Is there such thing as a peer-reviewed doctoral scientist that supports anything about the book of mormon??

Question

I mean, the facts say clearly that the indigenous peoples that populated the Americas were never jews, Indian converts never turned white, (like the BOM used to say they would), there were no horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, etc... like in the book, and it is highly unlikely that Nephi had a steel archery set and even more unlikely that Jews would invent a new language for themselves out of Egyptian! So is there any non-lds, peer reviewed Archaeologist, Egyptologist, Linguist or Botonist that has ever signed on to this crap!!

Answer 1

In Joseph Smith's day there was no archaeological evidence for many culture items mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but in the last 30 to 50 years evidence has been found for those items. At the time the Book of Mormon was published and for up to 100 years afterwards, scholars scoffed at the mention of glass, iron, and steel dating back two thousand years before Christ. However, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists no longer argue the credibility of such claims in the Book of Mormon as more and more significant evidence comes to light.
For example, the December, 1983 issue of Science 83 magazine announced the discovery of pre-Columbian barley in the New World. This is one more example of items mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the pre-Columbian use of which was unknown in Joseph Smith's day.

While archaeology can establish the existence of a civilization, the lack of archaeological evidence doesn't prove a civilization didn't exist. In 1975 the civilization of Ebla was discovered, though prior to this time no one could produce an artifact associated with the Ebla people. It is examples like these which demonstrate the utter nonsense of statements such as, "Archaeology has proved the existence of all great civilizations" (The Godmakers film).

Archaeologists in the Americas and around the world continually find evidence that they cannot piece together into a conclusive picture. Evidence collected in the Americas is likewise too scattered to either prove or disprove that Nephites once lived on this continent or that the American Indians were once called Lamanites.

It would be interesting if the Smithsonian wrote a letter regarding archaeological proof of the Bible.

In general, I feel that the yardstick you use to compare the Bible with the Book of Mormon is unfair. The Middle East (including the Mediterranean area + Fertile Crescent) has an extensive tradition of written documents and preserved history for thousands of years, and has been the site of intense scholarly work for many, many years. Ancient places and their names and histories are known better in that area than anywhere else in the world (even ancient China, with a strong written tradition, is only poorly known in comparison). In spite of that, it is premature to say that the Bible has been proven by archaeological findings. For example, there is not a trace of evidence for the story of the Exodus. Hundreds of thousands of Hebrews wandering through the Sinai peninsula should have left plenty of traces, but to date, there is no clear evidence (apart from the Bible) that they were ever there. There is no non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Moses or for Joseph, who was one of the great rulers in Egypt. There is no solid evidence for the existence of any of the great Patriarchs of the Bible, apart from sacred records. Critics can "safely" claim that these Biblical stories were created long after the alleged events they record. Likewise, most scientists will say that there is no credible evidence for the story of Noah's flood, for the Garden of Eden, or for the six-day creation. If Genesis and Exodus are fabrications, then it really doesn't matter if we know that Jerusalem existed or that such-and-such a war took place. If the foundational doctrines of the Bible are based on fabricated legends (Eden and the fall of man, the Sinai covenant, the role of the House of Israel, the Messiah who would redeem man from the fall, etc.), then we have a serious problem. But we don't - for these accounts are true, and the Book of Mormon provides an independent witness of those truths. But ancient events are often very hard to prove with hard evidence, even in a part of the world where extensive research has been done.

Answer 2

I'd just like to point out that some of your statements are not actual claims of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon talks about other people who came to America who were not Jews. The Book of Mormon does not make the claim that every indigenous people in America are the sole descendants of Jews.

Becoming white is sometimes a figurative thing. Besides, the American Indians who have been converted to the Church seem to radiate the light of Christ, and to me their skins are as white as anyone else. They no longer look dark to me.

They did not invent a new language for themselves out of Egyptian. They spoke Hebrew, which became changed after hundreds of years isolated from Israel, as you might expect. The sacred records used Egyptian symbols to record what they wanted to say, and they also modified the symbols. What's unusual about that?