More Comments from Readers – Part VII

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.