Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: Theology suggests Book of Mormon setting in Central America, scholar says

Anonymous | 2:17 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Oh give me a break. Deification is found in Egyptian culture, Chinese culture, Japanese culture, and ... well, countless cultures around the globe and througout history. Compare any of them and you will find "similarities", but that doesn't prove that a fictitious book about Jesus magically appearing to the inhabitants of the ancient Americas is true!

Stop believing in fairy tales before it is too late!

SteveS | 2:51 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I wasn't there at the session, so I only have the DesNews article to go off of, but it sounds to me like this scholar has put on his "Mormon-colored glasses" through which all history, sociology, and religion are viewed as somehow derivative or related to modern LDS doctrine and practice. Come on, there's not even real evidence in the Bible that points to the LDS fulness of the Gospel being preached in purity in earlier dispensations. The only evidence we have is from revelations given to Joseph Smith. Reading further, peoples in the BOM times probably didn't worship and understand deity with the same doctrine and practices that modern LDS believe and follow.

I just have to ask: why does it matter whether the Inca deified dead leaders? It will not prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon! FAIR scholars should know better than to make suggestions that things like this constitute links to BOM theology.

Reality | 2:52 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Read the Zelph Revelation. It is clear that the B of M events took place in North America.

Comments continue below

Toto | 3:47 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Following their logic, FAIR would also have us believe the yellow brick road was probably in Central America too. There isn't one shred of scientific evidenct to support the Book of Mormon, any more than there is to support the Wizard of Oz.

John Pack Lambert | 3:49 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

To the person who brought up the Inca,
Just because you are both uninformed about and undesirous to learn about ancient American civilizations does not mean that everybody thrives on ignorance.
The Inca were in a different time and place than the Mayan.
This is not about proving that the Book of Mormon is true but about seeking for a larger historical setting. Some of us believe in the unity of truth and believe that it is a good thing to learn more.
Lastly, the Zelph comment is not relevant. It is clear that in the final part of the Book of Mormon a major retreat northward occured. Since Zelph is not even mentioned in the document, his exact physical connection is not clear. Beyond this the distances involved in the northward retreat are hard to quantify, so forcing events in Mormon to have occured in the same location as events in Alma is not justified by the Book of Mormon text. We also have to remember Mormon never tried to give us enough information to find any sight he referenced, so we have to accept ambiguities.

kenny | 4:41 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

To Toto: If I said it once I have said it a million times. The truthfulness of the BOM is not based on Science. To know it is true requires one to read in the BOM Moroni 10:4-5 and follow it.There has never been nor never will be another way to know it is true.Those who want to use the proof card concerning the BOM,have at it.You are spinning your wheels.

the truth | 5:39 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Lambert makes some good points but left out a very important one.

IN 3rd Nephi just before Christ visited america, their was a great change in geography, high places made low, low places made high, etc.

So attempting find the geography of the Book of Mormon discriptions based on pre- 3rd nephi scripture made be complete hopeless due to the radical changes in the landscape.

But a more important point:

It's just lazy thinking, and no intellectual effort to just disbelieve the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith,

for no other reason just because you believe it can't be true,

or claim all religions are myth and are false.

Why it's so easy to disbelieve without proof and just claim it so?

IT takes no effort to believe something is NOT true, it takes no proof or evidence to believe something is NOT true, just lazy thinking and no intellectual effort required.

It takes greater intellectual effort to believe something is true.

You simply can not prove Joseph Smith did not see what said he saw.

It is lazy not consider a moment if what if all he said is true what that means for everyone,

what that means period.

Anonymous | 6:59 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

John Pack Lambert, you are posting under two names. You are also "the truth" -- I can tell by the patterns of logic you use under both names!

Come clean! Admit it!

The Truth is Out There! | 7:32 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

To the truth,

You make a very strong argument!

"It takes greater intellectual effort to believe something is true."

It takes much more intellectual effort to believe in God than to believe nothing.

So we can create a hierarchy of mental effort and faith:

At the bottom are all those who don't believe anything. They are the MOST "intellectually lazy."

Next are those who believe in God, but not in Mormonism. They are low-to-MEDIUM lazy.

Then there are the MEDIUM intellectual effort people who believe in Mormonism and the Book of Mormon and the Zelph prophecy. They have put forth the effort to believe some things that are tough to believe.

But those in the HIGH intellectual effort category are those who believe in UFOs, alien abductions, ESP, psychic readings, that the X-files are true documentary, and those who believe in unicorns. These people are morally superior to all the others because they are the LEAST LAZY intellectually! They have sacrificed and done the MOST work to believe!

Of course, then there are the Extra-High intellectual effort people like yourself, who believe they are actually a pomegranate. They deserve our worship because they are like the intellectual Olympic Gold winners!

Jerry | 11:33 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Hmmmm. First time here and lets see.... about all I can say now is that I am not feeling good about the tone of the responses. Will have to look around some of the other stories and the reader comments.

Not in Central America | 11:47 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I'm going to stick with the theory that the BOM events took place in the Great Lakes region. This is presented in the "One Cumorah' books.

Ken Baguley | 8:41 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Free from doubt...Free from sin...Free from falsehood. Let's go back to the basics to Faith, Repentance and Baptism. Things necessary to know and not things nice to know. We can't have true faith in something that is false. Falsity will remain false no matter how much faith we try to exercise. Let's put things nice to know on a different shelf after we are found to know the truth.

Dave in ID | 9:40 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Ken,

You are absolutely right. "We can't have true faith in something that is false."

So when I learn that Joseph Smith's history (as told by Bushman in "Rough Stone Rolling") is completely different than the history told me by the missionaries, and "the Spirit" confirms to me that the "inspiring" Joseph Smith history is FALSE, then I cannot have faith in it.

Trouble is, I cannot have faith in the "true" Joseph Smith history told by Bushman because it shows Joseph to have been anything BUT a prophet or a righteous man! In many ways he was downright deplorable! What kind of a man uses his Church position to threaten women if they don't become his plural wives? What kind of a man lies to his own wife for years about his sexual relationships with other women, even if you accept that he married these other women first?!

No, you cannot have faith in things that are false. I cannot have anymore faith in Joseph Smith because he was a false prophet.

Matt | 1:24 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

How hard would it be for the prophet to ask God?

Probably the same reason the mormon church has never given any official answer.

John | 1:57 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

The scholar is looking through "Mormon-colored glasses"? I suppose so. But then many Christian fundamentalists have a "biblical world view." Why should one be trusted more than the other? Is there a "third way" to distinguish the better approach without appealing to subjective feelings?

Ernest T. Bass | 3:13 p.m. Aug. 9, 2008

FAIR/FARMS will say whatever seems the most likely. It's not like their idea of 'truth' is ever consistent.
There has never been any archeological evidence to support any of the BOM claims.

SFC RET DENNIS | 8:18 p.m. Aug. 9, 2008

Well here we go agein, people trying to tear down what they don't understand and don't wish to understan. I will tell you this I could care less, what you thank, I "KNOW" what is true and I "DON'T" need any archeologicl evidence to support anything, read James 4 - 6 and do just what James tells you and YOU will find your answers. I will never tell you that your are wrong on how you belive, when our Lord returns then we shell see. I also tell you this the LDS church does teach that everyone who belive's in Christ and trys to live according to his teachings as best you can. Only Jesus Christ ever walked the Earth perfect, the rest of us will sumble and fall but we must pick our self up and do the best we can. Before you try to condem how someone belive read the Bible and you will find that God will don't approve of condemnation, we teach with love and long suffering, if you don't belive the way I do, fine, but to condem ones belive they will never change.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.