Archeology, DNA, & Anachronisms

I quickly found that this was a go-to phrase for critics. Atheists and religious critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints generally agree on this point. If there were “no archeological evidence,” that would be a real problem for the Church. Indeed, if the Book of Mormon is a book covering events that happened, then we should have found something, right?

Archeological Evidence

Today, we know far more about the history of early Israelites and Indigenous American people than Joseph Smith would have ever known. Why does the Book of Mormon look better and better as we learn more about the ancient world?

The more I learned, the more confused I became by critics' claims that there is “no archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon.” I suppose each person can define what a sufficient level of proof is. However, archeology is a messy field of study, and ancient peoples rarely leave behind scrolls that say, “Nephi was definitely here.”

How do critics account for the following if “no archeological evidence” exists?

Frankincense Trail

In 1 Nephi 2:5, Lehi takes his family into the wilderness out of Jerusalem “near the shore of the Red Sea.” This journey, as described in the Book of Mormon, has been a subject of scrutiny. However, long after the Book of Mormon was published, historians made a significant discovery- the “Frankincense Trail.” The trail was in use in Lehi’s day and fits the description of Lehi’s journey out of Jerusalem.¹ Details such as the valley of Lemuel, the Laman River, and the decreasing fertility the further south Lehi’s family traveled all align with the Frankincense Trail.

If Joseph Smith made up 1^st Nephi, how did he know about this viable path along the Red Sea heading southward? How did he know this trail was in use in Lehi’s day? How did Joseph Smith correctly identify the details of landmarks, water features, and vegetation?

Nahom

In 1 Nephi 16:34, Ishmael dies, and his family buries him in a place called Nahom. Nahom stands out. At other points in their journey, Lehi names locations as they pass them, like the river Laman (1 Nephi 2:8) and the valley of Lamuel (1 Nephi 2:10). But, when they get to Nahom, the scriptures say, “And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.” The implication is that this place was already called Nahom before Lehi’s family arrived.

In 1990, archeologists found an ancient burial mound in the Jawf Valley in Yemen. Inscribed on an altar at this burial mount were the Hebrew letters NHM. Egyptian and Hebraic languages do not use vowels. So, translators interpret NHM today as Nihm, Nahm, Naham, Nehm, Nihim, Nehem, or Nahom. Yes, that Nahom. Since then, historians have found ancient maps (unavailable to Joseph Smith) identifying this region as the ancient territory of Nihm.²

Altar in Ma’rib, Yemen, with the inscription NHM, corresponding to Nephi's mention of Nahom.

How did Joseph Smith know about the ancient city of Nahom from 1830 resources? How did he predict the name and location of Nahom so accurately?

After Nahom, in 1 Nephi 17:1, Lehi’s family traveled “nearly eastward from that time forth.” (emphasis added) That is an interesting detail in the Book of Mormon. The “main ancient trade routes turned eastward at the Wadi Jawf, near Nihm. This was the only area where nearly direct eastward travel was possible.”³ (emphasis added)

That locates Nahom of the Book of Mormon in the ancient world in the right spot on the map from which traveling “nearly eastward” became possible.

How did Joseph Smith guess that? What are the odds of that happening?

Further, the Hebrew root of Nahom (NHM) means “to groan.”⁴ The Book of Mormon records that at Nahom, “it came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father.” (1 Nephi 16:35; emphasis added)

How proficient was Joseph Smith in ancient Hebrew in 1829?

Bountiful

“Arabia is bountiful in sunshine, petroleum, sand, heat, and fresh air, but certainly not in much fruit and wild honey,' nor has it been since the creation of time." – THOMAS KEY (1985)⁵

Critics mocked the Book of Mormon for describing a land on the coast of modern-day Yemen/Oman that had “much fruit and also wild honey” (emphasis added, 1 Nephi 17:5). Joseph Smith’s contemporaries understood that region to be a sprawling, never-ending desert.

In 1976, explorers discovered a widely unknown part of Oman that fits the description of the Book of Momon’s Bountiful in the Old World.⁶ Khor Kharfot and Khor Rori in Oman are both great candidates for the Bountiful in the Book of Mormon. They have fresh water, large trees, fruit, and vegetation. They also have mountains for Nephi to pray (1 Nephi 17:7), ore for tool making (1 Nephi 17:10), cliffs by which Laman and Lemuel threaten to “toss me [Nephi] into the sea” (1 Nephi 17:48), and also seashore for a boat launch into the ocean.

Additionally, Dr. Ric Hauck discovered the remains of what seems to be an ancient temple in Khor Kharfot. The site of this sanctuary is the same size and proportion as the Temple of Solomon. It faces due east, as Hebrew law would say it should, and its proportions resemble those of the Temple of Solomon. Dr. Hauck suggests 14 correlations between the Khor Kharfot sanctuary and the Temple of Solomon.⁷

Further, non-Latter-day Saint biblical scholar Ziony Zevit suggests that Eden is an ancient Semitic name meaning “Bountiful.”⁸ A fitting end in the old world to the eight-year exodus of Lehi’s family.

How did Joseph Smith guess that there was a region eastward from Nahom on the coast of modern-day Oman that is lush and green? Isn’t it lucky that a place like that even exists in that area? And it fits the geographic description of “Bountiful” in the Book of Mormon? How did Joseph Smith know this fact so contrary to the conventional wisdom of his day?

How did Joseph Smith get so lucky as to predict the location of Bountiful in the “nearly eastward” direction from Nahom?

Why do critics omit the Frankincense trail, Nahom, and Bountiful when discussing archaeology? After reading 1^st Nephi, how can critics still say, “There is no archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon?”

We do not know where the events recorded in 2nd Nephi – Moroni occurred in the Americas before the plates were buried in upstate New York. The only book in the Book of Mormon where we have a general idea of where it happened is 1st Nephi. Isn't it fascinating how accurate 1st Nephi is concerning where it happened? How did Joseph figure out the customs and geography of Lehi's day and produce an account in which every detail is accurate or plausible?

Mulek

The Book of Mormon mentions the name of another group that leaves Jerusalem, namely that of Mulek, the son of King Zedekiah (Helaman 8:21). Two problems arise for Joseph Smith if he made this up. First, the Bible does not mention the name Mulek. Second, 2 Kings 25:7 states that all of the sons of Zedekiah were slain.

If Joseph Smith knew the Bible as well as the critics say, then why would he forget these two important details? If Joseph wanted to start a narrative in 600 BC, wouldn't he want to ensure he had the details down? Why does he make up a random name that is not in the Bible?

Mulek was a problem for the Book of Mormon until recent decades. Linguistic and archaeological evidence in recent years has vindicated the Book of Mormon. Biblical scholars argue that Jeremiah 38:6 contains two mistranslations.¹⁰ It states that Jeremiah was cast “into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech.” The original Hebrew for “Malchiah the son of Hammelech” is MalkiYahu ben-hamMelek, which should be translated as “MalkiYahu, son of the king.” Hammelech was rendered as a proper name when it is, in fact, simply a Hebrew title that means “the king.”¹¹ More modern translations have corrected the Hammelech error by referring to Malchiah as “the King’s son” rather than the “son of Hammelech.” The point is that Jeremiah 38:6 provides contextual evidence that King Zedekiah had a son named Malchiah or MalkiYahu, who possibly was not slain as indicated in 2 Kings 25:7. Further, scholars estimate that Mulek could be an ancient short-hand version of MalkiYahu¹² like Mike is to Michael. The first three consonants are MLK, after all.

How in the world did Joseph Smith know that one of the sons of Zedekiah likely survived? How did he make up a plausible nickname (Mulek) for Malchiah or MalkiYahu? Is that not a bullseye or close to it for the Book of Mormon?

David Noel Freedman, a prominent non-Mormon biblical scholar, was seemingly impressed with the Book of Mormon’s naming “Mulek” as a son of Zedekiah. He reportedly exclaimed, “If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!”¹³

Also noteworthy is a small clay stamp seal bearing the name Malkiyahu ben hamelek, dating from the late 7^th to early 6^th century BC.¹⁴ This stamp was discovered in Jerusalem in the 1980s. As discussed, MalkiYahu is simply a variant English spelling of Malchiah, and ben hamelek is “son of the king.” This clay stamp provides viable archaeological evidence for the Mulek claim in the Book of Mormon.

Does Mulek prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? On its own, not really, but it is fascinating. I marveled at linguistic and archeological evidence like Mulek during my faith reconstruction. I would ask myself, “How is it possible that a book made up by Joseph Smith is proving more correct over time? How is he getting so much right?”

Limitation of Archaeology in the New World

Most of the Book of Mormon takes place in an unknown geographic location in the Americas. Potentially, the entire Nephite and Lamanite saga is in a geographically limited area of only a few hundred miles.¹⁵ In the Book of Mormon, distances are described as a few days’ journey on foot in any direction. Latter-day Saint researchers debate the location of the Book of Mormon people. Theories include the “Hemispheric model” (north and South America), the “Limited Mesoamerican” model (southern Mexico and Guatemala), and the “Heartland” model (in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys of the United States). Other suggestions include the west coast of South America, the Baja Peninsula, and even the Malay Peninsula or parts of Africa.¹⁶

The Mesoamerican model gets the most attention among Latter-day Saint scholars, though there is growing evidence for the Heartland model with the Hopewell Indians.¹⁷,¹⁸ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official opinion on the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Renowned Mayan archeologist, the late George Stuart, admitted in a 2011 interview with National Geographic, “You know, there’s almost 6,000 archaeological sites, and we’ve dug at forty of them.”¹⁹ (emphasis added) That is less than 1%. He also said, “We hardly know anything, really about the Maya.”

Tad Callister states,

“Suppose I were to tell you that a man surveyed 2% of the geography of the United States and then he made the unequivocal assertion that there are no large lakes in the U.S., no everglades, no mountains above 10,000 feet, no redwood forests, no volcanoes, and no gold mines, because in his 2% survey he did not see any such things. You would likely respond: How foolhardy for him to categorically state there were no such things when 98% of the U.S. had never even been seen by him. Likewise, how foolhardy to unequivocally claim there were no horses, cattle, steel, and Nephite names in Book of Mormon lands and times when at least 98% of archaeological remains in ancient America have not been unearthed.”²⁰ (emphasis added)

If I surveyed 2% of the continental United States, I'd be looking at something about the size of Oklahoma—62,397 square miles out of 3,119,884 square miles.

LiDAR

LiDAR is a remote sensing method used to examine surfaces of the earth. Light pulses are used to generate a three-dimensional model of the examined surface. Advancements in LiDAR scanning technology reveal a whole new world about the ancient American inhabitants. In 2018, National Geographic presented findings of the Pacunam LiDAR Initiative in a documentary titled “Lost Treasures of the Mayan Snake Kings.”²¹ They mapped ten tracts totaling 2,100 square kilometers in northern Guatemala near the Mirador Basin. That is an area less than half the size of Utah County. In this limited LiDAR archeological scan, they discovered:²²

• 65,000 previously unknown structures.
• Vast networks of elevated highways so they functioned even in the rainy season.
• Ubiquitous fortresses, ramparts, and defensive walls.
• Public works, including dikes, dams, canals, ditches, and reservoirs.
• Agricultural terraces with irrigation systems.
• Animal pens and stone quarries.
• Maya lowland population at its pinnacle could have reached 15-20 million. This would be ½ the population of Europe at the same time, even though the Maya occupied only 1/30 as much land area.
• Mayan civilization was much denser, more complex, and more advanced than expected.
• Maya cities were more interconnected with transportation infrastructure than anyone realized.
• Food production was at an industrial scale.
• Land use was intensive - nearing 100% in many areas.
• Endemic warfare over centuries was the norm.
• Warfare was prevalent in the early classic 250-500 AD era.

Here are scriptures in the Book of Mormon with parallels to the list above (Mosiah 27:6, 3 Nephi 6:8, Alma 49:13, Alma 49:18, Alma 50:4,6, Alma 52:6, Alma 50:12, Alma 49:22, Alma 17:26-27, Alma 1:29, Alma 48:8, Mormon 1:7, Jarom 1:8, Helaman 3:14-15, Helaman 6:12, Mormon 8:8, Moroni 1:2)

Critics mocked Joseph Smith because the Book of Mormon talked about an advanced, numerous, and ancient American people who built large cities, temples, fortresses, and highways.²³

Isn’t it interesting that the fortifications described in Alma 48-50 match fortifications of a similar nature among pre-Columbian native Americans, including the Mayans?²⁴ Earth heaped up into a ridge or wall around the city, and dirt displacement creating a ditch around the outside of the wall, a timber palisade on top of the earthen wall, and towers above the timber picket with bastions atop the tower.

How fascinating is it that recent findings validate the depiction of the world in the Book of Mormon?

Do any of these recent findings prove the Book of Mormon’s claims? No, they do not. But it is worth noting that a 23-year-old farmer produced a book of scripture with what was considered outrageous claims about Indigenous American people at that time —and those claims are proving more correct almost 200 years later.

The destruction of Indigenous people and culture

I once watched a pseudo-documentary that mocked the Book of Mormon because cities named Zarahemla and Bountiful have not yet been found in American archaeological digs. Why do critics ignore the following real challenges with Mesoamerican archeology²⁵?

1). Mesoamerica civilizations (and others) were destroyed

European settlers arrived in the 1500s or so. Researchers estimate that 10-40 million indigenous people lived in central Mexico at the time. That number may have been reduced to as few as 700,000 a century later.²⁶ European diseases like smallpox, measles, and mumps wiped out indigenous populations by 90% or more.²⁷

Additionally, Spaniards destroyed Aztec and Mayan cities, temples, books, names, and traditions. Clair Bugos reports in an article from the Smithsonian magazine,²⁸ “After the fall of Tenochtitlan, Cortés and his men forced the surviving Aztecs to destroy their old temples and residences and use the remnants of these razed buildings to erect a new city.”

Further, the Spanish conquistadors renamed ancient indigenous cities with Spanish names.²⁹ Coatzacoalcos became Espiritu Santo. Xelha now Salamanca de Xelha. Quezalli changed to San Pedro Sacatepequez. Sakb’ajlan is now Nuestra Senora de Dolores. Nojpeten was renamed Nuestra Senora de los Remedios y San Pablo.

In an Independent.co.uk article, David Keys highlights the limitations of Aztec research.³⁰ Regarding the Aztecs, he said, "It's mainly their large-scale destruction that has led to them being erased from the world's memory.” (emphasis added)

2). Mesoamerica faces significant climate threats, including earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, and heavy rainfall.

Central America is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world due to extreme climatic events,³¹ including tropical storms, floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes. For example, a major eruption of the Popocatepetl in central Mexico in the first half of the 1^st century AD³² or the San Martín volcano in southern Mexico in the same century³³ shares similarities with the destruction described in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon.

Anthropologist Kyle Penelope explains: “The Mayan civilization consisted of many city-states constantly warring with one another over boundaries and resources, and their environment varied from mountains to tropical forests to deserts with unpredictable storms.”³⁴

3). Mesoamerican structures were not as well cared for as those of the Middle East.

In addition to the numerous challenges to Mesoamerican archeology (including climate and decimation of Mesoamerican culture), ancient American structures have not been as well cared for as the ones in Egypt and Israel.³⁵ For that reason, it is an oversimplification for critics to claim that we should find the same level of archeological findings in the Americas as in the Middle East.

4). Mesoamerican sites are more challenging to discover, and preservation of artifacts is less likely.

In Mesoamerica, jungle foliage, a hot/humid climate, and acidic soil make archeology incredibly challenging. ³⁶ Even if ancient sites are uncovered, artifacts except stone and metal are unlikely to have survived.

What are the odds that we will find artifacts, writings, and names from ancient Native American people at all? Let alone a specific group like the Nephites, who died out around 1100 years before European colonization.

Critics of the Church often use the fallacy of absence to argue against Book of Mormon claims. Planetary scientist Dr. Carl Sagan said, “The absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.” This means that the lack of evidence for the existence of something does not prove that something does not exist at all. Efraim Wallach highlights the shortcomings of making inferences from the absence of evidence in archaeology.³⁷

There are a ton of examples of historical people and events for which there is limited archaeological evidence, including:

• The Huns of Central Asia in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. depended on thousands of horses. Yet, no archeological evidence of horses exists in that region.³⁹
• Virtually all battles fought in the pre-gunpowder era left little to no evidence.⁴⁰ Bodies were dragged off for burial in other places or consumed by scavenging animals. Valuable items get looted. By contrast, modern battles leave behind bullet casings and pieces of shrapnel.
  • For example, there is no archaeological evidence today of The Battle of Hastings in Britain in 1066.⁴¹
• Elephants once roamed in Syria but became extinct in that region in about 100 BC. That was likely due to overhunting for ivory. Yet little to no archaeological evidence of elephants in Syria exists today.⁴²
• The Lost City of Thinis served as the capital of Egypt during the first dynasty of Ancient Egypt. Yet, there is no archaeological evidence of it.⁴³
• There are records of ancient Egypt trading with a city named “Punt.” Its location is unknown today, but it is suspected to be in Somalia.⁴⁴
• Babylon was the capital city of Babylonia, an ancient empire of Mesopotamia. Today, all that remains of that city is a mound of broken mud bricks presumed to have been buildings.⁴⁵
• The rainforest vegetation hid the Mayan city of Tikal for hundreds of years, and it was only discovered in 1882.⁴⁶
• The Inca lost city of Paititi allegedly lies hidden east of the Andes somewhere in Southeast Peru, North Bolivia, or Northwest Brazil.⁴⁷
• Limited to no archaeological evidence exists for the enslavement of Israel in Egypt and Israel’s exodus.⁴⁸ Same thing with Jesus’s resurrection.⁴⁹

Limited archaeological evidence in the new world is less of a win than critics want to admit. What are the odds of finding anything pre-1500 AD in Mesoamerica?

Cement Buildings

In Helaman 3:4-7, Mormon reports that many Nephites departed from the land of Zarahemla and went northward due to contention and dissensions. The Book of Mormon includes this interesting detail, “And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.” (emphasis added) Two details here are important: first, the land northward the Nephite groups traveled to had little timber, and second, they built homes out of cement. Not just cement but that they became “exceedingly expert” in working with cement. If Joseph Smith were making this up, he would have little basis to believe that ancient Native American people built homes out of cement.

In the Valley of Mexico, fully developed cement appeared at Teotihuacán (near modern-day Mexico City), seemingly out of nowhere in the 1st century AD. By 300 AD, “most inhabitants lived in substantial plaster-and-concrete compounds composed of multiple apartments.”⁵⁰ Teotihuacán was heavily deforested, and the inhabitants extensively used a high-quality lime cement that has lasted to this day.⁵¹

While the discovery of high-quality cement buildings in Teotihuacán and other cities in central Mexico does not prove the Book of Mormon's claims, isn’t it thought-provoking? It makes me wonder how Joseph came up with that despite claims about Indigenous people to the contrary.

Sambaj in Atitlan Lake

BYU professor of anthropology, the late John Sorenson, theorized that the events of the Book of Mormon occurred in Mesoamerica. He estimated that the new world city of Jerusalem could have been along Lake Atitlan’s southwestern shore (in modern-day Guatemala).⁵² 3 Nephi 9:7 says Jerusalem was one of the inundated cities where the “… waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations before my face...” Since John Sorenson’s 1985 research, archeologists have found the remains of a ruined ancient city buried underwater on the southwestern shore of Atitlan Lake.⁵³ Right where John thought it might be. This city is named Samabaj after the diver who found it. The sunken city includes about “30 ancient homes, a plaza, staircases, and even saunas.”⁵⁴ It features “no fewer than 16 religious structures,” including at least seven stelas (“standing stone markers that often signified power and authority in antiquity.”)⁵⁵ Scholars analyzed the city’s ceramic remains and estimated them to be between 200 BC and 300 AD.⁵⁶

Does this conclusively prove that the Lamanite city of the Book of Mormon, called “Jerusalem,” is definitely at the bottom of Atitlan Lake in Guatemala? Not by a long shot. However, if I were to believe the critics, I would have to believe that Joseph Smith had the audacity to make up a book of scripture and say it was history. Then, in time, only to see more evidence pile up supporting the book’s claims. Now, that is unbelievable.

Book of Mormon Archaeology Conclusion

Why do critics continue to say there is “no archeological evidence" for the Book of Mormon? Isn't that incorrect? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is compelling, though not conclusive, archeological evidence?

The amount of evidence in archeology for the Book of Mormon made me uncomfortable as a potential critic. The critical claim that there is “no archeological evidence” of the events in the Book of Mormon is not valid. The reality is that there is meaningful evidence for the Book of Mormon in both the Old and New World, despite the limitations of archeology (especially in the Americas).

DNA Limitations

Critics discuss DNA evidence regarding the Book of Mormon people in all-or-nothing, black-and-white terms. Why do they ignore the following limitations of DNA evidence?⁵⁷

The founder effect, genetic bottleneck, and genetic drift are typical limitations of DNA testing. Ancient populations⁵⁸ in Iceland, Great Britain, and the Near East are examples of people that existed but have left no genetic profile that can be detected in modern populations.

Doesn’t the Book of Mormon suggest other people were in the promised land when Lehi’s family arrived?⁵⁹ Or at least people with whom they integrated with over time?

• (3 Nephi 5:20) – “I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi.” (emphasis added)
• (Jacob 1:13-14) “Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.” (emphasis added)
• (Alma 45:14) “But whosoever remaineth, and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day, shall be numbered among the Lamanites.” (emphasis added)
• (Alma 17:26) “And after he had been in the service of the king three days, as he was with the Lamanitish servants going forth with their flocks to the place of water.” (emphasis added)
• (Alma 3:7) “And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.” (emphasis added)

When Lehi’s family came to the Americas, several million indigenous people were likely already there.⁶⁰ If such a small group entered a massive native population, wouldn’t detecting their genes hundreds of years later be nearly impossible?

Between the genetic bottlenecking described in the Book of Mormon's final battles and the further genetic bottlenecking of the European colonization of the Americas, what are the odds of finding Lehi’s genes today? Without more genetic information on Lehi/Sariah, Ishmael/his wife, and Zoram, what can we glean from genetic testing of populations today?

Book of Mormon Anachronisms

“A large number of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon have convinced many critics that the book is not historical or authentic scripture.” – Wasmormon.org⁶¹

“The anachronisms have done nothing but increased. Science continues to punch holes in the Book of Mormon like Swiss cheese.” – Reddit user on ex/Mormon reddit board⁶²

Anachronisms are things out of place and time. For a period, anachronisms were my greatest stumbling block against the Book of Mormon. Since the beginning, critics have lauded the list of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon as proof of its fabrication. At the time of Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, there were 89 alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.⁶³ This does not surprise me. If a farmer or treasure-seeking fraudster in upstate New York is making up historical fiction, I would expect him to get things wrong (a lot wrong). In fact, since 1844, critics have added another 116 potential anachronisms, totaling 205. If that were the end of the story, then that would be 205 guesses that Joseph Smith got wrong.

Then, I learned how many of the accused anachronisms against the Book of Mormon have been eliminated as we’ve learned more about ancient populations. In other words, evidence has emerged to confirm a significant number of details in the Book of Mormon. As of 2019, researchers have eliminated 141 out of 205 (70%) of the anachronisms. Another 26 cases (11%) were trending toward elimination. Considering the limitations of archaeology in the Americas, these numbers are astounding. These findings were summarized in a FAIR Latter-day Saint Conference speech by Matt Roper titled “Time Vindicates the Prophet.” (The presentation is provided below)

Why do critics feel comfortable clinging to the few anachronisms they have left?

Below is a list of some items critics used to mock the Book of Mormon for.

• Barley
• Corn
• Grapes
• Wine
• Silk
• Pearls
• Concrete
• Buildings
• Large cities
• Great civilizations
• Temples and palaces
• Highways
• Sunken cities
• Kings
• Egyptian names
• Non-biblical Hebrew names
• Metal plates
• Reformed versions of ancient Egyptian
• Geographic location of Nahom
• Lehi’s travel itinerary
• A bountiful land in Arabia

Isn’t it logical that if Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon, it would prove more ludicrous over time? Yet the opposite has happened. Why does history confirm the details of the Book of Mormon? How do critics account for this? Luck?

Why do critics only mention the remaining 38 anachronisms (19%)? Then ignore the eliminated (or trending elimination) anachronisms (81%)?

Why did Joseph Smith stick to his story when critics mocked the Book of Mormon for its account of sophisticated indigenous people with large cities, highways, and great civilizations? Why didn’t Joseph amend the Book of Mormon when the critics told him that indigenous people couldn't have used concrete? Or had pearls? Or barley?

The critical consensus of Joseph Smith’s day was that ancient people did not write on metal plates. LaRoy Sunderland said in his 1838 pamphlet “Mormonism Exposed and Refuted,” “How could brass be written on?”⁶⁴ (emphasis added) In the 1887 book The Golden Bible; or, The Book of Mormon: is it from God? Reverend M.T. Lamb states, “No such records were ever engraved upon golden plates, or any other plates, in the early ages.”⁶⁵ (emphasis added)

Unfortunately for those critics,

“Today we have hundreds of examples of ancient writings on metal plates. Ancient metal engraved plates have been found in gold, silver, and bronze (“brass” in the Book of Mormon). One bronze plate has been dated to the sixth century B.C. Some ancient Old World metal plates have been buried in stone boxes and some early American traditions included records being kept on metal plates and of ancestors who kept hieroglyphic records on thin gold plates.” – Michael Ash, “Book of Mormon Anachronisms Part 4: Metals and Metallurgy,” 2003, Fair Latter-day Saints (emphasis added).⁶⁶

How did Joseph Smith get so lucky about ancient people writing on metal plates? Why use such an elaborate ploy to convince people he had ancient records if an old scroll would have done the trick?

The list of anachronisms is ever-decreasing. Does this trouble the critics, or do they keep holding on to whatever leftover ground they have for as long as they can?

The tables below summarize the 200+ anachronisms historically used as arguments against the Book of Mormon, as shown in Matt Roper's presentation.⁶⁷ In the table below, green is an eliminated anachronism, blue is trending toward elimination, and red is not yet eliminated. I can only imagine the enduring faith of some of the early latter-day saints as the anachronisms piled higher and higher. There was only “red” in 1830, and critics scorned the Saints and the prophet.

But the story did not end there. Now, nearly 200 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, research has eliminated far more anachronisms.