Is there any archaeological evidence for the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon?
I keep hearing that there is, so can anyone help me out by providing a few sources?
- Marvel MLv 59 years agoFavorite Answer
Even though people want to turn a blind eye to it, yes, there is proof. And not just civilizations either.
Mulek, son of Zedekiah:
Nahom, a burial place in 1 Nephi chapter 1 discovered in 1994:
(How could Joseph Smith know about Nahom in the 1820s-1830s, much less it being a burial ground, if it wasn't discovered until more than 100 years?)
Also, Mayan temples state Mayans were visited by a bearded white god that came out of the heavens:
Iron Ore in Central America dating to BC era:
If you read the Book of Mormon you'll see there's a great description of the path Nephi and the others took such as to Nahom. Joseph Smith had no knowledge of the landscape in the area the Book of Mormon talks about.
By the way, the evidences I gave are valid.
@Londron You might want to take your statement back seeing how there are Natives that are descendants of Israelites. The Cherokee are, they've admitted they are. There are also the natives in Central America that are descendants of Israelites.
@Snow You're the one here, along with the others speaking against Christ's church, that's speaking blasphemy.
Regardless of all the evidence that proves the Book of Mormon is true, anti-'s will still deny it. They can say evidence doesn't exist but that's just showing their ignorance so it's at their expense. They want signs, God gives them signs the Book of Mormon is true, they ignore the signs.
- blairLv 43 years ago
because of the fact there is not any such info. those YouTube vids are fraud. back interior the 60's or 70's a team of MORMON archeologists tried to locate info of those places or perhaps being completely biased they discovered not something.
- Anonymous9 years ago
And in point of fact, the archeological evidence we do have shows book of mormon stories absolutely false.
Mormon apologists just love to find little tiny ambiguities in American archeology, where there are some unknowns, and then make up these wonderfully fantastical stories about how they *could* be "evidence" for book of mormon stories. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Here's what the Smithsonian Institution had to say on the subject:
"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."
- rrosskopfLv 79 years ago
Here are my three favorite websites for such information:
The strongest evidences can be divided into internal and external evidences. The strongest external evidences are
1) The discovery of Nahom in Arabia.
2) The discovery of candidates for the river of Laban and the land of bountiful in Arabia.
3) The discovery of Book of Mormon style script in clay and stone artifacts in Mexico.
4) Stella depicting the arrival of people with beards and mediterrain style clothing in Mexico.
5) Traces of Hebrew words still used in the Uto-Aztecan language family.
6) Compelling candidates for matching all of the hundreds of geographic New World references.
7) Confirmed development of cement, textile, and metalury technologies among Mesoamerican civilizations.
8) The ruins of ancient cities have been discovered in the places described in the Book of Mormon.
The strongest internal evidences are:
1) The Book of Mormon has several examples of extinct forms of complex Hebrew literary devices. Virtually invisible, and not discovered until the last 50 years, their presence is undeniable.
2) The Book of Mormon is entirely consistant in its hundreds of geographic references.
3) Several unique names appear to have been derived from Hebrew or Egyptian. Deseret, for example, can be found in the oldest Egyptian literature in reference to honey.
4) Examples of distinctly Hebrew grammar can be found peppered throughout the Book of Mormon.
There is much more circumstantial evidence. Schere, a prominent New World archeologist, discovered geneology among the Lancondon Maya that originated with a man called Jawbone. Lehi is the Hebrew equivalent for jawbone, and, according to the Book of Mormon, is the name of the man who brought his family and the family of Ishmael across the ocean to settle in that area of Mesoamerica.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- entropyLv 49 years ago
yeah, there is an oasis in arabia, with evidence like that how can anyone deny the book of mormon now!?
- Anonymous9 years ago
Some people like Marvel M or Nephihah and the other Mormon trolls will probably post links to information that does not prove their point and is not valid evidence that they will try to pass off as evidence.
I have never heard of or seen any evidence proving the Book of Mormon was true.
Thanks for proving me point. I appreciate it.
There we go, I was waiting for you to post those things. The "evidence" you posted in those links is circumstantial, and in no way does it prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Check out this website from Cabrillo College on what is known to be real Native American history, not a re-write of it. http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/anth7_hist1.html.
Also, the Hebrew grammar you spoke about more than once in your post is called "chiasmus." There is a lot more chiasmus in Dr. Seuss books than in the Book of Mormon, so that must mean that Dr. Seuss is an ancient Hebrew writer as well.
- 9 years ago
From my information, the mormon church has not backed any archaeological finding yet. Not one church official stands by any finding saying: 'this is an artifact created and used by nephites or lamanites.' Or, 'this is the exact spot where the battle at cumorah took place'. Not one. Every piece of 'evidence' is unofficial.
I encourage those to correct me if I'm wrong.
- Anonymous9 years ago
I'm afraid only those sociology professors, archeologists, and apologists PAID by the LDS know about that kind of stuff. You'd have to seek them out to get their opinions. Outside the LDS the BOM is considered laughable bunk.
If the LDS allowed their members to actually delve into the "anti" stuff about the BOM, these folks above would eventually lose their jobs from lack of interest. Can't eventually support any real church with a few die-hard Morg, can you?
Course, you could always listen to each other! There you go!
- SluggoLv 59 years ago
The only 'sources' you'll get from Mormons are links to the sites of other Mormons. They pass these lists around.
The Book of Mormon has never been mentioned in any reputable science or scholarly journal. It has all the scientific credibility of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.
Even LDS scientists don't publish about it in scholarly journals. They'd get shredded by other scientists.
- Anonymous9 years ago
None whatever. Not one thing. Why people follow a religion that is so flawed i don't know. There are so many things wrong with Moronism that I don't know where to begin.
The worst piece of their doctrine if that Jesus is not God, like the Bible says, but He is the 'spirit brother of Satan'. That is blasphemy.
All that nonsense about the gold tablets and the book of moron. They put other books in addition to the Bible. Since the book of moron and the Bible do not agree they say the fault is with the Bible. They believe the Bible "as far as it is correctly interpreted".
Many other heresies, also.