“Truth borne by the Holy Spirit comes with, in effect, two manifestations, two witnesses if you will—the force of fact as well as the force of feeling… I believe God intends us to find and use the evidence He has given—reasons, if you will—which affirm the truthfulness of His work… Evidence is still evidence even if it is not immediately observable.” Elder Holland
The Historicity of the Book of Mormon
By Elder Dallin H. Oaks. Elder Dallin H. Oaks was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this was published.
The issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon highlights the difference between those who rely solely on scholarship and those who rely on revelation, faith, and scholarship. Those who rely solely on scholarship reject revelation and focus on a limited number of issues. But they can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon through their secular evidence and methods. On the other hand, those who rely on a combination of revelation, faith, and scholarship can see and understand all of the complex issues of the Book of Mormon record, and it is only through that combination that the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon can be answered. [1]
Some who term themselves believing Latter-day Saints are advocating that Latter-day Saints should “abandon claims that [the Book of Mormon] is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas.” [2] They are promoting the feasibility of reading and using the Book of Mormon as nothing more than a pious fiction with some valuable contents. These practitioners of so-called “higher criticism” raise the question of whether the Book of Mormon, which our prophets have put forward as the preeminent scripture of this dispensation, is fact or fable—history or just a story.
The historicity—historical authenticity—of the Book of Mormon is an issue so fundamental that it rests first upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the first principle in this, as in all other matters. However, on the subject of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, there are many subsidiary issues that could each be the subject of a book. It is not my purpose to comment on any of these lesser issues, either those that are said to confirm the Book of Mormon or those that are said to disprove it.
Those lesser issues are, however, worthy of attention. Elder Neal A. Maxwell quoted Austin Farrer’s explanation: “Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” [3]
In these remarks I will seek to use rational argument, but I will not rely on any proofs. I will approach the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon from the standpoint of faith and revelation. I maintain that the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is basically a difference between those who rely exclusively on scholarship and those who rely on a combination of scholarship, faith, and revelation. Those who rely exclusively on scholarship reject revelation and fulfill Nephi’s prophecy that in the last days men “shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance” (2 Ne. 28:4). The practitioners of that approach typically focus on a limited number of issues, like geography, horses, angelic delivery, or nineteenth-century language patterns. They ignore or gloss over the incredible complexity of the Book of Mormon record. Those who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation are willing to look at the entire spectrum of issues—the content as well as the vocabulary, the revelation as well as the excavation.
Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You do not prove a negative by prevailing on one debater’s point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments.
For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took on the Book of Mormon at Brigham Young University. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the “Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.” In retrospect, I think it should have been labelled something like “An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon.” Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.
In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. One does not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular Eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.
Another way of explaining the strength of the positive position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to point out that we who are its proponents are content with a standoff on this question. Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination. In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum.
In fact, it is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Its authenticity depends, as it says, on a witness of the Holy Spirit. Our side will settle for a draw, but those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot settle for a draw. They must try to disprove its historicity—or they seem to feel a necessity to do this—and in this they are unsuccessful because even the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that.
Hugh Nibley made a related point when he wrote: “The first rule of historical criticism in dealing with the Book of Mormon or any other ancient text is, never oversimplify. For all its simple and straightforward narrative style, this history is packed as few others are with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader. . . . Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains.” [4] Parenthetically, I would cite as an illustration of this point the linguistic, cultural, and writing matters described in support of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon in Orson Scott Card’s persuasive essay, “The Book of Mormon—Artifact or Artifice?” [5]
I admire those scholars for whom scholarship does not exclude faith and revelation. It is part of my faith and experience that the Creator expects us to use the powers of reasoning He has placed within us, and that He also expects us to exercise our divine gift of faith and to cultivate our capacity to be taught by divine revelation. But these things do not come without seeking. Those who utilize scholarship and disparage faith and revelation should ponder the Savior’s question: “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?” (John 5:44).
God invites us to reason with Him, but I find it significant that the reasoning to which God invites us is tied to spiritual realities and maturity rather than to scholarly findings or credentials. In modern revelation the Lord has spoken of reasoning with His people (D&C 45:10, 15; 50:10–12; 61:13; see also Isa. 1:18). It is significant that all of these revelations were addressed to persons who had already entered into covenants with the Lord—to the elders of Israel and to the members of his restored Church.
In the first of these revelations, the Lord said that He had sent His everlasting covenant into the world to be a light to the world, a standard for his people: “Wherefore, come ye unto it,” he said, “and with him that cometh I will reason as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning” (D&C 45:10). Thus, this divine offer to reason was addressed to those who had shown faith in God, who had repented of their sins, who had made sacred covenants with the Lord in the waters of baptism, and who had received the Holy Ghost, which testifies of the Father and the Son and leads us into truth. This was the group to whom the Lord offered (and offers) to enlarge their understanding by reason and revelation.
Some Latter-day Saint critics who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon seek to make their proposed approach persuasive to Latter-day Saints by praising or affirming the value of some of the content of the book. Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable. I have never been able to understand the similar approach in reference to the divinity of the Savior. As we know, some scholars and some ministers proclaim Him to be a great teacher and then have to explain how the one who gave such sublime teachings could proclaim himself (falsely they say) to be the Son of God who would be resurrected from the dead.
The new-style critics have the same problem with the Book of Mormon. For example, we might affirm the value of the teachings recorded in the name of a man named Moroni, but if these teachings have value, how do we explain these statements also attributed to this man? “And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire” (Morm. 8:17). “And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?” (Moro. 10:27).
There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors’ declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship.
Here I cannot resist recalling the words of a valued colleague and friend, now deceased. This famous law professor told a first-year class at the University of Chicago Law School that along with all else, a lawyer must also be a scholar. He continued: “That this has its delights will be recalled to you by the words of the old Jewish scholar: ‘Garbage is garbage; but the history of garbage—that’s scholarship.”‘ [6] This charming illustration reminds us that scholarship can take what is mundane and make it sublime. So with the history of garbage. But scholarship, so-called, can also take what is sublime and make it mundane. Thus, my friend could have illustrated his point by saying, “Miracles are just a fable, but the history of miracles, that’s scholarship.” So with the Book of Mormon. Those who only respect this book as an object of scholarship have a very different perspective than those who revere it as the revealed word of God.
Scholarship and physical proofs are worldly values. I understand their value, and I have had some experience in using them. Such techniques speak to many after the manner of their understanding. But there are other methods and values too, and we must not be so committed to scholarship that we close our eyes and ears and hearts to what cannot be demonstrated by scholarship or defended according to physical proofs and intellectual reasoning.
To cite another illustration, history—even Church history—is not reducible to economics or geography or sociology, though each of these disciplines has something to teach on the subject. On the subject of history, President Gordon B. Hinckley commented on the critics who cull out demeaning and belittling information about some of our forbears: “We recognize that our forebears were human. They doubtless made mistakes . . .. But the mistakes were minor, when compared with the marvelous work which they accomplished. To highlight the mistakes and gloss over the greater good is to draw a caricature. Caricatures are amusing, but they are often ugly and dishonest. A man may have a blemish on his cheek and still have a face of beauty and strength, but if the blemish is emphasized unduly in relation to his other features, the portrait is lacking in integrity. . . . I do not fear truth. I welcome it. But I wish all of my facts in their proper context, with emphasis on those elements which explain the great growth and power of this organization.” [7]
In the sixteenth chapter of Matthew, we read how Jesus taught Peter the important contrast between acting upon the witness of the Spirit and acting upon his own reasoning in reliance upon the ways of the world. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. . . . Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ” (Matt. 16:13–17, 20).
That was the Lord’s teaching on the value of revelation by the Spirit (“Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona”). In the next three verses of this same chapter of Matthew we have the Savior’s blunt teaching on the contrasting value of this same apostle’s reasoning by worldly values: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matt. 16:21–23).
I suggest that we do the same thing and deserve the same rebuke as Peter whenever we subordinate a witness of the Spirit (“the things that be of God”) to the work of scholars or the product of our own reasoning by worldly values (the things that “be of men”).
Human reasoning cannot place limits on God or dilute the force of divine commandments or revelations. Persons who allow this to happen identify themselves with the unbelieving Nephites who rejected the testimony of the prophet Samuel. The Book of Mormon says, “They began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying: That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come” (Hel. 16:17–18). Persons who practice that kind of “reasoning” deny themselves the choice experience someone has described as our heart telling us things that our mind does not know. [8]
Sadly, some Latter-day Saints ridicule others for their reliance on revelation. Such ridicule tends to come from those whose scholarly credentials are high and whose spiritual credentials are low.
The Book of Mormon’s major significance is its witness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Eternal Father who redeems and saves us from death and sin. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable—whether the persons really lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of His appearances to them?
Professor John W. Welch pointed out to me that this new wave of antihistoricism “may be a new kid on the block in Salt Lake City, but it has been around in a lot of other Christian neighborhoods for several decades.” Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived. As we know, there are many so-called Christian teachers who espouse the teachings and deny the teacher. Beyond that, there are those who even deny the existence or the knowability of God. Their counterparts in Mormondom embrace some of the teachings of the Book of Mormon but deny its historicity.
Recently, as I was scanning the magazine Chronicles, published by the Rockford Institute, I was stopped by the title of a book review, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” [9] and by the formidable reputation of its author. Jacob Neusner, who is Dr., Rabbi, and Professor, reviewed two books whose titles both include the phrase “the historical Jesus.” His comments are persuasive on the subject of historicity in general.
Neusner praises these two books, one as “an intensively powerful and poetic book . . . by a great writer who is also an original and weighty scholar” [10] and the other as “a masterpiece of scholarship.” [11] But notwithstanding his tributes to their technique, Neusner forthrightly challenges the appropriateness of the effort the authors have undertaken. Their effort, typical in today’s scholarly world, was to use a skeptical reading of the scriptures rather than a believing one, to present a historical study that would “distinguish fact from fiction, myth or legend from authentic event.” In doing so, their “skeptical reading of the Gospels” [12] caused them to assume that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels was not the Jesus who actually lived. It also caused them to assume that historians can know the difference.
I now quote Neusner’s conclusions:
No historical work explains itself so disingenuously as does work on the historical Jesus: from beginning, middle, to end, the issue is theological. [13] Surely no question bears more profound theological implications for Christians than what the person they believe to be the incarnate God really, actually, truly said and did here on earth. But historical method, which knows nothing of the supernatural and looks upon miracles with unreserved stupefaction, presumes to answer them. [14]
But statements (historical or otherwise) about the founders of religions present a truth of a different kind. Such statements not only bear weightier implications, but they appeal to sources distinct from the kind that record what George Washington did on a certain day in 1775. They are based upon revelation, not mere information; they claim, and those who value them believe, that they originate in God’s revelation or inspiration. Asking the Gospels to give historical rather than gospel truth confuses theological truth with historical fact, diminishing them to the measurements of this world, treating Jesus as precisely the opposite of what Christianity has always known Him to be, which is unique.
When we speak of “the historical Jesus,” therefore, we dissect a sacred subject with a secular scalpel, and in the confusion of categories of truth the patient dies on the operating table; the surgeons forget why they made their cut; they remove the heart and neglect to put it back. The statement “One and one are two,” or “The Constitutional Convention met in 1787,” is simply not of the same order as “Moses received the Torah at Sinai” or “Jesus Christ is Son of God.”
What historical evidence can tell us whether someone really rose from the dead, or what God said to the prophet on Sinai? I cannot identify a historical method equal to the work of verifying the claim that God’s Son was born to a virgin girl. And how can historians accustomed to explaining the causes of the Civil War speak of miracles, or men rising from the dead, and of other matters of broad belief? Historians working with miracle stories turn out something that is either paraphrastic of the faith, indifferent to it, or merely silly. In their work we have nothing other than theology masquerading as “critical history.” If I were a Christian, I would ask why the crown of science has now to be placed upon the head of a Jesus reduced to this-worldly dimensions, adding that here is just another crown of thorns. In my own view as a rabbi, I say only that these books are simply and monumentally irrelevant. [15]
Please excuse me for burdening you with that long quote, but I hope you will agree with my conclusion that what the rabbi/professor said about the historical Jesus is just as appropriate and persuasive on the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. [16]
To put the matter briefly, a scholarly expert is a specialist in a particular discipline. By definition, he knows everything or almost everything about a very narrow field of human experience. To think that he can tell us something about other scholarly disciplines, let alone about God’s purposes and the eternal scheme of things, is naive at best.
Good scholars understand the limitations of their own fields, and their conclusions are carefully limited to the areas of their expertise. In connection with this, I remember the reported observation of an old lawyer. As they traveled through a pastoral setting with cows grazing on green meadows, an acquaintance said, “Look at those spotted cows.” The cautious lawyer observed carefully and conceded, “Yes, those cows are spotted, at least on this side.” I wish that all of the critics of the Book of Mormon, including those who feel compelled to question its historicity, were even half that cautious about their “scholarly” conclusions.
In this message I have offered some thoughts on matters relating to the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
1. On this subject, as on so many others involving our faith and theology, it is important to rely on faith and revelation as well as scholarship.
2. I am convinced that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
3. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon have the difficult task of trying to prove a negative. They also have the awkward duty of explaining how they can dismiss the Book of Mormon as a fable while still praising some of its contents.
4. We know from the Bible that Jesus taught His apostles that in the important matter of His own identity and mission they were “blessed” for relying on the witness of revelation (“the things that be of God”), and it is offensive to Him for them to act upon worldly values and reasoning (“the things . . . that be of men”) (Matt. 16:23).
5. Those scholars who rely on faith and revelation as well as scholarship, and who assume the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, must endure ridicule from those who disdain these things of God.
6. I have also illustrated that not all scholars disdain the value of religious belief and the legitimacy of the supernatural when applied to theological truth. Some even criticize the “intellectual provincialism” of those who apply the methods of historical criticism to the Book of Mormon.
I testify of Jesus Christ, whom we serve, whose Church this is. I invoke his blessings upon you, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notes
[1] This paper was originally presented 29 October 1993 at the Annual Dinner of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Provo, Utah, and was available as a typescript from F.A.R.M.S. The valuable suggestions of Professor John W. Welch, Brigham Young University Law School, are gratefully acknowledged.
[2] Anthony A. Hutchinson, “The Word of God Is Enough: The Book of Mormon as Nineteenth-Century Scripture,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Exploration in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 1.
[3] Austin Fairer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965), 26.
[4] Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 5, The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 237.
[5] Orson Scott Card, A Storyteller in Zion: Essays and Speeches by Orson Scott Card (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1993), 13–45.
[6] Paul M. Bator, “Talk to the First Year Class,” The Law School Record 35 (spring 1989): 7.
[7] Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, October 1983, 68.
[8] Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974), 92.
[9] Jacob Neusner, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” review of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, by John P. Meier and The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, by John Dominic Crossan, published in Chronicles, July 1993, 32–34.
[10] Neusner, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” 34.
[11] Neusner, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” 33.
[12] Neusner, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” 32.
[13] Neusner, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” 34.
[14] Neusner, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?”32.
[15] Neusner, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” 32–33.
[16] Neusner apparently agrees. See his letter to the editor in Sunstone, July 1993, 7–8. 248
Dallin H. Oaks, “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 237–48.
“My thesis: The Book of Mormon took place in North America, not Central America or anywhere else. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith taught this clearly. Early Church authors, including Benjamin Winchester, speculated about a setting in Central America. Winchester wrote editorials to that effect that were published anonymously in the 1842 Times and Seasons. Ever since, people assumed, incorrectly, that Joseph wrote or approved of these editorials. Over the years, scholars developed a theory that Cumorah was in Mexico, not New York. They elaborated on their theory to the point that it became the de facto theory in the Church. But it’s wrong and I hope the historical mistake gets corrected soon.
“The Hopis say that they came across the ocean. The Navajos believe they came up from the other side of the earth through a tube. The Papagos believe they were guided to this land by divine means.
“…The pot of manna and Aaron’s rod from the Ark of the Covenant and 
This 13th century frontispiece from the Codex Vindobonensis 2554 shows God as creator using a compass—so named not because it is used for navigation, but because it is used to draw arcs and circles.
Why did Friberg choose a Central American setting? Why do so many people–perhaps most members of the Church today–think Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica?
As recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord sent missionaries to the Indians living in New York, Ohio, and Missouri, specifically identifying them as Lamanites and telling them that He (the Lord) “would go with them and be in their midst.” (D&C 32:2) During this mission, Joseph Smith told tribes from Michigan that the Book of Mormon was the history of their ancestors. He wrote that the Book of Mormon is a record of “the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians.” 2
Writing the three “Mesoamerica” articles for the Times and Seasons was not a crime in the technical sense of the word. But the mystery about their authorship has endured for 173 years because the stakes involved are so high. What reader of the Book of Mormon has not wondered where the events took place? Millions of people–members, investigators, and critics, as well as the curious and studious–have read the Book of Mormon. Having an idea of the actual setting is important in order to understand the Book of Mormon people and their society–as well as to establish the historicity of the book. If Joseph Smith wrote the Mesoamerican articles, then those who sustain him as a Prophet generally feel compelled to accept the Mesoamerican setting. In fact, it was the presumption that Joseph wrote, or at least approved of, these articles that led Church members to formulate the limited geography of Mesoamerica as the setting for the Book of Mormon in the first place. LDS scholars have worked diligently to vindicate what they thought were Joseph’s teachings about Mesoamerica.
What no one noticed before now was a number of similarities between the Mesoamerican articles and the known writings of one Benjamin Winchester. Words, phrases, and concepts were common to both sets of documents–and unique to Winchester.
There is a concerted effort to relocate the East Fork Works by a group of researchers known as the Heartland Research Group. By using cutting edge magnetometry surveying, the group will scan hundreds of acres in south west Ohio in an effort to find the “lost menorah”. When it is relocated, possibly the proof of Hebrews contacting the Hopewell in Ohio will be discovered.
Hebrews in Prehistoric America?
There is a concerted effort to relocate the East Fork Works by a group of researchers known as the Heartland Research Group. By using cutting edge magnetometry surveying, the group will scan hundreds of acres in south west Ohio in an effort to find the “lost menorah”. When it is relocated, possibly the proof of Hebrews contacting the Hopewell in Ohio will be discovered.
“It is extremely malignant, clever, and I fear will be very damaging. . . . It requires much study to appreciate all the bitter spite of many of the remarks against me. . . . He misquotes some passages, altering words within inverted commas. . . .”
“Did dinosaurs live and die on this earth long before man came along? There have been no revelations on this question, and the scientific evidence says yes. (You can learn more about it by studying paleontology if you like, even at Church-owned schools.)
The question is, how accurate are the estimates? In the first place, the cosmic ray flux into the earth’s atmosphere is known to vary. Over the last few thousand years it has fluctuated a number of times by at least ten percent. Secondly, the scientists assume that the relative concentrations of the atmospheric constituents have been constant over the geological time periods of interest. A number of factors can occur that would alter the atmospheric composition, such as atmospheric pollution from volcanic eruptions, which would in turn affect the accuracy of 14C dating. So, beyond 5000 years or so, I would not give much confidence to the time estimates based on carbon dating. 
The seven thousand years of this earth’s temporal existence? This scripture is very clear and definite as to the continuance of this earth. Some however, have suggested that it does not mean what it clearly says. What is the proper scriptural interpretation of this phrase? President Joseph Fielding Smith in explanation of Doctrine and Covenants 77 taught:
Throughout history, dragons have been a huge part of folklore, each culture replete with legends of flying reptiles, as well as monsters of land and sea. Notable historians such as Herodotus, Strabo, Dio, and Josephus have documented accounts with enormous creatures called dragons. In the journals of Alexander the Great and Marco Polo, there have been found additional references to these creatures, some large enough and scary enough to terrify the most stalwart of soldiers. Ancient writings have been discovered containing recipes which call for dragon parts like their bones, blood, and saliva. It seems that ancient man did not believe dinosaurs were a thing of the past, but a veritable threat to their present and future.
“19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. 22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. 31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.” 
An Apostle of the Lord, Elder L. Tom Perry, has proclaimed, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly a world-wide Church. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that the Church could never have become what it is today without the birth of a great nation, the United States of America. The Lord prepared a new land to attract the peoples of the world who sought liberty and religious freedom…
David W. Allan has spent 58 years researching time and related topics. He helped develop the nation’s official atomic-clock timing system during his 32 years in Boulder, CO, at the National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of Standards and Technology). For 25 of those years, his research group was responsible for generating official time for the United States and helping with official time for the world. During that time he spent several man years helping in the development of GPS. Atomic clocks are the heart of GPS, and the folks developing GPS came to Boulder to learn how to best use them being taught by Allan and his colleagues at NBS.
“In a revelation given through Joseph Smith Jr., the Prophet, to Oliver Cowdery (Second Elder of the
“For my first post in 2019, I’m showing another instance of M2C* censorship. This one is from the Brigham Young lesson manual (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church – Brigham Young).
Church historians concede they censored Cumorah in Saints
The purpose of the information below is to share with you significant archaeological evidence for the ancient Hopewell and Adena Culture nearby the Hill Cumorah. There is evidence of fortifications, pottery, copper, weapons, palisades, forts, mass burials, mounds, tools and other artifacts all around this area. I believe the Hopewell culture matches up with the Nephite culture extraordinarily well. The Hopewell originated in 600 BC at the panhandle of Florida from Crystal River to Pensacola, Florida. History documents this. The Hopewell then traveled north into Georgia and Tennessee. There is evidence of a huge society of the Hopewell from Missouri to Illinois to Indiana and then to Ohio which was the dominant historical area of this people. History shows the end of the Hopewell civilization around the year 400 AD. Historians say the Hopewell just disappeared and historians have no idea what happened. I feel I have a good idea. The final battle at Cumorah was 385 AD. This is some of the best evidence of a possible link to the Hopewell and the Nephites.
My friend who is a very loving Christian and Preacher named Richard D. Moats is an Avocational Archaeologist, who has lived in Ohio his entire life and jokes with me and says, “I know the people of Ohio as Hebrews and you know them as Nephites. We have found the same people.” Doesn’t it really make sense that there has to be traces of Hebrew where Lehi and Nephi lived? Search for yourself. Many signs show Hebrew influence in North America and especially in Ohio. It’s sad that many professionals say all the artifacts are a hoax. They have to say that for over 20 various items that have been discovered. See my blog 
32 Village site on Darwin McClure’s farm, lot 20, Hopewell, 3 miles southeast of Canandaigua, one-half of a mile north of the turnpike. A recent cemetery is not far away, and modern relics have been found. The site is probably that of one of the Onaghee villages.
51 A trail from the southeast came to the center of the old Brother farm on which there was a village. It followed the highway north- westerly.
Many of us know that the Signers of the Declaration of Independence appeared to Wilford Woodruff asking to have their temple work done in the St. George Temple. On the 21st of Aug. 1877 President Wilford Woodruff was baptized for 100 men including the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, American Presidents, and other eminent men. There were also eminent women, including some wives whose vicarious work was also completed. Their ordinance work was performed on the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd of Aug. 1877. However, very few people have known that six days later on the 29th of Aug. 1877 temple work was done for eighty-five Indian Chiefs. People are amazed to learn about this astounding event that occurred in the St. George Temple. A few years ago I was attending one of Rodney Meldrum’s Book of Mormon Conferences in St. George, Utah and was astonished when he showed the St. George Temple registry of these Chiefs. Of the eighty-five Chiefs seventy-four of them are Iroquois/Six Nations – my people! My Grandmother, Maria Jane Jamieson, was a famous Iroquois and Indian Historian and she began to teach me all she knew when I was three years old. Therefore, I was able to recognize the Chiefs’ names when three pages of temple records appeared on the screen.
The 29th of Aug. 1877 happened to be the day that the Prophet Brigham Young died and all temple work ceased. These Indian Chiefs’ vicarious work was halted and overshadowed by the prophet’s death. On Mar. 25, 2015, while I was standing in my living room a voice told me that these Indian Chiefs’ work was not completed. Subsequently, I found out this was true and began seeing that their remaining ordinances were fulfilled. Their work commenced on April 6, 2015. April 6th happens to be the Lord’s birthday and the day the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized.
Alma 43:38 “…For battle protection, Moroni equipped his army with the use of innovative armor: “they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body, or the more vital parts of the body being shielded from the strokes of the Lamanites, by their breastplates, and their arm-shields, and their head-plates”
URIM and THUMMIM, literally, lights and perfections, mentioned Exo. xxviii. 30, and Lev. viii. 8. It seems probable, that they were the twelve precious stones of the high priest’s breastplate; on which were engraven the names of the tribes of Israel; and that the letters by standing out, or by an extraordinary illumination, marked such words as contained the answer of God to him who consulted this oracle. Many learned men are of opinion that the answer was given in an audible voice from the Shekinah, or that brightness which always rested between the cherubims [sic] over the mercy seat. Ps. lxxx. 1. and xcix. 1. When the Urim and Thummim were to be consulted, it is said, the high priest put on his gold vestment, and in ordinary cases went into the sanctuary, and stood with his face to the Holy of holies, and the consulter stood near him. 
Lucy Mack Smith said, “After bringing home the plates, Joseph commenced working with his father and brothers on the farm, in order to be as near as possible to the treasure which was confided to his care. Soon after this, he came in from work, one afternoon, and after remaining a short time, he put on his great coat, and left the house. I was engaged at the time, in an upper room, in preparing some oilcloths for painting. When he returned, he requested me to come down-stairs. I told him that I could not leave my work just then, yet upon his urgent request, I finally concluded to go down and see what he wanted, upon which he handed me the breastplate spoken of in his history.
“A particularly influential work which popularized the standard arguments of the day in favor of Hebrew origins for Native Americans (see MP 1, Adair). Ethan Smith depended heavily upon this book when he wrote View of the Hebrews (MP 399). Indian-Hebrew language tables, traditions, customs, religious beliefs and ceremonies appear here, along with generous citations taken from Isaiah. A breastplate is mentioned, p. 53, with precious stones worn in the temple by the Israelite high priest, and a plate of gold on his forehead, engraved with the inscription “Holiness to the Lord.” And in the New World . . .
In resemblance of the sacred breast-plate, the American priest wears a breastplate, made of a white conck-shell, with two holes bored in the middle of it, through which he puts the ends of an otter skin strap, and fastens a buckhorn white button to the outside of each, as if in imitation of the precious stones of urim and Thummim, which miraculously blazoned on the high priest’s breast, the unerring words of the divine oracle. Instead of the plate of gold which he wore on his forehead, with the words holy, or separated to God, the Indian wears around his temples either a wreath of swan’s feathers, or a long piece of swanskin . . . [p. 200] Even more startling is Boudinot’s reference to certain American Indian traditions about the Bible which sound similar to the Mormon interpretation of Lamanite awareness of the Book of Mormon: “. . . they have it handed down from their ancestors, that the book which the white people have was once theirs.” Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source © 2014 Rick Grunder 273 under the heading of BOUDINOT, Elias, 1740-1821. A STAR IN THE WEST
In the year 1833, or thereabout, some laborers engaged in removing a mound at 
There is a striking similarity in the description given by Jarom of the Nephite arrow heads, and those found with the armored skeleton. Jarom states that his people made arrows of brass and particularly refers to the fact that they were “sharp pointed.” In the account of those found at Fall River it is said “the arrows were of brass, thin, flat and triangular in shape,” a most admirable mode of obtaining sharp pointed missiles.
“One day my eleven-year old son went hunting with six other Indians. They were hunting squirrels. A squirrel darted up a pine tree and my son climbed up the tree to scare him out on a limb. Finally, the squirrel ran out where he could be seen. My boy called to the hunters to hold their fire until he could get down out of the tree. One of these Indians in the hunting party had always been jealous of me and my position as chief. He and his son both shot deliberately at my boy. He was filled with buckshot from his knees to his head. One blast was aimed at his groin and the other hit him squarely in the face. The Indians carried my boy toward our home and found a cool spot along the trail under a pine tree. There they laid him down and ran for a doctor.
“The first LDS member in South Carolina is believed to be Emmanual Masters Murphy, who was baptized in Tennessee in 1836. When Elder Lysander M. Davis arrived in South Carolina in 1839 (nine years after the Church was organized in New York), he found the Murphys had people prepared for baptism. Seven of these were baptized.
Another Catawba, the first Lamanite Patriarch, William F Canty came from 5 families who moved west with the Migration in 1887. His father John Alonzo Canty was the first Branch President of the Gaffney area, and James Patterson, his grandfather was the first Branch President of the Catawba Branch. William (Buck) Canty spoke at the BYU Indian school graduation many times in the 1970s and toured with the Lamanite Generation in 1978.
“One of the most colorful figures among the Latter-day Saints is Chief Samuel “Thunderbird” Blue, 82- year-old former chief of the Catawba Indians of South Carolina.
“When I was twenty-one years of age, I was sent on a mission to the southern states. I became secretary of the mission, and while there was called to Columbia, South Carolina, because some of our elders had become seriously ill. It was difficult to get word back and forth, so I got on a train and went down there. I found that they were improved and getting along all right.
Coming back to this book again — Brother B. H. Roberts and I were sent some fifteen years later down into the southern states to visit the mission. When we arrived at the hotel at Columbia, we registered and went into our room, and soon after a knock came at the door and a colored man said, “There’s a man downstairs that wants to see George A. Smith.” That was the way I used to write my name, and I wrote it that way before I was married.
So you may be interested, brethren and sisters, in knowing that I am delighted in seeing Chief Blue here today, representing that tribe of fine Indians. I have seen some of them since. I have met one very fine young woman who is a schoolteacher, and others I have met of that race; in fact, I have some trinkets in my office that were sent to me by members of that tribe.
For some Western Catawba people, being a Catawba descendent and being a descendant of Book of Mormon peoples becomes entangled and inseparable. When I asked Thomas Croasman, a retired professor at Brigham Young University–Idaho and a Western Catawba descendant, what it means to be Catawba, he replied, “Oh, it just means that that’s our heritage, you know—the blood of father Lehi flowing in my veins, and I’m glad for that.” That answer is twofold. On the one hand, it is heritage. “Some people are glad that they’re Italian, or glad that they’re from England, or Ireland, or whatever, and that’s fine. They should be. And we’re just proud to be Catawba.” For Croasman, Catawba descent is a national heritage, much like that of migrants from other nations overseas (you might say he’s Catawba-American). It is also something he carries in his veins: “the blood of father Lehi.”
This idea of a parallel track—that is, the idea that Eastern and Western Catawbas have had a similar experience in their respective locations (South Carolina and southern Colorado)— is one I have heard from a number of Catawba people I have spoken to. And while the Western Catawba descendants, in diaspora, may face a very difficult task in trying to gain enrollment or recognition as a Western Band, Lamanite identity is something that, in the minds of many Catawbas, links all of them to a much larger Indigeneity. A spiritualized Indigeneity that is still, nonetheless, located in the blood: “the blood of Father Lehi.” If geography, nationalism, and politics divide them, Indigeneity and the “blood of Father Lehi” is still something that many of them, on both sides, believe they share. And while this is not a narrative that all Catawba people agree upon, for many it is a powerful and expansive shared Indigenous identity. For Thomas Croasman, to be Catawba is to have the blood of father Lehi in your veins. Similarly, Sarah Ayers, late Catawba elder and master potter remembered by many in the Catawba nation today, also felt the presence of father Lehi. Speaking of her pottery she said, “I know who I’m representing with my work. I was once blessed that Father Lehi would help me in all endeavors that stand for the tribe in honor of our heritage.”75 Clay from the Catawba River shaped by hands guided by Father Lehi. The people of the river are a people of the book. They shape and are shaped by both.
Samuel Taylor Blue became chief of the Catawbas’ as early as 1928 and served in that capacity at various times until his death, which occurred on April 16, 1959. On May 7, 1897, Blue had been baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Carolina. He also served as branch president of the Latter-day Saints Church on the Catawba Reservation until his death in 1959, serving a total of 40 years. In 1952 Samuel was a speaker at the dedication of the Catawba Branch Building, a dedication performed by David O. McKay.
A c. 1724 English copy of a deerskin Catawba map of the tribes between Charleston (right) and Virginia (right) following the displacements of a century of disease and enslavement and the 1715–7 Yamasee War. The Catawba themselves are labelled as “Nasaw”.
Similar encounters in this longstanding warfare were reported to have occurred at present-day Franklin, West Virginia(1725), Hanging Rocks and the mouth of the Potomac South Branch in West Virginia, and near the mouths of Antietam Creek (1736) and Conococheague Creek in Maryland. Mooney asserted that the name of Catawba Creek in Botetourt came from an encounter in these wars with the northern tribes, not from the Catawba having lived there.
The Catawba women were well known for their pottery in the Carolinas.
“The Heartland of North America is the only location in the Western Hemisphere where all ten of the essential items necessary to practice the Law of Moses were found anciently including; lambs, oxen, goats, doves, barley, wheat, grapes, and altars made of stacked, unhewn stones.” Amberli Nelson. This blog speaks to the Barley found in Iowa near Montrose at a historical site called Gast Spring site (13LA152) in Louisa County, Iowa.
Major References
(Left) Little Barley sign at Fort Ancient Archaeological State Museum, Oregonia, Ohio, which is situated 260 feet above the Little Miami River atop an immense isolated 126 acre plateau having monumental earthworks and embankment walls. (Photo by Rod Meldrum)_(cropped).jpg))
(Left): Burnt Corn. The Cincinnati Museum Center archaeology team found a ditch at Hahn Site, Newtown, Ohio, to contain refuse from the last occupants—Fort Ancient Culture and an earlier use of the site during the Hopewell horizon. This recently was confirmed by a radiocarbon date—the ditch was probably built by the Hopewell, perhaps around 200-400 A.D., and just before the Late Woodland period (see p. 535 Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon). Earthwork construction of the site is indicative of Hopewell Geometric construction, circles, henges, squares, ellipses and causeways. Burnt corn was found, suggesting one of the earliest introductions into Hopewell timeline in Ohio. (Photo taken at Firehouse Town Hall, Newtown, OH, courtesy of Wayne N. May)
The only “sheaf of the first fruits” of grain that was ripe enough to be harvested, and could be waved before the Lord at the time of the Passover, was barley (see right) The wheat had not yet ripened. The Nephites raised both barley and wheat, essential grains that were required to observe the Law of Moses. ”In their seasons”: (see p. 300 Annotated Book of Mormon) “And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds: with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley…” Mosiah 9:9- Page 160 Annotated Book of Mormon
