Book of Mormon

[investigator01]

Where might I look to find archeological or historical evidence of the Book of Mormon and its contents? Are there any non LDS organizations that would also have this information?

[HiJolly]

Book of Mormon/Archaeology - FAIRMormon

[skippy740]

If there was irrefutable evidence, why would you need faith?

[HiJolly]

Both Sorenson and Gardner are experts in the field.

Amazon.com: An ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon (9781573451574): John L Sorenson: Books

Amazon.com: Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon: Enos - Mosiah (9781589580435): Brant A. Gardner: Books

HJ

[livy111us]

Non-LDS scholars tend not to have interest in Book of Mormon history, but there are LDS scholars who do. There is a brief summary of evidences that are put together nicely in DVD format, and can be viewed here:

bookmormon's Channel - YouTube

Jeff Lindsay does a good job at providing evidences on his site: Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

and the Neal A Maxwell Institute also has great info:

Publications - Insights

There have been a few non-LDS scholars who have written about BOM evidences, but they have converted to the Church and no longer non-LDS. Father Jordan Vajda, the Goldsmiths, and Keith Crandall to name a few.

[NeuroTypical]

Where might I look to find archeological or historical evidence of the Book of Mormon and its contents?

Mostly it's still in the ground or decayed into nothing. There is darn little evidence to support BoM truth claims - and none of it is conclusive. There is at least one faithful LDS archaeologist doing field work and publishing stuff.

The majority of the work done by LDS apologists in this field, is to demonstrate that no, whatever criticism is being passed around about things "proving the BoM false", do no such thing. DNA evidence doesn't do it, neither does the picture painted by mesoamerican archaeologists. Neither does the absence of evidence.

To Skippy's point though - I've spent years asking church critics a question: If you woke up tomorrow and heard that non-LDS archaeologists discovered the city of Zarahemla, the sword of Laban, Nephi's grave complete with DNA linking him to the middle-east, and a reformed Egyptian dictionary - if all that happened, would you bend your knee, confess Christ as your savior and President Monson as a living prophet, and seek to be baptized?

The answers are around 50% yes and 50% no.

[rameumptom]

LM, I would disagree on the "none of it is conclusive." Some of it is as conclusive as one can get with archaeology, which is not a perfect science. But the fact that NAHOM/NHM was found exactly where the BoM says it should be, that it is tied to a large cemetary, that it dates to the time of Lehi, are all conclusive bits of evidence.

The claim for Reformed Egyptian in the BoM is now well proved by forms of "reformed Egyptian" we have since found in the archaeological record.

Those are just two conclusive bits of evidence. And there are more.

Most non-LDS scholars have not taken the time to research LDS concepts much. However, Margaret Barker, Raphael Patai and a few others have - and give positive statements to the fact. And in his article about non-LDS scholars' comments regarding all this, John Tvedtnes notes statements by the great archaeologist William F. Albright, who was impressed to find actual Egyptian names in the BoM.

Scholarship in Mormonism and Mormonism in Scholarship

Margaret Barker - A Transcript of Her Response The Worlds of Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith Symposium with Margaret Barker's talk: Joseph Smith Conference

[Vort]

I agree with Ram that the evidence is much stronger than we usually realize. Non-LDS archaeologists are not in the practice of delivering lectures pointing out the various and, in some cases, highly unlikely correspondences between archaeological finds and the Book of Mormon narrative. And when LDS archaeologists do so, it is dismissed as cherry-picking.

But ultimately, there is and will be no definitive proof of the Book of Mormon found by digging in archaeological sites. Such a thing would be antithetical to the very purpose of the Book of Mormon, bringing people to Christ. It would be tantamount to rending the veil. I think we can all see why that cannot and should not ever happen.

[bytebear]

There is not a lot of non-LDS evidence, because those who have been convinced by it have become LDS. There are certainly stories of people who were drawn to the church through empirical evidence, but ultimately, it is the spirit who converts.

[Blackmarch]

If there was irrefutable evidence, why would you need faith?

LAman and Lemuel saw angels with their own eyes, yet they still did not have the faith needed.

Quite frankly i don't think physical matters too much one way or the other.... IF I were to hazard any guess as to why "a lack of physical evidence", if such is the case, its to reduce the damnation of those who will not seek for rightiousness.

to the OP:

I'd recommend the links posted earlier in this thread... generally when a critic says they want proof of the book of mormon they generally want one of 3 things- absolute gneetic evidence, ancient american text that translates directly as the BoM says or in relation to the BoM, or some sort of sign such as direct names... of which there are none as of yet.

However in my experience every bit of "the book of mormon is totally impossible because...." impossibility gets blown out of the water by some finding sooner or later, and becomes possible and in a few cases quite likely.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Blackmarch

[jerome1232]

Margaret Barker - A Transcript of Her Response The Worlds of Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith Symposium with Margaret Barker's talk: Joseph Smith Conference

I enjoyed reading that transcript from Margaret Barker, I had no idea there was evidence of the old testament being modified so long ago.

[RMGuy]

You can look for evidences, and some might indicate FAIR or FARMS and those are not bad sites. It should be noted that they are apologist based. Non-LDS affiliated organizations and individuals can also be a good source of information.

With that being said, I think you will find many here that will share that for an understanding of the Book of Mormon you will need to have faith, and this is undoubtably true.

For me, faith is neccesary to fill in the gaps where knowledge leaves off. Faith does not require evidence, however, where evidence is present it should not contradict faith if the statement or fact is indeed true. Where evidence contradicts faith, I rely on evidence.

-RM

[SuperChris]

Won't go on too long as it's late and my wife is wanting to use the computer, so I'll bring up 3 points.

The first point is that there isn't a whole lot of widely accepted Biblical archaeology, despite quite a lot of people working on it. Non-LDS Book of Mormon archaeology is going to be very difficult to find. I honestly recommend reading the stuff at FAIR.

The second point is that for Lehi's family's journey through the old world, before setting sail for the promised land, is actually very well plotted out. You can research this yourself, and I'd appreciate if someone could post some of the references. If not I'll go look for them when it's not midnight.

And the third point, not Book of Mormon related but still related to the writings of Joseph Smith, is the Book of Moses. While I do not usually consider Wikipedia a reliable place to look up any information about the church, this paragraph about the Book of Moses caught my attention.

Some non-Mormon scholars have also signaled their appreciation of the significance of the Joseph Smith's translation efforts in light of ancient documents. For example, Margaret Barker has cited relevant passages from the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith Translation in her discussions of Jewish and early Christian perspectives on Melchizedek.[21] Noted Yale critic of secular and sacred literature Harold Bloom, who classes these the book of Moses and the Book of Abraham among the “more surprising” and “neglected” works of LDS scripture,[22] is intrigued by the fact that many of their themes are “strikingly akin to ancient suggestions” that essentially restate “the archaic or original Jewish religion, a Judaism that preceded even the Yahwist.” While expressing “no judgment, one way or the other, upon the authenticity” of LDS scripture, he finds “enormous validity” in the way these writings “recapture… crucial elements in the archaic Jewish religion.… that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched [Joseph] Smith directly."

[Madriglace]

The evidence is there ... if you have the faith to recognize what you see. When you walk the sites in central and south America and see things like the tree of life and baptismal fonts and represetations of the degrees of glory it adds to ones testimony of the Book of Mormon ... however unless you have faith that the book is true already you will miss what you are looking at, as most of the world does.

[bytebear]

On a side note, I do find it interesting how Christian scholars tend to shy away from historical evidence that confirms many of Joseph Smith's revelations. For example, Baptism for the Dead was clearly practiced by various early Christian groups, but Christian scholars fall over backwards avoiding such evidence or dismissing it as unimportant. Imagine the scholarly analysis we would have if people didn't have to disprove Mormonism.

[ConvinceTheWorld]

BookofMormonEvidence.org