simple minded Book of Mormon apologetics

[_beastie]

I've noticed, in the past few years I've frequented ZLMB or MAD, that there is a simple minded, yet popular and recurring, strain of Book of Mormon apologetics that Her Amun currently displays on his MAD thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=22649

If anyone knows the name of 1 olmec king(before 600bc)?

1)Give me the name of 1 olmec king.

2)What was the name of the city state he ruled?

3) Give me the name of 5 mayan kings that lived from 600bc to 200ad.

4) What were the original indian names for El Mirador, La Venta and San Lorenzo?

5) What was the name of 1 king who lived in El Mirador, 1 king who lived in La Venta, 1 king that lived in San Lorenzo?

6) Name me the captains of two armies that fought in ancient mesoamerica(600bc to 200ad).

7)Which kingdoms did they fight for?

8. Which side won?

9) How many casualties?

10) Where di the battle take place?

Or Do You Believe

1)Olmecs didn't have kings.

2)Olmecs didn't have cities(ie community surounded by a temple complex).

3) The mayans didn't have kings from 600bc to 200ad.

4) El Mirador, La Venta and San Lorenzo were the original names for those sites.

5) Mesoamericans(600bc to 200ad) didn't have wars.

This idea is so simplistic it is pointless. We may not know the names of kings during the Olmec period, or the names of all the Mesoamerican cities (we do know the names of quite a few Maya king and some original names of polities, by the way), but we do know enough about the population levels, the social stratification, the religious world-view, and, in particular, the complete enmeshment of religion into politics to be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of anyone except those who already believe the Book of Mormon is "true" for religious reasons, and being "true" means it took place in Mesoamerica that the Book of Mormon could not have possibly taken place in Mesoamerica.

Where did this ridiculous bit of apologia originate from? Did one of the scholarly apologists encourage it somewhere? Did it germinate from some FARMs article? Or is the lay-person's interpretation of "we just don't know that much about Mesoamerica, hence, it's possible future discoveries will validate the claims of the Book of Mormon"?

Note to Her Amun and others who cling to this simplistic approach: your apologists who actually have background experience in the field encourage you to not try to find the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, but rather find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. They encourage you to do that not because we don't know actual names in many cases. They encourage you to do that because there if the people described in the Book of Mormon actually existed in ancient Mesoamerica, they did not leave one trace of their existence behind - either materially or in cultural influence. Mesoamerica looks exactly like it would have looked like had they never existed. (which, in layman's parlance, is called a "little clue".)

I cannot overstate how unlikely it is that any polity the like of which is described in the Book of Mormon could have existed in ancient Mesoamerica and yet made ZERO impact on anything, period.

[_Fortigurn]

beastie, you really need to get these excellent posts of yours together, and put them into a FAQ on the main site.

[_beastie]

Well, that was my intent with the zarahemlacitylimits essays. I end up repeating myself over and over because the same inane arguments keep resurfacing. It becomes "whack-a-mole". So I thought if I chose what I perceived to be the greatest problems in the suggestion that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, and created lengthier, permanent essays, that would serve a greater purpose.

I have considered adding on material that addresses other bits of apologia, like this one. I just got so burned out creating those essays last summer that I haven't gotten around to it yet.

[_marg]

It becomes "whack-a-mole".

ROFL....

[_Great Cthulhu]

I think my mother has been contaminated by this simple minded Book of Mormon apologetic, or something like it. At age 57, she is about to complete her Bachelor's degree at BYU -- okay, that's awesome! Round of applause for my ma. So when I talked to her the other day, she told me about her favorite class at BYU: History of Ancient America. Yet she said her professor refuses to talk about the Book of Mormon or speculate about who might have been Book of Mormon people, but just leaves it up to the class to imagine the possibilities. (I thought that was mighty strange....)

It seems she has the idea that the Olmec came from the Middle East and were probably the Jaredites. Why? I don't know, I was too polite to ask. But I'm guessing it has to do with the "negroid" features of the famous Olmec heads. To me, those heads seem more like a style than a life-like sculpture. For someone to think those heads represent what Olmecs actually looked like would be the same as thinking the ancient Egyptians really had eyes on the sides of their heads and always stood with their feet at 90-degree angles to the rest of their bodies -- because that's what their art looks like! No, for the Egyptians it's an art style, not a portrait. Same for the Olmec heads.

Anyway, what I'm getting down to is what beastie said:

...we do know enough about the population levels, the social stratification, the religious world-view, and, in particular, the complete enmeshment of religion into politics to be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of anyone except those who already believe the Book of Mormon is "true" for religious reasons, and being "true" means it took place in Mesoamerica that the Book of Mormon could not have possibly taken place in Mesoamerica.

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.

Thanks.

[_Great Cthulhu]

"Her Amun's" point isn't that there is evidence of Book of Mormon people's in Mesoamerica, nor is s/he suggesting that one look in Mesoamerica for the evidence, but that there INSN'T evidence of a variety of Mesoamerican things, and paucity of evidence for other things, thus one cannot reasonably conclude that the Book of Mormon people's or other things didn't exist on that basis alone--as certain critics are want to do (Beastie, herself, being numbered among them --see her bolded statement above).

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. ;)

[_wenglund]

"Her Amun's" point isn't that there is evidence of Book of Mormon people's in Mesoamerica, nor is s/he suggesting that one look in Mesoamerica for the evidence, but that there INSN'T evidence of a variety of Mesoamerican things, and paucity of evidence for other things, thus one cannot reasonably conclude that the Book of Mormon people's or other things didn't exist on that basis alone--as certain critics are want to do (Beastie, herself, being numbered among them --see her bolded statement above).

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. ;)

I don't know that any of us here are in a position to authoritatively or informedly argue these kinds of points either way (including making suggestions about modifying interpretations of the Book of Mormon). I certainly don't think I can or will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

-Edited to make this a more civil response-

Hi Beastie,

Referring to this apologetic as "simple-minded" and "ridiculous" is really un-called for, and rather than it making you appear superior in intelligence, you come across as mean-spirited, and it merely serves to diminish your own credibility. You are a much better person than that. And, I am sure you can rephrase your post to get your point out without being demeaning.

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.

Now, while you may not agree with that point, I believe it is reasonable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

[_Mercury]

Even the more developed apologetic rationalizations for belief are simplistic.

If you do not practice critical thinking then the argument is simplistic, even elaborate displays of mental gymnastics are childish if yu ignore pertinent facts.

[_wenglund]

If you do not practice critical thinking then the argument is simplistic, even elaborate displays of mental gymnastics are childish if yu ignore pertinent facts.

In a way, I agree. Unfortunately, too often those pointing this finger are the least in a position to do so (mote and beam)--and I include my self in there.

And, besides, as I understand things, the intent behind critical thinking isn't to degrade or condemn, but to improve and to build solid and uplifting epistemologies. It is not meant to be a stick to beat people over the head with, or a weapon to battle between paradigms, but a tool to enhance the quality of everyone's lives.

I have learned this the hard way over the years--having long made it a practice of tearing into and shredding critics arguments and character into tiny pieces (or so I thought), only to find my opponents mostly unphased or more riled and ensconched in their opinions and thinking less of me and what I had to say.

Fortunately, I have since begun to realize that I had put way too much stock in logical analysis, and not enough stock in developing healthy human relations, and that my mind was operating at the exclusion of my heart. I am in the process of striking a more healthy balance between the two, and finding that by so doing, things go far better for all parties concerned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-