Anachronism – [uh-nak-ruh-niz-uh m – noun]

Something or someone not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier or later time.

A practical approach to confirm the authenticity of ancient or historical writings is the identification of anachronisms found within them. Anachronisms are chronological errors, and they might include mention of events that could not have occurred during the period under discussion. These errors can also include names, locations, languages, tools, and so on that did not exist or were unknown at the time the historical document was written.

For example, in Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene 5, Shakespeare has Juliet utter, “The clock struck nine when I did send the nurse.” Romeo and Juliet is, however, set in the 1300s, well before the invention of the first mechanical pendulum clock. This is an anachronism. It was an error, similar to one made in the motion picture Spartacus, where the film editor failed to notice some of the slaves were sporting wristwatches.

Now, ‘The Bard of Avon’ was not trying to fool anyone, and a slave wearing a wristwatch at a time of Christ is hilarious. However, when we put serious writing to the anachronism test, and it comes up short, it usually indicates fraud or deception.

The Book of Mormon does not fare well when put to the anachronism test. The Book of Mormon cites horses fourteen times. However, not only is there no evidence that horses existed in North, Central or South America during the time of the Book of Mormon’s supposed describes (2500 BC– 400 AD). Indeed there is considerable compelling scientific evidence that horses became extinct by the end of the Pleistocene era (2.5 million–12,000 years ago). Horses only reappear in the Americas when the Spaniards brought them from Europe in about 1519.

Elephants are mentioned in (Ether 9:19) swinging their trunks for the Jaredites (2500 BC). But again, fossil records show that they became extinct at the end of the last Ice Age (10,000 years ago).

Chariots are mentioned numerous times in the Book of Mormon (Alma 18:9-10, 12, Alma 20:6, 3 Nephi 3:22), yet again, there is no archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in the pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. They would be of little use, considering there were no horses to pull them. Ether 9:18 refers to cattle, but here again, there is no evidence that Old World domesticated cattle inhabited the New World before European contact.

Likewise, iron and steel cited several times (1 Nephi 16:18, 2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8, Ether 7:9) is a problem as there is no evidence of hardened steel being present in pre-Columbian America. A sophisticated metallurgical society would leave considerable evidence. The Book of Mormon also refers to “swords,” stating that “the blades thereof were cankered with rust” (Mosiah 8:11) relating to the Jaredites’ final battlefield where some 250,000 warriors perished. But again, no such battlefield, no such soldiers, and no such weapons have ever been found.

2 Nephi 5:14-15 reads: “And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords… And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.” And how is it possible that a small group of ‘immigrants,’ likely no more than 50 to 100 in number, managed to do all of the following in a short period of time: Mine Iron Ore – and extract elemental iron from that iron ore. Mine Coal – and refine it into coke as required in the production of iron. Make Steel – a complicated process of mixing iron with carbon. Mine Limestone – a necessary ingredient necessary for the production of steel. Locate and Mine Copper. Mine Tin and Zinc – for the production of “brass.” Refine this Tin or Zinc, which does not appear in an elemental state. Develop expertise in prospecting – locating and identifying ores. Prospect for Gold. Locate and Extract Silver. Roast to eliminate sulphur as required in the production of both copper and silver. Smelt and flux all of these metals. Construct blast furnaces – to produce these metals. Manufacture hardened mining tools.

What an incredible, intrepid and industrious little band! Mining, smelting, refining, roasting, all leave indestructible and robust evidence, yet in all of the Americas let alone the Northeastern United State, there is no such evidence. Also, the story of the construction of transoceanic vessel borders on the ridiculous.

We learn in 1 Nephi that the Lord in directing the building of a sea-going craft tells Nephi where he can find iron ore to make his tools. The obvious question is how could Nephi et al extract the iron ore without already having tools? As well, Nephi tells us that they had to molten the ore to make the tools, one must ask how did they build a blast furnace hot enough to produce molten iron – at least 1,500 degrees celsius.

Burning wood can only produce a temperature at tops 600 degrees and coal is anachronistic to the Sinai peninsula. Charcoal can produce higher temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees using Nephi’s ‘bellows,’ but producing char is a complicated process requiring acres of hardwood, again anachronistic in the Sinai, and the construction of a charcoal furnace reaching temperatures of 1,500 degrees is a real stretch. Good charcoal is mostly pure carbon, called char, which is made by cooking wood in a low oxygen environment, a process that can take days as it burns off volatile compounds such as water, methane, and hydrogen. When ignited, the carbon in char combines with oxygen and forms carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water, and other gases, packing more potential energy per ounce than raw wood. Char burns steady and hot, but not 1,500 degrees hot.

A sea-going craft also requires metal strapping and a great many nails – certainly in the thousands – each handmade. Joseph Smith was not just ignorant of what existed before the Spaniards appeared on this continent, but was also ignorant when it came to shipbuilding. He was, it would seem, only familiar with the canoes and flat bottom boats that went up and down his local Erie Canal.

A real sea-going ship needs a keel, a flat blade sticking down into the water from a sailboat’s bottom. It performs two functions: it prevents the ship from being blown sideways by the wind and holds the ballast that keeps the ship right-side up. I know something of boating, I once owned a 53-foot motor yacht, without a real keel, that a dozen of us would sail around Puget Sound on. Let me assure you that even with radar and sonar and GPS plot finders and a smaller boat on board, I would not be foolish enough to take my boat out on the blue water, let alone cross the ocean.

Also, the lumber created to build a seagoing vessel also must be steamed to bring the bow to a point. Steaming lumber is no mean feat. This is problematic in two ways. First, you have to laminate and steam wood to make the keel. Second, you need a dry dock to build it. Because of the keel, you can’t simply build your ship on skids and launch it into the sea. Building a dry dock with a deep enough hole for a ship the size described in the Book of Mormon with water-tight gates as well as a steaming station is an enormous task that would have taken several years to construct. Also, wood is porous and needs pitch or tar derived from oak to keep the boat from leaking. What about rope, or the wool needed to make the sails.

It takes two sheep to produce one square meter of sail. You can only sheer a sheep once a year, therefore hundreds of sheep are required – where did these hundreds of needed sheep come from? Wild sheep? Feral sheep? How about the tall straight trees for the masts? How were they lifted in place?

How did Nephi intend to steer the ship as the rudder (requiring ropes and pulleys) wasn’t invented until the 12th century?

Bountiful must also have been a fabulous place with surface iron ore, hundreds of acres of hardwood, and pasture land, as well as herds of feral sheep.

And perhaps most significantly we have the problem of water. How do you carry enough water for the people and animals on board to make the crossing? Water is heavy, and since the barrel was also not yet invented, how did they carry enough water for the long crossing? Clay jars are not very smart on a ship being buffeted by waves. Maybe they tanned sheep bladders and made waterskins, but tanning requires tannic acid again only found in oak and takes years to properly produce and you are going to need a lot of them. Lehi’s voyage however would have taken them from the Saudi Arabian peninsula to the western shores of Mesoamerica.

The Book of Mormon is silent on how long the voyage lasted, but oceanographic research has shown using ‘drifters’ (floating buoys that transmit their positions to satellites orbiting the earth) that the route could have taken about 580 days. Medical experts tell us that an adequate daily fluid intake is about 15.5 cups (3.7 litres) of fluids for men and about 11.5 cups (2.7 litres) of fluids a day for women. If we assume a group of 45 people. John L. Sorenson concluded that between 40 and 50 people entered the boat that carried the group to the promised land (Sorenson, “The Composition of Lehi’s Family,” 195). That means not even considering the livestock on board and assuming no one ever bathed, they would have required 83,000 litres or 22,500 gallons of water on the ship to make the crossing. Certainly, rain could be collected, but how do you estimate how much? It is not inconceivable that the trip enjoyed largely fair weather.

That amount of water would have weighed over 188,000 lbs. or 94 tons. If sheep waterskins were used to carry the water for the voyage over 30,000 sheep would have to have been slaughtered to harvest enough bladders. Is Smith’s yarn beginning to sound a little far-fetched?

Six times silk is spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 13:7,8, Alma 1:29, Alma 4:6, Ether 9:17, Ether 10:24). Silk, of course, is a product of the Orient and unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas. The word, ‘compass’ (Alma 37:38), is dated to be 73 B.C. in the Book of Mormon, even though, this instrument was not invented until the twelfth century.

Alma 11 is also problematic in that it mentions a monetary system based on the weights of precious metals and strongly implies the use of coins. However, recognizing the anachronistic problem of new world coins showing up before the time of Christ, the church made yet another change to the ‘most correct book in the world,’ removing the reference to ‘coinage’, from the introduction of Alma 11. Before the change, the introduction read: “Judges and their compensation—Nephite coins and measures—Zeezrom confounded by Amulek…”

The introduction’s reference to “Nephite coins and measures,” was written by a committee, although James Talmage is given special credit. I guess we are now to believe that this was just sloppy work on his part even though Talmage’s biographer, James P. Harris, noted that Talmage “was customarily meticulous, making sure there were no errors or omissions.” As well, regardless of the church’s willingness to throw Talmage under the bus, the introductions and footnotes were undoubtedly approved by the LDS First Presidency.

We have, of course, never found any evidence of the Alma 11 monetary system nor have any coins ever been unearthed – not a seon, shum, limnah, amnor, senums or ezrom. In fact, not a single onti! The church’s position now is that the seon, shum, limnah, etc. were not coins even through their reference as ‘pieces of their gold,’ and pieces ‘of their silver,’ would suggest the opposite.

LDS apologists now take the narrow view that these pieces of metal of particular weights and values are not coins because they were not minted or inscribed. Their mention in the Book of Mormon indeed indicates; however, they were used as coins. ” “And the judge received for his wages according to his time–a senine of gold for a day, or a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold; and this is according to the law which was given. Now, these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value.” (see Alma 11:1–19)

For many decades Alma 11 has been understood by members to speak of coins. B.H. Roberts, an LDS Seventy and Church historian, wrote, “In addition to these words we also have a number of names of Nephite coins and the names of fractional values of coins…” Brother Roberts continues his uses of the term ‘coins’ we have no means of obtaining specifically the value of these coins in modern terms,” and, “there is stated a system of relative values in these coins that bears evidence of its being genuine” (A New Witness for God, 3:145).

In the 1979 Book of Mormon Student Manual (Religion 121-122), it asks students, “how valuable were the Nephite pieces of money?” Showing that “pieces” meant “coins,” the manual presents a chart to show “the relative value of silver and gold coins under the system set up by Mosiah.”

The difficulty, of course, does not just lie in a lack of any Nephite coins being unearthed, It lies in Smith’s suggestion that such coins existed in the first place. So, Alma 11 paints the Church and her apologists into a corner. Either it presents more artifacts that have never been confirmed by archaeology or it is yet another of the many anachronisms found in Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon.

The word “Bible,” denotes a canon of scripture (2 Nephi 29:3, 4, 6, and 10) and is also problematic. The word ‘Bible’ is the Anglicization of the Greek word ‘Biblia,’ which means book. The problem here is that Greek wasn’t spoken in Israel until long after Lehi’s supposed emigration to the Americas in about 600 BC.

2 Nephi 31:13 references the “Holy Ghost,” but, the word “ghost” did not come into parlance until hundreds of years after it was inscribed in the Book of Mormon. The name ‘Isabel’ (Alma 39:3) given to a harlot, first appeared in France and Italy in the middle ages. Again, wrong time, wrong place. Six times, we find the abbreviation “&c” (and so forth), a convention peculiar to the nineteenth century in the Book of Mormon – never used before, never used after.

The words “alpha” and “omega” appear in 3 Nephi 9:18. These two words are, of course, the English spellings of the Greek words found in the Book of Revelations in the Bible. As the Book of Mormon was not recorded in Greek, why do we find these words? The most obvious answer is that Smith simply copied them from the King James Version of the Bible. There are numerous instances where Smith uses words that were not relevant to his time but peculiar to the English spoken in the early 1600s. “Prayest,” “durst,” “thou,” “thee,” “thy,” “thine,” “hast,” “doth,” “knoweth,” “hearest,” “cometh,” and “thirsteth.”

Did God select these words for the Book of Mormon? No, it demonstrates the writer’s exposure to King James’ terminology. One must ask, why would the Book of Mormon be translated into King James/Elizabethan English in the first place? This language was neither spoken in 1830 America nor in the day of Mormon, Moroni, et.al.?

Does God speak Elizabethan English, or was this a cunning ploy Smith used to give his writing greater gravitas and also make the numerous passages he plagiarized from the King James Version of the Bible fit in more seamlessly?

Scores of passages in the Book of Mormon, either in part or whole, verbatim or paraphrased, have been taken directly from the King James Version of the Bible. Perhaps the most egregious error Smith made throughout the Book of Mormon was the use of the word “Christ.” He uses it as though it was the surname of the Lord Jesus. However, as any seminarian can tell you, the word “Christ” is the Anglicization of the Greek word ‘Christos,’ meaning the anointed or chosen one (the equivalent of the Hebrew word Mashiach, or Messiah.)

Much is made of the appearance of the word ‘adieu,’ (Jacob 7:27) because it is so obviously and ridiculously out of place.

And of course, there is the ‘Isaiah problem.‘ Nearly all Bible scholars doubt that the Book of Isaiah was written by one person. They tend to date the last third of Isaiah to the 6th century BCE some 200 years after Isaiah’s death and well after Lehi’s family left Jerusalem with the brass plates.

If Chapters 40–66 were not written until after Lehi’s departure, then what are they doing in the Book of Mormon. For example, Isaiah 44:28 mentions Cyrus who we know lived 200 years after Isaiah and long after Lehi. Likewise, the threats against Babylon found in Isaiah 47:1 and 48:14), were well after Lehi’s voyage to the New World.

It is not then surprising that non-Mormon archaeologists and scholars have concluded that the Book of Mormon’s many anachronisms, let alone its subject matter, clearly reveals the 19th-century origin, leading to the inescapable and indisputable conclusion that it is a work of fiction composed during Joseph Smith’s time and nothing more.

FairMormon did produce the attractive chart below in which they attempt to show those anachronisms within the Book of Mormon that have now been ‘confirmed.’ Of course, no supporting evidence or references are provided.

This chart is intended to show how many things believed to be anachronistic in 1842 have now been proven to have existed in the Americas in Book of Mormon times:

The problem is the information it contains is bogus. For example, in the 2005 iteration, it lists the Hebrew language, brass plates, and swords (steel and otherwise) as confirmed. When and where were these things confirmed and by whom?

I am also curious as to why horses are listed as ‘indeterminate.’ Perhaps this refers to the tapir postulate! Let me assure you that the Hebrew language, swords (steel and otherwise) have NEVER been discovered, FairMormon’s colorful chart notwithstanding.

If the LDS church has what this chart says they do, would they not be trumpeting all these ‘important discoveries’ across their media and beyond? In addition to horses, it also lists as ‘indeterminate,’ goats, large armies and the language that no one has ever heard of – ‘Reformed Egyptian.’

I have travelled to Egypt and examined hieratic script with non-Mormon archaeologists from Alexandria to Aswan and have visited most of the tombs and temples in between. I have never seen evidence of this peculiar language, nor do I know any Egyptian scholars who have ever heard of ‘Reformed Egyptian.’

Where is the evidence that backs any of these classifications? Many professional linguists would love to know more about the discovery of the Hebrew language in the Americas that this chart confirms. Somehow every non-Mormon linguist seems to have missed this ground-breaking find that the nameless ‘scholars’ at FairMormon have discovered!

The discovery of the Hebrew language in ancient America is not a subject for debate. It is well established that there have NEVER been any such discoveries. Some Mormon apologists have also suggested that the horses spoken of in the Book of Mormon were really deer. Give me a break! I have a spread on the North Saskatchewan river up in Alberta, Canada, on which roam the odd moose, bear, cougar and many many whitetail deer. Let me assure you having directly observed the temperament of this animal for decades; that it is beyond absurd to suggest that you could ride them!

Here again, FairMormon drags out their ‘go to’ archaeologist/scholar/apologist John L. Sorenson, to spin another tale, this time out of ‘silk:’ “Linen and silk are textiles mentioned in the Book of Mormon (Alma 4:6). Neither fabric as we now know them was found in Mesoamerica at the coming of the Spaniards. The problem might be no more than linguistic. The redoubtable Bernal Diaz, who served with Cortez in the initial wave of conquest, described native Mexican garments made of “henequen which is like linen.” The fiber of the maguey plant, from which henequen was manufactured, closely resembles the flax fiber used to make European linen. Several kinds of “silk,” too, were reported by the conquerors. One kind was of thread spun from the fine hair on the bellies of rabbits…”

OK, so according to Sorenson they didn’t exist, it was all just a big misunderstanding, a matter of labels – semantics. When the Book of Mormon says linen it means henequen, silk isn’t silked its hair from the bellies of rabbits; barley is Hordeum, a species of grass native to the Americas. By horse, Mormon writers meant tapir, by cattle they meant buffalo, and when they use the word pig this is really code for the Chic, a ‘wonderfully active, small dog, with a snout like a sucking pig.’

FairMormon also states: “When they say “directly” support, they typically mean that they are looking for a direct corroboration, such as the presence of the name “Nephi” or “Zarahemla” in association with ancient American archaeological data.” First, I am not sure who ‘they’ are but if ‘they’ are archaeologists I doubt they are looking for road signs when they speak of “direct corroboration.”

I would suggest that direct corroboration would be the discovery of evidence of the places – animals or technology that match the Book of Mormon claims. The skeletal remains of an elephant would be an example of direct corroboration, one piece of armor or a sword from the many battles involving millions of people would be direct corroboration. None of these, of course, are indicated, rather FairMormon provides yet another quote by Sorenson, this time without any citation:

“Without even considering smelted iron, we find that peoples in Mesoamerica exploited iron minerals from early times. Lumps of hematite, magnetite, and ilmenite were brought into Valley of Oaxaca sites from some of the thirty-six ore exposures located near or in the valley. These were carried to a workshop section within the site of San Jose Mogote as early as 1200 B.C. There they were crafted into mirrors by sticking the fragments onto prepared mirror backs and polishing the surface highly. These objects, clearly of high value, were traded at considerable distances.”

I can understand why Sorenson starts with, ‘Without even considering smelted iron,’ as there is none to consider. Instead, he talks about lumps of meteoric minerals fashioned into primitive mirrors as being proof of iron or steel. FairMormon again trumpets the discovery of wild barley in Arizona. While I would like to have seen peer-reviewed articles, this is something that the reader might want to investigate further as it indeed refutes the critics who say that barley did not exist in the Americas.

The December 1983 issue of the magazine Science 83 reported the discovery in Phoenix, Arizona, by professional archaeologists of what they supposed to be pre-Columbian barley. That same month, F.A.R.M.S. carried a preliminary notice of the discovery. Mosiah 9:9 lists barley among several crops that were cultivated by the Nephites in the land of Nephi, and Alma 11:7 singles out barley as the primary grain into which silver and gold were converted in the Nephite system of weights and measures.

In a blog article entitled, ‘Barley Found in the New World.’ Raymond C. Treat heralds this find, “This discovery constitutes one of the most important archaeological breakthroughs ever in support of the Book of Mormon. If this identification of barley is valid, and it appears to be, it will cause a major shift in the thinking of New World archaeologists, a shift which will be a giant step toward the ever-growing physical validation of Book of Mormon history.”

Mr. Treat may be a little too enthusiastic, but keep in mind that a few grains of wild barley in Arizona does not parallel the domesticated variety taken from the Holy Land to the Americas and used to feed millions of people. The simple truth is the Mormon Church has nothing but as an act of desperation produce very sketchy ‘evidence.’

For example, there is a pre-Columbian city located on the Yucatan Peninsula called Tulúm which is often included in LDS tour packages and identified as a ‘possible’ Book of Mormon site. The tour guides describe it as one place mentioned in the Book of Mormon and make a big fuss over the depiction of the “Descending God,” which the guides often tell their naive Mormon tourists what they want to hear – that it is Christ.

The problem is that extensive archaeological research conducted at Tulúm has shown that the time is all wrong. All structural and ceramic evidence at Tulúm, and its corpus of murals and reliefs, date from the Middle and Late Postclassic (AD 1200-1520) period. The Ancient History Encyclopedia has this to say: “While it has long been held that Tulum is the only temple complex to depict the Descending God, his image has been found elsewhere. Attempts to link him to the figure of Jesus Christ have been dismissed by all reputable scholarly authorities.” In addition, competent non-Mormon archaeologists believe that the Descending God, .…also known at Cobá and Sayil, are commonly thought, based on their apparent antennae and insect-like torsos, to represent the bee gods Ah Muzencab, known from the Madrid Codex.

Another ‘F.’