Anachronisms

As a former history teacher, and out of personal curiosity, I’ve read a lot of things that were criticisms of lots of written claims that have been dismissed by later discoveries. It really is incredible how common such misguided criticisms have been and still are. It doesn’t prove anything one way or another with regard to the Book of Mormon, but it is fascinating how many claims of anachronisms in that book have dropped away in light of later discoveries. The best example probably is the elephant reference, since it occurs in the Book of Ether (and we have no clue what time period that covers, really) – and since there are American Indian references to elephant-like creatures that would fit the general time frame.

Language (specific vocabulary words) is another non-starter for me, since “translations” always depend on the vocabulary of the translator and, almost always, include approximations for words that don’t translate perfectly. (The existence of non-English, non-translated words in the Book of Mormon actually is a good argument for a “translation process” of some kind.) Often a criticism, the use of “adieu” is a perfect example of vocabulary precision in the Book of Mormon, since the root meaning of that word fits perfectly (and I mean perfectly) the context of the passage – far better than any single English word would. I came to that conclusion on my own at a fairly early age, because I wanted to see why in the world Joseph would have used that word – or, from a traditional perspective, why that word would have appeared to him. I looked it up in a dictionary, saw the original, complex meaning, saw where it was used and, just as importantly, where it was NOT used, and realized it was the perfect choice for the context.

There are legitimate concerns about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, including the way that King James Bible passages and phrases occur in it, but I’ve yet to see a historical anachronism that I believe is a serious threat.

I view the BOM as a 19th century revelation but I find the anachronism argument to be a poor one.

Let’s suppose that Nephi had a printing press or a cotton gin. That wouldn’t prove anything. God could have inspired Nephi to build a machine similar to this. Nephi could have called his invention “alakamzoo,” but the term “Alakamzoo” would be meaningless to us as far as us having any idea what Nephi had invented. Then JS being familiar with similar machines from the 19th century and knowing that we call them printing presses and cotton gins could have inserted the most likely terminology to be understood by modern readers.

But perhaps nobody has ever found the remnants of a printing press or cotton gin. That too doesn’t prove anything. Perhaps it was a unique item that long since decayed to dust. Perhaps it was taken into heaven after its purpose was fulfilled. Perhaps the knowledge was lost when the people fractioned and died out.

So the presence of what seems to be anachronisms doesn’t add anything compelling for me, particularly in a story where we have God dropping off heavenly artifacts (like the Liahona) and giving directions for building specific items (like Nephi’s boat).

Sure thing Shawn, they are interesting discussions and it’s great when they prove helpful. :thumbup:

Again, it comes down to faith because no discovery will definitively prove the Book of Mormon is true or false (until the Second Coming?). However, it should get some credit where it is due.

Many people on this site have mentioned they are, or have been, concerned about anachronisms, including myself. Showing that many of them are invalid is helpful to me and I hope others can benefit.

I think it is fairly obvious the BofM is a work of 19th century fiction anachronisms aside. Also I do not think it is the responsibility of the doubter to prove it is wrong. It is the believer who must prove it is actual history.

It is obvious to me that the Book of Mormon did NOT come from the mind of anyone living in the 19th century.

It is obvious to me that the Book of Mormon did NOT come from the mind of anyone living in the 19th century.

There is plenty of evidence that it did if you care to research it. If you choose to believe it is what it claims then I think that is moe an issue of faith or belief but not something that is verifiable.

I agree it is a matter of faith. No discovery will definitively prove the Book of Mormon is true or false.

Besides the spiritual manifestations I have had, I just don’t see any way it could have come from the mind of Joseph or any of his friends, even if they had used sources like the Manuscript Story or View of the Hebrews. I wouldn’t mind researching what you have in mind, though. Send me a PM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact