There are many similarities between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus Christ

Reasons to agree

1.  "Teotihuacan arose as a new religious center in the Mexican Highland, around the time of Christ..." Teotihuacan: Introduction". Project Temple of Quetzalcoatl, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico/ ASU. 2001-08-20. Retrieved 2009-05-17

Reasons to agree

1. Mormons often say that 

There are some aspects of the Book of Mormon that support a literal historical interpretation +0

Reasons to agree: +1

1. Latter-day Saint President John Taylor was right when he wrote: "Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being". The fact that south american cultures believed in a bearded white God named Quetzalcoatl supports the story in the Book of Mormon. 

Reasons to disagree: -1

1. The Bible has enough problems with historical accuracy. If you are going to come along and start a new religion, and say that God has placed his official stamp of approval on this new religion, with new scriptures, the new scriptures should have less problems than the old scriptures, which have been around a long time so that errors of mankind can slip into the things of God... However the Book of Mormon has more archaeological problems than the Bible. There is no city in the Book of Mormon, that you can say existed in then and still exists now... I know, I know, Mormons will say you can't compare the two because the people who lived in cities, and kept written records, according to the Book of Mormon, were all killed off at the end of the Book... But still... we have some archaeology from that time, and it does not compare well to the amount of archaeology that we have to support the rest of Christianity. Right? I'm not an expert, but that is my impression. Is there any way of quantifying this? 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +1

# of reasons to disagree: -1

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +0

Scriptures that agree: +

Scriptures that disagree: -

Images That agree: +

Images That disagree: -



Valid Interest of those who agree: +

Valid Interest of those who disagree: -





Videos That agree: +

Videos That disagree: -





Website that agree: +

Websites that disagree: -

Podcast that agree: +

Podcast that disagree: -



Unbiased Experts who agree: +

Unbiased Experts who disagree: -



Books that Agree: +

Books that Agree: -

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Common Interest:

Opposing Interest:



Related arguments:

We should not begrudge faithful Mormon their desire to preserve faith by focusing on the good bits

Reasons to disagree

1. Some people need faith

Reasons to disagree

1. Following the spirit is problematic, because if all your family, and your upbringing tells you the Church is true, then of course when you doubt you are going to feel uncomfortable. The church tells you this uncomfortable feeling is the spirit leaving you, and so you get stuck never knowing the truth.

We should avoid conflating "the good" with "the true"

Reasons to agree

1. Whatever is good is true.


2. It is better to be good than right.

Reasons to disagree

1. Whatever is good, is not necessarily true.


2. Being right is good.


3. We can't face the real problems unless we live in reality.

It is moral not to hold on to implausible claims when they support a problematical construal of God

Reasons to agree

1. I'm not sure I get this right, but it sounded like he was saying that believing in "the God of 3 Nephi 9, D&C 132, Abraham 1" is immoral. Or at least not believing in them is Moral.


2. If God exists, perhaps He will forgive our stitching together models of goodness from “this-worldly” expressions untethered to extraordinary Mormon claims.


3. This stance seems to avoid conflating "the good" with "the true" while leaving one open to both.

Reasons to disagree

1. Just because a construct of God is problematic, does not make it immoral.


2. This is all just a mater of semantics. Sure, from a worldly standpoint it is moral to believe whatever you want. This does not mean it is true. Both believing and not believing can be moral. I'm not sure Bushman's point of view was accurately represented, but I assume Bushman feels that Josoph Smith was a Moral guy, and that Mormonism helps make Bushman a better guy. Much like what Peter said to Jesus, when he asked if Peter was also going to leave. Peter said, but where would we go for the worlds of Eternal life. I assume that is what Bushman meant, that he is still getting something out of Mormonism, and that he sticks with it because he thinks it makes him a more moral person.

Leaving the Church can be a moral choice.

Reasons to agree:

1. It is moral not to hold on to implausible claims when they support a problematical construal of God

Saying that God would test our faith with designed-implausibility, makes God into a pious-fraud.

Reasons to agree

1. A fraud is someone who says they are something that they are not. God never said he wouldn't hide himself so intellectuals couldn't find him. He does talk about stumbling blocks. I don't think that God tests our faith with designed implausibility, but if he did I wouldn't call him a fraud. I can see why he would do it. He would want nice people who pray, and stuff to make it into heaven, not people that construct logical towers of Babel.