[Tonchi]

I love going to "World Prayer Centers". The first time I toured the Temple in Salt Lake City, I got many horrified looks when I kept asking the guide what archaeological evidence they had for their description of the ancient civilizations in the Book of Mormon. They finally flustered around and told me to come back later and talk to one of their "authorities" on the subject. When I returned, I was shunted off to an office with a very pleasant man who was supposed to be a historian-cum-archaeologist and he recommended several texts for me which I copied down and bought at the Deseret Bookstore that afternoon. Most of their "evidence" turned out to be based on reliefs on the temples of Tuluum, and it's coincidental in my opinion. (If anybody cares, Tuluum happens to be one of the least ancient of all the ruin complexes in Mexico and simply could not fit into any of the Mormon timelines.) We already know that the Catherwood expeditions were in Meso-America around the time Joseph Smith was gearing up in upper NY state and he could have seen the engravings. But the main item that refutes their bogus "history", of course, is that the camels, horses, and even elephants which show up in the Book of Mormon simply did not exist in the new world that they describe and are NOT in any sculptures, reliefs, or writings - heck, the Jews in the Old Testament didn't even use elephants so how did they take them to the New World with them! As you can see, I don't go over very well in discussion with a closed society who only admits their own facts. But neither do I waste my time arguing with people who are already in possession of all the facts as far as they are concerned, I just want to understand what they believe and why because it makes me better able to analyze them instead of just over-reacting to somebody different. Afterwards, I may decide they disgust me anyway, but at least I will understand why there might be concrete reasons for my opinion.

I really don't think you can compare the Mormons with the BAC's. Both of these consider the other mutually excludable. Apocalyptic predictions are so common in the world of religions that we really can't lump together everybody who is teaching that the world is going to end and they will be the only ones saved. Even within the American sects, for instance, you can't associate the Southern Baptists with the Seventh Day Adventists, but both are waiting for the approaching Apocalypse. Remember Mel Gibson's little project about the Mayan underworld, etc.? The ancient Maya described the final destruction of the world in terms similar to Revelations in some ways; does that mean we can lump the Quiche Maya with the Jehovah's Witnesses for that reason? Nope, I think the BACs are a separate species, not really denominational. A species which can't even agree amongst themselves on all the terms and definitions.