Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: Y. law professor details Book of Mormon, Old Testament legal parallels

Notice also that both the BofM and the bible also use nouns and verbs.

I thought some of that was pretty interesting, nx there were some good arguments in there. But, um, it was Alma the Elder who testified on Abinadi's behalf. There's no evidence that Alma the Younger was even alive at that point, or that Alma the Elder had even married prior to his escape from the city.

When it comes to trying to add legitimacy to the book of mormon, the philosophy seems to be 'grab at every straw'.

I just wish the Church would back off a little bit in trying to reach for anything which could "prove" the Book of Mormon. We are starting to sound a little bit amatuerish. People that need proof will never be satisfied. There is much good in the Book of Mormon and people will either believe in it or not, depending on their confirmation. The Book of Mormon can never be proved or disproved with outside evidence.

and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks."


The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites were keeping the law of Moses. However, the Nephites broke the law of Moses by using the first of the flocks for burnt offerings. These should have already been given to the Lord as tithing.

Mosiah 2:3 "And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses."

To skeptic: Provide evidence that the Book of Mormon is false!

Discussions like this are one of the many reasons people lose their testimonies. The RLDS Church has even recently disavowed the Book of Mormon as "divine". I don't think we should proceed along this path, it isn't faith promoting.

Community of Christ(RLDS) President W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon: "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity. We no longer view the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired."

I'm LDS and have a strong belief in the church. But even I LOL'd at "Make it fit." Funny stuff!

There are a lot of things in the Bible that don't seem to fit, either. The LDS church needs to stop trying to find proof. Take a page out of the Book of Mormon: Nephi's brothers supposedly saw an angel and were rebuked by him. But in the end, they still didn't believe in Lehi and Nephi.

No evidence will be found to conclusively support the Book of Mormon, just like no evidence conclusively supports the divinity of Jesus. It is a matter of spiritual belief/faith.

To those who believe, I say great. To those who don't, I respect them for their beliefs. Mormon, non-Mormon, Christian, non-Christian - I just don't see why there is often so much animosity between people who believe differently.

I once heard a story of a man who went to a psychiatrist who showed him ink spots and asked him to tell him what he saw. To each one he said that it was some erotic seen. The Dr told him he was a sex maniac. To which the patient said. Me? You�re the one with the dirty pictures. My point is you will get out of something pretty much what you bring.

This is an individual who wrote the book, NOT the church. The church isn't "reaching at anything." Again, this is an individual who found interesting parallels and wrote a book. What about all the anti-LDS who "reach for anything" to disprove the church? I do agree with you on one thing. In this life, we are expected to live by faith, and that couldn't happen if the Book of Mormon could be "proven" irrefutably to be true, because that would PROVE everything LDS is true, thus negating the need for faith. That said, I find these types of research interesting. They DO give a tangible addition to confirm the faith we live by.

It is also surprising how many paralles you can find between a squirrel and a chicken if you look hard enough, it makes one wonder what kind of lawyers BYU is schooling.

DNA, archeological evidence, Zelph, Book of Abraham, seerstones, etc.

Take your pick.

I like stories like this. I would like to see the parallels between the book of Abraham and book of Mormon as well.

It's not the Church sponsoring this, the man wrote a book and is doing the article so he can promote his work and drum up some interest when its up for sale. The Church is not grasping at any straw available, it's an article in an LDS newspaper about a new book coming out that some people may be interested in. We get articles all over the MormonTimes about books, movies, cds, and other forms of LDS art that may be of interest to members. That's all this is. If you don't want to read the book to see what the author unearthed, don't. Simple as that.

Ever heard of Russell's teapot?

Personally I enjoy learning more of these types of things. I am LDS and have a firm testimony. I do not NEED this information to build upon what the Spirit has already testified to me - but I do enjoy History and the things that we can learn for today from it. I guess that is why I enjoy reading things like this.

Didn't some guy named Charles Darwin find a parallel between squirrels and chickens? What a lunatic!

What IS Russell's teapot? I've never heard of it. Can anyone help me out??

As a lawyer myself, I love reading Welch's works, especially involving contextual legal issues. Of course he is not trying to prove the BofM to be true, that is not his calling nor intent. We should internalize Pre. Bensons's words:

"We do not have to prove the Book of Mormon is true. The book is its own proof. All we need to do is read it and declare it! The Book of Mormon is not on trial�the people of the world, including the members of the Church, are on trial as to what they will do with this second witness for Christ."

Yadda, yadda, yadda!!!!!!