I still keep in touch with my missionary companion, even though she knows I'm no longer LDS. Occasionally she gets preachy, but I’ve been able to buffer it with kindness in return. The most recent conversation stretched my limits and I need to vent here rather than with her. Okay, maybe I’ll vent with her later. Maybe not. We’ll see.

Here’s the story:

She returned from a trip to Cancun. Visiting the ruins was one of the highlights of her life. She explained how she couldn’t understand how anyone could see the mayan ruins and NOT believe in Joseph Smith or the book of Mormon. I asked why? Because, she said, the book of Mormon is proof of the Mayan ruins.

I remained silent.

I was wanting to say the following, but wasn’t up to a debate at that moment:

1) During the 1800’s the West had a profound interest in Central America archaeology as well as Egyptian archaeology. Smith’s group had a proven interest in both.

2) Good stories are grown from seed ideas and fleshed out from there. Many writers find new story ideas by listening and embellishing.

3) Yucatan Mayans didn’t disappear. Some are still there, while others moved to Guatemala, Honduras, Belize. (Contrary to my Mormon false history class teaching the complete disappearance of the Mayans off the face of the earth.)

4) Guatemalan Mayans story claims that there was a dispute between 2 groups. Their group moved. Either Joseph Smith heard a different version, which is widely taught through Mormonism to this day (they disappeared because they were killed) by the Spanish (aka Lamanites), or he meshed it in to his refined end product.

5) The Mayan departure is a story older than the 1800’s. The Spanish began their conquest of the Mayans in 1527, but it took them 170 years to finish the process.

6) Joseph Smith group were interested, as were other people.

7) Joseph Smith group took the information of a group of people in the area during 2600 bce, along with stories of a dispute, fleshed it out with other stories of the Spanish invasion to create a book of Mormon story. Names and places were changed to make it a unique story while using pieces of accurate information.

8) A number of people believed the smooth talking salesman and took his word for truth – or for gospel. Fear of consequences maintained the lies.

Am I missing anything?

Joseph Smith book of Mormon doesn’t prove the Mayan’s story is true. My comp, like others, are backward thinkers. If they allowed their mind to trace it in reverse they would understand that the mayan event came first. Then came the Joseph Smith interest in archaeology and its embellished story. The mayan story, the Spanish invasion versus the book of Mormon story proves that Joseph Smith later took ideas and embellished it, because he got some details twisted and some slightly accurate.

When his attempt at selling his masterpiece was unsuccessful they made a religion out of it.

Jesus ____ Goddamn Christ!

I suppose also the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are proof the ancient Egyptian race inhabited the Nile valley?

Jesus Christ, ____! You tell that ____ ____ x-missionary companion ____ to go to hell, win-win! Tell her that Shulem said her ass stinks and her breath is nasty as ____. Stupid ____ ____ needs her ass slapped.

This thread is an excellent example in showing how Mormons make things up out of thin air in order to support their preconceived and misunderstood testimonies of their so-called gospel. The Mormon perception is flawed in how they establish their testimonies and do so under the premise that their spiritual feelings and thoughts trump logic and disregard scientific principles and fundamental laws of our reality.

Mormons are constantly touting their experiences and perceptions as miracles. Miracle this and miracle that. Everything and anything that supports the idea that their church is somehow true can be lumped into the common category of "It's a miracle".

Mormonism really is a dangerous religion to be avoided at all cost. Buyer, beware! Those snake oil salesmen will take you for a ride and it will cost you plenty.

Mayans were neither Jewish nor Christian, so there's that little problem.

They could argue the exception, though also improbable.

Someone TBM, I really care about and with whom I have a pretty good relationship also brought this Mayan stone “of the tree of life” up as a counter point when I basically said I discovered negatives about the church. I don’t want to ruin our good relationship & he gave art of the stone as gifts so I don’t want to be the one to make him feel duped. He served a mission (in area where stone was found) - which he says was the best time of his life - who wants to take that from him? Thus, as the OP, I’ll vent & present inconvenient facts here but probably will never share with him.

“Most of the other interpretations give claim that the scene depicts pagan worship, including self-mutilation and blood letting, which is known to have been common among the early inhabitants of that region...

Perhaps the most curious criticism of Jakeman’s interpretation came from Hugh Nibley, then a professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. He demonstrated this extensively when the Book of Abraham (part of the LDS scripture known as the Pearl of Great Price) was shown to be a fraud. If even Hugh Nibley could not be convinced of Jakeman’s claims, then we know there must be some serious flaws with it.

Nibley said of Jakeman’s work on Stela 5: “…the author’s loving hand, guided by a wishful eye has actually created the only evidence available to the reader for testing the author’s theories” (p. 17). He refused to accept Jakeman’s interpretation for a number of reasons. The article listed six: 1) Jakeman never compared the carvings on Stela 5 with other Mesoamerican art, which is standard practice for this kind of interpreting; 2) Jakeman had also visualized evidence on the stone that no one else can see. He ignored those items that contradicted his theory, rather than explain the reason for them; 3) His linguistic and iconographic analysis was seriously in error; 4) He did not submit his conclusions to peer review. Instead, Nibley said he “published it himself with unjustified and ungraceful fanfare;” 5) His argument was full of words such as “evidently”, “probably” and “apparently” – words that assert details as facts without solid evidence. 6) He also did not subject his work to review by his peers – which is standard practice, instead opting to publish it himself.

One of the most serious charges against Jakeman’s work came from Dee Green, a professional archaeologist who had even assisted Professor Jakeman in making a latex mold of Stela 5. Green said that Jakeman had “altered the plaster cast of Stela 5 made from their mold ‘after his interpretation'” (p. 18).”http://www.mrm.org/tree-of-life

So there’s also that. Still, let’s say the stone is indeed proof of the Book of Mormon - tree of life etc. Just because one thing seems to match up, doesn’t discount the many inconsistencies and evils (like racism) and unjust wars and killing in the Book of Mormon.

I’ve also seen a craved sense of pride in the BofM by Latinos. It’s a bit like believing one was nobility (rather than a peasant) in a past life and that helps them live up. It’s fine if it helps - but strictly historically or literally-speaking, it seems to lack merit. And maturity is based on how well one can handle truth - from wherever it comes. This one I care about isn’t stupid - and generally handles truths better than most. I suppose we all take some truths to be hard.

Venting this has helped a little bit.

For a few days I felt like I might confront my ex companion if I were in person, but I don't think she could take the truth. She has terrible health and all her hope is wrapped up in Mormonism. She said she doesn't want to change anything about her life.

I have to consider why my fear of being honest with her is based on protecting her lies and stability.

I think Shulem is right, the whole thing stinks.

The LDS system maintains lies of the proportion I never knew possible until I left it.

It appears that I'm helping them maintain their lies because I actually care about this person, which is more than I can say for those lying Utah bastards.

Damn them.

Rather than confront your ex companion directly in an overwhelming way you can always just plant little seeds which indicate why Mormonism doesn't make sense for you as well as the vast majority of human kind that reject it outright. Let her live her fantasy and pursue happiness how she chooses. But it's totally fair of you to let her know a few of the things that you object to the most whether it be Joseph Smith porking 14 year old girls or the Book of Abraham translation -- the list is rather long.

You'll know what to do. Follow your conscience and let your inner inspiration guide you. Go with your instincts and intuition. Just be a friend but be sincere and kind. If she feels you're simply being honest and sincere she'll be less likely to judge you and will store up what you say and process it in her own way and time.

The Mormon magical worldview is alive and well.

Tht really sucks and I'm sorry. I have several loved ones in a condition similar to what you describe of your companion. I also remember how, as a believing member, it was tempting to fall into the mindset that bad health or circumstances were the Lord's plan, which sort of makes it easier to accept instead of fight.

Shulum, I like you last comment. Good advice.

Thinking aloud...
This idea of people being too weak to handle truth applies in other contexts besides the LDS religion. I know someone who - under various mind-altering influences - had really screwed up. They ended up in trouble with the law and in the hospital and sounded lower - more beaten than I’d ever heard anyone. That wasn’t the time to confront with truths - despite their denial.

I imagine each of us have potential to be confronted with ugly aspects of humanity - in ourselves or in others & most wouldn’t want to see it - despite the truth.

It’s frustrating when people not only deny truth, but shame us for not denying it. So ignorant. But aren’t “we all ignorant - only on different subjects”? Relationships are more important sometimes than truth - sometimes truth is more important - what do you think decides which? I thinking comes down to intuitively and logically deciding what’s best in each unique moment.

Living in Utah and/or struggling to shake an overwhelming cult-mentality - negatives of the cult outweigh positives. But if I were where some TBM loved-ones live - in crime-ridden areas etc., the cult is like a haven from all that. I get that.

Sometimes life feels like a battle - barely hanging in there - and grasping for whatever will help us survive. Ideally, the foundation that’s grasped for, is based on truth - not denial, cult-lies, mind-altering escapes etc. Handling reality - but what is reality - except subjective interpretation? What gets you not just up each morning - but excited and motivated?
https://youtu.be/CVP1CwEBz_Y

This resonates with me.

The Paradox of Creation: Wake Up You Are God in Disguise

Thanks, Shulem - looks interesting & maybe inspiring.

I feel like a paradoxical challenge is always present... to realize I’ll never perfectly live up to my ideals - while striving to improve anyway.