More Comments from Readers - Part IV

Following are more comments or questions we have received from various readers to this blog.

Comment #1: “I’m confused. Who was the leader of the Jaredites: Jared or the Brother of Jared. And if the Brother, whoynot use his name? Robert D.

Response: First of all, the Brother of Jared had a very long and difficult word to say and write several times. That name was Mahonri Moriancumer (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Messenger and Advocate, vol.1, no.112)—more easily in engraving on ancient plates as the Brother of Jared. Second. His much younger brother, however, was evidently a spiritual man who spent much time dealing with spiritual matters. When it became understood that the Lord was going to (or had) confounded the people’s languages at Babylon where the Jaredite brothers lived (or near there), he sought the Lord’s blessing of not having their own language altered and asked his spiritual brother to inquire of the Lord: first, not to confound their language, and second, where they should go, since the people of Babylon at the tie were unable to communicate with one another and were leaving the area for other regions.

Comment #2: “I read somewhere that there is a distinct explanation for the puzzling description of the wildernesses described in Alma 22:27, which defines two different wildernesses, one wilderness to the north of the land of Nephi and one wilderness to the south of the land of Zarahemla with a canyon or mountains in between them. Did I read that correct? Ryder W.

Examples of wilderness—it can be almost any terrain, as it is not occupied with permanent construction

 

Response: Phyllis Carol Olive, in one of her books, The Lost Lands of the Book of Mormon, makes this claim. However, Mormon writes that 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 wilderness. It is not complicated. There is a single strip of wilderness between the two lands that ran from sea to sea.

Comment #3: “You claim that Andean Peru had a connection with Egypt, at least in language, and possibly in building, but  I haven’t 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: It is certainly not a common belief among archaeologist, anthropologists, or other professionals, such as linguists, however, there are connections, but you just do not read of them in the mainstream journals, reports, or news coverage, that there was transatlantic voyaging before Columbus.

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, and 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. 

(Left) Egyptian doorway, and (Right) Peruvian doorway—both were trapezoidal in shape, a rather unusual shape for a door but extensive in both areas

 

As for buildings, we have shown similarities in pictures of both Peruvian and Egyptian stone work, and also pyramid construction, earthquake angling and fitted stones. All of this is far more than mere coincidence between these two civilizations on opposite sides of the ocean from one another.

Comment #4: “John Sorenson is considered the expert on Book of Mormon geography, yet you disagree with almost every point he makes about his central America location and all his points to which by the way the majority of members agree.” Gerard P.

Response: While many have bought into Sorenson’s Mesoamerican theory, that has been championed by several groups and organizations, it simply does not match Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni’s descriptions—in short, the scriptural record; however, it should be kept in mind, Sorenson—in fact no theorist—speaks for the Church, nor for its members. That is his sole idea, despite that understanding. For further understanding of how Sorenson fails to match the descriptions of these ancient writers, see the four books we have published on the matter.”

Comment #5: “You mention that Mormon’s insert was 543 words in one article and 568 in another. Why the difference?” Rhonda J.

Response: The larger number is the complete count of words of Alma 22:27-34; as to the smaller number, and 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.

Comment #6: “If Reformed Egyptian was a readable mixture of Egyptian and Hebrew, and Joseph Smith portrayed it as being the universal language of North and South America, one would expect archaeologists to have uncovered something written in it. But nothing has been found to support this claim.” Ray M.

Response: First, at no time did anyone suggest, either Joseph Smith or the prophets who wrote in the record two thousand years ago, that Reformed Egyptian, with or without a mixture of Hebrew, was ever the universal language of any land, nor did Joseph Smith claim such a language was universal in North and South America. Reformed Egyptian was simply the language used by those who wrote on the sacred records, one such record has been translated into the Book of Mormon. We have no indication anyone ever spoke a mixture of Hebrew and Egyptian—only that Reformed Egyptian was that used on the plates, and Hebrew spoken. Obviously, after the annihilation of the Nephite people and nation in 385 A.D., there was no one left who wrote or spoke either language in the Land of Promise—let alone some type of combination of both.