I suspect this thought will occur to the few LDS leaders who read A Malay Site For Book of Mormon Events, a short article in the latest Sunstone. One can hardly fault the author for trying to match up Book of Mormon geography and names with real-world locations. Mormons have been doing this since 1830. What is really damning about the article is that it actually makes as plausible a case for the Malay peninsula as any other effort has managed for North America or Mesoamerica.
There have always been candidates for Book of Mormon geography, and the 20th-century Church has studiously avoided taking any "official" position on the location of any Book of Mormon events. Not only does that mean LDS leaders can't identify a BoM location, it means they can't deny any site either. "I know Book of Mormon events happened, but I don't know where they happened, but I know they didn't happen in Malaysia" is a pretty convoluted position to take. So convoluted I'm not sure most people could recite this with a straight face, and I dare anyone to try it in Testimony Meeting on Sunday.
On the other hand, accepting Malaysia as a candidate by being unable to deny it as a viable candidate in the standard "official" we-take-no-position-on-this-question manner seems like a loser too. To say that Malaysia is as good a candidate as the "limited geography" Mesoamerican model or the "hemispheric" North American model is to admit that all hypotheses are equally unsupported. In other words, it highlights the disconnect between real-world facts and the Book of Mormon text. If you can't say it didn't happen in Malaysia, you can't really say much of anything about the relation between the events in the text and events in the real world. This, on top of the steady drift by FARMS, only recently embraced by LDS leaders, to move toward a limited geography hypothesis that dismisses the many statements by Joseph Smith in favor of the North American model (which, of course, was simply the Mormon model until near the end of the 20th century).
Here's my question: It's obvious the author took his article seriously and sincerely. Did Sunstone? I have a hard time believing the editors sincerely intended this to be a real contribution to the Book of Mormon geography debate. More like a Trojan horse.
Note: Thanks to reader Quevedo and Let Us Reason (which also has a short discussion) for hints and links to the articles posted at Sunstone.