Monday, September 9, 2019

More Comments from Readers – Part V

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of this website blog:
Comment #1: “Have u considered lamanites. They were here long after the nephites...and there were other people here. Just seems to me like ur not looking at all possible options. Lamanites were from the same origination family and by ur own words u said within a few hundred years even the plains indians new little or nothing of this culture. I mean it seems possible that these peoples culture change or assimilated over a few hundred years” Anna B.
What is claimed to be a man-made earthen wall sloping down to a “moat” is far more likely to be an old stream bed, all that’s left of a once swift river that left earth on the outward slope of the current

Response: The article or post to which you responded, “One More Time—The Mounds of North America Were Not Nephite,” was about theorists claiming the mounds found in the U.S. Heartland were built by Nephites and are evidence that the Nephites settled in what is now the United States. First, not all of the so-called mounds were man-made, as shown above, but acts of nature; Second, our response had to do with their not being Nephite—there was no attempt to claim who built the mounds.
    While we do not know the answer to that question, it is very likely the Lamanite descendants that reached North America may well have been the builders of those mounds—the problem is, while so many uninformed people think they represent an advanced society, they actually are little more than either elevated land upon which huts were built for living, or were simply burial mounds for the dead. Neither of which represent much of an advanced society when you look into what was accomplished anciently in South America and Mesoamerica.
Indian mound in the Heartland showing its size large enough to have had a small dwelling built on top, though there is no evidence of such. There were burials within the mound

In addition, many of these mounds post-date the Nephite era—all were built in the AD era. Again, the point of the article was they were not Nephites.
Comment #2: “It is interesting that no one in your faith seems to cross-reference the same argument the Spirit uses to convince Nephi to kill Laban (one man’s life vs many) with that same argument that Caiaphas used as the basis to kill Jesus Christ. “It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50). The rationale used in your Book of Mormon simply does not hold water” Thomas J. W.
Response: To the Lord, who owns us, who purchased our lives at Gethsemane and upon Galgotha (Calvary), who lives in an ongoing, eternal existence, to whom death is merely another step on the path to perfection for all humans, and is little more than moving from one room to another in the eternal sense, the removal of Laban from his position of hindering part of the Great Plan that was to send Lehi and his family to start a branch of Israel in a far off, “promised” land, was not only within his right as our God, but also within the sphere of the eternal consequences of Laban’s unrighteousness and desire to kill Lehi’s four sons so he could acquire the great wealth they brought him to purchase the Brass Plates.
Laban could have honorably sold the plates to Nephi and his brothers, but his avarice caused him to steal the treasure and order his guards to kill the all the brothers

The Lord presented him with an opportunity to turn over the plates in exchange for what he desired most, great wealth; however, when the evil Laban saw an opportunity to keep the plates and obtain the wealth, he sought the lives of his relatives. Not knowing exactly what Nephi and Laman said to Laban initially in order to obtain the plates, one might see in Laban’s initial refusal an unwillingness to part with his entrusted charge; however, subsequent opportunities to part with them in an honorable way was also fruitless, and the man’s evil nature rose to cloud his thinking and actions—he could think of nothing else than to kill those who had brought him the money for the purchase and keep the plates as well.
    The argument that it is better for one man to perish than an entire nation lose their birthright and lose the knowledge of their God is of interest, but more for an understanding on the part of Nephi (and his brothers) of the importance of record keeping and the very future work that eventually brought us the entire Book of Mormon and its second witness of Jesus Christ.
    What was important is that the plates were worth more than Laban’s life, that Laban was not worthy of such succor and had given up that right when he attempted to kill the brothers and steal their wealth. It was also important for Nephi to realize it was not only important for him to have this great faith in the Lord, but to be obedient to the Lord in all things—even in something so appalling to him as killing Laban.
Christ being interrogated by Caiaphas, who dominated the Sanhedrin of the time, looking for false evidence with which to frame Jesus

As for Joseph Caiaphas, he was not acting under the direction of the Spirit, the Lord, or God, but under the direction of Satan, who has long made it a habit to use creditable and correct knowledge in an uninspired, evil way. The Jewish high priest, a major antagonist of Jesus, who had been appointed by the Roman prefect, Valerius Gratus, who preceded Pontius Pilate, was the son-in-law of Annas who was deposed, though he had five sons who also served as high priest after him. Caiaphus intent from the beginning was that of evil intent, Nephi’s was not and had to be talked into it by the Spirit. Caiaphus, on the other hand, was intent on taking a life and using an acceptable argument in which to justify his actions—it is not the rationale is in question, it is the intent and purpose behind the rationale that is the unrighteous purpose, not the justification.
Comment #3: “Between August 588 B.C. and April 587 B.C.) Jeremiah came in and went out among the people: for they had not put him in prison."  This eighth-month respite from the siege allowed Jerusalem to open its gates and augment its siege provisions.  During this time Jeremiah attempted to leave the city to go to the land of his inheritance at Anathoth, a village located a few miles north of the city.  However, at the city gate, Jeremiah was seized and charged with deserting to the enemy.  He denied the charge, but he was quickly brought before the princes, who beat and imprisoned him.  He was placed in a cistern and left to die.  It would seem from this that the idea of Mulek escaping during this respite in the siege would not have been possible as you have written” Duncan E.
The Babylonian destructino of Jerusalem

Response: In fact, the city fell three months after this siege was reinstated, on July 12, 586 B.C. (Jeremiah 38-39). However, Jeremiah was arrested by his own people, not the Babylonians. Mulek would not have been arrested by his people, and most likely, while Jeremiah was openly leaving the city, Mulek would have been leaving in secret and it would not have been a procession like what followed Jeremiah to the gate.
Comment #4: “It seems to me that every geographical setting for the Book of Mormon should contain the known hill Cumorah, otherwise the proposed setting would suffer from a lack of credibility” Justin S.
Response: There is simply no way this little unimpressive hill in New York, now called the hill Cumorah, so named by early Saints, could be the hill Mormon describes in the scriptural record. It is even less impressive to see in person; however, we do not know where the known hill Cumorah is located if you mean the one in the Land of Promise that was located in the Land of Many Waters as indicated in the scriptural record and described by Mormon. We do know where the hill in which Joseph Smith found the plates buried is located; however, except for the early Saints calling it the hill Cumorah (the hill is rather nondescript and had never had a name), that drumlin hill in upstate New York does not resemble the hill described in the scriptural record by Mormon, who knew the hill very well, fought his last battle there, and probably died there or very close by.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. In the Law of Moses... was there not a difference between being a thief... and being a robber?

    A thief was one who took things that were not his and where there was no confrontation.

    A robber was one who took things that were not his under the threat or action of hurting or killing the person to get what they wanted.

    And under the Law of Mose... robbery was punishable by death.

    Laban became a robber when he kept Nephi's belongings under the threat of killing him... and therefore his crime was punishable by death.

    It was not Nephi who determined that Laban was guilty... but God... the one who gave man the Law. It was God who told Nephi to kill Laban. He may not have given him the entire reason or explanation of why he was doing this... but because God is righteous... the execution of Laban was righteous under the Law.

  3. Del... I thought we do "know" where the Hill Cumorah is located in South America.