ACCUSATION: "No, the Bible cannot be completely proven with archaeology and paleontology, but many aspects of it can be proven. The Book of Mormon, however, cannot be proven at all, so faith in the Book of Mormon is blind faith."

This common accusation is largely founded upon severely outdated scientific arguments. Those who make it say things like:

• Horses did not exist in the New World until the Europeans got here.
• Native Americans did not have metal weapons or tools.
• Native Americans did not make buildings out of cement.
• There is no evidence of pre-Columbian Christianity in the New World.

As for horses, we know that horses were actually very common in the Americas at one time. However, they were too small for humans to ride. Detractors of the Book of Mormon continue their argument by saying that these little horses were all dead before humans ever set foot in the Americas. However, they cannot explain the many pre-Columbian depictions of horses in various American caves and structures and the bones of horses found mixed with human artifacts in pre-Columbian settlements. This is all quite interesting in light of the fact that, though the Book of Mormon mentions horses, it never mentions anyone riding a horse. Over fifty chapters of the Book of Mormon give detailed accounts of war campaigns, but it is clear that there are no cavalry involved in these campaigns: all of these soldiers were infantry. (That is because, though the small American horses probably had their uses, they were too small to ride.) Some argue that there were actually full-sized horses in the Americas before the Europeans came. Specifically, they say that the Appaloosa horse of the Nez Perce could not have descended from European steeds. I am open-minded to such arguments.

As for metal weapons and tools, it is a well-documented fact that they did have metal tools and weapons made out of metals such as copper, brass, and bronze. As for the Book of Mormon's mention of "steel," many LDS scholars believe that this is a case in which the writers used a word that meant steel (in an Old World language) but that could have also signified another alloy in its New World usage, such as bronze. As the original word literally meant "steel," it made sense for Joseph Smith to translate it that way. Many detractors scoff at this argument, saying that it is a stretch. I admit that it is not a very strong argument, but they cannot disprove it. It is sufficient to allow for the benefit of the doubt if there are more compelling arguments the be made. (And there are.)

In the third chapter of Helaman, the Book of Mormon mentions the use of cement among Native Americans. To many 19th-century readers of the Book of Mormon, this was laughable. They argued that the natives were barbarians, incapable of such advanced building technology. And yet, excavations in various places in the New World have since shown that they did use cement.

Perhaps the most compelling archaeological or anthropological evidence of the Book of Mormon is the fact that there actually was such a strong Christian influence in Native American culture before Europeans got here. Everyone who went to school in the United States knows the most blatant evidence of this, which is the fact that the Aztecs assumed that Cortez was the god Quetzalcoatl. Why did they assume this? Because Quetzalcoatl is described in Mesoamerican mythology as having fair skin and either blue or green eyes. Looking at anthropological and historical evidence, there is no reason that the Mesoamericans should have even known that there was anyone in the world with such features. And yet, there it is. And when we look at the stories of Quetzalcoatl and his counterpart figures depicted in other Native American cultures, we see a number of similarities between them and Jesus Christ. The fact is that, when Christ arose from the dead, He visited His followers in the Old World and then the New World, just as He said He would in John 10:16. Though the Native Americans eventually mixed Christianity with paganism to the point where Christianity was effectively gone by around AD 400, the presence of Christian teachings in the Native American traditions is so profound that L. Taylor Hansen wrote a whole book about it.

(To be fair, I must mention that, though it is not the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church, many Catholics believe that Quetzalcoatl and other such figures are depictions of the apostle Thomas, who they say proselyted in the Americas at one time.)

Even accepting all of my arguments, many will say that the Book of Mormon still lacks the validity of the Bible because the Bible has sufficiently more historical evidence backing it up than the Book of Mormon does. Those who make this argument, again, say that faith in the Book of Mormon is "blind faith," while faith in the Bible is rational due to the evidences that support it. However, what such evidences are they talking about? They will cite archaeological findings of the past 150 years, no doubt. However, what about all of the people who believed in the Bible's message before such findings came to light? Did every Christian in medieval Europe or the colonial United States have only "blind" faith? Do children who believe in Christ without having read of any such "evidences" have "blind" faith? Certainly not. Hence, the presence of such "evidences" is inconsequential when it comes to the measurement of one's faith.

After all, remember that belief in the Bible necessitates belief that some people can:

• Call fire down from the sky to destroy their enemies.
• Make the sun stand still.
• Make metal float on water.
• Cause water to stand up as a wall.
• Converse with donkeys.
• Spend three days in the stomach of a "fish" and come out alive.
  
• Conceive without sperm.
  
• Turn water into wine.
• Walk on water.
• Heal by touch.
• Give life to the long-deceased.
  

Not only is there a lack of scientific evidence for all of these things, there is actually a huge mass of scientific evidence that seems to prove that they are impossible. Bearing this in mind, it is clearly pointless to argue about whether the Bible or the Book of Mormon has more scientific validity. From a strictly scientific standpoint, they are both absolutely ludicrous.

So can I or anyone else use scientific evidence to prove that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God?

No. Not at all. The only way of knowing whether or not the Bible or the Book of Mormon is the Word of God is by asking God. As I have said before, anyone who would tell you otherwise is clearly not a servant of God. Read it. Ask God.