The Most Serious Book of Mormon Anachronism (split from Midgley thread)

[_beastie]

And frankly it is an untenable hypothesis given the state of the evidence, no? I mean, unless theology had driven them (hypothetical Nephites) to imagine a history that has little or no connection with what actually happened, how could it be possible?

This is exactly correct. Defenders of the faith who do a little victory dance every time a new discovery has been made in ancient Mesoamerica, or a scholar states that there is much discovery yet to be done, are the same defenders who create the strawman that critics claim "all the discovering has been done". Complete, utter, nonsensical bullsh*t.

What is true that enough discovering has been done for scholars to have a good idea of what the ancient Mesoamerica culture was like. Any future discovery that could possibly validate the Book of Mormon would have to overturn practically every bit of knowledge scholars accept today.

It is a more fruitful avenue for apologists to explore your second hypothesis, in my opinion. It's my favorite "pimply Maya teenager sitting in his mother's basement writing fiction that became the Book of Mormon" theory. Apologists already accept that many portions of the Book of Mormon have little connection to what actually happened due to "translation issues". They just have to swallow the bitter pill and take it one step further.

[_beastie]

Actually, I suspect they were in North America but I can't substantiate this much beyond a few geographical ideas, some books I've read, and passages in the Book of Mormon that lead me to believe that the bulk of the Nephite and Lamanite nations were in the land that would become the United States based on prophecy and the like. If I'm wrong about it, oh well. That they were somewhere in the Americas I do know.

Have the books you've read explained the low population levels and less complex societies that were present during the given time period in North America? I'm guessing no. What books have you read? Barry Fell, perhaps?

[_The Nehor]

Actually, I suspect they were in North America but I can't substantiate this much beyond a few geographical ideas, some books I've read, and passages in the Book of Mormon that lead me to believe that the bulk of the Nephite and Lamanite nations were in the land that would become the United States based on prophecy and the like. If I'm wrong about it, oh well. That they were somewhere in the Americas I do know.

Have the books you've read explained the low population levels and less complex societies that were present during the given time period in North America? I'm guessing no. What books have you read? Barry Fell, perhaps?

No, don't remember authors. They weren't LDS books though. Just works on pre-columbian societies throughout the Americas.

[_beastie]

No, don't remember authors. They weren't LDS books though. Just works on pre-columbian societies throughout the Americas.

Too bad. I would love to know which authors gave you the impression that there were high, dense population levels present at that time period, with adequate layers of social complexity as described in the Book of Mormon. The Maya were the most advanced, highly and densely populated culture on the entire continent during that time period. And even they aren't enough to match the Book of Mormon - like I said, it would have to be the later Aztecs.

[_The Nehor]

No, don't remember authors. They weren't LDS books though. Just works on pre-columbian societies throughout the Americas.

Too bad. I would love to know which authors gave you the impression that there were high, dense population levels present at that time period, with adequate layers of social complexity as described in the Book of Mormon. The Maya were the most advanced, highly and densely populated culture on the entire continent during that time period. And even they aren't enough to match the Book of Mormon - like I said, it would have to be the later Aztecs.

Book of Mormon society never seemed like it was that complex to me. A couple of citystates (which we would probably call towns) loosely governed by a ruler united by religion (first the religion of the Nephites and later supplanted by Nehor's religion) that band together for military defense when necessary. Eventually the society collapses into tribalism with the fall of the (weak) central government. Following this we have no indication of a ruling government, just military bodies led by kings and generals fighting. It ends with the Nephites being destroyed as a group and the Lamanite bands turning on each other.

[_beastie]

You're not paying attention to the layers of bureaucracy described in the Book of Mormon. City states, by the way, are highly complex. If you won't read my website page Polities and Power, at least pay attention to this quotation from it (from Arthur Demarest)

Box 2 Traditional typologies of “level” of political complexity in human societies



Traditionally archaeologists and anthropologists sought to classify ancient or modern societies in order to facilitate comparison and discussion. The most popular traditional typologies have been those proposed by Morton Fried based on the degree of stratification, i.e. social inequality, in societies, and by Elman Service based on the degree of political and economic integration of societies.



Service: integration typology



Bands: small, loosely integrated groups of hunters and gatherers that possess a common territory in which they move nomadically. They have few differences in wealth or status and are characterized by reciprocal economic relations. Integration is through kinship or marriage.



Tribes: Larger societies, often with agricultural and/or pastoral economies, living in permanent (sedentary) locations. Tribes are often multi-settlement societies integrated by theoretical descent groups and voluntary association organizations (for example, warrior clubs, religious cults, fraternal organizations, etc.)



Chiefdoms: Often larger societies in which social integration is facilitated by the existence of prestigious leaders who direct warfare and storage or redistribution of food. Individuals are ranked in their status according to their degree of kinship relationship to the chief. Chiefdoms sometimes have ceremonial centers as the focus of religious activities, redistribution, and social integration.



States: Societies with highly integrated, organized, and centralized leadership with a governing body or rulers. The power of the ruler is backed by coercive force, law, and/or religious sanctions.


Fried: stratification typology



Egalitarian societies: Simple societies with as many positions of status as there are people to fill them. Wealth, status, and power are acquired, not inherited. There are relatively small differences in wealth, and economic relations are reciprocal in nature.



Ranked societies: Societies in which there are fewer positions of status than individuals to fill them. In some cases there are a fixed number of offices, but the competition to fill them is not entirely hereditary.

Economic differences are somewhat restricted by expectations of redistribution by the societies’ leaders.



Stratified societies: Societies in which positions of status are fixed and largely hereditary. A class structure and coercive force maintain these differences.



[The state]: A special function institution of some stratified societies that legitimizes stratification through governing bodies, laws, and police structures to maintain internal order and control class conflict.



Current debate on evolutionary typologies



More recent discussion in archaeology has been highly critical of such universally applied typologies, since they ignore many characteristics, mask internal variability in societies, and, arguably, impose an ethnocentric, evolutionary scheme. Others argue that these designations are useful in practice, if only as loose, broad, comparative designations.

Alternative approaches include multivariate assessments of societies based on many different variables, including degree of inequality, heterogeneity, centralization, and other traits. Many contemporary “postprocessual” theorists reject linear evolutionary typologies of any kind as stereotyping and potentially racist generalizations that pigeonhole societies into a Western materialist presumed hierarchy of development.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), in the case of the rise of Maya civilization, such typological, terminological, and epistemological debates seldom arise; the data on the early development of lowland Maya civilization is currently so poor that it virtually defies synthesis and interpretation. The earliest Preclassic societies in the Maya lowlands are identified primarily by ceramic deposits. The first sites with public architecture (eg Nakbe and Cerros) were left by societies that were already at a fairly high level of complexity (however that might be designated). Here terms such as bands, chiefdoms, or states are used as only very broad, convenient descriptive terms.

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpower.htm

[_The Nehor]

You're not paying attention to the layers of bureaucracy described in the Book of Mormon. City states, by the way, are highly complex. If you won't read my website page Polities and Power, at least pay attention to this quotation from it (from Arthur Demarest)

What layers of bureaucracy? Book of Mormon focuses on the King or the Chief Judge. In the time of King Benjamin ruling wasn't even a full-time occupation. Later on you had some judges but they were a cross between a judicial agent and an administrator over a group from my reading. I called them city-states as that is the first word that came to mind. In truth, I think they fall below the state level in the quote you gave.

[_Trevor]

What layers of bureaucracy? Book of Mormon focuses on the King or the Chief Judge. In the time of King Benjamin ruling wasn't even a full-time occupation. Later on you had some judges but they were a cross between a judicial agent and an administrator over a group from my reading. I called them city-states as that is the first word that came to mind. In truth, I think they fall below the state level in the quote you gave.

The Book of Mormon refers to judges of at least several different varieties. It also refers to priests in plural. They seem to have a system of weights and measures. There are references to multiple churches. There are temples and synagogues. There were apparently lawyers as well. The list could go on. Just how simple of a society are you imagining? King Benjamin is held up as a noteworthy exception.

City-states, by the way, could be quite complex.

[_The Nehor]

What layers of bureaucracy? Book of Mormon focuses on the King or the Chief Judge. In the time of King Benjamin ruling wasn't even a full-time occupation. Later on you had some judges but they were a cross between a judicial agent and an administrator over a group from my reading. I called them city-states as that is the first word that came to mind. In truth, I think they fall below the state level in the quote you gave.

The Book of Mormon refers to judges of at least several different varieties. It also refers to priests in plural. They seem to have a system of weights and measures. There are references to multiple churches. There are temples and synagogues. There were apparently lawyers as well. The list could go on. Just how simple of a society are you imagining? King Benjamin is held up as a noteworthy exception.

City-states, by the way, could be quite complex.

I only saw two levels of judges. The Chief Judge and 'lesser judges'. It's possible that there were more but that is guesswork. It does refer to Priests in plural but the only time I remember multiple priests being at one location was in the capital. Yes, there were Temples, Temples the size of the Temple of Solomon...i.e. small. Our small temples today are much larger then they were. A synagogue was most likely just a small religious meeting place as the Temple under Mosaic Law was used for much different reasons.

I used the term city-state but I see Nephite society as much less complex then a Greek city-state for example. I see it as much more primitive with a few religious leaders and a lugal (king or judge) ruling over a small agrarian or hunting society.

[_beastie]

Gee, Nehor, given your screen name, you should be able to think of at least 4 that were explicitly named:

18 And when they had been cast into prison three days, there came many lawyers, and judges, and priests, and teachers, who were of the profession of Nehor; and they came in unto the prison to see them, and they questioned them about many words; but they answered them nothing.

Alma 14

And there are others explicitly named:

11 For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers.

3 Nephi 6

Nephites also eventually separated the functions of state and religion. This is another sign of social complexity.

Obvious class differences is another sign of social complexity:

11 And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich.

Helaman 6

There are two indicators of social complexity within this verse. One is "curious workmen" - people who were trained to do just one thing. Another is that they became "rich" by so doing.


This verse explicitly states that there were social ranks:

12 And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.

3 Nephi 6

Also indicated is that "riches" were connected to "great learning".

I found these verses within a few minutes of searching. The problem, Nehor, is that you haven't read the Book of Mormon while watching for these kinds of things.