The Book of Mormon: the evidence grows, the criticism shrinks

I have always been fascinated by the relationship between faith, history, and science. As someone who reads a lot and is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have noticed that the Book of Mormon is often under fire. One of the most persistent pillars of that criticism is the argument of  anachronisms – things mentioned in the book that, according to critics, should not have existed in ancient America.

My view on this is clear: we should not focus solely on these alleged inaccuracies. I believe that when assessing the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, we must look beyond a purely literal translation of every word. As I have often shared, this book has come to us through  revelation, and revelation does not always work with exact, literal words. They are images, feelings, and impressions that are sometimes difficult to grasp in the linguistic structures of 19th-century English. This conviction is now powerfully supported by groundbreaking scientific research and a deeper understanding of the challenges of translation.

What is an anachronism? And what was the situation in 1844?

The concept of an anachronism is simple: it is something that is in the wrong place or at the wrong time. Think of George Washington in a car. For the Book of Mormon, critics, since the book appeared in 1830, have long been armed with claims about items such as  horses in America before Columbus,  steel, barley and  cement.

A recent, groundbreaking study by researcher  Matt Roper and the Interpreter Foundation now offers a bewildering answer to this. Roper did not just document a few objections; he went through more than a thousand critical publications and compiled a list of  226 alleged anachronisms that could be archaeologically tested.

It is important to see what the state of affairs looked like in the early days of the Church. Between 1830 and 1844, 93 of the 102 anachronisms claimed at the time seemed legitimate. The book must indeed have looked ‘quite foolish’ to many people at the time. Hardly any archaeological work had yet been done in Central America. Even the witness David Whitmer admitted that he was concerned about the claims of large cities in the book, until the archaeological discoveries of  Stephens and Catherwood around 1842 created a turning point.

Today's astounding results

Fast forward to today and the situation is radically different. Matt Roper's research, which incorporates the criticism of the past two centuries, shows an unprecedented shift.

Of the total list of 226 claims, the majority are now archaeologically verified:

• Confirmed (Green): ≈77% of the items have been verified as authentic for pre-Columbian America or the Old World.
• Trend towards confirmation (Blue): ≈14% of the items are not yet definitively confirmed for Book of Mormon times, but the archaeological data strongly points towards confirmation.
• Still unconfirmed (Red): ≈9% currently remains unresolved.

This is an incredible improvement. Where there was hardly any archaeological support in 1844, we now see a flood of evidence. The Book of Mormon has therefore not only kept up with criticism but has structurally surpassed it, even as critics' claims become increasingly specific and  more granular become.

The challenges of translation and revelation

This brings me back to the essence of my vision: the inevitable role of  translation and  semantic expansion.

Leading Bible scholars involved in the committee of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV-UE) have stated that  anachronism is inevitable in any translation of an ancient text. This is because the translator, to convey the conceptual meaning, sometimes has to use modern or familiar terms.

1. Translator's Anachronisms: Consider the King James Version of the Bible, where ‘candlesticks’ are mentioned. This is an anachronism, because in ancient Israel, oil lamps were used. The translator chose a familiar term. Critics of the Book of Mormon rarely take this into account. Since we only have the English translation, the presence of an anachronism is not definitive proof that the Book of Mormon is not a translation.
2. Semantic Expansion (‘Loan Shifting’): This is where my view on revelation and imagery converges with science. When the Nephites in the New World encountered an unknown animal or object, they named it based on something they knew from the Old World. This is called  semantic expansion or  loan shiftingcalled. The best-known example is the  hippopotamus (‘river horse’) in Greek. In the Book of Mormon, the  peccary (a pig-like animal) could easily be called ‘pig’ or ‘boar’ by people looking for a familiar word for an unknown animal. These are not speculative, but  historically proven ways language works. The images and impressions Joseph Smith received had to be cast by him into the language of his time.

The necessity of patience

From the small list that is still unconfirmed, there is no single ‘iPhone-moment’—no single item of which we can say with certainty that it was  absolutely impossible at that time. The claims have become incredibly specific, such as demanding the inscriptional name  Zarahemla on a ruin.

Archaeologist  John Clark emphasizes:  ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. Positive evidence is permanent, but the lack of evidence in a specific place or time only compels further research..

The words of Elder  D. Todd Christofferson from 2013 remain relevant:

“Where answers are incomplete or entirely lacking, patient study and patiently waiting for new information and discoveries will often be rewarded with insight.” 

He then mentioned the example of  Laban’s steel sword (600 BC), a point of ridicule for critics. Nowadays, through archaeological finds, such as a steel sword near Jericho, we know that the technology to harden iron into steel was indeed known in the Old World from where Lehi came.

The trend is clear. Over the years, criticism of the Book of Mormon is structurally refuted as archaeology progresses. This book is not dismantled by time, but rather  honored due to newly discovered evidence. I therefore find it worthwhile to include the challenges of translation and the inevitability of revelation in our own study, and to wait with  patience for the revelation of what is still hidden.