Mormons, do you really believe that the Smithstonian Institute uses the Book of Mormon in it's research?

Answer 1

Sirnetwork's apology seems to discredit both modern archeology methods and the Smithsonian Institute. To counter, there have been increasingly more discoveries in the past decade than all of the previous '50' years, and on both continents. The Smithsonian is a superior example of intelligent and thoughtful research, while the Maxwell Institute has no credibility whatsoever. It's like the "Top Gun" combat flight training in San Diego vs the "Tinkerbell Flight Academy" at Orlando.

I've looked for treatises, papers, documents, anything published by a BYU/Maxwell alumni stating ANY find correlating to the BoM. After several years of searching the posted studies of many universities and foundations I've come up with a pretty round figure: Zero.

The Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites and the rest of the cast and characters are nothing more than plagiarized drivel from other authors and have no historical fact whatsoever. If the the 'still small voice' says otherwise, increase your meds slightly.

Answer 2

They use it as much as the bible....no....

The Smithsonian can use what ever it wants.



Norrispenguin do you have the manuscript of Soloman Spaulding? What Mr. Howe who wrote Mormonism Unveiled in 1834, said he had the document of Spauldings.
He hid it because he knew what it said that the book of Mormon was written by Spaulding was a lie and so he hid and locked up the document until 50 years later when he died. His daughter found the manuscript and publicized it then the Spaulding theory fell apart. Joseph Smith never knew Soloman Spaulding nor his family. Solomon Spaulding died in 1815. 15 years before Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon. The Manuscript lost theory has no proof what so ever.

Answer 3

No. Who would think that?
I know what you're referring to, so I'll break it down:
Protestant and Catholic archaeology and anthropology has been ongoing for centuries throughout the Middle East.
LDS archaeology is realistically in its' first 50 years of active research.

How many Catholic or Protestant archaeologists are going to legitimately seek proof confirming a book of scripture that they don't recognize as legitimate?

Additionally, the Smithsonian is a non-profit organization that relies on donated funds to stay in business. Even in they were genuinely interested in BoM archaeology, would they risk angering their sizeable non-LDS base in order to focus on BoM-centric digs?
A lot has been found over the last 40 years, and a lot more will be found to support the stories of the BoM. Once someone else is brave enough to make the first major breakthrough and establish mainstream authenticity, then the Smithsonian will begin testing the waters.

Answer 4

No.

That's just a myth. For research, museums tend to prefer historically verifiable documents.

They'll start considering the BoM as soon as they find some reference to a Lehi or a Nephi in an archaeological dig.

Since these two were supposedly the "patriarchs" of the society and the authors of holy writ, it would be VERY likely that they would be written about, depicted in art, or even had descendants named after them. It's funny how Nephi had 3 people named after him within 700 years of his death, yet we haven't found a single reference to his name outside of the BoM.

Edit: Sorry, I guess they have found one reference to the name Nephi in writing that originated on the American Continent. It was in Solomon Spalding's 1808 work Manuscript Found (not to be confused with "Manuscript Story," erroneously referred to as Manuscript Found by E.D. Howe).

Answer 5

Can't say I ever personally bothered to care about the Smithsonian Institute's research methods.

If they do - great.

If they don't - great.

Answer 6

HU?

I use it...I love the Book of Mormon, and all scripture for that matter.

Answer 7

They sure would learn a lot.

Answer 8

I don't believe they use the bible, either.

Answer 9

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!