Solving Some Problems

Many of the issues that challenge LDS testimonies have to do with Book of Mormon anachronisms—things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that don’t match what scholarship tells us existed in ancient America. As LDS critics frequently point out, for example, most non-LDS scholars are convinced that during Book of Mormon times there were no horses, elephants, swords, wheat, or silk in ancient America. To compound the problem, critics also point out that the Book of Mormon uses Christian and Greek terminology, borrows from New Testament authors, and includes phrases and teachings from late Isaiah quasi-pseudepigrapha. Such expressions and precepts would not have been known to the Lehites when they fled Jerusalem.

First, it should be pointed out that there are rational arguments to many of the anachronisms. As with most debates on contested issues, some LDS arguments may not convince all believers, and certainly not all critics, but there are solid arguments disputing lists of organic or material anachronisms. Many of the items listed as anachronistic, for instance, can be explained away as artifacts of language borrowings—or the recontextualization of unfamiliar things with familiar names. This topic is addressed in other books and articles, so I won’t readdress it here.

Evidence indicating that the Book of Mormon incorporates teachings, phrasing, and language that would not have been known to the Lehites—such as supposedly late-production Isaiah material—presents a different problem. According to critics, when Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, he borrowed teachings and language from the King James Bible of his day. To critics, this is a sure sign that the Book of Mormon is fiction. LDS scholars, on the other hand, sometimes question the conclusion that parts of Isaiah, as recorded in the King James Bible, were written after Lehi left Jerusalem. If Lehi had access to all the Isaiah material in the brass plates, then reference to those writings is not anachronistic.

For the sake of argument, let’s accept the claim that parts of Isaiah were written much later, and let’s accept the claim that this material is referenced in the Book of Mormon. Let’s also accept the LDS-critical claim (for the sake of argument) that the Book of Mormon incorrectly refers to anachronistic animals and weapons that did not exist in the ancient Americas. In context of the scriptural translation model presented in this book, these anachronisms can be explained as examples of Joseph’s intellectual (as opposed to revelatory) reliance on the language, idioms, and religious teachings available in his day. In the hopes of illustrating precepts that the Nephites hoped to convey, Joseph recontextualized (or likened) Nephite teachings according to Joseph’s nineteenth-century Christian interpretations of those teachings.

The Nephites themselves would not have used the late Isaiah language, nor Greek and Christian expressions, and may have expressed their religious ideals with concepts that were strangely foreign to modern Christians. I suggest, however, that the functionary gist of those teachings and declarations were found in the Bible and Joseph’s own worldview.