Cthulhu
Specifically on the Olmec/Jaredite question, do we know enough about the Olmec to say with certainty that they could not have been Jaredites? What are the best points against this apologetic? Beastie, if you've already written about this somewhere, please just give me the link.
The Jaredite/Olmec connection is every bit as problematic as the later period. In fact, even more so. This is due to the fact that the entire cultural evolution of ancient Mesoamerica was heavily impacted by the most powerful earlier Olmec polities. Due to the time frame and population/social stratification limitations, only the most powerful, advanced Olmec polities could possibly even hope to qualify as Jaredite cities. To suggest that the most powerful Olmec polities were really some strain of Judeo-Christian is nothing short of bizarre, given the cultural evolution of the area.
I address the Olmec problem in this essay:
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... /Holy_LordCthulhu
Beastie is making a claim that supersedes all of these things and I don't think you are in a position to challenge that claim. Some people could, but not you. Something you could do, however, is modify your interpretation of the Book of Mormon so that it doesn't conflict with what's known about ancient Mesoamerica. What would it take to reach such an interpretation, I wonder. I guess if we go back and read all of Brant Gardner's posts to Beastie, we would know the answer to that. ;)
Exactly. Brant does not contest my understanding of ancient Mesoamerican history, rather he contests my interpretation of the Book of Mormon. in my opinion, I believe this is a reflection of the fact that he understands, in contrast to many less educated believers, that scholars really do know quite a bit about ancient Mesoamerica, and there is no way to “bend” most of those realities to accommodate the Book of Mormon, so instead, the Book of Mormon is bent to accommodate the reality. For example, he would deny that a “standing army” is described in the Book of Mormon, because he knows no such thing existed in ancient Mesoamerica during the time period.
wade
As it is, I am not sure you correctly understood Her Amun's apologetic. From what you quoted, I don't believe s/he was suggesting that one could find evidence of Book of Mormon peoples in Mesoamerica. Rather, s/he was intimating that one could NOT find evidence for a lot of things in Mesoamerica that scientist believe were there, and thus one cannot rule out the existence of thing (including Book of Mormon peoples) on that basis alone.
I don’t know what to call this brand of apologetics other than simple minded. Any descriptive term I can think of is going to sound insulting because it will have to reflect the reality that this brand of apologetics is being spun by people with very minimal understanding of ancient Mesoamerica in specific, or how archeology works in particular. They constantly focus on writing, as if that were the most reliable evidence history can provide. It is not, but rather is just one element of many, and much of that other evidence does exist in ancient Mesoamerica, even when the writing doesn’t. To ignore all that evidence and proclaim that because scholars may not know original names, then just about any theory is possible even if it contradicts
all other evidence is simplistic. It reflects the lack of a more complex understanding of how societies work, and what can be ascertained by what some believers on MAD have, in the past, dismissively referred to as a bunch of rubble.
Scholars believe things are there because they found evidence for them, wade. The written word is not the be-all, end-all in terms of evidence, and in fact, is in some ways inferior to other evidences which cannot be so easily manipulated and subjected to propaganda. Scholars are NOT suggesting the existence of things for
which there is no evidence. If you believe that is what they are doing, you will have to provide a solid example.
cacheman
I actually agree with what Wade is saying here. The Mesoamerican fit for the Book of Mormon characters is just one piece of the puzzle. With my limited knowledge of the subject, I believe that the current data doesn't support the Book of Mormon story, and I find it unlikely that it ever will. I have to acknowledge my bias here though. I find the overall evidence for the divine origins of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church to be inferior to the evidence against it. This opinion naturally informs my opinion on "yet to be found" data. Where her amun sees the overall evidence differently, he naturally feels that future evidence will be in favor of his current beliefs.
Any future evidence that will be supportive of the Book of Mormon will have to dramatically rewrite
everything scholars currently accept about ancient Mesoamerica. This is what believers don’t seem to grasp. Currently, as far as I know, no respected Mesoamerican scholar believes, to use the earlier example, that a standing army of any sort existed in the requisite time frame in Mesoamerica. (that did not occur until the Aztec period) The reason this is accepted as fact is due to the combination of many pieces of elements, not just the lack of ONE piece of evidence (such as a written record mentioning a standing army). The most important elements have nothing to do with written evidence, and everything to do with, instead, the size of polities, and how the local populations cannot support a standing army without a certain population size AND a certain type of stratified society. This isn’t just true of Mesoamerica. It’s just true of history. It’s just logic. You can’t have a standing army if almost every member of society is engaged in food production, for example. This is just one example of how the Book of Mormon strains against everything known about ancient Mesoamerica.
It might be best if we all just agreed that informed and intellegent people can simply come to different conclusions when faced with the same evidence or lack of evidence. What often seems pretty obvious to me, can be viewed completely different from someone elses perspective. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their level of intelligence, intellectual honesty, or worthiness. It's simply a fact of human nature that our worldviews are at least in some part shaped by our individual biases.
Certainly people can come to different conclusions, and bias/perspective is a large factor.
But the hard fact of reality is that not all conclusions are equally viable or coherent with known data. People can believe that the earth is six thousand years old, and provide scads of supporting “evidence” for their belief. But that does not mean that the young earth belief is as viable or coherent with known data.