Is this true re: Mormonism???

Question

Saturday, May 20, 2006
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BOOK OF MORMON

As the Mormon church were claiming at one point that the book of mormon was used by the National Geographic Society in order to locate ancient archaeological sites one man felt the need to write to the NGS for confirmation and this was their response.

National Geographic Society

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

January 11, 1990

Dear Mr Larson

Thank you for writing to the National Geographic Society.

The Society has never used the Book of Mormon to locate archaeological sites, and we do not believe that any of the places named in the Book of Mormon can be placed geographically by the evidence of archaeology. So far as we know there is no archaeological evidence to verify the history of early peoples of the Western Hemisphere as presented in the Book of Mormon.
I hope you will find this information useful.

Yours truly,

Pamela Tucci
Research Correspondence

http://mormonismexposed.blogspot.com/

Answer 1

A blog is not a decent link... try linking this to verification from Nat Geo or some other reliable link.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an Ex-Mormon... but if you're going to fry them, do it with real info. You should show some proof that you didn't just make-up that letter you just typed.

Answer 2

I am sorry, but could you state the actual question more clearly? is this a question about mormonism or about the national geographic's religious beliefs?

"Is it true that the national geographic magazine does not acknowledge the book of mormon as a legitimate archiologial document?" Yes. The book of mormon is not supposed to be an archeological document. It is spiritual. And just like the history channel contantly trying to disprove the bible, most scholars are not interested in spiritual evidence.

It is a rule in science that a scientist does not believe any theory until it as been proved and re-proved. Why not apply scientific principle in your own life, and read the book of mormon, then apply some of it's teachings. Find out for yourself instead of asking various purveyors of media, who have every reason to manipulate the truth in order to make money.

Answer 3

I don't think that the National Geographic Society ever used the Book of Mormon that way.

Answer 4

Hey. I can't find any Book of Mormom archaeolgy either.. You'd think SOMETHING would show up from 1830 to 2007!! The Bible has tons of stuff that has been verified. The Book of Mormon has some silly thing in Yemen.. That's sad.. lol

Here's what the Smithsonian and National Geographic told me: http://ezek27.truepath.com/smithsonian.html

Answer 5

I hate to say it, but all the evidence the church has that joseph smith couldn't possibly had, the ancients have had for years, and by the ancients I mean the demonics, and if joseph used witchcraft to translate the book of mormon, then the ancients gave him historic info they knew from being on this earth for eons and eons so they could prove this fairy tale was true. Still were are the ruins of the great civiliazation??? as evolutionist say all the time, a meteor came and all the cities disappeared...aye?
http://www.lifeafter.org/demonic_names.asp

Answer 6

You could also say that:

"No ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO DISPROVE THE BOOK OF MORMON"

There is LOTS of evidence, but none of it definitively proves the Book of Mormon.

There is, however, mountain loads of "supporting evidence" regarding the Book of Mormon.

I should point out that there's not absolute, definitive, empirical evidence that Christ rose from the dead either. Spiritual truths are found spiritually.

Answer 7

It is not true that at one point the Church claimed National Geographic was using the Book of Mormon as a archeological guide. However, I believe the letter from Mr. Larson is authentic, and as a Mormon I would agree with it. So far the archeological evidence re. the Book of Mormon is not sufficient to guide archeologists. Note the use of the words "So far" in the letter; the writer is not precluding the possibility that evidence exists for the Book of Mormon, but is simply stating that at present it is insufficient. Likewise, most archeology in the New Word is not guided by the Bible.

There is evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, though a testimony of that book (as well as the Bible) should come from God, not academics. Here's just a few of the many evidences:

1) The Book of Mormon describes the travels of a man named Lehi and his family from Jerusalem to the shores of the Red Sea. Despite the fact that details of the Arabias were not available to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon account accurately describes Arabian geography and geology. a) The journey taken corresponds with ancient frankincense trails in Arabia. b) Despite the fact that iron ore is very rare in the Arabias, there is iron ore exactly where the Book of Mormon says it should be. c) Despite the fact that for years people believed there were no rivers flowing into the Red Sea, there is a river precisely where the Book of Mormon says it should be. d) Despite the fact that detailed maps of the Arabias were not available to Joseph Smith, there is a site called "Nehem," not mentioned in the Bible, in the very place the Book of Mormon says it should be, and it even means "mourning and consolation," in harmony with the Book of Mormon description.

2) Joseph Smith was by no means the only person who ever saw the metal plates on which the Book of Mormon was engraved. Fifteen other men also saw the plates and many gave a detailed description of them. Their testimonies can be found in all modern copies of the Book of Mormon.

3) Joseph Smith was ridiculed for years for reporting that the Book of Mormon record was engraved on metal plates. Recent archeological evidence has shown, however, that making records on metallic plates was indeed an ancient Middle-Eastern practice. In fact, a record engraved on gold plates has recently been discovered. It was made by the Etruscans, a people that had their origins in the Middle East (Turkey). These "gold plates" even have bound gold rings on the side, matching the description given by those who saw the original metal plates on which the Book of Mormon was engraved.

4) Many have criticized the Book of Mormon because it states that it was written in "reformed" Egyptian. They argue that true Israelites would never use the language of their enemies. Recent discoveries have revealed, however, that there are several known modified or "reformed" Egyptian scripts, including forms called Demotic and Hieratic.

5) The Book of Mormon describes a man named Mulek (a shortened form of the name Malkiyahu), who was the son of an Israelite king Zedekiah. Many have criticized the Book of Mormon, because a certain (common) reading of the Bible suggests that Zedekiah had no sons. However, a recent ancient seal was discovered in Jerusalem bearing the title, "Malkiyahu the son of the king."

6) There is also substantial evidence that the Book of Mormon was in fact translated from an ancient Hebrew text, just as Joseph said it was. a) It contains many elaborate poetic forms called "chiasmus." The importance of chiasmus in ancient Semitic writings was only recognized in the past century. Joseph Smith could not have known of them. b) The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon also contained many grammatically strange phrases that have since been corrected. For example, instead of "if...then...," the original manuscript often used "if...and..." This "if...and..." construction is not found in the Bible and was not common in the English of Joseph Smith's day. And yet it corresponds exactly to the Hebraic conditional. c) The Book of Mormon uses about 200 new names not found in the Bible. Recent discoveries of ancient Hebrew inscriptions have authenticated many of these supposedly "made up" names, including Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam. How could Joseph have known that these names were authentic Hebraic names? d) The Book of Mormon uses the name "sheum" to describe a grain. Though Joseph Smith could not have known it, "sheum" is indeed an ancient Middle-Eastern name for grain. e) The Book of Mormon describes a people who were given a land named "Jershon" "for an inheritance." This matches Hebraic place-naming conventions perfectly. They often added the suffix "on" to a three-consonant root, in this case "y-r-sh," which actually does mean "to inherit."

7) Despite the fact that Joseph Smith could not have known many of the details of the ancient cultivation of olive trees (for they were not mentioned in the Bible), the Book of Mormon describes the ancient Israelite practices with great accuracy.

8) The Book of Mormon describes ancient fortifications that are remarkably similar to those found in recent archeological digs in the Americas.

9) The Book of Mormon claims that a small group of people came from Israel to the Americas (probably Central America, though the Book of Mormon does not specify the exact location). The Book of Mormon suggests that this relatively small group of people eventually mixed with the peoples that had migrated to the Americas over the Bering straight. Remarkably, there is substantial evidence of a Hebraic influence on the Uto-Aztecan language of Central America. While Uto-Aztecan was not derived from Hebrew, it seems Hebrew did influence its linguistic development. There are over 1,000 similarities between ancient Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan, including the use of the plural suffix "-im" in Hebrew and "-ima" Uto-Aztecan, the passive prefix "ni-" Hebrew and the prefix "na-" in Uto-Aztecan, the Hebrew word "yasab" and the Uto-Aztecan word "yasipa," which both mean "to sit or to dwell," the Hebrew word "adam" and the Uto-Aztecan word "otam," which both mean "man," the Hebrew word "katpa" and the Uto-Aztecan word "kotpa," which both mean shoulder, the Hebrew words "ya-'amin" and the Uto-Aztecan words "yawamin," which both mean "he believes," etc, etc, etc. Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, a non-LDS Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, as well as others, have confirmed that these similarities cannot be ignored.

Several non-Mormon (Evangelical Christian) scholars have written a fascinating article regarding these evidences and others, suggesting that they do indeed constitute formidable evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. The article can be read at http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html .

If you or anyone else would like to learn more about Mormons from a reliable source, visit http://www.allaboutmormons.com .

Answer 8

I know they are changing the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Lamanites will no longer the "principle" ancestors of American Indians.

Answer 9

what is your point again?

Answer 10

thats why joe smith is a false prophet