Problems With Archaeological Findings

One of the most typical comments from critics of the geographical setting of the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon stems from people claiming there is no record of the Nephites in any excavations performed in the Western Hemisphere. Most of these surround Mesoamerica, of course, but the belief is still valid, though little work has been done in Andean South America by anyone knowledgeable of the scriptural record.

Which is basically the point. That is, a lack of knowledge or belief in the Nephite record helps influence archaeologists to evaluate their findings and point their results away from any interpretation regarding a Near East existence in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, even when faced with actual evidence they cannot bring themselves to even think along such lines, let alone change their minds. Obviously, this kind of attitude influences the interpretation of the artifacts found and tends to put them into another category making their true value lost to the people of the world. This disbelief is one of the attitudes that heavily influences archaeological work and helps construct a false record of the past.

The mishandling of the ancient artifacts and the manipulation of the historical record contribute to the loss of physical evidence and why so many items are hopelessly stored in the basement of museums, never to be seen by other researchers and archaeologists. Take, as an example, the knowledge of finding evidence of horses and elephants in North, Central and South America that lived at the same time as people (see previous post on this matter). Since that does not fit into the geologic column and record, such findings have been ignored by the archaeological and anthropological world and little or no publication of them can be found except in rare instances.

Another problem is the lack of objectivity. Obviously, the principle of any science is for the scientist to be objective in his or her work, yet that is rarely the case. William G. Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona and Distinguished Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at Lycoming College in Pennsylvania, writes in one of his books that “not since the death of 19^th century positivism has any respectable historian been naïve enough to think that they could be entirely objective.”

Just as obviously, is that the conclusions of many archaeologists will slant towards their personal ideologies, and how they present artifacts will also be influenced by the same attitude. Thus if a person is opposed to the Book of Mormon, it can be accurately assumed that their ‘interpretation’ of the physical evidence will alter the reality of that artifact and change the meaning of the artifact to something closer to their own personal beliefs. On the other hand, if they are unfamiliar with the scriptural record, its facts will not come into consideration in the interpretation. Thus, in the Andean area of South America, though we find numerous influences of Israel and Egypt, as has been shown in earlier posts, findings will not be considered in light of that information.

Another problem is that of having a double standard, which makes it very difficult to present artifacts as physical evidence in support of the Book of Mormon record. What is allowed for the secular world to practice is not allowed for the believer in the Book of Mormon. As an example, the secular world does not demand that they be ‘objective’. In fact Dever, in the introduction to his book came right out and boldly stated, “This book…although it hopes to be true to the facts we know, does not attempt objectivity; for that is impossible and perhaps undesirable.” Yet later in his work, Dever makes this accusation, “The perspective of all the religious writers is a factor that limits their usefulness in another regard it is no exaggeration to say that all biblical literature…constitutes what is essentially propaganda. The writers make no pretense to objectivity.”

So Dever, and other secular archaeologists, hold the religionist to a standard that they themselves refuse to follow and denounce their words simply because it presents God’s revelation from God’s perspective and not their own. This double standard then influences how archaeologists see the physical evidence and if the evidence is from religious history then it is dismissed because it is not from a secular source, yet these same archaeologists will accept physical evidence about a secular culture whose source is from that same culture without requiring corroborating evidence from other surrounding culture.

The double standard plays a large part in limiting physical evidence and contributes to the lack of evidence in archaeology for the Biblical record on the one hand and the Book of Mormon on the other.

Finally, is the archaeologist’s personal agenda. Many come to archaeology in the Nephite lands with their own personal agenda simply because they do not accept and do not like what the Book of Mormon has recorded about the development of the Western Hemisphere. Thus, they either see these lands through non-religious rose-colored glasses, or they are willing to alter or subvert findings that point to such historical events as recorded in the Book of Mormon, bending over backward to provide a different view and explanation of their findings. As an example, though the Book of Mormon clearly shows a connection between the Land of Promise written about, and a “Land which was northward,” to which thousands of Nephites emigrated in the last century B.C., and these two lands—Andean South America and Mesoamerica, both show a remarkable connection through the buildings, roads, legends and myths found in both, yet archaeologists and anthropologists ignore such connection.

This restructuring of the evidence to fit an agenda also contributes much to the lack of evidence for the religious record and short changes the public who assume these people are telling the truth when in reality, they are simply following and working their own beliefs or lack of them.

To-date, no LDS archaeologists have been digging in the ground in South America. What few LDS archaeologists there are have spent their time in Mesoamerica, which, by their own admission, does not fit the geography of the Book of Mormon. Consequently, those who are digging in the ground in the Andes are prone to evaluate and interpret what they find based on secular understanding and history without the slightest suggestion of a Nephite involvement. Thus, when critics write and complain about nothing having been found in the Western Hemisphere to prove or even suggest the Book of Mormon, they simply are just parroting the comments of others who have no understanding of the problems in finding anything in print that shows such a connection. Yet, as has been shown here in several posts over the past three years, there are numerous examples of connections between what is found and the scriptural record—it is simply that the archaeologists does not see it that way and doesn’t report it that way.

This is but a brief glimpse into what takes place in the field of archaeology which influences the amount of physical evidence for Book of Mormon archaeology. The critic has no concept of what is taking place, nor is he aware of the tendency to ignore any such connection on the part of the archaeologist. The LDS member is equally unaware of such connections that exist and are left without a comparison between Mesoamerica and any intelligent discussion about South America. After all, just because a person claims to be an expert, or does archaeology professionally does it mean that they are telling the truth, being fair, or honestly attributing the physical evidence to its proper place in history. Anyone who really wants to know about South America and the Book of Mormon, will have to do his own study and not rely on the so-called “experts."