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

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon has burning at the stake for heresy. That's not found in the Old Testament but is almost exclusively found in medieval Eurasia.

What in the world makes you think King Noah and his henchman, whom the Book of Mormon describes as heretical apostates who perverted the right way of the Lord, would be sticklers to administer the death-by-fire provisions of the law of Moses only as prescribed in the scriptures? On this one point alone your suggestion completely falls apart. I find it interesting you are willing to entertain the incredibly remote possibility that the Book of Mormon was written by a 16th century Dutchman (REALLY?) but reject out of hand the idea that some Old Testament era apostates could pervert the prescriptions of the law of Moses to serve their own wicked ends. This reminds me of the Savior’s warning concerning those who “strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.”

Edited February 12, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Atheist Mormon]

On 10/10/2017 at 1:37 PM, JarMan said:

Maybe I'm just cherry-picking here... or maybe these are mere coincidences... but it seems like the heretic-burning episodes I've referenced in the Book of Mormon make a lot of sense from a 16th Century European perspective.

I think you have more than enough evidence to make up your mind......

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

Deleted

Edited February 12, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

 However, even in spite of this, I think the specific details regarding burning of heretics in the Book of Mormon is best explained by a knowledge of the medieval practice.

Show me where these victims were being punished as "heretics."  Heretic has a specific meaning, and I am not sure it can be applied here, so help me out.

See Alma 14 [2] But the more part of them were desirous that they might destroy Alma and Amulek; for they were angry with Alma, because of the plainness of his words unto Zeezrom; and they also said that Amulek had lied unto them, and had reviled against their law and also against their lawyers and judges.

No mention of heresy here.  This was a civil offense, not religious, so this whole argument falls apart.

Edited February 12, 2018 by cdowis

[Atheist Mormon]

On 10/11/2017 at 8:21 AM, churchistrue said:

  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/king-james-bible-language-in-the-book-of-mormon/

Your conclusion at the end you state "I don't believe BoM is historical". Then how can you believe it is true?

[JarMan]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But words can be defined in a number of different ways. Book of Mormon Central uses same words as evidence that the account matches practices found in Mesoamerica. So the account of the burning of Abinadi doesn't help us much in pinpointing a time and place.
 

 

I find Skousen's explanation much more convincing. Let's pretend the roles were switched here for a second. Let's pretend Mormon scholars have discovered the practice of burning at the stake in mesoamerica at precisely the expected location and time. Further they've found evidence that the typical crime punishable by burning at the stake was the same one Abinadi had supposedly committed. And then let's pretend that they had found several other similarities such as the burning of books, mass burnings, and other practices. This would be trumpeted as the greatest evidence yet supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Then let's pretend I came along and said I had found a practice of beating people with a flaming stick. But the practice occurred 1,500 years earlier and in a different culture than the one I was proposing for the source of the Book of Mormon and yet I pointed to that practice as evidence that my model for the Book of Mormon was correct. I would rightly be laughed off the internet.

[USU78]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

Burning at the stake is not the same as being cast into a furnace. Nor is disobedience to the king or the failure to worship his gods the same thing as heresy.

Coupla thoughts [submitted on the off chance that a modicum of good faith is in play here]:

1.  When kings were g-ds, there was no difference between failure properly to believe and worship on the one hand and obedience to the king on the other.

2.  I doubt the person being burned or the audience being entertained would care much about whether one is burned inside an enclosure or in the public square while tied to a stake.  In any case, it has already been posted that the Brass Plates [likely] had plenty of stuff in it to help Noah/His Priests craft an appropriate remedy for lawlessness and insufficient piety and insufficient obedience.

[USU78]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon mentions execution by furnace in 3Nephi 28:21, 4Nephi 1:32, and Mormon 8:24. None of these references seems to be dealing with execution of heretics. Now compare Abinadi's execution and the execution of many others in Alma 14. These are burnings at the stake and are done for the punishment of heresy. Now also consider that the Book of Mormon heretic burnings have several other elements that are found in medieval Europe: 1) they burned heretical books with the heretics; 2) they held mass burnings of many people at one large event; 3) they made prominent people witness other people burning in hopes of forcing a recantation; 4) heretics were given two chances to recant before being burned.

Now let's see if Occam's Razor cuts both ways when it comes to the issue of heretic burning in the Book of Mormon. I am arguing that this practice exists in the Book of Mormon because it was influenced by historical events that happened near the time of its production (the 17th Century). Presumably you are arguing that it was developed independently by the Lehites with no prior exposure to the practice. How do you explain that this practice described in the Book of Mormon is identical to the medieval European practice but is found nowhere else in world history, least of all in a culture that would have influenced the Lehites?

I know it's just Wiki, but this is hardly the Old Bailey:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning

Just a few snippets:

1800 BCE Code of Hammurabi prescribes burning for looters of burning buildings, priestesses who start hanging out in bars, and Oedipal relations.

Ancient Egypt prescribes it for insurrectionists [probably the legal fiction employed by Noah], adultresses, and parricides.

Ancient Assyria Middle Kingdom prescribes it for enemies the King is sufficiently pissed off at, with a provision for unveiled prostitutes that's particularly gruesome.

The Torah prescribes it for 10 separate sexual offenses, including the one allegedly committed by Tamar.

You don't have to go looking elsewhere for sources for the method of execution employed by Noah  ...  there was a lot of it going around the ancient Old World.  What the situation was in the pre-Colombian New World, but since "Folks is folks," I suspect cultures capable of imagining pulling the still-beating heart out of conscious victims' chests as an act of piety would be especially creative with malefactors.  Burning, I imagine, would be a blessing.

[Rajah Manchou]

52 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I find Skousen's explanation much more convincing. Let's pretend the roles were switched here for a second. Let's pretend Mormon scholars have discovered the practice of burning at the stake in mesoamerica at precisely the expected location and time. Further they've found evidence that the typical crime punishable by burning at the stake was the same one Abinadi had supposedly committed. And then let's pretend that they had found several other similarities such as the burning of books, mass burnings, and other practices. This would be trumpeted as the greatest evidence yet supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Then let's pretend I came along and said I had found a practice of beating people with a flaming stick. But the practice occurred 1,500 years earlier and in a different culture than the one I was proposing for the source of the Book of Mormon and yet I pointed to that practice as evidence that my model for the Book of Mormon was correct. I would rightly be laughed off the internet.

Reading Skousen's explanation helps. If Cowdery was spelling scourged as skorged all the time, I can see how scorched could have made it into the Printer's Manuscript. But regardless of whether or not Abanadi was scorched or scourged by a bundle of sticks, his being bound and subsequent death by fire still does not sound exclusively 16th century to me. To get that we'd need a stake. Otherwise, its just a fire (bundle of sticks set alight) with a heretic placed in it. There must be hundreds of thousands of examples of people being bound and set on fire in human history. 

Let me put this here again: 

"Polycarp has confessed to be a Christian." Upon hearing the confession, the multitude began to demand his death by crying out in fury to let the lions loose. But the magistrate said: "Let him be burned." The people immediately began to gather up wood and anything else that would burn and piled it up at the feet of Polycarp. As the guards were about to nail him to the stake, he said: "Leave me as I am. He who gives me strength to bear the fire will hold me to the pile." Therefore, they did not fasten him with nails but simply used a rope to tie his hands behind his back. As he was about to be offered as a burnt offering to his Lord and Saviour, Polycarp looked up to heaven and began to pray"

That sounds quite similar to the account of Abinadi. It also has most of the elements you listed as being uniquely medieval European. We even have a stake. But I wouldn't think this proof that the Book of Mormon was written by a Roman scribe in the 1st century.

[cdowis]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

Interesting find. Still I think it supports my assertion that the burning of heretics would likely not have been known by the Lehites. And it in no way lessens the idea that it was well known in 17th Century Europe.

You have yet demonstrated burning of any heretics in the Book of Mormon.

Specific verses and references, pleeze.

Mos 12

[3] And it shall come to pass that the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace; for he shall know that I am the Lord.
[4] And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I will cause that they shall howl all the day long

7] And they shall be smitten with a great pestilence -- and all this will I do because of their iniquities and abominations.

[9] And it came to pass that they were angry with him; and they took him and carried him bound before the king, and said unto the king: Behold, we have brought a man before thee who has prophesied evil concerning thy people, and saith that God will destroy them.

[10] And he also prophesieth evil concerning thy life, and saith that thy life shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire.

[11] And again, he saith that thou shalt be as a stalk, even as a dry stalk of the field, which is run over by the beasts and trodden under foot.

[12] And again, he saith thou shalt be as the blossoms of a thistle, which, when it is fully ripe, if the wind bloweth, it is driven forth upon the face of the land. And he pretendeth the Lord hath spoken it. And he saith all this shall come upon thee except thou repent, and this because of thine iniquities.

[13] And now, O king, what great evil hast thou done, or what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man?

[14] And now, O king, behold, we are guiltless, and thou, O king, hast not sinned; therefore, this man has lied concerning you, and he has prophesied in vain.

[15] And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

1,500 years earlier and in a different culture than the one I was proposing ... and yet I pointed to that practice as evidence that my model for the Book of Mormon was correct. I would rightly be laughed off the internet.

Believe me, I feel your pain. Just look at the link in my signature below for a good laugh.

But it comes with the territory. If its not the American continent between 600 BC and 420 AD, then its not going to be an easy ride.

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

Interesting find. Still I think it supports my assertion that the burning of heretics would likely not have been known by the Lehites. And it in no way lessens the idea that it was well known in 17th Century Europe.

Burning of enemies in human sacrifice was fairly common in mesoamerica which is where many see the text as taking place. The burning of victims typically was to Huehueteotl during the Aztec period but almost certainly was around during the preclassic era. Huehueteotl is one of the older gods of the region. For extra fun the victims were usually then eaten.

If the group were syncretistic in their religion in some fashion, then this isn't unexpected. Even if they were less syncretistic than we suspect, burning by fire would be an obvious innovation to bring over. 

In any case the idea that death by burning was alien to the ANE seems wrong. This was also the case for sacrilege (Josh 7:15, 25) where Achan was first burned alive and then stoned for having stolen sacred items. In Egyptian examples there are people burned for theological crimes. 

Even outside of those Samson's wife was threatened with burning. So this is a well known thing.  

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Please explain if you were going to burn someone as punishment, what would be the most likely way to make it last a bit enough to be torture (so no knocking them out or having them lie down on the wood as clothing and hair ignite quickly and lead to a short death scene), but make it so they can't just run out of the flames because the rest of you have to stand a way back because of the heat.

The other consideration is- where does one get an oven big enough to put a person in?  How long does it take to get it hot enough?

The other technique is get a stake, start a fire.  Quick and easy and highly portable and just as painful.

I mean if you are allegedly used to burning people to death, who would NOT the idea to just make a fire and throwing them in instead of waiting for the potter or local pizza maker  to wait for his precious kiln to cool down enough to not burn the folks throwing the captive in there? And then what about the clean up??    You want to get THAT into your pots or bread?   "Mommy- why does my bread taste like burnt pork?" 

It's hardly a major step forward in torture technology requiring a new paradigm for simplicity in torture.     It's like "Duh,  Bartolomeo, just throw him in the fire!   We don't need no stinkin' oven!"

Quck easy and painless at least for the torturers and besides the audience gets to see all the action with all its fear power to help enforce compliance.  You get all the sizzle!  

Give me a stack of wood and a torch anyday!!  Job done! 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JarMan]

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.

These are some very specific and remarkable parallels. A defender of the traditional Book of Mormon model would be doing a victory lap had he found a similar convergence of ideas in mesoamerica in the correct location and at the correct time.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Your conclusion at the end you state "I don't believe BoM is historical". Then how can you believe it is true?

It could teach you true principles as for example the parables of Jesus do.  We should be prepared for emergencies (The Ten Virgins) we should welcome home repentant children (The Prodigal Son), invest wisely (Parable of the talents) etc.

Many here, including me, do not think that the historical events need to have actually happened to see the BOM as a series of parables teaching true morality etc, therefore making the book "true" regardless of its historicity.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes 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.

These are some very specific and remarkable parallels. A defender of the traditional Book of Mormon model would be doing a victory lap had he found a similar convergence of ideas in mesoamerica in the correct location and at the correct time.

To me this simply points to the universality of themes in the Book of Mormon.

If it is "true" in teaching true parables, regardless of whether or not they "really happened", (which to me is an unnecessary effort and irrelevant its ability to teach us the principles) then it is all we could want from any volume we take to be "scripture".   If it happened it teaches true principles.  If it never happened it still teaches true principles!!

To learn the principles, some need to think they "actually happened" but for me the principles have changed my life.   We don't question that the parables of Jesus did NOT "actually happen" and yet virtually all he taught were in parables.  From that perspective even biblical historicity is irrelevant to the "truth" of the parables

If for Jesus Himself parables were good enough to teach about The Kingdom Of God which is "within" why would we care about proving historicity at all?  Or even think about the book's provenance? 

I don't get it and never have.   From day one to me the "Book of Mormon is true" has meant that it teaches true principles just as precisely as the fact that Jesus' parables and the New Testament teach "true principles"

I just do not get it, any other way, period.

All we have to get through life are beliefs and values and rules all calculated to make us happy.   We can be physicists or poets, technicians or preachers- all any of us have is beliefs and what actually works to make this life livable and happy.

Why we worry about anything but the parables that work is totally beyond my understanding.  All this effort!   For what?

Sorry.  But there are many others- in fact whole schools of philosophy which agree with this.  It is not like I am the only one! 

"What really happened" usually does NOT teach us true principles of happiness and yet we ignore the history of abominations of wars and violence in teaching ethics and morality.   The fact that the holocaust happened does not teach us morality. The crusades and Napoleonic Wars nor the history of World War l or two teach us anything about morality except what to avoid.  But we already know to condemn murder and abominable violence just as human beings.

Why then would we think that the history of GOOD deeds WOULD teach us morality and ethics?   If we ignore history for counter-examples to what we teach why would we demand verification from the same sources??  If history does not teach us to be bad, why do we think history will teach us to be good??

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.  It is "a mass of confusion", and I am old enough to remember and learn from those words!

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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

Maybe yes, maybe no, but what is the difference in anybody's life?

At worst they are "just parables".  Can any parables be "frauds"?   What does that even mean?

Edited February 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If the "Prodigal Son" really happened is it a "fraud"?

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Maybe yes, maybe no, but what is the difference in anybody's life?

At worst they are "just parables".  Can any parables be "frauds"?   What does that even mean?

I like your take and understand what you are saying..it may be true..it may be a fraud...but if we don't know...don't say it is true!!

[JarMan]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To me this simply points to the universality of themes in the Book of Mormon.

If it is "true" in teaching true parables, regardless of whether or not they "really happened", (which to me is an unnecessary effort and irrelevant its ability to teach us the principles) then it is all we could want from any volume we take to be "scripture".   If it happened it teaches true principles.  If it never happened it still teaches true principles!!

To learn the principles, some need to think they "actually happened" but for me the principles have changed my life.   We don't question that the parables of Jesus did NOT "actually happen" and yet virtually all he taught were in parables.  From that perspective even biblical historicity is irrelevant to the "truth" of the parables

If for Jesus Himself parables were good enough to teach about The Kingdom Of God which is "within" why would we care about proving historicity at all?  Or even think about the book's provenance? 

I don't get it and never have.   From day one to me the "Book of Mormon is true" has meant that it teaches true principles just as precisely as the fact that Jesus' parables and the New Testament teach "true principles"

I just do not get it, any other way, period.

All we have to get through life are beliefs and values and rules all calculated to make us happy.   We can be physicists or poets, technicians or preachers- all any of us have is beliefs and what actually works to make this life livable and happy.

Why we worry about anything but the parables that work is totally beyond my understanding.  All this effort!   For what?

Sorry.  But there are many others- in fact whole schools of philosophy which agree with this.  It is not like I am the only one! 

"What really happened" usually does NOT teach us true principles of happiness and yet we ignore the history of abominations of wars and violence in teaching ethics and morality.   The fact that the holocaust happened does not teach us morality. The crusades and Napoleonic Wars nor the history of World War l or two teach us anything about morality except what to avoid.  But we already know to condemn murder and abominable violence just as human beings.

Why then would we think that the history of GOOD deeds WOULD teach us morality and ethics?   If we ignore history for counter-examples to what we teach why would we demand verification from the same sources??  If history does not teach us to be bad, why do we think history will teach us to be good??

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.  It is "a mass of confusion", and I am old enough to remember and learn from those words!

 

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

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Show me where these victims were being punished as "heretics."  Heretic has a specific meaning, and I am not sure it can be applied here, so help me out.

See Alma 14 [2] But the more part of them were desirous that they might destroy Alma and Amulek; for they were angry with Alma, because of the plainness of his words unto Zeezrom; and they also said that Amulek had lied unto them, and had reviled against their law and also against their lawyers and judges.

No mention of heresy here.  This was a civil offense, not religious, so this whole argument falls apart.

You are thrusting a modern understanding of the relationship of church/state onto the text where it is not warranted. Reviling against the law among the Nephites can be heretical since the religious law is bound up with the civil law. Alma and Amulek's message was religious in nature anyway. It's not like they were preaching democratic elections or reforming the tax code. And it's clear from the context that the people took issue with the religious message that was being preached. (Except for those who listened, searched the scriptures, and were converted.) In other words, they taught a religious doctrine that was not considered orthodox to the people of Ammonihah. . . that's what heresy essentially is.

Even though the context makes it clear, you just need to go to Alma 14:5 to see that they were being punished as heretics:

Quote

And the people went forth and witnessed against them—testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; and also testified that there was but one God, and that he should send his Son among the people, but he should not save them; and many such things did the people testify against Alma and Amulek. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land.

This same reasoning also applies to Abinadi. He taught an unorthodox version of the gospel and was burned at the stake for it. Here's the applicable verses in Mosiah 17:

Quote

6 And after three days, having counseled with his priests, he caused that he should again be brought before him.

7 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.

8 For 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 unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

As with Alma and Amulek, the context makes it obvious what Abinadi was being accused of since it was a spiritual message that was being taught that was at odds with the people's understanding of the scriptures.

[cdowis]

del

Edited February 12, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

22 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Even though the context makes it clear, you just need to go to Alma 14:5 to see that they were being punished as heretics:

This same reasoning also applies to Abinadi. He taught an unorthodox version of the gospel and was burned at the stake for it. Here's the applicable verses in Mosiah 17:

As with Alma and Amulek, the context makes it obvious what Abinadi was being accused of since it was a spiritual message that was being taught that was at odds with the people's understanding of the scriptures.

 In each case, if you read carefully, it is not the false doctrine for which they are being punished;

For 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 UNLESS thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

Mosiah 11 

[28] I command you to bring Abinadi hither, that I may slay him, for he has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people; therefore I will slay him.

Mosiah 12 

[9] And it came to pass that they were angry with him; and they took him and carried him bound before the king, and said unto the king: Behold, we have brought a man before thee who has prophesied evil concerning thy people, and saith that God will destroy them.

[10] And he also prophesieth evil concerning thy life, and saith that thy life shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire.

He is not being punished for the "false god" but his threats against the king personally and the people in general.  The king did not demand to take back the words on the false god, but the contentious threat.

See my post on Alma 14.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by cdowis

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It could teach you true principles as for example the parables of Jesus do.  We should be prepared for emergencies (The Ten Virgins) we should welcome home repentant children (The Prodigal Son), invest wisely (Parable of the talents) etc.

Many here, including me, do not think that the historical events need to have actually happened to see the BOM as a series of parables teaching true morality etc, therefore making the book "true" regardless of its historicity.

There are some stories......(tons of them) too much to swallow...... Personally I didn't have much respect for those neolithic tribesmen....On top of that finding something holy, sacred too much work...

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

 In each case, if you read carefully, it is not the false doctrine for which they are being punished;

For 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 UNLESS thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

Mosiah 11 

[28] I command you to bring Abinadi hither, that I may slay him, for he has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people; therefore I will slay him.

Mosiah 12 

[9] And it came to pass that they were angry with him; and they took him and carried him bound before the king, and said unto the king: Behold, we have brought a man before thee who has prophesied evil concerning thy people, and saith that God will destroy them.

[10] And he also prophesieth evil concerning thy life, and saith that thy life shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire.

He is not being punished for the "false god" but his threats against the king personally and the people in general.  The king did not demand to take back the words on the false god, but the contentious threat.

See my post on Alma 14.

 

 

Go read the many accounts of the trials of people burned at the stake. In many intances there is a combination of alleged offenses combining crimes against the state and against the church. In medieval Europe there is not a clear distinction between secular and religious authorities so the accusations seem inappropriately mixed together from our modern perspective. Nephite governments also lack this same distinction between church and state. This blending of religious/secular accusations among the Nephites is precisely what we read about in Europe.