Postclassic
Yucatan the town was a quadrilateral space with four ritual entrances located
on the sides of the town. These entrances were marked by piles of stone that
represented the mountains of the grandfather deities. Idols representing these
gods were found on top of these symbolic mountains. In addition to man-made
locations, the Maya believed that the mountains and caves in the vicinity of
the community also represented the four mythological mountains. These mountains
and their deities defined the safe space of the community. By replicating the
mountains of the horizon in their towns and designating sites in the natural
landscape, the Maya created locations where offerings could be made to the
deities to ensure the safe continuation of life. This ritual activity was not
only structured according to the cosmological model but constantly validated
that model (Sosa 1985).
Since it was
necessary for Abinadi to explain the true meaning of the scripture, it is
apparent that the priests of king Noah had another meaning in mind than that
provided to them by Abinadi. They must have presumed that Abinadi was going to
respond in a manner that would entrap him into blasphemy contradicting their
concept of God. Welch (2008), Pike (1998), and Warby (2003) proposed that the
attempt to find something upon which to accuse him was the premise that the
beautiful and true prophet brings good tidings and publishes peace, not
prophecies of doom and gloom. This explanation is lacking in many regards.
First, the pre-Exilic Old Testament has many prophecies that do not bring good
tidings, including many in Isaiah and even Noah of the Old Testament. This type
of question is easily rebutted without defaulting to blasphemy. Second, since
many witnesses had already documented that Abinadi preached this very thing,
why would this additional question be necessary in order to trap him? Third,
after the question he proceeded to discuss more doom and gloom prophecies, yet
this concept is never raised as a basis for Abinadi’s death. This concept is
thus not supported by the actual Book of Mormon record. In addition, it assumes
that king Noah and his priests were operating completely under the law of
Moses. We know, and Abinadi knew, that they were not, so it is not reasonable
to assume that there would not be differences in the religion and the administration
of the religion from the Hebrew tradition or even the Nephite tradition.
Importantly,
when Abinadi answers the question, he does not address that issue at all; he
provides a lengthy sermon defining who “the feet of him” is talking about that
is standing on the mountain, concluding that this refers to the prophets
testifying of the Son of God and the Son of God himself. Abinadi also provides
an explanation of who the Son of God is in relation to the Father and talks
about the following topics:
1. God redeems
his people
2. Coming of
the Messiah where the Son of God would come down and take upon him the form of
a man
3. God would
bring about the resurrection
4. The Son of
God would be oppressed, afflicted, sacrificed and slain
5. The carnal
nature of man
Curiously, the
only item deemed to be blasphemous in this sermon from Abinadi, according to
Limhi, is that man was created in the image of God and that God should come
down in flesh and blood among men and go forth upon the face of the earth.
A comparison
of what and was not blasphemous with the Maya religion, especially in light of the
New Year event, is illustrative as to the nature of the syncretic Noah-Maya
religion. There does not seem to be a conflict with God and his manifestation
as the Son, or the fact that there is a Father and a Son. Abinadi ends the
sermon with the statement that “redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who
is the very Eternal Father” (Mosiah 16:15) which has a reasonable textual
interpretation of the god-manifestation concept in the Maya religion. Thus the
Itzamna-Bacab god complex is consistent with that premise.
There is no
issue with regards to the carnal nature of man with redemption by God, as this
is not inconsistent with the Noah-Maya syncretic religious thought. The concept
of the sacrifice of the Son of God is not problematic, which is consistent with
Maya religious concepts of god-figures being killed or sacrificed as happened
to Hun Hunahpu and Vucub Hunahpu, the father and uncle of the Maya mythological
Hero Twins. Hun Huanahpu is equated to the Maya maize god. As previously
mentioned, in the Maya New Year’s ceremonies the maize god is depicted as being
beheaded and then reborn or resurrected. Resurrection of a god would clearly
not be blasphemous, especially in light of the concept that the rebirth of the
whole world was a principal purpose for the Maya New Year rituals. While the
Maya belief does not include resurrection of persons, Abinadi’s references to
that may have been considered wrong but would not have been considered
blasphemy as they did not directly involve a god.
The two areas
which were considered blasphemous were the contradiction of the creation
stories of the Nephite and the Noah-Maya religion, and the coming down of the
Son of God going upon the face of the earth. As has been mentioned, with the
Bacab being equivalent to the Son of God, for such a thing to occur (Bacab
leaving their post) would mean the destruction of the world.
It would seem
that the priest of Noah who posed the Isaiah question referencing the “feet of
him” that was “upon the mountains” was interpreting that portion of the
scripture to be referring to the skybearer Bacabs and the mythical mountains at
the cardinal points where the Bacabs stood supporting the heavens. The later
scriptural reference that the “holy arm” was “in all nations, and all the ends
of the earth” could also reasonably be attributed to the dominion of the Bacab.
Thus the posing of the scripture in Isaiah by the priest of Noah was successful
in providing sufficient contradiction to the syncretic Noah-Maya religion to
constitute blasphemy to justify the killing of Abinadi. (Jerry D. Grover, Jr., Evidence
of the Nehor Religion in Mesoamerica [Provo, Utah: Challex Scientific
Publishing, 2017], 48-49)
Further Reading:
Abinadi's Interpretation of Isaiah 52:7: Evidence for Book of Mormon Antiquity
