Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog--the tenth and last in this current series:
Comment #1: “Because of
the hundreds of languages found among the early Indians after the Europeans
arrived, B. H. Roberts concluded that the Indians of North America could not
all be derived from the Lamanites as typically believed in his day. In
consequence he said it seems entirely reasonable that most of the Indians of
North America were probably, not directly descended from the Lamanites”
Wilkie D.
Response: First of all, let’s look at the area of Andean South
America, where a comparison with the Book of Mormon really matters. Basically,
there are two major languages in all this area, Quechua and Aymara, though each
has many dialects, which answers that problem. Secondly, as for language
change, between the time the Mulekites landed, around 590 B.C., to when Mosiah
found them, about 225 B.C., 365 years or so had passed. In that time, none of
the Nephites could understand any of the Mulekites, even though they started
out with a common Hebrew language from Jerusalem. When we compare that 365
years with the more than 1000 years between the time of the last Nephite and
the arrival of the Europeans (after the conquistadors), about 1200 years had
passed (385 A.D. to about 1600 A.D.) Now, during that 1200 years, the Lamanites
had been a closed society, i.e., not interacting with anyone of another
language, however, they had broken up into tribes, and each tribe was an enemy
to every other, thus, it would be like hundreds of individual languages being
spoken down through that 1200 years, where there were no books, no records, no
way to know the language, compare it, keep it from changing, etc. 1200 years is
a very, very long time when it comes to an isolated language spoken by an
illiterate people without any way of comparing language from generation to
generation. I have listened to English spoken all over this country, and
frankly, it is hard to understand several parts, especially in the deep south,
Boston, Texas, or New York when you listen to the more uneducated, rural
people. I would defy you to understand Chaucer, Shakespeare, or a Cockney
flower girl—all speaking English. And to try and read it is almost impossible
without an understanding of how written letters have changed over the centuries, as we have graphically shown in this blog in the past.
Now, when language is spoke under controlled status, like in Europe over the centuries, even though the changes are marked and difficult to follow, it still retains much of its original construction and at least some of the sounds; however, when there are no teachers, books, records, and comparisons--no dictionaries and parents trying to keep the language in tact, language undergoes drastic changes in a couple or three generations and continues to deteriorate, which is why no Nephites could understand the Mulekites.
Comment #2: “Since Jared
seemed to be the Jaredite leader, why did the Lord not instruct him, like he
did Moses, rather than Jared’s brother?” Minnie T.
Response: Jared was the family leader, being the oldest, and
the one everyone else looked up to for guidance, strength and direction.
However, his brother was obviusly the Spiritual leader, the one who “was highly favored
of the Lord” (Ether 1:34), who had called upon the Lord for a long time (Ether
1:43). Jared knew this, and sent his brother to inquire, as Israel asked of
their prophets to inquire of the Lord; but despite the prophets doing so, the
Lord dealt with their kings, like David and Solomon.
Comment #3: “When did
Moroni abridge the Jaredite record?” Jaime R.
Response: While we do not know exactly, it seems that Moroni
stayed in the vicinity of the Land Northward for the 36 years between closing
out his father’s record (385 A.D.) and when he wrote his own record (421 A.D.)
He likely went through the records his father had hid up in the hill Cumorah”
(Mormon 6:6) after giving Moroni “these few plates” (Mormon 6:6). At that time,
he evidently came across the record of Ether, the 24 gold plates, which was the
record of the Jaredite people. Either by promptings or direct revelation,
Moroni was told to abridge that record and he did so. After that, he would
“seal up these records” (Moroni 10:2) and “hide up the records in the earth”
(Mormon 8:4). Where he hid them, we are not told. We only know that he showed
Joseph Smith where to find them in the hill Cumorah in upstate New York.
Comment #4: “What
exactly is being mentioned in Moroni 9:16. I don’t know these people, places or
situation. Can you help me out?” Hale H.
Response: First of all, Mormon is the one writing this (it was
a letter or epistle, the second of two written by Mormon to his son, Moroni, at
a much earlier date when the two were for some reason apart during the final
stages of the war, probably during a 7 or 8 year lull between battles as seen
between Mormon 4:15 and 4:16). Earlier in the chapter Mormon tells of losing a
sore battle with the Lamanites in which several of his best men fell, including
Archaentus, Luram, and Emron, and the Lamanites were nearing the total
destruction of the Nephites who had become worse than the Lamanites, no longer
fearing death, and having lost their love one for another.
According to the word he received from Amoron, the Lamanites
took many prisoners after killing off the men, they fed their flesh to their
wives and daughters; though the Nephites, capturing Lamanite women, raped and
then tortured them until they died, then fed on their flesh. At the moment of
writing, Mormon is cut off from rescuing the Nephite women and children left in
the city or tower of Sherrizah (shĕr-ī´za, pronounced share-EYE-zuh) by
a large Lamanite army between him and the tower. In the meantime, what food was
left by the Lamanites in the city, was taken by Zenepi (zēn´a-fī; pronounced
ZEEN-uh-fie), the leader of the defeated Nephite army under Mormon’s command,
and the women and children at Sherrizah were starving.
It is a disgusting description of how
far the Nephites had fallen (they will fight their last battle ten years later
and die to the man except for Moroni). The interesting thing about this letter
is Mormon’s love for his son, the tenderness he feels for him, and how highly he regards him. Perhaps every father should take a moment in their later life to so communicate this to their own son(s).
Comment #5: “I read somewhere that the Nephites described by Mormon falling at
Cumorah, some 230,000, that they were only the Nephites attempting to flee with
Mormon’s army. The others remained upon the land, taking their chances for
survival with the invading army of the Lamanites” Galvin B.
Response: People who say and write
things like that simply do not read the scriptural record or fail to understand
what is written. The Lamanites were not sparing any Nephites. They allowed some
to join their forces as full defectors, but during these last battles, few of
those survived.
During these last years, the Lamnite
army was led by a man named Aaron—it was to this Aaron Mormon mentioned in a
letter to his son that those Nephites who defected over to his army “fell
victims to his awful brutality” (Moroni 9:17). Specifically, Mormon
tells us that at this time, as the Nephite asrmy retreated from city to city,“
that whatsoever lands we had passed by, and the inhabitants thereof were not
gathered in, were destroyed by the Lamanites, and their towns, and villages,
and cities were burned with fire; and thus three hundred and seventy and nine
years passed away” (Mormon 5:5). This is six years before the battle at
Cumorah. Thus, those who did not join ranks with Mormon were killed and their
villages, towns and cities burned and destroyed—and those who could not keep up
as they fled before this terrible Lamanite army were destroyed by the
Lamanites. There simply is no basis to “assume” anything else.
There were no “others remained upon the land, taking their chances for survival with
the invading army of the Lamanites.” They fled and joined with Mormon, or
they were overrun and killed! This was not a war for victory—it was a war of
annihilation! Those who insist that some Nephites survived, or were not involved, or were spared as non-combatants simply do not understand the nature of such a war.
Comment #6: “Phyllis Olive states in
her book that “a clear explanation for the puzzling description of the
wildernesses described in Alma 22:27 is that there were two different
wildernesses, one to the north of Lamanite territory and one to the south of
Nephite territory, with a gorge between. What’s your take on this?” Wyman O.
Response: Mormon tells us there was a
“narrow strip of wilderness between the Land of Nephi and the Land of
Zarahemla” i.e., the Land of Nephi, which the king controlled, “was bordering
even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the
land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east
even to the sea west” (Alma 22:27). Thus, the northern edge of this narrow
strip of wilderness touched on the Land of Zarahemla and the southern edge of
this narrow strip of wilderness touched on the Land of Nephi. Consequently, the
Land of Zarahemla had a wilderness to its south, and the Land of Nephi had a
wilderness to its north--these being the same wilderrness. It is not complicated. There is a single strip of
wilderness between the two lands that ran from sea to sea.
The narrow strip of wilderness ran from sea to sea, dividing the Land
of Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi, thus there was a (Red Arrows) wilderness
to the south of Zarahemla and a wilderness to the north of Nephi; Yellow
Arrows: the wilderness ran “and round about (yellow arrows) on the borders of the seashore”
(Alma 22:27), meaning it curved up along the seashore.
Also note that there is no mention of
the word “gorge” or any kind of division between these two lands other than the
narrow strip of wilderness. Or is there any mention that this wilderness was divided in some way. In fact, there is no mention of the word “gorge”
anywhere in the entire record of Alma or anywhere in the entire Book of Mormon. In fact, this description by Mormon found in Alma is so clear, it is a wonder anyone could not understand it, and probably wouldn't if they were not trying to fit the words into a pre-determined model that does not match the scriptural record descriptions.
Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:
Comment #1: “You mention
that Mormon’s insert was 568 words in one article and 543 in another. Why the
difference?” Rhonda J.
Response: The first number is the complete count of words of
verses 27 thru 34; however, to be exact, Mormon’s insert appears to begin with
the words “who were in the land…” in verse 27, giving us a smaller count. My
apologies for not clarifying that.
Comment #2: “I was told
recently that the land of Desolation was named for the warrior Teancum, one of
General Moroni’s top officers, but I have never heard this before. Are you
familiar with this?” Glenda B.
Teancum was a
successful warrior and effective chief captain under Moroni’s command
Response: The only connection I have ever run across is a
statement evidently by James R. Spencer, an author and lecturer from Boise,
Idaho, in which he writes about Vernal Holley’s placement of the Land of Promise
in the area of the Great Lakes. Spencer writes questioningly about the origin
of the Book of Mormon and makes comparisons between Holley’s work showing the
Great Lakes region and some 20 names of similar to exact spelling found in the
Book of Mormon. In his writing, Spencer makes the statement: “We read, in the Book of Mormon
of the Land of Desolation named for a warrior named Teancum who helped General
Moroni fight in the Land of Desolation.” Whether this is his understanding or
he is quoting from Holley is not made clear in the article.
However, to
answer your question, the Land of Desolation was so named because of the desolation
caused by the Jaredite wars. The scriptural record tells us: “Yea, and even
they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had
not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants
who had before inherited the land. And now no part of the land was desolate,
save it were for timber; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the
people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate” (Helaman
3:5-6).
The
interesting and exciting story of Teancum can be found beginning in Alma 50:33,
when Moroni sent an army under the command of Teancum (Alma 50:35) to head off
the retreating people of Morianton, who Moroni feared would become Nephite
defectors, occupying the Land Northward (Morianton and his followers), and make
an alliance with the Lamanites.
Teancum ends
up killing Morianton and defeating his army, taking them prisoners. Later,
Teancum is leading his army to stop Amalickiah and his Lamanite army from
gaining the Land of Bountiful (Alma 51:29-30). Teancum by stealth sneaks into
the Lamanite camp, kills Amalickiah and almost single-handedly stops the
Lamanite army. He is later given command by Moroni of the northern army and to
attack Lamanite-held Mulek, but it was too well fortified. In a war council of
chief captains, Teancum is put in charge of a command and stratagem to lead the
Lamanites in a chase that eventually defeats the Lamanite army. Later, when
Moroni is called back to Zarahemla, he leaves Teancum and Lehi in charge of all
the northern armies (Alma 61:15). Unfortunately, Teancum is eventually killed
after killing the Lamanite king (Alma 62:37). In all of this, and much is
written about this brave and competent man, there is nothing to suggest he had
any connection with the naming of the Land of Desolation in any way.
Comment #3: “I just read one of your posts on your blog
and ran across your statements about the Mulekites not landing in the Land
Northward. If that is true, how do you reconcile Alma 22:30, which says, “And
it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far
northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed,
of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla,
it being the place of their first landing” Genielle S.
Response: We have
written about this several times before, however, since it is such an important
factor in understanding the Mulekites and that they did not have contact with
the Jaredites (other than Coriantumr), and especially for Mesoamericanists who use this misleadingly to
show such contact, we will respond to it again. In the verse you quote, there
is a “parenthetical phrase,” when understood, gives you the meaning of the
statement: “And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it
being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and
been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken (which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla), it being the
place of their first landing.” In the case of any parenthetical phrase (above
in italics), it is not part of the original meaning of the sentence, or rather,
a digression from the original meaning. Thus, the sentence reads: “And it bordered upon the land which they
called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which
had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, it being
the place of their first landing.”
Thus, the “parenthetical
phrase” is used as the mildest form of parenthesis, for when you want to
quickly insert a detail without distracting the reader—it is called “a
subordinate clause”: a “nonessential phrase” framed by a pair of commas. In
this case, the sentence includes a subordinate clause: “which was the discovered by the people of Zarahemla.” If you
temporarily remove that phrase from the sentence, its structural integrity
remains intact.
Now before you ask
“how do you know that it was intended as a parenthetical phrase,” let me
suggest two reasons: First, we know this because of Omni 1:16, where we are
told the Mulekites “journeyed in the
wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters,
into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that
time forth.” That is, the Mulekites were brought across the sea into the
area where Mosiah found them (the city of Zarahemla) and they dwelt there, in
that land where they landed, until Mosiah found them.
That is why you know
it is a parenthetical phrase in Alma 22:32, otherwise we would be given two
entirely different landing sites.
Secondly, we know it
is a parenthetical phrase because the sentence reads:
And it (Bountiful) bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it
(Desolation) being so far northward that
it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed (the home
of the Jaredites), of whose bones we have
spoken (again, the Jaredites), which
was discovered by the people of Zarahemla (that is, the bones of the
Jaredites had been discovered by Limhi’s 43-man expedition to find Zarahemla
and all those in the expedition, and all those living under Limhi in the city
of Nephi, had originally been from Zarahemla, or their parents or grandparents
had been), it being the place of their
(again refers to the Jaredites) first
landing.
Comment #4: “Since angel Moroni supposedly told Joseph
that it is a history of the people on this continent, why haven’t Prophets
asked to know exactly where and save all this hassel? If they have asked who is
having the problem communicating, God or the Prophets? Is it reasonable to
assume that God would withhold the Book of Mormon location information when the
angel already said it was history of real people? The silence from prophets,
seers and revelators on this subject that inevitably tears families apart,
makes them deliberately complicit in the continuing deceit. After all, they
know it’s not real. They also know that the world would convert "IF"
we could show a shred of verifiable evidence for BOM peoples, yet they remain
silent and waste the very powers of the supposed priesthood that they hold the
members accountable to” No Name.
Korihor contends with Jacob over wanting to
have a sign so he could believe
Response: Your
comments remind me of Korihor who wanted a sign so that he could be convinced
(Alma 30:43). Unfortunately, that did not go well for him. Perhaps Alma’s
response might teach us all a lesson on the matter: “But Alma said unto him:
Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a
sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the
holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote
there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of
it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their
regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. And yet do ye go
about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no
God?” (Alma 30:44-45).
Besides, even if that
announcement were to be made and it was provable, critics would still bend over
backward showing why it was a lie, why it didn’t match, why it was not true.
Perhaps you are not aware of it, but the Lord has not revealed many things
about life, and does not get involved in satisfying people’s curiosity. Where
the Land of Promise was located is not necessary to know for our salvation. In
the case of this blog, we write about it to show the reality of the scriptural
record and how the information in that record can answer any and all questions
we might have on this or nearly any other subject.
Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:
Comment #1: “The
Book of Mormon, for a purportedly pre-Christian text, the book is entirely too
Christian. The text repeatedly has main characters quoting New Testament
passages and citing details about the story of Christ long before the time of
Jesus or the writing of the New Testament with such specificity and clarity as
to betray knowledge after the fact - knowledge available to Joseph Smith
through the King James Bible” Sabin D.
Response: As we have said many times,
isn’t it odd that the same God who inspired Old Testament Writers, who came
into this world as Jesus Christ, who knew of all things, when inspiring Book of
Mormon writers would have the same message, the same knowledge, and the same
understanding, let alone know what happened in clear and precise detail in his own life during his mortal ministry and convey it to these prophets. It might even suggest to some that the original Old Testament had many such matters of Christ in it originally before man (scribes) began rewriting it in many ways.
Comment #2: “The Book's historical claims have not withstood the rigorous scrutiny
of the archaeological, biological, historical and linguistic disciplines and
continued study of the history of ancient America further establishes the
implausibility of the claims of the Book of Mormon" Bradley R.
Response: We have dealt with this comment several times. What has been found "in the ground" in Andean Peru matches a lot of the claims of the Book of Mormon as we have documented in this blog for the past five years. The trouble is, people think of Mesoamerica, which studies "in the ground" do not match Book of Mormon factors at all. As for linguistics, the Nephite language ceased to exist, both Hebrew and reformed Egyptian, with their demise in 385 A.D., an particularly with Moroni in 421 A.D. For the next one thousand years the Lamanites, a people who were involved in a bloody civil war with the land full of murder and bloodshed for many years, perhaps centuries, who deteriorated into individual groups (tribes) that had nothing to do with one another--each other tribe was an enemy--that no language could have survived in any way.
Comment #3: “Where did the name Lehi come from? And what does it tmean?” Sophia
G.
Response:
Names are funny things. We don’t always know where they came from or if what we
know about them was the same as that of their origin. The name Ramath-lehi is
used only once in the Bible, a name the judge Samson gave to the place where
he beat one thousand Philistines to death with the jawbone of a donkey (Judges
15:17). The lehi in that name is the same as Lehi (the root ihh), which does not occur as verb in the
Bible, and its existence is assumed because of the curious noun לחי (lehi), meaning jaw or
cheek. This noun also exists in Arabic, where it is related to a verb that
means to peel off, and in Syriac it means to strip off or erase. Perhaps (and
this is a guess) these connections suggest that the jaw of an animal was
recognized as the instrument with which an animal grazes or peels bark off a
tree or a skin off fruit.
In Hebrew this connection doesn't
exist and in stead the noun closely resembles a compound of ל (le), meaning for and חי (hay), meaning life. Whether the Hebrews of Lehi’s time commonly
made that connection isn't clear but the compound לחי (lehay) being ל (le) plus חי (hay) occurs frequently
in the Bible. It's for instance the lahai-part of the name
Beer-lahai-roi and means "the living." It occurs in Daniel 4:34 with a
similar meaning and in 1 Samuel 25:6 it's part of a cheer or blessing,
comparable with the familiar לחיימ (lahayim!) Most
spectacularly is the occurrence of לחי (lehay) in 2 Samuel
23:11, where the Philistines gather either "into a company" or a
place called Lehi, which means Jaw.
This word for jaw appears
twenty-one times in the Bible, but mostly in texts that deal with subdual. To
catch a creature, one hooks its jaw (Job 41:2, Ezekiel 29:4, Ezekiel 38:4). To
steer a creature, one places a bridle in its jaw (Isaiah 30:28). To stop a
person from talking, one strikes him on the jaw (1 Kings 22:24, Job 16:10,
Micah 5:1). It might be said, then, that Lehi means “the casting away of the
jawbone.”
Comment #4: “Joseph
Smith did in fact say that the records were buried by Moroni, in the United
States: In July 1838, Smith wrote an article for the church periodical “Elder’s
Journal” in the form of questions and answers, that stated the following:
Question 4th. “How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?" Answer.
“Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon
was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, as a
resurrected being, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me
directions how to obtain them”
Brandon
Response: Looking at only what was written, and one can
verify the exact wordage by looking up the Elders’ Journal. Joseph Smith, in
this interview, did not say that Moroni said he buried the plates in the hill
Cumorah in New York state. He said Moroni told him where they were buried and
gave him the directions as to how to obtain them. In his “Joseph Smith—History,
Chapter 1, (50-51), Joseph wrote: “I
left the field, and went to the place where the messenger had told me the
plates were deposited; and owing to the distinctness of the vision which I had
had concerning it, I knew the place the instant that I arrived there.
Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New
York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the
neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a
stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This
stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner
towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground,
but the edge all around was covered with earth.”
My point was in the article you question, whether
or not Moroni buried the plates in that hill originally, buried them later, or
that the hill in New York is the same hill as in the Book of Mormon, we are
simply not told. Nor does Joseph Smith refer to this hill as the hill Cumorah,
nor did anyone else call that hill Cumorsah until after the plates were found, then later early church
members started calling it that.
It is simply not
possible to draw any conclusion from anything written or said by Joseph Smith
that all of this is tied together as you and many church members try to make
it. We simply do not know.
Comment #5: “I find the name Anti-Nephi-Lehies and odd name for the Lamanite
converts to have chosen as their covented name as indicated in Alma 23, since
“anti” means against or in opposition to” Brandee E.
Response: Considering
how many uses there are in the text of the morpheme Anti in Nephite and Lamanite language, it appears to be a
common and proper noun: Ani-Anti,
Antiomno, Antionah, Antionum, Antiparah,
Antipas, and Antipus; perhaps the Nephite monetary
unit antion, as well as the name Manti, could
also be added to this list. We also need to keep in mind that there were no
hypens (-) in the original Book of Mormon manuscript or the printer’s
manuscript prepared from the original manuscript by Oliver Cowdery. In both
cases, the name was given as “AntiNephiLehies.” Therefore, any discussion involving
the importance or meaning of the hyphens in the name would be moot. Another
possibly important point would be that all the names that start with “Anti,”
are rulers or leaders of some kind: Antiomno–Lamanite king over the land
of Middoni; Antionah–a ‘chief ruler’ of the city of Ammonihah; Antionum–a
military leader among the Nephite (one of Mormon‘s leaders of 10,000); Antipus–a
Nephite leader over the city of Judea and ‘that part of the land'; also leads a
Nephite army; AntiNephiLehi–king over all the Lamanites (for a while, at
least). It might also be of interest, though its meaning is unknown, all of the
“anti” names, except one, show up exclusively in the book of Alma. That except
shows up first in Alma, then later in Mormon as a military leader. It may be
then, that “Anti” is a label of or for “ruler,” “leader,” etc., thus
Anti-Nephi-Lehi would mean “ruler of Nephi-Lehi,” that is, the city of land of
Lehi-Nephi, which sometime during Mosiah’s time became the name of the city of
Nephi that Nephi, son of Lehi, founded (2 Nephi 5:8).
Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:
Comment #1: “I have yet
to read of any scientist, archaeologist, anthropologist, etc., who thinks there
was any connection between Egypt and your Andean Peru like you allude to”
Vance L.
Response: Well, it is not a
common belief, that is for certain, however, there are far more than you
evidently know that do believe in such a connection. You just don’t see it in
the mainstream journals, reports, news coverage, etc., because it is not a
popular idea among such scientists that there was transatlantic voyaging before
Columbus. And while I have written about this several times, let me just add
one more thought for you to consider: Emmet John Sweeney in
“Links Across An Ocean,” in The Evidence
of Science (Algora Publishing, 2010), quotes Berlitz who noticed an
interesting list of parallels between ancient Egyptian (or its modern
descendant Copitc) and the Quechua language of Peru, which are, importantly,
often connected to religious and cosmic ideas—Egyptian chlol meaning people and Quechua cholo meaning people; Egyptian Ra
meaning sun god and Quechua Ra-mi
meaning festival of the Sun; Egyptian andi
meaning mountain top and Quechua andi
meaning high mountain. In addition, the Peruvian and Egyptian words for copper,
sheaf, clothing, are similar, as is the Egyptian anta meaning the sun and Araucanian anta meaning the sun. In fact, there seems to be many striking
parallels between the Egyptian language and the Quechua and Aymara tongue of
the Andes.
Now, if memory serves
me correctly, we have shown connections with building, pyramid construction,
earthquake angling, language, word origins, and several other areas where there
is far more than mere coincidence between these two civilizations on opposite
sides of the ocean from one another.
Comment #2: “One of the many
difficulties I find with the Book of Mormon is the rapid change in Lamanite
skin color. After all, change in skin color requires long evolutionary periods.
Not only are we asked to believe that rapid shifts in skin color are possible
but that reception of the Christian gospel may produce a lightening of skin
color, what about those today converting without a change in skin color?”
Sandy W.
Response: It is always amazing that people who basically
accept a God that has created the universe and everything in it, including all
of us, seems boggled by the idea He can change skin color in the blink of an eye.
Not only is there precedence for this in the mark placed upon Cain, which had
to be immediate so that others, seeing him would not kill him (Genesis 4:13-15),
but the Supreme Being who created DNA for each of us surely can alter that DNA
for an instant change. As for today, I cannot explain the workings of God’s
mind, but I accept the fact that He has a plan and that nothing interferes with
that plan, no matter how hard some people try.
Comment #3: “Are you
aware of the internal inconsistencies and improbabilities of your Book of
Mormon? Take the case of Alma when he says “and now we only wait to hear the
joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels of his (Christ’s) coming;
for the time cometh, we know not how soon.” Why not? Mosiah 28:20 reports that
all the records were handed down to Alma and Nephi predicted the Savior would
come 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem—Alma’s ignorance of this seems
problematic” Wally R.
Response: There are certain things that God does not disclose
precisely, one of which is the second coming of Christ, which no man, not even
the Savior, knows when. On the other hand, some things are told us in general
“600 years from the time my father left Jerusalem” is within a year’s time—that
is 365 days. When during that year Nephi did not state and Alma did not know.
This seems like a rather nit-picking point, but it might be thought of as the
same as saying, “My son is coming to visit me today, but I do not know the
exact time.” What you call inconsistencies and improbabilities are more
correctly stated as semantic differences in this area—when as opposed to
“exactly” when. That is, “we know not how soon” like in “this week, this month,
three months, six months…”
Comment #4: “The rapid
changes in righteousness to unrighteousness seems radical in your scriptures.
In Alma 4:1, there were no wars in the land of Zarahemla, nor in the next year
when 3,500 souls united themselves to the church; however, by the end of the
eighty year, “the wickedness of the church was a great stumbling-block to those
who did not belong to it” and in the sixteenth year there began to be continual
peace, but two years later, “thus commenced a war betwixt the Lamanites and the
Nephites” Victoria A.
Response: As I have gotten older, I have come to realize that
in the last many years, things have happened rapidly in the world. When the
Wall came down in east Germany, most people were dumbfounded at the suddenness
of it. In the past 6 years of our current President, there has been rapid
changes from good to bad to very bad. Rapid change is not new to the Book of
Mormon or to our present condition.
Comment #5: “It is
surprising to me that nobody seems bothered with the facts and the scriptures
that seem in opposition to John Sorenson’s book about a limited region of
Mesoamerica, in which he states: “Latter-day Saints are not used to the idea
that other people than Lehi’s immediate descendants were on the Book of Mormon
scene. Abundant evidence from archaeological and linguistic studies assure us
that such people were indeed present, so we need to understand how the Book of
Mormon account accommodates that fact: (p 461).
On the same page, Sorenson
argues that “the Lamanites in the original immigrant group became dominant over
a native population of folk already scattered on the land when Lehi arrived.” What
are we to do, therefore, with the Book of Mormon’s express statement that the
Book of Mormon lands had been set aside for Lehi and his descendants as a land
of promise. There is not one single word in the Book of Mormon which allows
for different cultures in the Book of Mormon lands, never mind mixing with them
as Sorenson appears to suggest. There are several promises that are stated in
opposition to having other people around” Langston A.
Response: While many have bought into this idea of Sorenson’s
he neither speaks for the Church, nor for its members. That is his sole idea,
despite it being championed by several groups and organizations. However, you
are right and we have been writing about that in these pages for over five
years now, and in three of the four books we have published on the matter.”
Comment #6: “While
there have been numerous civilizations that have lived on the American
continent before, during and after the time of the Book of Mormon narrative,
there is no archaeological, anthropological or linguistic evidence to
demonstrate that a pre-Columbian, white Jewish, 'pre-Christian Christian',
steel smelting, horse/cattle/ox/sheep herding civilization ever lived on the
American continent during the time period suggested by the Book of Mormon.
Additionally, the fact that natives have inhabited the Americas for over 15,000
years and are of Asiatic descent refutes the primary Book of Mormon tenet that
the American continent was "kept hidden" or "preserved"
specifically by God for his chosen group(s) of people. Nor were these
civilizations wiped out in a global flood as the Great Flood is taught as a
historical event in the BOM and other LDS scriptures”
Tanner T.
Response: There are so many critics
today who simply repeat the same dogma of previous critics that it gets old to
hear time after time. You evidently are not aware of all the things that have
been found “in the ground” in South America to verify the Book of Mormon
culture as written in the scriptural record. That archaeologists and
anthropologists do not make such a connection does not alter the fact that the
connection is there, of which we have written about for the past five years in
this blog. Saying it isn’t so does not make it not so. I invite you to go back
and read all the posts that have been provided here to show the fallacy of your
argument.
Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:
Comment #1: “I consider myself very open minded but if
your primary focus is on the geography without as much if not more
consideration on the promises and prophecies, then I believe you’ll risk
missing it.” Ralph K.
Response: My intention is
not now and never was to focus on modern-day prophecies about anything
regarding the Book of Mormon unless they are official declarations of the
Church…my focus has always been to find out what the Book of Mormon had to say,
it being written by people who were there, who lived on the land, and, as in
the case of Mormon, traveled the land extensively and abridged everyone else’s
writings other than 1 Nephi through Omni. It is also my firm belief, and I have
never found anything to ever contradict this, the Brethren, when speaking for
the Church as Apostles, etc., never conflict with the scriptural
record—sometimes members misunderstand what was meant.
When the Brethren speak, they are always
consistent with the scriptural record. Nor do they speak on matters not already
known
Comment #2: “I read where even though Hagoth’s ship was
described as being exceedingly large, it would in no way compare to anything we
might consider a large ship today, but was simply a ship considerably larger
than those that were the norm for the time” Constance T.
Response: Statements like this
are rarely helpful. First of all, what is meant by a large ship today? Obvious
Hagoth’s ships were not the size of tankers today, nor a passenger liner, or a
holiday cruise liner—we are talking about wooden vessels. So how large was a
wooden vessel? The ship Columbus had to discover America usually surprises most
people when they learn it was only 58-feet long, and about 100 tons weight,
with a crew of 40 men. Since it was 18-feet wide, its deck was only about 1044
square feet, about the size of a very small two-bedroom home. Sir Frances
Drake’s Golden Hinde vessel was about
twice that size in space and crew number. The later Spanish Manilla Galleons
were between 1000 and 2000 tons, and the final ships of the Age of Sail were
the Yankee Clippers that were about 200 feet in length, 30 feet in width
(beam), about 6000 square feet of deck, over 2000 square yards of sail, were
some of the largest sailing ships built.
Left: Columbus flag ship Santa Maria; Right:
Sir Frances Drake’s Golden Hinde
Considering all of that,
what would an exceedingly large ship mean? We have no way of knowing this, but
since the ship mentioned in Alma built by Hagoth was for the purpose of hauling
emigrant families, loaded with provisions, sufficient to start a new life
elsewhere, one might consider it to be larger than that of Columbus Santa
Maria, and likely closer to Drake’s Golden Hinde, or about a hundred feet in
length with a 20-foot beam and around 150-ton or so. For it to be much smaller,
it would not serve much of a purpose in the business of carrying immigrants to
another land.
Comment #3: “I find myself
among those that favor a setting more localized than
Mesoamerica or South America, like near the Great Lakes. I agree with Phyllis
Olive that Lehi's company was directed by divine guidance across the Gulf of
Mexico and up interconnected North American rivers such as the Mississippi,
Ohio and other navigable ancient water ways, to within a short distance of the
Book of Mormon's "west sea" or "west sea, south" – the
freshwater Great Lake Erie. I also agree with Wayne May and Olive that the
northern arrivals of other ancient peoples in the Book of Mormon occurred by
way of the Atlantic Ocean and St. Lawrence Seaway” Virginia O.
Response: We have
written about this many times and our response can be found in numerous posts
in our blog. For a brief answer, the Mississippi River could not take a deep
sea sailing vessel more than 90 miles up from the Gulf because of shoals,
rapids, and blockages that existed on the river for millennia until the Corps
of Engineers cleared such obstructions, built locks, and often dug new
channels. People like Olive and May, and many others, look on a map and say
that looks possible, without knowing about what they write.
Not a single inland
water way before the Corp of Engineers could handle any kind of vessel larger
than a canoe, or a small, flat-bottomed packet carrier, or the type of
flat-bottomed, shallow-draft big boats such as the paddle wheelers. What is
possible today is because of the fantastic work the Corps of Engineers have
done to our eastern inland waterways that make it possible today to reach the
Great Lakes in almost any kind of deep ocean vessel—but that was not initially
the case. Not until this country began to be populated in the 16th
century onward did any kind of river dredging and deepening ever take place,
and without that, no ship of any kind could have gotten within hundreds of
miles of the Great Lakes, including the St. Lawrence Seaway, which had their
own Canadian engineers making that river possible for movement toward the Great
Lakes beyond Montreal and the Lachine Rapids.
Top: 19th-century paddle wheeler
on the Mississippi; Middle and Bottom: Models to show how shallow was the draft
on these paddle wheelers—about one-fourth to one-third the draft (depth in the
water) of a deep-sea sailing vessel. Even then, they could not sail beyond the
rapids, but were either northern boats (upper Mississippi) or southern boats
(lower Mississippi), and many were constantly running aground, needing outside
help, passengers wading in and pushing off sandbars, or waiting for a change in tide
All May and Olive
have shown is their lack of knowledge of these waterways before the 16th
century. Even the French, who occupied New Orleans for many years prior to our
gaining control of that area, worked to clear passage along the delta of the
Mississippi because French shipping could not use the river beyond New Orleans.
Comment #4: “Why do you use so many Book of Mormon
scriptures in your articles. I find that they sometimes interfere with smooth
reading” Paula G.
Response: Scriptures
are used in our writing that apply to what is being covered because it provides
the reader with a source of verification and shows we are not simply making up
what we say, or speaking from our own belief and knowledge as so many theorists do. We use a lot to
show the reader that they have the option of verifying what we write, unlike
most writers on the subjects we write about, and to show that each point
discussed has its own reference. We feel it is important that the reader
understands we are giving the scriptural record viewpoint, not something we
came up with ourselves. We do this because when Theorists write about their
theories and models, most readers do not fact-check what they say or do not
know how to find a reference that is not listed, but tend to accept it or
reject it without knowing any more than what is written. We feel it is
important that the reader knows what is in the scriptural record, not what
someone claims is in it.
Comment #5: “While
I cannot accept the Book of Mormon story as literally historical; I can, in a
sense, accept the book as a somewhat symbolic embodiment of 'the American
story' - the creation of a unique but "familiar" vision of manifest
destiny, wars waged to protect the "liberties" of patriots,
democracies created to secure the sanctity of these liberties, and the
overarching struggle of good and evil - all roughly woven together within the
framework of an American Christian apocalypse” Justin F.
Response: To each his
own. What you get out of the Book of Mormon is up to you, and in part, what you
put into it to study and comprehend. As for me, I accept every word as factual,
events that happened, people that lived, prophets that wrote, and the
foundation of my religion as the Bible is to others, though I accept the Bible
as well. I believe the Book of Mormon is an inspired document, written on
plates of metal as stated, abridged by Mormon, buried by Moroni, uncovered by
Joseph Smith (all part of the inspired plans of the Lord), and translated by
the latter under the strict guidance of the Spirit. Therefore, I accept every
word written within its pages, every meaning, every concept and precept, every
prophecy and every word. This entire blog is written for this purpose, to show
the truthfulness, accuracy and reality of its writings and the events within
its pages.
It was brought to my attention that an article posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 was incorrect. The comment received "Are you sure Helaman 3:8 is referring to the Jaredites" posted July 24, 2015 by David K., is correct in pointing this out. The post read: "The Land Northward was filled with many mighty cities (Ether 9:23) and
people who had “spread over all the face of the land” (Ether 10:4).
There were many spacious buildings (Ether 10:5), and the people became
exceedingly rich in buildings (Ether 10:12) and these buildings were of
every kind (Mosiah 8:8). The Jaredites built a “great city by the narrow
neck of land” (Ether 10:20), and the “whole face of the land northward
was covered with inhabitants” (Ether 10:21). In fact, they filled up the
land from sea to sea on the north, east, west and south (Helaman 3:8)."
In checking my old notes back then, the post should have read: "The Land Northward was filled with many
mighty cities (Ether 9:23) and people who had “spread over all the face of the
land” (Ether 10:4). There were many spacious buildings (Ether 10:5), and the
people became exceedingly rich in buildings (Ether 10:12) and these buildings
were of every kind (Mosiah 8:8). The Jaredites built a “great city by the
narrow neck of land” (Ether 10:20), and they began to spread upon the face of
the land and to multiply and to till the earth; and they did wax strong in the
land (Ether 6:18), and the “whole face of the land northward was covered with
inhabitants” (Ether 10:21). In fact, they filled up the land from sea to sea
on the north, east, west and south (Helaman 3:8).
Naturally, Helaman 3:8, was referring to a different time and a different people (Nephites). My apologies for the incorrect posting and thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:
Comment #1: “You continually write about Lehi landing on
an island, and that it was South America. Are you suggesting South America as a
continent would have been called an island? If so, it seems far too large for
the geographical descriptions in the Book of Mormon” Clyde W.
Response: Evidently
you have missed the many maps we have posted showing South America prior to the
rising of the eastern portions when the Andes rose during the crucifixion and
the numerous destructive descriptions found in 3 Nephi and Samuel the
Lamanite’s prophesy in Helaman. And not
to repeat all that, for it is found in the blog site in earlier postings, I’ll
include one map here, showing the basic difference between the “Isle” mentioned
by Jacob and the present map of South America.
Comment #2: “Angkor
Wat (the largest temple complex in the world) did not just magically appear on
the Malay Peninsula. There was an advanced civilization there (buildings,
temples etc.). It was called Zhenla. Add a few letters and you're pretty close
to Zarahemla”
Sithu Mon
Angkor Wat
temple complex in Cambodia that was built in the 12th Century A.D.
Response: Evidently Angkor Wat, which means “Temple City”
(City of Temples), in Khmer, and is located in Angkor, about 3 ½ miles north of
Siem Reap, in the Siem Reap Province, Cambodia. Angkor Wat was built in
Cambodia, not the Malay Peninsula, in the 12th Century A.D., during
the reign of Suryavarman II (1113 to 1150). Dedicated to the
Hindu god Vishnu (Supreme God of Faishnavism), it was built as the king's state
temple and capital city. As neither the foundation stela monument nor any
contemporary inscriptions referring to the temple have been found, its original
name is unknown, but it may have been known as "Varah Vishnu-lok"
after the presiding deity. Work seems to have ended shortly after the king's
death, leaving some of the bas-relief decoration unfinished. About 27 years
after Suryavararman’s death in 1177, Angkor was sacked by the Chams (Chăm Pa from Vietnam), the
traditional enemies of the Khmer.
As for the kingdom of
Zhenla, which was an early Khmer state covering what is now (Red Arrow) northern Cambodia (Yellow Arrow: The Malaysa Peninsula
where Nephites were supposed to have been) Cambodia and southern Laos
(which some refer to as Dvāravatī),
was originally a vassal state of Funan, revolting in the latter part of the 6th
century, and by 627 A.D., during the reign of Isanavarman I, the previous lords were
completely subjugated. It expanded under Jayavarman I in the late 7th
century, and by 706 A.D., the kingdom was divided (Land Chenla and Water Chenla) and
later in the century fell under the domination of the Sri Vijaya empire of
Sumatra—its successor was the Khmer kingdom of Angkor.
Comment #3: “Writing systems
are revised or reformed very rarely. Speech is always changing over time and
space, yet we Americans can still understand Chaucer and Shakespeare rather
well in writing and comprehend our friends the Brits, Australians, etc.
tolerably well in speech and quite well in writing. Therefore, it is surprising
to read that Mosiah "caused that [the people of Zarahemla, the Mulekites]
be taught in his language" since neither he nor his people could
understand them (Omni 17-18), even though the Mulekites had come from Jerusalem
only some 300 years later, during which time the spoken language would not have
changed all that much. Joseph Smith appears to have known that glottochronology
impinges on the credibility of his entire story and this may account for the
insertion of an episode which nonetheless is totally unbelievable” Arthur J.
Response:
Let’s see, where to begin…first, the Mulekites came to the Land of Promise
within a few years of Lehi, they just landed a distance apart and were unknown
to each other, having developed separately in their lands over nearly 400 years
before Mosiah “discovered” Zarahemla. Second, language deteriorates rather
rapidly under certain circumstances—the main one is where there are no written
“records” from which a language can be compared over time as it begins to
change. Between Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespear and us (600 and 400
years respectively) has been a continual usage of the same language by an
ongoing stream of people with contact with one another throughout this time.
That is, the language you cite as not undergone isolation from anyone else
during that time. This is a major issue with language changes.
Left: Chaucer’s English is not all that easy
to read; had it been “discovered” without knowing it was English, the
connection would not have been that simple—to understand the writing of Chaucer
most of us would need an interpreter; Right: Shakespeare’s writing is not much
easier; most people require college courses to read the actual style of
writing, not the modern-day writing of the same wordage that is found in high
school classes and undergraduate college classes—but that actual writing style
itself
Chaucer’s “Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote the
droughte of March hath perced to the roote, thanne longen folk to goon on
pilgrimages,” with the pronunciation of that time, where the vowels
are pronounced as in Italian or Spanish, "R"s were trilled or flapped, and words
like droughte are pronounced
as in German, it might take us a while to realize that we were being told that
“When April with its sweet showers has
pierced the drought of March to the root, then folks long to go on
pilgrimages.” And this of a language that has had centuries
of constant use among us as it evolved to what we use today. Stated
differently, the language didn’t just appear out of nowhere, but was in
constant usage, and any changes in spelling, grammar, pronunciation, etc.,
evolved through people slowly so that all understood.
This was not the case
with the Mulekites, whose changes evolved from basically one language to
another without any Nephite being aware of the changes in between. You can make
this sound simple, but linguists who can make such leaps in understanding have
been trained and spend their lifetime studying the changes that have taken
place.
I might also add,
having traveled extensively across this country, spending time in 46 states, in
the backwoods of Alabama, or the academic halls of Boston, or the ranches of
Texas, one hears a language that is far from the same—in fact, I would say that
at times, you think you are in a totally separate, non-English speaking land.
And for the British, go visit Devonshire, or across into Ireland and say you
understand that quite well.
Comment #4: “From
reading your articles each day, it looks like you have sought out every
other view out there to compare and consider” Carlie
A.
Response: Actually, I did
not seek out other views. I began my studies of this work many years ago by
looking at the scriptural record and deciding to let it take me wherever it
went. I had no preconceived idea about where the Land of Promise was located,
and actually didn’t care where it turned out to be. I simply thought it would
be wise to let Nephi and Mormon tell me where they went. In the course of doing
this, I ran across numerous other models and theories, as I still do, and my
nature is to compare whatever I find written or said about the Book of Mormon
to the scriptural record…if it does not match, it is wrong. In the course of
all these years, I have made what seems to me to be startling discoveries that
for some reason are not understood by others.
Comment #5: “Why does the Book of Mormon mention Bellows
(1 Nephi 17:11), Brass (2 Nephi 5:15), Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah
8:10), Iron (Jarom 1:8), Gold and Silver currency (Alma 11), Silver (Jarom
1:8), and Steel Swords (Ether 7:9)? No evidence indicates that these items
existed during Book of Mormon times. In fact, according to Tom Ferguson:
"Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century
A.D." Dick M.
Response: Metallurgy
has not been found in Mesoamerica before 900 A.D. where Mesoamericanist theorists have convinced a large number of people the Book of Mormon was to have taken place; however, since it did not take place there, when something in the real world does not agree, people attribute that to an error in the Book of Mormon when, in reality, it is an error in the location being promoted. Metallurgy has been found in Andean
Peru dating to Jaredites times (2155-1936 B.C.). The necklace (left) was dated
to 2100 B.C. found around Lake Titicaca. If you are going to look for Book of
Mormon evidence, you won’t find it in Mesoamerica. But if you look in Andean Peru, you will find untold evidence.
