Deseret News | Nephi trial shows up judicial inability

Reader comments
Nephi trial shows up judicial inability

Beet Red | 8:45 a.m. April 15, 2009

What a stupid article. Articles like this make me embarassed to tell anyone I'm a Mormon.

fly_on_the_wall | 9:49 a.m. April 15, 2009

I find it amusing how some people can say so much about a subject when there is so little information.

Reality | 10:17 a.m. April 15, 2009

Just remember, Mr. Welch is not a Church authority and his fun personal opinions do not carry any weight in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

His theories are just for entertainment purposes only. Everyone can relax, because Mr. Welch is not in a position to be putting forth Church Doctrine.

Comments continue below

Veedub | 10:20 a.m. April 15, 2009

I want to talk about why the Steward of Gondor in "Return of the King" did not have authority or proper jurisdiction to arrest and try Aaragon or Gandolf?

Myself | 10:55 a.m. April 15, 2009

As usual, a few Latter-Day Saints show up on these types of articles claiming that there is nothing of interest here, since this article is (gasp), scholarly and intellectual. (Unless they are anti-Mormons trying to disguise themselves.) For the life of me, I don't understand why scholarly or intellectual issues are so offensive to some Latter-Day Saints. If scholarly issues in the BOM discussed by BYU or Maxwell Institute scholarls don't interest somebody in the Church, they certainly don't have to study them. FARMS (or the proper name, Maxwell Institute) is funded by the Church, and I am sure the First Presidency is fully aware of their scholarly projects. Members who criticize these endeavors seem to me to be claiming that they are above the First Presidency who allows these endeavors and funds them and approves them.

Once again, if it doesn't interest you, DON'T READ IT. Others, like myself will learn and gain knowledge from spiritual and scholarly sources. If you don't like these scholarly issues, and choose not to learn from it, that is perfectly fine with me.

To Veedub | 11:15 a.m. April 15, 2009

The Stewards ruled in place of the King, sitting on a simple chair of black stone placed below the throne. The emblem of their office was a white rod and their banner was plain white with no device or charge upon it.

Steward was the traditional title of a chief counsellor to one of the Kings of Gondor, much like Lord High Steward of England.

The reason the Steward of Gondor did not have authority to arrest and try Aaragon was that he recognized the hereditary right of Aaragon to rule and therefore, lacked jurisdiction over him.

There is no way that J.R.R. Tolkein could have known about the intricate laws and jurisdiction the Steward would have rightfully held unless this was truly an inspired book (which I feel it is). There is way too much evidence that Return of the King was beyond the knowledge and scope of its author (just look at the chiastic structure and detailed accounts of the people and their culture). It is definitely a true and inspired book.

To Myself | 11:21 a.m. April 15, 2009

As a member of the LDS faith, I have no problem with these kind of publications as long as people remember that this is not Church doctrine. I for one, try to steer clear of books that try to expound and offer alternative explanations to events in the Book of Mormon (unless they are from our Church Leaders).

There is some danger in reading these types of books to the exclusion of our Standard Works and books from our Prophets and Apostles.

spell | 11:36 a.m. April 15, 2009

Aragorn, Gandalf.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 12:19 p.m. April 15, 2009

Aragorn was the son of Arathorn, the nine and thirtieth heir in the right line from Isildur, and yet more like Elendil than any before him.

Gandalf's name is Olrin in the language of the Valinor. "Olrin was my name in my youth in the West that is forgotten". The word originates the language of Quenya, and its meaning is associated with dreams.

Nobody can tell me that J.R.R. Tolkein could have possibly known the above facts. It is just one more piece of evidence that he was inspired when he wrote Return of the King. It is an inspired work.

Myself | 12:24 p.m. April 15, 2009

To Myself 11:21 am:

Not a single BYU or Maxwell Institute scholar has ever even hinted at replacing the Standard Works or words of prophets and apostles with their publications. Most people, including myself, can use less time in front of the TV, less time browsing useless websites, less time just "doing nothing" and more time studying.

I see these scholarly issues as just one more thing that is "lovely, praiseworthy, or of good report". Others might not, and that is perfectly fine. I see these scholarly issues as a hobby also. President Monson raised pigeons as a hobby. I like to study BOM scholarly issues as a hobby. There is no danger in that at all, as my daily routine includes spiritual study of the Standard Works, etc. and my hobby of studying BOM scholarly issues is when I have some time to spare, etc. There is no danger in this at all, and I venture to say that there is possibly a danger in judging what others study, and thinking that BYU studies is somehow harmful.

veedub | 12:46 p.m. April 15, 2009

Whoever you are, "Veedub," it is said that trolls were created by Morgoth in perverted mockery of Ents, the true tree shepherds. Looks like a troll or two is trying to imitate me. LOL. Be careful going out on a sunny day!

To Myself | 12:50 p.m. April 15, 2009

I never hinted that the Maxwell institute was replacing the Standard Works, or words of the prophets and apostles with their publications (please read my posts again).

All I said was that people need to understand this book is not Church doctrine and merely contains some fun and entertaining theories of one man, Brother Welch.

I did say that most members would be better edified reading the standard works, books from apostles, prophets or general authorities instead of books like these.

There are literally thousands of books like these in Utah bookstores and the danger is that people think the authors are somehow inspired and that what is contained in the books is doctrine. This is certainly not true and members need to be aware that what they are reading is for entertainment purposes only.

Pamela | 1:39 p.m. April 15, 2009

The Maxwell Institute is a cadre of worthless "scholars" who have taken the game of religious trivial pursuit to new heights of absurdity!

To Myself 12:24 | 1:39 p.m. April 15, 2009

Now that you are middle aged, received lots of schooling, I am not sure about your education, do you think you will ever grow beyond your fantasy with fairy tales.

Myself | 1:42 p.m. April 15, 2009

I do not think that BOM intellectual issues are for "entertainment purposes" only. I do not believe that the Church would fund them and the First Presidency approve of funding something that is for entertainment only. Your point is well taken in that not everything in Deseret Book is necessarily doctrine. But neither is every class taught at BYU - but the Church strongly encourages education - which, I think, at least for myself, includes reading some of these issues. But that is just me. Others may decide to not bother with these publications and that is perfectly fine.

I don't see any danger at all and there is far more than entertainment value. Consider President Hinckley's words:

"FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point."

And I have faith that Latter-Day Saints are intelligent enough to decide for themselves. I see great value and it interests me greatly, far beyond entertainment.

Jodi | 1:57 p.m. April 15, 2009

To: Myself,

Books like these are nothing more than entertainment. If you think books like these, from non Church-leaders, are anything more than fun or entertainment, then I would suggest reading recent Conference talks by our Church leaders about not placing value in items like this unless they come from ordained leaders of the Church.

Brother Welch's "theories" are nothing more than that. Anything taught contrary to that is false doctrine.

Moeny | 2:14 p.m. April 15, 2009

I think its wrong to use scriptures for personal gain. Clearly, that is all Mr. Welch is after; using scripture to get money.

Myself | 2:19 p.m. April 15, 2009

You have an extra-ordinary narrow view. If these things don't interest you, that is perfectly fine. (Repeating) President Hinckley's words:

"FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point."

Once again, NOBODY has ever claimed doctrine and necessity of studying these issues. To some of us, it is beyond entertainment value. To others, it might be.

To Pamela and To Myself (12:24)

LOL! Try again. This time put some intelligence in your comments.

Henry Drummond | 3:06 p.m. April 15, 2009

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four 'standard works' of [Mormon] scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

John Welch's fun and entertaining theories clearly do not fit the above. As such, Mr. Welch's books are merely the personal opinion of one man and hold absolutely no weight in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

SireofMany | 3:19 p.m. April 15, 2009

I've always lumped Mr. Welch's books in the same category as "The Work & the Glory", "Charlie" or any of the thousands of Church books by LDS authors who are not general authorities, apostles or the prophet.

These books maybe fun and entertaining, but ultimately leave me hollow.

We need to remember that we have a living prophet and 12 apostles on this earth to give us doctrine. Looking elsewhere for answers is asking for trouble.

paul | 3:31 p.m. April 15, 2009

You have got to be kidding me! Where did these names come from? It sounds like sci-fi/

Myself | 3:49 p.m. April 15, 2009

Does anybody want to point out exactly where Mr. Welch is claiming to establish doctrine? 'Cause I ain't seeing it.

John Pack Lambert | 5:41 p.m. April 15, 2009

To: Myself,

Nobody is claiming Mr. Welch is setting forth doctrine. He can't.

I think people are stating (I believe rightly so) that you feel Mr. Welch is somehow inspired. He is not. This is just a fun little book and nothing more. Some people may find this interesting and some may find it a complete waste of time. Regardless, Mr. Welch has no more authority to set forth doctrine than Donny Osmond.

Otis Spurlock | 5:48 p.m. April 15, 2009

My advice: stay away from books like this. Stick to the Gospel as has been taught by our prophets and apostles.

kenny | 6:55 p.m. April 15, 2009

John W. Welch should stick to building testimonies of the students at Brigham Young University and not dive into a place he has no business going.The Book of Mormon is nothing to tamper with.I shame Mormontimes for even doing this article.

people | 7:22 p.m. April 15, 2009

People are homeless, jobless, hungry, and tired of life and this guy spends his time doing what??????

The Lord is going to surprise a few people...

Fly Fisherman | 7:33 p.m. April 15, 2009

I am quite disappointed at some of the comments here. I would guess some of you who criticize Mr. Welch for his research might spend hours on Facebook, reading John Grisham novels or whatever. (Not that I am against those things.) But reading some scholarly issues with the BOM is "dangerous", "bad" etc?

Give me a break.

Guess we better inform the First Presidency to shut down major parts of BYU and excommunicate Mr. Welch for (gasp) talking about the BOM. Maybe we better ask the Church to excommunicate the editors of Deseret News for allowing such an atrocity of an article to appear. (I am being sarcastic as I suspect some won't notice it.)

Thank you Mr. Welch and others for the work on these issues. I personally find them interesting, valuable, and enlightening.

EnemyAce | 7:33 p.m. April 15, 2009

The words posted above with the exception of "Myself" are certainly an embarrassment to the open intelligence we have seen in the church and specifically to the admonition of Joseph Smith to " 118 seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." Have we neglected the spirit of learning placed into us by a loving Father or are we turning our minds away from the wonders of learning no matter where they may be found. Prof. Welch's comments are NOT doctrine nor are they intended to be, but they are certainly a confirmation of context into understanding the ancient mind and culture of the Nephites.

ama | 7:38 p.m. April 15, 2009

Some people (myself included) think this article and the subject matter is stupid NOT because John Welch is not an authority on doctrine, NOR because it's scholarly and intellectual. It's stupid because he's constructed a picture of an entire legal system based on about three sentences of information. That's why it's stupid. Nobody said Morman scholarship was a bad thing. Let's just make sure it's not overly-assumptive. . .

Landman | 8:01 p.m. April 15, 2009

My compliments to John Welch on his scholarship and writing. I knew him as a freshman at BYU. Perhaps I have never met anyone blessed with more genius. His writings have inspired me. His brilliance humbles me.

Fredd | 10:02 p.m. April 15, 2009

Wow

John W. Welch | 10:19 p.m. April 15, 2009

Hello, everyone. I happened to see Michael DeGroote at a Book of Mormon conference today at BYU. He mentioned the posting of this article and the lively discussion that has ensued. I appreciate your interest in the Book of Mormon. Many of the questions raised in your comments are discussed in the introductory chapters of this book. I tell my law students that the first rule of statutory interpretation is "read on." So, I hope you will all keep reading.
My effort in this book has not been to declare doctrine but simply to ask and think about two questions which seem to me to be invited by the Book of Mormon itself: If the Nephites followed the law of Moses (as they say they did), how might an understanding of the Israelite legal system help us to understand the court cases of Abinadi, Korihor, Seantum, and others? And, what might that understanding teach us about the scriptural concept of "judging righteously"?
Writing to lawyers and law students, I have tried to be careful and cautious in my research, suggestions, and analyses. Speaking for myself, the resulting insights have been helpful and satisfying. But then, I'm a law professor.

Rathburn | 10:57 p.m. April 15, 2009

I don't think Mr. Welches' writings are of great importance. Let those who think differently read them, and the rest of us concentrate on something more meaningful.

Student of the Scriptures | 11:10 p.m. April 15, 2009

Unless I'm mistaken, trying to understand the scriptures "by study and by faith" is a good thing, commanded in the scriptures.

I suspect that many of the critics here are mere poseurs. However, if they really ARE committed, believing Latter-day Saints, I'm ashamed of what they've written here.

Incidentally, I'm guessing (having had a fair amount of experience with the Mormon book market, and specifically with the SCHOLARLY book market in the Church) that Professor Welch will earn little or -- much more likely -- no money from his book. Which means that those, above, who've slandered him as being motivated by greed have, on this point too, shamed themselves.

I Have a Question............... | 9:06 a.m. April 16, 2009

Somebody please tell me why should I read this book instead of literally hundreds of books by general authorities, apostles and prophets?

You can find thousands of these types of books by lds authors who are not our Church leaders. Why would you want to read these types of books other than for purely entertainment purposes?

If you want to be spiritually uplifted and learn about doctrine then please stick with books by our leaders. If you want to have a fun or seek a little diversion, then feel free to read this book or the "The Work & the Glory" or any of the thousands of such books available at your bookstore.

Barry Sorenson | 10:58 a.m. April 16, 2009

To John W. Welch,

In other words, you have tried to concoct an opportunity to engage in rampant speculation.

OK. We get it. I'm sure that gratifies your pride and promotes you vain ambition to become a popular "LDS Scholar" among the Church membership.

Dr. Robert Lym | 11:31 a.m. April 16, 2009

I recently read this book. My thoughts are that there is a tremendous amount of speculation on the part of Mr. Welch. In order to make his theories fit, he has had to stretch, reach and fill in many holes.

This type of research in my opinion is harmful, especially from someone who is not in a position to receive inspiration or doctrine for the rest of us.

Ashamed | 5:05 p.m. April 16, 2009

I'm going to repeat what Student @ 11:10 said. If any of you posting about the "worthlessness" of Bro. Welch's work are real members of the church, I am ashamed of what some of you have said. First off, some of you need to look back at the rude and hard-hearted remarks you have made. I very much doubt that is the way the saviour would have spoken. Secondly, truth is not and has never been restricted to one earthly source, including the church leaders. If you don't agree with that, go study the teaching of Joseph Smith. Any member who would rejects wholesale what someone has to say because he is not an apostle doesn't not understand the teachings of the restored gospel and is no better than those who reject the BOM before reading it. I may not agree with the conclusions of some LDS scholars, but I know that I and others benefit from the possiblities that they open up intellectually and spiritually.

Anonymous | 5:38 p.m. April 16, 2009

To Ashamed,

Who made you our judge?

My 2 Scents | 6:19 p.m. April 16, 2009

I think our entire society has far too many lawyers (pronounced "liars") for its own good. Our LDS culture does, too. It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if Dr. Welch fell flat on his face with this book and his whole priestcraft efforts and just moved onto another occupation somewhere else. We don't need more lawyers; we don't need more self-serving Church members engaging in priestcraft; and we don't need a verbose, completely speculative discourse on the minutae of the Mosaic law in the Book of Mormon!

Mormon Scholar | 1:36 p.m. April 17, 2009

On every single article that John Welch has written for the Maxwell Institute, there is this foreword:

"The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Obviously, the Church doesn't feel Mr. Welch's fun and entertaining theories should hold any weight either.

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.