'Archaeology, Relics and Book of Mormon Belief'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • garret Orem, UT
    Sept. 22, 2017 2:29 p.m.

    I've done a lot of studying of different theories of where the Book of Mormon lands most likely are. The most convincing piece of information I have found was when Joseph Smith was traveling during the zion's camp march. He wrote a letter to Emma where he said that they were "...wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity..." He was traveling from eastern Ohio through Illinois to Missouri, not Meso-America.

    It is interesting that he specifically mentions "mounds" because the natives of that area of the US were prolific mound builders. If you are really curious about the subject, do some research on Hopewell and Adena Indians of North America, (also called the mound builders, and the Mississippi River culture.) There are several LDS scholars and enthusiasts who have done tons of research that support the theory that the BoM lands are in the heartland of the US.

  • Varnka Salt Lake City, utah
    Aug. 27, 2017 10:43 p.m.

    Thanks for all the comments that continue to verify Moroni's statement to Joseph Smith nice to see prophecies come true

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 26, 2017 3:13 p.m.

    We have chiasmus, which is all the proof we need.
    Also, we found Zelph which is archaeological evidence in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
    The DNA argument isn't valid because DNA still hasn't been proven to be real.

  • Chungman St George, UT
    Aug. 26, 2017 2:19 p.m.

    In 2005, John E. Clark, a respected authority on Mesoamerican Archaeology who teaches at BYU said in an article that he wrote, A trend of convergence is appearing between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican Archaeology.

    Actually, there has been a trend of divergence. In the 12 years since Clark wrote those words, DNA has tightened it's grip on the Asian origin of Native Americans, Rodney Meldrum and his Heartland Model has taken a big bite out of Clark's Mesoamerican theory and with all the archaeological digs going on, noting new has surfaced to support the BOM or the apologists claims.

    In support of the BOM, Clark offers the placing of metal plates in stone boxes, but Clark has neither items to offer up as proof except Smith's claims. Also the discovery of Mesoamerican writing systems which have no correlation whatsoever to Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian. Clark mentions BOM fortifications, however speculations on the mound builders about fortifications and warfare were common in Ohio and New York in the early 1800s. And what civilization has never figured out cement?

    Apologist like Peterson and Clark throw up straw-men and intriguing parallels, but never much substance.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 26, 2017 9:20 a.m.

    It is discouraging and discomfit that university level academics adhere to bogus arguments to support and endeavor to authenticate religious superstitions that are obviously fable ; where if they were to be true to their learning and honor they would search for truth and honesty in accord with the Mormon believe in Jesus is light and truth, and all men have the right, and are blessed, to know the truth. It serves no long term good purpose to teach men that there is a real Santa Claus or that there was once a great Hebrew Nation here in the Americas less then two thousand years ago. It is time to be honest with man and honor Jesus with truth.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2017 4:11 p.m.

    The obligation is on believers to prove the BOM people existed, not on people to prove they didn't.

    To date not 1 iota of concrete evidence has been uncovered. LHM on a stone in Arabia is not evidence millions of Hebrew decedants raised horses, had massive wars where only 1 person survived (Coriantumer/ Moroni) .

    The scale of archaeological evidence is not only weighted toward the BOM being disproved, there's nothing on the other side.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 25, 2017 4:09 p.m.

    "The peaceful peoples of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica were simply devoted, said the authorities, to cultivating their fields of maize and beans"

    Literally no historian ever believed this.

    This is breathtaking.

  • Red Corvette St George, UT
    Aug. 25, 2017 10:57 a.m.

    Next up: "Adam's Altar" What does the good doctor have to say about this?

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 25, 2017 10:51 a.m.

    RE: Craig Clark. (Mt 5:20 )The Law. “Therefore, you are to be Perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. God requires perfection, not relative perfection, where the standard is other people. The standard is God Himself, the kind of moral perfection that God Himself exhibits. This demand for perfection includes our internal thoughts, motives, and attitudes. This is where the scribes and Pharisees failed.
    No person apart from Christ can produce the righteousness that God commands, Without God’s kind of righteousness, no one will enter the kingdom of heaven. We are sinners in need of a perfect Savior.

    RE: The Gospel=(euangellion/Good News)Christ’s righteousness is imputed(not infused) to Christians through faith, but our sin is imputed to Christ. That is how Christ paid our sin debt to God. He had no sin in Himself, but our sin is imputed to Him so, as He suffers on the cross, He is suffering the just penalty that our sin deserves.
    “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.’ And the life I now live in the flesh; I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 25, 2017 10:33 a.m.

    "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." Eph 2:8-9
    " . . . . except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
    (Matthew 5: 20)
    I detect no argument for grace there. Maybe Jesus felt that the way to be saved from your sins is to stop doing them. At least that what it sounds like to me.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 25, 2017 9:58 a.m.

    This article is a diversion to distract away from the truth. It is a weak attempt to authenticate a fable the fiction story of the Book of Mormon. Man can find water on Mars, man can find artifacts of human history going back tens of thousands of years; but, man can not find one iota of history of Hebrew man having a great civilization here on the American continent as recently as two thousand years ago. It never happened. It is time for the church to come up with a more honest and true explanation of the Book of Mormon. Believers need and deserve the truth to build their religion on. The Book of Mormon may be a religious book, but it is not a history.

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 25, 2017 9:33 a.m.

    RE: Craig Clark. Archaeology cannot prove ‘the spiritual claims’ of the Bible or the BoM. But, it does serve an important purpose in helping us evaluate the historical claims which both books make.

    E.g.., The new covenant=(diatheke) is a will and testament (Heb. 9:15-17). No new feature or Another testament( BoM ) can be added to this will and testament after the death of Jesus. Jesus does not need our help. “It is finished” (John 19:28-30 )

    The ratification of the covenant required the presentation of sacrificial blood. Such blood is obtained only by means of death. Christ’s death was the means of the blood of the new covenant. His sacrificial death ratified or “made legally valid” the new covenant promised in Jer. 31:31–34.12.

    Mormonism denies the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross by adding their perceived righteousness and works to their ungodly salvation process. In 2 Nephi 25:23, salvation is by grace, plus works. "…; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."?

    For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Aug. 24, 2017 7:36 p.m.

    Anything like the Book of Mormon that is submitted without evidence as to truthful historicity, can summarily dismissed as non historical. This is why the Book of Mormon will never be taught in Meso America or any American history class except a few religious classes that hope that it is true but don't know(the definition of faith).

  • Sara Hemla Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 24, 2017 6:35 p.m.

    “A trend of convergence” between the BoM and Mesoamerican archaeology is not in fact appearing among objective scholars, despite the vague claims of this piece citing John E. Clark’s 12 year old article or the author’s 13 year old article. Claiming “notable” and “intriguing parallels” and the supposed trend of convergence (only considered such a trend by apologists) does not constitute evidence, and making an argument that basically says “There’s still no proof for the Book of Mormon, but there could be!”, does not pass muster. No reputable non-LDS scholar believes these claims are supported by the evidence.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 24, 2017 4:50 p.m.

    There will always be those for whom the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record. There will also be those who are willing to accept it as canonical but as apocryphal writing. No heresy of blasphemy in that as far as I’m concerned. There’s ample precedent for that in the Bible.

  • Michael_M Scottsbluff, NE
    Aug. 24, 2017 3:35 p.m.

    "Until three or four decades ago, he notes, the Book of Mormon’s claims about fortifications and warfare were ridiculed by famous scholars."

    No, that is not correct. At the time the Book of Mormon was published it did fit the common but incorrect ideas concerning the mounds and their builders of North America.

    Was Joseph Smith just speculating in 1834 when he wrote this to his wife Emma about mounds and Nephites in Illinois?

    "The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity"

    Why promote a limited Mesoamerican geography at the expense of Joseph Smith's own writings? As for evidence, today's article fails to provide any credible archaeology or relics. The best evidence should be Moroni's promise and that is all that any believing LDS member should need. These claims of evidence create contention, dispute and can be harmful to the faith of honest believing members.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 24, 2017 3:28 p.m.

    When LDS writers discuss the geography and archaeology of the Book of Mormon, most begin with the assumption that Lehi's people inhabited Mesoamerica. I have serious doubts about that. Would Moroni would have ended up in western New York if he had started that far south? Good luck crossing the Rio Grande and Mississippi.

    Instead, I believe that the geography of the Chesapeake Bay/Delaware area makes it more likely that Lehi landed there. I believe that their population never exceeded about 5 million and that the topography coincides well with the Book of Mormon. It even has a "narrow neck of land" from one bay to another. And the region was warmer then because it was located in the band affected by the Roman Warm Period from 250 BC to around 400 AD. Moroni certainly would have been able to find his way from there to western New York to bury the plates.