Likely Candidates for the Pagan Gods of Noah
Mosiah 12:36
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing in heaven above, or things which are in the earth beneath.
Mosiah 13:12
And now, ye remember that I said unto you: Thou shall not make
unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of things which are in heaven
above, or which are in the earth beneath, or which are in the water under the earth.
“Graven image” means an object of worship carved of wood or stone.
“Likeness” would seem to include gods painted in the form of a mural, or
possible engravings on a building façade or in other forms that would not be considered
an object. It may also include masks and apparel mimicking gods.
Itzamna was the creator of humankind, and also the father of the
Bacabs (Francisco Hernandez, quoted by Las Casas [1875–1876] and Diego López de
Cogolludo) (Mazariegos 2017, 106). Itzamna was a skygod, and the Bacabs were
the skybearers and gods of the earth and the waters under the earth. It is
fairly apparent that Abinadi was talking about these gods (or their
manifestations at a minimum).
Christenson (2016, 46) translated the work Apologética historia
of Las Casas which indicates some Maya elders claimed to have worshipped “a
trinity of Gods parallel to the Christian trinity and that the Son was named
Bacab, the god of the Wayeb’ rites as described by Landa:”
There had been found a principal lord who, upon inquiring
concerning his beliefs and ancient religion while he resided in his ancient
kingdom, said that that (sp?) they knew and believed in God and that he was in
the sky, and that this God was the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and that the
Father was called Izona, who had created mankind and all things … Bacab was the
Son, and they say that he was killed by Eopuco, who whipped him and placed on
him a crown of thorns, and hung him from a tree, for they understood that he
was bound to it rather than nailed (and this is how they indicated that his arms
were outstretched), and there he finally died; he was there dead three days,
and on the third day he came to life again and rose up into the sky with his
Father. After this came Echuac, who is the Holy Spirit, and he filled the earth
with all that it had need for. Upon asking what Bacab or Bacabab meant, he said
that he was the Son of the Great Father and that the name Echuac meant
merchant. (Las Casas 1967, I: 648–49, translated by Christenson)
The later Maya enveloped the three gods of Christianity into their
religion with God the Father as Itzamna, the Bacab as the Son, and Echauc as
the Holy Spirit. This is exactly consistent with the reverse incorporation of
Itzamna and the Bacab into the Hebrew version of Christianity at the time of
king Noah. One of the songs entitled Kiliz Tuup Yk Uitz (“the extinguishing of
the old wealthy man upon the hill”), Song 12 from the colonial Yucatec
manuscript called the Cantares de Dzitbalché, describes the celebration of a
nighttime vigil to bring in the New Year (Vail et al 2013, 116–17). One section
is as follows:
Father God [yum ku] has decreed that we have passed the
evil days here in the town, because there are going to come other days, other
months, other years, other Katuns.
The syncretization of a Father God is apparent.
Recognizing this fact makes certain elements of Abinadi’s
preaching easier to understand.
Mosiah 15:1–5
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand
that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem
his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of
God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father
and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and
the Son, because of the flesh; thus
becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and
of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to
the Father, being one God, suffereth
temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
Remembering that the Maya gods in general, and specifically Itzamna
and the Bacabs (including the Pawatuns and Mams), consist of the god and its
various manifestations, Abinadi seems to be attempting to contrast and differentiate
the correct concept of God the Father being the same in power and purpose with
Jesus and having godly flesh provided to Jesus by God the Father with what must
have happened with the syncretization of God the Father and the Son of God into
a Maya system that looks at a particular god as having various different forms
but still being the same god.
Abinadi attempts to explain (while being careful to preserve the
common elements of Jesus and God the Father) that Jesus is not a Maya-type
manifestation of God the Father, but is a separate god in his own right.
Because he has a body that consists of a combination of godly flesh (on account
of God the Father) and earthly flesh, although a separate being in the flesh,
his body incorporated the divine power of God the Father together with earthly
flesh so also has elements of God the Father, but is not a manifestation of God
the Father. One must keep in mind that the audience here is not modern-day
persons, but rather was directed at those with a particular religious understanding.
The issue before Abinadi was not to distinguish that there was more than one
god and that a god could be separate one from another; they already understood
that under the Maya religious concept. What was not correct in their
understanding of Itzamna, the Bacabs, the Pawahtuns and the Mams was that these
separate manifestations of the God the Father equivalent were not the same god.
Abinadi was explaining that God and his Son were the same manifestation in some
respects (power and purpose, and both with godly flesh) but were different
individual beings, which is not the case in the Maya theology. The concept of
God the Father and Jesus being one god is, of course, not a confusion limited
to the Maya-Noah Nephite syncretic religion, as it is still an issue within
Christianity today although with a different angle.
The Maya religion had the additional belief that the method of a
god taking on the flesh was through the instrument of the king or priest, so
Abinadi appeared to also be attempting to clarify that the Son of God would actually
appear in his own right, not through some other intermediary. This “divine
king” concept was one of the principal doctrinal reasons that Abinadi was put
to death as discussed previously. (Jerry D. Grover, Evidence
of the Nehor Religion in Mesoamerica [Provo, Utah: Challex Scientific
Publishing, 2017], 40-41)
On Mosiah 15 and the question of whether it teaches Modalism (spoiler alert: it doesn't), apart from the above, see my discussion of this and other passages in the following interview:
Early Mormon Modalism? A Dialogue with Stephen Murphy