need to study for or against the Book of Mormon it would take a hundred years. I am very unimpressed with anti-Mormon writers who don't pay attention to LDS answers to there outdated issues. Atleast Signature Book's tries to keep up with FARMS. I did object to the bully tactics they used book called Mormon Apocrypha. The DNA studies of Thomas Murphy have been adequately refuted by FARMS & FAIR. I kind of consider Signature Book's to be a bit overbearing & rigid in how they respond to FARMs scholars. I see them as in an ongoing attack mode.

An book from Zondervan had two essays rebutting conservative Book of Mormon scholarly & apologetic points the Fundemental Book of Mormon believers were making. I read the FARMs reviews & felt they adequately defended the points they were making arguing for the book as an ancient book. So I feel my Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited makes continuing valid points. Now if I felt Zondervan won the debate I would feel a need to honestly adopt the inspiring fiction approach to the Book of Mormon.

At this time I am open to Christian's being here because Signature Book's nor Zondervan has won my heart. I guess I have convinced myself that either the points they make refutes the Fundemental scholars or they fail to prove their position. The Book of Mormon can be true.

With Dr. John L. Sorenson he makes some points I feel arn't enough to prove the Book of Mormon. I am impressed with his case the Book of Mormon presents a complex geography. But Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe in Mormon Apocrypha did raise a few interesting points against his position. So I am waiting for FARMS review to tackle Mormon Apocrypha further. And then after re-comparing both points I will then decide who is the better thinkers. I think it's healthy to affirm my belief but to continue exploring issues raised by others even if it eventually discredited the Book of Mormons historical claims. But if they had an open & shut case I havn't seen it. FARMs tends to mostly defend their case quite well.

If Dr. Sorenson makes a few mistakes or many as long as he makes a few valid arguments for the Book of Mormon the Book of Mormon Fundemental position survives. I don't have a testimony of An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon. I might have a testimony of certain claim's he has been criticized on before. But I am not confident just because Dr. Sorenson say's something that he can't be wrong. He's a human being. Likewise I have seen wrong things said against his book I know were wrong. Signature Book's has yet to admit that they have been seriously wrong in the DNA issue disproving the Book of Mormon for example.

Sincerely,

Dale

[juliann]

Juliann didn't hide her status as moderator on FAIR on Zion's board.  I didn't know it was a secret.  She has been extremely unpleasant to me from the moment I came to this board, calling me dishonest in various forms.

Just for the record, I have never claimed to be a moderator. Ever. Stop using me as an excuse for your behavior. I'm not even participating anymore since making a post report to the mods yet you can't seem to answer a simple question without howling about me.

[noel00]

Dale:

"The DNA studies of Thomas Murphy have been adequately refuted by FARMS & FAIR. "

Can you elaborate on this? My understanding is that Whiting admits there is no Israeli DNA among the American Indians. Then you would have to argue that the DNA of the supposed BOM Israeli's disappeared, was absorbed in the larger population and hence no evidence exists . What do you mean by refuted? Have they questioned the validity of the science of DNA? Have they found instances where DNA disappears among the dominant population?

Murphy sent me the following -

Noel,

I

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

 

In some cases, some scholars believe the "city state" existed in some precocious cities

(BG response) 

You are correct that there was no centralized government - but oddly enough that is exactly what the Book of Mormon portrays for the Lamanites. There is a king over kings with limited authority. See Lamoni and his father. When combined with the documented evidence of inter-site visits, the descriptions in the Book of Mormon for the inter-city relationships fit very well with the recorded data.

(beastie response)

Do you dispute that a centralized, legalistic government would be required for a standardized monetary system to be enacted?

Let's not confuse two different issues. I am discussing he development of political units. First, "precocious city-states" seems to be a strange qualifier as many cities qualify - and quite early. El Mirador would qualify as a city-state. It controlled a region and likely dominated some trade routes. Being a city-state is different from the confederation of city-states that is best seen later - but perhaps because we only have the evidence when texts are written down. The traces of the inter-relationships of sites comes from texts, not archaeology. Therefore, there is no way to preclude their earlier presence.

The city-state, however, is simply a characteristic of an independent city that acts for its own benefit - and of those there were many. I think you are confusing terms.

As for monetary systems, that is someone else's argument, not mine. I don't think there was a monetary system. I think the evidence points to an exchange of measures, which is compatible with a trading network with certain common commodities. As for the need to impose it widely, the Book of Mormon never suggests that. It appears to be internal to Ammonihah and certainly not common because Mormon feels the need to explain it in detail in order to understand the nature of the bribe.

So, from a Mesoamerica standpoint I disagree with your characterization of what a city-state is. From a Book of Mormon standpoint, I disagree with your reading of a monetary economy.

I most certainly have not avoided that question. What else am I doing in this very topic? Look at the data I provided about El Mirador's status as the seat of the may, and all that entails. Justify how in the world a city controlled by apostate universalists Nephites would have been given that sort of position in that area.

Please don't ask me to interpret what you are doing in this topic. I am just trying to get the basic data correct.

How could Ammonihah become prominent in an area that is part of the Nephite hegemony and not follow Nephite religion? That, beasie, is the nature of city-states and the loose alliances they had in Mesoamerica. Those alliances could shift when the change seemed to be beneficial and were dependent upon politics, not flavors of religion. In other words, the very political system you are trying to describe provides the best answer to your question.

If you are referring to your challenge that I justify that the presence of Mesoamerican icongraphy means Nephites could not be present, I already stated on this thread I have zero intention of justifying an assertion I never made.

No, you made a different argument, and I am responding to the different argument. Perhaps I haven't stated it in your words, but I am surprised that you don't recognize yourself in the issue. You have suggested numerous times (over two boards) that the presence of Mesoamerican iconography requires that it should have been mentioned in the text. Surely you remember the discussions over adoption of iconography in early Christianity?

You argue that there are a number of things present in Mesoamerica that are not in the Book of Mormon - but should be.

I presented data indicating that this hypothesis is incorrect based on evidence from archaeology and text in Israel.

If you are withdrawing from that position that is quite fine and good.

My theory isn

[Brant Gardner]

noel00:

That is a fascinating article. I can see why people complain that FARMS repeats itself and is self-referential. This article does very much the same thing from an obviously different perspective. I am suprised at the superficiality of the arguments. I think there are some superficial arguments on both sides but I certainly don't see any indication that this article is actually responsive. His response to the question of the LGT was to say, in effect, that he did cover that point. He certainly mentioned it, but mentioning it and understanding the implications are two different things - and there is no engagement on the implications.

The response to scholars with the credentials to discuss this particular issue was to suggest that their explanation didn't square with the Book of Mormon - as though Murphy's interpretation of that text were well accepted. Given this level of interaction, I suspect that the response to the article will be pre-defined by the previous conclusions the reader brings to the article. Those who previously agreed will cheer. Those who previously disagreed will think it unresponsive (does that locate me on the spectrum <grin>?).

[truth dancer]

I don't believe the identities of the moderators have been revealed, have they?

The names of the moderators are listed on this board on the link, "moderating team." Juliann is posted as one of them as are several others.

The link is right above "board statistics" on the main message board page.

~dancer~

Moderator: First, this list is not current, names are missing and administrator is not moderator. Those who have administrator access have this designation under their screennames and always have so I am puzzled why this is worthy of mention. This is a trivial distinction to you obviously, but a rather important one to us. Second, "Juliann" is only listed as a moderator of a screened folder for a special interests group. That means that you cannot see the folder unless you are a member of it. (You probably cannot even see her name and her folder on this list) I am leaving this off-topic blurb up for obvious reasons but I am sure you will understand our annoyance at your attempt to push this thread deeper into chaos, despite multiple warnings and requests, without even attempting to understand what you are talking about. Please leave our board. [edits made to correct title info]

[Dunamis]

We are going to enforce on-topic with no exceptions. Posters are not the topic. Noel, we haven't discussed the LGT for awhile. How about creating a new thread for that topic?

The off-topic posts will be left up for a short while and then we are cleaning out the folder. Here is the topic again [brant's most recent post in blue, beastie in quoets below):

------------------------------------

beastie:

In some cases, some scholars believe the "city state" existed in some precocious cities 

(BG response)

You are correct that there was no centralized government - but oddly enough that is exactly what the Book of Mormon portrays for the Lamanites. There is a king over kings with limited authority. See Lamoni and his father. When combined with the documented evidence of inter-site visits, the descriptions in the Book of Mormon for the inter-city relationships fit very well with the recorded data.

(beastie response)

Do you dispute that a centralized, legalistic government would be required for a standardized monetary system to be enacted?

Let's not confuse two different issues. I am discussing he development of political units. First, "precocious city-states" seems to be a strange qualifier as many cities qualify - and quite early. El Mirador would qualify as a city-state. It controlled a region and likely dominated some trade routes. Being a city-state is different from the confederation of city-states that is best seen later - but perhaps because we only have the evidence when texts are written down. The traces of the inter-relationships of sites comes from texts, not archaeology. Therefore, there is no way to preclude their earlier presence.

The city-state, however, is simply a characteristic of an independent city that acts for its own benefit - and of those there were many. I think you are confusing terms.

As for monetary systems, that is someone else's argument, not mine. I don't think there was a monetary system. I think the evidence points to an exchange of measures, which is compatible with a trading network with certain common commodities. As for the need to impose it widely, the Book of Mormon never suggests that. It appears to be internal to Ammonihah and certainly not common because Mormon feels the need to explain it in detail in order to understand the nature of the bribe.

So, from a Mesoamerica standpoint I disagree with your characterization of what a city-state is. From a Book of Mormon standpoint, I disagree with your reading of a monetary economy.

 

I most certainly have not avoided that question. What else am I doing in this very topic? Look at the data I provided about El Mirador's status as the seat of the may, and all that entails. Justify how in the world a city controlled by apostate universalists Nephites would have been given that sort of position in that area.

Please don't ask me to interpret what you are doing in this topic. I am just trying to get the basic data correct.

How could Ammonihah become prominent in an area that is part of the Nephite hegemony and not follow Nephite religion? That, beasie, is the nature of city-states and the loose alliances they had in Mesoamerica. Those alliances could shift when the change seemed to be beneficial and were dependent upon politics, not flavors of religion. In other words, the very political system you are trying to describe provides the best answer to your question.

 

If you are referring to your challenge that I justify that the presence of Mesoamerican icongraphy means Nephites could not be present, I already stated on this thread I have zero intention of justifying an assertion I never made.

No, you made a different argument, and I am responding to the different argument. Perhaps I haven't stated it in your words, but I am surprised that you don't recognize yourself in the issue. You have suggested numerous times (over two boards) that the presence of Mesoamerican iconography requires that it should have been mentioned in the text. Surely you remember the discussions over adoption of iconography in early Christianity?

You argue that there are a number of things present in Mesoamerica that are not in the Book of Mormon - but should be.

I presented data indicating that this hypothesis is incorrect based on evidence from archaeology and text in Israel.

If you are withdrawing from that position that is quite fine and good.

 

My theory isn

[Scott Gordon]

I am putting on my president hat for a moment here.

I haven't paid any attention to this thread until just now. Obviously the moderators are bending over backwards to accommodate uncooperative posters and that isn't what I want for this board.

So, I am making an executive decision and overruling the moderators. I am suspending Beastie's account and closing this thread.

Beastie, Sorry we couldn't work this out.

Scott