The Gilbert LDS Temple, located at “Discovery Park” in Gilbert, Arizona, is part of a broader trend within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to construct temples across the globe. With temples planned or already present in 39 states and over 70 countries spanning six continents, some observers perceive these grand structures as an attempt to compensate for the perceived lack of substantive “proof of legitimacy” for the religion below ground. The Gilbert Temple, despite its grandeur, has disrupted the natural beauty of Discovery Park, which was established in 2006, a full eight years prior to the temple’s dedication. For many, the temple’s imposing presence almost seems like an affront to the surrounding landscape.
Adding a layer of irony to the situation, Discovery Park derives its name from the discovery of “actual” archaeological remnants. During construction, fossils of a Columbian Mammoth were unearthed near the site, underscoring the irony of a temple being built atop land that was once home to tangible evidence of prehistoric life. This juxtaposition highlights the clash between the church’s efforts to assert its presence through monumental architecture and the natural history of the land on which these structures are erected.
Toward A More Logical Argument Regarding
Evidence for the Book of Mormon Peoples.
The Book of Mormon describes the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites existing in the Americas for over 2,600 years. Given this extensive timeframe, one would expect substantial archaeological evidence to corroborate their presence. However, such evidence – artifacts like tools, weapons, or written records in languages mentioned in the Book of Mormon (Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian) – is noticeably absent.
This lack of physical evidence becomes even more puzzling when considering the massive scale of warfare and destruction described in the Book of Mormon. For instance, Ether 15:2 details a single battle with a death toll of nearly two million people.
Book of Mormon battle deaths.
Ether 15:2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.
Let’s take a conservative estimate and assume that each man, on average, had a wife and only one child. Under this assumption, the death toll in the battle described would amount to approximately six million people. To put this into perspective, let’s compare it to the battle deaths on the Western Front during the First World War. Over four years of intense warfare, approximately four million men lost their lives on the Western Front alone. This figure accounts for the devastating effects of artillery fire, machine guns, accurate rifles, poison gas, and other lethal technologies of the time.
Considering the scale of destruction described in the narrative, it strains credulity to imagine that a Bronze Age civilization could have inflicted such staggering casualties, especially without leaving any trace of their existence behind. The idea becomes even more implausible when we consider the convenient annihilation of the entire civilization before the arrival of the Nephites.
Addressing Counterarguments:
Limited Scope of Archaeology: While archaeological discoveries can be limited, the sheer absence of any substantial evidence for large-scale civilizations across such a vast timeframe is noteworthy.
Destruction by Time and Nature: While some materials may degrade, the scale of the civilizations described suggests major structures or written records should remain detectable.
The Primary Caveat:
While some scholars and researchers focus on finding archaeological evidence to validate the Book of Mormon, others take a different approach. They argue that the spiritual and theological significance of Mormonism should not rely solely on archaeological proof. Instead, they emphasize the importance of faith and personal experiences in shaping one’s belief system.
Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum:
Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”
From FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Response), an LDS non-profit organization formed in 1997 “dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice:”
Important disclaimer:
“Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FAIR are solely those of FAIR and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”
A photograph of the 1841 First European (London) edition of the Book of Mormon, at the Springs Preserve museum, Las Vegas, Nevada.
…about 95 percent of what has been said and written about archaeology and The Book of Mormon is nonsense. Most of it comes from missionaries, evangelists, and tour guides. Overall, however, critics of Mormonism have done more to establish the authenticity of The Book of Mormon than have their Mormon brethren. In recognition of their past efforts, we dedicate our remarks this morning to Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Lighthouse Ministries; they have helped establish the truth of The Book of Mormon more than they know. In 1830 the book was a 23 pound weakling, now thanks to 175 years of criticism, it is a 900 pound colossus. Fifth, the whole quarrel over evidence is based on a fallacy of proof. No quantity of archaeological evidence will ever suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either the Bible or The Book of Mormon is true — or false. Evidence is interesting and has it uses, but only as a means of better understanding the book, not of proving it to atheists and wayward saints. Sixth, we believe The Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text written by New World prophets. Seventh, and finally, we harbor no doubts that Joseph Smith translated the book by the power of God.
For many Mormons, the search for archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon is not merely an academic pursuit but a deeply personal one. The existence or absence of tangible proof can significantly impact their faith and beliefs. While some find comfort and reinforcement in archaeological discoveries that appear to align with their religious convictions, others grapple with doubts and questions when faced with the lack of concrete evidence. One principle within LDS culture that explains how easily church members can become discouraged by the lack of “evidence” is demonstrated by their culture … it’s called the “Just pray about it” principle. Mormons believe that if you read the Book of Mormon and then pray and ask God whether or not it is true, you will receive a testimony from the Holy Spirit verifying its truth. This begs the question of whether a negative “response” is ever felt by those who are praying. Many ex-Mormons report that the reason they received an earnest “feeling” about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon was based on the fact that they had been instructed that it was so from their childhood.
“Pure testimony” (Alma 4:19) begins with pure belief. Your testimony is a spiritual witness of what you believe or know to be true (see D&C 80:4). When you share your testimony, the purest and most powerful parts will come from words like know, believe, and testify. If you can say with sincerity, “I know the Book of Mormon is true,” you can have power to change lives and invite the Spirit to touch others.
The significance of different types of testimonials, such as eyewitness accounts, remains important in religious texts. In addition to the actual apologetic or sacred texts of different religions, as exemplified above, personal and shared narratives are common when justifying one’s religion to others and when reinforcing the faith in those who already believe. In Mormonism, the official organization of the Church relies heavily on testimonials. These come in the form of authoritative citations, such as referring to the experiences of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but also by citing the testimonials of named church members.
The Mormon Church also emphasizes how testimonials are useful to combat one’s doubts about the veracity of the religion: “Doubts about matters of religion that arise from a lack of knowledge can be constructively resolved. The solutions are instruction, study, and prayer, which result in increased testimony, which drives out further doubts.” Instead of objective evidence, subjective emotions are called upon. Furthermore, personal life stories are used in the same manner as tools for religious conversion or enforcement. When testimonials are utilized, we should remember that in many cases, contradictory narratives would also be available but that people tend to treat their own existing beliefs preferentially. Without a large number of cases for statistical testing, science would not consider such narrative stories as evidence.
The lack of significant archaeological evidence and the sheer improbability of large-scale warfare with the casualties described raise questions about the Book of Mormon’s literal interpretation of these events. This doesn’t necessarily negate the faith of Latter-day Saints, but it does highlight the ongoing debate regarding the historical accuracy of Joseph Smith’s “translation” of golden plates documenting the history of a civilization that lived in the Americas two millennia prior.
Does archaeology have its limitations? Don Stewart at Blue Letter Bible provides some answers about the science, hoaxes, and evidence interpretation, focusing particularly on Biblical Archaeology:
The role of archaeology is limited. There have been poor techniques used in the past. In addition, some of the evidence that has been unearthed is conflicting. There is also a great deal of subjectivity in the interpretation of what is found. Hoaxes have also been an unfortunate part of the story. Many issues remain unsettled, while others are non-provable. Therefore, while archaeology can be a benefit to the study of Scripture, there are a number of limitations to its usefulness.
Stewart’s observations would apply equally to any other examination of ancient sites, particularly those studied by the LDS church. If you check out the articles written at the Book of Mormon Archaeology Forum , it doesn’t take long to discover how the words “proof” and “theories” are interchangeable.
The relationship between Archaeology and the Book of Mormon is based on the claims made by the Book of Mormon that could be verified or discredited by archeological investigations. While members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement believe the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas, the available historical and archaeological facts point to the book being an anachronistic invention of Joseph Smith. Since the book’s publication in 1830, Mormon archaeologists have been trying to use archaeological evidence to confirm the veracity of the narratives, but this has proved unsuccessful.
Generally non-Mormon archaeologists do not consider there to be any authentic Book of Mormon archaeological sites.
Some early-20th century Mormons claimed various archaeological findings, such as place names and ruins of the Inca, Maya, Olmec, and other ancient American and Old World civilizations, as giving credence to the Book of Mormon record. All such claims are dismissed by archeologists, oftentimes out-of-hand (a number of archaeological societies have a form letter response to Mormon inquiries about whether these civilizations are consistent with the Book of Mormon).
The Smithsonian Institution has noted, “Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.”
Many members of the Latter Day Saint movement believe that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate. Most, but not all, Latter Day Saints hold the book’s connection to ancient American history as an article of their faith. This view finds no confirmation outside of the movement in the broader scientific and academic communities. Relevant archaeological, historical, and scientific facts are not consistent with the Book of Mormon being an ancient record of actual historical events.
Mormon apologists have proposed multiple explanations for apparent inconsistencies with the archaeological, genetic, linguistic and other records. These do not have currency with general academic communities of archaeology, history, or science.
In 1955, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, an attorney and a Latter-day Saint and the founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF), with five years of funding from the LDS Church, began to dig throughout Mesoamerica for evidence of the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. In a 1961 newsletter, Ferguson predicted that although nothing had been found, the Book of Mormon cities would be found within ten years. In 1972, Christian scholar Hal Hougey wrote to Ferguson questioning the progress made, given the stated timetable in which the cities would be found. Replying to Hougey as well as secular and non-secular requests, Ferguson wrote in a letter dated June 5, 1972: “Ten years have passed . … I had sincerely hoped that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years—and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation.”
In 1969 NWAF colleague Dee Green stated “Just how much the foundation is doing to advance the cause of Book of Mormon archaeology depends on one’s point of view about Book of Mormon archaeology.” After this article and another six years of fruitless search, Ferguson published a paper in which he concluded, “I’m afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography.” Referring to his own paper, Ferguson wrote a 1976 letter in which he stated: “The real implication of the paper is that you can’t set the Book-of-Mormon geography down anywhere—because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say—what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”
Mormons and Archeology, by Michael Coe (1929~2019), Department of Anthropology at Yale University, an American archaeologist, anthropologist, epigrapher, and author. He is known for his research on pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, particularly the Maya:
Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples between about 2,000 B.C. and A.D. 421. They believe that Smith could translate heiroglyphs, whether “Reformed Egyptian” or ancient American, and that his translation of the Book of Abraham is authentic. Likewise, they accept the Kinderhook Plates as a bona fide archaeological discovery, and the reading of them as correct.
Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group. This is in spite of a host of well-intentioned books and articles by Mormon intellectuals (whom I shall later discuss) trying to justify these claims.
On the other hand, there is no shortage of LDS apologists who have
written millions of words in defense of archaeological evidence.
Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology. In his voluminous collection of “explanations,” John Clark, an American archaeologist and academic researcher of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures, presents his version of the validity of Book of Mormon archaeology. Clark coauthored the piece with Wade Ardern and Matthew Roper.
After more than 8,000 words, John Clark concludes:
Just a few words by way of conclusion. Our purpose in this project is to bring order to the quarrel over archaeology and The Book of Mormon, with the hope that imposing organization on chaos will create space for reason. The Book of Mormon was criticized before it ever came off the press, and it has been the beneficiary of strong criticism and ridicule ever since. We welcome all such attentions because they only make the book stronger and deepen the plausibility of its ancient pedigree. It is important to acknowledge the source of this strength. It comes from Mormon scholars, apologists if you like, taking the criticisms seriously and using them as a springboard for research. Nothing good comes from leaving children or criticisms unattended. It is worth pointing out that we are not compiling our catalog of Book of Mormon criticisms to silence critics. To the contrary, we wish them all healthy, long lives and prolific careers. We acknowledge here their invaluable contribution in promoting better understanding of the book and its translator. We consider their list of legitimate criticisms a gold mine of research opportunities and will be happy to receive future installments.
Clark’s conclusions are in stark contrast to literally everyone else on the planet in the field of archeology.
Again, every one of the above are practicing Mormons. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, BYU is owned by the Mormon Church and has a department dedicated to Book of Mormon archaeology. According to BYU anthropologist John Clark, virtually all of the professional archaeologists there admit that archaeological finds which specifically tie the past to events in the Book of Mormon are missing. These practicing Mormons call books and their authors that list sensational findings not qualified, inadequate, and speculative.
Some Mormons will respond that these archeologists do not represent the official church position, so their opinions are not credible. But why trivialize and dismiss the findings of the overwhelming consensus of practicing Mormons who are professional archaeologists, yet accept, without question, the official Mormon Church position? Could it be that the ground’s silence is indicative of a Mormon Church position that is false? After all, if it is false, silence from archaeology is precisely what we might expect to find.
It is fair to mention that professional Mormon archaeologists claim there is general confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology, citing peoples existing where it is thought Book of Mormon peoples may have existed. This general confirmation, however, does not show that the Mormon picture of history is true. These same archaeologists (Johnson, Clark) admit that conclusions regarding the findings are pure speculation. The issue is not, “Did people exist in the Americas between 600 B.C. through A.D. 400?” We know that they did. The issue is, “Can we identify these civilizations as the ones mentioned in the Book of Mormon?” And the answer from virtually all professional Mormon and non-Mormon archaeologists alike is no.
The main caveat for any discussion of “evidence” is provided by the official stance of the LDS church itself. Daniel C. Peterson, former professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University (BYU), in “Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon” says:
Serious study of the Book of Mormon by Latter-day Saints is flourishing today as never before. And, with more study, the book’s sturdiness and richness and the remarkable accomplishment of its translator, the Prophet Joseph Smith, become more apparent for everyone to see.
Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”
Glaring caveats from the prophets and others:
It is the personal opinion of the writer that the Lord does not intend that the Book of Mormon, at least at the present time, shall be proved true by any archaeological findings. The day may come when such will be the case, but not now. The Book of Mormon is itself a witness of the truth, and the promise has been given most solemnly that any person who will read it with a prayerful heart may receive the abiding testimony of its truth.
~ Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 1998, v. 2, p. 196
The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists … If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography.
~ Dee F. Green, Mormon archaeologist, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78
While some people chose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge. I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in Ancient America, or any other. I believe that the authors are making cases out of too little evidences and do not adequately address the problems that archaeology and the Book of Mormon present … Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members credibility.
~ Ray T. Matheny, Mormon scholar and BYU professor of anthropology, letter dated Dec. 17, 1987
… our testimony of the Book of Mormon remain[s] a matter of faith, and [is] not based upon external proofs found from archaeology.
~ Duane R. Aston, Return to Cumorah, 1998
But dig they will…
In December 2021, a group of Mormon researchers began digging in the area of Montrose, Iowa, a small town on the banks of the Mississippi River. They hoped to find evidence of Zarahemla—a notable city in the Book of Mormon.
John Lefgren of the Heartland Research Group said in his faith, Zarahemla would be comparable to Jerusalem for Christians. The exact location of Zarahemla has not been verified, so being able to pinpoint it would be a milestone.
“Iowa is an important place,” Lefgren said. “In the fourth century, Montrose, Iowa, had the largest city in North America.”
According to Lefgren, in its heyday of AD 320, Zarahemla had a population of about 100,000 and it was the largest city in the Americas.
“The Book of Mormon takes place at a time in ancient America; great civilizations and great armies are in the book,” Lefgren said. “The conclusion of the book, a nation, a great nation is destroyed. Mainly, it’s a cautionary tale, of course, because they did not keep God’s commandments and they do bad things and they are destroyed.”
The Book of Nephi in the Book of Mormon chronicles the destruction of Zarahemla and its eventual reconstruction. Zarahemla also was the namesake of a settlement founded by Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, in 1839. Smith’s version of Zarahemla would later be incorporated into Montrose.
Research is ongoing but so far I think there is a general consensus that these berms are man-made, not of modern construction, and have the potential to be part of the wall defenses of the ancient city of Zarahemla and that it is worth our continued study and exploration (especially when the weather is better). The berms are where we would expect the walls to be for the ancient city of Zarahemla.
Short answer: No.
Another LDS effort in the search for evidence confirming the Book of Mormon historicity was conducted in 2016 by a group headed by Dr. F. Richard Hauck, founder of the Archaeological Research Institute (not this one), on the southern tip of what is now known as Yemen. As told in the BOM, Lehi and his family eventually came to a coastal region which they “called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey” (1 Nephi 17:4–5). This location not only served as a refuge from the harsh desert landscape but also as a place where they could build and then launch a ship to sail to their “promised land” in the New World (1 Nephi 18:23), supposedly across the Atlantic Ocean after sailing around the tip of Africa … a speculative assumption.
Another caveat: “The precise lands where the Book of Mormon events took place cannot be determined with absolute certainty.”
During the month of February 2016 a team of archaeologists, scholars and divers, headed by Dr. F. Richard Hauck, will be at Nephi’s Bountiful on a dig to find answers to some critical questions about conditions there in 600 BC. Representing Meridian, the Proctors will be there as well to give our readers day-by-day coverage of this spiritual and archaeological adventure. Come with us to the edge of the Arabian Peninsula and the edge of our ancient scriptural history.
Photos from the dig at what LDS archaeologists think is Nephi’s Bountiful has uncovered several small treasures. See was it’s like digging at Khor Kharfot and see what has been uncovered with over 30 photos from Meridian Magazine. Here’s just a taste:
We are all curious to know what might have been left behind at Nephi’s Bountiful. It wasn’t until November 8, 2015 that the gracious Omani government granted a permit to be able to dig for the first time at Khor Kharfot. This truly sounds like exotic work, daily boat rides into a remote beach on the Arabian Sea and hiking up to an area with an ancient sanctuary. Admittedly it is very exotic, but it is also just plain dirty work. We will be offering some of these dirty positions to Meridian readers in future expeditions. Stay tuned. For now, come with us and get a real visual on the work that has been started at this, the very best candidate for Bountiful where Nephi built the ship.
We were curious to see what would come out of the pits. This was an especially nice incised shard and got everyone quite excited. When you go through a lot of dirt and a lot of rocks and a lot of shells and then find this, it can make your whole day. Here was one of those treasures–a small, man-made bead from a yet undetermined time period. Each artifact is bagged and marked as to which pit, which quadrant of the pit and which level of the pit it came from.
Upon scouring the Internet and delving into the purported “research” conducted during expeditions aimed at uncovering evidence supportive of Mormon beliefs, it becomes apparent that a majority of these endeavors are akin to a typical wild goose chase. They resemble a futile endeavor like hammering a square peg of “evidence” into the round hole of “reality,” as illustrated in this photo.
In contrast, biblical archaeology has provided thousands of discoveries that have confirmed biblical references. Hundreds of ancient civilizations, artifacts, historical records and inscriptions have been discovered that prove the historical accuracy of the Bible. Archaeological discoveries confirming biblical accounts have been acknowledged by Christians as well as skeptics. Foremost Middle East archaeologist Dr. William Albright wrote, “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.” When asked if archaeology confirms the accuracy of the New Testament, scholar John McCray states, “Oh, there is no question that the credibility of the New Testament is enhanced.” A historical faith should have historical proofs. Historical research has led both Christians and skeptics to affirm the historicity of the Bible. However, historical research has proven damaging for the Book of Mormon.
In every area, the evidence has been forthcoming: God has vindicated His Word, and His Book is a genuine writing, with prophecies and revelation that must be taken seriously. His Book is unique because it is His Book.
Archaeologists once boasted that the Bible was full of errors because no independent, historic evidence had been found to confirm the Bible’s claims. But a slew of astounding discoveries has put a damper on their boasting. – Archaeology provides us with fascinating and amazing affirmations of Scripture’s accuracy and trustworthiness.
Even when excavators are digging to uncover a past time period dealt with in the Bible, it is by no means sure that direct biblical history will be unearthed. Such findings are hoped for, not only by Bible students, but by disinterested archaeologists as well, because they know that they must take Bible records seriously. A link with Bible history is an excellent dating point, always desirable but not possible or achieved. These findings are excellent confirmations of God’s Word, as opposed to “proving the Bible.”
Archaeology has done a great deal to restore confidence in the Bible as the revealed Word of God. It has thrown a great deal of light on previously obscure passages and has helped us to understand customs, culture, and background in many ways that seemed most unlikely to our fathers in a previous generation. Archaeology is highly relevant for understanding the Bible today.
One LDS “scholar” has gone to great lengths to counter the criticism of the Book of Mormon geography and archeology…
Anti-Mormon criticisms of the Book of Mormon are frequently based on a questionable set of assumptions concerning the nature of historical and archaeological evidence, the role of governing presuppositions, and the nature of historical proof. Using arguments found in a recent anti-Mormon critique by Luke Wilson as a foundation, this article analyzes issues of the difficulties of reconstructing ancient geographies, problems with the discontinuity of Mesoamerican toponyms, the historical development of the idea of a Limited Geography Model, and difficulties of textual and artifactual interpretation when trying to relate the Book of Mormon to archaeological remains.
Hamblin chastises Book of Mormon (BoM) critics, singling out as an example a Christian critic’s article, which asserted that the Book of Mormon’s historicity is not supported by archaeological findings. He points out logical and factual errors of commission and omission in the critic’s article, but then in his critique commits many of those same errors himself. The article, in fact, by explaining in detail why archaeological research has not supported the Book of Mormon, tacitly agrees with the main premise and conclusion of the article he is criticizing: archaeology does not support the Book of Mormon claims.
Packham’s “Conclusion” offers a clear and concise closure to Hamblin’s long and rambling tome, as LDS apologists are prone to produce.
The basic problem is the question of how much evidence is sufficient to prove or disprove a hypothesis. In the law, when the issue is a matter of life or death, or punishment (e.g. a criminal case), the prosecution must present evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is, the case fails if there is any – even a single – reasonable doubt about the case. The Mormon message is essentially that if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be (a divinely inspired history of peoples of ancient America), we should accept the Mormon gospel, be baptized into the Mormon church, and follow the words of Mormon prophets. Such a grave consequence should require evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So, is there even one “reasonable doubt” about the Book of Mormon? Of course. Not just one, but a myriad. Dozens, hundreds of doubts, with archaeology being only one area. Hamblin and other Mormon apologists have the task of dispelling not just most, but ALL such reasonable doubts. Otherwise, their case fails. I submit that they have not done so, and cannot do so.
To put it another way, even if there were archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon (and remember that Hamblin’s entire article is an explanation of why there is none, not a presentation of such evidence), the evidence we have in abundance about ancient America contradicts almost all Book of Mormon claims. In deciding whether to accept a hypothesis, it is not the evidence for a claim that is decisive, but the uncontroverted evidence against it. This is the method of scientific inquiry.
Hamblin needs to clean his own methodological house, the beam in his own eye (Matthew 7:3-5).
Where Jesus was born In the Book of Mormon we read: “…And the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers…” (Alma 7:9-10). It clearly says, “Jerusalem” and not “Bethlehem”!
“Digging into Mormon history…”
Even the name of the Church has questionable provenance…
From a site authored by Paul A. Douglas, a former member of The Church, who writes an extensive “letter” detailing his “most troubling issues related to the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith story.” His site is a goldmine of interesting and provocative tidbits. His introduction should grab the attention of any truth-seeking LDS member:
I grew up in the church, attended services, went to seminary and mutual, was a Boy Scout in the church troop – in short, was a typical LDS boy. I read many church-approved mind-numbing books written by general authorities, listened to their countless conference talks read from teleprompters. I Married in the Salt Lake temple and served in several stake and ward callings as a high priest. Like the vast majority of members, preoccupied with church’s demands, raising five children and earning a living, I was too busy to do a deep dive into the factual history of the church and its founder Joseph Smith. I was happy. Ignorance really can be bliss, so I can understand and appreciate the emotional comfort such a life, devoid of any uncertainty can produce.
His observation about the word, “Mormon:”
Also, one must recognize that non-Mormon archaeologists and anthropologists publish and are thereby subject to peer review. In contrast, it is extremely rare that a paper on archaeology or anthropology coming out of BYU would be accepted for publication by the three leading scholarly journals in those disciplines, let alone survive withering examination by their non-Mormon peers.
Finally, before we begin, a word about a word – Mormon.
In 2018 President Russell Nelson, as is tradition, based solely on seniority, became the seventeenth man to become the President of the LDS church.
In addition to Nelson’s shortening of the agonizingly long Sunday services that the faithful long endured, he also claimed to have awoken from his nonagenarian repose one night, ‘impressed,’ that, from that moment forward, the use of the word ‘Mormon’ should be removed from the lexicon.
President Russell would have people henceforth refer to Mormons as ‘Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’
This is was not the first time the LDS church changed its moniker. It has actually gone through several rewrites in its short history.
It was initially named, ‘The Church of Christ’ by Joseph Smith on April 6, 1830, The same name, incidentally, as the church at Dartmouth College, the prep school of which his brother Hyrum attended.
The ‘Church of Christ’ lasted just four years.
In 1834 Joseph had to face the fact that he was not the first to coin that name and it had better be changed to avoid if not litigation, certainly confusion.
Not to be caught in the same bind again, the name was quickly changed to ‘The Church of the Latter Day Saints,’ completely removing Jesus Christ.
That name only lasted another two years (1834 to 1836), before it would seem Joseph recalled that the Lord had stated in the Book of Mormon that His church should carry His name. Consequently, it was renamed once again to, ‘The Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,‘ which was used for another two years – 1836 to 1838.
Although it was still being referred to as the Church of Christ and the Church of Latter Day Saints, nevertheless in 1838 it was again changed to, more or less, its current name, ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.’ In 1851 Brigham Young signed off on the final change, ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’ adding a hyphen and reverting to the British-style lower-case “d.”
The goal in politics is to acquire enough support to gain and maintain power. In the case of advertising, the goal is to sell products or services.
But in the case of high-demand religious organizations of the corporate ilk (Mormonism and Scientology being the two best examples), the stated goal may be to save souls, change hearts and minds and encourage good works, etc., but the real purpose in the organizational, bureaucratic sense is to recruit and maintain members (followers) so as to acquire their time, their talents and their fortunes.
I am not suggesting that there are not good people in politics, business, advertising or religion who sincerely want to serve the needs of others.
The point is however, that these institutions often care little about what matters to their constituencies – what they value or see as most meaningful is what fulfills them, and helps maintain their viability. These powerful organizations have a logic and a dynamic all their own.
But here’s the rub. By knowing which buttons to push, these manipulative gods of influence can effectively get us to believe something or do something that is at times not only in opposition to our best interests but altogether irrational and illogical.
This is the primary reason why we need to enhance our critical thinking skills – self-preservation.
CLOSING REMARKS
Joseph Smith wasn’t exactly the Dale Carnegie of his day…
“God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don’t like it, you must lump it.”
~ Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 363.
