Comments about ‘LDS Church issues statement on Book of Mormon satire’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 7 2011 2:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

I like this new setup of looked identities. Now I have a citable quote of Vanka being deliberately insulting. It actually shows how well crafted this statement was that no one managed to get through a fully insulting and inflamatory post until the 25th statement.

I have to second those who point out there are some things it is not worth debating. This is one of the harder things about the internet. It is difficult to determine the sincerity of inquiries. At the same time often what you say can be viewed by many people and so even if the first inquirer is not sincere, responding without the proper patience might turn-off a later sincere inquirer.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

I have to disagree with Sutton. For one thing his claim is not true. If I made a similar presentation that tried to insinuate similar things about Jews it would be denounced as anti-semitism and not allowed (well, unless I couched it in the terms of criticism of Orthodox Jews, and got a Reform Jew as my co-writer, and then it would probably fly).

This is plain offensive and meant to be so. I participated belatedly in everybody draw Muhammad day and drew a cartoon of Muhammad just standing there, to be a force against death threats against artists. I also drew a cartoon of Gabriel about to take Muhammad to Jerusalem on the night journey and Muhammad asking "why Jerusalem". I would have to say that many of the participants in this event had unwisely interalized the most negative and Amero-centric stereotypes of Islam.

I also would agree that this production mocks the people of Uganda, but it is a current article of faith among the liberal left at current that Ugandans especially and Africans in general are simplistic, stupid people who can be easily manipulated. I reject this idea.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The likely colapse of the Anglican Communion during this decade is being driven by white liberal Episcopalians who regularly express views against leaders of the Anglican Church of Nigeria and to a lesser extent Uganda that are 100% racist.

Colorado Springs, CO

Interesting, but I am wondering when will be there the next satire: "How you too can get your 72 virgins". Or rather, how about an expose on the Muslim Brotherhood. That should be interesting if the South Park groupies would do this, but make sure your wills are up-to-date.

Draper, utah

Amazing. God translates a record that is an actual historical record. In its translated form it has over 500 pages. It deals with dozens of aspects of several cultures in several areas of MesoAmerica and the Middle East. You would think at least one anthropologist or historian who is not LDS would accept the Book of Mormon as historical, given how eager they are for documents and records, and yet not one does. Not a single one. In fact, those who actually have had the patience to read the Book of Mormon adamantly agree that it is absolutely ridiculous to claim it is historical. Now that is a "Book of Mormon challenge" that would be impossible to match. I guess God's hand is staying all the evidence to make investigators and members live by faith when it comes to the Book of Mormon. It is nonsensical to claim the Book of Mormon is historical, and getting a feeling is not a means of proving its historicity.

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT


"You would think at least one anthropologist or historian who is not LDS would accept the Book of Mormon as historical, given how eager they are for documents and records, and yet not one does. Not a single one."

Of course you should realize that any scholar who does believe would become LDS, thus making it impossible to counter your criticism.

If you are interested, there are LDS scholars who believe. For example, take Kim Goldsmith, Director - Research and Study Center, New World Archaeological Foundation, San Cristóbal de las Casas, México. She believes the BOM is historical. Previously an archaeologist at Teotihuacan for numerous years BEFORE being converted to the LDS Church.

Henderson, NV

Utes Fan brings up an excellent point. As soon as a scholar believes that the Book of Mormon could be authentic, they are automatically discredited on this sole basis, and the myth that no serious scholar accepts the Book of Mormon to be authentic is perpetuated. Fact is, there are plenty of very serious and intelligent scholars, scientists, etc. who believe the Book of Mormon to be authentic. Trouble is, if they dare live what they believe to be truth, they are no longer taken seriously. I wonder what would happen if this same standard was applied to scientists who "believe" in global warming? Do we get to automatically discredit them because they drive a hybrid and recycle religiously?

Vince here
San Diego, CA


Your comparisons are misplaced relatively speaking to history considering how long The Book of Mormon has been in print.

You will find that much of literary criticism will place the Book of Mormon as one of the most influential books written out of America.

For its influence and number of copies which have been printed, the comments "boring" are altogether cheap.

Further, you will find, that based on other influential books in America - or in world literature, in general, you will find readers who do deem them boring.

It is all relative. To some, Shakespeare is relative. To others, Faulkner, to others, modern philosophy.

In the future, try to find something more substantial than "boring."

The Vanka
Provo, UT

Vince here,

Sorry to disappoint you with such a "boring" evaluation of the BOM.

I know Mark Twain's books are probably "boring" to you, but my opinion of the BOM exactly coincides with his.

Can I assume that you would consider it more "substantial" if I said the Book of Mormon is "chlorophorm in print"?

Does that satisfy your literary demands?

As for "most influential books", no "literary criticism" classifies the Book of Mormon as such. Perhaps popular press does. And what does "most influential" actually mean? Isn't that another way of saying popular?

Do you think popularity = truth?

Besides, I can find nobody of any credibility who lists the Book of Mormon among "the most influential books" nor among "the best books of all time".

But Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" makes it into at least one of those categories.

(Incidently, Marx and Engels' "Communist Manifesto" as well as Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" make it into those categories.)

So I think my opinion of the BOM as "boring" is pretty substantial after all.

Durham, NC

Actually, ones opinion of a given work as being "boring" is really just a subjective representation of ones ability to understand the subject matter. Many find reading math books - boring. To others, they find great delight in reading about the math.

So ones opinion that something is boring adds little, and detracts even less. It just shows either a lack of understanding, or a lock of desire to understand.

In fact, believing in something has nothing to do with whether it is boring or not. I am not a muslim, but that does not mean I find the "Koran" boring.

Even the deepest skeptic can find material they don't believe in to be informative at some level, and perhaps even entertaining. But to say something is Boring.... hardly the sign of inquisitiveness. And mockery, really not a sign of advanced thinking. Anyone can mock another. Fifth graders excel at it. A probing mind seeks to understand and doesn't need to diminish others to justify itself.

That just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The Vanka
Provo, UT


Yes, you could be wrong.

If you are correct, then we ought to conclude two things:

1. That Mark Twain lacked understanding of literature, and lacked understanding of how to evaluate the literary merit of a work. Is that reasonable? Shall we trust a confused Utah/Duke fan or Mark Twain's opinion?


2. Perhaps you lack understanding - especially of logic, as you appear to fail to realize how your argument condemns yourself.

But I am open to any value that might exist in the BOM. What does it add to mankind?

- That Jesus paid the price for our sins? We already have that from the Bible.

- That we should love one another, not kill, not lie, not adulterate, etc? We already have that from the Bible, and common sense, too.

- That God might command a person to kill other, defenseless people (like Laban)? We already have that in the Qu'ran and Old Testament. Not really a valuable doctrine, if you ask me.

- That God is "no respecter of persons", yet he has "chosen" a small group of people that he plays favorites with? We already have that from all religions.

What are we missing?

Mesa, AZ

Hmmmm, a Broadway satire on the Book of Mormon...maybe not such a wise idea guys (thoughts on Agency, Freedom, and Liberty, from the Book of Mormon): "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself (2 Nephi 2:27)"

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments