Easy URL for this page:
MormonEvidence.com.

MormonProof.com also works, but "proof" is the wrong word to use.

Book of Mormon Evidences discusses some of the factors that suggest the Book of Mormon may be an ancient document. Contrary to the claims of our critics, there are impressive findings that make it difficult to explain away the Book of Mormon as a nineteenth-century fraud from Joseph Smith. Such evidence is not "proof" but represents indications of plausibility that demand further attention. This page presents a sampling of such evidence, further supplemented by my collection of Book of Mormon Nuggets. It is maintained by Jeff Lindsay, a Book of Mormon aficionado, who takes full responsibility for the statements and opinions offered on this page. This page is neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see the official LDS Web Site).

Search WWW Search jefflindsay.com

Index to the Book of Mormon Evidences Page:

• Recent News
• Introduction
• Bountiful and Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula (this may be the most powerful evidence for authenticity yet!)
• The Valley of Lemuel: Another "Blunder" Becomes Evidence FOR the Book of Mormon
• Writing on Metal Plates
• The Buried Plates: Evidence of Authenticity
• Genes Linking Eurasians and Native Americans
• Writing in Reformed Egyptian?
• Mulek, Son of King Zedekiah?
• The Use of Cement in Ancient America
• Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon
• Olive Culture
• Wars in Winter?
• Mesoamerican Fortifications
• Numerous Hebraic Language Structures
• Names in the Book of Mormon
• "The Land of Jerusalem"--a fatal blunder??
• The Great Catastrophe: Volcanism in Book of Mormon Lands
• Gardens, Towers, and Multiple Markets
• Mesoamerican Temples
• Laban's Treasury
• The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Writings
• More from Mesoamerica...
• Weights and Measures in the Book of Mormon
• Book of Mormon Nuggets - index to a group of separate pages
• Excellent Publications to Consider
• Related Web Pages by Others
• Related Pages by J. Lindsay

Much more to come...

Recent News:

Pre-Columbian Chickens in the Americas

Critics have scoffed at a reference to chickens in the Book of Mormon, even though the text does not state that the birds were in the Americas. (See my discussion about chickens on my LDSFAQ page about plants and animals in the Book of Mormon.) But now there might be even less reason for people to get their feathers ruffled with the recent discovery of pre-Columbian chicken bones in South America. They probably came from Polynesia, based on DNA analysis. While this is not directly relevant to the Book of Mormon, it does point to the growing body of evidence for pre-Columbian transoceanic contact between the Americas and others.

Finding Ore Near Bountiful

In the article, "Geologists Discover Iron Ore in the Region of Nephi's Bountiful," geology professor Ron Harris of BYU describes the fascinating confirmation of a very specific Book of Mormon declaration about the presence of iron ore near the place Bountiful on the western shore of the Arabian Peninsula. I had heard that iron ore had been found in the region of the Bountiful candidates, but in my geological ignorance I thought that this was not an especially unusual or impressive find. Isn't iron present just about everywhere? Yes, but not actual iron ore, which is rare in Arabia. Even rarer is iron ore that can be processed using a wood-fired furnace (higher temperatures are required for many ores). There are very few places in the Arabian Peninsula that provide suitable iron ore, and one of them was just recently discovered near what appears to be the site of Nephi's Bountiful. It's another impressive confirmation of a very specific "prediction" made in the Book of Mormon.

Arabian Peninsula Photos Available

The photographic work of Maurine and Scot Proctor on Wadi Sayq, a possible location for Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula, is now reported in the article, Where Did Nephi Build the Ship?" from Meridian Magazine, Sept. 30, 2000. You can also see photos from videos about the Book of Mormon and the Arabian Peninsula at The Nephi Project. (For a general discussion of some of the exciting Arabian Peninsula evidences for the Book of Mormon, see my discussion below. Also see Cooper Johnson's article, "Arabia and The Book of Mormon" at FAIRLDS.org, a review of a presentation by S. Kent Brown.) Many details are given below.

Introduction

I assume that you are already familiar with what the Book of Mormon is. If not, please see my Introduction to Book of Mormon.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convince the world that Jesus is the Christ, our Lord and Redeemer. It was written by prophets anciently, preserved, and translated in our era by the power of God as a tool to bring souls to Christ. Intellectual evidence of Book of Mormon authenticity is an issue worthy of careful consideration. However, intellectual evidences on their own do not change lives and bring souls to Christ--that requires a spiritual witness through the power of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, intellectual evidences can be valuable in opening minds and strengthening one's spiritual testimony of the truth. I am greatly impressed with the evidence of Book of Mormon authenticity, especially factors that seemed like laughable mistakes in 1830 that now have become powerful witnesses that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be -- an authentic ancient document that Joseph Smith DID NOT write. He translated it through the power of God.

Bountiful and Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula

This section is based largely on the book In the Footsteps of Lehi by Warren P. Aston and Michaela K. Aston (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Comp., 1994). Also see the article, "The Arabian Bountiful Discovered? Evidence for Nephi's Bountiful" by Warren P. Aston, and see Chapter 13 of Reexploring the Book of Mormon, as cited above.

2006-2008 Updates: The Debate Around Arabian Locations. Valuable information on the plausibility of Nephi's journey through Arabia is provided in the new book by George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, Inc., 2003), which is a highly significant work, even if some of the specific sites identified end up being surpassed by other candidates. Yes, there is a healthy debate going on over which sites are the most likely sites for several scene in the Book of Mormon. As part of the healthy quest for understanding among LDS thinkers, there have been criticisms offered against some of the proposed sites identified by Potter and Wellington. The contrarian side is found in "The Wrong Place for Lehi’s Trail and the Valley of Lemuel" by Jeffrey R. Chadwick (FARMS Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2005). Potter and Wellington remain in the strong position of having done actual fieldwork in Arabia, and Chadwick's proposed candidate for the Valley of Lemuel seems problematic in comparison, being a dry, barren valley without the river of water Potter and Wellington have found. But he does score some important points. Further clarity came when Kent Brown reviewed candidates for the Valley of Lemuel. Wadi Tayyib al-Ism proposed by George Potter based on his field work stands as the most plausible candidate.

Modern critics with far more education and knowledge of the Arabian Peninsula than Joseph Smith ever had have scoffed at the Book of Mormon's description of the impressive Valley of Lemuel with its "river, continually running" into the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:9-10). "Everyone knows" that there are no such rivers - yet a highly plausible candidate for exactly such a place exists. (The story repeats itself with the place Bountiful - mockery at the preposterous, uneducated fabrication of Joseph Smith, followed by relative silence in the face of impressive evidence that such a place may be plausible after all.) Now if the Book of Mormon were completely fabricated based on what Joseph could glean about the world from upstate New York in the late 1820s, would we now have the luxury of discussing which actual wadi in Arabia best matches the textual details for the Valley of Lemuel and the River Laman? Or would we be discussing the impressive merits of one candidate for Bountiful versus another, as we see below, when "everyone knows" (until recently!) that no such place could possibly exist? It should give one pause, at least.

Overview: The Book of Mormon describes an ancient journey through the Arabian peninsula with plausible details such as directions, a verified ancient place name, geographical details, and the description of an unexpected place called Bountiful that now also appears to be verified. These details could not have been fabricated based on what was known in 1830--an even modern "general knowledge" of the Arabian peninsula would not allow a typical educated adult to provide the confirmed details in the Book of Mormon. The only plausible explanation for this is that the author of First Nephi, the book containing the account of the ancient Arabian trek, actually made that trek. The most logical candidate for authorship of First Nephi is Nephi, not Joseph Smith.

The Book of Mormon begins in a well-known location, Jerusalem, in 600 B.C. The book of First Nephi, the first book in the volume, describes the actions of Lehi and his family in leaving Jerusalem before its destruction, following the counsel of the Lord, and wandering through the wilderness for several years before embarking on a transoceanic voyage to somewhere in or near Central America. Several hints are found in the text that provide information about the journey through the Arabian Peninsula--information which proves to provide powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Following the exodus of Lehi and his group from Jerusalem, they passed near the Red Sea, traveled "south-southeast" (1 Nephi 16:13), roughly parallel to the Red Sea or near its borders (1 Nephi 2:5, 1 Nephi 16:14), until they reached Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34), where Ishmael was buried. (Ishmael was the father of a family that fled Jerusalem with Lehi's family, whose daughters became wives to Lehi's sons.) There was considerable mourning at Nahom. After a while, they traveled eastward (1 Nephi 17:1) until they reached a place they called Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:5) on the coast of the Arabian peninsula, described as rich, green garden spot with trees, abundant fruit, water, honey, and a mountain. At this wonderful site they stayed at least long enough to construct a ship from the abundant timber. Metal obtained from ore was also used to make tools.

The description of Lehi's journey through the desert has been attacked in anti-Mormon literature. Finding a garden spot on the coast of the Arabian peninsula was laughable and was laughed at in the 1800s, because nobody knew of a place that could come anywhere close to being a candidate for Lehi's Bountiful. Indeed, recent anti-Mormon books continue to mock the possibility of a place like Bountiful existing. "The Arabian desert does not have luscious garden spots: Joseph Smith blew it. Case closed." Today we are in a much better position to assess Lehi's journey. It comes as no surprise to me that the journey described in the Book of Mormon now has substantial support behind it.

No garden spots in the Arabian Peninsula? Enjoy these scenes from the coast of Oman, used with kind permission from the official site for the Ministry of Information of the Sultanate of Oman, Magneto (that's right: it's dot "om", not "com"). The original, larger photos are in their beautiful photogallery. To access it, go to their site and click on "gallery" and then "tourism," and then click through their photos. Amazing views! Also see the photogallery at ExploreOman.com, and my post on Oman photos at my blog, Mormanity.
After rain in Dhofar, near a candidate site for Bountiful (Wadi Sayq). Note the trees.	A view in Salalah, another candidate region for Bountiful in Oman.

First, an analysis of the ways of the desert Arabs shows remarkable consistency with the actions taken by Lehi's group and with the language and metaphors used by Lehi as he spoke to his family while traveling in the desert (well covered in Hugh Nibley's Lehi in the Desert). His general path along the Red Sea also follows what are now known to correspond with the ancient frankincense trails in Arabia, which were major trade routes. (See an online map at Latter-day.com of the proposed route, or a group of maps at NephiProject.com.) And, as discussed elsewhere on this page, an excellent candidate location has been found for the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman--so excellent and amazing, that critics will be ignoring this issue for years to come.

But thanks to the explorations of the Astons in Yemen and Oman, and more recently the work of George Potter (the force behind the Nephi Project--see www.nephiproject.com), we now know much more. As the Astons show in their book, the many details of Lehi's journey in the Book of Mormon can be given solid plausibility based on modern discoveries. For example, the Astons show that there is indeed an ancient site called Nehem that is south-southeast of Jerusalem which was on the frankincense trail and has an ancient tradition of being a place for burial and mourning. Ancient tombs are still abundant in that area. The name Nehem/Nahom ("nhm"--which can also be rendered "Nihm") is a rare place name--with the only known site in the Arabian peninsula being at a place consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Along with detailed documentation and references, the Astons' book includes a photograph of the 1976 Royal Geographical Society map--apparently from the University of Sana'a in Yemen--showing Nehem as a significant burial site in the right place to agree with the Book of Mormon description of Nahom. The existence of this site was not known to LDS scholars until a few years ago and certainly could not have been known to Joseph Smith. (By the way, the Semitic name Nahom can refer to mourning and consolation, and may also refer to groaning and complaining, giving it special significance in Nephi's account. See 1 Nephi 16:35.)

Some critics have argued that references to Nahom/Nehem/Nihm in writing could be traced no earlier than about 900 A.D., not to 600 B.C. That argument lost it basis with a recent discovery of an artifact dating to the sixth or seventh century B.C. bearing the tribal name of "Nihm." S. Kent Brown describes the find (note that I have simply left out several Semitic markings in the names below that I cannot type with ANSI characters):

"A German archaeological team under the leadership of Burkard Vogt has been excavating the Baran temple in Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom that lies about 70 miles due east of modern Sana, the capital of Yemen. (It is likely that the queen of Sheba began her journey to visit King Solomon from Marib.) Among the artifacts uncovered at the temple, the excavators turned up an inscribed altar that they date to the seventh or sixth centuries B.C., generally the time of Lehi and his family. A certain "Biathar, son of Sawad, son of Nawan, the Nihmite" donated the altar to the temple. the altar has been part of a traveling exhibit of artifacts from ancient Yemen...."

(S. Kent Brown, "'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999, pp. 66-68; also see "Nahom and the 'Eastward' Turn" at FARMS.)

Thus, there is ancient evidence referring to the tribe of Nihm, a member of which was wealthy enough to donate an altar to a temple. The reference cited above shows a picture of the finely carved, beautiful altar. The reference to the tribe of Nihm doesn't prove the existence of a place by the same name. But as S. Kent Brown puts it, "it is reasonable to surmise that the tribe gave its name to the region where it dwelt, evidently a few dozen miles north of modern Sana, in the highlands that rise to the north of Wadi Jawf. Was it this name that Nephi rendered Nahom in the record? Very probably." (ibid.)

As one travels south-southeast of Jerusalem along the major trunk of the ancient Arabian trade route, the route branches east toward the southeastern coast at only point: in the Jawf valley (Wadi Jawf) just a few miles from Nehem. From thence the eastern branch of the trade route goes toward the ancient port of Qana--modern Bir Ali--on the Hadhramaut coast, where most of the incense was shipped. This eastern branch was the major route--the pathways to the south were less used.

Now if Nehem is the Book of Mormon site Nahom, then is there a Bountiful to the east of it on the coast? Amazingly, we have the luxury of two excellent candidate sites that are roughly due east of Nehem on the Oman coast. The Astons propose Wadi Sayq as the best candidate for Bountiful, and it impressively fits the criteria that one can derive from the Book of Mormon. It is a most unusual seashore site which appears to meets virtually every criterion for the site Bountiful in the Book of Mormon. George Potter and Timothy Sedor in their new video, "Following the Words of Nephi: The Land Bountiful," propose the area of Salalah and the nearby ancient port of Khor Rori as the general site for Bountiful (to order the video, see George Potter's site, www.nephiproject.com). It meets many of the criteria that Wadi Sayq does, if we allow Bountiful to include a harbor two or three miles away from an area rich in tropical fruit (the port Khor Rori and the lush regions of Salalah aren't all within a stone's throw of each other, but are close enough).

The Astons make an impressive case and clearly show that the book of First Nephi could not have been fabricated by Joseph Smith. Their candidate site of Wadi Sayq appears to offer almost all that we could hope for in terms of marvelous, even stunning evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Their work is further supplemented by the photographic work of Maurine and Scot Proctor, reported in the article, "Where Did Nephi Build the Ship?" from Meridian Magazine, Sept. 30, 2000. The Proctors provide some additional details beyond the work of the Astons that show the plausibility of the Wadi Sayq location. The NephiProject.com site also provides a page of maps, including a map showing a proposed route for Lehi's trail with a candidate for the Valley of Lemuel, as well as Nahom/Nehem and an alternative good candidate for Bountiful not far from the one proposed by the Astons. (Also see "Where Did Nephi Build His Ship?" by Rex Jensen at Latter-day.com, discussing additional tentative evidence for Wadi Sayq as a candidate for the Bountiful site from which Nephi sailed.)

The proposal of George Potter seems rather convincing at first, but Wadi Sayq may still be the superior candidate (see the Mormanity blog post, "Warren Aston on the Superiority of Khor Kharfot as a Candidate for Bountiful," and see "Finding Nephi's Bountiful in the Real World" by Warren P. Aston, where he offers some arguments against the Khor Rori site). Based on the video, Salalah appears to offer much more in the way of fruit and timber than does Wadi Sayq, but this may be due to recent irrigation. Khor Rori does provide a good harbor with an ancient tradition of ship building, but there is no evidence that ship building skills were there anywhere close to Nephi's time. Wadi Sayq, on the other hand, offers an inlet that anciently may have been quite suitable for launching a ship. At Khor Rori, Potter argues that Nephi could have learned the art of ship building, could have learned how to outfit and operate a ship, could have learned how to train a crew, could have done practice runs in the harbor so his family could see that it was a good ship, could have used existing moorings and literally had his family do down into the ship, and so forth. But Wadi Sayq has all the elements of Nephi's story--the mountain, the trees, the place to build a ship--all close together.

Both Wadi Sayq and Khor Rori fit the description of being nearly due east of Nehem, as the Book of Mormon requires (1 Nephi 17:1). But the path to Wadi Sayq better fits Nephi's description of nearly due east from Nahom, while more zig-zags are needed to reach Khor Rori. Regarding the other Book of Mormon criteria for the place Bountiful, the Astons list the following, along with several others:

• The journey from Nahom must have provided reasonable access from the interior to the coast (not a trivial requirement given the difficult obstacles posed by mountains along much of the coast).
• Bountiful was on the coast, offering a place suitable for camping on the shore (1 Nephi 17:5,6) and for launching a ship (1 Nephi 18:8).
• It was very fertile, with much fruit and honey, possibly game (1 Nephi 17:5,6; 1 Nephi 18:6).
• Enough timber existed to build a durable ship (1 Nephi 18:1,2,6).
• Freshwater was available year-round to enable a prolonged stay.
• There was a nearby mountain that Nephi described as "the mount" (1 Nephi 17:7; 18:3).
• Cliffs were available from which Nephi's brothers could threaten to cast him into the sea (1 Nephi 17:48)
• Ore and flint were available (1 Nephi 17:9-11,16).
• The winds and ocean currents there could permit travel out into the ocean.

In the Aston's book, you'll see trees, greenery, mountains, cliffs, etc., that bring Bountiful to life. While there are two interesting candidates, I strongly favor Wadi Sayq. Warren Aston in e-mail from Oct. 2000 told me that those who have been to both sites agree that Wadi Sayq/Khor Kharfot is the superior location. But the very fact that anything remotely close to a plausible candidate exists is in stark contrast to the oft-repeated claims of critics of the Book of Mormon. Critics, how can you explain this?

Incidentally, the recent discovery of iron ore suitable for tool making using wood-fired furnaces in the region of Bountiful is a far more impressive find than one might realize, for there are very few places in the Arabian Peninsula that have such ore, according to geology professor Ron Harris in his fascinating article, "Geologists Discover Iron Ore in the Region of Nephi's Bountiful" in Meridian Magazine at LDSmag.com.His article discusses the significance of the find and confirms that the iron ore near the area can be converted to workable metal using wood-fired technology.

Here is a brief quote from the Astons' book, page 29:

"By describing in such precise detail a fertile Arabian coastal location, as well as the route to get there from Jerusalem (complete with directions and even a place-name en route), Joseph Smith put his prophetic credibility very much on the line. Could this young, untraveled farmer in rural New York somehow have known about a fertile site on the coast of Arabia? Could a map or some writing other than the Nephite record have been a source for him? The answer is a clear no. Long after the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon, maps of Arabia continued to show the eastern coastline and interior as unknown, unexplored territory. In fact, until the advent of satellite mapping in recent decades, even quite modern maps have misplaced toponyms and ignored or distorted major features of the terrain."

It is true that the name "Nehhem" or "Nehem" appear on a couple of maps of Arabia produced in Europe before the Book of Mormon was published (see In the Footsteps of Lehi, pp. 14-17). Danish explorer Carsten Niebuhr prepared a map in 1763 and published a book in 1792, that was translated into English and published in England, dealing with the Arabian Peninsula (his book is available online). You can see Niebuhr's map and other old maps of Arabia at Mapping Arabia. (Click on "view slideshow" to see various maps, and then go to the 13th thumbnail for Niebuhr's map, where you can zoom in to see the details. Note that it would have been essentially useless to someone trying to fabricate the Book of Mormon - there is no hint that any of the limited information on that map made it into the Book of Mormon.) Also of interest is a French map produced by Rigobert Bonne around 1780, which shows "Nehem" on the map. There is no evidence that these maps were in any way accessible to Joseph Smith. Even if he did gain access to them and to all the writings available on Arabia, the sketchy information would not have enabled anyone to fabricate the details of Nephi's accurate description of travel through the Peninsula and the discovery of Bountiful. For example, it appears that none of the sources that Western scholars might have used in Joseph Smith's day would have informed them about the plausibility of a due east turn at Nahom to reach the place Bountiful (see S. Kent Brown's article. Say, here's a fun challenge: give all the maps at the Mapping Arabia site to a friend and ask him or her to construct a plausible path from Jerusalem to a fruitful place on the ocean for an ancient group of travelers. See what they can come up with, and compare it to reality and the Book of Mormon.

The Arabian peninsula evidence for Book of Mormon authenticity is fascinating, though many will still dismiss it. If I asked you to write about a journey across Tasmania or through Bhutan or some other place about which you knew little, could you possibly describe a journey and its course in a way that would gain credibility with time? Is there any chance that you could even describe a reasonable general direction to travel? Could you pick a route that would later comply with routes used by others in the area? Could you name a site and over a century later have others find a map with a similar name at that place? Could you describe an unusual place that seems entirely out of line with what little you and others knew about the area, only to have others later discover an excellent candidate for that location in a place entirely consistent with the course you describe? To me, this is one of literally hundreds of "mundane" confirmations of the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document.

The only logical explanation for the account of Lehi's journey is that it was written by people who traveled through the Arabian peninsula, and that means Joseph Smith did not write it. We are talking about a real ancient document that speaks to us from the dust (Isaiah 29) and confirms that Jesus is the Christ.

I highly recommend the Astons' book. Its detailed treatment, the extensive documentation, the careful consideration of numerous issues, including ocean currents for the ocean voyage eastward, for example, and the personal description of the Astons' adventures make this an outstanding resource and a truly enjoyable book to read. And most of the information is relevant even if Wadi Sayq is not the actual Bountiful of Nephi.

I have asked many critics of the Book of Mormon to explain how Joseph Smith could have fabricated something so "laughable" yet so amazingly accurate as the place Bountiful and the burial place Nahom. No one so far has attempted a serious explanation. Recently, though, the Tanners have attempted to undermine the Astons' work by suggesting that Mormon scholars are contradicting themselves (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Answering Mormon Scholars, Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1996, reviewed by Matthew Roper in "Unanswered Mormon Scholars," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, pp. 87-145; for more information on the amazingly weak response of the "best" anti-Mormons to the Arabian Peninsula evidence of authenticity, see Scott Pierson's page on the Tanners' response--which also features a useful map and other supporting information). Citing the earlier and now outdated work of the Hiltons, who proposed an alternative site for Nahom before the exciting discoveries of Nehem and Wadi Sayq, the Tanners make much of the Hiltons having proposed a different place than the site Nehem. Since the two sites are 350 miles away, we are supposed to shake our heads and dismiss both due to the apparent contradiction (p. 181). Such arguments are utterly irrelevant, for the earlier tentative work of the Hiltons has been entirely superseded by more recent discoveries.

Amazingly, the Tanners go on to suggest that the ancient burial site Nehem or Nehhm, as one source misspells it, is an utterly unacceptable candidate for Nahom, since "only three of the five letters in Nehhm agree with the spelling Nahom. The second letter in Nehhm is e rather than a, and the fourth letter is h instead of o. The variant spellings of Nehem, Nehm, Nihm, Nahm, and Naham do not really help to solve the problem" (p. 183). But surely the Tanners know the deceitfulness of their argument. Surely they have encountered enough basic Biblical (and LDS) commentary to know that it is the consonants and not the vowels that carry the meaning in Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Arabic. If nothing else, surely the Tanners have read that Jehovah in Hebrew is really YHWH, at which point typical commentaries explain the fluidity of vowels and the primacy of consonants in written Hebrew. The crucial fact is that the root of Nehhm/Nehem/Nahom is NHM, and that this word can be spelled in a variety of ways and may even be pronounced in a variety of ways, yet still has the same root meaning (mourning, murmuring, sorrow, etc.). To argue about differences in vowels, in the face of remarkable evidence of congruence of Nahom and Nehem (= NHM, an extremely rare place name), seems rather silly. (For related information, see "On NAHOM/NHM" by S. Kent Brown; see also "'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen" and "Nahom and the 'Eastward' Turn" at FARMS.)

The Tanners try to explain away the correctness of the routes described in the Book of Mormon by suggesting that some books in the 1830s did speak of a fertile region in southern Arabia. That argument can't even come close to explaining the direct hit on Nahom, which is not mentioned in any known sources available in 1830. The sources the Tanners refer to, the works of Jedidiah Morse, speak of Arabia Felix, a fruitful place, on the eastern shore of the Red Sea, in the southwestern part of the Arabian peninsula. Morse indicates that the rest of the Arabian peninsula was barren. Even if Joseph Smith had access to his works (anti-Mormon critics are retroactively creating an ever growing library for the farm boy Joseph!), that would do nothing to explain how Joseph Smith could successfully locate Bountiful on the southeastern shore of the Arabian peninsula, far away from the Red Sea. Nahom, near the southwestern part of the peninsula, was far from a Bountiful-like place, but was a place of sorrow and mourning and severe hunger (1 Nephi 16:39).

S. Kent Brown provides information about what was available from ancient writers about Arabia and the incense trail in his article, "New Light from Arabia on Lehi's Trail" in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. D.W. Parry, D.C. Peterson, and J.W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), pp. 55-125, with pages 69-76 and 118-119 being especially relevant. As of 1830, for example, neither the Manchester library nor the Dartmouth College library had any classical or contemporary works dealing in any detail with Arabia (ibid., p. 75). Even if Joseph had been a voracious bookworm with a huge library at hand, there is simply no way he could have generated the accurate details in the Book of Mormon based on what was available in print in the 1820s.

Brown's article also adds many other dimensions to our appreciation of the Book of Mormon, showing that the Dhofar region of southern Oman has the features described in 1 Nephi, including the honey mentioned in 1 Nephi 17:5.

If the Book of Mormon is to be explained away, it won't do to simply deal with the weakest evidences for authenticity and the incompletely answered questions. The strongest evidences must also be considered. I consider the "direct hits" in the Arabian Peninsula to be among the strongest intellectual evidences for authenticity, though many more continue to emerge. Theories that make the Book of Mormon to be a mere product of nineteenth century knowledge are immediately undermined by consideration of the Arabian Peninsula evidences (along with chiasmus, Hebraisms, metal plates and scriptorio, warfare in the Book of Mormon, and many other issues).

Some critics have charged that Joseph could have found a book describing the Arabian peninsula that also had a map with the name Nehem on it. There is absolutely no support for this concept. While obscure works had been published in Europe with a map showing Nehem, as far as we can tell it was not available anywhere near Joseph Smith in his day. A good discussion on this topic and other topics relating to Nahom is found on a message by S. Kent Brown posted Feb. 23, 2000 in the ZLMB discussion group at ezboard.com:

And even if a library nearby had such a book, we know that Joseph was not a bookworm, but was a poor farmboy largely engaged in manual labor prior to the Restoration. Of his family situation, Joseph said that "it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements" (D. C. Jessee, Editor, Papers of Joseph Smith [1989], vol. 1, p. 5). His mother also affirmed that he was "much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children" (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Mack Smith, edited by P. Nibley [1958], p. 82). I find it interesting that the critics charge that Joseph was so ignorant and uneducated that he would not know that the birthplace of Jesus Christ was Bethlehem, while on the other hand they claim that Joseph was so well versed in the books of the world and the Bible that he could plagiarize and integrate from many sources to create a fraud so clever that it can fool highly educated people to this day with such subtleties as chiasmus, the correct locations for Nahom and Bountiful, and many other aspects that demand respect. But the fact is, they still have no remotely plausible explanation for how Joseph could have fabricated First Nephi.

2006 Update on Lehi in the Wilderness by George Potter and Richard Wellington
George Potter and Richard Wellington's recent book, Lehi in the Wilderness (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, Inc., 2003) provides many interesting insights into Book of Mormon issues in the Arabian Peninsula, but it suffers from some flaws. The authors offer tantalizing finds, but in spite of their field work and abundant photographs and maps, they may have made some serious errors at the beginning of the path they identify. While their candidate for the Valley of Lemuel and the River Laman seem truly impressive, there is a good case that it is too far from the shores of the Red Sea and that the path required to reach it is implausible, as is discussed in the review, "The Wrong Place for Lehi’s Trail and the Valley of Lemuel" by Jeffrey R. Chadwick (FARMS Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2005). Chadwick proposes that Bir Marsha, a place easily accessed from the coast of the Red Sea and not distant from Potter's candidate, may be more suitable for the Valley of Lemuel, though there may be several other good choices. As for the River Laman, Chadwick believes that it only need have been a wadi flowing with water at the time of Lehi's sermon to his sons, and that it need not flow continuously. Lehi said that it ran continuously to the Red Sea, not that it flowed continuously, and this can be fulfilled by a path for a wadi that goes into the Red Sea, regardless of how often the path has flowing water.

Around the region of Nahom, the authors are on more solid ground. I am also intrigued with their discussion of the place Shazer that corresponds to a specific location along the ancient incense trails, as does Nahom. Numerous details of the journey described in the Book of Mormon are consistent with the terrain and the ways of ancient voyagers through the Arabian Peninsula. Potter and Wellington provide a wealth of information that adds insight to Lehi's travels and to the circumstances of his group at various stages of their long sojourn.

The authors then trace Lehi's probable path from Nahom eastward to the coast of Oman, and offer an interesting but possibly incorrect candidate for the place Bountiful (see " Warren Aston on the Superiority of Khor Kharfot as a Candidate for Bountiful). Here they depart from the much publicized Wadi Sayq as a candidate for Bountiful, preferring instead the region of Dhofar about 60 miles to the north, and specifically the port region of Khor Rori. Even if some parts of their analysis are wrong, the general information about the Arabian Peninsula strengthens the case for the plausibility of First Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Regardless of which of two good candidates is selected for Bountiful, there are many factors that support the hypothesis that the record in First Nephi is an authentic ancient Semitic record crafted by someone who actually made an ancient journey from Jerusalem to the eastern coast of Oman. In spite of some possibly serious errors, Potter and Wellington's book is a valuable contribution to understanding the Book of Mormon. The book is available at NephiProject.com. Also see my Book of Mormon Nugget, "The Place Shazer."

The Valley of Lemuel: Another "Blunder" Becomes Evidence FOR the Book of Mormon

2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness....
4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness....
5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.
6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.
7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.
8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.
9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!
10 And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!

An excellent candidate location for the River of Laman and the Valley of Lemuel has been found in an entirely plausible location. Photographic evidence and other documentation is provided in George D. Potter's article, "A New Candidate in Arabia for the Valley of Lemuel," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999, pp. 54-63. Potter reports that in looking for a well in Arabia, about 8 miles north of Maqna on the Gulf of Aqaba, he stumbled across a magnificent narrow canyon that ended in a palm-lined cove on the coast of the Red Sea. The canyon actually has a small stream that flows continually, throughout the entire year, and is surrounded by very tall mountain walls. This valley is known as Wadi Tayyib al-Ism ("Valley of the Good Name"). The article is available to FARMS members online, but to see the photos, you need to read the printed publication. (Call FARMS at 1-800-327-6715 to join or purchase materials.) Meanwhile, I've received permission from author George Potter to display two relevant photos that he kindly sent me:

George Potter's Photos from the Valley of Lemuel

The River Laman	The Valley Cove
A 35 minute video, Discovering the Valley of Lemuel, filmed entirely on location, can be ordered by sending a check for $24.50 to: The Nephi Project, PO Box 300, Bear River City, UT, 84301.

Other photos from the video on the Valley of Lemuel and other photos of interest from the Arabian Peninsula are shown in a photogallery at NephiProject.com. (While some of the findings reported in various videos at NephiProject.com may be somewhat speculative, I am particularly impressed with the work done regarding the Valley of Lemuel.)

To really understand the amazing strength of this evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, I highly recommend the video mentioned above. Further information on the video is provided at a new Web site, The Nephi Project, at www.nephiproject.com. It shows, for example, that following Nephi's directions almost inevitably would lead one to encounter the oasis and the spring that is the source of the "River Laman" at the beginning of the Valley of Lemuel, and that this is just where the Book of Mormon says it is. It is there--and no one in the Americas knew of it in Joseph Smith's day. Few experts know of it in this day. But it is there, an incredibly rare perennial stream in Arabia. After seeing the video, one can understand why Lehi would have been impressed with the setting and would have referred to the valley as a symbol of strength and firmness. The video also shows the grains, dates, and other edible plants available in the area, along with clear evidence that the stream flow all year round. The video also shows pottery fragments and remnants of possible altars dating to the first millennium B.C. that have been found there, adding to the plausibility of the Book of Mormon account. (The video is not highly professional, but presents the evidence clearly and is definitely worth owning.)

Could Potter's small stream, shallow and just a few feet wide, at most, qualify as a river? In the published article, Potter notes that there are several Hebrew words which could qualify as the "river" of 1 Nephi 2, most of which refer to any running stream. They could also refer to seasonal waterways, such as the "River of Egypt," which is Wadi El-Arish, a wadi that fills only after storms (see Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992, Vol. 2, p. 321, 378). Or it can refer to large rivers like the Euphrates. The small stream found by Potter keeps vegetation green and healthy even when there has been no rain for months. It flows continuously, in spite of being reduced in volume by pumping upstream for use at a coast guard post and by many motor-driven pumps in the area tapping into the aquifer that is the source of the spring. In fact, it appears that the stream once had much greater flow, for there is heavy erosion of the lower canyon walls and water-laid calcite deposits on the valley floor that can be as wide as 15 to 20 feet, much wider than the stream. The river currently descends into rocky rubble as it approaches the Red Sea. According to Dr. Wes Garner, a retired geologist from King Fahad University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia, movement of the continental plates has caused the canyon to rise significantly since Lehi's time--the rocky place where the stream disappears as it approaches the Red Sea was previously submerged. Lehi probably would have faced a larger river that visibly flowed into the Red Sea.

The shady canyon and the stream of fresh water, originating from a spring, would have provided welcome relief to the travelers and undoubtedly would have been a place where the voyagers would camp and recharge. They may have stayed here long enough to learn that the river really does flow continuously, though they may have inferred that based on the green vegetation supported by the river.

How about the location? The Book of Mormon text appears to say that Lehi and his family traveled for three days in the wilderness after the reached the Red Sea (after "he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea"). Is the candidate for the Valley of Lemuel in a reasonable location to match the text? Yes--it's 70 miles south of Aqaba--that's the land distance that must be traveled by foot (or by camel), not the distance along a straight line. That's a plausible but challenging distance on foot for three days travel, and a piece of cake by camel.

Potter provides photos, a map, and detailed directions on how to get there. More remains to be learned about this amazing site--but it must be regarded as another powerful and verifiable piece of evidence supporting the plausibility of the Book of Mormon. An anti-Mormon laughingstock has become one more piece of evidence for them to ignore. Meanwhile, skeptical anti-Mormons are encouraged to head off to Arabia as quickly as possible to see for themselves. (And, for a refreshing change of pace, be sure to try a little anti-Muslim evangelizing while there.) Others wishing more information are encouraged to purchase the video.

Most of the arguments against the Book of Mormon are arguments of silence. According to the critics, since something in the Book of Mormon has not (yet) been found, it must not exist, making the book false. But these arguments of silence have a tendency of crumbling before the voice of data. Modern ignorance about remote places and ancient peoples continues to erode, leaving the foundation of the Book of Mormon exposed as a solid fortress rising above the plains of doubt. Oh, yes--we're just in the infancy of knowledge here. Almost none of the likely candidates for Book of Mormon sites in Mesoamerica have been carefully excavated. Many more discoveries await us--be patient!

Writing on Metal Plates

2003 Update: Ancient book of gold plates discovered! See the BBN News article from May 26, 2003, "Unique Book Goes on Display." This volume of gold plates, bound with gold rings at the side as was the Book of Mormon plates, comes from the ancient Etruscans, who had origins in the Middle East (Turkey) and were wiped out by the Romans in the 4th century B.C. Also see the related story from May 23, 2003, "World's Only Etruscan Gold Book Added to Bulgaria's Archeology Treasures."

The Buried Plates: Evidence of Authenticity

Genes Linking Eurasians and Native Americans?

In my article, I point out that there are genes found in Native Americans that are also found in Jews, including mitochondrial DNA haplotype X (found among some Israelis and Europeans) and a Y chromosome haplotype called "1C". These genes can also be found in Asia, and so don't prove that people from the Middle East came to the Americas--but that possibility most certainly is NOT excluded by the DNA evidence. Other data may point more directly to Middle Eastern origins for some of the many genes in the Americas, including an analysis of ancient skulls from the Americas and HLA genes. But even without the discovery of such evidence or of the possibly relevant DNA haplotypes, a proper understanding of what the Book of Mormon actually says and what the scientific data actually say rapidly leads one to the conclusion that the DNA-based attacks on the Book of Mormon are without merit. The scientific data may challenge some popular misinterpretations of the Book of Mormon, but they do not challenge the text itself. For details, see "Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon?"

In spite of the popular "Asia only" paradigm for Native American origins, evidence for ancient transoceanic contact exists and the Bering Strait theory appears to be unable to explain the origins of all ancient Americans. I discuss transoceanic contact and the Bering Strait in my page on the Smithsonian Institution's 1996 Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon.

Writing in Reformed Egyptian?

"Mormonism has never explained how godly Jews [sic] of A.D. 400 allegedly knew Egyptian, nor why they would have written their sacred records entirely in the language of their pagan, idolatrous enemies" (p. 284). "How likely is it that the allegedly Jewish [sic] Nephites would have used the Egyptian language to write their sacred scriptures? Their strong antipathy to the Egyptians and their culture makes this difficult to accept. When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" (pp. 294-95). "[N]o such language [as reformed Egyptian] exists and Egyptologists declare this unequivocally" (p. 294).

[W]ho says that the Nephites wrote in Egyptian? That is certainly one possibility, but several scholars (e.g., Sidney Sperry, John Sorenson, and John Tvedtnes) suggest, rather, that the language of the Nephites was Hebrew, written in Egyptian characters. The practice of representing one language in a script commonly associated with another language is very common. Yiddish, for instance, which is basically a form of German, is routinely written in Hebrew characters. Swahili can be written in either Roman or Arabic scripts. Judeo-Arabic, as written for instance by Moses Maimonides, was medieval Hebrew written with Arabic letters. In fact, almost any textbook of colloquial Arabic or Chinese or Japanese aimed at Western learners will use the Latin alphabet to represent those languages. Language and script are essentially independent. Turkish, which used to be written in a modified Arabic script, has been written in Latin letters in the Republic of Turkey since the 1920s. However, in the areas of the old Soviet Union, it is now usually written in Cyrillic (Russian) characters. Likewise, perhaps the major difference between Hindi and Urdu may be the mere fact that the former uses a Devanagari writing system, while the latter uses a modified Arabo-Persian script. So this phenomenon of changing the script with which one writes a language is by no means unusual.

But we need not speak only in theoretical terms. We have, in fact, an ancient illustration that comes remarkably close to the Book of Mormon itself. Papyrus Amherst 63, a text from the second century B.C., seems to offer something very much like "reformed Egyptian." It is a papyrus scroll that contains Aramaic texts written in a demotic Egyptian script. (Aramaic is a language closely related to Hebrew. of the Old Testament book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, and it was the spoken language of Jesus and his apostles. Incidentally, however, a Christian form of the language, Syriac, came to use an alphabet related to Arabic--again illustrating the independence of script and tongue.) Interestingly, one of the items found on Papyrus Amherst 63 is a version of Psalm 20:2-6. Ankerberg and Weldon wonder why "godly Jews [sic] . . . would have written their sacred records entirely in the language of their pagan, idolatrous enemies." Perhaps they should ask them some day, for godly Jews most certainly did (see "Language and Script in the Book of Mormon," Insights: An Ancient Window, March 1992, p. 2).

The statement "When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" is quite an astonishing display of ignorance. Since the Egyptian language has been dead for centuries, it is hardly remarkable that modern Jews do not read the Bible in Egyptian. On the other hand, "the first and most important rendering [of the Old Testament] from Hebrew [into Arabic] was made by Sa'adya the Ga'on, a learned Jew who was head of the rabbinic school at Sura in Babylon (died 942)" (George A. Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [hereafter IDB], 4 vols. and supplement [Nashville: Abingdon, 1962-1976], 4:758b). Thus, Jews have indeed translated the Bible into "Arabic, the language of their historic enemies." They also have translated it into the language of their "historic enemies" the Greeks (IDB 4:750b on the Septuagint) and Aramaeans (IDB 1:185-93; 4:749-50, on the Aramaic Targums).

Update: The FARMS publication, Insights, in Feb. 1998 reported on presentations at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), held Nov. 1997 in San Francisco. Non-LDS scholar Nili S. Fox discussed the development of Egyptian hieratic numerals used in Hebrew texts by Israelites during the ninth through seventh centuries B.C. Fox noted that the Israelite scribes were acquainted with the Egyptian writing system and that there was a longer history of ties between Egypt and both Judah and Israel than previously thought. Hebrews using an Egyptian writing system? The idea is a lot more plausible today that it was in Joseph Smith's time. The anti-Mormon critics who dismiss the possibility ("Jews hated the Egyptians, their former slavemasters, and would never think of using anything from Egyptian culture!") continue to stand on a foundation of sand, and the sand is shifting again.

Mulek, Son of King Zedekiah?

2004 Update: Recently, an ancient seal was discovered in Jerusalem bearing the title, "Malkiyahu the son of the king." This may very well be a seal from the Mulek, the son of King Zedekiah. This is entirely plausible based on what we know of ancient Israel and the information in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Details of this discovery are provided by Jeffrey R. Chadwick, "Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2003, pp. 72-83, available online in HTML or PDF (use the PDF version to see the seal and the Hebrew characters), provided by FARMS.

Though the entire article should be read carefully to appreciate the possible significance of the find, here are the concluding remarks of Chadwick:

So was Mulek the "Malkiyahu the son of the king" mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6? Nothing in the Bible or the Book of Mormon negates this identification. And the evidence rehearsed above lends significant support to it. The m-l-k basis of both Hebrew names is clear, and the case of Berekhyahu/Baruch demonstrates that there is theoretical precedent for a person being called both Malkiyahu and Mulek--the one a longer, more formal version of the name with a theophoric yahu element [an ending based on an abbreviation of the divine name, YHWH], and the other a shorter form lacking that element but featuring a different vowel vocalization. Malkiyahu/Mulek would not have been killed by the Babylonians before Zedekiah's eyes, as were his brothers (all younger than himself), because as the king's oldest son and heir to the throne, he was likely sent to Egypt by his father well before the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of the royal family. Whether Mulek was sent to Egypt as a royal messenger or ambassador or in an effort to ensure his safety, it is unlikely that he could have taken all of his possessions with him to Egypt. Other men in Judah with the ben hamelek title are known to have possessed multiple stamp seals, and if Malkiyahu/Mulek did also it would have been easy for him to have left one behind. Some 2,570 years or so later, that seal was found by someone digging in Jerusalem and was surreptitiously sold. The stamp seal of "Malkiyahu son of the king" now in the London collection of Shlomo Moussaieff seems to be authentic. In answer to the question posed at the outset of this article--and the significance of this can hardly be overstated--it is quite possible that an archaeological artifact of a Book of Mormon personality has been identified. It appears that the seal of Mulek has been found.

The Use of Cement in Ancient America

In 1929, Heber J. Grant (former President of the Church) told the story of a man with a doctorate who had ridiculed him for believing in the Book of Mormon. That learned man cited the mention of cement work as an obvious lie "because the people in that early age knew nothing about cement." President Grant, who was a young man at the time of that conversation, said:

"That does not affect my faith one particle. I read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and supplicated God for a testimony in my heart and soul of the divinity of it, and I have accepted it and believe it with all my heart." I also said to him, "If my children do not find cement houses, I expect that my grandchildren will." He said, "Well, what is the good of talking with a fool like that?" (April 1929 Conference Report, p. 128 ff.)

Mesoamerican work with cement involved more than merely applying a veneer to buildings. Important structural elements were made with cement, and the use of cement in Mesoamerica dates to about the time when the Book of Mormon reports its development (46 B.C.). John Welch provides further data in his article, "A Steady Stream of Significant Recognitions" in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. D.W. Parry, D.C. Peterson, and J.W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), pp. 372-374:

No one in the nineteenth century could have known that cement, in fact, was extensively used in Mesoamerica beginning largely at this time, the middle of the first century B.C.[1]

One of the most notable uses of cement is in the temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present-day Mexico City. According to David S. Hyman, the structural use of cement appears suddenly in the archaeological record. And yet its earliest sample "is a fully developed product." The cement floor slabs at this site "were remarkably high in structural quality." Although exposed to the elements for nearly two thousand years, they still "exceed many present-day building code requirements." [2] This is consistent with the Book of Mormon record, which treats this invention as an important new development involving great skill and becoming something of a sensation.

After this important technological breakthrough, cement was used at many sites in the Valley of Mexico and in the Maya regions of southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras, which very well may have been close to the Nephite heartlands. Cement was used in the later construction of buildings at such sites as Cerro de Texcotzingo, Tula, Palenque, Tikal, Copan, Uxmal, and Chichen Itza. Further, the use of cement is "a Maya habit, absent from non-Maya examples of corbelled vaulting from the southeastern United States to southern South America." [3]

Mesoamerican cement was almost exclusively lime cement. The limestone was purified on a "cylindrical pile of timber, which requires a vast amount of labor to cut and considerable skill to construct in such a way that combustion of the stone and wood is complete and a minimum of impurities remains in the product." [4] The fact that very little carbon is found in this cement once again "attests to the ability of these ancient peoples." [5]

John Sorenson has further noted the expert sophistication in the use of cement at El Tajin, east of Mexico City, in the centuries following Book of Mormon times. Cement roofs covered sizable areas: "Sometimes the builders filled a room with stones and mud, smoothed the surface on top to receive the concrete, then removed the interior fill when the [slab] on top had dried." [6]

Footnotes for the above passage:
1. See Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch, "Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon," Insights (May 1991): 2.

2. David S. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970), ii, sec. 6, p. 7.

3. George Kubler, The Art and Architecture of Ancient America, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975), 201, emphasis added.

4. Tatiana Proskouriakoff, An Album ofMaya Architecture (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), xv.

5. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements, sec. 6, p. 5.

6. John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon," Ensign, October 1984, 19.

As to the possible importance of Teotihuacan itself, consider the following tentative suggestion from Michael J. Preece (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol.3, 1991, p.38):

The Book of Mormon text often speaks of a mysterious land. It may be referred to as the "land which was northward" (Alma 63:4) or simply the "land northward" (Alma 63:5-8, 10; Helaman 3:3-4, 7, 10-11). In another place it is referred to as the "northernmost part of the land" (3 Nephi 7:12). It is possible that this land is in the same location as the "great city of Jacobugath" (3 Nephi 9:9). Dr. Allen suggests that this mysterious land might be the ancient city of Teotihuacan, built in the valley of Mexico, near where Mexico City lies today.... The ancient culture which inhabited this city had its beginnings about 150 B.C. and fell about A.D. 750. The circumstantial evidence that Teotihuacan may indeed have been the "land northward" includes the fact that between 55 B.C. and A.D. 29, the Book of Mormon mentions several migrations into this land where large bodies of water were found. This is the same period when Teotihuacan was experiencing a high growth rate. The valley of Mexico contained many lakes, and in fact Mexico City is built on a dry lake bed. The Book of Mormon speaks of the people in the land northward building houses out of cement because timber was scarce in the land (Helaman 3:7, 10-11). The archaeological site of Teotihuacan contains many buildings made of cement, and timber is indeed scarce in the valley of Mexico...."

On a related note, the Book of Mormon speaks of highways and roads (3 Nephi 6:8; 8:13). Some LDS people have pointed to the discovery of cement roads among the Incas as supporting evidence, but the Inca empire was too far south to fit into a modern understanding of Book of Mormon geography. However, lime-surfaced causeways (called sacbes) have been discovered in Central America, some dating to Book of Mormon times. Researchers at Tulane University found one from near 300 B.C. (E. Wyllys Andrews V et al., "Komchen: An Early Maya Community in Northwest Yucatan," presented at the 1981 meeting of the Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, San Cristobal, Chiapas, p. 15, as cited by J. Sorenson, Ensign, Oct. 1984, p. 18). Another in Belize was used between 50 B.C. and 150 A.D. (Andrews, "Dzibilchaltun," in Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, ed. J.A. Sabloff, vol. 1, Archaeology, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, p. 322, as cited by Sorenson, 1984, p. 23). South of Mexico City are about two miles of ancient paved roads(American Antiquity, Vol. 45, 1980, p. 623), while one roadway in Yucatan is over 50 miles long (A. Bustillos Carillo, "El Sacbe de los Mayas: Caminos Blancos de los Mayas, Base de su Vida Social y Religion," 2nd ed., B. Costa-Amic Editorial, Mexico, 1974, p. 23, as cited by Sorenson, 1984, p. 18). As we learn more about these ancient roadways and their uses, we hope to understand more about Book of Mormon peoples and their lives. In any case, the mention of cement work and roadways in the Book of Mormon appears plausible today, but was implausible to experts of the past.

By the way, the ancient adobe pueblos that existed in Mexico as well as the US Southwest could also qualify as "cement" houses. The word "adobe" was not commonly used in Joseph Smith's day, was not in the 1830 Webster's Dictionary, and did not appear in print in English until 1834 (B. Stubbs, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1996, p. 39). If Joseph did not have that word in his vocabulary, the word "cement" in the Book of Mormon could also include adobe. Perhaps the adobe builders were linked to Book of Mormon peoples.

A FARMS publication online also discusses cement in the Book of Mormon.

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

Olive Culture

The Book of Mormon does not say that the Nephites raised olives, however. For more information on the issue of plants and animals in the Book of Mormon, see my LDS FAQ page on that topic.

Wars in Winter?

A fascinating issue on climate is the seasons of war described in the Book of Mormon, mostly between Alma 9 and Alma 47. Several examples provide specific months and days of the battle (e.g., Alma 16:1). Many others indicate the general time of year (e.g., Alma 44:22-24). In over 30 places, war action is described as taking place near the end or beginning of the year. Sorenson has compiled information from the text about the month of the year various military skirmishes are mentioned. Almost all occur between the 11th and 3rd months, with a small number reported in the 4th, 5th, and 10th months, and none mentioned in the 6th through 9th months. Why this pattern? Well, the text also makes reference to cultivation of food a number of times in the 4th through 9th months. The problem of getting food to the troops is mentioned as a concern mainly in the twelfth through 2nd months. Thus it seems that the harvest may have been in months 10 through 12. (Summary: Nephite cultivation of fields: months 4-9; main harvest: months 10-12; time of warfare: mainly months 11-3).

Now several insights arise:

• since the armies were largely made of ordinary citizens (like reservists) who were largely farmers, they were not available for warfare except after the harvest (see Alma 53:7);
• since an army moves on its stomach, fighting is most easily carried out when food supplies are most available, which would be after the harvest;
• the Book of Mormon shows remarkable accuracy (and internal consistency) in dealing with the ancient relationship between agriculture and warfare.

But how do Nephite months correspond to ours? In Mesoamerica, May though September is the best time for growing crops (heat and moisture available). October through April is fairly dry. We also know that before Columbus, military campaigns in Central America occurred mainly between late October and February (again, farmers were then free of agricultural duties and food could be gathered--or captured). Likewise, soggy land from heavy rains was now drier and more passable (and made living in tents easier). These considerations lead Sorenson and others to conclude that the Nephite year may have begun in late December, perhaps with the winter solstice (Dec. 21/22), as did many other ancient peoples.

Now here comes an intriguing insight which bodes poorly for the theory that Joseph Smith made the Book of Mormon up. A significant battle scene (one in which the long-term survival of the Nephite nation might have been at stake) is described in Alma 51 at the end of the year--ca. December. After heavy fighting and major marches, both sides were very tired because of their "labors and heat of the day." This takes place on the east coast, "in the borders on the beach by the seashore" (Alma 51:32). At this season, the rain-swollen rivers have subsided, but the east region (Isthmus of Tehuantepec area) is still rather wet, low, and hot. The hottest weather was still months away, but down on the coast it was hot and muggy enough to contribute to the fatigue of the rapidly traveling troops.

Alma 51 shows that the land of the Book of Mormon peoples was not a cold, snow-covered place in winter, as upstate New York was for young Joseph Smith. If he made up the book based on what he knew, he would have had fighting occur in the summer, not during winter. The internal consistency of many passages dealing with war during the proper season of war for Mesoamerica is also remarkable--and has not been noted or recognized until the last decade or so. Though it is a minor point in the text, the geographical and climatic information provided fits and makes sense. It must be considered as one of the many "mundane" but powerful evidences for authenticity.

There are many aspects of ancient warfare in the Book of Mormon that show strong evidences of authenticity. Interesting parallels occur in recent discoveries about the widespread nature of war in ancient Mesoamerica and especially the use of fortifications in the Late Pre-Classic and Proto-Classic periods (corresponding with Book of Mormon times). The several types of fortifications described in the Book of Mormon have been found in Mesoamerica dating to the appropriate era. Especially interesting is the recently discovered use of earthen mounds or walls coupled with timber work on top, much as described in Alma 50: 1-6. This topic is discussed more fully in John Sorenson's article, "Fortifications in the Book of Mormon Account Compared with Mesoamerican Fortifications" in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, Deseret Book, SLC, UT, 1990--a book that abounds with other fascinating insights and evidences related to the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document. Other insights in this volume deal with the nature of guerrilla warfare and the Gadianton robbers, the use of weapons in the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica, military organization and strategy in the ancient world, legal aspects of war, and more. Highly recommended for serious students of the Book of Mormon.

It is worth noting that Mesoamerican culture and Mayan culture in particular was once viewed by the "experts" as being overwhelmingly peaceful. In their view, the extensive warfare depicted in the Book of Mormon was out of place. In recent years that view has been radically altered. As Michael Coe now explains, "The Maya were obsessed with war. The Annals of the Cakchiquels and the Popol Vuh speak of little but intertribal conflict among the highlanders, while the sixteen states of Yucatan were constantly battling with each other over boundaries and lineage honor" (Michael D. Coe, The Maya, London: Thames and Hudson, 4th ed., 1987, p. 160).

Mesoamerican Fortifications

Numerous Hebraic Language Structures

As for the grammar, there certainly were many strange and awkward structures in the original manuscript that needed improvement. For example, instead of the normal "if ... then ..." construction, the Book of Mormon had a multiple phrases with "if ... and ...." such as "if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, and he shall manifest the truth of it unto you" (Moroni 10:4, 1830 edition). That's completely unacceptable English--but it's very good Hebrew, known as the Hebraic conditional (see "Hebraic Conditionals in the Book of Mormon," in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999), pp. 201-203). Another example is 1 Nephi 17:50, which Joseph initially translated as "if he should command me that I should say unto this water be thou earth, and it shall be earth." When Oliver Cowdery prepared the printer's manuscript from the original manuscript, he deleted the word and to improve the English. Thirteen other examples printed in the 1830 edition were later changed by Joseph Smith for the 1837 edition, including Moroni 10:4 (ibid., p. 202). Examination of the text and the original and printer's manuscripts suggests that this was no simple scribal error, and Joseph's own dialect of English did not include this awkward construction, nor does the King James Bible provide language that would motivated a forger to include Hebraic conditionals. So why do they occur in the original Book of Mormon? Is any explanation more plausible than a somewhat literal translation of the Hebraic conditional from a Semitic text?

There are dozens of examples of other expressions and grammatical structures in the 1830 Book of Mormon, many of which survive in the current printing, that are unusual or awkward in English yet are natural and proper in Hebrew. The simplest explanation is that the text was dictated as a translation from an ancient Semitic document. Critics have been unable to explain away these and many other signs of authenticity (Edward Ashment tried, as discussed by John Gee in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 51-120, esp. pp. 88-91.) It's much easier to just mock the poor grammar and punctuation, or scream about the many minor changes that were needed to make the Book of Mormon text more properly comply to basic standards of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. (Please don't let them know about the many textual problems in the surviving Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for the Bible--we need your help to keep their bubble intact.)

An outstanding article on the topic of Semitic influence in the Book of Mormon text is John A. Tvedtnes, "Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: A Preliminary Survey," BYU Studies, Vol. 11, no. 1 (Autumn 1970), pp. 50-61; see also John A. Tvedtnes, "The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon," in John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), pp. 77-91. Tvedtnes shows that strong evidences of Hebraic language show through Joseph Smith's translation. It makes no sense if the book were a fraud. Also of value is Richard Grant's page, "Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, and James L. Carroll's Collection of Hebraisms and a short article, Hebrew Writing Styles and Idioms by Russell Anderson. The language of the Book of Mormon cannot be explained as the English of Joseph Smith or the King James English of the Bible. It's more Semitic than either. (See also Book of Mormon Authorship by D. Brent Anderson in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and "Enallage in the Book of Mormon" by Kevin L. Barney.)

I explore one aspect of this issue more thoroughly on my page, "2 Nephi 12 and the Septuagint: Evidence for Fraud or Authenticity in the Book of Mormon?" 2 Nephi 12:16 is a variation of Isaiah 2:16 that contains three elements, instead of the two found in the King James Version. Interestingly, the added element in this verse is attested in two other ancient Old Testament documents, the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Targum, both of which also have two elements not identical to those in the Hebrew Masoretic text from which the King James Version derives, and neither of which Joseph could read or had access to when he translated the Book of Mormon. The version of Isaiah that Nephi had may have had three elements, which later became condense into two in the later documents we have today. This is a subtle though minor internal evidence for authenticity of the Book of Mormon. On my page, I respond to a critic's attempt dismiss the issue. In researching this issue, I came away with an even deeper respect for the Hebraic roots of the Book of Mormon and for its abundance of Hebrew poetical forms. One form that I discuss on the above page relates to what one scholar terms "paired tricola," an unusual form only recently appreciated in the Bible. Paired tricola in Isaiah proved to be relevant to dealing with a critic's objections to 2 Nephi 12:16, and allowed me to make the tentative discovery that seemingly deliberate paired tricola may also exist in the writings of Nephi--something Joseph Smith probably could not have fabricated or reproduced through mere "intuition." (Posted July 1, 2001.)

A recent contribution to the topic of Hebraic influence in the Book of Mormon and among Book of Mormon peoples is the work of Brian D. Stubbs, one of the few linguists working with Uto-Aztecan languages (covering the US Southwest down to southern Mexico). He wrote a ground-breaking article, "Looking Over vs. Overlooking Native American Languages: Let's Void the Void," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 1-49 (a PDF version is also available), which makes serious, systematic comparisons of ancient Hebrew words and forms to those of Uto-Aztecan languages. Stubbs is among a small handful of people who know both Semitic languages and Uto-Aztecan languages. Most linguists dealing with the Book of Mormon have approached it with backgrounds rich in Semitic languages but lacking in New World languages. Stubbs' pioneering work opens the door for further studies, pointing to some interesting possibilities.

Among his tentative conclusions, Stubbs finds that Uto-Aztecan "as a language family exhibits more similarities with Hebrew than could be attributed to coincidence; nevertheless, that Hebrew element is obviously mixed with other language elements very different from Hebrew." While no UA [Uto-Aztecan] language shows the same level of derivation from Hebrew as Spanish does from Latin, there are still many traces of similarity suggesting some degree of contact or derivation. Over 1,000 similarities have been derived, enough to merit further investigation. Examples of similarities include the plural suffix "-im" in Northwest Semitic (the branch to which Hebrew belongs), and "-ima" in many UA languages; the passive prefix "ni-" in Northwest Semitic and the prefix "na-" in UA; Northwest Semitic "yasab" as the perfect form of the verb to sit or to dwell, compared to "yasipa" in UA; "adam" meaning man in Hebrew compared to "otam" in UA; Hebrew "katpa" for shoulder, compared to "kotpa" in UA; ya-'amin for "he believes" in Hebrew compared to "yawamin" in a northern UA language; etc. Stubbs' article delves into 100 of the over 1,000 areas of similarity. It is technical but worth the read.

In addition to examining Uto-Aztecan languages, Stubbs has another worthwhile article from the perspective of a linguist in "A Lengthier Treatment of Length," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1996, pp. 82-97 (also available as a PDF file). He responds to Edward Ashment's attack on the Book of Mormon which claims the long, awkward sentences found in so many Book of Mormon verses are much different than the short, concise sentences found in the Old Testament, supposedly showing that the Book of Mormon was not derived from Hebrew. Stubbs shows that the short sentences alleged to be characteristic of Biblical Hebrew may be characteristic of the King James translation of the Old Testament, but are not characteristic of the actual Hebrew. In fact, numerous sentence structures in the Book of Mormon show much more in common with genuine Hebraic sentences than with the English of the King James Bible or with the English of Joseph Smith's day.

Many Book of Mormon verses have series of verbals introducing clauses, such as: "Zeniff . . . he being over-zealous, . . . therefore being deceived by . . . King Laman, who having entered into a treaty . . . and having yielded up [various cities], . . . ." (Mosiah 7:21-22). This type of structure is an ideal way of translating the typical Hebrew hal-clause (or circumstantial clause), which Stubbs discusses in detail. Many English sentences in the Book of Mormon that an English editor would tear apart are perfectly acceptable Hebrew structures, appearing to be fairly literal translations. The King James translation loses much of the literal flavor of such passages, but they are present in the original Hebrew. Thus, we have the interesting situation of the Book of Mormon being more Hebraic in its use of complex sentences that the King James Bible--which not only strengthens the claim the Book of Mormon was derived from a Semitic text, but further undermines the long untenable claim that the Book of Mormon can be explained away as a derivative of the King James text.

The complex sentence structures of the Book of Mormon not only correspond with those of Hebrew, Arabic, and Egyptian, but also resonate with the structures of many Native American languages. Stubbs concludes:

In light of patterns inherent to Hebrew, Arabic, Egyptian, and many Native American languages, the copious presence of certain long, awkward structures in the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, speaks much more for the text's authenticity than would a lack. The lengths of awkward English might be deemed by some as poor grammar or weakness in writing (Ether 12:23-26,40); but as a linguist and student of Semitic and Native American languages, I find these lengthy structures to be quite intriguing, significant, and reassuring."

Names in the Book of Mormon

Another novel Book of Mormon name is Sariah, the wife of Lehi who lived in Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Scholars did not know that Sariah was an authentic ancient Hebrew name for a woman until long after the time of Joseph Smith. Jeffrey R. Chadwick explains in "Sariah in the Elephantine Papyri," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2., No. 2, 1993, pp. 197-201 (the citation is from p. 196):

The conjectural Hebrew spelling of Sariah would be s'ryh and would be pronounced something like Sar-yah. The skeptic might suggest that this name was an invention of Joseph Smith, since Sariah does not appear in the Bible as a female personal name. However, in a significant historical parallel to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew name Sariah, spelled sryh, has been identified in a reconstructed form as the name of a Jewish woman living at Elephantine in Upper Egypt during the fifth century B.C.

The reference to Sariah of Elephantine is found in Aramaic Papyrus #22 (also called Cowley #22 or C-22) and appears in Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. [Arthur E. Cowley, ed. and trans. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), p. 67]. Although the language of the documents is Aramaic, A. E. Cowley specifies that the names are in fact Hebrew [ibid., xv]. Line 4 of C-22 lists the personal name sry[h br]t hws 'br hrmn [ibid., 67]. The probable vocalization is Sariah barat Hoshea' bar Harman, and the text means "Sariah daughter of Hoshea son of Harman." Cowley had to reconstruct part of the text, supplying the final h of Sariah and the initial b-r of barat, but the spacing is adequate, and the comparative context of the papyrus leaves little doubt that the reconstruction is accurate. The extant final t of barat assures us that the person was a daughter, not a son, and, after the letters b-r are supplied, there is only room for one additional letter--the final h of Sariah.

Consider also the prominent name Mosiah, which is the name of a book within the Book of Mormon and the name of two great kings, a father and his grandson. This name does not occur in English translations of the Bible. The Tanners suggest that Joseph Smith made it up by combining Moses + Isaiah. A much better explanation exists! And this explanation gives profound insights into the Book of Mormon. John Sawyer, a non-LDS biblical scholar, published an article in 1965 called "What Was a Mosi'a?"(Vetus Testamentum, 15: 475-86, 1965). A summary of his article and a discussion of its important implications for the Book of Mormon are provided by Matthew Roper in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, 1992, pp. 199-202. "Mosi'a" does occur in the Hebrew scriptures, but is never transliterated as such in modern English translations of the Bible. Sawyer found that the word is used in a characteristic manner to describe a "victor" or "savior" or "deliverer" appointed by God, to deliver oppressed people from injustice. The term designated a unique class or office in ancient Israel and could even be applied to God himself (the ultimate Deliverer). Sawyer noted that the deliverance of a Mosi'a is often achieved by nonviolent means. The Mosi'a is an "advocate" who strives for justice. As Sawyer explains, "The main idea is intervening and contending on behalf of the right." (Ibid., 482) Significantly, Sawyer noted that, "Final victory means the coming of mosi'im to rule like judges over Israel. The people will once again possess their own property and justice will be the foundation of the Kingdom of the Lord."

The Book of Mormon name or title "Mosiah" is quite similar to "mosi'a". John Welch and Stephen Ricks have noted that mosi'a, when coupled with the theophoric element "iah," would mean "the Lord is a mosi'a." ("What Was a Mosi'a?" F.A.R.M.S. Update, April 1989; see Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 105-7.)

Those familiar with the accounts in the Book of Mosiah and the works of both of the men called King Mosiah will note the fascinating parallels between Sawyer's description and the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mosiah is about deliverance of oppressed people by mighty rulers appointed by God, often achieving deliverance with nonviolent means. These heroes in the Book of Mormon include Benjamin, Zeniff, Alma, Gideon, Ammon, Mosiah II, and the sons of Mosiah. Nowhere else are there so many accounts of deliverance in the classical manner of the ancient "mosi'a". Many of the deliverers are kings or chief priests. The sons of Mosiah would later go on to help save (deliver) many thousands of Lamanites. The Book of Mosiah also describes how King Mosiah did away with kings and instituted a system of elected judges over the people. The basic message of the book is not that humans can deliver oppressed and afflicted peoples, but that the Lord God is the true deliverer (Mosiah 11:23; 24:21; 25:16). One may well wonder if the name Mosiah is really a title that was given to two great kings who delivered their people. In any case, it is hard to believe that such an appropriate ancient name/title could have been guessed by chance.

Those interested in Book of Mormon names should consider the impressive discovery of the Lachish Letters from roughly Judea at roughly the time of Lehi and Jeremiah. These vitally important documents score many points for Book of Mormon authenticity, including strong support for some Book of Mormon names. For details, see my "Book of Mormon Nugget," Book of Mormon Names and the Lachish Letters.

More information on names is found in a paper accepted for presentation to an international body of scholars at the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, held in Jerusalem, August 2001. The paper by John A. Tvedtnes is entitled "Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon," which I recommend. A related article by John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, "Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions," (available online in PDF or HTML formats) was published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2000, pp. 41-51. Extensive evidence is offered from ancient Hebraic sources to support Book of Mormon names that critics have long criticized. In addition to Alma and Sariah, already discussed above, Tvedtnes shows that ancient Hebrew inscriptions provide support for the authenticity and Hebraic origin of the following Book of Mormon names: Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam, none of which are found in English Bibles. Support is also provided for the name Gilgal, which does occur as a place name in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but is also a man's name in the latter. That name has also been verified as a man's name from an ostracon (pottery fragment) dating to the eight century B.C. (Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981, p. 10, as cited by Tvedtnes et al.).

Further support for the name "Aha" comes from a recent discovery reported in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1999, p. 83. The May/June 1999 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (pp. 42-43) has an article by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. of Johns Hopkins University that reports the discovery of three bronze arrowheads from the eleventh century B.C. bearing Hebrew inscriptions, one of which was inscribed with a steel instrument (yes, critics, steel as in use there long before Laban got his steel sword!), according to Dr. R. Thomas Chase of the Freer Gallery of Art, a division of the Smithsonian Institution and an authority on ancient bronze artifacts. He discovered that "the inscription had been incised with a steel [emphasized in the original] engraving tool." The name "Aha" that occurs in one of the inscriptions, which McCarter translates as "The arrowhead of 'Aha' son of 'Ashtart.'" This appears to be the same as the name mentioned in the Book of Mormon in Alma 16:5, where we read of two sons of Zoram, chief c