My new site at www.mormondefense.net is currently under construction. Feel free to take a look at what I've got so far!

Monday, October 18, 2010

Nephite Money and the Signature of God

By Michael Richardson

A couple of years ago a relative of mine posed a question in an online discussion about the Nephite monetary system. If I remember right, the system puzzled him. It puzzled me as well, so I took a closer look at it (see Alma 11: 3-19). The system is based on a unit that was equal to a measure of barley. The unit was termed “senine” when using gold, and “senum” when using silver. There are three units greater than this basic unit, and three units smaller. This makes seven basic units in all (an important number as we will see). An eighth unit, the antion, is mentioned in passing. The antion represents three half units, or a unit and a half, and may have been created for convenience.

The smaller units are straightforward, each being half of the previous unit. The larger units begin in this manner, each doubling the previous unit, however, the largest unit seems to be an anomaly. Rather than doubling the previous unit, the largest unit (a limnah of gold or an onti of silver) is the value of all the previous whole units.

Since all units smaller than the basic senine/senum are fractional, and since the senine/senum equates to one measure of barley, we can consider this unit to be equivalent to our number “one.” So the next higher unit (seon/amnor) is equivalent to our number “two,” and the third unit (shum/ezrom) is equivalent to our number “four” (four measures of barley). The final unit (limnah/onti) is the sum of all of these, making it equivalent to our number “seven,” rather than to the seemingly more logical number “eight.” Why?

This sequence—1, 2, 4, 7—puzzled me until I considered it in light of the Fibonacci sequence that I had become familiar with as an art student, and which also represents an important discovery in math, music, architecture, science, biology and even astronomy. Ancient people considered this sequence to be divine, especially as represented by its geometric equivalents (see e.g. Robert Lawlor’s “Sacred Geometry;” and Gyorgy Doczi's "The Power of Limits"), and its various manifestations in the natural world have been described as a "signature of God."

Each larger unit in the Fibonnaci sequence is equal to the sum of the previous two smaller units. In geometry, this sequence creates patterns known as the golden spiral and the golden rectangle. The sequence begins: 1,1,2,3,5,8...and continues indefinitely. As the numbers of the sequence increase, the ratio between two adjacent numbers approximates an infinite number, phi. Like pi (3.1415926535…), phi never ends (1.6180339887...). Although these numbers (as infinite) could not be pinpointed exactly, they could be represented geometrically as the circle and the golden spiral (or rectangle). These forms have been considered visual representations of the divine, the infinite manifest in the finite ("God made flesh”?). Phi also came to represent ideals of beauty and harmony, hence the eventual designation "divine proportion." For ancient people, contemplating these geometric figures may have been tantamount to contemplating the infinite, or God.

The Fibonacci sequence relates to the Nephite monetary system in that when the first four numbers of the Fibonacci sequence (1,1,2,3) are summed in order, we create the Nephite system: The senine/senum = 1, the seon/amnor = 1+1 (2), the shum/ezron = 1+1+2 (4), and the limnah/onti = 1+1+2+3 (7).

Before making this discovery, I had not added the Fibonacci sequence, nor did I have any evidence that the ancient Americans were aware of it. But I pointed out this interesting possibility to my relative anyway. He soon discovered an article that supported the notion that ancient Americans not only used the Fibonacci sequence, but summed it as well ("The Fibonacci Numbers: Connections within the Mathematics and Calendrical Systems of Ancient Mesoamerica," by Valerie Vaughan), and supplied a quote from the article that supported my understanding of Lawlor’s claim:

"We have seen that the numbers produced by the Fibonacci sequence offer a numerological key to the inter-relationships between man and the cosmos. The ancient Mesoamericans evidently recognized the correlations between biological processes, agricultural cycles, and timing of astronomical events, and they created a mathematical system that could express these connections -- a system that emphasized what we call Fibonacci numbers."

Vaughan also mentioned in her article that the number seven was considered important to the Mesoamericans (also the highest unit in the Nephite monetary system). This, of course, is also an important number in Judeo-Christian theology (another evidence of Judeo-Christian influence in Mesoamerica?), e.g. as the "highest" day of the week (and holiest). The musical scale, which is related to the Fibonacci sequence, also culminates in the number "7" before starting over with the same key an octave (eight notes) higher. So even though the sequence continues indefinitely, it would make sense that the Nephites might make the number seven their highest monetary unit.

In the past I have thought that since the Nephite authors were using monetary terms that a future audience might not be familiar with, they might have simply felt the need to explain them, puzzling though their sequence may be. Still, the authors could have simply said, "he was offered a lot of money" or "he was offered a month's wages for a judge" and it would have been a lot simpler than carving the entire system into metal plates. Why take so much trouble to describe a monetary sequence that has little bearing on the narrative? Now I'm wondering if God inspired the inclusion of this sequence once again as His "signature."

2 comments:

  1. While I do not support your thesis and the Mormon Church's claims I do like the fact that you guys are trying to defend your faith with objective evidence!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh there's a lot more than that, if you're interested. But why accept the objective/subjective dichotomy? Isn't even the most "objective" evidence subject to subjective interpretation? And why admit only historical data from someone else' experience (archeology, anthropology, exegesis, geology, biology, etc.)? Isn't personal experience the best test of truth? Try the experiment! (Moroni 10:3-5; Galations 5:22; James 1:5-6; Alma 32:26-43).

    Mike R

    ReplyDelete