Could the Book of Mormon be a 17th Century pious fraud?

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

I can't respond to everyone individually but let me clarify my position (which has evolved a little since this thread was started) and also provide some context to my thinking. My hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon was written by a 17th Century European prophet inspired by God to provide us the Book of Mormon. The events in the Book of Mormon are essentially a literary topos representing events in mesoamerica as well as 17th Century Europe as well as events in classical western antiquity (not to mention prophesying of future events). As part of this production we see an obvious polemic against the religious enemies of the writer who are the Calvinists and Catholics. The Calvinists are represented by the Zoramites but the Catholics are not represented by any specific Book of Mormon people. Instead we see a condemnation of practices associated with the Catholic Church. For instance we have the discussion regarding the great and abominable church and their removing plain and precious things from the bible. And we see an implicit condemnation of the practice of burning heretics at the stake. This was a very common practice in Europe from about 1100 to 1600. The fact that other cultures have punished people by burning them is beside the point. What's remarkable is the convergence of specific details related to this practice that we find in both the Book of Mormon and Europe in the time mentioned. I'll restate some of these convergent details: 1) Burning at the stake is specifically applied to heretics; 2) Heretical books are burned with the heretics; 3) Mass burnings of whole sub-communities of heretics; 4) Important heretical leaders are forced to witness burnings; 5) Accused heretics are given multiple opportunities to recant; 6) The burning of heretics is associated with the burning in hell of the guilty.

 

I confess I just don't see the Calvinist/Zoramite angle. Plus to me the interesting question is looking at the ancient world to understand the types. Particularly apocalyptic literature. Ignoring for the moment how much of this arises from Persian sources during the exile, at a minimum I think Jewish apocalyptic dualism fits much better than Calvinism or the Anglican bigotry against Catholicism.

A few key issues:

1. Abinadi isn't described as burned at the stake nor are the people who listened to Alma and Amulek. So that's an irrelevant "parallel." The lack of stakes is significant and a non-parallel between 17th century and BoM. Further Alma 14 talks of "the place of martyrdom" which suggests a more significant ritual. 

2. Burning books is in Alma 14 but it's also in Jeremiah 36. So that's not as big of a deal as you seem to think it is. I'd add in that there are lots of narratives where people are burned in the OT. While I listed burning as a legitimate Jewish practice there's also the narratives of others burning righteous for their religious belief. Daniel 3 being the most famous.

3. Mass burnings of communities again is traditional mesoamerican

4. Human sacrifice was a public event so people would have been forced to watch in mesoamerica

5. From what I've read during wars between city states the captured armies were sacrificed but leaders were left for particularly horrific treatment. (In the later period leaders were used for sacrifices representing narratives out of the Popul Vu) That sounds like what we're getting in Alma 14. We have those who suffer immediate sacrifice and those who are left more more robust and significant sacrifice - perhaps not burning. 

6. Sacrifice in Jerusalem quickly comes to be tied to hell. When is debatable of course. Most date it to after the exile but the elements are there at the time of Jeremiah. I know we've discussed the Book of Mormon concept of hell so you're not apt to be convinced there. With regards to Alma 14 though the only reference to hell is Zeezrom's psychological suffering.  Mosiah 17 doesn't mention hell.  So hell really isn't relevant for what you're trying to establish. Rather it's a non-parallel between 17th century and BoM.

7. Alma and Amulek are attacked for their beliefs but are not asked to recant. Rather is sounds more like the ritualistic degradation of a conquered foe with the traditional cries of how great they were. i.e. who were the gods supporting.

Now maybe you're referring to different passages. It'd be helpful giving scriptures for the parallels. 

Of course in both cases we're dealing with syncretic religions (Nehor, whatever Noah came up with) so we shouldn't assume it'll be exactly the same as mainstream preclassical mayan practice.

Edited February 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

I regret using the phrase "pious fraud" to describe the Book of Mormon. Something like "inspired allegory" would be better.

Makes no difference to me!

[USU78]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Makes no difference to me!

Does to me. No way is allegory correctly used in that sentence.

[JarMan]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Does to me. No way is allegory correctly used in that sentence.

Inspired mythology?

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Inspired mythology?

So long as we use myth clinically and not perjoratively.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I just don't see the Calvinist/Zoramite angle. Plus to me the interesting question is looking at the ancient world to understand the types. Particularly apocalyptic literature. Ignoring for the moment how much of this arises from Persian sources during the exile, at a minimum I think Jewish apocalyptic dualism fits much better than Calvinism or the Anglican bigotry against Catholicism.

A few key issues:

1. Abinadi isn't described as burned at the stake nor are the people who listened to Alma and Amulek. So that's an irrelevant "parallel." The lack of stakes is significant and a non-parallel between 17th century and BoM. Further Alma 14 talks of "the place of martyrdom" which suggests a more significant ritual. 

2. Burning books is in Alma 14 but it's also in Jeremiah 36. So that's not as big of a deal as you seem to think it is. I'd add in that there are lots of narratives where people are burned in the OT. While I listed burning as a legitimate Jewish practice there's also the narratives of others burning righteous for their religious belief. Daniel 3 being the most famous.

3. Mass burnings of communities again is traditional mesoamerican

4. Human sacrifice was a public event so people would have been forced to watch in mesoamerica

5. From what I've read during wars between city states the captured armies were sacrificed but leaders were left for particularly horrific treatment. (In the later period leaders were used for sacrifices representing narratives out of the Popul Vu) That sounds like what we're getting in Alma 14. We have those who suffer immediate sacrifice and those who are left more more robust and significant sacrifice - perhaps not burning. 

6. Sacrifice in Jerusalem quickly comes to be tied to hell. When is debatable of course. Most date it to after the exile but the elements are there at the time of Jeremiah. I know we've discussed the Book of Mormon concept of hell so you're not apt to be convinced there. With regards to Alma 14 though the only reference to hell is Zeezrom's psychological suffering.  Mosiah 17 doesn't mention hell.  So hell really isn't relevant for what you're trying to establish. Rather it's a non-parallel between 17th century and BoM.

7. Alma and Amulek are attacked for their beliefs but are not asked to recant. Rather is sounds more like the ritualistic degradation of a conquered foe with the traditional cries of how great they were. i.e. who were the gods supporting.

Now maybe you're referring to different passages. It'd be helpful giving scriptures for the parallels. 

Of course in both cases we're dealing with syncretic religions (Nehor, whatever Noah came up with) so we shouldn't assume it'll be exactly the same as mainstream preclassical mayan practice.

The Book of Mormon distinguishes between two types of execution by fire. There's the fiery furnace and everything else. The heretics were apparently killed by something other than a fiery furnace. Was it burning at the stake? Maybe. Or maybe it was something closer to this:

Or this:

 

Or this:

We know that Abinadi was able to give his final words as he burned. (It was also a common practice to record the final words of the heretics in Europe.) To me this implies being burnt at the stake. But the precise method of burning really isn't the issue as you can see that Europeans used several methods (but apparently not a fiery furnace).

You have to cast a wide net over many lands and many centuries to find all of the relevant elements that converge in precisely the right time and location for my model. Surely you can see that a convergence of ideas at precisely the right time and location to support my model is significant.

As far as being asked to recant, Abinadi clearly is asked to recant. And I think you can read Alma 14:14 and 14:19 as asking for a recantation from Alma and Amulek. Both of these verses record the words of the chief judge - the very person who could save them from the fire.

Quote

After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?

And it came to pass that the judge stood before them, and said: Why do ye not answer the words of this people? Know ye not that I have power to deliver you up unto the flames? And he commanded them to speak; but they answered nothing.

Furthermore, the torture and humiliation of Alma and Amulek in prison is an indication that a confession was attempting to be forced. This also was a practice in Europe. See, for example, the account of the torture and execution of Anne Askew and of Robert Samuel.

But the important thing is that the common practice was to hold a trial, announce a sentence, and then perform the execution. The convicted heretic was always given a chance to recant after the sentence was announced. Some people waited until they were already burning to recant and were then yanked from the fire. Abinadi was given a last chance after the sentence was announced. But Alma and Amulek never had a sentence announced. And it's not clear that they ever got a trial, though there is indication that charges were officially brought. So I think the series of events involving them is quite typical of what was seen in Europe.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Does to me. No way is allegory correctly used in that sentence.

OOOPS righto!

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

So long as we use myth clinically and not perjoratively.

Inspired wisdom stories? Nah, I think I like inspired mythology.

[JarMan]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OOOPS righto!

Actually, I'm not quite sure I see what's wrong with "allegory." Enlighten me.

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon distinguishes between two types of execution by fire. There's the fiery furnace and everything else. The heretics were apparently killed by something other than a fiery furnace. Was it burning at the stake? Maybe.

I think the point is that we don't know how they were burnt which means the parallel is just killing people by fire for which there's abundant parallels everywhere including the Old Testament. i.e. it's not a significant parallel. Now if it was burning at the stake we'd have more of a difference but we don't.

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

 We know that Abinadi was able to give his final words as he burned. (It was also a common practice to record the final words of the heretics in Europe.) To me this implies being burnt at the stake. But the precise method of burning really isn't the issue as you can see that Europeans used several methods (but apparently not a fiery furnace).

You have to cast a wide net over many lands and many centuries to find all of the relevant elements that converge in precisely the right time and location for my model. Surely you can see that a convergence of ideas at precisely the right time and location to support my model is significant.

No you don't as I demonstrated. All the elements are in preclassical mesoamerica for instance. You made it appear as if there were more significant parallels by injecting things that weren't in the Book of Mormon text like the stake or hell or else are found in the Old Testament (like the burning of scrolls in Jeremiah 36). If these are type settings as we'd expect with Jewish literature we'd expect reworking to make the narratives fit these classic narratives. (Much like Nephi works his trip to America in terms of Moses Exodus')

To say I have to pull a net over many centuries misses the central point that these were common events and recorded in the Old Testament. More significant they were features of Israel that the Lehites were condemning and ultimately seeing as characteristic of apostasy. So they'd undoubtedly hold more significance for them. Likewise if the text takes place in mesoamerica we'd expect it to reflect some of those elements. 

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

As far as being asked to recant, Abinadi clearly is asked to recant. And I think you can read Alma 14:14 and 14:19 as asking for a recantation from Alma and Amulek. Both of these verses record the words of the chief judge - the very person who could save them from the fire.

I'll grant you Abinadi. I was somewhat confused by the word "recall" as the text uses the older sense of call back such as we still find in "product recall."

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

But the important thing is that the common practice was to hold a trial, announce a sentence, and then perform the execution.

But that's true in any place where execution is by government rather than the mob. That's not much of a parallel especially if again it's true of the OT.

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

So I think the series of events involving them is quite typical of what was seen in Europe.

But it's true of mesoamerica too. The issue isn't whether you've found a parallel but comparing it to other ways of reading the text that also explain it. So I am not denying in the least your potential parallels, merely providing an alternative way of looking at it that I think offers more explanatory power.

Edited February 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Nevo]

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All the elements are in preclassical mesoamerica for instance.

The elements being: "1) Burning at the stake is specifically applied to heretics; 2) Heretical books are burned with the heretics; 3) Mass burnings of whole sub-communities of heretics; 4) Important heretical leaders are forced to witness burnings; 5) Accused heretics are given multiple opportunities to recant; 6) The burning of heretics is associated with the burning in hell of the guilty."

Could you provide a short list of books/articles that support your claim that all these elements were present in the Preclassic Period in Mesoamerica? I'd be interested to see for myself whether the Mesoamerican parallels have more explanatory power.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Nevo

[USU78]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

Actually, I'm not quite sure I see what's wrong with "allegory." Enlighten me.

Allegories have one-to-one correspondences between people, events, and things in the work of fiction and other people, events, and things.

A seriously deranged and extensive example:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faerie_Queene

One of these things is not like the other.

[Kenngo1969]

Inspired mythology?  Inspired wisdom stories?  OK.  To each, his or her own, I suppose.  I don't deny that the story of how the Book of Mormon came to be plainly is preposterous on many levels (especially when one discards a supernatural paradigm and/or when one declines to consider the Book of Mormon's coming forth and related events using certain paradigms), but, to me, the only things more preposterous than the explanation proffered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the Book of Mormon's coming forth are ... most all of the attempted alternate explanations.

As many questions as I might have about the Book of Mormon, about its coming forth, and about related events (and I do have such questions; see the following address: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/), I think many of the attempted explanations for the book's coming forth actually raise many more questions than they answer.  For such explanations to work, one must conclude that either:

1. Essentially, God said, "OK, what am I going to need for this 'restoration' thing to work? Well, I guess I'll need a set of plates, a holographic 'Angel Moroni,' a 'Liahona,' a 'Sword of Laban,' ..." and so on; and/or
2. Despite other purported witnesses and participants, much more of the story took place in Joseph Smith's fertile mind than we have been led to believe: "You see the angel, too, don't you?  Come on!  How can you not see him!  He's standing right there! ..."  

Many of the purported authors of the Book of Mormon were very pointed that, one day, they would call me to account for my response to what they purportedly wrote.  As uncomfortable as I might be with a supernatural explanation for the Book's existence, when that day comes, I think I would be even more uncomfortable, and would be afflicted with sudden stammering incoherence, attempting to explain, "Well, I ... er, uh, um ... I just couldn't buy the whole 'angels-and-plates' angle."

But, as I said, to each, his or her own.

 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

Actually, I'm not quite sure I see what's wrong with "allegory." Enlighten me.

Like the Adam and Eve story is an allegory- perhaps for the fall from innocence we all make as we "consider ourselves" to each be A&E.

I see all scripture more as a collection of parables to enrich our lives.  But don't get me wrong- they MIGHT have happened that way, it's just since that is unknowable, what is important is that we learn from them and believe they teach important principles

Whether they happened or not becomes irrelevant since we cannot know either way anyway - what lives on is what we learn from them.   THAT defines their value to us in living our lives.

For all I know or care, the earth may have been made in 6 days.  Could God have done that if he wanted to ?  Of course.  The important question is never HOW things were done or WHEN but WHY.

Science never deals with why things are important to us- and yet we live our lives by deciding what is important to us

That's why science can never give us answers about which things are important to us, only how important things work.  If curing cancer is important to us, it tells us how to make it happen, but not why it is important. 

Science is never about human values or morality or ethics but always about how things work

Scripture is never about how things work but always about morality ethics and values.

So for me, what is important about the BOM is not the history, who wrote it, when, or why.  To confuse those issues with the PURPOSE of the BOM is to make a major category error, imo.

The purpose of the BOM is to teach us how to live.  That has nothing to do with who wrote it, when or where or if the people portrayed were "real" or not.

Edited February 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Inspired mythology?  Inspired wisdom stories?  OK.  To each, his or her own, I suppose.  I don't deny that the story of how the Book of Mormon came to be plainly is preposterous on many levels (especially when one discards a supernatural paradigm and/or when one declines to consider the Book of Mormon's coming forth and related events using certain paradigms), but, to me, the only things more preposterous than the explanation proffered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the Book of Mormon's coming forth are ... most all of the attempted alternate explanations.

As many questions as I might have about the Book of Mormon, about its coming forth, and about related events (and I do have such questions; see the following address: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/), I think many of the attempted explanations for the book's coming forth actually raise many more questions than they answer.  For such explanations to work, one must conclude that either:

1. Essentially, God said, "OK, what am I going to need for this 'restoration' thing to work? Well, I guess I'll need a set of plates, a holographic 'Angel Moroni,' a 'Liahona,' a 'Sword of Laban,' ..." and so on; and/or
2. Despite other purported witnesses and participants, much more of the story took place in Joseph Smith's fertile mind than we have been led to believe: "You see the angel, too, don't you?  Come on!  How can you not see him!  He's standing right there! ..."  

Many of the purported authors of the Book of Mormon were very pointed that, one day, they would call me to account for my response to what they purportedly wrote.  As uncomfortable as I might be with a supernatural explanation for the Book's existence, when that day comes, I think I would be even more uncomfortable, and would be afflicted with sudden stammering incoherence, attempting to explain, "Well, I ... er, uh, um ... I just couldn't buy the whole 'angels-and-plates' angle."

But, as I said, to each, his or her own.

 

Just for the record, I agree with you whole heartedly

But as far as what we learn from the Book, all that "history stuff" is irrelevant at least to me.

If I connect the two - how we got the book - from its truth as a lesson manual on how to live, I will always have doubts about its "truth"

On the other hand if I take its purpose to be to teach us how to live, I have no doubts whatsoever about it's truth.

For me it is a logical choice.

I can either be in constant doubt or in perpetual certainty and I have chosen the latter.  I can see the glass as half full or fully full, always dwelling on the half that is missing or ignore it as irrelevant.

Thanks for the opportunity to put that into words.

Edited February 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Like the Adam and Eve story is an allegory- perhaps for the fall from innocence we all make as we "consider ourselves" to each be A&E.

I see all scripture more as a collection of parables to enrich our lives.  But don't get me wrong- they MIGHT have happened that way, it's just since that is unknowable, what is important is that we learn from them and believe they teach important principles

Whether they happened or not becomes irrelevant since we cannot know either way anyway - what lives on is what we learn from them.   THAT defines their value to us in living our lives.

For all I know or care, the earth may have been made in 6 days.  Could God have done that if he wanted to ?  Of course.  The important question is never HOW things were done or WHEN but WHY.

Science never deals with why things are important to us- and yet we live our lives by deciding what is important to us

That's why science can never give us answers about which things are important to us, only how important things work.  If curing cancer is important to us, it tells us how to make it happen, but not why it is important. 

Science is never about human values or morality or ethics but always about how things work

Scripture is never about how things work but always about morality ethics and values.

So for me, what is important about the BOM is not the history, who wrote it, when, or why.  To confuse those issues with the PURPOSE of the BOM is to make a major category error, imo.

The purpose of the BOM is to teach us how to live.  That has nothing to do with who wrote it, when or where or if the people portrayed were "real" or not.

I would add only this to this excellent post:  in my heart, the Lehite clan are family; David Rex is my cousin; Jeremiah is my uncle; and JSJr's "a bawcock, and a heart of gold, A lad of life, an imp of fame, Of parents good, of fist most valiant.  I kiss his dirty shoe, and from heartstring I love the lovely bully."

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I would add only this to this excellent post:  in my heart, the Lehite clan are family; David Rex is my cousin; Jeremiah is my uncle; and JSJr's "a bawcock, and a heart of gold, A lad of life, an imp of fame, Of parents good, of fist most valiant.  I kiss his dirty shoe, and from heartstring I love the lovely bully."

I don't know what any of that means, but I had to rep it!!  

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Like the Adam and Eve story is an allegory- perhaps for the fall from innocence we all make as we "consider ourselves" to each be A&E.

I see all scripture more as a collection of parables to enrich our lives.  But don't get me wrong- they MIGHT have happened that way, it's just since that is unknowable, what is important is that we learn from them and believe they teach important principles

Whether they happened or not becomes irrelevant since we cannot know either way anyway - what lives on is what we learn from them.   THAT defines their value to us in living our lives.

For all I know or care, the earth may have been made in 6 days.  Could God have done that if he wanted to ?  Of course.  The important question is never HOW things were done or WHEN but WHY.

Science never deals with why things are important to us- and yet we live our lives by deciding what is important to us

That's why science can never give us answers about which things are important to us, only how important things work.  If curing cancer is important to us, it tells us how to make it happen, but not why it is important. 

Science is never about human values or morality or ethics but always about how things work

Scripture is never about how things work but always about morality ethics and values.

So for me, what is important about the BOM is not the history, who wrote it, when, or why.  To confuse those issues with the PURPOSE of the BOM is to make a major category error, imo.

The purpose of the BOM is to teach us how to live.  That has nothing to do with who wrote it, when or where or if the people portrayed were "real" or not.

I like that you are more honest and real about what is important to you in the Book of Mormon but may I ask..why it doesn't matter to you..who..what and where..if it gives you a purpose in life?  There are many stories told with a purpose..are they true too?

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

Could you provide a short list of books/articles that support your claim that all these elements were present in the Preclassic Period in Mesoamerica? I'd be interested to see for myself whether the Mesoamerican parallels have more explanatory power.

Of course we can do an extensive search of the Mayan records from that period.  

Oh, wait!  They were virtually  all destroyed by the Spanish, so we have very little information on their religious culture, as you so skillfully point out.

.

Edited February 13, 2018 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

The elements being: "1) Burning at the stake is specifically applied to heretics; 2) Heretical books are burned with the heretics; 3) Mass burnings of whole sub-communities of heretics; 4) Important heretical leaders are forced to witness burnings; 5) Accused heretics are given multiple opportunities to recant; 6) The burning of heretics is associated with the burning in hell of the guilty."

Could you provide a short list of books/articles that support your claim that all these elements were present in the Preclassic Period in Mesoamerica? I'd be interested to see for myself whether the Mesoamerican parallels have more explanatory power.

I would say the purported context which isn't just potentially mesoamerica but Lehites in mesoamerica. So you have to include what we can presume was on the brass plates.

Again to repeat though.

1. Stake isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon, only burning.  Execution by fire for sacreledge is an Hebrew practice. Execution by fire is in OT narratives. It's actually required in the law for some crimes (Lev 21:9) What form those took in the pre-exilic period isn't clear but I think we can assume fire isn't a big parallel.

2. Burning of Books is contemporary with Lehi in Jeremiah 36. However burning broader religious items is more common. So Deut 7:25 requires that images of false gods are to be burned. 

3. Xiuhtecuhtli was known in mayan era not just Aztek. He is found in preclassic period. Sacrifices by fire.

4. Regarding the "forced to watch" I don't have that explicit. But the standard goal was to capture elites for sacrifice, often putting them aside from other sacrificial victims in order to reenact narratives from the Popol Vu. The goal was to humiliate them as false rulers, which is what we see the people of Nehor doing in Alma 14. Typically the way to do this was to "humiliate rulers by dismantling their power, destroying their temples, and taking their jewel" (Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, 106 Kindle edition) Rulers were seen as reincarnated Gods, so battle and capture is seen as evidence of that God. So we have the broad parallel but not the detailed parallel. (I'd also note that we have relatively little literature that survived the Spanish so just having that many parallels is significant)

However the trope of executing people before their rulers eyes is a common one. You see it with Zedekiah in 2 Kings 25:7 & Jeremiah 39:6 for instance. 

The forcing to watch though is attested to with Aztecs for whom we have better records. While not tied to the sun sacrifice Motecuhzoma summed princes from rival polities and hidden so they wouldn't be seen by the people of Tenochtitlan. They were then "forced to watch as some of their finest warriors were destroyed." (The Aztecs ad Very Short Introduction, 77) Again to be clear not the same. But very similar.

5. Recanting isn't part of the mayan issue since the goal was capturing people for sacrifice. But as I said I don't believe Alma 14 involves recanting. Abinadi does but then the end of a narrative where the defeated is supposed to recant is pretty common in the Book of Mormon. You see it with Korihor, Nehor, Sherem and so forth. So we'd expect it as part of any type scene of that sort. It's just that with Abinadi this is inverted since he doesn't recant. As I said I think I conceded that one, but I don't think it is as significant due to the place of recanting or attempted recanting in these type scenes within the text itself.

6. As I said hell's not discussed relative to the burning of the victims in either. The closest is Alma 14's tormenting of Alma and Amulek by saying, "will yet preach again unto this people, that they they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?" That is they're denying the Nephite theology, although I'll not the irony. But the reference is to the Zoramites, not those burned.

I should note that there's a possible other parallel to the mesoamerican context. I'm not a mesoamericanist so I don't know how significant it is. (Hopefully Brant Gardner might chime in) However the legend of the mayan twins in the underwold has a few parallels to Amulek and Alma. It's not exact but when I read it I frequently wonder if the parallels are intentional. The hero twins were summoned to a great oven to be killed by the Lords of Xibalaban (underworld). Now in the story they allow themselves to be burned and then resurrect themselves. Because of their power of resurrection the Lords want the miracle performed on them. So the twins kill them but don't resurrect them. They then reveal their identities as the sons of someone they'd killed years earlier. As a punishment Xibalba loses it's greatness, no longer receives offerings.

Obviously this is at best a loose parallel but when I read of the temple being destroyed and then Alma and Amulek walking out I wonder if the inhabitants thought of that myth. The key bit being the loss of greatness after trying to burn the twins by the Lords only ended in the Lords destruction.

(There are lots of stories of the twins -- and while Alma and Amulek obviously aren't twins you could see narratives being shaped by those well known narratives)

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

Allegories have one-to-one correspondences between people, events, and things in the work of fiction and other people, events, and things.

Allegory isn't right for what they describe. They're more talking about how say a work of Shakespeare could convey essential truths.

My problem with this is that most of the text isn't that sort of narrative. It's simply very different from say Genesis or Job. That's not to say there aren't extended narratives with moral implications. You could argue much of Alma is like that. However you then have prophecies that are often reworking of existing material (Isaiah or more extended excerpts in 3 Nephi) often with an emphasis on promises and covenants.

It's that feature of promises that becomes problematic in the fictional model. I understand why some, who perhaps lacking convincing positive evidence that the Book of Mormon is historic, find themselves unable to believe but then have to explain it's value. Ditto for say Joseph Smith in the Taves model. In these cases "facts" become irrelevant and only "use" matters. However the question always becomes why these texts rather than an other text? In other words I don't think truth of facts can be simply cut out.

Eventually someone will find that things get hard. A bishop does something boneheaded or worse someone higher up. You stop enjoying Church. Your political views come in conflict with Church teachings. If you don't believe it is true rather than merely useful in a narrow sense, nothing will keep you in. I'm sure some will say that's a feature not a bug. But if it is true then how we view it is fundamentally different. 

Edited February 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I would say the purported context which isn't just potentially mesoamerica but Lehites in mesoamerica. So you have to include what we can presume was on the brass plates.

If we presume brass plates and large piles of burned books, then we can presume pretty much anything we want.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 3. Xiuhtecuhtli was known in mayan era not just Aztek. He is found in preclassic period. Sacrifices by fire.

I got lost at the howler monkeys and cloud snakes and fire being kindled in the open chest cavities of sacrificial victims. Could you explain who Xiuhtecuhtli is and how he relates to the burning of Abinadi? Reading that content, I'd have to agree that accounts of 16th century burnings at the stake sound way more familiar.

TBH, I can't get past the feeling that there couldn't be two ancient cultures more dissimilar than the preclassic Maya and first temple Israelites. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I would say the purported context which isn't just potentially mesoamerica but Lehites in mesoamerica. So you have to include what we can presume was on the brass plates.

Thanks for answering my CFR. So it appears that not one of JarMan's six elements can be supported by Mesoamerican evidence. And the biblical evidence you cite isn't very convincing either, in my opinion. For example:

• As a preexilic biblical example of the practice of burning heretics, you cite the story of the stoning and burning of Achan for stealing dedicated (herem) objects—gold, silver, clothing—from Jericho. Having taken objects devoted to destruction, Achan and his family and livestock were likewise devoted to destruction (see Joshua 7:12). I agree with you that this "isn't a big parallel" since Achan wasn't executed for having wrong beliefs but for stealing sacred objects. And his actual death appears to have been caused by stoning.
• As a preexilic biblical example of the practice of burning heretical books along with heretics, you cite Jeremiah 36:23, where it is reported that King Jehoiakim threw one of Jeremiah's scrolls into the brazier he was sitting next to after it had been read to him. After which, Jeremiah had a replacement scroll made. This doesn't seem like a very strong parallel to Alma 14:8, where believers and their scriptures are burned together in a massive bonfire.

I agree with you that element 6 ("the burning of heretics is associated with the burning in hell of the guilty") doesn't neatly fit the situation portrayed in Alma 14. As Mark Thomas has observed,

Quote

The narrative of Ammonihah satirizes universalism, or the belief that God will ultimately save all human beings irrespective of their works. The leaders of the city can be described as universalists because they profess a robust disbelief in hell. The prophets Alma and Amulek preach of the reality of hell, though they characterize its fires and brimstone as metaphors for the pangs of remorse and guilt. Thus, they present a world opposed to the model of the city's leadership. The leaders of the city condemn the prophets' converts to death by fire, which they force Alma and Amulek to watch, then mock: "After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?" They create the hell that they deny. They continue the satire by "gnashing" their teeth upon Alma and Amulek, like the occupants of hell. . . .

– Mark D. Thomas, Digging in Cumorah: Reclaiming Book of Mormon Narratives (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), 27.

But there is still clearly an association in the story—albeit an ironic one—between burning of the innocent martyrs and the ultimate fate of their persecutors (see, esp., v. 21: "How shall we look when we are damned?").  

Edited February 14, 2018 by Nevo

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know what any of that means, but I had to rep it!!  

 

I had to look it up too, Hank Sank, otherwise known as Henry V, Act 4 Scene 1.45

I reckon you get a good edumacation at USU. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=aMpjDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1576&lpg=PA1576&dq="a+bawcock,+and+a+heart+of+gold,+A+lad+of+life,+an+imp+of+fame,+Of+parents+good,+of+fist+most+valiant.+I+kiss+his+dirty+shoe,+and+from+heartstring+I+love+the+lovely+bully."&source=bl&ots=1Vbo6KTYFt&sig=wChq3g0GKIDfr-F1yuPt2INCZIY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIg-6KsKTZAhVN02MKHSpdB6QQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q="a bawcock%2C and a heart of gold%2C A lad of life%2C an imp of fame%2C Of parents good%2C of fist most valiant. I kiss his dirty shoe%2C and from heartstring I love the lovely bully."&f=false

Edited February 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Rajah Manchou]

There are several forms of execution mentioned in the Book of Mormon. In Mesoamerica, are there examples of:

(1) Casting stones
(2) Beheading by sword (or macuahuitl)
(3) Hanging on/in a tree, and subsequent cutting down of the tree
(4) Throwing to wild beasts (which apparently has a scary sounding latin term 'damnatio ad bestias')
(5) Trampled under foot

I'm probably missing some, can anyone think of any others?