Archaeology and The Book of Mormon - LDS Efforts To Establish Book of Mormon Archaeology - Modern Approach and Conclusions

Modern Approach and Conclusions

As noted above, there is a general consensus among non-Mormon archaeologists (and even some Mormon archaeologists) that the archaeological record does not substantiate the Book of Mormon account, and in some ways directly contradicts it. Due to the difficulties that beset Mormon archaeology, most Mormon apologists now take a different approach: analyze archaeological findings for parallels and correlations with information found in the Book of Mormon. Although LDS scholars have found no indisputable proof of the book's historicity, they have accumulated a large amount of research which they use to support their conclusions. These correlations are disputed by non-Mormon archaeologists who see no such parallels. Non-Mormon scholars, historians, and archaeologists have concluded that the body of evidence found disproves the conclusions of Mormon apologists and the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself.

An example of the mainstream archaeological opinion of Mormon archaeology is summarized by historian and journalist Hampton Sides:

“Yales Michael Coe likes to talk about what he calls “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” the tendency among Mormon theorists like Sorenson to keep the discussion trained on all sorts of extraneous subtopics… while avoiding what is most obvious: that Joseph Smith probably meant “horse” when he wrote down the word “horse,” …”