Archaeology
ARCHAEOLOGY
BOOK OF MORMON
INTRODUCTION
The CES Letter makes several claims about the Book of Mormon and archeological evidence. Let's take a look:
CES LETTER CLAIM
There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions.
CES Letter, Page 11
DEBUNKING REPLY
Multiple similarities have been found between Book of Mormon descriptions and archaeological evidences.
John L. Sorenson’s Mormon’s Codex is a dense presentation of several hundred artifacts and cultural evidences supporting a specific ancient setting for the Book of Mormon. His works are not conclusive, but critics who claim there is no supportive archaeological evidence need to deal with the abundant parallels he proposes.
In 1999 researchers reported ruins of stone buildings in Lake Atitlan in the south highlands of Guatemala. Scuba divers discovered a modest-sized pyramid and a number of stelae. The structures were some 56 feet (17 m) beneath the surface near the south shore. Using advanced technology to complete a high resolution map of the lakebed of Atitlan ruins of submerged settlements appear to exist at several places. This is precisely where a popular theory of Book of Mormon geography predicts they would be.
The last Nephite record keeper was killed around 400 A.D. and the Nephite culture was despised and destroyed by their conquerors. Many centuries passed during which tangible evidences of the Book of Mormon people were lost.
It is naïve to believe that a record will be found recording a name or other evidence described in the Book of Mormon conclusively proving the truthfulness of the narrative. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lack—it is impossible to prove the Lehites did not exist.
Several Old World and Book of Mormon geographical descriptions are very similar.
Valley of Lemuel
Shazer
Nahom
Bountiful
Lehi's cave
It is often claimed by other Christians that the Bible is completely supported by archaeological evidence, while the Book of Mormon is supported by none. Neither claim is true.
Charting the "anachronisms" shows that what hasn't been discovered today could be in the future. These two charts support that as time progresses science continues to vindicate the Book of Mormon against more and more "anachronisms" claims:
CES LETTER CLAIM
This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America)
CES Letter, Page 11
DEBUNKING REPLY
The “Limited geography model” was proposed in 1926 to better correlate to the topographical descriptions found in the Book of Mormon with known geography. It is clear from the text that the events described did not occur throughout an area as big as North and South America.
While the early Saints may have thought of Book of Mormon events in hemispheric terms, neither the prophecies in the Book of Mormon nor Joseph Smith’s account of Moroni’s visit requires such an interpretation of Book of Mormon geography.
Just as the Bible contains an account of the former inhabitants of the Asian continent, the Book of Mormon contains an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent. The Bible, however, is only concerned with a limited region of Asia and is largely confined to a small area. Similarly, the Book of Mormon, while an account written by ancient American prophets, may also have been limited to a small area, although the blessings promised in it may extend well beyond those boundaries.
While the early Saints may have thought of Book of Mormon events in hemispheric terms, neither the prophecies in the Book of Mormon nor Joseph Smith's account of Moroni's visit requires such an interpretation of Book of Mormon geography.
There is no revelation declaring Book of Mormon geography. Early leaders offered their own speculations, which did not always agree. But no leader claimed a visionary source for their opinions.
Joseph Smith said very little about the geography of the Book of Mormon. What little he did say suggests that he may have shared the view held by his associates, that the Book of Mormon narrative describes events occurring in North, Central, and South America.
CES LETTER CLAIM
and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught. It also makes little sense in light of the Church’s visitor’s center near the Hill Cumorah in New York and the annual Church-sponsored Hill Cumorah pageants.
We read about two major war battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Ramah to the Jaredites) with deaths numbering in the tens of thousands – the last battle between Lamanites and Nephites around 400 AD claimed at least 230,000 deaths on the Nephite side alone. No bones, hair, chariots, swords, armor, or any other evidence of a battle whatsoever has been found at this site. John E. Clark, director of BYU’s archaeological organization, wrote in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies:
In accord with these general observations about New York and Pennsylvania, we come to our principal object – the Hill Cumorah. Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill. No artifacts, no walls, no trenches, no arrowheads. The area immediately surrounding the hill is similarly clean. Pre-Columbian people did not settle or build here. This is not the place of Mormon’s last stand. We must look elsewhere for that hill.
CES Letter, Page 11
DEBUNKING REPLY
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse any particular theory regarding Book of Mormon geography including the actual location of the final wars of the Nephites and Lamanites.
More Details
There is no revelation declaring Book of Mormon geography. Early leaders offered their own speculations, which did not always agree, but no leader claimed a revelatory source for their opinions.
Joseph Smith said very little about the geography of the Book of Mormon. What little he did say suggests that he may have shared the view held by his associates, that the Book of Mormon narrative describes events occurring in North, Central, and South America.
The angel Moroni did not identify the geography of locations mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon itself does not identify the hill in which it was buried. Instead, the hill in which all the Nephite plates other than those of the Book of Mormon were buried is identified (Mormon 6:6).
In an article published in 1848, former apostle John E. Page reported a correlation between Central America and the main lands of the Book of Mormon:
"All who are familiar with the Book of Mormon are probably aware of the fact that the whole account of the history of the fore fathers of the American Indians, called the Nephites, Lamanites and Zoramites, is confined to Central America entirely until the 394th page [Alma 63]." ("Collateral Testimony of the Truth and Divinity of the Book of Mormon.—No. 3," Gospel Herald, 14 September 1848, 123.)
In John Sorenson's Geography of Book of Mormon Events, the "Plain Facts" model from 1887 limits the action in the Book of Mormon to between Columbia and Mesoamerica, considerably smaller than the Hemispheric Geography (see pp. 135–37). The Holmes model from 1903 extends from Ecuador and Arizona (pp. 96–97). The Hills model from 1917 centers on Mesoamerica, and is the earliest that corresponds with modern Mesoamerican theories (pp. 87–89). The Young model from before 1920 focuses on Central America (pp. 205–06).
While the early Saints may have thought of Book of Mormon events in hemispheric terms, neither the prophecies in the Book of Mormon nor Joseph Smith's account of Moroni's visit requires such an interpretation of Book of Mormon geography.
The Hill Cumorah
Some have used scripture to support the view that the hill close to the Smith's home is not the same hill as the place of the Nephite destruction. While that is one plausible view based on this scripture, that point is left ambiguous.
During his 36-year wandering to escape the Lamanites, Moroni could have traveled a great distance including traveling with or without divine assistance to the New York region with the plates.
The Book of Mormon may use the term "10,000" as a designation for a military unit rather than to signify an actual number of soldiers. Roman armies had "centuries" (or centuria) which were lead by a "centurion," which implies a hundred men. While such units originally had 100 men, the normal size of such units (even at full strength) was only 60–80 men.
CES LETTER CLAIM
Compare this with the archaeological evidence of other hillside battle sites. Caerau Hillfort, in the Wales capital of Cardiff, was found to have abundant archaeological evidence of inhabitants and weapons of war dating as far back as 3600 BC in the form of stone arrowheads, tools, and pottery.
Compare the absent evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations to the archaeological remains of other past civilizations such as the Roman occupation of Britain and other countries. There are abundant evidences of their presence during the first 400 years AD such as villas, mosaic floors, public baths, armor, weapons, writings, art, pottery, and so on. Even the major road systems used today in some of these occupied countries were built by the Romans. Additionally, there is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back at least 15,000 years. Another recent discovery has been made of a 14,000-year-old village in Canada.
Admittedly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where are the Nephite or Lamanite buildings, roads, armors, swords, pottery, art, etc.? How can these great civilizations just vanish without a trace?
CES Letter, Page 12
DEBUNKING REPLY
Religious critics frequently like to assert that there is voluminous support for Biblical archaeology and none for the Book of Mormon. It is a contrived comparison because of the remarkable differences between the two worlds (Old and New) regarding epigraphic data, iconographic data, the continuity of culture, and toponyms.
When examining ancient evidence archaeologists work with a very fragmentary record. In general, they find physical evidence, but such evidence in and of itself doesn’t provide much information unless it is placed within a context—a framework by which it can be understood.
Even acknowledging the archaeological advantages for determining the location and historical actuality of biblical lands, we find that only slightly more than half of all place names mentioned in the Bible have been located and positively identified.
Despite the identification of some biblical sites, many important Bible locations have not been identified. The location of Mt. Sinai, for example, is unknown, and there are over twenty possible candidates.
The only way archaeologists can determine names is through written records. Archaeological data alone tells little about a people. Judaism as a distinct religion would not exist without the ancient texts that bound the people together. A distinct Jewish religion is not discernable in the archeological record.
The Book of Mormon provides very limited geographic data and the primary record keepers died out in the fifth century. Their enemies embraced a much different culture that was antithetical to the Nephites, their lifestyles, and record keeping.
Claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are based on naive and erroneous assumptions. Without epigraphic evidence from the Americas (which is currently very limited from Book of Mormon times), it is impossible to know the contemporary names of ancient Mesoamerican cities and kingdoms.
For the time period in which the Nephites lived, scholars are aware of only a very limited number of inscriptions from the entire ancient New World that can be read with any degree of certainty. One of the very few ancient cities in Mesoamerica for which the pre-Columbian name is known is named "Lamanai"? The site's name is pre-Columbian, recorded by early Spanish missionaries, and documented over a millennium earlier in Maya inscriptions as “Lam'an'ain."
To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is not justified. Many recent archaeological finds are generally consistent with the Book of Mormon record even if we the exact location of Book of Mormon cities is unknown.
CES LETTER CLAIM
Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the founder of BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Foundation). NWAF was financed by the LDS Church. NWAF and Ferguson were tasked by BYU and the Church in the 1950s and 1960s to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. After 17 years of diligent effort, this is what Ferguson wrote in a February 20, 1976 letter about trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon:
...you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. I should say – what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.
CES Letter, Page 12
DEBUNKING REPLY
Over 99% of the central American sites have yet be be excavated. Stuart Ferguson, a non-archeologist, doesn't have the final say on archeology. Just because he lots his testimony 50-years-ago doesn't mean the case is closed.
Born in Pocatello, Idaho, on 21 May 1915, Thomas Stuart Ferguson received degrees in political science and law from the University of California and practiced law in Orinda, California. He died March 16, 1983.
Ferguson expended an immense amount of time, money, and energy into authenticating the Book of Mormon through archaeological research, which he performed and supported. He became disenchanted because he could not correlate the geography with the descriptions found in the Book of Mormon.
Ferguson’s books and articles were published from 1941 to 1962.
Ferguson's memory has been kept alive, not because of his enduring scholarship and field research studies, but by critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are less interested in accuracy than in promoting a critical agenda.
John L. Sorenson’s 826 page book, Mormon’s Codex, is a dense presentation of several hundred artifacts and cultural evidences supporting a specific ancient setting for the Book of Mormon. His research is not conclusive, but critics who reference Ferguson’s works should also acknowledge the abundant parallels Sorenson has identified. Sorenson's work transcends Ferguson's dated and amateur research in many ways including depth of study, field investigation, and scholarship.