Archaeology & the Book of Mormon
Posted on Dec 12, 2007 |
by Mike Licona
Baptist Press
EDITORS' NOTE: The following information, adapted from the North
American Mission Board's www.4truth.net apologetics website, is the
third of six parts to be carried by Baptist Press this week. The
initial article appeared in Baptist Press Mon., Dec. 10.
ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)--In the last part in this series, we saw that the
Bible is reliable, being textually pure and verifiably accurate in
many places. Therefore, the Mormon can have confidence that the Bible
is the Word of God and that it can be accurately translated. In this
chapter we will examine the Book of Mormon to see how it holds up to
the historical test. The Mormons at your door will tell you that many
findings within archaeology have confirmed the Book of Mormon time and
time again. Is this true? What does the historical data we have tell
us about the events recorded in the Book of Mormon?
1. There is no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from
archaeology.
A. What Mormon archeologists say.
Brigham Young University (BYU) is owned by the Mormon Church and has a
department of professional archeologists who are dedicated to
archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon. These professionals,
who are practicing Mormons, are to be applauded for their honesty.
What many of them have to say will be a shock to the lay Mormon who is
unaware that archaeology and the Book of Mormon are at odds with one
another. The lay Mormon is told by the Mormon Church that archaeology
continues to confirm the Book of Mormon, while Mormon scholars, who
actually study archaeology for a living, have something quite
different to say.
"[It appears that the Book of Mormon] had no place in the New World
whatsoever.... [It] just doesn't seem to fit anything ... in
anthropology [or] history.... It seems misplaced" (endnote 20,
continuing from endnote 19 in Part 2).
"The first myth that we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon
archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half-
truths, dilettante on the peripheries of American archaeology calling
themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their
education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the
production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of
Mormon archaeology really exists" (endnote 21).
"What I would say to you is there is no archeological proof of the
Book of Mormon. You can look all you want. And there's been a lot of
speculation about it. There've been books written by Mormon scholars
saying that 'this event took place here' or 'this event took place
here.' But that's entirely speculative. There is absolutely no
archeological evidence that you can tie directly to events that took
place" (endnote 22).
"Now, I'm an archeologist, and I work in Mexico where some people
think that the events occurred. So a lot of Mormons ask me every week
if I find any evidence. And I tell them, 'No.' ... [T]he question of
how to translate what the Book says in terms of real evidence that we
can grab in our hands, archeologically, is still a huge
problem" (endnote 23).
Keep in mind that all of these are practicing Mormons who are
professional Book of Mormon archeologists!
B. What non-Mormon archeologists say.
Earlier we read from the Smithsonian Institution's statement "The
Bible as History." We saw that archaeology confirms much of the Bible
and that professional archeologists use the Bible in their work. The
Smithsonian also has a "STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON." This
statement can be requested at the same address. Every one of the
statements are damaging to the reliability of the Book of Mormon. Here
is the first of eight statements: "The Smithsonian Institution has
never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide.
Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the
archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."
In 1989, Michael Ammons wrote to the National Geographic Society
requesting information on the Book of Mormon and archaeology. The
Society replied in a letter dated April 26, 1989:
"Neither the Society nor any other institution of equal prestige has
ever used the Book of Mormon in locating archaeological sites.
Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been
substantiated by archaeological findings, this claim has not been
verified scientifically."
Also in 1989, Linda Hansen wrote to the Department of Archaeology at
Boston University with a similar request. In a reply letter dated
April 5, 1989, Julie Hansen of the department responded:
"The Archaeological Institute of America has never used the Book of
Mormon as a scientific guide in locating historic ruins on the Western
Hemisphere.... Over the past 30 years The New World Archaeological
Foundation, located at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has
conducted numerous scientific excavations in Mesoamerica, originally
with a view to confirming the claims in the Book of Mormon. They have
discovered no evidence that supports the Book of Mormon in any way.
Nonetheless, they have published in full detail the results of their
excavations in Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation,
Volumes 1-55, 1959 and following.... They are accepted by the
Archaeological Institute of America and the Society of American
Archaeologists as legitimate scientific investigations and the New
World Archaeological Foundation is to be commended for publishing the
results of their work that essentially refutes the basic beliefs of
the Mormon Church on which the Foundation is based" (endnote 24).
Therefore, there is a consensus from professional archaeologists,
Mormon and non-Mormon alike, that there is no specific confirmation of
the Book of Mormon from archaeology.
2. The lack of archaeological evidence is sometimes damaging.
A) The Book of Mormon claims that the ancient inhabitants spoke and
wrote in "Reformed Egyptian" and Hebrew (endnote 25). If this were the
case, we would expect to find artifacts with writings in these
languages. However, the Smithsonian's eighth statement regarding the
Book of Mormon says:
"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."
B) The Book of Mormon states that the two peoples mentioned (Nephites
and Lamanites) had Jewish beliefs that became Christian when the
resurrected Christ appeared to them. However, there is no evidence
that the ancient inhabitants in the Americas had either Jewish or
Christian beliefs.
C) Hill Cumorah is located in New York, southeast of Rochester. Joseph
Smith claimed that when Moroni appeared to him, he was told that
Moroni's father, Mormon, buried the gold plates upon which the Book of
Mormon was based on the hill Cumorah just before the great final
battle there (Mormon 6:6). In the Pearl of Great Price, Smith writes
that the day after his second vision, he went to a large hill outside
of the village where his family lived (the hill Cumorah) and found the
gold plates (endnote 26). This identifies the hill where Smith dug up
the plates as the same hill where Mormon buried them and where the
great battle took place. In Mormon 6:10-15, it is claimed that
hundreds of thousands of people were killed on or near the hill
Cumorah during that final battle. It says that "their flesh, and
bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the
hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble
and to return to their mother earth" (Mormon 6:15). In other words,
their bodies were left there, unburied.
To help you understand the magnitude of casualties at hill Cumorah,
let us consider another major battle. During the Battle of Gettysburg
of the American Civil War, 55,000 soldiers were wounded, including
6,000 of them killed on the battlefield and 4,000 more whose wounds
were mortal. Eyewitnesses said that there was so much blood from the
dead and injured that there were parts of the battlefield that seemed
like streams of blood. So many men and horses died that all could not
be buried at once and many corpses were left on the battlefield until
a few days later when others were hired to do the task.
If 6,000 men died on the battlefield at Gettysburg, what would a
battlefield look like with hundreds of thousands dead? Since they were
left unburied at hill Cumorah, wouldn't there be some artifacts made
of metal and stone? Bullets by the thousands are found at Gettysburg.
Nothing, however, has been found at hill Cumorah.
University of Rochester paleontologist and stratigrapher Carl Brett
has worked in the Palmyra, N.Y, area where hill Cumorah is located and
is familiar with the hill and its geologic conditions. He says that if
hundreds of thousands were slaughtered at the hill and not buried,
there would still be skeletal remains on the surface today, even after
1,600 years. Scavengers and weather conditions would account for why
much is gone, but there would still be quite enough left to look at.
Metallic artifacts from weapons and armor would also be easily found
(endnote 27). But nothing has ever been found at hill Cumorah.
3. Attempts by Mormons to answer the archeological problem fail.
During a series of conversations I once had with a Mormon friend and
some Mormon missionaries, I turned to them in the first meeting and
said that one objection I had to Mormonism was that there is no
archaeological evidence to support the stories in the Book of Mormon.
One of the missionaries smiled confidently and claimed there was a lot
of evidence from archaeology to support the historical truthfulness of
the Book of Mormon. I asked him to show me some. He said he did not
have any information with him but would bring some to our next
meeting. He did. Needless to say he was shocked when I quoted the
Mormon scholars below who refuted the very materials he had in hand!
"Few of the writings they have produced are of genuine consequence in
archaeological terms. Some are clearly on the oddball fringe; others
have credible qualifications. Two of the most prolific are Professor
Hugh Nibley and Milton R. Hunter; however, they are not qualified to
handle the archaeological materials their works often
involve" (endnote 28).
"Those volumes which most flagrantly ignore time and space and most
radically distort, misinterpret, or ignore portions of the
archaeological evidence are the popular Farnsworth volumes. Also
inadequate, from a professional archaeologist's point of view, are the
well intentioned volumes by Milton R. Hunter and a number of smaller
pamphlets and works by various authors.... New World Old World
comparisons have been less popular but fraught with problems. The best
known examples are the two volumes by Nibley which suffer from an
overdose of Old Worlditis.... He does not know New World culture
history well, and his writing ignores the considerable indigenous
elements in favor of exclusively Old World patterns" (endnote 29).
"In situations where sources of religious and secular authority
conflict with each other, a Latter-day Saint sometimes finds himself
in a quandary. He has been assured by a folklore transmitted in
lessons, talks and church literature that archaeologists (usually
Gentiles) are steadily proving the Book of Mormon authentic, while
through his formal education and secular literature he has become
aware that in actuality the experts seem to contradict the
scripture" (endnote 30).
"Science does not arrive at its conclusions by syllogism, and no
people on earth deplore proof demonstration by syllogism more loudly
than real archaeologists do. Yet, Mr. Jakeman's study is nothing but
an elaborate syllogistic stew. The only clear and positive thing about
the whole study is the objective the author is determined to
reach" (endnote 31).
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.
In the last part of this series we saw that the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts in our possession today allow us to have an accurate
translation of the Bible. Therefore, even by Mormon standards, we can
be confident that we have the Word of God. We also saw that secular
history has attested to the accuracy of the Bible so that we can know
with certainty that many of the events recorded in it took place.
Unfortunately, the Mormon cannot have this same confidence when it
comes to the Book of Mormon. Archaeology and secular history are
silent when asked if the events took place. Not only is this silence
disturbing to professional Mormon archaeologists, but it is evidence
against Mormonism when no artifacts turn up in areas which should be
abundant with relics such as the hill Cumorah. However, as damaging as
these may be, Mormonism's greatest challenge concerns another one of
their scriptures, the Book of Abraham, which will be the subject of
the next part in this series.
--30--
Mike Licona is the director of apologetics & interfaith evangelism at
the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board.
ENDNOTES
20 Dr. Ray Metheny, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. Address at the
Sixth Annual Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, 8/25/84.
21 Dr. Dee Green, Former Editor of the University Archaeological
Society Newsletter "Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the
Alternatives," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2
(Summer 1969), pp. 77-78.
22 Dr. David Johnson, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. In a personal
telephone conversation, 7/23/97.
23 Dr. John Clark, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. In a personal
telephone conversation, 7/25/97.
24 Copies of the reply letters from the National Geographic Society
and Boston University were provided by Jim and Judy Robertson of
Concerned Christians.
25 Mosiah 1:4; Mormon 9:32-33. Also see Joseph Smith. History 1:64.
26 Joseph Smith. History, verses 51-52. Hill Cumorah is located in
Manchester, N.Y., about 25 miles east of Rochester. Smith lived in
Palmyra, about five miles away from the hill.
27 A personal telephone conversation on September 8, 1997.
28 John L. Sorenson, Assistant Professor of Anthropology & Sociology,
BYU. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 1, No. 1 (Spring 1966),
pp. 145-246.
29 Dee Green, General Officer, Univ. Archaeological Society. Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), p. 74.
30 John L. Sorenson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2
(Summer 1969), p. 81.
31 Dr. Hugh Nibley, quoted by Dee Green. Book of Mormon Archaeology,
p. 75.
http://www.truthandgrace.com/Mormon.htm
.
|
