Has there been any archeological discoveries regarding the Book of Mormon ?

Question

“…absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest… that the Book of Mormon…is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp.41, 42, 46).

Answer 1

Yes.. The LDS believe there is something in Yemen that supports the Book of Mormon.. Oh. And they say that the pyramids in South America. Then there's some white god mentioned that they make in to "must be Jesus".. (Even though Jesus was not white)

Come to think of it.. NO! Everything the Mormons push turns out to be LIES and stupidity.. Thanks!

Answer 2

“…absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest… that the Book of Mormon…is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp.41, 42, 46)...oh wait

Answer 3

Like much Biblical Archeology, there is plenty to bolster the faith of those who already believe. Among them is the sight of Nahom in the Middle East; however, since the Book of Mormon does not give us the names of sites still used on our maps, it is impossible to know where many things occurred. So, there is nothing conclusive.

Then again, there is also no archaeological evidence that God flooded the earth, that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Christ was the son of God.

Answer 4

I recall the Israelis found the tomb of King Herod, if I am correct? Nothing I heard recently about Mormon discoveries.

Answer 5

Yes, there is some archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, but most people like you refuse to see it.

Answer 6

There is overwhelming evidence that falsifies the assertions that American Indians are descended from Jews. Though we all knew intuitively that they came from Siberian/Mongolian Asia, mtDNA evidence has demonstrated this conclusively.

Sorry, Joseph Smith, you were, of course, a fraud.

There is, of course, no evidence that the golden plates from which the book of mormon was invented.. I MEAN transcribed, existed either.

Answer 7

It seems to me that The Americas, are very big! And I don't seem to recall too many maps being around then, so who knows where those cities were, and where someone who was interested, could begin to look!
The Ark and the Covenant, is ''hidden up into the Lord', right?
Well, maybe those cities are 'hidden up into the Lord' as well!
No one knows for sure!
But, just because they can't find evidence, doesn't mean they didn't exist!

Answer 8

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 9

In response to Robert D.

http://www.probe.org/content/view/30/77/

The evidence of the New Testament being true is enormous.

Answer 10

You answered your own question.

Then again, there hasn't been any archaeological evidence for the New Testament either.