Vol. 7, No. 3, 1990

However...

Bud Press

In March, 1987 correspondence was established with Mormon representatives from Brigham Young University concerning an inquiry into the "authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

Their honest, written responses should cause even the stalwart Mormon to re-investigate the "most correct of any book on earth."

"The discovery of artifacts is an ongoing process. Much has been discovered since the publishing of the Book of Mormon in 1830. All of these discoveries are evidences and are not proofs but do strongly support the Book of Mormon claims. These evidences are too numerous to explain in a letter, but the use of cement, ancient highways, stone boxes, and the existence of ancient civilizations are a few worthy of reexamination. There are varying theories about the location of Book of Mormon cities," (Monte S. Nyman, BYU, Religious Studies Center, 3/24/87).

However...

"Of course some will assure you sincerely that archaeological materials in Mexico or South America confirm the ancient nature of the Book of Mormon. Other Latter-day Saints are much more cautious. My position is that I am only trying to find out the truth. On the one hand, I have always had a spiritual assurance that the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient and divinely inspired. On the other hand, 35 years of professional study has taught me that archaeological and related materials as interpreted in the folk LDS tradition do not necessarily represent either what the scripture is saying, on the one hand, or what capable archaeologists are saying, on the other.

"The enclosed material, Digging into the Book of Mormon should communicate to you that what everyday Mormons may have told you is not necessarily sound, yet there is material from science that is of great interest in relation to the Book of Mormon for the determined truth seeker."

"Have Book of Mormono cities been found? I don't know. I expect so, but until we can find out what the cities that have been found were called anciently and what their history is, nobody can say for sure," (John L Sorenson, Professor Emeritus, Anthropology, BYU, 3/23/87).

Concerning the question of "how" the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon came into existence, Professor Sorenson further states that "...we have questions but not very good answers. That is how things stand," (Ibid).

However...

Over one year prior to Professor Sorenson's statement, a well known Mormon apologist states: "Point of fact: Many books have been written detailing dozens of archaeological parallels between the Book of Mormon and the history of ancient America. The Book of Mormon's claims regarding wheeled vehicles, great walled cities with prayer towers, baptismal fonts... cement... horses and elephants, etc. seemed absurd in 1830 when it was published. Yet these claims have been vindicated by archaeological discoveries since that time," (Robert Starling, A Mormon Challenges The Godmakers Movie, revised 1/1/86, p. 7).

Mr. Starling further states: "Who's to say that in a year or two the great Book of Mormon cities of Bountiful or Zarahemla will not be uncovered and make news around the world? What will the anti-Mormons say then?" (Ibid)

However...

The National Geographic Society and Smithsonian Institute reason differently by stating that "...neither the Society nor any other institution of equal prestige has ever used the Book of Mormon in locating archaeological sites. Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archaeological findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically," (Dr. George Stuart, staff archaeologist, Richard J. Arnold and Hazel Schroen/Research Correspondence letters dated 2/12/87 and 3/13/87 respectively).

The Smithsonian Institute verifies the above by stating they have "...never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide."

They further state their "...archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."

In other words, "No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archaeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological remains in Egypt," (Spring 1987).