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

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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?

Good question but a little complicated in genuine philosophese.

But that is gonna make me post that dratted Rorty video again that everyone hates but no one actually listens to. 

About all we can say about "truth" is that it is a belief which is "justified" within a group or audience which gives it a context and for whom the beliefs function for the purpose intended.

E=mc2 is a justified belief for scientists and physicists who use it to do.... physics stuff  because when they use it, it gives good and predictable results in their physics stuff. 

And because it is a "justified" belief it is called "true" until another belief comes along (a paradigm shift) which works better to give good results on physics stuff.

A religious belief is justified for a religious group when the belief gives a context for the purpose intended.  Belief in The Plan of Salvation for example, gives a religious group an understanding of their place in the universe, as well as a code of conduct and a set of beliefs which give their lives purpose and meaning, which is the purpose of the belief

"Truth" as an abstract is impossible to define.  2000 years of Western Philosophers have not been able to define it in a way which is generally accepted- there have been various theories how to define it, but ultimately there are always major problems in defining it

So that is the best we can do as a defniton upon which many can agree.  It's not perfect but it is the one which works the best and upon which most can agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

So if a belief about God or why we are here gives a group meaning, we can conclude that the belief is justified if it fills its purpose for a given group,

I personally feel that Mormon beliefs are the "best" because I think frankly that since our Ideal is the Perfect Human, if it were seen that way, it would be the Ideal view for ALL humans and thus the "best justified" of all beliefs about the purpose of humanity.  Isn't the highest value of humanity to be the Ideal Human?   Sounds like the Man (and therefore the Woman)  of Holiness to me!!

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Belief in The Plan of Salvation for example, gives a religious group an understanding of their place in the universe, as well as a code of conduct and a set of beliefs which give their lives purpose and meaning, which is the purpose of the belief

I personally feel that Mormon beliefs are the "best" because I think frankly that since our Ideal is the Perfect Human, if it were seen that way, it would be the Ideal view for ALL humans and thus the "best justified" of all beliefs about the purpose of humanity.

I've just finished a book called Birth of Orientalism that has completely changed my perception of Mormonism. The search for the original religion of Adam began in the 16th century as Judeo-Christianity came into contact with advanced cultures in India, China and America, civilizations that were inexplicably older than Noah, with texts that clearly predated the Bible. European Christians were forced to rethink what they thought they knew, and extend their theology to include ALL humans, living and dead. What happened next was a series of 'revelations' and 'translations' of lost ancient texts that revealed a divine plan that provides salvation to all intelligent beings. This plan, I believe, culminates in the revelations of Joseph Smith.

I think I finally understand what you've been saying here all along. Turns out, the problem of Book of Mormon historicity is not a problem at all. Now we only need to tame that obsession we have to place the Nephites in (put your favorite Book of Mormon geography model here) and place them squarely in their true home, the Land of Promise.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Nevo]

I've just been reviewing John W. Welch's book, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon. A number of his observations are relevant to this discussion.

Welch points out that burning, while "not unknown" in the ancient Near East, was "rarely employed as a means of execution or punishment in the Bible" (356). The Book of Mormon, then, is something of an aberration in that respect, as Abinadi's death becomes the template (Mark Thomas calls it a "predictive type") for a number of other deaths by burning "during an exceptional period between 150 BC and 75 BC" (357). 

Welch describes Abinadi's manner of execution as "novel" (336) and "unprecedented" (202), citing Alma 25:11: "Abinadi was the first that suffered death by fire because of his belief in God." He also calls it "irregular" and "illicit" (205). Welch allows that burning could have been "an appropriate remedy" for speaking of God sacrilegiously, which Abinadi was accused of (Mosiah 17:8). But ultimately Abinadi was executed for a different offense: reviling the king (v. 12). Welch speculates that the punishment by fire was "fashioned according to talionic principles" (357). He explains this in more detail earlier in the book: "It appears that Noah's priests tailored an unprecedented mode of execution for Abinadi alone that mirrored the evil that Abinadi had said would befall, and did indeed befall, King Noah" (202).

Welch likens the burning of Alma and Amulek's followers in Alma 14 to "the eradication of Achan and his family and possessions from the camp of Israel" but also recognizes that, unlike in the biblical story, "no mention is made of their cattle or other property being destroyed by fire." He also points out that "biblical law . . . did not allow a person to be punished by burning merely for his beliefs" (357; compare Alma 25:11). Thus, the punishment meted out to believers in Alma 14:8 and Alma 25:5 "go[es] beyond the customary law" and represents "an expansion" according to Welch (358).

Edited February 14, 2018 by Nevo

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Thanks for answering my CFR. So it appears that not one of JarMan's six elements can be supported by Mesoamerican evidence.

Again, never claimed it did. Given the paucity of records from the preclassical period it's hardly surprising.

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

And the biblical evidence you cite isn't very convincing either, in my opinion.

I think you misunderstood what I was arguing. I wasn't arguing they were direct parallels. Rather they indicate type-scenes and more importantly what the law was. If the priests of Noah were attempting to follow the law in some sense, then probably some mismash of Judaic custom matters more than mesoamerican culture except to the degree that culture shapes the evolution of their religion. (Much like American culture has shaped Mormon norms in the nearly two centuries we've been around) If burning for those types of blasphemy (the bit about the daughter is clearly about cultic prostitution for instance) is part of the law then it's not surprising the law could be applied to Abinadi. 

But of course convincing is in the eye of the beholder. You seem to agree two of your parallels weren't parallels at all too. I'm certainly not saying I can explain everything (since as history I think there's an inherent random element to it).

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

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?").  

That's not much of a parallel though. Further again it could easily be read as them merely noting that fire was part of Nephite theology and drawing a connection. What JarMan was arguing for was much stronger than that. If the parallel is merely there's fire and people believe there's fire in final judgment then that's not a big parallel in the least since the people doing the burning clearly don't think that. Indeed their whole point is to ridicule the connection.

[JarMan]

4 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.

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)

You are all over the map (in space and time) trying to find parallels that are, well, not very convincing. Let me address a couple things. Abinadi is clearly being burned at the stake. He’s bound (Mosiah 17:13), apparently standing upright (verse 20), being burned with the assistance of a bundle of sticks (verse 13), and able to give some last words as he’s being burned (verses 14-20). Do you really need the word “stake” to know he’s being burned at the stake?

As for the people in Alma 14 who are cast into the fire, maybe they are also being burned at the stake. Or maybe they are literally being cast into the fire.

The point is that the heretic-burning scenes in the Book of Mormon are quite consistent with the heretic-burning scenes in actual practice in Europe. Now imagine finding stelae in Mesoamerica from 100 BC with the pictures above and an inscription telling us this was the burning of heretics.

The second thing I want to address is the irony associated with the lake of fire/execution by fire. In medieval Europe heresy was the worst possible crime. The particular punishment was adopted because it pre-saged the heretic’s eternal fate of burning in hell. It was the church saying, “We are executing God’s justice here on earth.” The remarks of Alma and Amulek’s tormentors about burning in a lake of fire are maliciously ironic (based on Alma 12:17). This irony is amplified by the reader’s awareness that burning is the proscribed punishment for heresy. The true heretics, of course, are the executioners—both in the Book of Mormon and in Europe.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Welch points out that burning, while "not unknown" in the ancient Near East, was "rarely employed as a means of execution or punishment in the Bible" (356). The Book of Mormon, then, is something of an aberration in that respect, as Abinadi's death becomes the template for a number of other deaths by burning "during an exceptional period between 150 BC and 75 BC" (357). 

I think he's somewhat wrong in that as the scriptures I mentioned attest. However he's certainly right that in the post-exilic period it doesn't appear to have been used. Where I'd differ with Welch is over the question of the distinction between pre and post exilic Israelite belief.

I'd also disagree that Abinadi was executed because he believed in God. It's clearly because of "evil" he spoke concerning Noah and his people. (17:8) Prophets being executed for prophecies the king didn't like were rather common in the Old Testament. Further the type scene of Elijah is a clear example of false prophets being burned. Now Noah's priests think Abinadi is a false prophet and thus seem to be using that.  More particularly it seems clear the priests are following Deut 13 regarding false prophets.

"If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. You must follow the Lord your God and fear Him. You must keep His commands and listen to His voice; you must worship Him and remain faithful[a] to Him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has urged rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the place of slavery, to turn you from the way the Lord your God has commanded you to walk. You must purge the evil from you." 

Now of course Abinadi is a true prophet but contextually clearly the priests are portraying him as a false prophet. Further that type of following other gods is why those older parts of Leviticus are important since they deal with exactly that type of apostasy. The issue wasn't that Achan stole. Rather the issue was he stole an idol. (This is brought out more in the rabbinical commentary on it) That's why you get burning and stoning. (Interestingly he also recants before his death) It's also worth noting there's some source criticism of the narrative. Because of the reference to Babylon it's frequently dated to at least the 7th century (and thus relevant to our Lehites). However I'd readily concede not everyone follows the interpretation in the journal article I linked to that sees it as a type of blasphemy tied to idolatry. Even if one rejects the rabbinical reading though the items had been consecrated to God and thus there was still that defilement. Several commentaries also tie it to Deut 13:6-15 for various reasons. Indeed some see Deut 13 and Joshua 7 as part of one textual tradition and Deut 20:16 & Joshua 11:11-15 as an other due to the conflicts over whether animals are also supposed to be put to death.

Is this a sure thing? Probably not but it is certainly suggestive that by the early rabbinical and Samaritan period the oral tradition was idolatry (this is also in the DSS). Likewise the late date makes it significant for Lehi since it reflects the tensions from Isaiah up to the exile.

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Welch likens the burning of Alma and Amulek's followers in Alma 14 to "the eradication of Achan and his family and possessions from the camp of Israel" but also recognizes that, unlike in the biblical story, "no mention is made of their cattle or other property being destroyed by fire." He also points out that "biblical law . . . did not allow a person to be punished by burning merely for his beliefs" (357; compare Alma 25:11). Thus, the punishment meted out to believers in Alma 14:8 and Alma 25:5 "go[es] beyond the customary law" and represents "an expansion" according to Welch (358).

Again for the record I don't think the Zoramites were following Mosaic law. It was at best a syncretic religion. So I'm not sure Welch's line of reasoning here. (I'll confess I've not read Welch on this so I'm just going by your presentation) 

However again I'd say Welch is off here both due to the issues of false prophets and idolatry but also just the history. I mean there are reasons to distrust the accounts in Joshua but it's hard to come away saying there was no problem with belief if belief included idolatry. I'd argue he's applying the later compilation and reconciliation during the late second temple period with the pre-exilic period. Although without reading his text I can't say for sure. And it's not just in Joshua. Ezekiel's vision in chapters 8-9 is more or less the same thing.

It's also odd to say "other property" unless he contrasting with the scriptures burned. (Again not having the full quote it's hard to say) 

Ultimately though I strongly suspect Alma 14 should be read in a mesoamerican rather than pre-exilic context.

23 minutes ago, JarMan said:

You are all over the map (in space and time) trying to find parallels that are, well, not very convincing.

As I said to Nevo my argument isn't purely about parallels but also about the laws of execution for idolatry. Further the events you bring up have significant differences. You're downplaying those differences but they do matter and affect our interpretation.

BTW - if you wouldn't mind there's no need to include a bunch of illustrative pictures unless necessary. They make it hard to quote - particularly on an iPad. I think we all know what European burning at the stake was and its variants.

29 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Abinadi is clearly being burned at the stake. He’s bound (Mosiah 17:13), apparently standing upright (verse 20), being burned with the assistance of a bundle of sticks (verse 13), and able to give some last words as he’s being burned (verses 14-20). Do you really need the word “stake” to know he’s being burned at the stake?

But mesoamerican sacrifices are bound, they're alive able to speak even as their body (except for the head which is kept wet) is burned. While sometimes the flesh is then served at other times the body is thrown down the temple steps. So "fell" could easily mean the execution was complete and he was thrown down. All I'm saying is that while it's compatible with burning at the stake it's also compatible with not being burned at the stake. (Burning inherently involves sticks unless the cause is divine fire so that doesn't add much) Put an other way, is Joshua 7 also burning at the stake? All the elements you mention here are there.

Quote

 

The point is that the heretic-burning scenes in the Book of Mormon are quite consistent with the heretic-burning scenes in actual practice in Europe.

 

Certainly some elements are - although a few claims didn't line up. The question isn't whether it's consistent but how significant that is. I don't see it as very significant at all because (1) execution by fire is in the OT (2) sacrifice by fire is common in the purported location (3) execution by fire is tied by many non-Mormon scholars to idolatry and false prophets (4) the examples in the OT have the elements you saw as unique such as recanting (5) the more unique aspects of many European burning aren't explicit in the text such as the stake (6) the key is idolatry and worshipping false gods in both cases which wasn't the typical charge in Europe (except maybe of Muslims and Jews). Not that stakes are necessary in Europe of course - however you were the one who originally brought it up as signifying a deeper parallel than burning people.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Nevo]

On 2/12/2018 at 11:32 AM, JarMan said:

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.

On 2/12/2018 at 8:33 PM, JarMan said:

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.

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No you don't as I demonstrated. All the elements are in preclassical mesoamerica for instance.

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Thanks for answering my CFR. So it appears that not one of JarMan's six elements can be supported by Mesoamerican evidence.

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, never claimed it did. Given the paucity of records from the preclassical period it's hardly surprising.

Okay, Clark. I am trying to make sense of the above exchange.

Just so I am clear: you are saying that all of JarMan's converging elements are present in Preclassical Mesoamerica but you are not saying that their presence in Mesoamerica can be supported by evidence.

Should I just take your word for it?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've just finished a book called Birth of Orientalism that has completely changed my perception of Mormonism. The search for the original religion of Adam began in the 16th century as Judeo-Christianity came into contact with advanced cultures in India, China and America, civilizations that were inexplicably older than Noah, with texts that clearly predated the Bible. European Christians were forced to rethink what they thought they knew, and extend their theology to include ALL humans, living and dead. What happened next was a series of 'revelations' and 'translations' of lost ancient texts that revealed a divine plan that provides salvation to all intelligent beings. This plan, I believe, culminates in the revelations of Joseph Smith.

I think I finally understand what you've been saying here all along. Turns out, the problem of Book of Mormon historicity is not a problem at all. Now we only need to tame that obsession we have to place the Nephites in (put your favorite Book of Mormon geography model here) and place them squarely in their true home, the Land of Promise.

That's great- thanks for the post!

Because of my background in philosophy these were the ideas I have been grappling with now for 50 years, only 35 or so of those as a Mormon.   I had a very powerful powerful testimony experience in seeing the BOM as the "anchor" revelation of Mormonism and therefore "true" but I never had a testimony of its historicity because it was never important to me.

Frankly I have never understood the obsession with history I see in Mormonism and see it more as a handicap than anything.  Would it matter if Kant's philosophy came from France instead of Germany or if Buddhism was orignally Polish?  It is the IDEAS which give our lives meaning, not where they came from or even who wrote them

We don't even know who wrote massive swaths of the Bible but no one CARES.   The books of the Bible as you know were picked by a council and decided what to include by their spiritual nature and their consistency with the views of the council itself.  Think about that!   

They very origin of the bible is based in a faith community picking what books they regarded as "true"!!  It is not based on history or provenance on any basis other than being considered "sacred" by the Jewish and Christian communities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

So as always the best definition we can get for "true" in a religious context is what gives sacredness and meaning to its followers, and for me as I have said, the greatest of these "truths" would be the one which best applies to all humanity- what ALL of humanity regards as the Ideal Humans who we conceive of as our Ideal Parents.

What faith has Ideal Parents as it's God and Goddess?  Ideal Humans who have actually become Gods by BEING the Ideal Humans through eons of working hard at becoming just that?

Only the Mormons!

I have to check out that book- thanks!

 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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

I don't think that's the case. Speaking only for myself I think we have to be cautious with assumptions and make the data fit the scientific evidence as best we can. That includes acknowledgement of relative ignorance of some things.

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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

Fire.

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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. 

Oh I agree but syncretic religion is common among very different religions. Look at say Sikhism which is often seen by historians as a syncretic combination of Islam and Hinduism. (This is viewed as offensive by most Sikhs much like most Mormons get offended if you call it a syncretic mix of Cambellitism, broad masonic/hermeticism, and broad Arminianism. Even though I think the evidence is overwhelming that it is - albeit an inspired form of such.)

Anyway, brief overview as I've written too much. Xiuhtecuhtli is the sun/fire God, God of volcanoes and God of life/resurrection and especially in the Aztec period was tied to sacrifices. His animal spirit was the fire serpent. (Mayan and Aztec religion gets complex) He's typically combined with Huehuetéotl with each seen as a different aspect of the same God. He's also the "old" God and is often portrayed as an old man - especially in Mayan displays. Statues of him as an old man are all over the region. How he's worshipped appears to vary by location (although again note the paucity of sources that survived the Spanish - there's basically four main texts) One of the Aztec rites for him involves cutting out the heart of the victim, kindling fire in the hole left by the heart, and letting the body burn while wetting the head so it survives. Then the body is eaten or thrown down the temple. There was also a sacrificial brazier where victims were thrown to be burned.

It's possible, although quite speculative I admit, that the Nehorites are practicing a variation of the New Fire Ceremony that was done every 52 years. Every four years a lesser ceremony was held where captives were dressed up as the God and sacrificed.

This is why I find Alma 14 so interesting. If the Nehorites at this time are worshipping Xiuhtecuhtli that's why the "fire and brimstone" ridicule is funny since Xiuhtecuhtli is a God of volcanoes. I'd imagine the followers of Amulek and Alma are just going into the brazier mentioned but that Alma and Amulek are themselves going to get their hearts removed. It's worth noting that in his aspect as Huehuecóyotl or old god he's a prankster God. Again though I'm no mesoamericanist so I don't want to push things too far. However the twins I mentioned earlier also run into Seven Macaw who is portraying himself as the sun in the Popol Vuh. They then humble him by stealing gems but the key is he's shown to not actually be the sun. If the Zoramites are a syncretic form of mayan religion then they're doing something similar to the ruler of the Zoramites. (The king of a city represents the God and the God is sort of personified in him)

I'd be nice to hear someone like Brant chime in who knows far more about all this and say what parts are reasonable. So those later potentially ironic bits to Alma 14 I wouldn't put much confidence in. That there were regular fire sacrifices and that the God in question is attested from the preclassical era as well as the Aztec era seems undeniable. Tying it to the Nehorites is speculative.

Edited February 14, 2018 by clarkgoble
Changed Zoramite to Nehorite. Doh!

[Nevo]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think he's somewhat wrong . . . [snip]

It is exhausting to discuss anything with you. You make all kinds of confident assertions that are problematic in all kinds of ways and I just don't have the time or the patience any more to engage. Suffice it to say that Welch is aware of all the OT and ANE evidence for executions by burning. He discusses it in his book. Welch also knows that Abinadi was charged with being a false prophet. He covers it in his 70-page chapter on the trial of Abinadi. But that was not the reason he was put to death. Idolatry has no relevance to the Abinadi narrative or the Alma 14 narrative. It's your interpretation of Joshua 7 as a story about idolatry that is late and post-exilic, not Welch's—and, no, Achan's execution does not have "all the elements" of a burning at the stake. In fact, it has none of them, other than the presence of fire (applied after Achan has been stoned to death.)

[JarMan]

I’ve been doing some reading in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. And the more I read, the more similarities I see. For example, many of the accused heretics are “rogue” preachers. Many of them quote the scriptures at their trials and turn the tables on their accusers proclaiming they are the ones not following scripture. Many are interrogated several times while they are imprisoned. Many have converts who are then, in turn, accused of heresy. Many use similar last words to “O God, receive my soul” (Mosiah 17:19). Of course this makes sense in Europe given Christ’s last word, but Abinadi died before Christ. My list of similarities is over a dozen now. You can look at any single similarity and try to explain it away. But it’s the convergence of similarities that make it remarkable. These scenes from the Book of Mormon come right out of 16th Century Europe. Seriously. Take an hour or two or more to read some of the accounts in the aforementioned Book of Martyrs. If you still can’t see it I don’t know what else I can say. 

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Okay, Clark. I am trying to make sense of the above exchange.

Just so I am clear: you are saying that all of JarMan's converging elements are present in Preclassical Mesoamerica but you are not saying that their presence in Mesoamerica can be supported by evidence.

Should I just take your word for it?

No I am not saying either of those things. I am saying in mesoamerica there are fire sacrifices and that the God and presumed practices go back to preclassical times. I also, as a tangent, discussed possible parallels of mayan and Aztec believe on Alma 14 but that was a separate tangent. I am saying that if the Nephites were in mesoamerica then they'd encounter and know of these sacrifices to the sun god. 

So I'm separating the Abinadi narrative from the Alma and Amulek narrative as I see them as quite different while you and JarMan are blurring them.

For Abinadi I see the relevant context the law of Moses as understood by the priests of Noah and think that's the relevant background. I particularly see the prime background as the Deuteronomist view of false prophets and idolatry particularly the parallels of Sherem and then later Korihor and others. I see no evidence the Law is even relevant in Alma 14 (I think I accidentlly wrote Zoramite above but it's the land of Ammonihah) even though there's some connection to the Nephites. Indeed it's that connection that leads Alma and Amulek to make idolatry warnings that they don't make of the Lamanites. (Alma 10) 

I think the teachings of Nehor suggests strongly a syncretic religion. The main emphasized teachings are (1) getting gain by priests and lawyers (2) universal salvation (3) no need for repentance. The people at Ammonihah add (4) not only one God. Those all line up well with indigenous religion as does the emphasis on resurrection prior to the sacrifices in 14. That's where that speculative tangent comes in. When Zeezrom brings up Eternal Father we automatically assume an OT context but it also fits the Old God aspect of the Sun God. So the emphasis by Alma and Amulek is in teaching Zeezrom those things not part of his religion such as the judgement. (We should note that exactly what the mayans thought prior to the Spanish is unclear - some argue they didn't believe in an afterlife while others think they believed you were transported immediately to heaven while others think there was a reincarnation belief. There appears to be a lot of regional variation.)

It's interesting that in contrast to Ammonihah the other cities are described as having temples, sanctuaries and synagogues "built after the manner of the Jews." Whereas the people of Ammonihah are explicitly portrayed as an other religion (see 8:11).

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, Nevo said:

It is exhausting to discuss anything with you. You make all kinds of confident assertions that are problematic in all kinds of ways and I just don't have the time or the patience any more to engage. Suffice it to say that Welch is aware of all the OT and ANE evidence for executions by burning. He discusses it in his book. 

I present my arguments. It's not confidence. In fact I explicitly said many were speculative and I didn't have much confidence in them.. And as to Welch I said I'd not read it and was only going by your quote. I then gave the argument for why I thought differently. I'm not sure what you're asking for. If my argument is wrong I'll readily change it. Heaven knows I make lots of mistakes. But presenting an argument has nothing to do with confidence.

All you've thus said as counter argument is (1) Welch believes differently (2) Welch discussed these elements in his book (3) I'm not interested discussing them. I gather I'm supposed to take Welch as an argument by authority but that seems rather odd - and a fallacy I know Welch wouldn't stand for himself.

Quote

It's your interpretation of Joshua 7 as a story about idolatry that is late and post-exilic, not Welch's—and, no, Achan's execution does not have "all the elements" of a burning at the stake.

No - it's in many commentaries. That's a standard non-Mormon scholarly view although as I explicitly noted at the time it's also far from universally held. The elements of the idolatry as I noted are in Samarian, Rabbinical and DSS sources for reading the chapter. So none of that is just my interpretation. Again I was rather explicit about all this including the weaknesses (to return to  your previous complaint). I try and be clear what is a weak part of an argument. For instance I think I was pretty clear the mayan stuff is somewhat speculative and weak. We know of the big Aztek sacrifices and know the God goes back to preclassical mayan but we can't say the rites are the same due to regional and temporal variation in rites.

Also I didn't say the story was post-exilic. I said the interpretation of the story as idolatry was post-exilic as a way of noting a weakness in the argument. It's explicitly rabbinical and samarian. Those are post-exilic groups. I said many scholars date the text to around the 7th century due to the way Babylon is discussed. I also noted scholars who see it as a composite text.

Quote

But that was not the reason he was put to death. Idolatry has no relevance to the Abinadi narrative or the Alma 14 narrative. It's your interpretation of Joshua 7 as a story about idolatry that is late and post-exilic, not Welch's—and, no, Achan's execution does not have "all the elements" of a burning at the stake. In fact, it has none of them, other than the presence of fire (applied after Achan has been stoned to death.)

There are two issues with Abinadi. (1) Why they want him dead and (2) the charges they make. The charges they make are explicit:

"thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death."

The question is whether this is a false prophecy of the sort Deuteronomy discusses. Again, not having read Welch I can't speak to that. This is hardly an unique interpretation. Just a quick Google found quite a few papers arguing the exact same thing with Abinadi. So I'm hardly arguing anything unique here. 

David Warby "The Book of Mormon Sheds Valuable Light on the Ancient Israelite Law of False Prophecy" "It was not until Abinadi stepped into the role of an instructor in the law that the king felt he could execute Abinadi for being a false prophet, or for being "mad." This clearly indicates that at least this ancient court based on Hebrew law, corrupt as it was, applied the doctrinal test of a false prophet" "If the priests felt that God's coming to Earth was too preposterous to ever happen, this final charge may have been one of false prophecy, based on prophetic utterance rather than doctrine. However, using the same reasoning, the second charge may just as well have been one of blasphemy."

Book of Mormon Central "Why Would Noah’s Priests Quiz Abinadi on Isaiah?" "Noah’s priests were not just quizzing Abinadi on his scriptural knowledge; they were looking for a legal cause of action “wherewith to accuse” Abinadi. False prophecy being a capital offense, those found guilty of it were worthy of death (Deuteronomy 18:20–22)."

I'm sure I could find more but it's midnight and I'm going to bed. Welch's book is available online so I'll check it out tomorrow.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I’ve been doing some reading in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. And the more I read, the more similarities I see. For example, many of the accused heretics are “rogue” preachers. Many of them quote the scriptures at their trials and turn the tables on their accusers proclaiming they are the ones not following scripture. Many are interrogated several times while they are imprisoned. Many have converts who are then, in turn, accused of heresy. Many use similar last words to “O God, receive my soul” (Mosiah 17:19). Of course this makes sense in Europe given Christ’s last word, but Abinadi died before Christ. My list of similarities is over a dozen now. You can look at any single similarity and try to explain it away. But it’s the convergence of similarities that make it remarkable. These scenes from the Book of Mormon come right out of 16th Century Europe. Seriously. Take an hour or two or more to read some of the accounts in the aforementioned Book of Martyrs. If you still can’t see it I don’t know what else I can say. 

Does the account of Polycarp come from Foxe's Book or Maryrs? If so, I lean towards your argument for 16th century influence. I'll have to find some of the source material for Foxe's writings, but my first reading of the Polycarp martyrdom did sound a lot like the story of Abinadi.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Frankly I have never understood the obsession with history I see in Mormonism and see it more as a handicap than anything.  Would it matter if Kant's philosophy came from France instead of Germany or if Buddhism was orignally Polish?  It is the IDEAS which give our lives meaning, not where they came from or even who wrote them

For those parts of course not. The emphasis on history is partially due to the genealogical command IMO but more primarily due to acts that don't make sense in fiction like promises. I don't know what you think of Searle's speech act theory although it's clearly indebted to Wittgenstein. I have my problems with it myself but think it does OK as a first order approximation of things. The idea would thus be acts like promising or ordering. Those don't work in fictions. 

So if two actors marry each other on stage by an actor portraying a justice of the peace they aren't really married. What those who emphasize history are saying is that there's something similar going on in the Book of Mormon. To put it an other way, the judges of the language game see authority as very different in fiction.

While there are ways to deal with that, they do quickly raise lots of issues. Put an other way, how one interprets the text varies very widely between those who see it as fiction and those who see it as loosely historical even if we can find many passages where they might agree.

[JarMan]

39 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Does the account of Polycarp come from Foxe's Book or Maryrs? If so, I lean towards your argument for 16th century influence. I'll have to find some of the source material for Foxe's writings, but my first reading of the Polycarp martyrdom did sound a lot like the story of Abinadi.

I think the Polycarp example has some clear similarities. It certainly is closer than anything from the OT or Mesoamerica. One of the aspects of the medieval practice that I think is important, though, is how widely it was used and, therefore, how despised it became. It’s the precise thing a person from that period would rail against. Based on a single example from the first Century I’m doubtful we could say the same thing.

[Nevo]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I present my arguments. It's not confidence. In fact I explicitly said many were speculative and I didn't have much confidence in them.. And as to Welch I said I'd not read it and was only going by your quote. I then gave the argument for why I thought differently. I'm not sure what you're asking for. If my argument is wrong I'll readily change it. Heaven knows I make lots of mistakes. But presenting an argument has nothing to do with confidence.

What I take issue with is making unsubstantiated and/or baldly incorrect claims and then, when challenged, pretending that you either didn't say it or that I've misread you.

Here are a few recent examples of what I mean:

• "All the elements [of 16/17th-century European burnings for heresy] are in preclassical Mesoamerica"
• "That's a standard non-Mormon scholarly view [that Achan's crime was stealing an idol]"
• "All the elements you mention here [re: burning at the stake] are there [in Joshua 7]"

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

For those parts of course not. The emphasis on history is partially due to the genealogical command IMO but more primarily due to acts that don't make sense in fiction like promises. I don't know what you think of Searle's speech act theory although it's clearly indebted to Wittgenstein. I have my problems with it myself but think it does OK as a first order approximation of things. The idea would thus be acts like promising or ordering. Those don't work in fictions. 

So if two actors marry each other on stage by an actor portraying a justice of the peace they aren't really married. What those who emphasize history are saying is that there's something similar going on in the Book of Mormon. To put it an other way, the judges of the language game see authority as very different in fiction.

While there are ways to deal with that, they do quickly raise lots of issues. Put an other way, how one interprets the text varies very widely between those who see it as fiction and those who see it as loosely historical even if we can find many passages where they might agree.

Nah I don't see that as a good analogy at all.

No one is saying the BOM is fiction any more than the theory of relativity is fiction!

Both are simply the best models available to fill their purposes- the "measure of their creation" if you will!!   Same standard for humanity- fill the measure of your creation and have joy therein ! 

Suppose you went to a real justice of the peace and got married and he forgot to send in the license thingy to tell the govt. you were married, and yet you believed you were "really married" and discovered the mistake 30 years later?  Would you be married or not?  I actually almost did that once as a bishop, found the license two weeks after the event.  

Were those people fornicating for two weeks until the govt. got the certificate?   They were not "legally and lawfully wedded" 

Do they now have to repent of fornication?   Absurd!

Again it is always a distinction without a difference.  Now suppose you went to a fake justice of the peace you thought was genuine?  Would you be married?   Is there a difference between the real JOP and the fake in these two scenarios?  

You celebrated, announced to all your friends that you were married, had kids, filed income tax jointly and "acted as if" you were married and believed you were for all those years- and now you would really tell those folks that they never were married?

Obviously on stage we know it is a "play" and that is what it is called.

"What really happened" is based on the way we act and believe "what really happened" in 99.99 % of the cases and any others are just special pleadings dreamed up for the argument, and so they become semantic issues

"Yes they were because...."

"No they were not because..."

It's nonsense!   Give it the "reasonable man" test or take it to a judge- it is in that category of unknowable semantic messes.  And what would be the resolution? Cultural standards- what a "reasonable man" would believe.  

There are no objective tests for what is "reasonable" and that is precisely why philosophers today talk about "justification" rather than "TRVTH".

Those folks are perfectly justified in the belief that they were married as any judge or jury would agree- in other words, by a community of peers setting and establishing "the facts" of what is true or false.

Juries CREATE "facts" every day as a model of what goes on in the establishment of justified beliefs continually, and the same thing happens in science and in everything we do.  And yes sometimes we have to say "oops" and change the paradigm to another formulation which is still a paradigm of contextual agreement that works better.

No other definition of truth has worked as well- by the same standard- for 2000 years of western thought.  This is much like the whole dualism of the west yet again in the essence/appearance distinction - they "appear" to be married but in "essence" are not.

Poof.  Pragmatism says such distinctions are often distinctions without a difference and I agree.

But it could change- who knows? 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

38 minutes ago, Nevo said:

What I take issue with is making unsubstantiated and/or baldly incorrect claims and then, when challenged, pretending that you either didn't say it or that I've misread you.

Here are a few recent examples of what I mean:

• "All the elements [of 16/17th-century European burnings for heresy] are in preclassical Mesoamerica"
• "That's a standard non-Mormon scholarly view [that Achan's crime was stealing an idol]"
• "All the elements you mention here [re: burning at the stake] are there [in Joshua 7]"

1. I was talking about if there were Nephites in preclassical mesoamerica not the claim that extant mesoamerican texts say such a thing. i.e. a combination of the Nephite law and surrounding practices. I then made that claim more explicit and you continued to interpret it the way you are above (which requires that significant insertion between the brackets I'd note. I'll concede that the original sentence wasn't as clear as I'd have liked, but since I quickly clarified I'm not sure the problem. I'd simply note that the paragraph you quote from here explicitly talks about the Old Testament so there were good reasons even there not to think I was talking only mesoamerican texts. Further I then was very careful when drawing those out to note where the evidence is strong or weak.

2. What I said there is true. Among scholars one of the standard views is idolatry. Even a quick Google will demonstrate that. But to say it's "a standard non-Mormon scholarly view" is not to say it's the only view. And indeed I was careful to qualify that by noting the reasons for that view hinge on post-exilic sources. i.e. I was going out of my way to point out the potential problems.

3. Please note the antecedant to "mention here" is the quoted sentences. Quoting those again:

Quote

Abinadi is clearly being burned at the stake. He’s bound (Mosiah 17:13), apparently standing upright (verse 20), being burned with the assistance of a bundle of sticks (verse 13), and able to give some last words as he’s being burned (verses 14-20). Do you really need the word “stake” to know he’s being burned at the stake?

The standing up is an inference from fell, but isn't clear. It seems fair to say that the same reasoning can be used for Achon. But I'll grant you that one's not as straightforward. Burning needs sticks so that is present. Achan recants (7:20) No stake is mentioned.

The point was that those parallels aren't nearly as significant when you stop to think about it. Someone can fall without being tied to a pole (and indeed that makes it harder to fall). 

So I confess that I'm a bit mystified with your comments.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Nah I don't see that as a good analogy at all.

Don't have time to answer now. I'll probably start up a separate thread later. But I didn't mean it as an analogy at all but an actual issue.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Don't have time to answer now. I'll probably start up a separate thread later. But I didn't mean it as an analogy at all but an actual issue.

Disagree.

No need to start a thread to say one word. 

 

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good question but a little complicated in genuine philosophese.

But that is gonna make me post that dratted Rorty video again that everyone hates but no one actually listens to. 

About all we can say about "truth" is that it is a belief which is "justified" within a group or audience which gives it a context and for whom the beliefs function for the purpose intended.

E=mc2 is a justified belief for scientists and physicists who use it to do.... physics stuff  because when they use it, it gives good and predictable results in their physics stuff. 

And because it is a "justified" belief it is called "true" until another belief comes along (a paradigm shift) which works better to give good results on physics stuff.

A religious belief is justified for a religious group when the belief gives a context for the purpose intended.  Belief in The Plan of Salvation for example, gives a religious group an understanding of their place in the universe, as well as a code of conduct and a set of beliefs which give their lives purpose and meaning, which is the purpose of the belief

"Truth" as an abstract is impossible to define.  2000 years of Western Philosophers have not been able to define it in a way which is generally accepted- there have been various theories how to define it, but ultimately there are always major problems in defining it

So that is the best we can do as a defniton upon which many can agree.  It's not perfect but it is the one which works the best and upon which most can agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

So if a belief about God or why we are here gives a group meaning, we can conclude that the belief is justified if it fills its purpose for a given group,

I personally feel that Mormon beliefs are the "best" because I think frankly that since our Ideal is the Perfect Human, if it were seen that way, it would be the Ideal view for ALL humans and thus the "best justified" of all beliefs about the purpose of humanity.  Isn't the highest value of humanity to be the Ideal Human?   Sounds like the Man (and therefore the Woman)  of Holiness to me!!

Thank you for taking the time to write all this down for me.  I appreciate your insight to not only what you believe..but what you feel you need.  Much respect!

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

1. I was talking about if there were Nephites in preclassical mesoamerica not the claim that extant mesoamerican texts say such a thing. i.e. a combination of the Nephite law and surrounding practices.

Okay, that actually does clarify things for me. So by asserting that "all the elements are in preclassical mesoamerica" you just meant that hypothetical "Nephite law" and hypothetical "surrounding practices" could also account for the convergent details of the Book of Mormon and Early Modern European executions by burning, even though nothing in extant Mesoamerican texts supports that view.

Quote

2. What I said there is true. Among scholars one of the standard views is idolatry. Even a quick Google will demonstrate that.

I haven't been able to identify a single scholar that claims that Achan stole an idol or practiced idolatry. Where are you getting that from? I've consulted five study bibles, four bible dictionaries, and a number of commentaries and none of them mention it.

Quote

3. Please note the antecedant to "mention here" is the quoted sentences. Quoting those again: "Abinadi is clearly being burned at the stake. He’s bound (Mosiah 17:13), apparently standing upright (verse 20), being burned with the assistance of a bundle of sticks (verse 13), and able to give some last words as he’s being burned (verses 14-20)."

Right. Here is the account of Achan's death in Joshua 7:

24 Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan son of Zerah, with the silver, the mantle, and the bar of gold, with his sons and daughters, with his oxen, donkeys, and sheep, and his tent and all that he had; and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. 25 Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord is bringing trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him to death; they burned them with fire, cast stones on them, 26 and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day.

Please note that nowhere in those verses does it say that Achan was 1) bound, 2) upright when being burned, 3) burned using bundled sticks, or 4) speaking as he burned. So it's completely untrue to say that "all the elements" are in Joshua 7. In fact, none of them are.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Nevo

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Okay, that actually does clarify things for me. So by asserting that "all the elements are in preclassical mesoamerica" you just meant that hypothetical "Nephite law" and hypothetical "surrounding practices" could also account for the convergent details of the Book of Mormon and Early Modern European executions by burning, even though nothing in extant Mesoamerican texts supports that view.

Yes exactly. I went through your posts and my posts today to try and figure out why we're talking past one an other and I suspect you think I'm comparing the liklihood of say Abinadi coming from Fox's Book of Martyrs with it being in mesoamerica given current public information. But that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm not contrasting the skeptical view with the believer's view in terms of public knowledge. Rather I'm contrasting JarMan's model given his presuppositions with the Mormon model given their presuppositions. So if that wasn't clear I really apologize. Also I'm not denying his parallels of which a few are clearly there. Rather I'm denying or in a few cases questioning their significance.

I'd add that for JarMan the real problem isn't the Mormon model contrasted with his but the 19th century model contrasted with his. There certainly are problems with the 19th century model such as the weirdness of 15th century language. JarMan's model explains that better but then has other things it doesn't explain as well. For most of his other parallels though someone like Dan Vogel could simply say some are coincidences or the relevant texts were known in 1830's America.

But I don't think the Book of Mormon in terms of public evidence is believable at all. I just think there's non-public evidence which changes the calculus.

52 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I haven't been able to identify a single scholar that claims that Achan stole an idol or practiced idolatry. Where are you getting that from? I've consulted five study bibles, four bible dictionaries, and a number of commentaries and none of them mention it.

Right. Here is the account of Achan's death in Joshua 7:

24 Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan son of Zerah, with the silver, the mantle, and the bar of gold, with his sons and daughters, with his oxen, donkeys, and sheep, and his tent and all that he had; and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. 25 Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord is bringing trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him to death; they burned them with fire, cast stones on them, 26 and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day.

Please note that nowhere in those verses does it say that Achan was 1) bound, 2) upright when being burned, 3) burned using bundled sticks, or 4) speaking as he burned. So it's completely untrue to say that "all the elements" are in Joshua 7. In fact, none of them are.

Again, it's an oral tradition that's post-exilic and gets codified by the rabbis, samarians and DDS. See: The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations, and Commentary I'll try to get some commentaries and papers from journals together after valentines. I'll probably be incommunicado for a day or so though.

Also, if we're looking at the 19th century model, this was a common view in the early 19th century. Andrew Fuller teaches it for instance in many of his books such as this one from 1825. Now to be fair many, including contemporary people using the text for devotional purposes will often make the sneaky move of equating covetousness with idolatry.  But that's not what I mean.

To your other point later - but the short answer is that I was critiquing the standing as necessarily true. That's a fair reading but not the only reading given the possible mesoamerican context I mentioned. (Bodies were lain for burning and then fall down the temple steps) My point about sticks is fire requires sticks, so again it was an inference. (I brought this up originally) The bundled stick isn't in the text unless you are assuming "faggots" means that. However faggot also means the amount of sticks and not necessarily that they were bound with string.

More later including a discussion of Welch once I read that.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

I’ve been doing some reading in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. And the more I read, the more similarities I see. For example, many of the accused heretics are “rogue” preachers. Many of them quote the scriptures at their trials and turn the tables on their accusers proclaiming they are the ones not following scripture. Many are interrogated several times while they are imprisoned. Many have converts who are then, in turn, accused of heresy. Many use similar last words to “O God, receive my soul” (Mosiah 17:19). Of course this makes sense in Europe given Christ’s last word, but Abinadi died before Christ. My list of similarities is over a dozen now. You can look at any single similarity and try to explain it away. But it’s the convergence of similarities that make it remarkable. These scenes from the Book of Mormon come right out of 16th Century Europe. Seriously. Take an hour or two or more to read some of the accounts in the aforementioned Book of Martyrs. If you still can’t see it I don’t know what else I can say. 

Does the accounts from the Book of Martyrs include torture using flaming sticks or bundles of sticks or are they just heaped at the feet of the victim and lit off?