At that point, women were understood to be "essential to a man's eternal exaltation. They became theologically essential" at a time when women in all cultures were being excluded, he said, adding that "we must not pretend that all these changes met the expectations of Mormon feminists."

"In fact, quite the contrary," as plural marriage "reduced their place in the family," he said.

The modern Relief Society still holds the potential "for further administration elaboration that may not have been fully realized in the church even today. That may require more revelation as the years go by."

Similarly, archaeological evidence that the Book of Mormon is a historically factual account of actual civilizations in Central America has evolved slowly and painstakingly over time, according to John Clark, director of the New World Archaeology Foundation based in Chiapas, Mexico, and a professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University.

He said "95 percent of what has been said and written about archaeology and the Book of Mormon is nonsense" perpetuated by missionaries, evangelists and tour guides, adding that "no archaeological evidence will ever suffice to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either the Bible or the Book of Mormon is true — or false."

"Evidence is interesting and has its uses, but only as a means of better understanding the book, not of proving it to atheists and wayward Saints."

While acknowledging there remain challenges to belief because evidence of some physical objects detailed in the book — such as metals, plants and animals — has never been found, Clark enumerated 12 distinct sets of evidence that have come to light in the past 60 years.

These suggest the book is historical in nature rather than a product of Smith's imagination, Clark said, because none of the information about Central America was known when the Book of Mormon was first printed in 1830.

Among them: metal records preserved in stone boxes, as Smith said the plates were; ancient writing systems that predate the Christian era; specific information on artifacts of war and evidence of massive troop numbers and battles; cities, temples, towers and palaces that match descriptive text; cement houses and cities; kings and monuments; and geographic descriptions.

"In terms of its claims for lands, peoples, cultural practices, populations and chronology, the Book of Mormon gets better than passing marks," though critics highlight only those things mentioned in the text but for which no evidence yet exists.

Such is to be expected of archaeological verification of details in any ancient text, he said.

"We can afford to be a bit more humble about physical evidence," he said. "After all, we live in a world in which we are not sure who shot JFK or whether O.J. is guilty. Why should we expect to do better with evidence that is less abundant and 2,000 years older?"

---

E-mail: carrie@desnews.com