Book of Mormon/Archaeology

FairMormon Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Summary: It is a common claim by critics that there is "absolutely no archaeological evidence" to support the Book of Mormon. When they say "directly" support, they typically mean that they are looking for a direct corroboration, such as the presence of the name "Nephi" or "Zarahemla" in association with ancient American archaeological data. There is plenty of supporting evidence that anthropologically ties the Book of Mormon to ancient America.

Jump to Subtopic:

• Biblical archaeology compared to the Book of Mormon
• Archaeology and the Hill Cumorah
• Thomas Stuart Ferguson and "Mormon archaeology"
• Smithsonian statement about the Book of Mormon
• Interpretations of Izapa Stella 5 as a possible representation of Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life

Biblical archaeology compared to the Book of Mormon

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: What criticisms are raised with regard to Book of Mormon archaeology compared to that of the Bible?
• Question: What archaeological evidence might be considered the minimal irrefutable proof needed to convince a non-believing world of the authenticity of the Nephite scripture?
• Question: How would an archaeologist distinguish a Christian's pot from that of a non-Christian?
• Question: What do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?
• Question: How would Book of Mormon archaeology compare to that of the Bible?
• Question: What do we find in Mesoamerican archaeology with respect to place names, such as city names?
• Question: How does archaeology in the Old World compare to the first chapters in the Book of Mormon?
• Question: How does archaeology in the New World fit with the Book of Mormon?
• Question: Did Dee F. Green say that there is no such thing as Book of Mormon archaeology?

Archaeology and the Hill Cumorah

Summary: If Mormon chapter 6 is a literal description of the destruction of the Nephites by the Lamanites — approximately 100 thousand were killed by swords and axes — why hasn't any evidence of the battle been found at the site that was traditionally identified as the hill Cumorah in western New York state?

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Does the Church authoritatively identify the location of the Hill Cumorah?
• Question: Where is the Hill Cumorah?
• Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith reject the theory that the final battlefield of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica rather than New York?
• John E. Clark, "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions,": "The hill the plates came from is not at issue; the question is whether this final resting place is the same hill where the ending battles occurred"
• Question: Have any archaeological excavations ever been performed on the site of the Hill Cumorah in New York?
• Question: Did Moroni bury the gold plates in the Hill Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon?
• Michael J. Dorais (2004): "The Geologic History of Hill Cumorah"
• Question: Are the large population counts described in the Book of Mormon during the final battle at the Hill Cumorah accurate?
• Question: Is there a cave in the Hill Cumorah containing the Nephite records?
• Cameron J. Packer (2004): "Joseph Smith and others returned the plates to a cave in the Hill Cumorah after he finished translating them"
• Question: What happened to the stone box in which gold plates were deposited?

Thomas Stuart Ferguson and "Mormon archaeology"

Summary: Thomas Stuart Ferguson went to search for Book of Mormon lands. When he could not confirm their existence, it is said that he lost his belief. Ferguson and the New World Archaeological foundation are often used by critics to demonstrate that there is no "Book of Mormon archaeology."

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Was Thomas Stuart Ferguson an archaeologist?
• Peterson and Roper: "We know of no one who cites Ferguson as an authority, except countercultists"
• Peterson: "Thomas Stuart Ferguson's biographer...makes every effort to portray Ferguson's apparent eventual loss of faith as a failure for 'LDS archaeology'"
• Gee: "Ferguson is largely unknown to the vast majority of Latter-day Saints; his impact on Book of Mormon studies is minimal"

Smithsonian statement about the Book of Mormon

Summary: The Smithsonian Institution sends a form letter to those who inquire about their use of the Book of Mormon for archaeological purposes. The National Geographic Society has a similar letter. Critics trot out this letter as proof that the Book of Mormon has no archaeological support and is therefore false. One critic even claims that "generations of youth" in the Church have been taught that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide their research.

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Does the Smithsonian Institution send out a letter regarding the use of the Book of Mormon as a guide for archaeological research?

Interpretations of Izapa Stella 5 as a possible representation of Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life

Summary: Advances in our understanding of Mesoamerican art and iconography have led most LDS researchers with knowledge of the relevant disciplines to be very skeptical about a direct link between the stela and the Book of Mormon.

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Does Izapa Stela 5 depict Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life in the Book of Mormon?
• Stewart W. Brewer (1999): "Professor M. Wells Jakeman...claimed that the scene carved in bas-relief on the stone was a representation of Lehi's vision of the tree of life"
• John E. Clark (1999): "My purpose here is to present the latest drawing of this monument, to discuss how this drawing was made, and to suggest its implications for the Lehi hypothesis"

Video

Part(s) of this issue are addressed in a FairMormon video segment. Click here to see video clips on other topics.