Check out the FAIR/MAD thread going on...

[_Trevor]

Do you concede my point that if a Judeo-christian had been the religious leader of one of the most powerful polities in ancient Mesoamerica, then that same polity would have had an notable affect on the cultural and religious evolution of ancient Mesoamerica?

Sure. I just don't think that apologists necessarily believe that the Book of Mormon has to refer to something that fits such a description. From my point of view, the idea that the Book of Mormon is ancient or took place in Mesoamerica is preposterous. If I were an apologist, I would reinterpret the text to refer to smaller scale societies in North America. All one has to do is assume epic inflation, which a couple of apologists do anyway, and you are half way there. Of course, the reason why there is no truly good answer is that the Book of Mormon is fiction written by a person who knew very little about indigenous American cultures in antiquity. And that is good enough for me.

[_beastie]

Sure. I just don't think that apologists necessarily believe that the Book of Mormon has to refer to something that fits such a description. From my point of view, the idea that the Book of Mormon is ancient or took place in Mesoamerica is preposterous. If I were an apologist, I would reinterpret the text to refer to smaller scale societies in North America. All one has to do is assume epic inflation, which a couple of apologists do anyway, and you are half way there. Of course, the reason why there is no truly good answer is that the Book of Mormon is fiction written by a person who knew very little about indigenous American cultures in antiquity. And that is good enough for me.

Yes, they utilize epic inflation along with translation errors. But here's why that won't work to relocate the Book of Mormon in North America. Ancient civilizations during the specified time period in North America were at a far simpler level of social complexity than the polities within Mesoamerica. The Book of Mormon would thereby contain contextual anachronisms that could not be dismissed with epic inflation. These are the anachronisms that describe the social complexity of the society. In other words, the "real" Book of Mormon civilization would have been tribal, or perhaps at a lower chiefdom level if it were describing the ancient culture of North America. Yet the Book of Mormon describes social inequities, layers of bureacracy, and a standing army. These are not minor details, like the horse, but the main content of the text itself. These are problems that cannot be dismissed as translation artifacts or epic inflation. These anachronisms would be so serious as to render the entire text nonsensical. For example, would it make any sense for Book of Mormon prophets to repeatedly warn about the dangers of class division and poverty, if the culture the prophets inhabited was at a tribal or early chiefdom level, where social class distinctions were unknown?

No, I believe the apologists are correct to insist that Mesoamerica is THE place. Yes, they are dealing with serious problems in placing it there, but the problems would be even worse if they placed it in North America. Mesoamerica was the only place in America that had the prerequisite social complexity and density of population.

[_Trevor]

Ancient civilizations during the specified time period in North America were at a far simpler level of social complexity than the polities within Mesoamerica.

Maybe it has been too long since I last read the book, but it seems to me that you might be accused of overplaying the complexity issue.

[_beastie]

I give a detailed explanation of the evidence the Book of Mormon offers that provides information about its social complexity, and compare it to Mesoamerica at my website here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpower.htm

Have at it! Show me were I've overplayed the social complexity.

[_Trevor]

Have at it! Show me were I've overplayed the social complexity.

I don't even have to finish reading before I feel persuaded that the Book of Mormon simply could not have occurred elsewhere, and yet could not have occurred there, if we take the text at anything close to the most obvious interpretation. I am sure that Brant Gardner could come over here and go the rounds with you, but I don't believe the book is ancient, so I won't bother. It really takes a belief in the book's antiquity to treat it as ancient.

Good work, beastie!

[_harmony]

Have at it! Show me were I've overplayed the social complexity.

I don't even have to finish reading before I feel persuaded that the Book of Mormon simply could not have occurred elsewhere, and yet could not have occurred there, if we take the text at anything close to the most obvious interpretation. I am sure that Brant Gardner could come over here and go the rounds with you, but I don't believe the book is ancient, so I won't bother. It really takes a belief in the book's antiquity to treat it as ancient.

Good work, beastie!

Fear keeps him away. Beastie's wiped the floor with him a time or two.

[_beastie]

Thanks, Trevor and Harmony.

After years of trying, I have concluded it is utterly pointless to debate this with apologists. I have worked to provide this information to people who are truly evaluating whether or not the apologists' Book of Mormon defenses withstand scrutiny.

In the past, Brant's rebuttal to this point has been that I'm fundamentally misreading the Book of Mormon, and that the Book of Mormon really describes a minor polity that would not be expected to exert any influence. He has not explained how to reconcile all that Book of Mormon text that clearly points to a socially complex culture, however.

Another reason it's pointless to discuss this with Brant is because he, in the past, has said one thing to me, such as strenuously arguing that the Nephites did not exert political control over Ammonihah, while saying something entirely different on his website (where hea admits the Nephites exerted control over Ammonihah). He has also refused to clarify for his followers that the much trumpeted "linguistic evidence" for metals in the Book of Mormon really only refers to the substance of metal - such as what was obtained by meteorites or outcrops, and which no one disputes existed in ancient Mesoamerica, and not to the actual metallurgic process. Whether deliberately or not, he, like John Clark, is very misleading, and I no longer have the patience or desire to debate it with any apologist or believer.

[_Analytics]

Why in the world would Nephi omit such an amazing conversionary event, in your opinion?

To answer that question, I’ll offer a translation of some plates that an angel loaned to me:

2nd Lemuel 4:25-30

25 And Behold, when we arrived at the promised land, we were greeted by many people who called themselves Mayans, and their language and customs were exceedingly strange. Yea, they did dress up like cats, and played strange ball games, and did sacrifice blood to their gods.

26 And I said unto my brother Nephi, “Thou twerp! Didest thou not promise that this was a choice land which had been preserved for a righteous people, yea, even preserved as an inheritance for us? Why then are these pagans upon all the face of the land? How could this be the promised land, if it is not preserved for us and our seed?

27 And in mine wrath I didtst throw the compass, yea, even the round ball of curious workmanship, at my brother and I did smite him mightely. And he didst sayeth unto me, “Thou idiot! The compass is now broken! It didest say that was north and that was east and that was south! Now it says that north is west and west is south and now I am verily confused about what direction is what. Before you broke the compass we knew where was where, yea, even that we’d been traveling nearly south-southeast. Now north is west I guess.”

28 And I, Lemuel, did see that my twerpy brother Nephi was embarrassed about the presence of the Mayans. He had already inscribed upon his plates his false prophesy that the promised land was preserved for a righteous people, and he dared not write the truth that his prophesy was false. Thus verily he lied in his record and pretended that the Mayans were the seed of Laman and me.

29 And it came to pass that we did play ball with the Mayans and won the game, and did partake of their feasts and of their women and behold, they were verily fair. And it came to pass that God, yea, even the very king of the mighty Mayans did say unto me that it would please him to sacrifice the blood of my twerpy brother on the alter the next day.

30 But behold, my brother Sam did dress up as a jaguar, yea, Sam did dress up as God himself and did warn Nephi that he was going to be sacrificed, and Nephi did flee into the wilderness with those who would follow.

[_beastie]

Now that really gave me the warm fuzzies, analytics. Where should I send my tithing check?

[_Analytics]

Regarding Livy, Gardner had said something pretty bizarre: “You expect a literal reading of a text that no historical document supports.” I didn’t know what he meant by that, but I was pretty sure it was false. I brought up Livy as a counter-example to his claim that no historical document can “support a literal reading”.

I speak from a position of some expertise when I say that ancient sources are extremely tricky. History was born as a rhetorical art (persuasion, not literalness and objectivity), which the Greeks invented in the 5th century BC. Just because Livy expresses reservation about a particular anecdote or source does not mean that he is extremely reliable when he does not express those reservations....

I have no problem with that. When talking about the Kingdom of Rome in book 1, even Livy seems to indicate that the early stories about the Trojans and Romulus and Remus are at best half-mythical, and in any case, he rarely comes across as sure about things as Mormon does.

I’m actually surprised this conversation went in the direction it did. I always thought that the apologists were arguing for mere plausibility if you interpreted it loosely enough. In my highly biased opinion beastie has demonstrated that it isn’t at all plausible regardless of how loosely you interpret it.

But be all that as it may, that whole thread is centered on this claim of mine which I made in passing:

The most rational way to read the Book of Mormon is as 19th century American fiction.

I’m surprised they take issue with this.

What I meant by that is the most rational way to approach this, or any other issue in a rational, secularly-oriented way is to make an a priori choice for the null-hypothesis (i.e. it will be considered false until proven true) and decide how strong the evidence must be for you to decide that the null-hypothesis is false.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, the null-hypothesis is that it is a product of 19th century America, and the people arguing against that haven’t met the burden of proof for objective observers to believe otherwise. I thought that the apologists conceded this. Thus, the arguments are about plausibility and needing a spiritual witness. I thought they said it was set up this way by divine design: that essentially, God tampers with the evidence so that faith is required in order to believe.

The apologists took issue with my claim and apparently were saying that it has been proven using the tools of secular science that the most rational way to read the Book of Mormon is as an accurate translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript. I don’t believe that is the case, but if it is then don’t waste your time trying to convince little biased uneducated me, convince the anthropologists who dedicate their lives to understanding ancient Mesoamerican civilization.

When you read it as fiction you can focus on the spiritual message and the literary merit, such as it is. You get insights into how the 19th century author viewed the world. It totally makes sense from that perspective, and you can focus on what it actually says and trying to understand that, rather than being forced to ignore, disregard, or twist various essential passages in order to create the veneer that it is plausibly an ancient record. If you force me to read it, I’d rather get lost in the world it presents rather than cram it into the real world.