Conclusion

Taken in no particular order, this has been a limited appraisal of some systematic features of the Book of Mormon which belie any claim that it is fiction. One could go on with many more such features in response to those who present lists of claimed anachronisms. The problem with a sole focus on claimed anachronisms is not only that many of those anachronisms are not anachronistic at all, but that anachronisms are a feature of every literature, whether historical or fictional. The Bible, for example, has many more anachronisms than the Book of Mormon, and an entire literature (apologetic literature) has grown up in defense of the authenticity of the Bible. Of course, as in the case of the Book of Mormon, those who attack the Bible always minimize any evidence contrary to their claims, and never discuss the authentic indicators in biblical texts and in related archeological data. That sort of monomania crushes any possibility of meaningful repartee.

Entire chapters have long since been written on all these subjects, which are here merely summarized. Additional explanation and documentation are available on request. The upshot of all these short comments is that Joseph Smith could not have known enough about the ancient world to have gotten these entire systems right. Secular scholarship on these matters has only become available in more recent times.

At the very least, as Grant Hardy has put it:

If the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it is more intricate and clever than has heretofore been acknowledged.

It is high time that those who consider the Book of Mormon to be fictional at least be familiar with the actual nature of the Book of Mormon, as well as familiar with that portion of the ancient world from which it comes (or claims to come). How else can they expect to make a fair judgment on its authenticity?