Book of Mormon/Anachronisms

From FairMormon
Jump to: navigation, search

    Book of Mormon anachronisms

This page is a summary or index. More detailed information on this topic is available on the sub-pages below.

The absence of evidence is not proof. Here’s one small example. Matthew Roper, in a FairMormon Blog on June 17, 2013, writes about a criticism that was repeated many times over the years about the mention of steel in the Book of Mormon. In 1884, one critic wrote, “Laban’s sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards. Who, but as ignorant a person as Rigdon, would have perpetuated all these blunders.” More recently Thomas O’Dey, in 1957, stated, “Every commentator on the Book of Mormon has pointed out the many cultural and historical anachronisms, such as steel. A steel sword of Laban in 600 B.C.”
We had no answer to these critics at the time, but, as often happens in these matters, new discoveries in later years shed new light. Roper reports, “it is increasingly apparent that the practice of hardening iron through deliberate carburization, quenching and tempering was well known to the ancient world from which Nephi came “It seems evident” notes one recent authority, “that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron.” In 1987, the Ensign reported that archaeologists had unearthed a long steel sword near Jericho dating back to the late 7th century B.C., probably to the reign of King Josiah, who died shortly before Lehi began to prophesy. This sword is now on display at Jerusalem’s Israel Museum, and the museum’s explanatory sign reads in part, “the sword is made of iron hardened into steel.”
—Elder D. Todd Christofferson, "The Prophet Joseph Smith", Devotional Address, BYU Idaho, September 24, 2013.


"Anachronism" = out of time; something which is not in its proper historical context

Some people like to some items or concepts in the Book of Mormon which they claim are not consistent with what is known about ancient American geography, history, or anthropology. They claim that these "errors" prove that Joseph Smith was producing the Book of Mormon in the 19th century, and that the Book of Mormon is therefore not an ancient record. This is a master page; specific issues are addressed on separate pages.


During Joseph Smith's lifetime, most of the "archaeology" of the Book of Mormon did not match what was known about the early Americas. (Click to enlarge)
By 2005, a number of features of the Book of Mormon text were known in the ancient Americas. Yet, in 1842, many of these would have been seen as "errors" or "anachronisms". (Click to enlarge)

It is important to note that as knowledge expands, what was once an anachronism turns out to be a legitimate feature of the ancient world. John Clark[1] prepared the charts displayed to the right which demonstrate the trend, over time, to confirmation of the Book of Mormon account.


Anachronisms claimed to exist in the Book of Mormon

It is claimed that a number of items or concepts in the Book of Mormon are not consistent with what is known about ancient American geography, history, or anthropology. These "errors" used as evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work rather than an ancient record. (Click here for full article)

Translated documents (which the Book of Mormon claims to be) have many potential sources of anachronism. When trying to decide if something is a true anachronism, and when making judgments about the Book of Mormon's truth based on an assessment of anachronisms, we must take all these factors into account. Critics rarely do so. (Click here for full article)


What is an anachronism? What should be borne in mind when assessing the Book of Mormon (or any other text) for supposed "anachronisms"?

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here


Anachronisms may be introduced into a genuine text by:

  1. objects or facts not yet discovered;
  2. the original authors using terms in a novel way that we do not expect;
  3. the modern-day translator's choices.

All three must be ruled out before an anachronism can be used to "disprove" the Book of Mormon, or any other translated document.

Detailed Analysis

An "anachronism" is an element in a text that is "out of time." That is, it does not match the time and place of the text's claimed production.

For example, if Sherman tanks appeared in a supposed account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, the tanks would be "anachronistic." They don't belong.

When anachronisms appear in a translated text (such as the Book of Mormon claims to be), the matter becomes more complicated, because a translator can introduce anachronisms that are not present in the original text.

For example, the King James version of the Bible often speaks about candles. "15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel," said Jesus, "but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house" (Matthew 5:15).

The problem is that candles were not used in Palestine in Jesus' day. Light came from oil lamps, not from candles. If we examine the Greek text, we see that this is so--the King James translators chose a term that was appropriate to their time and place. Jesus' meaning remains clear with the King James translation, even though he was speaking of a lamp, not a candle.

It would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible text had been forged because the candles are an anachronism--the text itself did not refer to candles; the translators made that choice, and they introduced the anachronism. We would also be foolish to go looking for candles in the archaeology of Jersualem in the 1st century A.D.. They weren't there. But, whether we can find candle remains in the digs says nothing about whether the Bible is a genuine ancient document, or whether Jesus actually spoke about not hiding a light-giving device.

We can determine that this is so because we have the original Greek texts of the Bible. But, what are we to do when we have a translation, but no original? How can we be certain when an anachronism comes from the translator, and when it comes from the original? We cannot--or at least, not without a great deal of difficulty.

An example

This may be more clear if we consider a specific example. The Book of Mormon reports that the Nephites grew "barley" (e.g., Mosiah 7:22). Critics have, on occasion, claimed that barley is an anachronism, because it was not known in the New World prior to Columbus.

When confronted with barley in the Book of Mormon text, there are several possible explanations:

  1. True barley was known to the Nephites. Archaeological study has simply not (yet) found evidence of barley in the New World. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.
  2. The Nephites gave an Old World name to a different New World crop. Thus, while the Nephite plate text did read "barley," the item to which the term barley referred is not the same as Old World barley. The Nephites would be, in a sense, "translating" their new cultural surroundings into their Old World language. (This could have been important religiously for items which were impacted by the law of Moses. Animals must be declared either "clean" or "unclean" for use as food--thus, if the Nephites discovered a New World animal, how they decided to label it would have implications for how they saw and used the animal.)
  3. Joseph Smith translated into terms with which his own culture and time would be familiar. Thus, while the Nephite text named a different grain, Joseph translated the term as "barley." There is, in fact, a true anachronism--but that anachronism was introduced by Joseph Smith, and not the Nephite original. Thus, it is foolish to look for "true barley" in the New World, because the Nephites never claimed that barley was found there--that is an artifact of Joseph's translation.
  4. Occasionally, some Jaredite terms are translated by Nephite authors. This adds yet another layer of transmission and translation--the Nephites have to translate a Jaredite term into a Nephite term, which Joseph Smith must then render into English. An anachronism can be added at any step.

In the case of barley, any of the these options could be true. Contrary to the critics' claims, domesticated barley has been found in the New World (it was discovered in the 1980s), so #1 is a distinct possibility.

But, options #2 and #3 could also be true (Jaredites do not mention barley, so #4 does not apply). We simply cannot tell which scenario is the correct one when all we have is the translation, and no original text.

We are often accustomed to thinking of #1 as the only option—and this is why critics crow when horses, for example, are not found in the Americas before Columbus. But, this criticism only has weight if #1 is the only viable option--but, that simply isn't true for a translated document.

Furthermore, not every supposed anachronism need have the same explanation. "Barley" could be a proper referent to New World barley, while "wheat" might be an approximation chosen from Joseph's environment. After all, the spiritual message or historical account of the Book of Mormon does not alter whether "wheat" is Old World wheat or another New World food crop. (In the same way, Jesus' message of the Sermon on the Mount doesn't really change much whether he's talking about oil lamps or candles.) The issue of anachronisms is only important because critics want to use anachronisms to "prove" that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon. But, that's a very tall order with a translated document--so they hope that we don't realize this.

Much of the debate, then, hinges on how we see the process of Book of Mormon translation—and we know very little about it. Critics have insisted that God would not make an "erroneous" translation—but, that assumes that translation and prophets are inerrant, which the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith both denied. In any case, a perfect translation is an impossibility, even between closely-related languages.

Joseph Smith was also willing to revise the translation somewhat, which suggests that he did not see it as an iron-clad, fixed text that he had no role in creating.

Furthermore, #2 could still happen even if the translation was erroneous--the word is barley, but simply doesn't refer to Old World barley. Joseph could create an anachronism in case #2 by giving us a more literal translation of the text; he could create an anachronism in sense #3 by giving a more accessible translation of the text in cultural terms familiar to his audience. There is no perfect solution--either choice could lead to confusion and could lead to charges by critics that there is an anachronism. But, if any of these options could be true, then it should be obvious that we simply don't have enough evidence to make a determination.


  1. John Clark, Wade Ardern, Matthew Roper, "Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology," FAIR Conference, Sandy, Utah, 2005.


The Book of Mormon mentions animals which are not known to have existed in the pre-Columbian New World.


We can draw the following tentative conclusions:

  • Ass - the horse-like tapir is a possibility
  • Bees - not required in the Americas by the text, but pre-Columbian examples also exist
  • Cow - bovine species (e.g. buffalo) were present in the Americas, and there is also ample precedent for naming different animals with common names, and there are other New World candidates, such as deer and tapirs.
  • Elephant - only necessary in the Jaredite era, there is both traditional, inscriptional, and biologic remains as evidence for the Book of Mormon's claims
  • Horse - there is some evidence, not yet deemed definitive, which suggests that the true horse may have been known in at least some parts of Mesoamerica in pre-Columbian times before Christ. There is also ample precedent for naming different animals with common names, and there are other New World candidates, such as deer and tapirs.
  • Sheep - a single example of sheep's wool from a pre-Columbian burial site suggests that a literal sheep may be a possibility
  • Silkworms - present in the New World with other options also available for silk cloth; see silk
  • Swine - native swine species existed, though only Jaredite use is noted (unsurprisingly, since Nephites were under the law of Moses).



  • Was the story of the Jaredites added to the Book of Mormon in order to explain New World animals?
    Brief Summary: It is claimed by some that the story of the Jaredites, as described in the Book of Ether, was added by Joseph Smith as an "afterthought" in order to account for the variety of animals present in the New World at the time of arrival of Lehi's group. Critics suggest that the Book of Ether was simply an "afterthought" added by Joseph Smith to the Book of Mormon in order to explain the presence of a wide variety of animals in the New World at the time of the arrival of Lehi's party. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Horses
    Brief Summary: According to the most scientists, the mention of "horses" in the Americas during Book of Mormon times presents an anachronism--something that doesn't fit the time frame for which it is claimed. Is this a death-knell for the Book of Mormon? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • The ass (donkey) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Bees
    Brief Summary: Among the supposed Book of Mormon anachronisms is the mention of “bees” (Ether 2:3)...It should be noted firstly that the Book of Mormon's use of the term "bees" occurs in an Old World (Jaredite) setting, it is never used in connection with the New World. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Cows (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Elephants
    Brief Summary: Elephants are only present in Jaredite times in the Book of Mormon. Both mastodons and gomphotheres are elephant-like creatures that are plausible candidates. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Sheep (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Silkworms (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Swine (pigs)
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that swine were unknown in the ancient New World. In addition, some have ridiculed the Book of Mormon’s suggestion that swine would be used for food (due to dietary constraints of the Mosaic law). (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Cureloms and cumoms (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Serpents and drought
    Brief Summary: In the Book of Mormon, the Book of Ether contains an account of a drought accompanied by a sudden increase in 'poisonous serpents'. Some claim that this is biologically implausible. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

  • Malachi text in the Book of Mormon
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work because it quotes Malachi hundreds of years before Malachi was written (i.e, they claim that Mal. 4:1 is quoted in 1 Nephi 22:15). However, the Book of Mormon claims to be a "translation." Therefore, the language used is that of Joseph Smith. Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using King James Bible language if that adequately represented the text's intent. The translation language may resemble Malachi, but the work is not attributed to Malachi. Only if one presumes that the Book of Mormon is a fraud at the outset is this proof of anything. If one accepts that it is a translation, then the use of Bible language tells us merely that Joseph used biblical language. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • New Testament text in the Book of Mormon?
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work because it contains material that is also found in the New Testament. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus quotes a paraphrase of Moses' words found in Acts 3:22-26. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Deutero-Isaiah
    Brief Summary: The "Deutero-Isaiah" theory is the claim that parts of Isaiah were written later than others. This theory claims that there were three individual authors, whose works were later compiled together under the name of the first author Isaiah (referred to as "Proto Isaiah"). The critical issue raised is that the Brass Plates of Laban quote from sections of Isaiah that this theory ascribes to Deutero-Isaiah, so how could the Nephites have these writings if they weren't written until after they left Jerusalem? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Firstling sacrifices
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that the Book of Mormon report that Nephites offered burnt offerings of the firstlings of their flocks is not consistent with Jewish law or practice. While firstlings were not used for every sacrifice, they certainly did have a role in the sacrificial practices of Israel. The critics have misunderstood the Bible on this point. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Holy Ghost
    Brief Summary: Why is the Holy Ghost mentioned so many times in the Book of Mormon prior to the time of Christ (e.g., 1 Nephi 10:17) and yet in the Old Testament there is hardly any mention of the Holy Ghost, especially with regard to his mission of bearing witness of the truth? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Jeremiah in prison
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that Nephi's mention of Jeremiah being put into prison (1 Nephi 7:14) is anachronistic, since Jeremiah would not have been in prison when Lehi left Jerusalem. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Jerusalem as site of Jesus' birth
    Brief Summary: Critics point out that Alma 7:10 says that Jesus would be born "at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." Yet, every school child knows that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. They claim that this is a mistake, and evidence that Joseph Smith forged the Book of Mormon. However, it is important to note what Alma's words were. He did not claim Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but "at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." Bethlehem is located only five miles from Jerusalem. Thus, the Book of Mormon makes a distinction here between a city and the land associated with a city. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Josephites and Jerusalem
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that the fact that Lehi was not of Judah, but of the tribe of Joseph, makes it absurd for him to have been living in Jerusalem before the Babylonian captivity: "The tribe of Joseph at Jerusalem! Go, study scripture-geography, ye ignorant fellows, before you send out another imposition, and make no more such foolish blunders." (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Book of Mormon plagiarized from Bible?
    Brief Summary: Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that major portions of it are copied, without attribution, from the Bible. They present this as evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing the Authorized ("King James") Version of the Bible. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Mainly altered italics in the KJV?
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that in the Book of Mormon material which parallels the KJV, Joseph Smith generally modified the italicized text. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Book of Mormon "translation errors" from KJV?
    Brief Summary: Critics wonder why many of the quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon are identical to the King James version. The Book of Mormon incorporates text which seems to be taken from the King James Version, including passages which are now considered to be mistranslations in the King James Version. If the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation, some claim that it shouldn't contain these translational errors. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship to the Book of Mormon
    Brief Summary: Mistranslations of the King James version of Isaiah have been corrected using the Isaiah version found with the Dead Sea scrolls. Why is it that the quotes from Isaiah contained in the Book of Mormon have the same translation errors contained in the King James version instead of matching the original ancient text? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

  • Snow
    Brief Summary: In 1 Nephi 11:8, Nephi says Lehi describes the Tree of Life by saying "the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow." Since Nephi and Lehi were desert folk from Jerusalem, and then likely lived in tropical Central America, why would they have used "snow" as a description? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

DNA samples taken from modern Native Americans do not match the DNA of modern inhabitants of the Middle East. Critics argue that this means the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descended from Lehi must be false, and therefore the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed. (Click here for full article)

  • Geography issues
    Brief Summary: A variety of geographic models have been suggested for the Book of Mormon. Some geographic models introduce other difficulties for the DNA attacks. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Haplogroup X2a
    Brief Summary: Some have tried to use a genetic group called haplotype X2a as proof of the Book of Mormon, but the science at present cannot support this. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • What is Lehi's ancestry?
    Brief Summary: Genetic attacks on the Book of Mormon focus on the fact that Amerindian DNA seems closest to Asian DNA, and not DNA from "the Middle East" or "Jewish" DNA. However, this attack ignores several key points, among which is the fact that the Book of Mormon states that Lehi and his family are clearly not Jews. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • How does one identify "Jewish" or "Middle Eastern" DNA?
    Brief Summary: Identifying DNA criteria for Manasseh and Ephraim may always be beyond our reach. But, even identifying markers for Jews—a group that has remained relatively cohesive and refrained from intermarriage with others more than most groups—is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype
    Brief Summary: Some critics use the "Lemba" as an example of a group proven to be Jewish via DNA testing as proof that such a testing should be possible for Book of Mormon people. But, this example is misleading. The Lemba were identified as Jewish because of a marker called the "Cohen modal haplotype." This marker is carried by about half of those who claim descent from Aaron, Moses' brother, and only 2-3% of other Jews. But, the Book of Mormon does not suggest—and in fact seems to exclude—the idea that Levites (the priestly family of Aaron) were among the Lehi party. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • What methods of DNA tests are available?
    Brief Summary: DNA issues can be complex for the non-specialist (especially those who were in high school more than twenty years ago, before much of the modern understanding of DNA was available). In this article we review the methods of DNA testing that are available, along with their strengths and their limitations. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • New World death rate after European contact
    Brief Summary: Approximately ninety percent of the Amerindian population died out following contact with the Europeans; most of this was due to infectious disease against which they had no defense.[1] Since different genes likely provide different resistances to infectious disease, it may be that eliminating 90% of the pre-contact gene pool has significantly distorted the true genetic picture of Lehi's descendants. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Jaredite influence
    Brief Summary: Critics often over-look the Jaredites, and assume (as in the hemispheric models that the Jaredites can have contributed nothing of consequence to the Lehite DNA picture. But, it is not clear that this must be the case. Some LDS have believed in a total eradication of the Jaredites, others have argued that Jaredite remnants survived and mixed with the Lehites. Bruce R. McConkie, while believing that the majority of Amerindian descent was from Israel (i.e. Lehi, Ishmael, and Mulek) nevertheless wrote: "The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished." (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"
    Brief Summary: It should be remembered too that many sectarian critics use DNA science in a sort of "suicide bombing" attack on the Church.[2] The fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but do not tell their readers that there is much stronger DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as evolutionary change in species, or human descent from other primates. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗


  • Bethabara
    Brief Summary: Alexander Campbell, an early Book of Mormon critic, complained that the Book of Mormon "makes John [the Baptist] baptize in the village of Bethabara." The Book of Mormon, however, uses the same term as the King James Bible: "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." (John 1:28) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • River runs into a fountain
    Brief Summary: Is the description of "a river’s running into a fountain" in 1 Nephi absurd? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗


  • Chariots
    Brief Summary: The Book of Mormon mentions "chariots," which are assumed to be a "wheeled vehicle." No draft animals existed to pull such chariots. 3 Nephi 3:22 notes that the Nephites "had taken their horses, and their chariots" to a central fortified area for protection against robbers. It should be noted that we are not told if these chariots served a purpose in riding, or if they were for transport of goods, or if they had a ceremonial function. One assumes some sort of practicality or ritual importance in war, since they brought chariots to the siege. Conspicuously absent is any role of the chariot in the many journeys recorded in the Book of Mormon. Nor do horses or chariots play any role in the many Nephite wars; this is in stark contrast to the Biblical account, in which the chariots of Egypt, Babylon, and the Philistines are feared super-weapons upon the plains of Israel. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Coins
    Brief Summary: Does the Book of Mormon make references to Nephite coins? Coins were not used either in ancient America or Israel during Lehi's day. However, the word "coins" was only added to the chapter heading of Alma 11 much later, and the text of the Book of Mormon itself does not mention coins. The pieces of gold and silver described in Alma 11:1-20 are not coins, but a surprisingly sophisticated system of weights and measures that is entirely consistent with Mesoamerican proto-monetary practices. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Compass
    Brief Summary: Critics charge that the description of the Liahona as a "compass" is anachronistic because the magnetic compass was not known in 600 B.C. However, believing it was called a compass because it pointed the direction for Lehi to travel is the fault of the modern reader, not the Book of Mormon. As a verb, the word "compass" occurs frequently in the King James Version of the Bible; and it generally suggests the idea of surrounding or encircling something (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • "Gold" plates?
    Brief Summary: Could Joseph Smith, Jr. have manufactured some metal plates out of tin, copper, or some other metal in order to trick witnesses into thinking he had gold plates? Gold plates of the dimensions described by the witnesses would be too heavy (on the order of 200 lbs) to be realistically lifted and carried as Joseph and others described. This assumption, however, assumes a solid block of gold in the dimensions described, and does not account for the fact that pure gold would have been too fragile to form the thin leaves necessary for engraving. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Gunpowder!
    Brief Summary: Some have even claimed that the Book of Mormon mentions "gunpowder," and "pistols and other firearms," which are clearly anachronisms. The claim is false. There is no mention of "gunpowder" or firearms, or anything like them, in the Book of Mormon. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Temple in the New World
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that Israelites would not have built a temple in the New World outside of Jerusalem. This ignores Israelite temples built in the Old World outside Jerusalem. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Windows
    Brief Summary: Does the mention of "windows" imply the existence of glass in Book of Mormon times? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

Claimed anachronisms related to language used in the Book of Mormon. (Click here for full article)

  • "Adieu"
    Brief Summary: Jacob 7:27 ends with the phrase, "Brethren, adieu." Some claim that because adieu is French, it shows that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon, and not an ancient author. There are at least three problems with the adieu argument against the Book of Mormon. 1) Critics overlook the fact that the word adieu was not on the plates. 2) The translator of a work can use words from any language he chooses in order to convey the meaning of the text to his readers, so that even if "adieu" had been a foreign word (e.g., French) to Joseph Smith, there is nothing either unusual or problematic with his choosing that word in his translation. 3) Critics mistakenly think the word "adieu" is not used as an English word. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • And it came to pass
    Brief Summary: Some have often complained about the frequent repetition of "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon.[1] Mark Twain famously joked that if the phrase were omitted, Joseph would have published a pamphlet instead of a book. As it turns out, however, this much-maligned phrase is actually evidence of the Book of Mormon's authentic antiquity. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Greek words: alpha and omega?
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work because it contains "Greek words" ("alpha and omega"). However, the Book of Mormon claims to be a translation. Therefore, the language used is that of Joseph Smith. Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using King James Bible language if that adequately represented the text's intent. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Modern phrasing
    Brief Summary: Critics maintain that Book of Mormon phrases or language is too "modern" to be of ancient origin. The Book of Mormon is a translation. As such, it may well use phrases or expressions that have no exact ancient counterpart. Modern Bible translations use similar expressions or phrases, and yet remain translations of ancient documents. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Hebrew and Native American languages
    Brief Summary: Is there any evidence that Old World languages (such as Hebrew) had an influence on the languages of the New World? It is claimed that the Book of Mormon provides too short a time for the disappearance of the Nephite/Lamanite Hebrew language. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Reformed Egyptian
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that Jews or Israelites (like the Nephites) would not have used the language of their slave period — Egyptian — to write sacred records, that there is no evidence in Egyptology of something called "reformed Egyptian," and that the Book of Mormon's claim to have been written in this language is therefore suspect. However, the claim that Israelites would not use Egyptian is clearly false. By the ninth to sixth centuries before Christ, Israelites used Egyptian numerals mingled with Hebrew text. The Papyrus Amherst 63 contains a text of Psalms 20:2-6 written in Aramaic (the language of Jesus) using Egyptian characters. This text was originally dated to the second century B.C., but this has since been extended to the 4th century B.C. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
    • Egyptian would not be shorter than Hebrew on the plates
      Brief Summary: It is claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon [Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a thousand plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." (Click here for full article)
      ∗       ∗       ∗

  • Gadianton Robbers as Masons?
    Brief Summary: Some claim that the Gadianton robbers are thinly disguised references to the anti-Masonic panic of Joseph Smith's era. Joseph's contemporaries did not embrace the "obvious" link between the Book of Mormon and masonry. Proponents or opponents of Masonry simply tended to blame their opponents for Mormonism. Given Joseph Smith's long family involvement with the institution of Freemasonry and the fact that he would, in 1842, become a Mason himself, it seems unlikely that anti-Masonry was the "environmental source" of the Gadianton robbers found in the Book of Mormon. The members of his day likewise had little enthusiasm for anti-Masonic sentiments. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

  • Cement
    Brief Summary: The Nephites in the land northward built buildings out of cement in Helaman 3:7-11 (circa 47 B.C.). As author John L. Smith put the claim, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times" (John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" The Utah Evangel 33:6 (September 1986): 8.) In this case, however, an attack on an 'absence of evidence' backfired. Cement is not anachronistic. The Book of Mormon places it in exactly the right spot and time period for Mesoamerican use of this building material. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Metals
    Brief Summary: Critics attack the Book of Mormon's mention of metal and metalworking in the Americas: 1) they claim no metal use occurred in the Americas prior to A.D. 900, and 2)they claim certain metals mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not available in the Americas. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Metal Plates
    Brief Summary: Is Joseph's report of finding a record on metal plates plausible? (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

Some plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon are not known to exist in the New World. It this evidence that Joseph fabricated the text based upon his own cultural background? (Click here for full article)


  • Demographics
    Brief Summary: Critics charge that the initial Lehite colony is too small to produce the population sizes indicated, and that Lehi's group was sent to a land which was kept from the knowledge of other nations, therefore, according to the Book of Mormon, there could not have been "others" present. A superficial reading of the Book of Mormon leads some to conclude that the named members of Lehi's group were the only members of Nephite/Lamanite society. However, the Book of Mormon contains many mentions of "others" that made up part of both societies; indeed, many Book of Mormon passages make little sense unless we understand this. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

  • Sweat and skin pores
    Brief Summary: It is claimed that the reference to blood coming from a pore is anachronistic, since Nephite authors would not have known about skin pores. Joseph Smith, it is claimed, would have known about pores, and so the Book of Mormon's addition of the word "pore" to the Bible's account in Luke 22:44 of Christ's suffering reflects Joseph Smith's 19th century worldview, and not an ancient author's. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Shiz struggles to breathe
    Brief Summary: In Ether 15:31, a final showdown occurs between two warriors, Shiz and Coriantumr. Coriantumr "smote off the head of Shiz...[and] after he had smitten off the head...Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died." Critics insist that this would not, or could not, happen. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • Three days of darkness
    Brief Summary: Critics argue that the "three days of darkness" in the New World following Christ's death is implausible. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗


  • Chapter divisions
    Brief Summary: Is the fact that the Book of Mormon has chapters evidence that it is a modern production? The table of contents was a modern insertion; it had no counterpart in the dictated text of the Book of Mormon. It was added just as it is in modern Bibles. However, the first edition of the Book of Mormon did contain chapters (though much longer than the modern chapters), and chapter markers were part of Joseph's dictated text. (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗


  1. Suzanne Austin Alchon, 'A Pest in the Land: New World Epidemics in a Global Perspective,' Albuquerque : University of New Mexico Press, c2003.
  2. The expression "suicide bombing" in this context comes from Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."

Further reading and additional sources responding to these claims

About FairMormon        Join FairMormon        Contact        Donate

Copyright © 2014 by FairMormon. All Rights Reserved.
No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of FairMormon.