Of course you’re right. The mainstream Christians all have the benefit of unquestioning belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

But it wasn’t always so.

Beginning with Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign in 1798-1801, when he took dozens of scholars with him, and which culminated in the finding and translation of the Rosetta Stone, believing Christians streamed into the Mediterranean and the Near and Middle East looking for proof in the ground of the Old and New Testaments.

What they found rocked the Christian faithful in the middle 1800s. Instead of archeological proof they found that a bunch of Biblical stories seemed to have their foundations in the older Middle Eastern cultures; the Deluge, for instance.

Around the same time, Darwin published his theory on natural selection and between the two tectonic shifts, thinking Christians of the day were in a quandary about what to think about the Bible.

Where their descendents of today landed was that the proof of the truth of the Bible was in the book itself and in the living of its precepts.

It’s the same with us Mormons. The truth of the Book of Mormon isn’t likely to be found in Central or South American archeological digs; it’s in the Book itself.

My view is that the Book of Mormon doesn’t have any problems that a few hundred more years won’t solve.

That’s not to say that mainstream Christians of the year 2208 will believe in the BoM and the Restored Gospel. Only that they won’t have the energy to oppose it and the 100s of millions who do believe it.

If the antis give you trouble, ask them to show you even one shred of widely-accepted physical proof of Jesus’s existence, or Peter’s, or Paul’s.

Or the Buddha’s, for that matter.

For people of faith proof of one’s belief’s doesn’t come from the ground.

If it did, we’d all be practicing the religions of the Summerians or Egyptians.

If you believe in the BOM with only your prayers and the Holy Ghost then you believe in it with faith and with your full agency..Anti’s do not get that.

so when you say:

“I think the Lord keeping us somewhat in the dark regarding the exact location of Zarahemla may be deliberate. It encourages us delve more deeply into the scriptures and glean much more from the doctrinal or spiritual message than we otherwise might”

The anti’s wont believe a word of it and will call it a cop out.

The Book of Mormon may not claim that Indians are the direct descendants of the Lamanites, but the Doctrine and Covenants do make this claim. Remember the mission of Oliver Cowdery to Missouri? These Native Americans are definitely referred to as descendants of Lamanites. Again, we can interpret this too broadly. This does not necessarily mean that Eskimos are Lamanites. Nor does it mean that Crow or Shoshoni are Lamanites. Only that those Indians in the Mississipi Valley may have had Lamanite roots. Nevertheless, I think it’s safe to assume that the blood of the Lamanites flows in the veins of many Native American tribes.

Keep in mind that the Book of Mormon offers many hints that the Nephites and Lamanites intermingled with the native peoples when they arrived. Heck, they were having civil wars within the first generation! If it was just Lehi’s descendants, wouldn’t that have been more accurately called a family feud? Also, recall that during the reign of Jacob, a brother of Nephi, an anti-Christ named Sharem came among them. No one seems to know the origin of Sherem. Yet we are still in the time period of first generation Nephites. Sherem, I believe, was not related to Lehi or Laman or anyone else on that boat. There are many, many more clues that indicate that Nephites and Lamanites intermingled. (And we know for a fact that Jaredites still populated the lands.) I believe the picture would be much clearer if Martin Harris hadn’t lost the first 116 pages of manuscript. This 116 pages would have covered Mormon’s condensed history of the Nephites all the way to the days of King Benjamin. Hey, maybe this will show up one day. In the meantime, we have scholarship and our natural intelligence to guide us. Hopefully those are always further enhanced by faith.

It is correct that the Church has made no official stand on Book of Mormon lands, but so many General Authorities have been on tours down there, including Pres. Hinckley and his wife, that it’s obvious that most would lean toward Central America as Nephite and Lamanite territory. Howard W. Hunter, a strong proponant of BYU’s New World Archeological Foundation, made many specific statements wherein he referred to Native Americans from that region to be descendants of Lehi. The most “authoritative” statement I suppose comes from Joseph Smith in an editorial that he wrote for the LDS periodical “Times and Seasons” in 1842, wherein he compared Stephen’s books and drawings on ruins in Central America as having potential correlation with the Book of Mormon. So even Joseph Smith was speculating, and did not seek or report any specific revelation on the matter.

I do feel that all of my research into Book of Mormon geography has created in me an overwhelming appreciation of the sacred volume, and afforded me much highly in-depth study. I doubt I would have done this if some revelation had “held my hand” and pointed out precise locations. It’s a natural inclination for the saints to wonder where these events took place. I think the Lord keeping us somewhat in the dark regarding the exact location of Zarahemla may be deliberate. It encourages us delve more deeply into the scriptures and glean much more from the doctrinal or spiritual message than we otherwise might.

Thanks for all your comments.

Sure, sure. There’s flaws.

Please tell me that pun was intended!