More Comments from Readers – Part I

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of this website blog:
Comment #1: “You simply cannot blame the disappearance of all evidence for the BOM on
earthquakes, Spaniards, or other such lame BS as "the Lord wants us to accept the BOM on faith, not on evidence." That is the stuff confidence men are made of—men like that are hoping you will accept it on faith alone” Jack T.

Response: What you have stated is not our stance or belief on this issue; however, it is found among some theorists as an explanation for how their models are not consistent with the scriptural record. There is no question that we cannot lay blame to the Spaniard Conquerors other than their destruction of a mighty civilization (the Inca), which they found—but that was not the Nephite nation. Nor can we blame earthquakes for they would not have obliterated all evidence of a once powerful and civilized society—there is much evidence in Andean South America to show that societies had ruled there for some time and their magnificent buildings, what is left of them, are still being found, uncovered, and categorized archaeologically. On the other hand, we are expected to accept God and his workings on faith—that is the message of the Bible as well. On the other hand, it is not suggested that the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon has no actual reality to be found—you have just been reading the wrong blog sites and information. As for “faith alone,” it was the Savior who told the skeptic Thomas, after showing him his wounds and Thomas coming to realize the Lord had been resurrected, said, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed” (John 20:29).
    Comment #2: “As far as your theory goes, the church announced on 1.30.19 that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, it has asked its members to focus on the message of the Book of Mormon and not the evidence or lack of evidence that any of this actually happened” Rick M.
    Response: If you are going to write about things, no matter how briefly, try (really try) to get your facts and information correct. The Church did not say there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Such a statement would be ludicrous since certain areas in the Americas show much evidence toward an ancient culture or civilization dominating the land in antiquity during or close to the Jaredite and/or Nephite period. Even Joseph Smith stated that the physical evidence (archaeology) “is proof of its divine authenticity.”
    What the Church did recently state is: “The Church takes no position on the specific geographic location of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Church members are asked not to teach theories about Book of Mormon geography in Church settings but to focus instead on the Book of Mormon’s teachings and testimony of Jesus Christ and His gospel” (emphasis added). This is not a new idea or stand, the Church has always maintained that teaching in Church settings should be the factual knowledge of the Gospel and not speculation, opinions, or personal views.
    The Church also stated: “Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church takes no position on the geography of the Book of Mormon except that the events it describes took place in the Americas.”

What we should learn from this Church statement is that when we teach, comment, participate, speak in Church settings (meetings, etc.) we should stick to the Gospel as outlined in the scriptures—not express personal views that are controversial. The Church article concluded by emphasizing the Church’s neutrality on Book of Mormon geography and quoting President Russell M. Nelson on the importance the book’s primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ and his Gospel.
    We might also add to that idea by saying that when people write about their geographical theories as so many do, they should stick and adhere to, follow and uphold, the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon, and if one wants to make a suggestion, state a view, opinion, or belief, make certain it is consistent with the numerous comments and descriptions Mormon left us in his abridgement and what Nephi and Jacob wrote about the geographical setting.
    Comment #2a: “That is pretty much what I said. There is no proof” Rick M.
    Response: No, that is not what you said. Not even "pretty much." You said "the Church announced that there is no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon." That is both an inaccurate and highly misleading comment. They did not state or comment about proof or evidence in any way shape or form. We are not talking about proof or evidence, nor is the Church. You are the one claiming there is no proof or evidence. The Church simply does not take sides or support a particular location within the Americas.
    Comment #3: “Almost every archaeologist out there supports the theory that human migration went east from Malaysia and Indonesia. Humans spread across the map and to all the islands of the Pacific over time, eventually reaching as far as Hawaii and Easter Island. You don't have to look at a map to guess it, just read a history book” George D.
    Response: Actually, while that was the original belief many decades ago, and still is in the settlement of Micronesia and Macaronesia (Macronesia), most scientists today are beginning to accept a South America-Polynesia contact based on recent studies, DNA testing, the sweet potato, and other factors. About half of those are in the camp of Polynesia contacting South America, the other half believe South America advanced into Polynesia as Thor Heyerdahl showed.
    Comment #3a: “I think Olsen would argue that Zhenla and Langkasuka were the Nephite/Lamanite societies. So their existence supports the theory. Legend (as recorded by the Chinese) state that Zhenla was founded by a foreigner that received a divine mission to cross the seas. Chinese explorers describe cities with walls and towers and communities ruled by kings” Sithu M.

Zhenla (Chenla) in defeating the previous culture, the Funan, occupied most of southern areas of Vietnam,  Laos, and Thailand, and all of Cambodia; but id not actually occupy the Malay Peninsula

Response: While Ralph Olsen’s theory about Malay being the Nephite Land of Promise was covered quite thoroughly in earlier posts, including (“Problems With the Malay Theory-Parts I thru VIII,” this comment brings up a point not covered, i.e., the (Pinyin) Zhenla (commonly called Chenla) were a people in Southeast Asia, i.e., Cambodia, southern Laos and East Thailand, existing from the 6^th to the 8^th centuries A.D. In fact, the earliest mention of Chenlas is found in Chinese chronicles, specifically the Book of Sui (Sui Shu is the History of the Sui Dynasty, the official history book of that Dynasty and is the 13^th of the 24 dynastic histories of Imperial China and covers the period from 581 to 617 A.D.), which documents an embassy from Chenla for the years 616-617.
    The Chenla (whose surviving inscriptions were in Sanskrit) predecessors were the Funan, whose kingdom stretched in southern Southeast Asian centered on the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, and were established in the first century A.D. according to ancient Chinese historians. It would be difficult to associate this people with the Nephites under any circumstances.
    The Langkasuka, which occupied the northern area of the Malay peninsula, founded sometime around in the 2^nd century A.D., descendants of Ashoka from Magadha in India, by ancient Chinese historians, and were considered Hindu-Buddhist. Again, it would be difficult to associate these people with the Lamanites or Nephites.
    Comment #3b: “Your arguments against the Malay theory all hinge on the argument that since we're not told about it in the Book of Mormon, it can't be true. But my guess is all those less important things were probably cut out of the abridgment and sealed up in the hills by Mormon with all the other records that we've never read. There are plenty of extant legends in SE Asia talking about buried golden books bearing ancient histories that have been lost” Sithu M.
    Response: The discussion and argument against the Malay theory has nothing to do with it not being mentioned outright—Peru is not mentioned, nor Guatemala, nor New York, but that is not why we consider the former and reject the latter two. The argument comes from matching the meanings in the scriptural record, the overall concepts, and the direct wordage of Mormon and others, including Nephi’s mention of a vessel being driven forth before the wind, and what was found in the land where he landed.
    As for less important things being cut out of the abridgement, certainly much was when the authors wrote that they could not include the vast majority of what was written; however, where Nephi landed, where events took place are described fairly well and provide us with much information to think that a location in the Eastern Hemisphere would not have been mentioned in some way since the entire Church recognizes that the Book of Mormon took place in the Western Hemisphere.