Book of Mormon Problems

LDS Church members are taught that the Book of Mormon (BOM) is scripture, as well as a true record of the inhabitants of the Americas from about 2200 BC to 420 AD. Although it serves primarily as a religious text, it is to be interpreted literally as being an actual, historical record of the inhabitants of the ancient Americas. Some Latter-day Saints believe that there is some archaeological evidence supporting the BOM, many know there is little or no evidence and continue to believe in the book's authenticity despite these challenges. Critics cite numerous problems with the text that indicate it is of more modern origin such as anachronisms, DNA evidence, lack of archaeological evidence, linguistic problems, etc.

. . .

Anachronisms

An anachronism is when writing contains something from a future time period which couldn't realistically be in the time period they've written it into. For example, William Shakespeare wrote in his play, "Julius Caesar," that Brutus said, "Peace! Count the clock," with Cassius replying, "The clock has stricken three." The problem is that the play took place in 44 BC—a time period in which "striking" clocks had not yet been invented. Shakespeare took something familiar to him, a clock that strikes the hours, and placed it in his story before such clocks existed. Because the play is fictional, it is seen as simply an error on Shakespeare's part. If, however, someone were to claim that they had found an ancient writing from 44 BC that had the play written on it, it would clearly be seen as a forgery because of the clock anachronism.

If the play "Julius Caesar" were purported to be a historical document, originally written in Latin in 44 BC and translated by someone in the 1600's, claiming that God gave them the translation of that document, would that one clock anachronism be enough for you to disbelieve that it was truly from 44 BC or a translation from God? If it would require more than one anachronism for you to disbelieve, how many such anachronisms would be needed for you to realize the writing was not what it claimed to be?

For many apologists, if something is possible, no matter how implausible, that is enough to assuage their concerns. For critics, the idea is not what is possible, but what is probable. What is the probability of a reference to a clock that strikes hours realistically appearing in a document from 44 BC?

A "Julius Caesar" apologist would believe so much in the historicity of the "Julius Caesar" document that she would try any method possible to wave away the clock anachronism. The critic would try to prove the clock was an anachronism, thereby proving its fraudulent provenance. The apologist may say that what the original document was referring to was simply a sundial, but the person translating it knew that it was some sort of timepiece and chose a timepiece they were familiar with, a clock. The critic would point out that the phrase "count the clock" and the word "stricken" clearly refer to clocks that make noise and that in the particular scene in "Julius Caesar" it was 3:00 in the morning—not exactly a time at which a sundial would be consulted. So, although the apologist's explanation seemed to make sense, on further examination it crumbles. The apologist cannot leave it there, she must do whatever twisting and turning it takes to maintain her belief in the "truthfulness" of the document and its translation. This will lead to ever more absurd explanations and possibly outright lies to protect her belief about the historicity of the document at all costs.

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon present a problem for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's statements that a) the gold plates existed and b) they contained a historical account from the time period it claims. It might be easy to brush off an anachronism or two, but how many anachronisms need to be found in the Book of Mormon for someone to say that the book was not what Joseph claimed it to be? Both critics and apologists understand that for each verifiable anachronistic item appearing in the Book of Mormon the odds increase significantly that the book's origins and content are not what they are claimed to be.

Not only does an increase in the frequency of anachronisms increase the probability that a work is not historically accurate, but the nature in which the anachronistic word is used can do so as well. In the clock example above, if "clock" were mentioned alone, it would be easier to pass off as some sort of translation error. But when the idea within which the anachronistic word is embedded relies on a specific meaning for that word, such as the idea that the clock must "strike" and be used at night, then the probability of it being an actual anachronism instead of just a simple mistake increases. When one looks at the frequency and context of Book of Mormon anachronisms ("horses" in the BOM are often found coupled with either "chariots" or "cattle," both of which are also anachronisms), it's hard to imagine any other origin than it being the product of the mind(s) of a 19th century author(s).

Most critical thinkers believe the simplest, most logical answer is probably the correct one (based on the idea of Occam's Razor). This is not to say that some answers and reasons can't be more complex, but when the preponderance of reasons and answers explaining a theory are complex, it might be time to give up trying to support that theory.

Besides simply chronological anachronisms, the Book of Mormon contains items that might not be simply out of time, but they are geographically out of place for the time period the Book of Mormon covers. The Church teaches that the first inhabitants of the Americas were the Jaredites, arriving in the New World and beginning their historical records "approximately 2200 B.C." (Chapter 50: Ether 1-5, Book of Mormon Student Manual (2009) and "Book of Mormon Time Line," Ensign October 2011.) The heading for Chapter 10 of Moroni states that this last chapter of the Book of Mormon was written "About A.D. 421." (The Book of Moroni, Chapter 10 heading, Book of Mormon.) This means that anything mentioned in the Book of Mormon takes place from approximately 2200 BC to approximately 421 AD.

An example of something in the correct time period for parts of the world, but out of place for the Americas is steel. The same is true for many animals, such as horses, elephants, goats, donkeys, etc.—they lived elsewhere in the world, just not in the Americas.

Below are some of the contradictory and often anachronistic items in the Book of Mormon text. We list the critics' arguments and LDS responses.

Book of Mormon Animals

Some of the anachronistic animals found in the Book of Mormon include horses, cattle, oxen, donkeys, goats, wild goats, sheep, swine and elephants (see 1 Nephi 18:25 and Ether 9:18-19).

. . .

Book of Mormon Crops

Plow agriculture such as Barley (Alma 11:7) and Wheat (Mosiah 9:9)

Absence of foods known to ancient America such as cocoa, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, manioc, pulque, etc.

. . .

Book of Mormon Culture

(Cultural artifacts or circumstances mentioned in the Book of Mormon that have not been discovered or verified in any ancient American archaeological expedition or historical investigation in the last 200 years.)

Silk (Alma 1:29)

Chariots (Alma 18:9)

Seven day week (Mosiah 13:18) (not known to Ancient Americans)

Cimeters (Old-World two-handed steel blade) Mosiah 9:16 (and other verses)

Visit of post-mortal Christ in the pre-Columbian New World (Elder Mark E. Peterson and Elder Ted E. Brewerton attempt to parallel the Book of Mormon narrative to the Quetzalcoatl (or feathered serpent) legend).

Land kept from the knowledge of 'other nations' (2 Nephi 1:8)

Book of Mormon Metallurgy

Metal work in the BOM can best be summed up with 2 Nephi 5:15:

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.

Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11)

Brass and iron (2 Nephi 5:15)

Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah 8:10)

Gold and Silver currency (Alma 11)

Silver (Jarom 1:8)

Swords (Ether 7:9, 2 Nephi 5:14, many other verses)

Steel (Ether 7:9, 2 Nephi 5:14)

. . .

Nephite Coins

Coinage wasn't really invented until after Lehi left Jerusalem. Furthermore, no evidence of any coins, which would have been very numerous, have ever been found which could be attributed to the Nephite monetary system.

. . .

Book of Mormon Geography Questions from Critics

Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land"? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2200 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.

Why didn't any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived?

Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn't it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains?

Why don't significant gaps exist in the archaeological record of Mesoamerica if these "missing" people existed?

Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which Joseph Smith identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: "… the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph … who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains." (HOC 1904 ed., II: 79-80). NOTE: MormonThink has completed an essay on Zelph that goes into detail about the story of Zelph and its implications on the BOM historicity.

Why don't [non-Mormon] archaeologists theorize Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?

. . .

Knowledge of the Wheel?

The origin of the wheel is unknown, but once it was invented, knowledge of the wheel spread rapidly throughout the Mediterranean and Asian world. Wheeled vehicles made the movement of goods much easier. The earliest known examples of wheels are from Mesopotamia and date from about 3500 to 3000 BC. The cart or wagon, pulled by humans or animals, was the first wheeled vehicle.

. . .

Scientific community

Although some LDS members believe that the scientific community supports the plausibility of the Book of Mormon, the reality is that the BOM is rejected by the general scientific community.

Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.

Statement by the National Geographic Society

It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon. There is no correspondence whatever between archaeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon, hence the book cannot be regarded as having any historical value from the standpoint of the aboriginal peoples of the New World." F.H.H. Roberts, Jr, Smithsonian Institution, 1951

There is an inherent improbability in specific items that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon as having been brought to the New World by…Nephites. Among these are the horse, the chariot, wheat, barley, and [true] metallurgy. The picture of this hemisphere…presented in the book has little to do with the early Indian cultures as we know them.

" Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," (PDF) Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 41, 42 & 46.

The Smithsonian Letter

A faith-promoting rumor surfaces from time to time that the Smithsonian Institution sometimes uses the Book of Mormon as a guide to archaeological research in the Americas. Many faith-promoting rumors are stories that are not verifiable, but the rumor about Smithsonian use of the Book of Mormon contains some element of truth. The organization did issue a statement about how it uses the Book of Mormon in legitimate research.

Faithful Mormons may find the content of the letter disappointing, but the Book of Mormon has never been used by the Smithsonian as a research tool and the statement addresses the most common questions the institution receives.

Information from the

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide.The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonian's position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.

Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonian's name. Please address any correspondence to:

Public Information Officer

Department of Anthropology

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112

Washington, DC 20560

Prepared by

THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.

7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archaeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological remains in Egypt.

8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.

Reference: Link is here.

Follow-up on the Smithsonian Letter

Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon by Sharon Lindbloom

Late in 1998 the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS - an LDS research group operating under the umbrella of the LDS Church) included a sidebar in their Journal of Book of Mormon Studies titled "Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon Revised" (volume 7, number 1, 1998, p. 77). The article began,

For many years the Smithsonian Institution has given out a routine response to questions posed to them about their view of the relation between the Book of Mormon and scientific studies of ancient American civilizations. Statements in their handout pointed out what somebody at the Institution claimed were contradictions between the text of the scripture and what scientists claim about New World cultures.

Continuing, the article mentioned that LDS anthropologist John Sorenson critiqued the Smithsonian statement in 1982, pointing out the "errors of fact and logic" which it allegedly contained. In 1995 Dr. Sorenson revised his critique and, according to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, recommended that the Smithsonian "completely modify their statement to bring it up-to-date scientifically."

FARMS noted that it's officers later spoke with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes. More recently there has been some question from certain members of Congress about whether it is appropriate for a government agency to take a stand regarding a religious book.

According to FARMS, in March of 1998 the Director of Communications at the Smithsonian Institution began using a two paragraph response to "queries about the Book of Mormon" (see below) which basically states that the Smithsonian does not use the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide.

After reading the FARMS article I was curious about the absence of the reasons the Smithsonian did not use the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide. The previous statement offered by the Smithsonian had listed several specific points of contention between science and Book of Mormon claims (among them the physical type of the American Indian; the Book of Mormon's anachronistic assertions of New World pre-Colombian use of Old World metals, domesticated food plants, animals, and other items; the absence of any confirmed relationship between the archaeological remains in Mexico and remains in Egypt; the absence of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World).

Therefore, I wrote to the Smithsonian to inquire about the new statement and their reasons for the changes. Following is the text of my letter to the Smithsonian Institution; following that is the text of the letter I received in response.

3 February 1999

Public Information Officer

Department of Anthropology

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, DC 20560

Dear Sir or Madam:

It has come to my attention that the Smithsonian Institution has issued a new "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon." I would appreciate it very much if you would provide me a copy of this Statement using the enclosed pre-addressed, pre-stamped envelope.

I would also like to know what has precipitated the necessity of a new Statement. Is there anything in the Smithsonian Institution's previous "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" (the copy I have is designated SIL-76 1988) which has been proven inaccurate by subsequent research? If so, would you please instruct me on what those inaccuracies may be?

Thank you very much for your help and kind attention to my inquiry.

Sincerely,

(Signed) Sharon A. Lindbloom

9 February 1999

Dear Ms. Lindbloom:

Thank you for your letter. We still stand by our former statement on the Book of Mormon. It was a decision of the Smithsonian's central Office of Public Affairs to simplify the statement to respond to general questions regarding the Smithsonian's use of the Book of Mormon. Below is the statement we presently distribute for these general inquiries.

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you may have received to the contrary is incorrect.

I hope I have answered your question.

Sincerely,

(Signed) Ann Kaupp, Head

Anthropology Outreach Office

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon by Sharon Lindbloom (archived link).

. . .