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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment