Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: Y. law professor details Book of Mormon, Old Testament legal parallels
67 comments | Read story
Make it fit | 1:39 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Notice also that both the BofM and the bible also use nouns and verbs.
Sarah | 2:59 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
Skeptic | 6:54 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
When it comes to trying to add legitimacy to the book of mormon, the philosophy
seems to be 'grab at every straw'.
Comments continue below
My2Cents | 7:25 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
Otis Spurlock | 7:33 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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."
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."
antiskeptic | 7:39 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
To skeptic: Provide evidence that the Book of Mormon is false!
Patricia | 7:47 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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."
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."
Hollywood | 8:09 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
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.
Testifyer | 8:12 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
Hey, My2cents | 8:16 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
LDS | 8:17 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
To: antiskeptic | 8:20 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
DNA, archeological evidence, Zelph, Book of Abraham, seerstones, etc.
Take your pick.
Take your pick.
Ernest T. Bass | 8:26 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
I like stories like this. I would like to see the parallels between the book of
Abraham and book of Mormon as well.
Um, guys? | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
Re: antiskeptic | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Ever heard of Russell's teapot?
JanSan | 9:16 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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.
RE: LDS | 9:18 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Didn't some guy named Charles Darwin find a parallel between squirrels and
chickens? What a lunatic!
Seriously... | 9:29 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
What IS Russell's teapot? I've never heard of it. Can anyone help me
out??
Jeremy | 9:40 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
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."
"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."
Herb Gravy | 9:54 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Yadda, yadda, yadda!!!!!!
John Lambert | 9:54 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
RE: LDS wrote:
"Didn't some guy named Charles Darwin find a parallel between squirrels and chickens? What a lunatic!"
Yes, Charles Darwin did find a parallel. It was DNA! We all know what happens when you put DNA into the discussion. lol!!!!!!!
"Didn't some guy named Charles Darwin find a parallel between squirrels and chickens? What a lunatic!"
Yes, Charles Darwin did find a parallel. It was DNA! We all know what happens when you put DNA into the discussion. lol!!!!!!!
Otis Spurlock | 9:59 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Bertrand Russell described Russell's Teapot as:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
bikermom40 | 10:04 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
dah -- the LDS church didn't write this book. And the professor states he
didn't write the book to prove the Book of Mormon. Just because he enjoys
research and comparisons doesn't mean he has an agenda. If his only purpose
in writing the book was to promote his philosophies, seems to me every other
author could be accused of the same thing. Why not get the chips off your
shoulders and find a life outside criticizing everything and everyone LDS!
Jimmy | 10:20 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
WOW!!! that's cool.
Re: Testifyer | 10:27 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
You mean you watched What About Bob? and took that line directly from the movie
right?
scholar | 10:31 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Welch has committed his life and career to the study of ancient scriptures.
Good for him. When he finds things that are interesting,and thinks others may
find them interesting as well, he shares.
If the things that he finds and shares are so interesting that he is able to make a living from his work... even better.
Some of you don't like his work, or feel it is meaningless or contrived, or whatever. I am sure I wouldn't be thrilled with what some of you do for a living and vice versa.
I am personally glad that he does what he does, and I may very well pay him for it by buying the book. If you think it is stupid. Don't buy the book, but stop attacking him for writing it.
If the things that he finds and shares are so interesting that he is able to make a living from his work... even better.
Some of you don't like his work, or feel it is meaningless or contrived, or whatever. I am sure I wouldn't be thrilled with what some of you do for a living and vice versa.
I am personally glad that he does what he does, and I may very well pay him for it by buying the book. If you think it is stupid. Don't buy the book, but stop attacking him for writing it.
Alex Trebek | 10:43 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Those who look at this as another attempt to "make it fit" or justify
the Book of Mormon's existence are just looking for something to rail
against. I read the article and nowhere did I feel that they were trying to
convince unbelievers that since the Bible and Book of Mormon have similar
judicial practices that it proves the Book of Mormon's validity. Like the
article stated, it's something that adds to the realness of these people.
It's not just a good story, these were real people. As real as the people
in the Bible. That's cool.
Sireofmany | 11:13 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
to Sarah 2:59am:
He didn't say it was Alma the Younger in the case of Abinadi. He said it was Alma when he was younger. There is a difference.
He didn't say it was Alma the Younger in the case of Abinadi. He said it was Alma when he was younger. There is a difference.
Get Real | 11:16 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
To bikermom40 @10:04 a.m.: The fact that the Deseret News would publish this
professor's nonsense does in fact show an attempt to prove the Book of
Mormon's veracity.
Me | 11:29 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Those who easily dismiss BOM evidences haven't really studied the issue.
There are evidences that Joseph Smith could not have possibly, even remotely
come up with. See the video "Journey of Faith" for a start.
What bothers me even more is when Latter-Day Saints dismiss scholarly work on BOM evidences, as if it is wrong or non-faith promoting or something like that. If you are LDS and BOM evidences arent'tg important to you, fine. But to throw criticisms at scholars or BYU for doing so shows ignorance.
At the beginning of the "Journey of Faith" video, the narrator quotes Joseph Smith as saying that in the century after his, there would be droves of evidences for the BOM. That has and continues to come to pass. Shouldn't we praise those who dedicate their lives to fulfilling Joseph Smith's prophecy? I think so. Plus, learning about these things had greatly deepened my understanding of the BOM and my testimony. If it doesn't interest you, fine. But not only is it OK to study evidences, it actually is very beneficial.
What bothers me even more is when Latter-Day Saints dismiss scholarly work on BOM evidences, as if it is wrong or non-faith promoting or something like that. If you are LDS and BOM evidences arent'tg important to you, fine. But to throw criticisms at scholars or BYU for doing so shows ignorance.
At the beginning of the "Journey of Faith" video, the narrator quotes Joseph Smith as saying that in the century after his, there would be droves of evidences for the BOM. That has and continues to come to pass. Shouldn't we praise those who dedicate their lives to fulfilling Joseph Smith's prophecy? I think so. Plus, learning about these things had greatly deepened my understanding of the BOM and my testimony. If it doesn't interest you, fine. But not only is it OK to study evidences, it actually is very beneficial.
paa | 11:29 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Being a subscriber to the Maxwell institue, I appreciate articles like this with
regards to new research on the Book of Mormon. This kind of research is not
meant to "prove" the book is true, that can only come from
inspiration, and, as others have pointed out, nothing will prove it true to
those who don't want to believe it. It is only meant to help those who are
searching for truth and may need concrete answers to questions which arise
before they can have sufficient faith to find the truth. As Neal A. Maxwell put
it: "our critics should not be permitted to have "uncontested slam
dunks". And as other bloggers have pointed out, this research is done by
those who are members of the church, not by the church as an institution. I
think it is great, and more power to them. The Maxwell Institute also just put
out an excellent book on dna research and the Book of Mormon, which I would
highly recommend to anyone interested in this topic. It is a great answer to the
critics on this subject, and covers all the possible areas.
Rich | 12:29 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
This I know, there will be opinions and those who oppose them.
I heard a quote once: | 12:31 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Never explain, your true friends don't need it, and your enemies won't
believe you anyway.
I think that is true when it comes to explaining the Book of Mormon.
I believe it is true, but people who have already have an oppinion think I am crazy when I say that. But on my mission in Australia, there were a few truly interested people who did believe me.
But there were a few times in my ameteurish teenage (19 year-old) wisdom that I thought I would throw out "irrefutable" (I used quotes on purpose) evidence to convince people (usually hardened ministers) I was right. It hardly ever (never) worked.
The only times it did work bordered on miraculous, and was never the result of facts, but only as a result of simple testimony.
As a side, the one time I did beat a minister at his game was when I asked him how much money he made making money off selling Jesus. He replied that he made a "healthy" income, I replied that I remember that Judas was the only disciple of Jesus who made any money off of him. He left. We baptised the family we were teaching there.
I think that is true when it comes to explaining the Book of Mormon.
I believe it is true, but people who have already have an oppinion think I am crazy when I say that. But on my mission in Australia, there were a few truly interested people who did believe me.
But there were a few times in my ameteurish teenage (19 year-old) wisdom that I thought I would throw out "irrefutable" (I used quotes on purpose) evidence to convince people (usually hardened ministers) I was right. It hardly ever (never) worked.
The only times it did work bordered on miraculous, and was never the result of facts, but only as a result of simple testimony.
As a side, the one time I did beat a minister at his game was when I asked him how much money he made making money off selling Jesus. He replied that he made a "healthy" income, I replied that I remember that Judas was the only disciple of Jesus who made any money off of him. He left. We baptised the family we were teaching there.
Cats | 12:33 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Okay--to "Skeptic," You are obviously not informed as to the most
recent information. There actually is DNA evidence that supports the B of M.
There has even been middle eastern DNA found amoung the Mayan parts of Central
America--just where you might expect to find it.
Also, the DNA "evidence" that supposedly refutes the B of M is not based on any research by POPULATION DNA experts. It is just general DNA information that has been taken from other researchers and interpreted by LDS critics to be in opposition to the B of M.
Archaeology--again you are not up on the latest information. There actually is a great deal of archaelogical, linguistical, cultural, historical, etc., etc. evidence that supports the B of M.
May I say in conclusion, the Book stands on it's own as truth. Our testimony of it is based on a witness from the Lord. "Skeptic" and others who have CHOSEN not to believe for whatever personal reasons they have, will never believe even if God himself came down to testify of it.
The Book of Mormon is the word of God. I know this from a personal witness from Him. You, also, may know through prayer.
Also, the DNA "evidence" that supposedly refutes the B of M is not based on any research by POPULATION DNA experts. It is just general DNA information that has been taken from other researchers and interpreted by LDS critics to be in opposition to the B of M.
Archaeology--again you are not up on the latest information. There actually is a great deal of archaelogical, linguistical, cultural, historical, etc., etc. evidence that supports the B of M.
May I say in conclusion, the Book stands on it's own as truth. Our testimony of it is based on a witness from the Lord. "Skeptic" and others who have CHOSEN not to believe for whatever personal reasons they have, will never believe even if God himself came down to testify of it.
The Book of Mormon is the word of God. I know this from a personal witness from Him. You, also, may know through prayer.
There is | 12:43 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
There is ample evidence to dismiss the BOM, however you would have to WANT to
accept the evidence. If you do not want to accept it, you could still believe
in it, and I for one would not consider you silly for doing so. The book has
many good teachings, the living of which would make you a better person. This
is not an all or nothing type issue.
Unparalleled | 12:56 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Anyone ever notice the parallels between MLM organizations and the LDS church?
Someone should write a book on that!
Re: John Lambert | 1:00 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
You're wrong, DNA wasn't known in Darwin's time to back up his
theories, yet his work was and is accepted by many today.
In the same way, we have no definitive proof of DNA for the Book of Mormon at the current time, but many evidences have been found to authenticate it.
In the same way, we have no definitive proof of DNA for the Book of Mormon at the current time, but many evidences have been found to authenticate it.
To: antiskeptic | 1:03 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
What is "Zelph" and how does this not prove the Book of Mormon? I
don't understand. Please explain.
Oh, please! | 1:03 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
I'm REMOTELY unimpressed.
F.B. Eye | 1:15 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Antiskeptic,
Please do not research "Zelph". It is a testimony destroyer. I know a couple of people who left the Church researching the "Zelph" issue.
Please do not research "Zelph". It is a testimony destroyer. I know a couple of people who left the Church researching the "Zelph" issue.
Illuminated | 1:15 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
I agree with "Me" above.
I would argue with those people who say that a testimony of the Book of Mormon cannot be obtained through studying the evidences of it.
The Holy Ghost testifies through seeing evidence of the Book of Mormon, just like it testifies through other methods. I know, because I have felt it when studying it.
I have spent countless hours reading both sides of the story (pro BoM evidence, and anti BoM evidence), and have found the evidence is stronger in support of the BoM being what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. For every anti-BoM evidence there is a stronger rebuttal.
A lot of the time, anti-BoM evidence is just trickery. One example is that some say JS got names for cities in the BoM from cities local to Palmyra. In fact the vast majority of these cities were not even founded until well after the Book of Mormon was published. Cont'd-->
I would argue with those people who say that a testimony of the Book of Mormon cannot be obtained through studying the evidences of it.
The Holy Ghost testifies through seeing evidence of the Book of Mormon, just like it testifies through other methods. I know, because I have felt it when studying it.
I have spent countless hours reading both sides of the story (pro BoM evidence, and anti BoM evidence), and have found the evidence is stronger in support of the BoM being what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. For every anti-BoM evidence there is a stronger rebuttal.
A lot of the time, anti-BoM evidence is just trickery. One example is that some say JS got names for cities in the BoM from cities local to Palmyra. In fact the vast majority of these cities were not even founded until well after the Book of Mormon was published. Cont'd-->
Illuminated | 1:21 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
<--cont'd
In fact, many of the city names in the BoM have real Hebrew origins and were even placed in circumstances where the name makes sense:
Examples:
Za-rhahem-la (Mulek, son of Zedekiah escaped death from the Babylonian invasion and founded the city) means:
My son - Of my womb taken away, loved scattered -without mercy
Jersh-on (The land that was given as an inheritance for Lamanite dissenters) means:
Inheritance - Place of
How did Joseph Smith know the Hebraic meanings? What's more astounding, is how did he know the meanings and manage to place the names in historical and situational context of the Book of Mormon story?
In fact, many of the city names in the BoM have real Hebrew origins and were even placed in circumstances where the name makes sense:
Examples:
Za-rhahem-la (Mulek, son of Zedekiah escaped death from the Babylonian invasion and founded the city) means:
My son - Of my womb taken away, loved scattered -without mercy
Jersh-on (The land that was given as an inheritance for Lamanite dissenters) means:
Inheritance - Place of
How did Joseph Smith know the Hebraic meanings? What's more astounding, is how did he know the meanings and manage to place the names in historical and situational context of the Book of Mormon story?
Illuminated | 1:42 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Unparalleled: You're right, the church is like an MLM. The more converts
we bring into the church, the more blessings we receive in heaven. The convert
receives blessings, therefore bringing more converts in themselves. I have seen
this first-hand.
When I was on my mission in the Lima Peru Central Mission, I baptized a single woman at my half-way point. At the end of my mission, I was touring Cuzco with my parents, several hundred miles away from the village that I baptized the woman at.
On Sunday we attended the sacrament mtg of one of the several church buildings in Cuzco. By sheer luck (or by divine intervention) we happened to find the woman visiting the same church the same day. She had brought along her parents, and a couple relatives. Her parents were already baptized and her other relatives were investigating the church.
Cont'd-->
When I was on my mission in the Lima Peru Central Mission, I baptized a single woman at my half-way point. At the end of my mission, I was touring Cuzco with my parents, several hundred miles away from the village that I baptized the woman at.
On Sunday we attended the sacrament mtg of one of the several church buildings in Cuzco. By sheer luck (or by divine intervention) we happened to find the woman visiting the same church the same day. She had brought along her parents, and a couple relatives. Her parents were already baptized and her other relatives were investigating the church.
Cont'd-->
To: Sireofmany | 2:34 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
The article's been edited since it was first posted. When I first read it
around midnight last night, it said it was Alma the Younger, too, which I
thought was a little weird. It didn't say "then a young man" at
all. Somebody obviously caught the mistake later in the day.
Hey Cats | 2:42 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Sorry, it's the DNA, even the most recent of studies that prove quite the
inverse of what you desire to believe.
Re: Illuminated | 3:04 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
You forgot "Rameumptom". Ram, in Hebrew, means high, or high place. It
was both a high tower and a place where they exalted themselves as being higher
than others. There's no possible way Joseph Smith could have known that,
either. =)
Laura | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
I read the Zelph story and found it faith promoting. It is interesting to note
that the Zelph story supports the North America geography theory of the Book of
Mormon.
JINX | 3:34 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
What happened to the ZELPH? Is there any proof of his remains today?
Hoosier Coug | 3:41 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
I read the Zelph story as well and found it interesting and not in the least bit
disconcerting to my testimony.
John Lambert | 4:19 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
I don't find the Zelph Revelation harmful in any manner to my testimony.
However, I do know of people who have struggled with the Zelph story and have
gone inactive.
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.
- Y. coach Hill up for Portland State job 3:05 p.m.
- Astronauts take 2nd spacewalk 3:00 p.m.
- Aggies fall to Northeastern in Boston 2:43 p.m.
- Ingram, Tide roll over Chattanooga 2:29 p.m.
- No. 21 Miami rallies to beat Duke 2:28 p.m.
- Ohio St. beats Michigan 21-10 1:56 p.m.
- Gators rout Florida International 1:51 p.m.
- Murder-suicide in West Jordan 1:16 p.m.
- A haven for his work 12:16 p.m.
- Should your walls go black? 11:34 a.m.
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force?
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii
- Huntsman blasts media over trip
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years
- TCU still has a chance
- Orem man acquitted in tot's death
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Christian leaders not backing down
- 5A: Miners dig deep, claim crown
- Boozer looking like 'the old Booz'
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
186 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah169
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches124
- Lies shatter Utah family123
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified117
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case102
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.98
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama86
Latest comments
If they were really persecuted in Belgium for their religion (unlikely, but...
What foolishness by some who go on and on about the use of the word 'steel'...
I had Sunny D.!!!! I love her so much!! I miss Oakcrest, but I'm glad I can...
Karl Malone is with out a dought the greatest power forward to ever play the...
Keep talkin.
To the 12:31 commentator, Since abortion on demand for all of pregnancy...
I challenge the good students at BYU to also make a Liahona that directs...
really what did he do to "unleash" you?
These right wing guys can film the next... "RAMBO 5 Axis of Evil: Obama in...
I am not such a great fan of soccer, but it is great to see one of our two...
Advertisements