Why HAVE the apologists sold out for Central America?

[_Mad Viking]

...the true form of the temple did exist there (Cusco) at one time...The evidence in overwhelming.

What evidence?

[_harmony]

What, in your opinion, did Adam practice?

Copulation.

*wipes spewed orange juice off computer screen*

Okay, ludwig... that was funny!

[_Henry Jacobs]

They haven't exactly hidden their reasons, which are available in print and on line.

Which is why I'm confounded. The reasons they state to support the mesoamerican theory don't justify their love affair with that location. The stated reasons are often so strained that they don't even constitute "evidence", but rather just point to concepts about where the book may possibly intersect with reality. And they often require a certain, unconventional reading of the text to achieve that possible intersection.

Their stated reasons simply don't resonate with me, when they can't even provide one major geographical landmark like a narrow neck or a sea east or a hill cumorah without re-defining the words narrow, neck, sea, east, hill and cumorah.

Without any of the features upon and around which the culture defined all of their locations and movements for a millenium, I just don't understand the apologists infatuation with the meso theory. Something else has got to be in play here.

[_Scottie]

Not that anybody serious here takes PP seriously

Correction...NOBODY takes PP seriously.

[_beastie]

The fact is that you have studied these things far more than I ever have. Using what you know concerning the Incas, and what you know about the Temple, please give me your review on what was found in Cusco.

I haven’t studied the Incas in particular; I’ve studied Mesoamerica. A few of my books briefly reference them, and I’ve seen several documentaries on the subject. I saw one documentary in particular about Machu Picchu. So what I’m offering is very basic information that I would presume you might already know, if you’re interested in the topic at all.

It is well accepted that one of the primary deities of the Inca was the sun. This is why gold was so important to them - it was symbolic of the sun. The moon and stars represented other deities. The moon represented the sun god’s wife. And, of course, the most well-known feature of the Inca was their ancestor worship, which led to some of their more striking habits.

The documentary about what happened in the temple stated that it was likely designed to provoke shamanistic trances. Their royalty likely ingested hallucinogens and had visions there. This is reminiscent of the ancient Maya.

It is not impossible that the religion of ancient Mesoamerica had some impact on the evolution of the Inca’s religion. The Inca incorporated ideas from other religions into their own. That is not the flaw in your reasoning. The flaw is that if Mesoamerican Judeo-Christianity impacted the Inca, it would have to have been a tremendously powerful, pervasive worldview in order to have that reach. In addition, to argue that one can detect “apostate” Judeo-Christianity in the Inca leads one to ask: why haven’t we been able to detect any form of Judeo-Christianity in Mesoamerica? In other words, the Judeo-Christianity in Mesoamerica could not have been a minor aberration and have such an impact on a culture far separated by distance and time.

I know this was one of Nibley’s bits. Nibley had a habit of picking little details from many cultures and trying to draw parallels that would support the Book of Mormon. I think this has been commented on even by other LDS scholars. The problem is that some of these details are so common or generic, that they are meaningless in terms of creating a connection to another culture. Sorenson has done this as well. One example – water. Water is a common feature in religious imagery and symbolism. So the fact that two disparate cultures produced religions that featured “water” in this way means nothing in terms of a possible connection between the two.

[Tator]

Which is why I'm confounded. The reasons they state to support the mesoamerican theory don't justify their love affair with that location. The stated reasons are often so strained that they don't even constitute "evidence", but rather just point to concepts about where the book may possibly intersect with reality. And they often require a certain, unconventional reading of the text to achieve that possible intersection.

I'm 99% certain that I've told you the real reason they're determined it MUST be Mesoamerica - and no, they don't admit this. They pretend there is an abundance of evidence pointing to Mesoamerica, but the fact that they have to construct such strained examples reveals the truth of the matter.

The people who insist that Mesoamerica IS it, and emphatically attack any other setting suggested by believers are the people who have studied ancient America enough to know that only Mesoamerica had the prerequisite population density to even come close to the society described in the Book of Mormon. Other regions of North and South America had populations, but due to the fact that the populations were not densely concentrated in sites, those populations were not able to construct complex societies with layers of bureaucracy and specialization. In other words, suggesting that the society described in the Book of Mormon took place anywhere else but Mesoamerica is even more laughable than Mesoamerica. It would be the kiss of death for LGT.

[_moksha]

I dunno why anyone would argue about city names without first explaining how Adam practiced Christianity, contrary to every historical assessment we have by reputable scholars. Isn't it a bit like straightening deck chairs on the Titanic?

What, in your opinion, did Adam practice?

I don't think Ray is taking into account speculation to the contrary.

[_Trevor]

One name: Arnold Friberg.

[_Daniel Peterson]

They haven't exactly hidden their reasons, which are available in print and on line.

Which is why I'm confounded. The reasons they state to support the mesoamerican theory don't justify their love affair with that location.

Evidently we disagree on this.

Their stated reasons simply don't resonate with me.

We have different resonances, it seems.

Something else has got to be in play here.

Happy hunting.

[_Scottie]

Beastie, you often site the population and polities of Mesoamerica as one of the biggest factors in the Book of Mormon not being true.

Have the apologists bothered to refute this, and if so, what is their argument?