TA DA!!! My Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica website

[_Dr. Shades]

The other point is whether beastie wants her site to be propaganda, or one where people can make informed decisions by reading pro and con materials. I think it has a lot of potential for debate, if that's where she wants it to go. This could take far more work and effort than she is willing to devote, but in the absence of opposing viewpoints, her site will ring hollow to most informed people. She's going to have to be critical not only of Mormon scholars, but of her own sources, and acknowledge where they are weak.

Ray, why do you hold beastie to a standard 1,000,000,000x greater than the standard to which you hold FARMS?

[_Moniker]

Here's how you can fix it: Close the whole reeking pile of steaming horse nuggets down, repent of your pride and rebellion against your Father in Heaven, Cease with the intellectual straw grasping and hand wringing over ambiguous historical issues, and return to the Church.

I thought you'd apologized to everyone and cleaned up your act? No?

Typical apologistic (read : Mormon) response. Stop trying to figure it out. Stop looking where you shouldn't. Get back to the Cult. Get back to paying, praying and obeying - and then all will be better. See?

So Coggins, instead of simply attacking him by what he has written, you completely avoid it all with the all too typical "GO BACK TO CHURCH" crap.

How about you start unraveling some of the "steaming horse nuggets" and lets discuss where he has grasped at straws, where he is hand wringing and where he has ambiguous historical issues. I'm especially interested in seeing how you shoot down his section where DCP states horses were actually tapirs.

Just like Mormons in my past, it is easier to attack the critic rather than look objectively at the material.

Just a note: Beastie is a she. :)

[_beastie]

Just a note: Beastie is a she. :)

OH MY GOD!!! Just wait till my boyfriend finds out..... ;)

[_karl61]

What's your opinion of the movie Apocalypto?

I detest it.

I guess I should briefly explain why, although it's time for bed and I'm numb from sitting on this chair so long today working on the website.

The movie was riddled with misleading story lines. The thing that irked me most of all was that they presented this idyllic little "good guy village" versus the horrible "bad guy metropolis". The movie acted as if the inhabitants of the "good guy village" were totally separate from this strange, and scary, belief system of the bad guys, and had no idea what was happening to them. In reality, this religious worldview permeated Mesoamerica, and the good guy village would have been doing the same thing that the bad guys were doing.

I did not think it a coincidence that the movie's primary Mesoamerican source is an LDS archaeologist. I think he had a quasi Nephite/Lamanite story in his mind.

I remember reading (can't think of where) where when the real civilization of the Book of Mormon period wiped out another village it was just like wiping out a heard - they saw no difference between a heard of whatever and a heard of humans.

[_beastie]

I remember reading (can't think of where) where when the real civilization of the Book of Mormon period wiped out another village it was just like wiping out a heard - they saw no difference between a heard of whatever and a heard of humans.

I don't think this is true. For one thing, throughout most of Mesoamerican history they did not WIPE OUT other villages at all. War, with some exceptions, throughout most of this history was more of a raid for sacrificial victims than what we conceive of as "war" today. There was no intent to annihilate the other village, nor to "take it over". The intent was to, on the battlefield, catch enough "prisoners of war" to take back to be ritually sacrificed to appease the gods in specific, calendar controlled, ceremonies.

In an odd way, modern war is much more dehumanizing than this ancient form of war was. We really do slaughter mass numbers of human beings on the battle field. They normally didn't - plus, their elites - their leaders - were on the frontlines, and were the MOST DESIRABLE captives of all. A human sacrifice of someone with royal lineage was very pleasing to the gods. So they were at highest risk.

And the gods weren't just bloodthirsty, demanding blood for no reason. It was part of the cycle of life - human blood was their sustenance, how the gods continued to survive in their own realm of existence. They had sacrificed themselves in order to create human beings, and our debt of obligation was to "feed" them in the same way. It was a form of reciprocal altruism. And while no one wanted to be a human sacrifice, in its own way, it was an honor - to die for the gods, to repay them for giving us life itself. We now give them life with our blood.

I know that moderns look at this as barbaric - but it seems more civilized and controlled than how we conduct war today, to me. In particular, if OUR leaders were on the front lines, the most likely to DIE for the cause, I think they would be a bit more cautious about taking us into war. And the actual numbers of people who died were much smaller than today.

Although I haven't studied the Aztecs as thoroughly as I've studied the Maya, their culture is still interesting. They took the sacrifices to the extreme, in terms of numbers, and were horrifically violent in the acts. But at the same time their culture was very controlled and moral. They were very strict with their children and morals, and abhorred lying and sexual infidelity. It's an interesting contrast.

Frankly, as a religion, I think it makes as much sense as modern religions do today.

[_karl61]

I remember reading (can't think of where) where when the real civilization of the Book of Mormon period wiped out another village it was just like wiping out a heard - they saw no difference between a heard of whatever and a heard of humans.

I don't think this is true. For one thing, throughout most of Mesoamerican history they did not WIPE OUT other villages at all. War, with some exceptions, throughout most of this history was more of a raid for sacrificial victims than what we conceive of as "war" today. There was no intent to annihilate the other village, nor to "take it over". The intent was to, on the battlefield, catch enough "prisoners of war" to take back to be ritually sacrificed to appease the gods in specific, calendar controlled, ceremonies.

In an odd way, modern war is much more dehumanizing than this ancient form of war was. We really do slaughter mass numbers of human beings on the battle field. They normally didn't - plus, their elites - their leaders - were on the frontlines, and were the MOST DESIRABLE captives of all. A human sacrifice of someone with royal lineage was very pleasing to the gods. So they were at highest risk.

And the gods weren't just bloodthirsty, demanding blood for no reason. It was part of the cycle of life - human blood was their sustenance, how the gods continued to survive in their own realm of existence. They had sacrificed themselves in order to create human beings, and our debt of obligation was to "feed" them in the same way. It was a form of reciprocal altruism. And while no one wanted to be a human sacrifice, in its own way, it was an honor - to die for the gods, to repay them for giving us life itself. We now give them life with our blood.

I know that moderns look at this as barbaric - but it seems more civilized and controlled than how we conduct war today, to me. In particular, if OUR leaders were on the front lines, the most likely to DIE for the cause, I think they would be a bit more cautious about taking us into war. And the actual numbers of people who died were much smaller than today.

Although I haven't studied the Aztecs as thoroughly as I've studied the Maya, their culture is still interesting. They took the sacrifices to the extreme, in terms of numbers, and were horrifically violent in the acts. But at the same time their culture was very controlled and moral. They were very strict with their children and morals, and abhorred lying and sexual infidelity. It's an interesting contrast.

Frankly, as a religion, I think it makes as much sense as modern religions do today.

I found the book:) Tools of War by Jeremy Black - " For example, among the indigenous populations of North America in Pre-'contact (i.e. before the arrival of Europeon settlers) times, there appears to have been no sharp distinction between raiding other human groups and hunting animals. The two activities merged. In part, this may be because non-tribal members were not viewed as human beings, or at least not as full persons. although the context was very different, the presentation and treatment of enemies as beasts or as subhuman can also be seen in the case of some conflict by both modern and earlier states, and indeed becomes a key way to raise support".

This is in the beginning of the book and some of the paragraphs before this one the author writes about Asia and China and Egypt in around 7000 BC. I stand correct as it was not the Book of Mormon time period.

[_Trevor]

If Wright is to be taken seriously, then the Book of Mormon is more than a "cheap imitation" of the Bible.

He is correct. It is a lot more than a "cheap imitation" of the Bible.

[_Maxrep]

The other point is whether beastie wants her site to be propaganda, or one where people can make informed decisions by reading pro and con materials. I think it has a lot of potential for debate, if that's where she wants it to go. This could take far more work and effort than she is willing to devote, but in the absence of opposing viewpoints, her site will ring hollow to most informed people. She's going to have to be critical not only of Mormon scholars, but of her own sources, and acknowledge where they are weak.

Both the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian Institute have discarded the Book of Mormon as having any connection to ancient America. No matter how vigorously you shake up the Book of Mormon contents, when all settles there is nothing there.

The internal evidence issue I find humorous. It reminds me of a group of apologists standing in a circle. In a choreographed move, they all slowly sit down upon the knees of the person who was standing behind them. You are now left with a circular chair formation, supported by each other rather than any substance. I wish I had a picture!

[Guest]

More to digest from Mosser and Owen:

Mosser and Owen have a much different agenda from mine. They are locked in a mutual battle of polemics and apologetics. For them, it is important to respond in this way. For me it is not.

But, I spoke flippantly, and for that I apologize. I think that one can glean good stuff from careful examinations of texts done from many perspectives. One does not have to agree completely to gain something from reading the work.

I do stand by my position that it is not necessary to "respond" to FARMS in the sense that anti-Mormons feel compelled to do. On the other hand, I think it is wise to attend to what they are saying and get everything of value from it that one can.

[_beastie]

I found the book:) Tools of War by Jeremy Black - " For example, among the indigenous populations of North America in Pre-'contact (I.e. before the arrival of Europeon settlers) times, there appears to have been no sharp distinction between raiding other human groups and hunting animals. The two activities merged. In part, this may be because non-tribal members were not viewed as human beings, or at least not as full persons. although the context was very different, the presentation and treatment of enemies as beasts or as subhuman can also be seen in the case of some conflict by both modern and earlier states, and indeed becomes a key way to raise support".

This is in the beginning of the book and some of the paragraphs before this one the author writes about Asia and China and Egypt in around 7000 BC. I stand correct as it was not the Book of Mormon time period.

I think it is undeniable that human beings - today as well as anciently - tend to dehumanize the "other" tribe. This makes sense in terms of fighting for survival in an area with limited resources, which describes our ancestral environment. If human beings evolved to view ALL human beings as equally "worthy", (of survival and means) then they would not have taken advantage of other tribes in situations wherein their own survival was at risk. Hence, their survival chances would have been greatly reduced. I'm not saying this is the model to which we, morally, should ascribe, and even aside from ethics, it is arguable that in today's global world, it is not to our advantage to continue with this model, but I think it does describe the basic instincts human beings evolved to possess.

But I am skeptical of any theory that requires us to view past human beings - in our species - as fundamentally different than we are. If we see a difference between slaughtering animals and slaughtering humans, they did, too. A generation looking back at our wars from a far distant time might wonder, without texts to provide more insight into the traumas these wars entail, if we differentiate between slaughtering humans and animals.