CES Letter Answers

Appearance

ConciseIn-Depth
ConciseIn-Depth

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon ​

The claim:

"Anachronisms: Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC - 421 AD?"[1]

"Unofficial apologists claim victories in some of these items but closer inspection reveals significant problems. It has been documented that apologists have manipulated wording so that steel is not steel, sheep become never-domesticated bighorn sheep, horses become tapirs, etc."[2]

A complete iron sword, hardened into steel and roughly a meter long, is the item the list does not mention. Archaeologists working at Vered Jericho, about twelve miles east of Jerusalem, pulled it from a building dated to the late seventh or sixth century BC. That is Laban's era and Laban's region. Avraham Eitan's metallurgical analysis found that the iron had been deliberately hardened into steel, and the Israel Museum calls it the only complete sword of its size and type from the period yet found in Israel. The first sentence of 1 Nephi 4:9 describes a steel sword in exactly that place at exactly that time, and a generation ago the standard reply was that no such thing existed. It does.

The CES Letter does the opposite. It compresses one of its signature criticisms into a one-paragraph rapid-fire list and a one-paragraph dismissal of "unofficial apologists": thirteen items, a single Wikipedia footnote, and a closing joke about tapirs carrying most of the rhetorical work.[1:1] The real picture is layered. Several items have been confirmed by mainstream archaeology since 1830. Several turn on documented linguistic principles the letter never engages. A few are genuinely unresolved. And one strand of the broader scholarly critique, the reverse anachronism pattern, raises a harder question than the CES Letter ever poses. This article answers the strongest form of each criticism, not the easiest.

Methodology ​

Three principles bear on how an anachronism claim should be weighed.

1. Translation anachronisms. Translate any ancient text into a modern language and the translator inevitably introduces words the original never had. The King James Version (KJV), the 1611 English Bible Joseph Smith used, renders ancient oil lamps as "candles" (Job 18:6) and the Jewish Passover as "Easter" (Acts 12:4). Without the original Nephite document, there is no way to tell in every case whether a Book of Mormon term reflects what was physically present (a historical anachronism) or how it was rendered into English.[3] Invoked without limit, this framework is unfalsifiable; it has to be applied case by case, not as a blanket excuse.

2. Loan-shifting. Cultures meeting unfamiliar things routinely reach for words they already have. Aztecs called Spanish horses mazatl ("deer"). Maya called Spanish horses tzimin and tapirs tzimin che. Spanish explorers called American bison vaca ("cow"). The Miami labeled European sheep "looks-like-a-cow." DeSoto's expedition applied European animal names to American fauna as a matter of course.[3:1] [4] The phenomenon is well documented. Applying it to the Book of Mormon, though, requires a coherent account of who is doing the shifting, the question taken up in the trilemma section below.

3. Archaeological limitations. Mesoamerica's tropical soils destroy organic material fast. The youngest reliably dated fossil of any species is almost never the actual last individual; the principle has a name, the Signor-Lipps effect, which holds that the fossil record systematically under-reports the true last appearance of any group.[5] Pre-Columbian cultivation of little barley was unknown to archaeology until 1983; Mesoamerican structural cement was not understood until David Hyman's 1970 study.[6] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is also not evidence of presence.

What the CES Letter Gets Right ​

The mainstream archaeological consensus does reject Book of Mormon historicity. No non-Latter-day Saint archaeologist has endorsed the Book of Mormon as a historical document. The Smithsonian Institution's official statement and Michael Coe's 1973 Dialogue article remain the professional baseline, and that consensus has not moved despite individual confirmations of specific items.[7] [8] The tension on several items is real. Horses, wheat, large-scale ferrous metallurgy in the Americas, and domesticated herds at scale do not match what mainstream archaeology has documented for pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. And some apologetic moves blurred distinctions that matter: pointing at Olmec ilmenite beads as the answer to Nephite iron and steel weapons was always category confusion. Pretending these difficulties don't exist would only damage the credibility of any response.

What the CES Letter Gets Wrong ​

Wikipedia is the only cited source. Footnote 13 in the CES Letter PDF links to Wikipedia. No peer-reviewed archaeological study, no excavation report, no specialist publication is cited for any of the thirteen items.[1:2] Coe's foundational 1973 critique is not cited. Earl Wunderli's 2002 Dialogue critique of the Limited Geography Model is not cited. What the letter draws on is the popularized criticism; the scholarly version goes unmentioned.

No engagement with Latter-day Saint scholarship at all. Sorenson, Gardner, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the Interpreter, FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Responses, a volunteer Latter-day Saint apologetics organization), Evidence Central: none cited. The entire body of work is waved away in a single sentence about "manipulating wording."[3:2] [9]

No distinction between Jaredite and Nephite periods. The CES Letter lumps all thirteen items into "2200 BC - 421 AD" as though the Book of Mormon claimed they were present throughout that span. The text doesn't. It restricts elephants to Jaredite times (Ether 9:19), confines swine to Jaredite times (Ether 9:18), constrains steel to a five-mention pattern with nothing after roughly 400 BC, and limits chariots to three Nephite passages, all royal or diplomatic, never military.

No acknowledgment of items confirmed since 1830. Pre-Columbian barley. Mesoamerican cement at the Book of Mormon's stated date. Deliberately carburized steel in Israel at Laban's exact period. Pre-exilic Hebrew assembly worship. Curved swords in pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Hebrew names like Sariah and Alma, now attested in independently dated ancient sources. The CES Letter omits barley from its list, likely because including it would point straight at a confirmed Book of Mormon claim.

Animals ​

Horses ​

The conventional view holds that Equus went extinct in the Americas at the end of the Pleistocene, around 10,000 BC. The Book of Mormon mentions horses fourteen times across both the Jaredite (Ether 9:19) and Nephite records.[4:1]

Archaeological evidence for post-Pleistocene survival. Wade E. Miller of Brigham Young University, with co-authors from Mexico's UNAM and INAH research institutes, recovered horse specimens from stratified contexts at Rancho Carabanchel, San Luis Potosí, Mexico. The identified species (Equus cf. mexicanus, conversidens, and tau) are all extinct North American forms, which rules out contamination from post-Contact Spanish horses. Seven calibrated radiocarbon dates were obtained, five of them within Book of Mormon timeframes:[10]

Date RangeBook of Mormon Period
1660-1508 BCJaredite (Ether 9:19)
1544-1424 BCJaredite
548-400 BCLehite arrival (1 Nephi 18:25)
73-226 ADLate Nephite (3 Nephi 3:22)
86-242 ADLate Nephite
253-542 ADPre-Columbian, post-BoM
1025-1165 ADPre-Columbian, post-BoM
Miller's seven calibrated radiocarbon ranges plotted against Book of Mormon periodsHorizontal timeline from 2200 BC to 1200 AD. Behind the data are two shaded bands: the Jaredite period (2200 to 600 BC) and the Nephite period (600 BC to AD 421). Five of seven Miller dates fall inside Book of Mormon-internal periods; two fall after the Book of Mormon's close.Jaredite periodNephite periodPost-Book of Mormon1660–1508 BC1544–1424 BC548–400 BCAD 73–226AD 86–242AD 253–542AD 1025–11652200 BC2000 BC1500 BC1000 BC500 BC0AD 500AD 1000Jaredite (Ether 9:19)Lehite arrival (1 Nephi 18:25)Late Nephite (3 Nephi 3:22)After Book of MormonCalibrated radiocarbon range (Miller et al. 2022)
Five of Miller's seven calibrated dates fall inside Book of Mormon-internal periods: two in the Jaredite span, one at the Lehite arrival, two in the Late Nephite era. Two more extend the post-Pleistocene survival pattern past the Book of Mormon's close.

Ancient DNA from Alaska and Yukon permafrost documents horse survival to roughly 3700 BC.[11] Horse remains from Brazil and Argentina have been reported surviving until about 5000 BC.[12]

Worth Acknowledging

The Miller study needs honest handling. The horse bones held too little collagen for direct radiocarbon dating, so organic material (charcoal) from the same stratigraphic layers was dated instead. In a rockshelter where bioturbation or percolating carbonic acid can mix strata, that indirect method is a real vulnerability. A faithful-but-skeptical analysis at A Careful Examination presses exactly this objection: the bones could be natural intrusions into younger layers.[13] The 1025-1165 AD date is itself paleontologically extraordinary, and the absence of any corresponding cultural integration (no horse imagery, no tack, no ritual deposits at any pre-Columbian Mesoamerican site) suggests the dating method has a problem.

The study appeared in the Texas Journal of Science, a regional journal, and four years on no mainstream paleontologist has cited it favorably. The fair framing is "promising preliminary evidence not yet independently confirmed," not "case closed." Even granting it, the Miller data documents post-Pleistocene survival of Equus, not domesticated herd-level use.

Loan-shifting (secondary). If actual Equus horses were absent in some periods, loan-shifting offers a documented mechanism. The Central American tapir reaches 6.5 feet and 600-plus pounds; Hans Krieg observed that tapir "movements as well as the shape... especially the high neck with the small brush mane... are much more like a horse's." This is one possibility among several, not the primary apologetic argument.[3:3] [14]

What the text actually says. Horses are never explicitly ridden. There is no cavalry warfare anywhere in the text, a striking departure from biblical, Egyptian, Assyrian, and Israelite practice. Horses are grouped with cattle as potential food during a siege (3 Nephi 3:22). Across a 531-page book, they appear only fourteen times.

Elephants ​

Elephants appear once (Ether 9:19), and only in the Jaredite record (~2600-2100 BC). They are entirely absent from the Nephite record. A 19th-century fabricator drawing on popular images of "majestic ancient civilizations" would either sprinkle elephants throughout or avoid them entirely.[4:2] [15]

Late-survival evidence for North American proboscideans includes Columbian mammoth at Sandy, Utah (~3985 BC); American mastodon at Huntington, Utah (5080-5590 BC); American mastodon in Mexico (~7150 BC); gomphothere in Guatemala (~7500 BC); and Wrangel Island woolly mammoth in the Arctic to about 2000 BC.[16] Recent genomic work indicates the Columbian mammoth is more closely related to the Asian elephant than the Asian elephant is to the African; calling it "elephant" is taxonomically accurate.[17] Several Native American tribes preserved oral traditions of large creatures, which classicist Adrienne Mayor argues reflect "ancestral memories of Columbian mammoths."[18] [19]

Five sites bracket the late-survival evidence: four on the American mainland, one on Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic.

SiteRegionSpeciesDateVs. Jaredite period (2600–2100 BC)
Sandy, UtahNorth AmericaColumbian mammoth~3985 BCpredates by ~1,400 years
Huntington, UtahNorth AmericaAmerican mastodon5080–5590 BCpredates by ~2,500–3,000 years
Central MexicoMesoamericaAmerican mastodon~7150 BCpredates by ~4,550 years
GuatemalaMesoamericagomphothere~7500 BCpredates by ~4,900 years
Wrangel IslandSiberian Arcticwoolly mammoth~2000 BCwithin range, but not the Americas

Mainland American dates cluster in the 4000–7500 BC range, a 1,400–5,400-year gap before the Jaredite period. Wrangel Island brackets the Jaredite period chronologically but sits in the Siberian Arctic, not the Americas.

Worth Acknowledging

The chronological gap deserves acknowledgment. Securely dated mainland American proboscidean remains cluster around 4000-5000 BC; the Jaredite period is roughly 2600-2100 BC, a gap of at least 1,400-2,400 years. Wrangel Island shows survival capacity in the Arctic, not American survival specifically. No proboscidean remains have been radiocarbon-dated to the Jaredite period in the Americas. Oral traditions across millennia are interesting but not probative on their own.

Cureloms and Cumoms ​

The untranslated terms cureloms and cumoms (Ether 9:19) are themselves significant. A translator meeting unknown species would leave them untranslated, which is exactly what happened. The pattern fits genuine ancient-document translation. (It also fits a fabricator deliberately adding ancient flavor, but that reading has to explain why the same fabricator translated the other animals in the same verse and used "whale" correctly elsewhere.) Plausible candidates include extinct American camelids (Camelops, Hemiauchenia) or other proboscidean species.[20] [15:1]

Cattle, Oxen, Sheep, Goats, and Swine ​

These animals are best taken as a group, since the same core explanation applies to all of them. Spanish explorers called bison vaca ("cow") and toro ("bull"). The Miami labeled European sheep "looks-like-a-cow." Maya called Spanish sheep tamanchij ("not-deer").[4:3] [3:4]

  • Goats. The Book of Mormon distinguishes "goats" from "wild goats" (1 Nephi 18:25), an unusual textual detail a fabricator would be unlikely to include. The Red Brocket deer (Mazama americana), native to Mesoamerica, resembles goats in size and behavior.
  • Swine. Peccaries (javelinas) are pig-like animals naturally describable as "swine." Swine appear only in the Jaredite record (Ether 9:18).
  • Cattle and oxen. American bison, deer, and other large mammals could satisfy these terms in translation. European settlers universally called bison "cows," "cattle," and "wild oxen."
  • Sheep. Mountain sheep (bighorn, Ovis canadensis) are native to the Americas. Mountain sheep bones with cut marks turned up at an Epiclassic site in Tula, Hidalgo (AD 750-900), evidence of sustained human use. The CES Letter's "never-domesticated bighorn sheep" framing conflates use with domestication.

Worth Acknowledging

The domesticated-animal cluster is genuinely one of the harder anachronisms. Loan-shifting is a documented linguistic phenomenon and the historical parallels are strong. But applying it to several animals at once raises the explanatory burden, and the underlying trilemma examined below stays unresolved. No current translation model fully explains why the mechanism would render "whale" accurately, leave "curelom" untranslated, but loan-shift "horse" to something that isn't a horse. Each loan-shifted term is individually plausible; requiring five or six independent loan-shifts in a single text is a cumulative challenge.

Plants and Grains ​

Barley ​

In 1983, Daniel B. Adams reported domesticated little barley (Hordeum pusillum) at a pre-Columbian Hohokam site near Phoenix, Arizona. Confirmations followed at site after site:[21] [22] [23]

  • Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Kentucky
  • Napoleon Hollow, Illinois (~2000-1500 BC)
  • Gast Springs, Iowa (~800 BC)
  • Multiple Oklahoma sites
  • Basketmaker III Colorado

Vorsila L. Bohrer concluded that the evidence pointed to "a North American domesticated grain crop whose existence has not [previously] been suspected."[24] [25] Two non-LDS scholars writing in KIVA note that "extensive archaeological evidence also points to the cultivation of little barley in the Southwest and parts of Mexico."[26] The CES Letter's anachronism list omits barley entirely.

Close-up photograph of a Hordeum pusillum (little barley) seed head, the native North American grass species whose cultivated form was identified in pre-Columbian sites across the U.S. Southwest and Midwest
Hordeum pusillum (little barley): the native North American grass whose domesticated form has been recovered from pre-Columbian sites from Arizona to Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Colorado. The 1983 identification removed one of the most-cited Book of Mormon anachronisms from the critics' list. Photograph by Patrick Alexander (CC0) via Wikimedia Commons.

Worth Acknowledging

Hordeum pusillum (little barley) is a different species from Hordeum vulgare (Old World barley), the species Lehi's family from Jerusalem would have known. Finding a native New World barley removes the criticism that barley couldn't have existed in pre-Columbian America. But it is not the same as finding the specific Old World species Lehi's family would have cultivated. The discovery is consistent with the Book of Mormon's text without being a perfect bullseye.

The Book of Mormon's barley appears as both food (Mosiah 9:9) and as a unit of economic exchange (Alma 11:7). That dual role parallels ancient Mesopotamian practice, where barley served as both sustenance and standard monetary unit, a pattern not understood in detail until the Laws of Eshnunna were translated in the mid-twentieth century.[27]

Wheat ​

Wheat (Triticum) has not been archaeologically identified in pre-Columbian America. This one is genuinely unresolved, and among the article's weaker apologetic items. Mosiah 9:9 lists "corn, and wheat, and barley" as separate cultivars, which means a translation-loan-shift defense has to operate three times in one verse: corn for maize, barley for Hordeum pusillum, wheat for amaranth or Chenopodium or some other native grain. The translation argument is plausible but unverifiable, and no physical evidence currently exists. Wheat is the weakest item on the plant list.[3:5]

Metals ​

Working vs. Smelting ​

Three categorically different technologies have to be kept apart:

  1. Iron-ore working: grinding, polishing, and shaping native iron-bearing minerals. Did exist in pre-Columbian America.
  2. Iron smelting: extracting metallic iron from ore, then forging it into tools and weapons. Did not exist in pre-Columbian America.
  3. Steel production: carburizing iron to create deliberately hardened steel. Did not exist in pre-Columbian America.

The Old World steel passages (Laban's sword, Nephi's bow) are well supported by archaeology. The New World iron and steel passages are genuinely unresolved, with the apologetic response markedly weaker. This article will not paper over the asymmetry.

Steel: Old World ​

The Vered Jericho sword, which opened this article, is the anchor. A complete iron blade roughly 1.04 meters long, excavated near Vered Jericho about twelve miles east of Jerusalem, dated to the late seventh or sixth century BC, the period of Laban. Avraham Eitan's metallurgical analysis confirmed that "the iron was deliberately hardened into steel," and the Israel Museum describes it as "the only complete sword of its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel."[28] [29] That establishes the category 1 Nephi 4:9 describes: deliberately carburized steel at Laban's exact period and region, demonstrably real. The gold-hilted parallel comes from Tutankhamun's tomb (14th century BC, some 700 years earlier), so the individual elements of Laban's sword are each attested in the broader ancient Near East, just not all in one exemplar.

Photograph of the Vered Jericho iron sword, a 1.04-meter blade with bronze hilt, excavated in 1982 near Jericho and dated to the late 7th or early 6th century BC, now held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem
The Vered Jericho iron sword: 1.04 meters long, with bronze hilt, deliberately carburized into steel, excavated 12 miles east of Jerusalem and dated to the late 7th to 6th century BC. The artifact establishes that the category described in 1 Nephi 4:9 (Laban's steel sword) existed at the right time and in the right region. Photograph by Lauren Perry via Scripture Central.

The Vered Jericho blade is not an isolated outlier. Carburized-steel evidence runs back centuries before it:[30] [31]

  • 14th century BC: Armenian smiths discover carburization
  • 13th century BC: iron pick from Mt. Adir, northern Galilee, with full quench-hardened steel
  • 11th century BC: carburized iron knife from a Philistine tomb
  • 10th century BC: blacksmiths "intentionally steeling iron" throughout the Eastern Mediterranean

Nephi's "steel" bow (1 Nephi 16:18). The Hebrew word nehoshet (נחושת), translated "steel" in the KJV (2 Samuel 22:35), actually means bronze. Modern English translations such as the NIV, NRSV, and NKJV uniformly render it "bronze." (For the broader pattern of 1769-KJV translation choices carried into the Book of Mormon, see KJV Mistranslations.) Nephi's "steel" bow was likely a composite bow reinforced with bronze sheeting; Tutankhamun's tomb held twenty-seven such bows. Composite bows are vulnerable to climate swings, which explains why Nephi's broke during the transition from a Mediterranean to an Arabian climate.[32]

Constrained usage pattern. Steel appears only five times in the Book of Mormon, with no references after roughly 400 BC, consistent with a technology Lehi's family carried but did not sustainably reproduce in the New World.[31:1]

Iron and Steel: New World ​

Here the picture inverts. The New World iron and steel passages are unresolved. The Book of Mormon describes Nephites teaching "to work in all manner of... iron... steel, and brass, and copper" (2 Nephi 5:15), people "rich... in tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war" (Jarom 1:8), and Jaredites who "did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel" (Ether 7:9). No pre-Columbian iron furnaces, slag heaps, forged iron tools, iron weapons, or other traces of a smelting culture have been found anywhere in the Americas. That is a genuine gap.

What pre-Columbian America did have was extensive iron-ore working. Ann Cyphers Guillén excavated a workshop at San Lorenzo, Veracruz, and recovered roughly eight tons of polished, perforated ilmenite iron-ore beads at about 1100 BC. The beads averaged 3 cm in length, with perforations drilled using fine sand abrasive. The Olmec also produced concave iron-ore mirrors of magnetite and ilmenite.[33] [34] [35] [31:2]

Photograph of polished and perforated ilmenite iron-ore beads, dated to ~1100 BC, excavated by Ann Cyphers Guillén at the Olmec workshop at San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico
A sample of the approximately eight tons of polished, perforated ilmenite iron-ore beads recovered by Ann Cyphers Guillén at a workshop at San Lorenzo, Veracruz (~1100 BC). The beads document pre-Columbian iron-ore working (drilling and polishing) but not iron smelting, which would extract metallic iron from ore. The distinction is important and is conflated in some apologetic literature. Photograph by Ann Cyphers Guillén via Scripture Central.

But ore-working is not smelting. Eight tons of ground and polished beads show skilled craftsmanship; they do not show the extraction of metallic iron from ore in furnaces, nor the forging of tools and weapons. Apologetic literature that gestures at Olmec ilmenite as though it answered the Book of Mormon's iron-tools and iron-weapons passages is conflating categories. The honest verdict here matches the critics': for New World ferrous metallurgy, the evidence isn't there.

Ether 10:23 distinguishes metals "dug" (gold, silver, iron, copper) from those "made" (brass as alloy). That is metallurgically accurate, a distinction a 19th-century author would not necessarily get right.[31:3]

Textiles ​

Silk and Linen ​

The CES Letter assumes "silk" must mean Asian Bombyx mori silkworm silk. Sorenson documented "almost an embarrassment of riches" for the silk and linen of Alma 1:29.[36] [37] [38] Wild silk moths (Eucheira socialis and Gloveria psidii) produced actual silk in Mesoamerican regions. Ceiba (silk-cotton/kapok) produced fibers Diego de Landa called "silk" in 1566. Silkgrass (Achmea magdalenae) produced "genuinely silky cloth," and Mexican cotton was woven so finely that Spanish conquistadors compared it to silk. Wild silk also predates Chinese sericulture: Harappan sites in India (2450-2000 BC) yielded wild silk fibers.[39]

Pre-Columbian materials answering to "linen" include henequen (Agave fourcroydes), yucca, bark cloth from American fig trees, and cotton. Webster's 1828 dictionary defined "linen" as "resembling linen cloth; white; pale," which allows semantic flexibility in translation.[38:1] [39:1]

Technology and Culture ​

Chariots ​

The Book of Mormon mentions chariots in only three passages (Alma 18:9-12; Alma 20:4-7; 3 Nephi 3:22), all between roughly 90 BC and AD 16.

Chariots are never mentioned in a battle context. Again, a stark departure from biblical, Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite, and Israelite warfare. Book of Mormon chariots appear only in royal and diplomatic settings: Ammon prepares King Lamoni's "horses and chariots" for a state visit; Lamoni requests them for a diplomatic mission.[40] [3:6]

The litter/palanquin hypothesis. The Hebrew afiryon (אפריון, Song of Solomon 3:9) is translated "chariot" in the KJV but actually denotes a sedan chair carried by servants. Maya kings were "borne in litters, often made of simple rushes." The earliest known Mesoamerican litter depiction is on Izapa Stela 21 (~300-50 BC), contemporary with the Book of Mormon chariot references.[40:1] [36:1]

The litter hypothesis only handles the chariot side. The horse side still requires either the post-Pleistocene-survival hypothesis (Miller 2022, qualified above) or the loan-shifting hypothesis. Two contested hypotheses stacked together are weaker than either alone, and an honest assessment has to say so plainly.

Wheeled figurines. Roughly one hundred wheeled clay figurines from Mesoamerica show that pre-Columbian peoples understood the wheel even if full-scale wheeled transport was not used.[41] [42] The CES Letter's separate listing of "wheels" alongside "chariots" inflates the count: the standalone word "wheels" in a pre-Columbian American context does not appear in the Book of Mormon text at all.

Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican wheeled clay dog figurine from the Remojadas culture (Veracruz, Mexico), dated approximately AD 1–900, showing axles and wheels on all four legs
A Remojadas-culture wheeled clay figurine from Veracruz, Mexico (approx. AD 1–900). Roughly one hundred such wheeled figurines have been recovered across Mesoamerica, demonstrating that pre-Columbian peoples understood the concept of the wheel, even though full-scale wheeled transport was not used. Photograph by Madman2001 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) via Wikimedia Commons.

Cimeters (Curved Swords) ​

The Book of Mormon uses "cimeter" (an alternate spelling of "scimitar") for a curved blade in warfare (Enos 1:20; Mosiah 9:16; Alma 27:29; Alma 43:18). Curved weapons are now well attested in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica from pre-Classic times forward:[42:1] [43]

  • 1500-900 BC: San Lorenzo (Olmec) monuments with curved weapons
  • ~AD 450: Teotihuacan warriors with curved scimitar-like daggers
  • ~AD 790: Bonampak murals with curved-blade weapons
  • The macuahuitl: a hardwood base set with obsidian or flint blades along both edges

In the Old World, curved swords show up in artistic depictions "as early as 2000 BC"; the Hebrew kidon, attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and discussed in Yigael Yadin's Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, is a scimitar.[44]

Photograph of the San Marcos macuahuitl, an 83-cm hardwood Aztec-style sword with a curved profile, excavated in Mexico City and possibly the only surviving pre-Columbian example, now at the Museo del Templo Mayor
The San Marcos macuahuitl at the Museo del Templo Mayor, possibly the only surviving pre-Columbian example of this hardwood-and-obsidian curved weapon, excavated in 1993–94 in Mexico City and measuring 83 cm. The macuahuitl is one of several documented curved Mesoamerican weapons consistent with the Book of Mormon's "cimeter." Photograph by Pedro Rafael Mena (CC-BY 4.0) via Wikimedia Commons.

Coins / Weights and Measures ​

The Book of Mormon never mentions "coins." The word appears nowhere in the 1830 edition. It first showed up in chapter headings added during the 1920 edition, composed by editors. Current official editions have removed the "Nephite coinage" reference entirely.[39:2] [45]

What Alma 11 describes is a weights-and-measures system: "the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value" (Alma 11:4), named and standardized units with fixed exchange rates.

Worth Acknowledging

The terminology correction matters (the CES Letter criticizes a word that does not appear in the text), but it does not resolve the deeper question. Whether you call them "coins" or "weights," Alma 11 describes named, standardized precious-metal units with fixed barley-equivalent exchange rates. That is an Old World construct paralleling Mesopotamian practice. Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican economies generally ran on barter, with cacao beans, textiles, and copper axe-money as media of exchange. The terminology issue is resolved; the system question is not.

The Laws of Eshnunna parallel. John W. Welch identified striking structural parallels between the Nephite system and the Laws of Eshnunna (early 18th century BC, Mesopotamia):[46] [27:1] [47]

FeatureLaws of EshnunnaAlma 11
FormatList of exchange equivalenciesList of exchange equivalencies
Opening phrasing"1 kor of barley is (priced) at 1 shekel of silver""A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold"
Primary conversionBetween barley and silverBetween barley and silver/gold
PurposeStandardize daily wagesStandardize daily wages (judges)

The parallel is a sharp, specific match within a broader genre of ancient Near Eastern weights-and-measures systems. Some of the genre's general features (barley as an economic unit; cf. Hosea 3:2) were available through biblical scholarship in 1829. The precise structural parallels were not: the format of equivalency lists, the dual-conversion logic, the daily-wage anchoring. The Laws of Eshnunna were not translated and made available to scholars until the mid-twentieth century.

Synagogues ​

Critics argue that synagogues did not exist before the Babylonian captivity (586 BC), so pre-exilic Nephites could not have had them.

Mainstream scholarship has weakened that objection. Lee I. Levine, a leading scholar of synagogue history, argued in The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (Yale, 2005) that synagogue-style assembly worship existed before the captivity in the form of gate chambers, excavated at Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo. Each has at least one nearly square chamber lined with stone benches around the interior walls, closely mirroring later synagogue architecture. Several Old Testament passages (Hosea 2:11; Lamentations 2:6; Ezekiel 44:24) link Sabbath worship with the Hebrew moʿed ("assembly").[48] [49] [50] Levine's gate-chamber argument is influential but not unanimous. What is clear is that the older blanket claim of "no pre-exilic assembly worship" is no longer the field's default.

Pre-Columbian Semitic and Egyptian Inscriptions ​

The absence of pre-Columbian Semitic or Egyptian inscriptions in the Americas deserves direct treatment. Mesoamerica preserves multiple writing systems (Maya, Zapotec, Isthmian, Epi-Olmec), none deciphered as Semitic or Egyptian. No inscription in any Old World script has been confirmed at any pre-Columbian American site. Writing on stone is among the most durable archaeological evidence, and even brief contacts (the Norse at L'Anse aux Meadows) left identifiable traces. Egyptologist John A. Wilson of the University of Chicago, examining the characters Charles Anthon was shown in 1828, judged them not to be Egyptian.

Several partial responses exist, none of them complete:

  • An evolved liturgical script. Moroni 9:32-33 states that the Nephites' written language had been "altered, according to our manner of speech" and that "none other people knoweth our language." If the Nephite script evolved into a form known only to Nephite record-keepers, mainstream Egyptologists would not be expected to recognize it.
  • Population-level scripts. Day-to-day record-keeping might have used local scripts, with "Reformed Egyptian" reserved for sacred records on metal plates that were then buried.
  • Papyrus Amherst 63. A 4th-century-BC Egyptian papyrus contains Aramaic-language texts written in Egyptian demotic script, a real ancient practice of recording Semitic content in modified Egyptian writing. This refutes the categorical claim that "Reformed Egyptian" is an absurd fabrication; the practice the Book of Mormon describes was attested in Lehi's broader cultural world. (See Archaeology.)
  • Limited geography and preservation. Inscription-focused archaeology has not specifically targeted the proposed Book of Mormon region. See Geography for Limited Geography Model details.
  • Brian Stubbs's Uto-Aztecan/Semitic loanword research is contested and has not been accepted by mainstream linguistics; noted here only for completeness.

This is one of the genuinely difficult items, and the apologetic responses are partial. The Papyrus Amherst 63 precedent removes the strongest form of the criticism but does not by itself confirm New World inscriptions. For the broader translation context, see Book of Mormon Translation.

Windows ​

Ether 2:23 has the Lord rejecting windows for the Jaredite barges: "ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces." The text itself shows awareness that windows would not work. Glass beads date to the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia; translucent Egyptian Bronze Age glass is well documented. The brother of Jared's "white and clear" stones (Ether 3:1) fit known ancient glass technology.[51] [39:3]

The Strongest Critical Arguments ​

The CES Letter's version of the anachronism criticism is not its most formidable form. Honest engagement means meeting the best critical arguments, the ones the letter never raises.

Coe 1973: The Cumulative Cultural Mismatch ​

Michael D. Coe, a Yale Mayanist, framed the foundational mainstream critique not as a list of specific items but as a cumulative cultural mismatch.[7:1] The Book of Mormon describes a literate (in Old World scripts), iron-using, wheat-growing, horse-using, sheep-and-cattle-herding, Hebrew-derived civilization. The mainstream archaeological record shows a non-literate (in Old World scripts), copper-and-gold-working, maize-growing, deer-hunting, jaguar-revering, obsidian-using, ball-court-building Mesoamerican civilization. Coe's point is that these are not differences in detail. They are differences in kind. He put it bluntly: "The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere."[52]

This is categorically different from an item-by-item list. Even if every individual item were resolved, the cumulative cultural picture would still not match. The Limited Geography Model (LGM), the proposal that Book of Mormon events occurred within a limited Mesoamerican region rather than across the whole hemisphere, is the apologetic attempt to reconcile this: Nephite culture as a small enclave with limited cultural exchange. But the LGM has internal problems. The Hill Cumorah debate is unsettled, and no specific Mesoamerican site has been identified as a Nephite city. The enclave proposal can explain why Nephite-specific traces would be locally limited, but it does not explain why no Nephite-specific traces of any kind have turned up anywhere in the broader region. Several specific Coe-listed items have shifted in the Book of Mormon's favor since 1973 (cement, barley, fortifications, Eshnunna), yet the framework-level question survives those individual corrections and remains the most serious form of the anachronism critique. For the full discussion, see Geography and Archaeology.

Reverse Anachronisms ​

Now the argument that runs the other direction. Critics observe that the Book of Mormon names Old World items while failing to mention items central to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican life: cacao (the dominant trade commodity, ritual drink, and elite currency), jaguar (the most important animal in Maya religion), obsidian (the foundation of Mesoamerican lithic technology and the cutting edge of the macuahuitl), turkey (the only large domesticated bird), the ritual ball game (the most widespread shared cultural practice across Mesoamerica for 3,000-plus years), and quetzal feathers. Earl M. Wunderli's Dialogue critique developed this further.[7:2] [53]

This is the single most challenging argument for a Mesoamerican setting, and it is challenging for a reason no future dig can undo. Forward-anachronism arguments can be neutralized by archaeological discovery, as barley, cement, and pre-exilic synagogues were. The reverse-anachronism argument cannot. We know cacao, obsidian, jaguar, and the ball game were central; their absence from the text is not a sampling artifact waiting to be filled in.

Obsidian is the most pointed absence. The Book of Mormon contains roughly sixty chapters of warfare narrative with detailed weapon catalogs: swords, cimeters, spears, shields, bows, arrows, slings, javelins, darts, breastplates, head-plates. In any actual Mesoamerican military history, obsidian (the cutting material of the macuahuitl, traded across the entire region) would be everywhere. The translation framework can hypothetically render obsidian as "stone" or "flint," but the Book of Mormon does not name those materials in weapons contexts either. Its weapons are described in metallic terms.

The reverse-anachronism pattern is a real, currently unresolved challenge for the Mesoamerican Limited Geography Model, and the partial responses (abridgment selectivity, translation framework, cultural distinctiveness) each run into known limits.[54] It is a stronger objection to the Mesoamerican model than the forward-anachronism problem is to historicity in general. Pointing out that a 19th-century American author would also have unexplained absences (no tobacco, scalping, teepees) is interesting but does not dissolve the Mesoamerican-fit problem. The two patterns are not symmetric: missing tobacco is expected if a 19th-century author was deliberately avoiding frontier stereotypes for an "ancient Hebrew" setting; missing obsidian is not what we would expect from an authentic Mesoamerican military history.

The Cumulative Loan-Shift Burden ​

The strongest critical argument is not about any single item. It is about the pattern across all of them. Each item asks for a different explanation: late survival or loan-shift for horses, nehoshet-as-bronze for "steel" bows, ceiba fiber or wild silk moths for silk, loan-shift for wheat, litters for chariots, weights-and-measures for "coins," several separate loan-shifts for cattle/sheep/goats/swine.[55] [56] The simpler account, that a 19th-century author described an imagined ancient civilization using the vocabulary of his own time, covers every anachronism with one hypothesis.

The right reply is descriptive concession with normative resistance. The cumulative-doubt argument is descriptively correct: the faithful case does require multiple independent special explanations, and that carries a real probabilistic cost. But cumulative confirmations also exist (Eshnunna, cement at the right date, attested Hebrew names, Nahom in Yemen, Becan-era fortifications). The skeptical list of unresolved or contested items is at least as long as the confirmation list, and the cumulative case does not, by itself, decide the question either way.

The Loan-Shifting Trilemma ​

The loan-shifting defense faces a logical trilemma. Who is doing the loan-shifting?[57]

Horn 1: The Nephite authors. The Nephites brought Old World animals and knowledge with them (1 Nephi 18:25 mentions horses upon arrival). Encountering a tapir, they might call it something, but not "horse," because they already had a "horse" concept.

Horn 2: Mormon or Moroni (the editor). Same objection. They would have known these were not horses.

Horn 3: Joseph Smith (the translator). This collides with the tight-translation model suggested by Royal Skousen's textual research. Skousen's evidence indicates much of the English wording was received rather than composed by Joseph Smith, including archaic Early Modern English forms not part of his dialect.

The Book of Mormon's own translation behavior sharpens the puzzle. "Whale" (Ether 2:24) correctly renders a marine mammal. "Cureloms" and "cumoms" (Ether 9:19) leave unknown animals untranslated. If the mechanism could produce accurate terms for known animals and leave unknowns untranslated, why would it produce "horse" for a non-horse?

No current translation model fully accounts for the pattern. The partial responses on offer, tight-vs.-loose translation as a false binary and documented translation inconsistency in human practice, acknowledge the puzzle rather than resolve it.[58] The phenomenon of loan-shifting is itself documented; the mechanism by which it entered the Book of Mormon text is an open question. For the broader treatment, see Book of Mormon Translation; for the tight-translation evidence specifically, see Seer Stones.

The Professional Consensus ​

The mainstream archaeological community does not accept Book of Mormon historicity. The Smithsonian Institution has stated it has "never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide." The National Geographic Society reports nothing has been found "that has substantiated the Book of Mormon."[8:1] [59] No non-Latter-day Saint archaeologist has endorsed the Book of Mormon as historical.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a faithful Latter-day Saint, lawyer, and founder of BYU's New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF), the BYU-affiliated Mesoamerican archaeology institution, spent seventeen years and significant Church funding searching specifically for Book of Mormon evidence in Mesoamerica. He concluded in 1976: "You can't set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere — because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology."[60] Ferguson's conclusion deserves serious weight. He started faithful and stayed engaged for nearly two decades.

More durable than Ferguson's individual faith crisis is the institutional record. The NWAF has gone on operating as a respected research institution, training Mesoamericanists who publish in mainstream venues. It has not identified a single artifact, inscription, or site as Book of Mormon-related. Two things are true at once: the field-wide consensus has not shifted, and the track record of specific Book of Mormon items has been one of steady revision in the Book of Mormon's favor (barley, cement, steel at 600 BC, pre-exilic synagogue worship, Hebrew names, Nahom). Both have to be held together. For the full archaeological treatment, see Archaeology.

Evidence Supporting Book of Mormon Authenticity ​

The Direction of the List ​

Matthew Roper's 280-page study in Interpreter (2025) tracked every item ever claimed as an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, from 1830 to 2024.[61] [62] [63]

Worth Acknowledging

Roper's count needs the same scrutiny it asks of the critics' lists. The study appeared in Interpreter, a faith-affirming journal; it has not been peer-reviewed by non-Latter-day Saint scholars; the 226-item denominator is curated by Roper himself, with significant judgment calls about what counts as "confirmed." Roper's "confirmed" category ranges from items now accepted by mainstream archaeology (cement, pre-exilic worship assemblies) to items where Latter-day Saint scholars have identified plausible parallels but mainstream consensus has not shifted. Neither numerator nor denominator is independent of apologetic priors.

The most defensible reading is that the data documents a direction (items move one way, from unconfirmed to confirmed) across a 195-year span. Treat the trajectory as suggestive, not as settled science.

With those caveats in view, here is Roper's count: in 1844, about 90% of alleged anachronisms were unconfirmed; by 1965, about 73%; by 2024, about 9%. By chapter (per Kyler Rasmussen's editorial summaries): Animals, 27 items, 22 confirmed; Warfare, 39 items, 32 confirmed; Metals, 16 items, 8 confirmed plus 5 partial plus 3 unconfirmed; Culture, 53 items, the majority confirmed; Names, 34 items, 19 confirmed plus 10 partial plus 5 unconfirmed; Old World Journeys, 21 items, all 21 confirmed; Writing, 19 items, 11 confirmed.[64] [65] [66]

Unconfirmed-anachronism percentage, 1844 to 2024Three-bar chart with overlaid trendline. The percentage of Book of Mormon items classified as unconfirmed anachronisms declines from ~90 percent in 1844 to ~73 percent in 1965 to ~9 percent in 2024. The trendline emphasizes the unidirectional decline.Items still classified as unconfirmed anachronisms100%75%50%25%0%~90%~73%~9%184414 years post-18301965midpoint2024Roper compilation195 years of revision, one direction
In 1844, roughly 90 percent of items critics flagged as anachronisms were unconfirmed. By 2024, after 195 years of archaeology, linguistics, and primary-source recovery, about 9 percent remain unconfirmed. The direction of movement has been unidirectional: items move from unconfirmed to confirmed, not the reverse.

The unidirectional trajectory is the durable observation: items move from unconfirmed to confirmed, and no confirmed item moves back. John E. Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation reviewed sixty items from three nineteenth-century critical publications and found that more than 60% had been resolved in the Book of Mormon's favor by 2005: "The overall trend in the data over the past 175 years fits the expectations for the Book of Mormon as history rather than hoax."[67]

Cement at the Right Time ​

Helaman 3:7-11, dated to 46 BC in the Book of Mormon's chronology, reports that Nephite dissenters moved to "the land northward" and "began to build with cement." Mesoamerican structural cement appears suddenly in the archaeological record beginning in the late first century BC. John W. Welch summarized the alignment: "No one in the nineteenth century could have known that cement, in fact, was extensively used in Mesoamerica beginning at about this time, the middle of the first century BC."[68] Joseph Smith had no source for it. David S. Hyman's foundational 1970 study of Mesoamerican cement was nearly 150 years away.[6:1] For the broader treatment of cement in Mesoamerica (including the dating breakdown and Sorenson's analysis), see Archaeology.

Pre-Columbian Barley ​

The 1983 discovery of domesticated Hordeum pusillum, and the later expansion of its known range across Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Colorado, confirmed that barley existed in pre-Columbian America in a form a translator could call "barley." With the species caveat above (pusillum is not Old World vulgare), this remains the cleanest example available of "the Book of Mormon was right and 19th-century critics were wrong."[21:1] [22:1]

Nahom (NHM Altars) in Yemen ​

The Book of Mormon identifies "Nahom" as a pre-existing place name where Ishmael was buried (1 Nephi 16:34). Three votive altars from the Bar'an Temple at Ma'rib, Yemen, excavated by the German Archaeological Institute, bear inscriptions naming the NHM tribal region (the consonantal root N-H-M, matching the Book of Mormon place "Nahom"). The region sits on the major incense trade route, with an eastward turn matching 1 Nephi 17:1, and the altars date to roughly Lehi's lifetime. This is the single strongest piece of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and the full treatment (including Neal Rappleye's 2024 multi-line convergence analysis and the counterargument from Carsten Niebuhr's 1772 map) belongs in the canonical archaeology article. See Archaeology.

Limestone votive altar from the Bar'an Temple in Marib, Yemen, showing the Sabaean inscription containing the consonants NHM, dated to roughly the 7th–6th century BC
The NHM inscription on a limestone votive altar from the Bar'an Temple at Marib, Yemen, dated to roughly Lehi's lifetime. The NHM consonants name the tribal region of Nihm, the same consonantal root underlying the Book of Mormon's "Nahom" (1 Nephi 16:34). Photograph by Warren P. Aston via Scripture Central.

Hebrew Names: Sariah, Alma, Mulek ​

Sariah (Lehi's wife) was found on an Aramaic ostracon from a Jewish community in Elephantine, Egypt (fifth century BC). The decisive evidence is the Cairo Storeroom Ostracon 2293 (= TAD D9.14.5), preserving "śryh brt" ("Seraiah daughter of") with no textual restoration required.[69] [70] [71] Seraiah appears in the Hebrew Bible only as a masculine name. The Book of Mormon's use as a feminine form has been independently attested in Aramaic Jewish documents from exactly the right post-Lehi period.

Alma. Critics ridiculed "Alma" for over a century as a Latin feminine name implausibly hung on a Hebrew man. A Jewish document from the early second century AD attested ʿalmāʾ / "Alma" as a genuine Hebrew masculine personal name.[70:1] [72]

Mulek is now recognized as a hypocoristic (shortened form) for biblical Malchiah/Melchiah (Hebrew Mlkyh(w)). Malchiah appears in Jeremiah 38 as a son of King Zedekiah, exactly the figure the Book of Mormon claims escaped to the New World (Helaman 6:10; 8:21).[70:2]

The strongest cases, Sariah on the Elephantine ostracon and Mulek/Malchiah, are tight, independent, externally datable matches. The BYU Book of Mormon Onomasticon catalogs roughly forty Book of Mormon names with proposed ancient Hebrew, Egyptian, or Greek parallels.[71:1] The broader "names" claim should be treated as suggestive trajectory rather than confirmed match-count: phonetic matches involve interpretive judgment, and the catalog is curated by an LDS-affiliated source. But the strongest individual cases are not weakened by the softer tail of the broader list.

Mesoamerican Fortifications ​

Mesoamerican fortifications matching Alma 50's descriptions of earthen ridges, ditches, palisades, and towers are now well documented at Becan (Campeche, ~AD 100-300) and 50-plus other Late Preclassic sites, a category of evidence that simply did not exist when 19th-century critics first targeted Book of Mormon warfare. For the full archaeological treatment (including Webster's Becan dimensions, the 2016 PACUNAM LiDAR data, and the El Zotz watchtowers), see Archaeology.

Photograph of La Muralla, the defensive earthen-ridge-and-ditch wall surrounding the pre-Columbian Maya city of Becán in Campeche, Mexico, dated to roughly AD 100–300
La Muralla: the defensive perimeter at Becán, Campeche (~AD 100–300). The site's combination of earthen ridge, ditch, and bermed parapet matches Alma 50's description of Nephite defensive works in surprising detail, and it is one of 50+ Late Preclassic Mesoamerican fortified sites that have come to light since 19th-century critics first listed fortifications as a Book of Mormon problem. Photograph by Juan Carlos Costal Pérez (CC-BY-SA 4.0) via Wikimedia Commons.

Volcanic and Seismic Destruction in 3 Nephi ​

3 Nephi 8 describes catastrophic destruction at Christ's death (~AD 33-34): earthquakes, three days of darkness, cities sunk and burned. Bart J. Kowallis, a BYU geologist, analyzed this in BYU Studies and concluded that 3 Nephi's description requires both a volcano and a regional earthquake, with the best-fit scenario being a strike-slip fault zone near a coast with an active volcano nearby. Several lines support the fit. The Tacana volcano near Izapa erupted in the early Common Era; Popocatepetl erupted during the early to mid-first century AD; a stratospheric volcanic signal in Greenland ice cores in the early first century AD has been argued to correspond to the 3 Nephi destruction; and "three days of darkness" specifically matches volcanic ash-cloud behavior.[73] [74] [75] [76]

Self-Limiting Patterns ​

The strongest single member of this category is cement: the chronological alignment is precise and unmotivated by any pre-1970 source a fabricator could have reached. Several other features point the same way with less weight, since they have ordinary alternative explanations: elephants restricted to the Jaredite period (a 19th-century author following biblical chronology might confine exotic megafauna to early periods anyway); cureloms and cumoms left untranslated (a fabricator could also use untranslated terms for ancient flavor); no explicit cavalry warfare (striking for a 19th-century author drawing on biblical models, though biblical patterns do include royal chariots); steel constrained to specific contexts; chariots only in royal or diplomatic settings; horses rare across 531 pages. The cumulative pattern points the same direction as the individual confirmations, but cement is the one piece carrying real weight.[3:7] [4:4] [67:1]

Assessment ​

The CES Letter presents thirteen items in a single sentence, cites only a Wikipedia article, and dismisses the scholarly responses with a joke about tapirs. That is not serious analysis. The real state of the evidence is a gradient, and it sorts into four buckets.

Four-bucket assessment of alleged anachronismsFour-column tile layout. From left to right: Resolved or straw men (6 items), Strong evidence (7 items), Moderate evidence (6 items), Genuinely difficult (5 items). Each column lists the specific items the article catalogs in that bucket.Resolved /straw men6 itemsStrongevidence7 itemsModerateevidence6 itemsGenuinelydifficult5 itemsCoins (not in text)BarleyCementSteel (Old World)WindowsCimetersSilkIron (Old World)Sariah / MulekNahom (NHM)Eshnunna parallelFortificationsPre-exilic worshipHorsesElephantsChariotsCattle/sheep/goats/swineHebrew names (broad)Weights & measuresWheatNW iron smeltingHusbandry at scaleReverse anachronismsNo Semitic/Eg. inscriptionsCES Letter list resolvedConfirmed parallelsPartial support, real tensionUnresolved gaps
Roughly two dozen items, sorted by current evidentiary status. Thirteen sit in the two left buckets (resolved or strongly supported). Eleven sit in the right two (real tensions remain). The CES Letter's flat list compresses this gradient into a single dismissive sentence.

Resolved, or straw men in the first place. Coins (the Book of Mormon never says it; the underlying weights-and-measures system is a separate question, taken up below); barley (native barley confirmed in pre-Columbian America since 1983, with the species caveat); cement (confirmed, with chronological alignment); steel in the Old World (confirmed by the Vered Jericho sword for Laban's era); windows (the text itself rejects them on the Jaredite barges); cimeters (curved weapons attested in Mesoamerica from pre-Classic times).

Strong evidence. Silk (multiple pre-Columbian silk and silk-like materials documented); iron in the Old World (uncontested for Lehi's era); the strongest individual name attestations (Sariah on the Elephantine ostracon, Mulek as hypocoristic for Malchiah); Nahom / NHM (German archaeological confirmation in Yemen at the right date and place); the Eshnunna structural parallel; fortifications (Becan plus 50-plus Late Preclassic sites at the right period); pre-exilic Hebrew assembly worship.

Moderate evidence, real tension. Horses (Miller et al. 2022 reports post-Pleistocene dates but has not been accepted by mainstream paleontology; the textual restraint is notable); elephants (restricted to the Jaredite period, consistent with late megafauna survival, though a chronological gap remains); chariots (litter/palanquin hypothesis with archaeological support, but stacking it on the horse hypothesis is two contested hypotheses combined); cattle/sheep/goats/swine (loan-shifting is documented, but applying it to several animals raises the explanatory burden); the broader list of Hebrew name parallels (the strongest cases are tight; the rest involve more interpretive judgment); the weights-and-measures system behind Alma 11 (the Eshnunna parallel is strong; whether such a system fits Mesoamerica is not settled).

Genuinely difficult. Wheat (no pre-Columbian evidence; Mosiah 9:9 needs multiple loan-shifts in one verse); New World iron and steel smelting (no furnaces, no slag heaps, no forged ferrous tools; ore-working is not smelting); domesticated animal husbandry at scale (loan-shifting addresses terminology, not herd-level domestication); the reverse-anachronism pattern (the absence of cacao, jaguar, obsidian, turkey, and the ball game from a text purportedly set in Mesoamerica is real and unresolved); pre-Columbian Semitic or Egyptian inscriptions (none found, and inscribed stone is among the most durable evidence there is).

Read across those four columns and a single observation falls out: the list of specific alleged anachronisms has not grown as critics in 1830 might have predicted. It has shrunk, sharply. Items once treated as definitive disproofs have been quietly dropped: pre-Columbian barley, Mesoamerican cement at the right date, steel at 600 BC, pre-exilic Hebrew assembly worship, cimeters in pre-Classic Mesoamerica, the Eshnunna parallel, attested Hebrew names, Nahom in Yemen. That trajectory is the article's strongest positive observation, and it is the one the CES Letter's flat list reverses.

But the right-hand columns do not empty out, and pretending otherwise would be its own dishonesty. The field-wide consensus has not moved with the item-level trajectory. The professional archaeological community still does not accept Book of Mormon historicity, and the reverse-anachronism pattern, the loan-shifting trilemma, New World iron smelting, wheat, and pre-Columbian Semitic inscriptions all remain open. The sharpest of these is obsidian: sixty chapters of Mesoamerican warfare that never name the stone every Mesoamerican army actually fought with. No future excavation can resolve that one, because the problem is an absence, not a gap waiting to be filled.

Both halves of the ledger are true at the same time. The catalog of specific anachronisms has substantially shrunk; the framework-level question, whether the whole cultural picture fits a Mesoamerican setting, stays open. The anachronism debate cannot settle the historicity question by itself. It can only narrow the field of plausible explanations, and an honest reckoning keeps both columns in view rather than scoring only one.

That leaves the sword we started with. A complete steel blade, at Laban's time and in Laban's region, sitting in a museum case: an item the critics' list still does not mention, answering a verse the critics once said could not be true. Not every item on the ledger resolves that cleanly, and several never will. But the direction of travel, item after item across nearly two centuries, has run toward the text and not away from it.

Further Reading

  1. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Book of Mormon," no. 5, p. 11. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Book of Mormon," no. 5, p. 11. ↩︎

  3. Brant A. Gardner, "Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon," in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine & Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016), 33-44. https://rsc.byu.edu/reason-faith/anachronisms-book-mormon ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  4. Matthew Roper, "Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms -- Chapter 1: Book of Mormon Animals," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 65 (2025): 9-50. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/anachronisms-accidental-evidence-in-book-of-mormon-criticisms-book-of-mormon-animals ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. Philip W. Signor and Jere H. Lipps, "Sampling Bias, Gradual Extinction Patterns, and Catastrophes in the Fossil Record," Geological Society of America Special Paper 190 (1982): 291-296. ↩︎

  6. David S. Hyman, Precolumbian Cements: A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970). ↩︎ ↩︎

  7. Michael D. Coe, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8, no. 2 (1973): 40-48. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  8. Smithsonian Institution, Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon (1979 revision; subsequently revised in 1998 to remove specific archaeological objections); see also John L. Sorenson, "An Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" (FARMS, 1982/1995). https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/sorenson/2019-01-04/john_l._sorenson_an_evaluation_of_the_smithsonian_institution_statement_regarding_the_book_of_mormon_1982.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎

  9. John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013). ↩︎

  10. Wade E. Miller, Gilberto Pérez-Roldán, Jim I. Mead, Rosario Gómez-Núñez, Jorge Madrazo-Fanti, and Isaí Ortiz-Pérez, "Post-Pleistocene Horses (Equus) from México," Texas Journal of Science 74, no. 1 (2022): 21-34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364544950 ↩︎

  11. James Haile, Duane G. Froese, Ross D. E. MacPhee, et al., "Ancient DNA Reveals Late Survival of Mammoth and Horse in Interior Alaska," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 52 (2009): 22352-22357. ↩︎

  12. Mario Pichardo, "Review of Horses in Paleoindian Sites of the Americas," Anthropologischer Anzeiger 62, no. 1 (2004): 11-35, at 28. ↩︎

  13. "A short critique of pre-Columbian horses as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon," A Careful Examination, August 2023. https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/short-critique-horses-bom/ ↩︎

  14. "Loanshifting: deer and tapirs," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals/Horses/Loanshifting:_deer_and_tapirs ↩︎

  15. Wade E. Miller, "Elephants in the Book of Mormon," in Science and the Book of Mormon: Cureloms, Cumoms, Horses & More (Laguna Niguel, CA: KCT & Associates, 2009), 47-53. ↩︎ ↩︎

  16. Sergey L. Vartanyan, Khikmat A. Arslanov, Tatyana V. Tertychnaya, and Sergey B. Chernov, "Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC," Radiocarbon 37, no. 1 (1995): 1-6; cf. Vartanyan, Garutt, and Sher, "Holocene Dwarf Mammoths from Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic," Nature 362 (1993): 337-340. ↩︎

  17. Eleftheria Palkopoulou, Mark Lipson, Swapan Mallick, et al., "A Comprehensive Genomic History of Extinct and Living Elephants," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 11 (2018): E2566-E2574. ↩︎

  18. Adrienne Mayor, Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). ↩︎

  19. "Traditions of Horses and Elephants," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/traditions-of-horses-and-elephants-1 ↩︎

  20. "Why Does the Book of Mormon Mention Elephants, Cureloms, and Cumoms?" KnoWhy, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/why-does-the-book-of-mormon-mention-elephants-cureloms-and-cumoms ↩︎

  21. Daniel B. Adams, "Last Ditch Archeology," Science 83 4, no. 10 (December 1983): 32. ↩︎ ↩︎

  22. Anna F. Graham, Karen R. Adams, Susan J. Smith, and Terence M. Murphy, "A New Record of Domesticated Little Barley (Hordeum pusillum Nutt.) in Colorado: Travel, Trade, or Independent Domestication," KIVA 83, no. 4 (2017): 414-442. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1v84t8z1 ↩︎ ↩︎

  23. National Park Service, "Little Barley (Hordeum pusillum)." https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/little-barley-hordeum-pusillum.htm ↩︎

  24. Vorsila L. Bohrer, "Domesticated and Wild Crops in the CAEP Study Area," in Prehistoric Cultural Development in Central Arizona: Archaeology of the Upper New River Region, ed. Patricia M. Spoerl and George J. Gummerman, Occasional Paper 5 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, 1984), 252. ↩︎

  25. Nancy B. Asch and David L. Asch, "Archeobotany," in The Hill Creek Homestead and the Late Mississippian Settlement in the Lower Illinois Valley, ed. Michael D. Conner, Kampsville Archeological Center Research Series, Vol. 1 (Kampsville, IL: Center for American Archeology, 1985), 115-170. ↩︎

  26. "How Can Barley in the Book of Mormon Feed Faith?" KnoWhy #87, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/how-can-barley-in-the-book-of-mormon-feed-faith ↩︎

  27. John W. Welch, "Weighing and Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 2 (1999): 36-45. ↩︎ ↩︎

  28. Avraham Eitan, "Rare Sword of the Israelite Period Found at Vered Jericho," Israel Museum Journal 12 (1994): 61-62; see also A. Eitan, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 2 (1983): 106-107. ↩︎

  29. "Laban's Steel Sword," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-laban-s-steel-sword ↩︎

  30. Herbert Maryon et al., "Early Near Eastern Steel Swords," American Journal of Archaeology 65, no. 2 (1961): 173-184. ↩︎

  31. Matthew Roper, "Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms -- Chapter 3: Metals and Metallurgy," Interpreter 65 (2025): 93-112. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/anachronisms-accidental-evidence-in-book-of-mormon-criticisms-chapter-3-metals-and-metallurgy ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  32. "Nephi's Steel Bow," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-nephi-s-steel-bow ↩︎

  33. Steven E. Jones, Samuel T. Jones, and David E. Jones, "Archaeometry Applied to Olmec Iron-ore Beads," BYU Studies Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1997): 129-142. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol37/iss4/8/ ↩︎

  34. Luis M. Alva-Valdivia, Ann Cyphers, Maria de la Luz Rivas-Sánchez, Amar Agarwal, Judith Zurita, and Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi, "Mineralogical and Magnetic Characterization of Olmec Ilmenite Multi-Perforated Artifacts and Inferences on Source Provenance," European Journal of Mineralogy 29, no. 5 (2017): 851-860. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317569649 ↩︎

  35. "Olmec Iron," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-olmec-iron ↩︎

  36. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1985). ↩︎ ↩︎

  37. "Silk," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-silk ↩︎

  38. "Did Book of Mormon Peoples Wear Silk and Linen?" KnoWhy, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/did-book-of-mormon-peoples-wear-silk-and-linen ↩︎ ↩︎

  39. Matthew Roper, "Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms -- Chapter 4: Ancient Culture," Interpreter 65 (2025): 113-152. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/anachronisms-accidental-evidence-in-book-of-mormon-criticisms-chapter-4-ancient-culture ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  40. "What is the Nature and Use of Chariots in the Book of Mormon?" KnoWhy #126, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/what-is-the-nature-and-use-of-chariots-in-the-book-of-mormon ↩︎ ↩︎

  41. John L. Sorenson, "Wheeled Figurines in the Ancient World" (Provo, UT: FARMS Preliminary Report, 1981). ↩︎

  42. Matthew Roper, "Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms -- Chapter 2: Warfare in the Book of Mormon," Interpreter 65 (2025): 51-92. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/anachronisms-accidental-evidence-in-book-of-mormon-criticisms-chapter-2-warfare-in-the-book-of-mormon ↩︎ ↩︎

  43. "Cimeters," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-cimeters ↩︎

  44. Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963). ↩︎

  45. "Metal Money," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/metal-money ↩︎

  46. John W. Welch, "The Laws of Eshnunna and Nephite Economics," Insights: An Ancient Window 18, no. 6 (December 1998): 2; reprinted in John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 147-149. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/node/267 ↩︎

  47. Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Writings from the Ancient World 6 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995), Laws of Eshnunna §1. ↩︎

  48. Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005). ↩︎

  49. William J. Adams, Jr., "Synagogues in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 1 (2000): 4-13. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss1/3/ ↩︎

  50. "Synagogues," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-synagogues ↩︎

  51. "Ancient Glass," Evidence Central, Scripture Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-ancient-glass ↩︎

  52. Coe, "Mormons and Archaeology," 46. The "nothing, absolutely nothing" sentence is verbatim from Coe's original 1973 Dialogue article and has been quoted in his subsequent interviews and writings (including the 2011 Mormon Stories podcast). ↩︎

  53. Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of a Limited Geography for Book of Mormon Events," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (2002): 161-197. ↩︎

  54. Three partial responses are commonly offered. (1) The abridgment defense. Mormon was selecting religious and military material rather than producing a cultural ethnography, which could explain why peripheral items (cacao as a commodity, jaguar imagery in everyday life) might be omitted. The limit: this fails for obsidian, whose military significance an abridger working through sixty chapters of warfare narrative could not avoid, and for cacao, whose economic and ritual significance was pervasive enough that any chronicler would encounter it. (2) The translation framework. Unfamiliar terms might have been rendered generically -- obsidian as "stone" or "flint," for example. The limit: this is unfalsifiable as a general move, and the Book of Mormon's weapons are not described in stone-tool terms either; they are described in metallic terms (swords, cimeters, breastplates). (3) Cultural distinctiveness. Nephite culture may have been substantially different from surrounding Mesoamerican cultures. The limit: this creates tension with the Mesoamerican model itself, which relies on overlap with Mesoamerican archaeology to argue for a Mesoamerican setting in the first place. Each response carries partial weight; none individually resolves the obsidian and cacao absences. ↩︎

  55. Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993). ↩︎

  56. Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 47-77. ↩︎

  57. Royal Skousen, "How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 22-31. See also Skousen, The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2001). ↩︎

  58. Two partial responses can be offered, neither complete. First, the tight-vs.-loose translation question may be a false binary -- Skousen's evidence demonstrates tight control over English phrasing without necessarily meaning tight control over every referential noun (a translator could receive a fixed English idiom while still selecting the appropriate noun from contemporary vocabulary). This is speculative as applied to the loan-shift problem specifically. Second, translation inconsistency is documented in human translation practice -- translators have always treated different terms differently in the same document. This acknowledges the inconsistency rather than explaining the mechanism that produced it in the Book of Mormon's specific pattern of accurate "whale," untranslated "curelom," and (apparently) loan-shifted "horse." ↩︎

  59. National Geographic Society, form letter response (1989) to public inquiries: "no archaeologists at the National Geographic Society know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." ↩︎

  60. Stan Larson, "The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23, no. 1 (1990): 55-93. ↩︎

  61. Matthew Roper, "Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms -- Chapter 9: Concluding Observations," Interpreter 65 (2025): 239-280. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/anachronisms-accidental-evidence-in-book-of-mormon-criticisms-chapter-9-concluding-observations ↩︎

  62. Wade Ardern, "Preface," in Matthew Roper, Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms, Interpreter 65 (2025): vii-x. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/anachronisms-accidental-evidence-in-book-of-mormon-criticisms-preface/ ↩︎

  63. Kyler Rasmussen, "Interpreting Interpreter: (Non-)Anachronisms -- Concluding Observations," Interpreter Foundation, 2025. https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-non-anachronisms-concluding/ ↩︎

  64. Kyler Rasmussen, "Interpreting Interpreter: (Non-)Anachronisms -- Animals," Interpreter Foundation, 2025. https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-non-anachronisms-animals/ ↩︎

  65. Kyler Rasmussen, "Interpreting Interpreter: (Non-)Anachronisms -- Old World Journeys," Interpreter Foundation, 2025. https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-non-anachronisms-old-world-journeys/ ↩︎

  66. Kyler Rasmussen, "Interpreting Interpreter: (Non-)Anachronisms -- Names," Interpreter Foundation, 2025. https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-non-anachronisms-names/ ↩︎

  67. John E. Clark, "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2005): 38-49, 71-74. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol14/iss2/6/ ↩︎ ↩︎

  68. John W. Welch and Matthew G. Wells, "Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon," Insights 23, no. 2 (2003). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=60&article=1065&context=mi&type=additional ↩︎

  69. Neal Rappleye, "Revisiting Sariah at Elephantine," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 1-8. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/revisiting-sariah-at-elephantine. Primary publication: Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, vol. 4: Ostraca and Assorted Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1999), TAD D9.14.5. ↩︎

  70. John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, "Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 1 (2000): 40-51. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss1/11/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  71. "SARIAH," Book of Mormon Onomasticon, Brigham Young University. https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/SARIAH ↩︎ ↩︎

  72. "Book of Mormon Names," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evidences/Book_of_Mormon/Language/Names ↩︎

  73. Bart J. Kowallis, "In the Thirty and Fourth Year: A Geologist's View of the Great Destruction in 3 Nephi," BYU Studies 37, no. 3 (1997-98): 136-190. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol37/iss3/10/ ↩︎

  74. Jerry D. Grover, Jr., Geology of the Book of Mormon (Vineyard, UT: self-published, 2014). ↩︎

  75. Neal Rappleye, "'The Great and Terrible Judgments of the Lord': Destruction and Disaster in 3 Nephi and the Geology of Mesoamerica," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 143-157. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-great-and-terrible-judgments-of-the-lord-destruction-and-disaster-in-3-nephi-and-the-geology-of-mesoamerica/ ↩︎

  76. Richard B. Stothers, "Cloudy and clear stratospheres before A.D. 1000 inferred from written sources," Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 107, no. D23 (2002): 4718, doi:10.1029/2002JD002105. The attribution of any specific Greenland ice-core sulfate signal to the AD 33 event is contested in the volcanology literature; see Rappleye, "'The Great and Terrible Judgments of the Lord,'" for the apologetic interpretation. ↩︎

A faith-promoting resource for Latter-day Saints.

Copyright 2025-present