|
|
|
|
 The conclusion of this
analysis of specific elements of the Quetzalcoatl material clearly does not support the contention that Quetzalcoatl
is a mythic remembrance of Christ. It is therefore directly in contradiction with several other LDS authors who
claim such a connection. Which analysis is correct? Sorenson said that it was a matter of evidences, of picking
and choosing. This examination of the evidences as used a little more rigor than picking and choosing to come up
with a conclusion which does not support the contention that Quetzalcoatl is a remembrance of Jesus Christ. How
does that compare with the arguments in favor or the hypothesis presented by LDS authors? To that question I will
now turn. In short, the contention that Quetzalcoatl is a remembrance of Christ in LDS authors suffers from errors
in both methodology and specifics. |
