The question of whether the Book of Mormon is historical—and whether it has to be historical in order to be “true”—is one that has sparked significant debate both within and outside the LDS Church. Here’s an analysis of the issue from various angles:
Is the Book of Mormon Historical?
The Book of Mormon presents itself as a historical account of ancient peoples who traveled from the Middle East to the Americas and lived there for centuries. It describes the Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites, and Mulekites as real civilizations, with specific religious and cultural practices. The book also claims that Native Americans descended from the Lamanites, a group of rebellious Israelites.
Archaeological and Historical Evidence
Despite decades of research, no compelling archaeological, linguistic, or historical evidence has been found to support the existence of Book of Mormon peoples, locations, or events. No archaeological evidence of major battles, cities, or artifacts mentioned in the Book of Mormon. DNA evidence conclusively shows that Native Americans trace their ancestry to Asia, not the Middle East. Language studies show no connection between Native American languages and Hebrew or Egyptian. This absence of evidence raises questions about the book’s historical authenticity.
Modern Church Adjustments
The LDS Church has responded to these issues by altering claims. For example, the introduction to the Book of Mormon was changed to say that the Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of Native Americans rather than their “principal” ancestors. This shift reflects a reluctant attempt to reconcile DNA evidence with faith claims.
Does the Book of Mormon Have to Be Historical to Be “True”?
The LDS Church has always referred to the Book of Mormon as the “keystone” of the religion, stating that its truthfulness underpins the entire church. Joseph Smith himself declared, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.” Church leaders have emphasized this messaging continually:
The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion”. A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles… The Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church…
President Ezra Taft Benson, The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion, October 1986
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion
From a historical LDS perspective, the Book of Mormon must be real history because:
- It is presented as an authentic translation of ancient records written by real people (Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, etc.).
- The book’s claims about Christ visiting the Americas rely on the narrative being historical.
- The restoration of the church through Joseph Smith is predicated on him translating actual gold plates with the power of God.
If the book is not historical, it undermines foundational LDS claims, including Joseph Smith’s role as a prophet, the divine origins of the book, and the legitimacy of the church’s teachings.
Alternate Takes
However, some modern LDS thinkers and apologists argue that the Book of Mormon can still be “true” even if it is not historical. They propose that:
- The book could be inspired fiction—a spiritual parable written to teach moral and theological truths.
- Its “truth” lies in its power to bring people closer to God, regardless of its historical accuracy.
This shift toward a metaphorical or symbolic reading of the Book of Mormon allows believers to maintain faith in its spiritual messages while acknowledging the lack of historical evidence.
David A. Bednar may be paving the way for this narrative change. He deemphasizes the history of the scripture after quoting President Ezra Taft Benson. He claims that the Book of Mormon is not primarily a historical record that looks to the past.
A particular teaching by President Benson greatly impacted me and continues to influence my study of the Book of Mormon. He said:
“The Book of Mormon … was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, [Mormon] abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us.”
President Benson continued: “Each of the major writers of the Book of Mormon testified that he wrote for future generations. … If they saw our day, and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, ‘Why did the Lord inspire Mormon … to include [this account] in his record? What lesson can I learn from [this admonition] to help me live in this day and age?’”
President Benson’s statements help us to understand that the Book of Mormon is not primarily a historical record that looks to the past. Rather, this volume of scripture looks to the future and contains important principles, warnings, and lessons intended for the circumstances and challenges of our day. Hence, the Book of Mormon is a book about our future and the times in which we do now and will yet live.
David A. Bednar, LDS Apostle, In the Space of Not Many Years, October 2024 General Conference
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/10/35bednar
He rationalizes that the scripture looks to the future and contains important principles and lessons. This does sound more and more like the church is beginning to allow for the inspired fiction interpretation of the Book of Mormon. It’s a significant shift in tone and emphasis regarding how the Book of Mormon is to be understood and valued by members of the Church.
By saying it is not primarily a historical record, Bednar de-emphasizes the historicity of The Book of Mormon. This is notable because the book’s truth claims have traditionally hinged on it being a literal history. If the stories of Nephi, Alma, and Moroni are not historical, then the book becomes much closer to allegory, parable, or simple inspired fiction. His statement reflects an awareness of the mounting evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
Church leaders are strategically shifting the focus to the book’s spiritual value rather than its historical veracity. By claiming the book’s primary purpose is spiritual, not historical, Bednar allows believers to sidestep the lack of evidence. It provides a framework for members to maintain faith despite historical problems and it distances the church from the all-or-nothing binary position on historicity, offering a path to flexibility in interpretation.
Bednar’s careful phrasing (“not primarily a historical record”) leaves room for ambiguity. He does not completely dismiss the book’s historical claims, which allows members to hold onto the idea that it might still be historical while also emphasizing its spiritual teachings. This hedging may be deliberate to accommodate both literalist and metaphorical interpretations within the church. LDS apologists argue that the Book of Mormon can still be “true” even if it is not historical. They claim its spiritual truths—its teachings about faith, Christ, and morality—are what matter most.
What If the Book of Mormon Is Not Historical?
If the Book of Mormon is not historical, it poses significant challenges to the Church and believing members:
- Authority of Joseph Smith: If Joseph Smith did not translate actual ancient records, then his claims as a prophet are called into question. Was he inspired, mistaken, or fraudulent?
- Keystone Doctrine: The LDS Church’s own statements emphasize that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the religion. If it fails as history, the foundation crumbles, or at the very least, weakens.
- Testimonies Built on Historicity: Many members base their faith on the book being a factual and historically accurate account. Learning it is not historical would lead to considerable cognitive dissonance, doubt, or faith crises of the membership.
- Shifting Narratives: If the church increasingly frames the Book of Mormon as allegorical rather than historical, this change may alienate believers who view it as literal truth.
At the same time, acknowledging the book as inspired fiction could allow for a more flexible, faith-focused approach, appealing to those who value the book’s teachings but recognize its historical shortcomings.
The Book of Mormon is presented as a historical record, but overwhelming evidence contradicts its claims. This poses a dilemma for the church because its foundations depend on the book being true in both a spiritual and historical sense. If it is not historical, it raises important questions about Joseph Smith’s authority and all the church’s truth claims.
Ignoring Secular Evidence for Spiritual Truth
Oaks would dismiss all the science as “some unanswered questions that seem to support” the conclusion that The Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. He conflates the historical authenticity of the scripture with the spiritual power he finds it holds.
The historicity—historical authenticity—of the Book of Mormon is an issue so fundamental that it rests first upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the first principle in this, as in all other matters. However, on the subject of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, there are many subsidiary issues that could each be the subject of a book. It is not my purpose to comment on any of these lesser issues, either those that are said to confirm the Book of Mormon or those that are said to disprove it…
There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors’ declarations, predictions, and statements…
Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination. In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum.
In fact, it is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Its authenticity depends, as it says, on a witness of the Holy Spirit. Our side will settle for a draw, but those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot settle for a draw. They must try to disprove its historicity—or they seem to feel a necessity to do this—and in this they are unsuccessful because even the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that…
On this subject, as on so many others involving our faith and theology, it is important to rely on faith and revelation as well as scholarship. I am convinced that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon have the difficult task of trying to prove a negative. They also have the awkward duty of explaining how they can dismiss the Book of Mormon as a fable while still praising some of its contents.
Dallin H. Oaks, LDS Apostle, The Historicity of the Book of Mormon
Originally presented October 29, 1993 at the Annual Dinner of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Provo, Utah.
https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/historicity-book-mormon
Oaks’ assertion places the Book of Mormon’s authenticity entirely within the realm of spiritual experience. By relying on the “witness of the Holy Spirit,” the church not only removes the need for any external validation at all but is free to dismiss any evidence to the contrary. By emphasizing the Holy Spirit, Oaks implicitly discourages members from seeking external evidence or asking difficult questions about the book’s historicity.
When DNA studies, archaeology, and other disciplines contradict the book’s narrative, leaders emphasize spiritual authenticity instead of historical accuracy. Personal experiences are inherently subjective and can vary widely. Many people from other faiths also report strong spiritual witnesses for their scriptures or beliefs, such as the Qur’an or the Bible. If feelings alone determine truth, then all conflicting claims based on spiritual experience must also be equally valid.
If the book is not historically authentic, then its truth claims unravel. Joseph Smith’s role as a prophet and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon depend heavily on its literal accuracy. By framing the book’s authenticity as a spiritual matter, Oaks essentially sidesteps the question of whether the events actually happened.
Bednar’s statement that “The Book of Mormon is not primarily a historical record that looks to the past” alongside Oaks’ remarks that “authenticity depends on a witness of the Holy Spirit” appears to be calculated responses to the challenges of modern scholarship and the church’s historical claims. By shifting emphasis to the spiritual and moral teachings of the book, Bednar attempts to preserve its value for believers while downplaying the growing evidence against its historicity.
However, this shift introduces tension:
- If the Book of Mormon is not historical, what does that mean for its truthfulness?
- Can members believe in the book’s spiritual lessons while recognizing its historical problems?
For those navigating the question of Book of Mormon historicity, the answer depends on how they define “truth.” Is truth found in historical fact or spiritual inspiration, or both? Confronting these questions is a pivotal part of faith deconstruction for those leaving the church. For those who find their perspectives shifting, sharing the journey at wasmormon.org can help shed light on the experience of grappling with the church truth claims.
More reading:
- Elevation and Other Elevated Emotions
- Does a “Burning in Your Bosom” Outweigh Physical Evidence?
- Bamboozled Long Enough, We Tend to Reject Any Evidence of The Bamboozle
- Church and its Inoculation Approach to Addressing Historical Details
- Is the Book of Mormon Historical? True? Does it Matter?
- Changing The Narrative –Reconstructing Mormon History
- Truth and History are Anti-Mormon
- Mormon Truth Claims Crumble With Changing Church History Narrative
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/10/35bednar?lang=eng
- https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-overwhelmed-part-i/
- https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-overwhelmed-part-ii/
- https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/historicity-book-mormon