The historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon

[doss]

Hi all,

I'm currently a non-denominational Christian and believe that the Bible is reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission. However, I've been researching the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and have not seen anything compelling. There seems to be no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.

Can someone point me to some non-BYU sponsored data dedicated to archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon? I can't seem to find anything!

Thank you,

[HiJolly]

We don't believe in the Book of Mormon because of its historical authenticity. We believe its text brings us closer to God. And we experience that as we read this second witness for Christ.

HiJolly

[doss]

We don't believe in the Book of Mormon because of its historical authenticity. We believe its text brings us closer to God. And we experience that as we read this second witness for Christ.

HiJolly

HiJolly, thank you for that. Is this then the standard Mormon view? If so, then why are you not an Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc? Can we not say their religious experiences are just as valid?

[annewandering]

We are not saying that there are not things that point to the Book of Mormons authenticity besides through prayer. We just consider the prayer aspect the most important.

Do you know any Orthodox Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc that believe as we do in all things, including Line of Authority?

[Vort]

We don't believe in the Book of Mormon because of its historical authenticity. We believe its text brings us closer to God. And we experience that as we read this second witness for Christ.

I disagree. If I were to find out that the Book of Mormon were not literally historically true -- not in every detail, because no history is "perfect", but in general scope -- I would have absolutely no use whatsoever for the book. It would be a lie.

[Justice]

The problem with archaeology as evidence for the Book of Mormon is we really don't know exactly where they lived, what structures they built, or where to dig to find specific evidence to them. There have been many different peoples that have inhabited North and South America. When something is discovered all we can do is speculate.

American Pyramids

This is an interesting site just on man-made structures such as pyramids in North and South America. But, as I'm trying to say, at this point in time, we can't point at any one of them and say this one was built by the Nephites or Lamanites, but it is very possible they are responsible for some of them.

In fact, some of the structures they built in the Book of Mormon are described in detail, especially when they fortified their cities for war. Some cities with these exact fortifications have been found in Northern South America. Still, nothing has been discovered that links any of these definately to the Nephites or Lamanites.

There are legends and writings of many things written in the Book of Mormon found, for instance that a white man with a beard appeared to them from the sky and lived with the people for a time. He is represented in many South American cultures as a feathered serpent.

Look around the internet and you will find enough evidence. What you will not find is a witness that the Book of Mormon is true, and actually given by God to man. To find that you have to read it with a real desire to know if it is true, then pray... you know the rest.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Justice

[bytebear]

Most Mormons believe that Moses was a literal person, as do most other Christians, but there is no historical evidence outside the Bible that he existed. There is ample evidence that native American civilizations were extremely complex and fit the parameters of the Book of Mormon. Nothing can disprove the Book of Mormon, despite nothing proving it either. Same with the Bible. In 2000 years, will people argue about the existence of Nauvoo and Joseph Smith? Would it prove he was a prophet?

[Jenamarie]

For me, archeological evidence isn't an absolute necessity for me to be able to believe that the Book of Mormon is divine. After all, Mt. Olympus is a real place just like Jerusalem is, but I'm not worshiping Zeus.

[volgadon]

Hi all,

I'm currently a non-denominational Christian and believe that the Bible is reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission. However, I've been researching the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and have not seen anything compelling. There seems to be no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.

Can someone point me to some non-BYU sponsored data dedicated to archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon? I can't seem to find anything!

Thank you,

What do you mean by data? If you mean artifact X or whatever, then the majority is not BYU-sponsored. LDS scholars interpret the same evidence as non-LDS scholars do.

If you dismiss any interpretation on the criterion of being from BYU do you likewise reject any biblical archaeology interpretation if it comes from Christian apologists?

Once we've got that out of the way, and hopefully established that you don't have a double-standard, what do you consider compelling?

In other words, is showing, say, a correlation to a map enough to cause you to believe something?

I could also ask you how you would factor in such things as destruction of literary records, the percentage of archaeological work done, the suppression of native culture, and so on.

My native land, if you must ask, is Israel. I was born there, I grew up there. My parents were friends with Ehud Netzer among others, and when my mom volunteered at the dig in Sepphoris we went along with her. I have a rather decent library and have been to dozens of sites, including lesser known ones, so I have a fair idea of biblical archaeology as opposed to the romanticising of many evangelicals.

[jerome1232]

Hi all,

I'm currently a non-denominational Christian and believe that the Bible is reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission.

Now granted I'm no expert, but last I checked, archeology argues against much of the bible. The first thing that comes to mind is a mass migration from Egypt is unlikely. A catastrophic world wide flood is not supported by anything I have read.

I haven't heard of anything supporting Joseph's, son of Jacob, rise to a position of power in Egypt.

I haven't exactly searched this stuff out thoroughly, however, I don't agree with your statement as it was made.

[doss]

I'm trying to be sensitive here, but do you all know how HUGE of an implication this is? To throw out historical reliability like this is to throw out ALL OF HISTORY as we know it.

I can't accept that because then you will have to be fair to all other religions. Folks, lets be honest here. It is a fact that the Bible is RELIABLE in terms of archaeology. We are not talking about 100% reliable for every detail. We know that the places and events described in it are part of human history--many findings from archaeology have confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible. Do you seriously want me to list them? Just let wikipedia do it for you. Heck, let the SMithsonian Institute, the most prestigious historical institute in the world tell us. Their Department of Anthropology has an official statement on "The Bible as History". In it they say,

". . . much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as

accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more

accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical

records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For

the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."

I don't' want to get into a long spiel about the historicity of the Bible. It is well attested and it is critiqued and studied just like any other book of ancient text. Furthermore, we have ancient Roman historians confirming much of the New Testament. Lets keep in mind that we are not talking about accounts of miracles and the supernatural--we are talking about real people, places and historical settings. Even if some of it was contradicted in other findings, so what? I'd expect that to happen in ancient literature when scribes have to copy manuscript after manuscript to preserve them over the centuries. We also may have yet to find the evidence for other stories in the Bible (Noah's ark, etc). But with the BoM, we haven't seen anything. This is what concerns me.

The New Testament, especially the writings of Luke, is filled with accurate historical data. So much that archaeologists and historians alike have been impressed. The famous archaeologist and once skeptic Sir William Ramsey wrote, “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”The classical historian A. N. Sherwin-White writes, “ . . . for

Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” The spade of the archaeologist, the pen of ancient non-Christian historians, and tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts provide evidence that the Bible is a volume which is historically reliable and that its text has been preserved in a pure form. In other words, it is trustworthy. Unfortunately for the Mormon Church, I don't see it in their Scriptures.

All I am asking is for us all to think about WHY we believe the things we do. I do not believe we can rely on feelings alone. People of other religions claim a confirmation from within themselves as evidence that their religion is true. Islam makes the same claims and yet Mormons do not regard the Qur’an or Islamic doctrine as being divinely inspired.

We need to be reasonable in our faith.

Edited November 24, 2011 by doss

[doss]

Now granted I'm no expert, but last I checked, archeology argues against much of the bible. The first thing that comes to mind is a mass migration from Egypt is unlikely. A catastrophic world wide flood is not supported by anything I have read.

I haven't heard of anything supporting Joseph's, son of Jacob, rise to a position of power in Egypt.

I haven't exactly searched this stuff out thoroughly, however, I don't agree with your statement as it was made.

Well, of course not. Name me one ancient historical text that you feel is 100% accurate.

[Justice]

Accurate next to what we now know, or accurate next to reality?

Let's face it, what we know is constantly changing. To throw something out as untrue because nothing has been found may just be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[NeuroTypical]

People of other religions claim a confirmation from within themselves as evidence that their religion is true. Islam makes the same claims and yet Mormons do not regard the Qur’an or Islamic doctrine as being divinely inspired.

Where does Islam make the same claims?

I hear this all the time, about how everybody and their dog all promise the same spiritual confirmations that my faith promises. I never hear this from an actual adherent of those religions.

From what I've been able to gather, no, Islam does NOT promise to provide spiritual confirmation of the reality/divinity/goodness of Allah. From what I can tell, when you're a Muslim, you basically read the Quran and do what it says and that's that. You don't pray to get answers, you pray because it's one of the 5 pillars.

[Vort]

Where does Islam make the same claims?

I hear this all the time, about how everybody and their dog all promise the same spiritual confirmations that my faith promises. I never hear this from an actual adherent of those religions.

From what I've been able to gather, no, Islam does NOT promise to provide spiritual confirmation of the reality/divinity/goodness of Allah. From what I can tell, when you're a Muslim, you basically read the Quran and do what it says and that's that. You don't pray to get answers, you pray because it's one of the 5 pillars.

My close friend in grad school, a devout and very knowledgeable Sunni Muslim, expressly disclaimed any possibility of revelation by the Holy Ghost for a spiritual confirmation. He flatly denied any such thing, much as numerous evangelical Christians have done.

In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of exactly zero religions that claim what the Latter-day Saints claim: That if you ask God about the truth of the religion or its parts, God himself will reveal that truth to you.

[FunkyTown]

Doss? I understand what you're saying here, and I will try to be sensitive in the same vein.

Because of this, I am going to ask a few questions, and I'd like you to be honest:

1) If I gave you evidence that the Book of Mormon contained historical data that at the time of the writing was considered to be false and has subsequently been proven true, would you join the church?

2) Why or why not?

3) If I gave you evidence that 150 years ago, the same arguments you're using against the LDS church were used against Christianity in general, would you join the church?

4) Why or why not?

5) What would you accept as compelling evidence?

I'm trying to be sensitive here, but do you all know how HUGE of an implication this is? To throw out historical reliability like this is to throw out ALL OF HISTORY as we know it.

I can't accept that because then you will have to be fair to all other religions. Folks, lets be honest here. It is a fact that the Bible is RELIABLE in terms of archaeology. We are not talking about 100% reliable for every detail. We know that the places and events described in it are part of human history--many findings from archaeology have confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible. Do you seriously want me to list them? Just let wikipedia do it for you. Heck, let the SMithsonian Institute, the most prestigious historical institute in the world tell us. Their Department of Anthropology has an official statement on "The Bible as History". In it they say,

". . . much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as

accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more

accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical

records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For

the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."

I don't' want to get into a long spiel about the historicity of the Bible. It is well attested and it is critiqued and studied just like any other book of ancient text. Furthermore, we have ancient Roman historians confirming much of the New Testament. Lets keep in mind that we are not talking about accounts of miracles and the supernatural--we are talking about real people, places and historical settings. Even if some of it was contradicted in other findings, so what? I'd expect that to happen in ancient literature when scribes have to copy manuscript after manuscript to preserve them over the centuries. We also may have yet to find the evidence for other stories in the Bible (Noah's ark, etc). But with the BoM, we haven't seen anything. This is what concerns me.

The New Testament, especially the writings of Luke, is filled with accurate historical data. So much that archaeologists and historians alike have been impressed. The famous archaeologist and once skeptic Sir William Ramsey wrote, “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”The classical historian A. N. Sherwin-White writes, “ . . . for

Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” The spade of the archaeologist, the pen of ancient non-Christian historians, and tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts provide evidence that the Bible is a volume which is historically reliable and that its text has been preserved in a pure form. In other words, it is trustworthy. Unfortunately for the Mormon Church, I don't see it in their Scriptures.

All I am asking is for us all to think about WHY we believe the things we do. I do not believe we can rely on feelings alone. People of other religions claim a confirmation from within themselves as evidence that their religion is true. Islam makes the same claims and yet Mormons do not regard the Qur’an or Islamic doctrine as being divinely inspired.

We need to be reasonable in our faith.

[Mamas_Girl]

For hundreds of years early Christians did not have archealogical evidence for the Bible, but yet they believed it was true. So were they wrong to believe in the Bible before the evidence came forth? Obviously not.

I'm not concerned about whether or not evidence comes forth in my lifetime concerning the Book of Mormon, my evidence is based on faith, which "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I do believe, however, that BYU has been making some terrific steps in both Central and South America.

[Backroads]

I understand the need to be reasonable. I don 't really study Book of Mormon archaelogy (I have a book on my shelf I have yet to read). From what I gather, there are things here and there that could possibly work for the Book of Mormon, but nothing concrete. Maybe one day that will change and we will have a better understanding of where to look for things. But history is based on what we have, and we don't have much to work with.

Convenient? Maybe.

But here is the thing: I admit, that if cold-hard facts that the Book of Mormon was faked and the whole Church is a lie were presented to me, yeah, I would probably leave the Church.

But would it mean that there was no God? Wouldn't it mean that I might just have to shift my understanding of God and truth?

[Snow]

Hi all,

I'm currently a non-denominational Christian and believe that the Bible is reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission. However, I've been researching the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and have not seen anything compelling. There seems to be no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.

Can someone point me to some non-BYU sponsored data dedicated to archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon? I can't seem to find anything!

Thank you,

Reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission?

Seriously?

Could you point me to some substantiation of that claim for any of the important teachings of the Bible?

That the Gods created the earth?

Existence of Adam and Eve.

Existence of Abraham

The Flood

That Moses saw God

That Isaiah was a prophet of God.

That Jesus was the Christ

That salvation is brought to mankind via the death and resurrection of Jesus,

That God exist.

Anything?

[Snow]

HiJolly, thank you for that. Is this then the standard Mormon view? If so, then why are you not an Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc? Can we not say their religious experiences are just as valid?

Huh? Is that your point? That Buddhist and Islam are just as valid as Christianity?

How so?

[Maygraceabound]

Well, of course not. Name me one ancient historical text that you feel is 100% accurate.

The Bible. It is the word of God and I am not ashamed of it.

[Maygraceabound]

For hundreds of years early Christians did not have archealogical evidence for the Bible, but yet they believed it was true. So were they wrong to believe in the Bible before the evidence came forth? Obviously not.

I'm not concerned about whether or not evidence comes forth in my lifetime concerning the Book of Mormon, my evidence is based on faith, which "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I do believe, however, that BYU has been making some terrific steps in both Central and South America.

The Christians did have evidence. Rome, Egypt, Red Sea, numerous empires and on and on and on. All documented outside of the Christian sources. Why is this group so intent on tearing down the bible? So eager to discard it.

[Snow]

The Bible. It is the word of God and I am not ashamed of it.

Er, I've never heard of anyone that was ashamed of the Bible. It makes me wonder why you say that. Is someone close to you ashamed?

As to whether or not it 100% accurate... you can't seriously expect that anyone who has actually read the Bible would agree with that can you?

[Jenamarie]

The Christians did have evidence. Rome, Egypt, Red Sea, numerous empires and on and on and on. All documented outside of the Christian sources. Why is this group so intent on tearing down the bible? So eager to discard it.

We're not tearing down the Bible, just the need of archeological evidence to prove the validity of scripture.

As I started earlier, Mt Olympus (the home of the Greek Gods) is also a real place. As is Mecca. The Hindus have a tree where they believe The Buddah once sat. Many many religions have real, physical, take-a-tour-and-see-it places that are sacred to the faith. There are ancient documents that talk about a historical Mohammad. But the existance of those places or those documents isn't what proves the Divine. The Witness of the Holy Spirit is the only difinitive proof of divinity. Without that Witness Isaiah was just a guy who saw strange things and Moses was a man who climbed a mountain. Relying on archeology to prove Divine Truth is, in my opinion, relying on the arm of flesh.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Jenamarie

[volgadon]

Red Sea

Red Sea or Reed Sea?