The Question of Authorship is Crucial to Textual Reliability:

Advocates For The Book of Mormon Claim That Joseph Smith Translated These Texts From Plates That No Longer Exist.

Concerning the texts of the New Testament we can easily verify the validity of these documents by 24,593 manuscript copies. Regarding the Book of Mormon, we have no texts to verify anything that is written in this book.

This essay presents important and foundational questions and answers between a LDS Apologist and myself, a biblical Apologist

The following are the questions and statements made to me about the Book of Mormon by a LDS Apologist. My answers follow his questions. I provide you with truthful, historical, archeological and literary facts, not my opinions or the opinions of any other person.

CAUTION: all of the texts and charts on this page are under U.S. and International Copyright. Do not cut and paste or create images of any of this texts, charts, or images without approval from the author: Robert Clifton Robinson. You may link to this page and cite the author as the source on your websites and pages.

LDS Apologist:

“Joseph Smith didn’t “write” the Book of Mormon. It was a record that God commanded His ancient prophets in America to write for our day, that God had Joseph Smith translate.”

My Answer:

• From an official Latter-day Saint (Mormon) standpoint, what this LDS Apologist said is exactly what the LDS Church teaches.
• From a historical / evidential standpoint, there is no independent evidence that ancient American prophets wrote the Book of Mormon on metal plates, and very strong evidence that the text is a 19th-century work produced in Joseph Smith’s environment, heavily dependent on the King James Bible.

Whether Joseph Smith is the true source for the Book of Mormon is “true” depending on whether we are asking about LDS doctrine (yes, that is what they believe) or verifiable history (no, the claim is not supported by the evidence).

What the LDS Church claims:

• God commanded ancient prophets in the Americas (Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, etc.) to keep records on plates.
• These plates were buried, then revealed to Joseph Smith by an angel (Moroni).
• Joseph “translated” the record into English “by the gift and power of God.” The Church of Jesus Christ+1

The Mormon Church’s Essays and Manuals State:

• Joseph Smith “consistently testified that he translated the Book of Mormon by the ‘gift and power of God.’” The Church of Jesus Christ+1
• Witnesses (the Three and the Eight) signed formal testimonies printed in the front of the Book of Mormon, stating that they saw and/or handled plates shown to them by an angel or by Joseph Smith. Wikipedia+2The Church of Jesus Christ+2

The real question is: does the historical and textual evidence indicate that this story actually happened? That’s where the problems come in.

What We Can Confirm Regarding The Book of Mormon’s origin

The Original Source of The Mormon Texts (ancient plates) No longer Exist. This is in contrast with the massive extant manuscript evidence for the New Testament narratives. In the world of literary scholarship, any ancient work that cannot be validated by manuscript evidence, is considered unreliable. One of the reasons that New Testament credibility has survived for two-thousand years, is that a very large body of surviving texts, found in 14 languages, from all over the world, proves these biblical texts are authentic and reliable. No such body of manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon exists.

According to the LDS narrative, after the translation was completed, the angel took the plates back to heaven. There is no surviving physical artifact that anyone can test today. All that exists is Joseph Smith’s word and the testimonies of people close to him. For these reasons reliable and credible scholars place no confidence in the Book of Mormon documents.

The only “evidence” of the plates in the historical record is:

1. Joseph Smith’s Claims.
2. Written testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses attached to the Book of Mormon. Wikipedia+2The Church of Jesus Christ+2

Even LDS historians acknowledge that belief in the plates is ultimately a matter of faith, not empirical corroboration. Religious Studies Center

How the Translation Was Accomplished, According To LDS Witnesses

Modern LDS essays and historical work (including from church-owned institutions) now openly acknowledge that much of the translation was done not by visually reading characters from plates, but with a seer stone in a hat:

• Joseph placed a seer stone in a hat, put his face into the hat to block out light, and dictated the English text that appeared to him. FAIR+2Religious Studies Center+2
• The Nephite “interpreters” (a device also called the Urim and Thummim) were used early on; later Joseph used his own seer stone. FAIR+1
• These are not the type of scholarly and historical proofs that are required to validate any text of the magnitude the LDS church asks the world to believe.

This Raises Major Concerns:

1. If Joseph is not actually looking at the plates or a known ancient language, how do we test the claim that he’s “translating” anything at all? We cannot.
2. The process is completely non-transparent. There is no way to compare the “original” language, or Joseph’s English rendering.

In every real translation scenario, the original text survives and can be checked. Concerning the Book of Mormon, no one can test or check anything. These facts define the LDS claim of authentic, historical, valid events as untestable by normal historical or linguistic standards.

The Book of Mormon Texts Look Exactly like a 19th-Century Literary Work

When we step away from the faith-claim and just look at the Book of Mormon’s own language and content, we find:

Substantial Reliance on the King James Bible

Scholars—both LDS and non-LDS—recognize that the Book of Mormon contains:

• Long, often verbatim passages from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.
• Extensive dependence on KJV phraseology, including New Testament material that purportedly appears centuries before Christ in the Book of Mormon narrative. LDS Discussions

A Critical Scholarly Examination Reveals:

• “There is no possible way the Book of Mormon could have been written before 1611, because there are too many phrases, wordings, and long passages taken directly from the King James Bible.” LDS Discussions
• The Sermon on the Mount is essentially copied into the Book of Mormon (with minor adjustments), including contextual details (like Roman law of “going the extra mile,” or terms like “Raca”) that make no sense in an ancient American setting. LDS Discussions

If The Book of Mormon Was Truly the Result of a Translation From an Independent, Ancient Native American Record, We Would Not Expect:

• Word-for-word KJV English.
• Late textual phenomena (e.g., the long ending of Mark) that are now known to be secondary additions in the New Testament text. LDS Discussions

But this is precisely what we do see, which strongly indicates Joseph is drawing on the English KJV he knew, not on a separate ancient document.

Anachronisms in the New World Setting

There are numerous anachronisms: items, animals, technologies, and cultural details that did not exist in the Americas during the time period Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon was written.

Examples cited by scholars:

• Horses, chariots, steel, silk, wheat, and certain Old World domesticated animals and crops described in a pre-Columbian American context. Wikipedia
• Complex Christian theology and church structures centuries before Christ, closely mirroring 19th-century American Protestant concerns. LDS Discussions

LDS scholars try to address these by reinterpreting terms (e.g., “horse” might mean a different animal, etc.), or appealing to incomplete archaeology. Religious Studies Center+1 But the magnitude of these issues fits perfectly with a 19th-century American author imagining ancient civilizations using categories familiar to him, rather than genuinely ancient Near Eastern-to-American cultures.

This persistent style of writing and construction for the Book of Mormon leaves no doubt that it is a 19th Century fabrication, not an original work that proves the Indigenous sources Joseph Smith cites.

The Theological and cultural Fingerprints of 1820s America

Beyond specific anachronisms, the theological climate of early 19th-century upstate New York—the “Burned-over District,” full of revivalism, restorationism, anti-creedal rhetoric, and speculation about Native Americans as Israelites—saturates the Book of Mormon:

• Preoccupation with creeds being an abomination.
• Debates over baptism, authority, and which church is true.
• Native Americans portrayed as descendants of Israel, a common idea in Joseph’s milieu. LDS Discussions+1

The Book of Mormon looks more like a product of its time and place than a genuinely ancient record.

The witnesses of the plates: what do they prove?

LDS apologists point to the Three and Eight Witnesses as strong confirmation:

• The Three Witnesses: claim to have seen the plates with an angel and heard God’s voice. Wikipedia+2The Church of Jesus Christ+2
• The Eight Witnesses: claim to have seen and handled the plates shown to them by Joseph. Mormonism Research Ministry

Critical Scholars Say:

1. These are all insiders, closely related or loyal to Joseph.
2. Accounts sometimes describe the experience in visionary rather than straightforward physical terms.
3. Even if they did see a set of metal plates, it does not demonstrate that the plates contained what Joseph said they contained, or that Joseph’s dictated text is a genuine translation of those plates.

Unlike the 136 secular, non-biblical citations for Jesus that are found in the historical record, the Book of Mormon has no outside verification outside the alleged witnesses claimed by the LDS church.

Some contemporaries later claimed that at least some witnesses admitted they saw the plates “with spiritual eyes” or in vision rather than in ordinary daylight, though LDS defenders dispute these interpretations. Dialogue Journal+2Reddit+2

The bottom line: even at best, the witness testimonies only potentially support that some kind of plates existed—not that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record translated by miracle. The textual evidence (KJV dependence, anachronisms, 19th-century theology) still points strongly to modern authorship, a fabricated text, not an original work of ancient people.

How non-LDS scholarship generally views the Book of Mormon

Outside of LDS circles, historians and biblical scholars overwhelmingly regard the Book of Mormon as:

• A 19th-century religiously fabricated text that was produced in Joseph Smith’s environment, most likely authored or compiled by Joseph himself, perhaps with contributions from associates.
• A text that reflects American frontier theology, folk magic, and Bible-saturated culture, not actual ancient Near Eastern peoples in the Americas. Wikipedia+2LDS Discussions+2

Even critics from a Christian apologetic perspective (e.g., J. Warner Wallace at Cold-Case Christianity) argue that:

• Smith’s character, motives, and methods, combined with the text’s historical and linguistic problems, make it far more reasonable to conclude the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction than a genuine ancient record. Cold Case Christianity
• My view as a biblical scholar for 51 years, is that the Book of Mormon lacks every essential piece of evidence used for verification that we find for the New Testament. If the Book of Mormon was, in fact, a valid ancient work, where are the documents and archeological evidences that prove this? There are none!

No independent archaeological, linguistic, or historical evidence has been found that clearly and uniquely confirms the specific peoples, places, or events of the Book of Mormon narrative. Wikipedia+1

The Question Remains: Did Joseph Smith Translate a Valid Ancient Record, or Did He Fabricate It?

The Existing Evidence Proves:

1. There are no surviving plates or original texts to examine.
2. We are asked to accept a translation method that is non-transparent and relies on seer stones in a hat. FAIR+2Religious Studies Center+2
3. The text itself from the Book of Mormon relies heavily, and is pervasively dependent on the 1611 (and later) King James Bible, including known late textual additions and anachronistic materials. LDS Discussions
4. The Mormon Bible texts rely on numerous historical and cultural anachronisms in the supposed pre-Columbian American setting. Wikipedia+2LDS Discussions+2
5. The theological and cultural fingerprints that match the 1820s in New York, are closer to the true origin of the Mormon Texts than ancient Israelite-American civilizations. LDS Discussions+1

The most reasonable historical conclusion is:

• Joseph Smith (with or without collaborators) produced the Book of Mormon as a modern composition, heavily influenced by the King James Bible and his religious environment.
• The claim that he merely “translated” an ancient record written by American prophets is a matter of religious belief, not historical fact. That claim cannot be demonstrated and is strongly contradicted by the internal evidence of the text itself.

Regarding The Question:  “Is Joseph Smith Responsible For the Writing of the Book of Mormon?

One LDS Apologist Says: “Joseph Smith didn’t ‘write’ the Book of Mormon. It was a record that God commanded His ancient prophets in America to write for our day, that God had Joseph Smith translate. Is this true?”

• It is true that this is the official Latter-day Saint explanation.
• This is not a fact that is not supported by the historical, textual, or linguistic evidence.

On the available data, the best explanation is that Joseph Smith is the primary author/creator of the Book of Mormon, not a translator of an independently verifiable ancient American record. Whether someone chooses to accept the LDS explanation anyway is a question of faith, not of evidence.

LDS Apologist:

“”There is a ton of evidence that supports the Book of Mormon according to the Heartland model. The Hopewell Indians are a great match for the Nephites/Lamanites and the Adena Indian for the Jaredites. Have you seen anything regarding this position?”

My Answer:

The following is a detailed answer to the assertion that the Book of Mormon (BoM) is supported by the “Heartland model” identification of the Hopewell culture and Adena culture with the Nephites/Lamanites and Jaredites respectively. I will describe what the Heartland model claims, and what the evidence proves (both supporting and critical), as well as how this evidence stands up in light of historical reliability, manuscript integrity, prophetic fulfillment), from my view as a biblical-scholar oriented to historical and forensic reasoning.

What the Heartland model claims

The “Heartland model” (sometimes called the “North American Heartland model”) posits that the peoples and events described in the Book of Mormon took place not in Mesoamerica (as many LDS scholars favour) but primarily in the “heartland” of North America — roughly the U.S. Midwest, Ohio-Valley, Great Lakes region. Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3

In this model:

• The final battle of the Nephites occurs at or near Hill Cumorah in New York (or same-named hill). Wikipedia+1
• The “mound builder” cultures — the Adena and Hopewell — are identified as the Jaredites (in the earlier timeframe) and Nephite/Lamanite peoples (later timeframe) respectively. For example: “Among its proposals are that Mound Builders, including the Hopewell and the Adena, were among those peoples described in accounts of events in the Book of Mormon.” Wikipedia+1
• Proponents highlight correlations between archaeological features in the Midwest (earthworks, mound-building, trade networks, metallurgy) and BoM descriptions of cities, battles, “land of many waters”, etc. (See e.g. “The Hopewell Civilization: 50 Correlations” list.) Book of Mormon Evidence+2cwicmedia.com+2

Thus your Mormon interlocutor’s statement falls squarely into that claim-set: the Hopewell Indians as Nephite/Lamanite analogue, the Adena as Jaredite analogue, and they believe this provides “a ton of evidence.”

What is the Evidence that Proves Peoples and Events Described in the Book of Mormon Took Place in the “Heartland” of North America?

Mound-Building and Earthworks

The Hopewell and Adena indian cultures built large earthen mounds, temple-platforms, earthworks (effigy mounds, large geometrical enclosures, burial mounds) in the Ohio-Valley/Great Lakes region. Book of Mormon Evidence+3Wikipedia+3Book of Mormon Evidence+3

Some LDS Heartland writers assert that the Book of Mormon refers to cities built of “cement” (3 Ne 8:9, 14) or “timber” (?), and they argue that the absence of typical Mesoamerican stone cities suggests a better fit right there in North America. (For example: “no evidence of cement buildings anywhere in eastern U.S… so the North America model…”) Arise from the Dust+1

Geography and “Many Waters”

The Midwest region is full of rivers, lakes, and ridges; Heartland proponents argue that the Book of Mormon’s “land of many waters” (e.g., Alma 8:8; 22:27) is compatible with the Great Lakes area. Some identify the “narrow neck of land” of Alma 63:5 with the Niagara or other peninsulas. Wikipedia+2Arise from the Dust+2

Also the general notion that the “west sea” and “east sea” might be the Great Lakes or connected waterways rather than Pacific/Atlantic. Wikipedia

Cultural timelines and trade/technology

LDS Heartland authors claim that the Hopewell had extensive trade networks (across the U.S., even to Gulf coast), copper workings in the Great Lakes, mound burial elites, implying some level of societal complexity. Some draw a parallel to the Book of Mormon’s descriptions of large cities, trade, wealth, metallurgy. For instance: “Copper armor and trade: Archaeological evidence shows that the Hopewell and Adena people mined and traded copper extensively across the region.” Facebook+1

LDS Apologists also refer to DNA or haplogroup evidence (e.g., claims about haplogroup X among Hopewell/Native peoples) as supporting a small Israelite migration superimposed in North America. Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board+1

Historical-scriptural consistency (from a faith-based viewpoint)

For LDS believers in the Book of Mormon as an ancient record, the Heartland model is attractive because it places the land nearer to where the translation plates were recovered, and aligns more closely with some early statements by Joseph Smith (e.g., his letter to N. C. Saxton: “The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians…”). Wikipedia

There is a community of LDS supporters who believe the Hopewell/Adena correlation adds supportive evidence to the Book of Mormon narrative. The question is whether or not this community of American Indigenous people are in any way related to the Book of Mormon texts.

The Major Critical Issues In Proving This Claim:

If we are intelligent people who demnd forensic/historical evidence — there are significant challenges to the claim that the Hopewell/Adena people are named by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon.

There Is a Clear Chronology and Cultural Mismatch

The Adena culture is dated approximately from about 1000 BCE (though some earlier forms) to perhaps 200 CE. The Hopewell culture is roughly 200 BCE to 500 CE (various definitions). Many critics point out that the book of Ether (the Jaredites) present a migration before the Tower of Babel (~3000 BCE in the narrative) and the Nephite narrative begins around 600 BCE (Lehi’s departure). The Heartland model’s mapping of Adena to Jaredites depends on using Adena as early as required, which is problematic because Adena is generally later and regional in scope. For example: “The primary problems … is the reliance on the Adena culture as Jaredites when the Adena culture is known to have started in 500 BC, way too late to be considered Jaredites.” Wikipedia+1

The Hopewell as “large civilization of Nephites/Lamanites” is challenged because the archaeological record does not clearly show the kind of city-states, main fortresses, widespread written language, dedications, large-scale battles as described in BoM (e.g., destruction of cities in one day, etc.). As one critique puts it: “no evidence that Adena and Hopewell co-existed for 250 years… no evidence of cement buildings anywhere in eastern U.S.” Arise from the Dust+1

The Lack of Evidence for Writing, Language, Metallurgy, and Major Cities

The Book of Mormon describes institutions such as record-keepers, large inscriptions, written plates (gold plates), and major fortifications and cities (e.g., Zarahemla, Gideon, Cumorah) having tens of thousands of inhabitants. The archaeology of Adena/Hopewell does not clearly show writing systems comparable to Hebrew/Lehite, nor evidence of major fortified capital cities with millions of people (even the largest mound complexes were not obviously of that scale). Critiques note that “the Americas had been inhabited for at least 15,000 years… but there is a complete lack of mainstream evidence for the major historical claims in the Book of Mormon.” Wikipedia+1

One important statement made in this regard is: “the population of the Hopewell… does not match the population of the Nephites and Lamanites.” Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board

Genetics/DNA

While some Heartland proponents cite haplogroup X or other “Israelite-type” markers among some Native populations, the mainstream genetic research finds that Native American populations are overwhelmingly descended from Asian ancestors via Beringian land-bridge migrations ~15,000 years ago, not from Middle-Eastern Israelite migrations ~600 BCE. The Wikipedia summary of the “Historicity of the Book of Mormon” mentions this mismatch explicitly. Wikipedia+1

The article “A ‘Heartland’ Book of Mormon Examination” notes: “One of the biggest surprises for the ‘Heartland’ supporters is the DNA evidence among the Eastern U.S. Indians. … Scientists believe it to be a much earlier 10,000 year old ancestral group of migrants.” The Millennial Star

Geology and Natural Disasters Described

The Book of Mormon describes massive catastrophes (3 Ne 8–10; Mormon 6–9) including earthquakes, cities sinking, etc. Critics argue the Midwest does not show clear geological evidence of those dramatic events at the times in question. One critique states: “geography is inconsistent with the geologic events described in the Book of Mormon.” Wikipedia+1

The Scholarly Consensus

Among historians and archaeologists not affiliated with the LDS apologetics community, the view is strongly skeptical that the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas. For example: “The Book of Mormon makes a variety of claims… which have been discredited by archaeological investigations.” Wikipedia

Within LDS scholarship there remains no official endorsement of the Heartland model; the Church allows a range of geographical speculations including Mesoamerica and other limited-geography models. Wikipedia+1

How Literary and Historical Apologetic Standards Impeach The Adena and Hopewell Assertion of LDS Advocates

As a biblical scholar, who uses a evidential-historical approach, I feel a great emphasis on manuscript integrity and eyewitness reliability.

• My questions are many. What is the strongest empirical evidence that a migration from the ancient Near East happened ~600 BCE (or earlier) to North America and established the societies described in the Book of Mormon? The Hopewell/Adena correlation offers some suggestive features (earthworks, trade networks), but falls short of demonstrating a Near-Eastern origin, Hebrew writing, or a detailed cultural match of the sort you seek.
• The claims of “tons of evidence” from Heartland proponents tend to be cumulative­–many correlations, but fewer strong disconfirmations of alternative models or unequivocal forensic links. In New Testament studies (in which I am are well versed) I would expect independent multiple attestations, manuscripts, archaeological finds that directly tie to named persons/events. In the case for the Book of Mormon, there are no credible sources that verify its veracity.
• If I stipulate that the BoM as an ancient record, then locating its events in the North American Heartland is plausible for believers; but I have a higher standard: inscriptions in Hebrew/Egyptian, gold-plates discovery, clearly dated battlefields with 200,000 casualties, etc. These are not clearly found in the Hopewell/Adena record.
• The model also raises issues of cultural continuity: after ~400 CE, the Hopewell tradition wanes; but the Book of Mormon describes Nephite history continuing until 421 AD (Mormon 6:10) and then the Lamanites afterwards. If one equates Hopewell with Nephites one must account for the post-Hopewell Lamanite continuation. Some proponents address this, but the fit isn’t tight.

My Conclusion

While the statement made by the above LDS Apologist (“There is a ton of evidence … Hopewell Indians are a great match … Adena Indian for the Jaredites”) is true in that there is a body of literature within the LDS-Heartland community claiming evidence along those lines — it is not true in the sense that mainstream archaeology and historical scholarship (including many LDS scholars) have accepted that correlation as proven or as broadly compelling. In short: the hypothesis exists and has supporters, but it remains highly controversial and not settled.

• On the “plausible if one assumes the Book of Mormon is ancient and historic” side: yes, the Heartland model offers some interesting potential fits (mound-builders as a people group, river/sea geography, etc.). But this claim is unprovable.
• On the “forensic/historical evidence convincing to a neutral scholar” side: the case has significant problems that have never been overcome — chronological mismatches, lack of clear written Hebrew/Egyptian inscriptions, genetic evidence contrary, no secure linkage of named places, etc.

These insurmountable problems have never been resolved by Mormon leaders of Apologists. For anyone like myself who requires evidence to prove the claims of people or literary sources, the evidence to prove Joseph Smith was able to translate anything, is dubious.

I view the Hopewell/Adena–Nephite/Jaredite claim as an interesting hypothesis but by no means is it a settled proof.

LDS Apologist:

“During Christ’s death in Jerusalem, there was a great earthquake that destroyed much of the Nephite/Lamanite civilization as a result. How it was described matches well with the aftermath of the New Madrid quakes in 1811-1812.”

My Answer:

This statement attempts to argue that Book of Mormon seismic descriptions in 3 Nephi mirror the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes, and that this parallel supports the Heartland model. Here is a rigorous, point-by-point analysis.

What the New Madrid Earthquakes Actually Were

Historical and Geological Facts

• They took place December 1811 through February 1812.
• The epicenters were located in the Missouri–Arkansas–Tennessee region.
• The magnitude estimates: M 7.0–7.5 (modern reevaluation suggests 7.0–7.4).
• The notable effects: Widespread ground shaking, Soil liquefaction, Ground fissures, “Sand blows,” Reversal of the Mississippi River in some locations, and regional destruction of structures (which were not many at that time).

What Was Missing, If These Events Are Linked to the Book of Mormon Descriptions? There were no historical, geological, or archaeological evidence of the New Madrid events that caused:

• Sinking cities
• Cities burning
• Total population annihilation
• Massive structural destruction of a million-person civilization
• An entire nation’s cities destroyed in a single day

Events that are recorded in 3 Nephi for the Nephites.

What the Book of Mormon Claims Took Place at Christ’s Death, as stated in 3 Nephi 8–10.

The following are the internal Book of Mormon descriptions of these events:

The Duration

• Three hours of intense destruction (3 Nephi 8:19).
• Three days of total darkness (3 Nephi 8:23).

The scale of Destruction, According to the Book of Mormon:

1. Cities burned (8:14)
2. Cities sunk into the sea (8:9)
3. Cities buried under mountains (8:10)
4. Highways broken (8:13)
5. Earth “carried up” (8:10)
6. Whole cities destroyed in a moment (9:3–12)

The Geographic Scale

This destruction was said to occur over the entire land inhabited by the Nephites and Lamanites—according to the Heartland model, more than half of the U.S. Midwest and Eastern United States.

The Death Toll

The Book of Mormon records Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) would have perished if the narrative were historical.

The Problem, if we are seeking to relate what happened in the Book of Mormon with what happened in New Madrid, is that no events of this scale ever took place in the New Madrid region.

Direct comparison: 3 Nephi vs. New Madrid

Again, nothing at this scale occurred in the New Madrid region.

The Conclusion: There is no meaningful geological parallel between the Book of Mormon earthquake and New Madrid. They are not related. This impeaches the claim that the Book of Mormon recorded these events, it did not.

The methodological problem: Retrofitting Past Historical Events to Fit Mormon Texts.

Your LDS interlocutor’s comparison commits a fallacy:

Retroactive pattern matching—finding something in history that sounds similar and asserting that it is evidence.

Heartland apologists often use:

• Correlations instead of causation
• General similarities in broad phenomena
• They Ignore quantitative mismatches
• They use anecdotal surface parallels rather than archaeological verification

This is the same technique used by:

• Ancient aliens theorists
• Lost-tribes of Israel theorists
• Pine Creek Indian “Egyptian writing” claims
• Diffusionist archaeology fringe theories

In historical scholarship, correlation without direct material support is not evidence.

Archaeological Implications (This Fact is Decisive)

If the Book of Mormon account were rooted in the Hopewell or Adena cultures, and if such destruction occurred at Christ’s death (~30–33 AD), archaeologists would find:

1. A continent-scale burn layer dating to that period
2. Massive burial fields created suddenly
3. The destruction of dozens of major cities
4. Soil reorganization, tsunamis, and massive debris layers
5. Abrupt termination of cultural continuity

What The Hopewell Timeline Actually Reveals:

• Time: 100 BC – 400 AD
• A gradual cultural shift
• No sudden continent-wide destruction layer around 30–33 AD
• No cities destroyed
• No mass-extinction event of 3rd-century AD Hopewell population

The Adena Timeline

• Time: 1000–200 BC
• These events ended centuries before the life of Christ
• Archaeology directly contradicts the claim.

These facts make it certain that the Book of Mormon descriptions ARE NOT, the Hopewell/Adena historical events. This, again, impeaches LDS apologetics that seek to confirm the Book of Mormon by archeology and historical events.

The Linguistic and Inscription Evidence (there is none)

The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites kept records in Hebrew/Egyptian, they were a writing, literate civilization, they were writing on plates, monuments, etc. There are no Hopewell or Adena inscriptions in Hebrew, Egyptian, or any writing system that has ever been discovered.

Compare this with the Bible:

• There are thousands of Hebrew inscriptions.
• There are archaeological layers corresponding to events described in the Bible.
• There is geographic confirmation of texts found in the Bible.
• There are extra-biblical records (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Roman) that confirm the biblical record.
• There is massive manuscript evidence that confirms the New Testament.
• There are 203 eyewitness statements in the 260 chapters of the New Testament.
• These facts are not present in the Book of Mormon texts. No one has ever confirmed any of the places, cities, people, or events found in the Book of Mormon. They are, in essence, fabricated and unconfirmed.

Why the LDS New Madrid Comparison Fails Historically

The historical 1811–1812 earthquakes are:

1. Well documented
2. Regional
3. Moderate by world standards
4. Not civilization-destroying
5. Not continent-shaping
6. Not city-sinking
7. Not mountain-forming
8. Not accompanied by three days of global darkness
9. Not destructive to millions

The Book of Mormon earthquake is:

1. Mythical in historical confirmation
2. Miraculous in scope
3. Comparable only to apocalyptic literature
4. Unsupported by any physical evidence
5. Impossible to map to the archaeological record

Once again; the Book of Mormon events asserted as confirmed by the New Madrid, historical events, are not the same. This refutes the idea that the things recorded by the Book of Mormon have a historical, archeological confirmation.

The Conclusion of the Matter

LDS apologists who attempt to use a superficial similarity (“earthquake destruction”) to validate the Book of Mormon as supported by the New Madrid quake, these attempts fail because:

• The details do not match
• The period does not match
• The archaeology does not match
• The timelines do not match
• The geography does not match
• The destruction narrative does not match
• The linguistic record does not match
• The Hopewell/Adena cultures do not show anything remotely comparable

This LDS Apologetic argument belongs to the category of apologetic parallelomania, not historical evidence. This is why no secular archaeologist, no Near Eastern scholar, and not even most LDS scholars accept the New Madrid comparison.

LDS Apologist

“The work of Wayne May proves the Book of Mormon” The assertions are the same as the previous examination:

1. The New Madrid earthquakes supposedly matching 3 Nephi’s destruction, and
2. The appeal to Wayne May’s research as authoritative support for the Heartland model.

My Answer:

This assertion is predicated upon the claim that 3 Nephi’s destruction matches the New Madrid earthquakes (1811–1812). The problem is that the 3 Nephi texts are not historically or geologically valid, because they do not match the historical events that took place during the New Madrid earthquakes, or the Heartland model.

The Book of Mormon Describes a Cataclysm on an Entirely different Scale

3 Nephi 8–10 describes:

1. Cities sinking into the sea (3 Nephi 8:14)
2. Cities burning with fire from heaven (3 Nephi 9:11)
3. Total darkness for three days without fire (3 Nephi 8:20–22)
4. A global-scale tempest ripping mountains apart (3 Nephi 8:10–13)
5. Whole cities buried under earth (3 Nephi 8:10–11)
6. Lakes and seas displaced (3 Nephi 8:10)

This is not even close to the New Madrid events.

What Took Place During the New Madrid Earthquakes

The New Madrid earthquakes of 1811–1812 were very powerful—estimated around magnitude 7.0–7.5—but the geological effects were:

• Some ground liquefaction
• Local subsidence and uplift
• Temporary river reversal of the Mississippi
• Formation of Reelfoot Lake

In Comparison to the Cataclysmic events described in 3 Nephi, these historical events that happened in 1811-1812, are completely different.

• No cities sank into the ocean
  No fire from heaven consumed cities
  No mountains were torn apart
  No total darkness for three days
  No destruction of millions of people
  No hemispheric devastation

Even LDS scholars acknowledge that nothing in North American geology matches the scope described in 3 Nephi.

The Chronology of These Events, Destroys the Argument

The Book of Mormon describes a destruction that happens around AD 34, while the New Madrid earthquakes occurred 1,777 years later. In fact, the events of Matthew 27:51 happened in 32 AD.

If the apologist’s claim is: “Because the New Madrid earthquakes were destructive, therefore 3 Nephi is plausible,” this claim commits a fallacy of false analogy:

• The New Madrid earthquakes do not match the Book of Mormon description.
• To the present day, no geologic layer in North America shows the kind of continent-wide destruction described in 3 Nephi dated to ~34 AD.

The Archaeological Record Contradiction

If the Hopewell were the Nephites/Lamanites then the Hopewell sites continue unchanged through the 1st century AD. No mass abandonment, ash layer, collapse event, or demographic catastrophe is visible in 34 AD strata. There was no evidence of millions killed in a single disaster.

The Archaeology that remains from this event does not reflect what 3 Nephi describes. This defines the New Madrid analogy as not evidence — it is an attempt to retrofit American geology into a BoM narrative without hard data.

Who Is Wayne May?

Wayne May is a Heartland model popularizer, not an archaeologist, geologist, Near Eastern historian, geneticist, or linguist. He holds no academic credentials in:

• Archaeology
• Anthropology
• Ancient Near Eastern studies
• Hebrew or Egyptian language
• Mesoamerican or North American prehistory
• Geological sciences

Wayne May is merely a publisher and lecturer, and his publications are not peer reviewed. This is highly relevant because historical claims require historical qualifications and validation.

What Mainstream Archaeology Says About Wayne May

Scholars—including those at BYU and the LDS Church’s own Department of Archaeology—reject his claims. BYU scholars have stated explicitly:

• The Heartland-model claims are unsupported
• There is no archaeological evidence for BoM civilizations in North America
• “Hebrew inscriptions” promoted by Heartland authors have been debunked as fakes or misinterpretations
• The Newark Decalogue Stone, Bat Creek Stone, Michigan Relics—all promoted by May—are forgeries
• Even LDS archaeologists (Sorenson, Clark, Gardner) have written extensively that North America does not match the Book of Mormon archaeological profile.

For these reasons Wayne May represents only a fringe position within LDS apologetics, not a scholarly position.

A Few Examples of the Wayne May Claims That Have Been Disproven

1. Bat Creek Stone – Promoted as “ancient Hebrew,” proven by the Smithsonian to be an 1800s forgery.
2. Michigan Relics – Archaeological community unanimously agrees they are forgeries.
3. Newark Holy Stones – Also established as 19th-century hoaxes.
4. “Altars” in North America – Misidentified earthworks, not Hebrew or Israelite altars.
5. Claims of Nephite armor – Actually 19th-century copper items or misinterpreted artifacts.
6. “Book of Mormon fortifications” – In reality, Adena/Hopewell earthworks unrelated to Israelite or Near Eastern populations.

Wayne May’s Conclusions Are Predicated Upon:

• Circular reasoning
• Hoax artifacts
• Misreadings of Native American cultures
• Cherry-picked data
• Misuse of DNA arguments
• Tracing modern tribes to Israelites without genetic basis

Why This Matters

LDS advocates like the Wayne May interlocutor because he supports the view that the Book of Mormon has historical support, when in fact, it does not. What Wayne May presents as evidence is:

• Non-scholarly
• Popular among Mormons
• Alleges conformity to the Heartland model, but it does not
• Reinforces LDS belief through sensational claims

In truth, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and geneticists do not support May’s work. It t is important to note that Mays work is not accepted by mainstream archaeology—or even by the majority of LDS scholars at BYU. Many of the artifacts he promotes (Bat Creek Stone, Michigan Relics, Newark stones) have been conclusively proven to be 19th-century forgeries.

Geologically, the destruction in 3 Nephi does not match the New Madrid earthquakes; nor is there archaeological evidence that the Hopewell or Adena peoples experienced continent-wide destruction in AD 34. Their settlements continue uninterrupted through that period.

Because I work with historical, forensic, and textual evidence in New Testament Apologetics, I am committed to facts that can be independently verified. At present, the claims made by Wayne May—and by the Heartland model more broadly—do not rise to that standard.

Historical Framework and Dating

Archaeological Evidence

Genetics and Migration

Catastrophism (The New Madrid Earthquake Argument)

Manuscript Evidence and Transmission

Wayne May: Position and Evaluation

Catastrophe Described in 3 Nephi vs. Earthquake Record

Evidential Apologetic v. BoM Heartland Claims

CONCLUSION

• The LDS apologist’s claims rely almost entirely on correlation-based arguments, not forensic, archaeological, or textual evidence.
• The Heartland model is rejected by every major archaeologist, and even many LDS scholars oppose it.
• Wayne May’s work is considered fringe even within Mormon apologetics.
• The “New Madrid quake resembles 3 Nephi” claim fails under even minimal geological scrutiny.
• My Apologetic evidential standard (manuscripts, archaeology, chronology, eyewitness data) disqualifies the Heartland model on every measurable category.

LDS Apologist:

“”What do you know about the Ojibwe records and stories that connect with what is written in the Book of Mormon?”

My Answer:

It is important to understand that there are two views:

1. What LDS Heartland proponents claim
2. What the historical, anthropological, and linguistic evidence actually shows

What Heartland-Model LDS Apologists Claim About the Ojibwe

Heartland-model apologists (Wayne May, Rod Meldrum, Jonathan Neville, etc.) often assert that certain Ojibwe (Chippewa/Anishinaabe) oral traditions and symbols provide support for the Book of Mormon narrative. Their claims generally fall into several categories:

The Ojibwe “Migration Legend” Parallels the Nephite Migration

Heartland proponents sometimes cite a version of the Anishinaabe Seven Fires Prophecy in which the people travel east until they reach “the place where food grows on the water” (wild rice regions). They then claim:

1. LDS Apologist say this migration resembles Lehi’s group crossing the ocean
2. LDS Apologists say these Ojibwe details align with Book of Mormon themes of divine guidance and covenant renewal
3. Some legends refer to “shining stones” or “sacred records,” which apologists connect to Nephite plates

The problem is that no scholarship supports these connections. These Ojibwe traditions pre-date contact with Europeans but have no Semitic, Hebrew, or Israelite features.

LDS Apologists Claim that Some Ojibwe words sound like Hebrew

Heartland writers sometimes promote lists such as “Ojibwe–Hebrew cognates.” Examples include superficial similarities like:**

• manidoo (spirit) ≈ manitou ≈ supposed “manitou = Hebrew manitouh”
• Ishpeming (high place) ≈ Hebrew ish (man)

The Linguistic reality:

• Ojibwe is an Algonquian language
• Hebrew is a Semitic language
• There is zero linguistic relationship between these families
• The alleged cognates are coincidental phonetic resemblances

No linguist has ever identified genuine Ojibwe with Hebrew cognates.

LDS Apologist Claims of Ojibwe Wampum Belts Representing Sacred Nephite Records

Certain Heartland sources assert that:

1. Wampum belts are the same as Nephite “records on plates”
2. Purple and white shell-bead patterns encode stories similar to Book of Mormon themes
3. The “White Roots of Peace” (Iroquois Confederacy symbol) corresponds to Lehi’s tree of life

The Historical Facts:

• Wampum belts are indigenous inventions with no Old World antecedent
• Their symbolism is Native and not Near-Eastern
• The Tree of Peace has no conceptual relationship to Lehi’s dream
• Their chronology and distribution post-date the Book of Mormon timeline by a millennium

LDS Apologists Claim that the Ojibwe Have Stories of a Great White Prophet or Ancient Visitors

Some LDS apologists argue that:

Stories of a “prophet” or “teacher” among various Native nations or legends of “white visitors” correspond to Nephites, Mulekites, or resurrected Jesus visiting America

The Factual Reality:

• These legends are frequently cited from late 19th-century Mormon secondary sources
• Scholars have shown they emerged after contact with missionaries
• These legends were shaped by Christian influence, not ancient memory
• There are no pre-contact Ojibwe sources mention a resurrected deity visiting America

What the Actual Anthropological Evidence Proves

The Proven Origin of the Ojibwe

Modern archaeology, linguistics, and genetics consistently demonstrate:

1. Ojibwe ancestors originated in the Northern Woodlands
2. They are genetically linked to other Algonquian peoples
3. They migrated from the Atlantic coast inland, not from the Middle East

There is zero evidence of a Semitic or Israelite migration into Ojibwe ancestry.

There are no Written Records by the Ojibwe that are Comparable to Nephite Plates

The Ojibwe did not:

• Use metal record-plates
• Use Hebrew or Egyptian scripts
• Produce long written records prior to European contact

The written systems (pictographs, birch-bark scrolls) are indigenous and non-alphabetic.

The Religious System of the Ojibwe are Indigenous, not Abrahamic

The Midewiwin (Grand Medicine Society):

1. Is a fully indigenous ceremonial tradition
2. Contains no Israelite covenant motifs
3. Has no parallels to Nephite priesthood, temples, or Hebrew theology
4. Does not reference a Messiah, Redeemer, or Jerusalem

There Is No Archaeological Connection Between the Mormon Tests and the Ojibwe

The Book of Mormon requires:

• Major cities with Hebrew cultural influence
• Metal-plate records
• Hebrew inscriptions
• Pre-Classic Near Eastern domesticated animals
• Old World metallurgy (steel, iron, wheeled chariots)
• Battlefields with 100,000+ dead
• Sudden, catastrophic destruction around 34 AD

None of these facts appears in Ojibwe archaeology.

What Leading Native and Non-LDS Scholars Say

Anthropologists (e.g., Hallowell, Densmore, Warren, Benton-Banai) universally affirm:

1. Ojibwe legends are indigenous
2. There were no Ojibwe migration or oral tradition originates in the Near East
3. There were no Jewish, Semitic, or Christian symbols appear until post-contact
4. LDS claims of Ojibwe–Book of Mormon overlap are syncretic interpretations introduced by missionaries, not true parallels
5. Even LDS scholars from the Maxwell Institute reject Heartland/Ojibwe correlations as unsupported.

Summary Chart

The Final Word

There are no Ojibwe records, artifacts, oral traditions, or linguistic features that provide historical support for the Book of Mormon.

The only “connections” come from:

• Selective reinterpretation
• Post-contact syncretism
• Misunderstood tribal legends
• Superficial linguistic resemblances
• Non-academic LDS literature

From a historical-forensic standard — the standard I use in New Testament Apologetics — the evidence weighs overwhelmingly against the Ojibwe having any connection to a Nephite or Jaredite civilization.

A Side-by-side comparison: Ojibwe traditions vs. Book of Mormon theology

The Issue is the Ojibwe/Anishinaabe religion and stories (especially Seven Fires, Midewiwin, etc.), not modern Christianized Ojibwe. For the Book of Mormon, we are using the internal theology and official LDS summaries.

Overview 

Regarding the foundational theological structure, Ojibwe religion and Book of Mormon theology are fundamentally different:

1. A polycentric spirit-world vs. biblical-Israelite monotheism;
2. No native concept of a once-for-all Messiah’s atonement vs. atonement-centered soteriology;
3. Different afterlife, different concept of sin, different covenant identity, and different historical frame.

From a historical-theological standpoint, Ojibwe traditions are not naturally what we would expect from a people who are literally Israelite Christians whose ancestors had the Nephite record, then somehow lost the Book of Mormon and reverted to an animistic, manitou-centered system.

Why the Ojibwe Cannot Be Nephite Descendants

The LDS premise is fundamentally echoing the Heartland model plus recent “Ojibwe = Lamanite/Nephite remnant” conferences and videos. youtube.com+3Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board+3bookofmormonheartland.com+3

The question is: does the known historical and archaeological timeline for the Ojibwe fit the Book of Mormon’s Nephite–Lamanite story? Here’s a chronological comparison.

The Key Book of Mormon Dates (standard LDS framework)

Jaredites (Ether): Leave Tower of Babel area, arrive in the Americas about 2200 BC, flourish until about 600 BC, when internal wars wipe them out. courses.byui.edu+1

Nephites/Lamanites (main BoM narrative):

• Lehi’s family leaves Jerusalem c. 600 BC. thechurchnews.com+1
• Nephite history continues for nearly 1000 years.
• Final great battle at Cumorah and effective destruction of Nephite nation about AD 385; Mormon hides records in hill Cumorah. The Church of Jesus Christ+1
• Moroni adds final material and seals plates around AD 421. PBS+2Wikipedia+2

These fact prove that Nephite civilization are not (as a distinct covenant people) is 600 BC – AD 385/421, in LDS timelines.

Key Ojibwe / Anishinaabe dates

Points To Remember:

• There is a deep-time presence of people in the Great Lakes,
• There is the Anishinaabe / Algonquian linguistic history,
• There are the Ojibwe as a distinct ethnonym and culture,
• The Seven Fires prophecy and recorded migration stories.

The Great Lakes peopling

• The Great Lakes basin was inhabited by Native peoples for ~10,000 years (since after the last Ice Age), with complex hunting/fishing communities and early copper use by ~4000 BC. Project Geo+1
• These are ancestors of many later tribes, not one were of “Nephite” or “Lamanite” ethnicity.

The Algonquian Language Family

Ojibwe is a Central Algonquian language; all Algonquian languages descend from Proto-Algonquian, spoken roughly 2,500–3,000 years ago (c. 500 BC–500 BC/AD), somewhere in northeastern North America. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2

If Nephites were Hebrew/Egyptian-writing Israelites arriving c. 600 BC, you would expect some trace of a Semitic language family or script. Instead, Ojibwe language is fully Algonquian, with no demonstrable Semitic substrate.

Ojibwe Ethnogenesis

Scholarly work like Ojibwe Ethnogenesis, 1640–1740 describes the formation of the Ojibwe as a recognizable people during the 17th–18th centuries, as groups in the Great Lakes region responded to the fur trade, European contact, and political realignments. It traces roots back several centuries further, but highlights that “Ojibwe” as a distinct, emergent identity is clearly documented from about AD 1600+. University of Nebraska Press+2JSTOR+2

That does not mean the ancestors “appeared” from nowhere in 1600; rather, it means that the Ojibwe as such coalesce long after the Book of Mormon period ends (AD 421).

The Seven Fires Prophecy and Migration

• The Seven Fires prophecy is an Anishinaabe tradition about seven prophetic eras; it is closely linked to the Anishinaabe migration story from the Atlantic coast inland to the Great Lakes. Wikipedia+1
• Many Ojibwe tellings say these prophecies and the great westward migration were given about 500 years before 1492, i.e., around AD 1000. PBS Wisconsin+1
• The migration passes through Montreal, Niagara, Detroit/Lake St. Clair, Manitoulin Island, Sault Ste. Marie, and then around Lake Superior, seeking the place “where food grows on the water” (wild rice). Wikipedia+1

The major Anishinaabe/Ojibwe self-described migration west into the Great Lakes is ~AD 1000 and after—over 500 years after the Nephite nation is destroyed (AD 385/421).

Timeline table

The Final Analysis Regarding the Ojibwe–Nephite Claim: The Same People

The Chronology

1. Nephite history ends by AD 421.
2. The Anishinaabe Seven Fires–migration tradition that apologists like to cite is centered around AD 1000, centuries later.
3. The Ojibwe as a distinct ethnonym and documented people are clearly visible only from AD 1600+.

Language and Culture

Ojibwe language is thoroughly Algonquian, with no detected Semitic/Hebrew base. Wikipedia+1

Ojibwe traditional religion is animistic, manitou-centered, with multiple souls, spirit-animals, and a different afterlife structure—not what you would expect from a people whose ancestors had detailed Israelite-Christian scriptures and a 1st-century appearance of the resurrected Christ.

Scriptural and LDS-Difficulties

The Book of Mormon’s own narrative portrays the Nephite nation as destroyed and their writings deliberately hidden, not as a people who will later show up with a heavily transformed, manitou-centered religion and Algonquian language.

Official LDS essays now stress that “Lamanite” and “Nephite” labels became cultural-religious designations and that the Church has no official position on which modern tribes are literal Nephite descendants. The Church of Jesus Christ+2Facebook+2

So when an LDS Apologist says, “The Ojibwe records and stories connect with what is written in the Book of Mormon,” what is actually happening is:

They are drawing analogies (prophetic migration, sacred records, covenant identity) between Anishinaabe traditions and Book of Mormon themes, But those analogies are late, selective, and usually theological, not hard historical/linguistic evidence, And when put into a careful timeline, the Ojibwe cannot plausibly be straightforward physical descendants of the Nephite nation described in the Book of Mormon in any historically demonstrable way.

Categories: Robert Clifton Robinson