Book Of Mormons And Archeology

[sharyll]

I was talking to my husband last night about the Bible and how it has archeological research behind it to prove its authenticity. I am not saying the the Bible is a book of history but there have been things found to prove some of the events in the Bible. I was wondering does the Book of Mormon have some of the same thing. I am new to the LDS church and still seeking whether to be baptized or not. I guess this is one of the areas that is holding me up. Would appreciate any comments.

Sharyl

[Brother Dorsey]

I was talking to my husband last night about the Bible and how it has archeological research behind it to prove its authenticity. I am not saying the the Bible is a book of history but there have been things found to prove some of the events in the Bible. I was wondering does the Book of Mormon have some of the same thing. I am new to the LDS church and still seeking whether to be baptized or not. I guess this is one of the areas that is holding me up. Would appreciate any comments.

Sharyl

Hi Sharyl....I've heard the same thing about the Bible...but I have never stumbled across any archeological proof regarding the events in the Bible....at least not yet....Just locations of some of the events like names of cities, towns, rivers etc....but then again, names can be changed anytime to suit a purpose. I would love it if they could dig up maybe Noah's ark, the cross Christ died on, John the Baptists bones, the Ark of the Covenants, etc., or some kind of physical archeological proof that any of the events in the Bible actually took place. But I think that's why it's called faith...that's why we rely on the Spirit to confirm truths to us. In regards to the archeological proof of the Book of Mormon....there really is none either....they have speculated that the majority of it took place on the Yucatan Penninsula in Mexico judging from the description of rivers and seas and their direction. Also, regarding Christ appearing to the Nephites on this continent.....ask any american native and you will find that there has always been a folklore within their tribes of a great white God....before any of these tribes ever seeing a white man.....interesting huh?

I think you have to understand that the Lord wants us to go forth in faith....for if we had the proof then there would be no agency because we wouldn't need faith. Ask the Lord if the Book of Mormon is not true....search your heart....Have you ever met people from another faith that actually lived their faith as the LDS do? Some of the anti-Mormons are so hellbent on proving LDS doctrine wrong that they forget about the good that the LDS church does....about the commitment to mankind they have....How could such good people be so bad in their eyes? How could something so good for mankind not be of God? Sorry, I got off track.....Please Sharyl, don't look for proof as you really won't find it in the books of man.....seek the truth from the Lord....he will answer you. May God bless you in your quest.

[Latter Days Guy]

http://www.nephiproject.com/

[Princess3dward]

www.jefflindsay.com

[LionHeart]

There is a book called 'A Marvelous Work and a Wonder' writted by LeGrande Richards. It is an LDS publication containing an account of an old Indian legend. This legend was told to the Author in person by an Indian who apparently was not very fluent in speaking the English language; wich is apparent due to the fact that the mis-spoken words were recorded exactly as they were pronounced in the text. But the legend tells of a large calamity that took place on the American continent many years ago. But the most interesting part is that it closely parallels the account given in the Book of Mormon concernig the three days after the crucifixion of Christ. The Earthquakes and destruction, and the three days of thick darkness, etc.

I found that to be quite fascinating.

L.H.

[Dr T]

Some body posteed something on this site about "no archeological evidence for the BOM." Inconsistencies of metals, animals etc. The Bible has a lot of archeological support as said above (rulers, cities, people, etc.)

[CrimsonKairos]

http://www.nephiproject.com/

I bought three of the tapes in this series. They are very interesting, though the narration and cinematography are very, very amateur (I almost wanted to turn off the tapes!). Of course, being an indie filmmaker and wedding videographer I have pretty high standards. :) The tapes that I've seen of this series do provide what I would call "solid evidence" of Book of Mormon geography prior to the exodus to the Promised Land.

[Traveler]

I was talking to my husband last night about the Bible and how it has archeological research behind it to prove its authenticity. I am not saying the the Bible is a book of history but there have been things found to prove some of the events in the Bible. I was wondering does the Book of Mormon have some of the same thing. I am new to the LDS church and still seeking whether to be baptized or not. I guess this is one of the areas that is holding me up. Would appreciate any comments.

Sharyl

There is a little bit of misconception here based on the notions of proof and evidence. The problem is that evidence can often be interpreted in more than one way. Many like to pretend that evidence that supports something concerning the “Bible” is proof of all things concerning the Bible.

The second notion is that evidence that supports the Book of Mormon can be interpreted in other ways and therefore cannot be considered proof.

There are two problems I have over these issues. The first is when someone that claims that the Bible has been “proven” then provides evidence they claim disproves the Book of Mormon but fail to recognize that their interpretation of such evidence also disproves the Bible.

I will give an example: That is that the evidence supports that native inhabitants of the Americans migrated to the Americas in prehistoric times across an ancient northern land bridge in two migrations of 20,000 years ago and 50,000 years ago. Note that a tenant of the Bible is that Adam was the first man and that he lived about 6,000 years ago.

The second problem is based on that lack of some evidence. Because something has not been found the Book of Mormon cannot be true. The problem here is that we keep finding evidence that indicates something new that we did not know before the evidence was found concerning ancient civilizations in the Americas. Keep in mind that less than 2% of the known ancient archeological sites in the Americas have even been researched at all and of those that have been researched none have exhaustively been completed. Thus making any conclusions based on something lacking very premature.

To answer the first question - in the 150 years since the publication of the Book of Mormon there have been many findings of evidence that support the Book of Mormon. There have also been evidence that seem to contradict the Book of Mormon. But there is no evidence that proves the Book of Mormon and there is no evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon. The Bible is in basically the same position with the possible consideration that much more research of Biblical locations has been studied and completed.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hey CK,

Can you give me some of the "sound evidence" that you saw in those films? In that video that you reviewed, we know they were not pro-LDS but they also made a lot of good arguments about there being "no reliable evidence/or not evidence at all" of that whole civilization.

Thank you

[CrimsonKairos]

Well Dr. T, the tapes I bought from the Nephi Project deal solely with Old World geography as described in the Book of Mormon. Lehi and his family left Jerusalem and wandered in the wilderness for years before arriving at a beach, building a boat, and sailing to the Americas. Nephi describes this Old World landscape and Lehi incorporates the geography into sermons to his sons (1 Nephi 8:9-10).

The tapes in this series identify and explore possible locations that match the Book of Mormon's descriptions of locations prior to the New World arrival. In other words, this series doesn't talk about Mayan temples or Aztec legends or any other aspect of the Book of Mormon's American setting. It's solely about locations and events prior to Lehi and his family's sailing to the Americas. Check out the website for the Nephi Project as they provide photos and basic descriptions of their findings. Of course, you could buy one or two of the tapes and let them speak about their discoveries far better than I can from my memory of watching them.

In particular, watch the excerpts on this page: http://www.nephiproject.com/project_film_clips.htm

By themselves, they don't really get into the subject in depth, but they serve the purpose of excerpts, to wit, they give an idea of what the whole videos discuss.

[Dr T]

Thank you CK. I'll check out those clips. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Hi Sharyl....I've heard the same thing about the Bible...but I have never stumbled across any archeological proof regarding the events in the Bible....at least not yet....Just locations of some of the events like names of cities, towns, rivers etc....but then again, names can be changed anytime to suit a purpose. I would love it if they could dig up maybe Noah's ark, the cross Christ died on, John the Baptists bones, the Ark of the Covenants, etc., or some kind of physical archeological proof that any of the events in the Bible actually took place.

I'm all for faith, but there actually has been some serious archeological study in relation to the Bible. The following site contains, not polemic proofs, but scholarly dialogue about "biblical archeology."

http://www.bib-arch.org/

[Dr T]

Thank you for the link P.C. Looks interesting to me.

[sharyll]

Thank you for the link P.C. Looks interesting to me.

I want to thank everyone for their input. I am not expecting to find all knowing proof that the Book of Mormon is accurate. I am looking for something that shows some findings that support some of the stories like there is with the Bible. I agree we accept these books on faith and I am looking for some support that the Book of Mormon is true. I believe in my heart that the Bible is true even with some of the things that do seem to contridict them selves (ie free choice, or choosen predistination?) It is too early for me to be thinking big theological words. I appreciate all the websites as I continue my search.

Sharyl

[BenRaines]

I did not know that LDS believed in pre-destination. I know they believe in pre-ordination and agency. Jeremiah 1:5 comes to mind as a Biblical reference.

Ben Raines

[Dr T]

Ben,

That looks like a good distinction. Can you explain the difference?

Thank you

[Serg]

I was talking to my husband last night about the Bible and how it has archeological research behind it to prove its authenticity. I am not saying the the Bible is a book of history but there have been things found to prove some of the events in the Bible. I was wondering does the Book of Mormon have some of the same thing. I am new to the LDS church and still seeking whether to be baptized or not. I guess this is one of the areas that is holding me up. Would appreciate any comments.

Sharyl

Well, after all sister, out of the 434's places the bible mentions by name, less than 60 have we been able to prove real in history. Also with names and empires. It amusses me not that(though bom arquelogy has surely proved to be worth it and amazing), not every city name has been found. At least, there is much more excuse for bom city names to not appear than for isralelite city names to not appear, for american cities, texts, even the very cultures, were destroyed or disincouraged to accept the new catholic and protestant faith, while Israel could have had more efficient ways of prerserving such historical 'accuracy"as it had not only empires that wrote down everything(bad or good) that happened in th earea, but enjoied of a period of social advancement, legal papers, known culture, exodus, etc...

Of course, even the amateur member that looks for arquelogical progress in respect to the bom, finds that names, tales, cities'locations, narratives, documents, ceremonies, geological research, etc... has provided pleasant gronding for a mormon's concept of Ancient America. :)

[Dr T]

Of course, even the amateur member that looks for arquelogical progress in respect to the bom, finds that names, tales, cities'locations, narratives, documents, ceremonies, geological research, etc... has provided pleasant gronding for a mormon's concept of Ancient America.

That is contrary to a video that I watched on-line.

[Latter Days Guy]

Of course, even the amateur member that looks for arquelogical progress in respect to the bom, finds that names, tales, cities'locations, narratives, documents, ceremonies, geological research, etc... has provided pleasant gronding for a mormon's concept of Ancient America.

That is contrary to a video that I watched on-line.

What video would that be?

[Dr T]

I don't know what it was called. CK reviewed it and pointed out some difficulties with it though. It mostly talked about the concept of a whole civilization vanishing without a trace (No building left, weaponry, etc) and inconsistencies of resources described. Sorry for not knowing the reference, sir.

Dr. T

[CrimsonKairos]

It was a clip on GoogleVideo. Same anti-Mormon claims: where are the steel swords and horse bones and huge cities? In the video, one of the key "Mormon archeologists" (read: ex-mormon with an axe to grind) was looking for skeletal evidence of the great "last battle" among the Jaredites and later, between the Nephites and Lamanites that the Book of Mormon describes as taking place near the Hill Cumorah.

Only problem is, the guy was looking for this evidence of a massive slaughter near the New York Cumorah! Duh professor, that's the wrong Hill Cumorah. Several other errors and so forth left a bad taste in my mouth. Same tactic of misleading and misinterpreting LDS texts.

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thank you for the link P.C. Looks interesting to me.

I want to thank everyone for their input. I am not expecting to find all knowing proof that the Book of Mormon is accurate. I am looking for something that shows some findings that support some of the stories like there is with the Bible. I agree we accept these books on faith and I am looking for some support that the Book of Mormon is true. I believe in my heart that the Bible is true even with some of the things that do seem to contradict them selves (ie free choice, or choosen predistination?) It is too early for me to be thinking big theological words. I appreciate all the websites as I continue my search.

Sharyl

Sharyl'

There is plenty of proof for and plenty of people who will explain how there is no proof. One could say the same about some of the older events in the Bible. I have seen enough shows on pbs who can "proof" that the Israel nation did not exsist untill after the captivity by Egypt.

Your Heavenly Father doesn't want to give you to much proof, untill you have figured out what your real desires are. If you had all the answers given to you and you didn't have to really ask Him about the truth, you would never know how much you wanted the truth.

Many will tell you that, this is a cop out. Sorry to tell you that you will have to make that decesion. I can tell you that ever since I made the decesion, to live by faith, trust in the Lord and continue to study the word of God in scripture and from living Prophets, my life has been improved and there is no end to the peace I have. Later the proof will come and you will wounder why you had qeustions.

I hope I'm helping - allmosthumble

[Traveler]

I thought I would add this just so some of the posters will understand that (at least in this case) those that direct criticism against the Book of Mormon are themselves more flawed than what they say is the problem with the Book of Mormon.

In 1985 a critic of the Book of Mormon by the name of Thomas Key wrote in the "Journal of American Scientific Affiliation" the following: "...since Pleistocene times there has been in Arabia no Bountiful land with much fruit and also wild honey (1Nephi 17:5) and no timber that Nephi could have used to build a ship (1Nephi 18:1).

The problem is that Thomas Key, though claimed to be qualified to make the criticism, he overlook a very unique place known as Taqah/Khor Rori. He should have known better because Taqah/Khor Rori sits exactly where Nephi indicated it ought to be, has all the elements the Book of Mormon said it had, is the only place in Arabia with all such elements and happens to be at the end of the ancient Frankincese Trail.

At least in this case the Book of Mormon is more accurate than the so-called experts. There is always danger in saying there is no evidence of something. So here is proof that published experts (as recent as 1985) were wrong and that the Book of Mormon (and young Joseph Smith) was exactly correct. Makes you wonder how critics can makes mistakes and the anti types shrug it off as though it does not really matter that when it come to real proof the Book of Mormon is more accurate than their experts.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

CK is sort of correct. He was an archeologist (I think) with a headline that said, "Ex-Mormon." I think it was to establish some "roots" to the religion and therefore a connection to his exploration. There is no doubt in my mind that he was/is biased. The interesting points in the video were that they went to multiple places of the world, South America included and they talked to experts in the field of archeology and other disciplines. I don't know if they were connected to anti religion in general-they may have been, but they said things like, "There is no way archeologically (possible) that a whole civilization can disappear without a trace." There would be buildings and human markings/environmental changes that cannot be hidden (that would still be evident). Look at any ruins for example. CK may be right, "Same old anti material" but that is not a strong argument against their arguments. It doesn't matter "how old" an argument has been around or if it has not changed, the issue is the actual argument. Does the argument make sense? Does a person have to chose against the evidence in spite of it? I understand that religion has that pull. There are some things that we all have to take on faith. That is understood. I also understand that this is not fun to hear and might raise the ire of many and it will be dismissed as "anti" and therefore not considered. I also understand that no one will change their beliefs. You all have "faith" which goes beyond evidence. The only reason I brought it up was because for someone to claim there is evidence and not address the other side so people can make a fair decision is deceitful (in my opinion).

The next point of attacking the credibility of "experts" is also suspicious. While it is definitely true, that no one knows everything and people can give false information. People can give good info too and it should all be considered.

[CrimsonKairos]

The next point of attacking the credibility of "experts" is also suspicious. While it is definitely true, that no one knows everything and people can give false information. People can give good info too and it should all be considered.

I have yet to see any good information from anti sources.