Quetzalcoatl as the Mormon Jesus

christopher123 · Jun 16, 2005

The wife and I were fussing earlier about LDS teachings on Jesus and Quetzalcoatl. I had certainly heard of Q, and the stories and even where some had tried to say that mormons teach that Q was Jesus. I have felt that was hogwash, and probably just some overzealous apologist with a junior interest in pre-columbian archeology and myths and a desire to tie anything here in the Americas to mormonism. The wife was adament that she was taught this growing up (she was born in Provo) repeatedly.

I did a little digging aroud, and found the following:

"The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanite source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry" (Meditation and Atonement p194)
President John Taylor

I cannot fathom that the church would now support this, even when the former prophet says "we can come to no other conclusion".

One would think or at least hope that a real prophet of God would have a little bit more discernment on an issue directly relating to Jesus. We aren't talking about his opinion on chocolate milk here.

I wonder how President Taylor's views of Quetzalcoatl plays with LGT (limited geography theory) apologists.

Chris <><

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~anthclub/quetzalcoatl/quetzal.htm

CaliforniaKid · Jun 16, 2005

Interesting. The myth that Quetzalcoatl or one of his sons would return to take over the Aztec throne originated in the 900's A.D. when a king by that name was expelled from his kingdom. According to some accounts, he sailed East, leaving prophecy of his return. It certainly oesn't seem to have had anything to do with Christ.

_CK

A New Dawn · Jun 16, 2005

CaliforniaKid said:
Interesting. The myth that Quetzalcoatl or one of his sons would return to take over the Aztec throne originated in the 900's A.D. when a king by that name was expelled from his kingdom. According to some accounts, he sailed East, leaving prophecy of his return. It certainly oesn't seem to have had anything to do with Christ.

_CK

CK, the article that Chris provided places Quetzalcoatl in the pre-Classic period, which extended from 20th century BC - 2nd century AD. So, really, the time frame is not off.

CaliforniaKid · Jun 16, 2005

uh... not according to this part of the website:

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~anthclub/quetzalcoatl/que.htm

It says that Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl was expelled from Tula sometime between 895 and 999 A.D. (see the chart with corresponding Western years). Maybe the god Quetzalcoatl was present in the pre-classical period (a serpent-bird god btw), but the man Quetzalcoatl (from whom the legend of a returning king originated) lived in the 900's A.D. So, really, the time frame is off.

-CK

christopher123 · Jun 16, 2005

CaliforniaKid said:
It says that Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl was expelled from Tula sometime between 895 and 999 A.D. (see the chart with corresponding Western years). Maybe the god Quetzalcoatl was present in the pre-classical period (a serpent-bird god btw), but the man Quetzalcoatl (from whom the legend of a returning king originated) lived in the 900's A.D. So, really, the time frame is off.

-CK

That is very good point when looking at and studying Quetzalcoatl, CK, whether it be from strickly an anthropological or even LDS view. Two Quetzalcoatl's, one man, one god. I would doubt that President Taylor knew of this when he wrote what he did.

Again, one would think that "the prophet" would have a better grasp on Jesus and his various incarnations. I also love his use of the term Lamanite describing the peoples who worshiped Quetzalcoatl. Yet one more problem for the LGT revisionists.

Chris <><

A New Dawn · Jun 16, 2005

christopher123 said:
I wonder how President Taylor's views of Quetzalcoatl plays with LGT (limited geography theory) apologists.

Chris <><

Chris, can you explain what you mean by limited geography theory?

Thanks.

christopher123 · Jun 16, 2005

Jenda said:
Chris, can you explain what you mean by limited geography theory?

Thanks.

This idea is that The Book of Mormon Geographical locations did not occur spread out through various parts of the Americas (say South or Central America, and then on up to New York), but all took place in a small, as yet undiscovered, place.

I think we are hearing more and more of it from the LDS apologists (of course nothing official anymore from the church) because of the failures of the LDS archeology studies (starting with Ferguson), and the very popular DNA testing with the Jewish Indians not working out as Salt Lake has taught for 150 years.

It's really all they have left if they don't want to just be quiet and say "we don't know, but we will take it on faith."

I'm sure you can find an article on FARMS or FAIR about LGT rather easily.

I thought you had commented on this before when discussing the ideas behind the location of Comorah?

Chris <><

A New Dawn · Jun 16, 2005

christopher123 said:
This idea is that The Book of Mormon Geographical locations did not occur spread out through various parts of the Americas (say South or Central America, and then on up to New York), but all took place in a small, as yet undiscovered, place.

I think we are hearing more and more of it from the LDS apologists (of course nothing official anymore from the church) because of the failures of the LDS archeology studies (starting with Ferguson), and the very popular DNA testing with the Jewish Indians not working out as Salt Lake has taught for 150 years.

It's really all they have left if they don't want to just be quiet and say "we don't know, but we will take it on faith."

I'm sure you can find an article on FARMS or FAIR about LGT rather easily.

I thought you had commented on this before when discussing the ideas behind the location of Comorah?

Chris <><

I probably did, but I didn't know there was a name for it. :o

It's a good thing the RLDS don't stick their necks out on issues like this. (Of course, the CoC doesn't stick their necks out on any issue.)

christopher123 · Jun 16, 2005

Here is a map that I had found at one point, that does the best job with book of mormon geography.

Chris <><

Ran77 · Jun 16, 2005

christopher123 said:
The wife and I were fussing earlier about LDS teachings on Jesus and Quetzalcoatl. I had certainly heard of Q, and the stories and even where some had tried to say that mormons teach that Q was Jesus. I have felt that was hogwash, and probably just some overzealous apologist with a junior interest in pre-columbian archeology and myths and a desire to tie anything here in the Americas to mormonism. The wife was adament that she was taught this growing up (she was born in Provo) repeatedly.

Chris,

I have heard the theory that Q is Jesus a couple of times, but not for quite a while. What mention of Q that I have read recently has presented him as a great prophet and not Jesus. The timeframe you mentioned, 900 AD, was included in that material.

My thought is that Taylor made an assumption based on the information he had at the time - and was wrong. Since I haven't heard much about the Q = Jesus topic in a while it may be that most members have included the 900 AD timeframe into their thoughts about the subject. (I.e. they have changed their mind in light of new evidence.)

christopher123 · Jun 16, 2005

Ran77 said:
Chris,

I have heard the theory that Q is Jesus a couple of times, but not for quite a while. What mention of Q that I have read recently has presented him as a great prophet and not Jesus. The timeframe you mentioned, 900 AD, was included in that material.

I never mentioned a timeframe. That was CK and Jenda who did.

Ran77 said:
My thought is that Taylor made an assumption based on the information he had at the time - and was wrong.

And that begs the question, just what do you have a prophet, seer and revelator for? As I said, we aren't talking about an opinion on chocolate milk, but on an incarnation of Jesus. I would expect a little more accuracy from someone claiming to be the only man on earth with all the keys to the kingdom, and the only one authorized to be the Lord's mouthpiece.

Chris <><

A New Dawn · Jun 16, 2005

christopher123 said:
Here is a map that I had found at one point, that does the best job with book of mormon geography.

Chris <><

That was great.

Before even looking closely, I thought, That looks like middle-earth. LOL

Doc T · Jun 16, 2005

Ran77 said:
My thought is that Taylor made an assumption based on the information he had at the time - and was wrong.

Ran, the problem here is that many have a very fundamentalist view of a prophet and that they should be inerrant. Good luck.

Brant Gardner has some good articles on Q. I highly recommend.

Doc

~

MormonFriend · Jun 16, 2005

christopher123 said:
The wife and I were fussing earlier about LDS teachings on Jesus and Quetzalcoatl. I had certainly heard of Q, and the stories and even where some had tried to say that mormons teach that Q was Jesus. I have felt that was hogwash, and probably just some overzealous apologist with a junior interest in pre-columbian archeology and myths and a desire to tie anything here in the Americas to mormonism. The wife was adament that she was taught this growing up (she was born in Provo) repeatedly.

I did a little digging aroud, and found the following:

"The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanite source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry" (Meditation and Atonement p194)
President John Taylor

I cannot fathom that the church would now support this, even when the former prophet says "we can come to no other conclusion".

One would think or at least hope that a real prophet of God would have a little bit more discernment on an issue directly relating to Jesus. We aren't talking about his opinion on chocolate milk here.

I wonder how President Taylor's views of Quetzalcoatl plays with LGT (limited geography theory) apologists.

Chris <><

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~anthclub/quetzalcoatl/quetzal.htm

Look at the flaw of your criticism.

You focus on this part: "indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being." .... and fail to calculate this part: "But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanite source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry"

You are now ridiculing the idea, based on the facts that the same originator of this idea said were impure, disfigured, and perverted. In other words, Pres. Taylor already said that the facts we have today are not going to equate as supporting evidence for the presence of Jesus Christ in the Americas.

I have made this point many moons ago, perhaps time for a recap. The Book of Mormon, by design and purpose, is to be understood by the power of faith. The deeper doctrines contained therin are not understood except by faith. Hence, physical evidence, I believe, is withheld for this purpose. The faith we develop in discovering its divinity is priming the pump to discover and learn the deeper truths.

If God provided absolute physical proof for The Book of Mormon, then we would be compelled to accept and live the principles within, and we wouldn't understand the majority of them without the faith that was removed by the physical evidence. There is reason for the things as they are today. I wish that I could use the words "trust me" on this one, but trust has to be earned.

christopher123 · Jun 16, 2005

Doc T said:
Ran, the problem here is that many have a very fundamentalist view of a prophet and that they should be inerrant. Good luck.

Brant Gardner has some good articles on Q. I highly recommend.

Doc

~

I have completely lost count of how many times I have quoted one of the prophets on an issue, only to be told by Doc or others that we should instead read what the apologists have to say.

Chris <><

christopher123 · Jun 16, 2005

MormonFriend said:
Look at the flaw of your criticism.
You focus on this part: "indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being." .... and fail to calculate this part: "But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanite source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry"

No, I'm afraid you are in error. I "calculated" what he said quite clearly. You can parse it on out into syllables if you want and continue to put words into President Taylors mouth but it doesn't change what he said about Q.

MormonFriend said:
You are now ridiculing the idea, based on the facts that the same originator of this idea said were impure, disfigured, and perverted. In other words, Pres. Taylor already said that the facts we have today are not going to equate as supporting evidence for the presence of Jesus Christ in the Americas.

There you go again, speaking for the prophet.

MormonFriend said:
I have made this point many moons ago, perhaps time for a recap. The Book of Mormon, by design and purpose, is to be understood by the power of faith. The deeper doctrines contained therin are not understood except by faith. Hence, physical evidence, I believe, is withheld for this purpose. The faith we develop in discovering its divinity is priming the pump to discover and learn the deeper truths.

I'm glad that the gospel is Jesus Christ is just pure, plain and simple. You should try it some day. The only "deeper truths" that you will find are nothing more than the philosophies of man, mingled with scripture.

MormonFriend said:
If God provided absolute physical proof for The Book of Mormon, then we would be compelled to accept and live the principles within, and we wouldn't understand the majority of them without the faith that was removed by the physical evidence.

Yea, that "no physical evidence" thing is good and convenient.

Just what are these unique principles only found in the BOM that I missed all those years?

MormonFriend said:
There is reason for the things as they are today. I wish that I could use the words "trust me" on this one, but trust has to be earned.

Oh yes, earned sort of like your salvation in mormondom. Sorry, I'll stick with the message of grace that He taught in the Bible. I cannot and haven't earned anything. He gave it to me.

Chris <><

gort · Jun 17, 2005

Chris quote:

He gave it to me.

for free.

<><

Ran77 · Jun 17, 2005

Doc T said:
Ran, the problem here is that many have a very fundamentalist view of a prophet and that they should be inerrant. Good luck.

Yea, amusing isn't it?

Doc T said:
Brant Gardner has some good articles on Q. I highly recommend.

Thanks for the info - I will see if I can find them. I'm interested in learning more about it.

Serapha · Jun 17, 2005

christopher123 said:
I have completely lost count of how many times I have quoted one of the prophets on an issue, only to be told by Doc or others that we should instead read what the apologists have to say.

Chris <><

HI there!

but that particular apologist does not agree with your previous posting... he doesn't believe that Q was Christ... or at least, that is what I gathered in reading his work a few months back.

~serapha~

Ran77 · Jun 17, 2005

christopher123 said:
I never mentioned a timeframe. That was CK and Jenda who did.

Looks like I made a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I can see that the correction made such a crucial diferrence in the discussion.

christopher123 said:
And that begs the question, just what do you have a prophet, seer and revelator for? As I said, we aren't talking about an opinion on chocolate milk, but on an incarnation of Jesus. I would expect a little more accuracy from someone claiming to be the only man on earth with all the keys to the kingdom, and the only one authorized to be the Lord's mouthpiece.

You know, I'm pretty sure I've heard this line of thought from you before. Thanks for sharing it again.

Maybe you could provide Biblical support for the view that all knowledge is revealed to the prophets of God. Or are you perhaps suggesting that it isn't God that chooses what information is revealed to His prophets, but is open for the prophets to determine which mysteries of life and the universe they are given to understand?

With the direction you are taking this I wonder what is the purpose for ever having had more than one prophet. The original prophet should have known the answer to every important Gospel principle and could have written them down for all generations to come to know as well. Why isn't the Bible just written that way? Prophet one starts at the beginning and reveals every principle one right after the other - at least until he dies and then I suppose the next prophet could pick up where he left off.

Quetzalcoatl as the Mormon Jesus

Veteran

Veteran

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

Veteran

Veteran

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

Veteran

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

Veteran

Senior Contributor

Veteran

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

pedantric

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Similar threads