The LDS CES Letter and Book of Mormon Archaeology

The LDS CES Letter is an extensive and popular critique of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s had a significant impact on many members of the Church, raising difficult and troubling questions for some. For others, it has provided an opportunity to revisit and better understand the foundations of their faith. Among its many topics, one of the most frequently discussed is Book of Mormon archaeology. Does archaeology support the Book of Mormon? Or does the lack of universally accepted evidence undermine its claims?

Here’s an exploration of what the CES Letter says about Book of Mormon archaeology, and how Latter-day Saint scholars who believe in the book’s historicity have responded.

CES Letter Claims About Book of Mormon Archaeology

The Book of Mormon presents itself as an ancient record of peoples who lived in the Americas between roughly 600 B.C.E. and 400 C.E. The CES Letter argues that if this record is historical, there should be clear archaeological evidence to support it. It raises several specific points:

1. No clear archaeological consensus: The Letter claims that no mainstream archaeologists recognize the Book of Mormon as a genuine ancient American record.
2. Anachronisms: It points to references in the Book of Mormon to items such as horses, steel, chariots, and wheat, arguing that these were not present in the Americas in the time periods described.
3. Lack of direct inscriptions: The letter notes that no inscriptions have been discovered that mention Book of Mormon peoples such as the Nephites or Lamanites.
4. Geographic uncertainty: It emphasizes that there is no agreed-upon location for Book of Mormon events, suggesting that this weakens the historical case.

From this perspective, the CES Letter LDS concludes that the lack of clear archaeological confirmation is strong evidence against the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.

A Different Way to Frame the Question

When responding to claims like those in the CES Letter, Latter-day Saint scholars often start with placing the issue in its proper context. They point out that the Book of Mormon does not claim to describe the sole inhabitants of the ancient Americas. Instead, it presents a small group of migrants from the Near East who very likely settled among larger existing populations. This is especially clear in the book of Ether, which describes the Jaredites, and hints that other peoples were already present in the land with them.

If the Book of Mormon describes a relatively small population living in a limited geographic area, then we can’t expect dramatic, continent-wide archaeological markers clearly labeled “Nephite” or “Lamanite.” Ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica left many remains, but almost none of them referred to themselves by the names we use for them in modern history books.

What is the “Limited Geography Model”?

Many scholars of Mormonism support a “limited geography model,” which places Book of Mormon events in a restricted area of Mesoamerica rather than across the entire North and South American continents.

In this model, the events described in the Book of Mormon took place in a relatively small region, possibly in areas of present-day southern Mexico and Guatemala. If so, the scale of warfare, cities, and populations described in the text would fit more comfortably within known ancient Mesoamerican patterns.

This approach addresses the CES Letter’s assumption that Book of Mormon peoples are supposed to represent all Native American ancestry or civilization. The Book of Mormon text never makes that claim. Therefore, genetic and archaeological diversity in the Americas is not necessarily evidence against the book.

Anachronisms: Horses, Steel, and More

The CES Letter Mormon highlights what it considers anachronisms—objects or technologies that supposedly did not exist in the ancient Americas during Book of Mormon times.

Latter-day Saint scholars responded to claims of Book of Mormon anachronisms in several ways over the decades:

1. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence: Archaeology is an evolving field. What is not found today may be discovered tomorrow. For example, evidence of pre-Columbian metallurgy in Mesoamerica has grown over time, even if it does not perfectly match Old World steel. Use of cement and building techniques described in the Book of Mormon have also been vindicated by the archaeological record. In Joseph Smith’s day, such evidence had not yet been discovered and was considered anachronistic by critics. 
2. Translation issues: Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from an unknown, ancient language into English. Some scholars suggest that words like “horse” or “steel” may represent the closest English equivalents to ancient terms. If an ancient American animal functioned like a horse in transportation or symbolism, “horse” may have been the best available translation. This theory reflects supposed anachronisms in translations of the Bible. For example, its English translations sometimes use the word “candle” when referring to an oil lamp. Candles did not exist in the ancient Near East. However, oil lamps did, and served a similar function.
3. Ongoing debate: While current archaeology does not directly support widespread pre-Columbian horses or Old World wheat during Book of Mormon times, Latter-day Saint scholars caution against overconfidence. Archaeology is a science that works with fragmentary, out of context clues. The absence of conclusive evidence does not automatically disprove a historical claim, especially for small or localized populations.

Book of Mormon Inscriptions and Names

The Mormon CES Letter argues that if the Nephites and Lamanites were real civilizations, we should find inscriptions naming them. However, Latter-day Saint scholars note that most ancient civilizations are not known by the names they used for themselves.

For example, the term “Maya” covers a wide range of city-states that did not necessarily call themselves by that collective name. Archaeological inscriptions often reference rulers and cities, but broader ethnic labels can be fluid or lost.

So far, no inscription has been universally accepted as directly referencing Book of Mormon peoples. Faithful scholars acknowledge this. At the same time, they argue that expecting to find a clear inscription reading “We are the Nephites” is an unrealistic standard, given the nature of ancient written records.

Positive Archaeological Correspondences

While critical sources like the CES Letter emphasize the lack of direct proof for the Book of Mormon, notable Latter-day Saint archaeologists and scholars have proposed several compelling arguments for its authenticity.

Some examples of these include:

• Ancient writing systems in Mesoamerica showing that thorough, complex record-keeping existed—the Nephites highly prioritized this.
• Large cities and fortifications consistent with the Book of Mormon’s descriptions of walled cities, government structure, and warfare.
• Ancient cement use, which the Book of Mormon mentions in the land northward.
• Hebraic literary and poetic patterns, such as chiasmus, which some scholars argue are present in the Book of Mormon text.

None of these definitively prove the Book of Mormon is true. But supporters argue that they show the book can fit plausibly within an ancient American setting.

How Faith and Scholarship Interact

One important point made by Mormon scholars is that the Book of Mormon’s primary purpose was never to be used as a historical text. According to Latter-day Saint belief, it is sacred scripture translated by Joseph Smith through divine means. It’s supposed to teach the reader about Jesus Christ, and millions of people have attested that it succeeds to a life-changing degree on that front. 

This doesn’t mean history is unimportant. The Book of Mormon presents itself as a real record of real people. But because it’s primarily a religious text, the religious aspects of its meaning and intention deserve at least some consideration. Archaeology can inform belief, but it is not the main foundation.

How Latter-day Saint Scholars View the CES Letter

Latter-day Saint scholars who have responded to the CES Letter argue that it often oversimplifies complex academic issues, leans on biased pre-assumptions, and leaves out important counterevidence. They suggest that the letter assumes a “black and white” standard: if there is not overwhelming, universally accepted proof of the Book of Mormon, it must be false.

In reality, archaeology almost never offers that level of certainty. Even well-established ancient civilizations are understood through fragmentary remains and ongoing debate. The New Testament, for example, was believed for centuries before archaeology provided strong external support for many of its details.

A Balanced Perspective

While it’s fair to say that there is no clear, universally accepted archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon, it’s not accurate to say that archaeology has decisively disproven it.

The current state of evidence leaves room for faith. Some will see the lack of clear confirmation as troubling. Others will see the correspondences and the complexity of ancient American archaeology as reasons for cautious openness.For believing Latter-day Saints, the ultimate test of the Book of Mormon is spiritual rather than archaeological. Yet many find it reassuring that, when examined carefully, the archaeological questions raised by the LDS CES Letter do not necessarily close the case against the book.

About Mormonism Explained

Mormonism Explained is a resource that was designed to provide objective and factual information about Mormonism, its history, doctrines, and policies. Our team of researchers consults experts and primary sources to present factual information on a variety of topics relevant to the Mormon Church.

Tags