• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I never really thought about it this way. I always thought about it more in terms of a lack of historical record, including artistic.
Early Muslim traders in Australia predated European 'discovery' and there is substantial artistic (both oral and physical) and artifact-based evidence of their visits. There is also technological introductions, despite these not relying on any particular material improvements (eg. canoe design changed) I'll readily admit this was in a much later period (1600's) but the introduction of a new, completely alien culture is a substantive event, and the lack of record seems...curious.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
So? Tiny xenophobic cultures have had their advances pilfered all across history. You don't think the Romans, Chinese and such came up with all their advances on their own, do you? Allow me to dispel this notion. They took the spoils of war, however small, back to their capitals and centers of trade where it would be studied and eventually no matter how comparatively primitive a people may be someone will figure out how to reproduce it, and once that's done the knowledge will spread, because humans can't keep secrets for ****.
I'm sure many secrets were kept as well. Pointing to one or two cases were technology did spread doesn't give us any feel for when it didn't spread. The land was largely uninhabited when the Nephites settled it, so there was no pressing need for swords. Nephi apparently knew metalurgy, and this isn't an anachronism; metalurgy wasn't unknown in the Middle East in 600 BC. That being said, sword making is a specialization that wasn't as well known. We only know of one sword that was brought with them to the New World, the sword of Laban. Nephi didn't make it, nor is it likely that he knew how to make it. When the record tells us that generations later, that they made swords after the model of the sword of Laban, it is tempting to picture fine steel swords with gold hilts, but it is more likely that the basic size and shape was copied. The Hebrew word for "steel" can refer to any hard alloy, whether iron or bronze or brass, so it is illogical to assume carbon steel.

I think the archeological record is clear that there was in fact metal objects in Mesoamerica at the time of the Nephites. They are believed to be an imported item, that the Mayans didn't learn how to make for themselves until much later. So apparently, your theory is wrong - seeing technology doesn't always lead to its immediate incorporation into a society. The real question is whether all of these metallic objects were imported from South America, or some other source. Swords were known to exist in both North America and South America during the time of the Nephites. Why didn't the knowledge spread to Mesoamerica?
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
I'm sure many secrets were kept as well. Pointing to one or two cases were technology did spread doesn't give us any feel for when it didn't spread. The land was largely uninhabited when the Nephites settled it, so there was no pressing need for swords. Nephi apparently knew metalurgy, and this isn't an anachronism; metalurgy wasn't unknown in the Middle East in 600 BC. That being said, sword making is a specialization that wasn't as well known. We only know of one sword that was brought with them to the New World, the sword of Laban. Nephi didn't make it, nor is it likely that he knew how to make it. When the record tells us that generations later, that they made swords after the model of the sword of Laban, it is tempting to picture fine steel swords with gold hilts, but it is more likely that the basic size and shape was copied. The Hebrew word for "steel" can refer to any hard alloy, whether iron or bronze or brass, so it is illogical to assume carbon steel.
My argument rests on precisely that. Metallurgy is one of the single most important skills a culture can have. No one from that era would make any kind of migration without taking people who knew how to make metal tools & weapons. And yet the only places in Pre-Columbian America that had Metallurgy at the right time to line up with Mormon theology are the likes of the Mound-Builders and some South-American cultures. And regarding those, they fail to meet other criteria, specifically the geological event that is claimed. This is a serious problem, and that's without getting into the other issues regarding Elephants and the like.

I think the archeological record is clear that there was in fact metal objects in Mesoamerica at the time of the Nephites. They are believed to be an imported item, that the Mayans didn't learn how to make for themselves until much later. So apparently, your theory is wrong - seeing technology doesn't always lead to its immediate incorporation into a society. The real question is whether all of these metallic objects were imported from South America, or some other source. Swords were known to exist in both North America and South America during the time of the Nephites. Why didn't the knowledge spread to Mesoamerica?
I'll tackle this bit later, I've got to run.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
No one from that era would make any kind of migration without taking people who knew how to make metal tools & weapons.
There were many more pilgrims on the Mayflower, than people aboard Nephi's ship, yet somehow they all forgot to bring farm equipment. Did they have a single metallurgist among them?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
There are just too many historical errors in the Book of Mormon to permit it's being taken seriously on any level except faith. Examination of the archaeological record between 3100 BC to 400 AD in America, indicates that all manner of things familiar to Joseph Smith that he mentions in the Book of Mormon are absent from Mesoamerica. This includes: the donkey, cattle, horses, oxen, domestic sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, silk, swords, scimitars, and chariots. Mormon apologists base their arguments on quibbling about rare and inconclusive finds for example, a Mormon apologist claims that there is fossil evidence that some New World horses may have survived the Pleistocene extinction (he is not taken seriously by mainstream archaeologists or paleontologists) and in an even greater flight of fancy another apologist, advances the thesis, that the "horses" mentioned in the Book of Mormon were, not actually horses, but were, in fact, a different animal, such as a tapir. Even the apologists can't get their story straight.

When the record tells us that generations later, that they made swords after the model of the sword of Laban, it is tempting to picture fine steel swords with gold hilts, but it is more likely that the basic size and shape was copied. The Hebrew word for "steel" can refer to any hard alloy, whether iron or bronze or brass, so it is illogical to assume carbon steel.
Yet, the Book of Mormon clearly relates when the remnants of the Jaredites' final battle were discovered, "the blades thereof were cankered with rust." Like other a
pologists, rrosskoph, can not come to grips with the fact that nothing except iron and steel can be, "cankered with rust." So now we can expect still another improbable tall tale that attempts to explain away (or deny in its entirety) this clear anachronism. It never ceases to amaze me how familiar with the Book of Mormon the apologists are, how expert they seem, until it comes to the obvious contradiction, such as this, ... then they appear somewhat less scholarly and logical.

There were many more pilgrims on the Mayflower, than people aboard Nephi's ship, yet somehow they all forgot to bring farm equipment. Did they have a single metallurgist among them?

rrosskopf suffers from Joseph Smith
syndrome, writing down his assumptions without first investigating. It has a way of catching up, sooner or later: aside from the blacksmith that the Mayflower carried (as all ships did, for repairs) Moses Fletcher, a signer of the Mayflower Compact, was by trade, a blacksmith.
 
Last edited:

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
There were many more pilgrims on the Mayflower, than people aboard Nephi's ship, yet somehow they all forgot to bring farm equipment. Did they have a single metallurgist among them?
..

Yes. Yes there was. Several. And that's only counting people who's trade & profession was blacksmithing, there were many, many more who knew enough to do basic metal-working and repairs.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
There are just too many historical errors in the Book of Mormon to permit it's being taken seriously on any level except faith.
And yet there are historians who take it seriously. I agree that it is a long way from becoming accepted in scientific circles, except by a very fringe element, and that faith is still required to believe it. Perhaps you will never have the chance to see it from my point of view. I have seen too many impossible things to discount it.
It is possible to look at the anachronisms and lose faith, but it is also possible to look at the many anachronisms that have disappeared, without the help of a single word being changed in the Book of Mormon. There are far less anachronisms today than there were in 1830. I prefer to look at the big picture. In another 40 years, there will be even fewer anachronisms. I for one, will not wait for the scientific community to catch up. I must act with what I already know to be true.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
Even the apologists can't get their story straight.
Our "story", given that we don't know if "horses" referred to European horses, or some other animal suggestive of a horse, is that either one could still be true. With the latest scientific evidence showing that horses may have always been in North America, I wonder if the "donkey" isn't the more problematic reference. Either way, apparently that is off the subject.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
Yet, the Book of Mormon clearly relates when the remnants of the Jaredites' final battle were discovered, "the blades thereof were cankered with rust." Like other apologists, rrosskoph, can not come to grips with the fact that nothing except iron and steel can be, "cankered with rust."
This is nothing new. The Jaredite swords were made of iron or steel, since they were "cankered with rust". I was referring to the Nephite swords. There is no mention of the Nephite swords being cankered with rust. So yes... I believe that somewhere in America there was a tribe that had iron swords, and I know them as the Jaredites. As a society the Jaredites completely obliterated themselves in a series of wars. The Jaredites were not descendants of Jared, and didn't even refer to themselves as Jaredites. They were a large group of people and may have included multiple distinct bloodlines. Most people associate them with the Olmecs. Did the Olmecs have iron swords? I don't know of any, and that is a problem that speaks to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Did they all rust away? Perhaps. They didn't teach sword making to the Nephites, that much is certain.
Are there similarities between the Jaredites and the Olmecs? Yes... one is a penchant for carving their royal histories into stone.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Our "story", given that we don't know if "horses" referred to European horses, or some other animal suggestive of a horse, is that either one could still be true. With the latest scientific evidence showing that horses may have always been in North America, I wonder if the "donkey" isn't the more problematic reference. Either way, apparently that is off the subject.
I don't know what "story" is being talked about here, but a few notes about horses and donkeys:
While fossil evidence does point to North America as the origin of horses, they disappeared from the continent ages ago after their ancestors had migrated to Asia and eventually made their way westward. They were reintroduced to North America with the explorations and colonizations of Europeans. The same goes for the donkey, which appears to have originated in Africa. It arrived here on on ships of the second voyage of Columbus. So, there really was no animal even close to being a horse in NA at the time the story evidently implies.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
..

Yes. Yes there was. Several. And that's only counting people who's trade & profession was blacksmithing, there were many, many more who knew enough to do basic metal-working and repairs.

The gunner and quartermasters would probably all have had at least a pidgin knowledge for a start, even if not advanced. And let's not forget that more pilgrims were probably taught these things as a matter of survival in those early days of colonisation.

John Alden would have had some idea about metals, since barrels were bound with metal rings in those days, and a bit of metalworking/metallurgy knowledge would have been needed for their proper maintenance.

William Mullins may also have had some idea about metals being a cobbler, since metal tools are used in that trade.
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I didn't make any assumptions. I asked an honest question. It is true that they forgot to bring farm equipment.
No, that was cleary not an "honest question" it was the use of a "question as ridicule" construct. Let's review that conversation:
My argument rests on precisely that. Metallurgy is one of the single most important skills a culture can have. No one from that era would make any kind of migration without taking people who knew how to make metal tools & weapons. And yet the only places in Pre-Columbian America that had Metallurgy at the right time to line up with Mormon theology are the likes of the Mound-Builders and some South-American cultures. And regarding those, they fail to meet other criteria, specifically the geological event that is claimed. This is a serious problem, and that's without getting into the other issues regarding Elephants and the like.
... and you snapped back:
There were many more pilgrims on the Mayflower, than people aboard Nephi's ship, yet somehow they all forgot to bring farm equipment. Did they have a single metallurgist among them?
Do you still really want to maintain that, in that context, you were asking an "honest question": "Did they have a single metallurgist among them?"

I don’t buy it. It is clear that you tried a gambit, based on an erroneous assumption, not considering that your interlocutors knew a bit about the founding of Plymouth Colony.

As far as farm equipment is concerned, I don't know, but Caleb H. Johnson in "The Mayflower and Her Passengers (Indiana: Xlibris Corp., 2006), pp. 30, 31" states: "The hold also stored the passengers' personal weapons and military equipment – armor, muskets, gunpowder and shot, as well as swords and bandoliers. Also all the tools the Pilgrims would need, as well as all the equipment and utensils needed to prepare meals in the New World. It is also known that some Pilgrims such as Allerton and Mullins, and possibly others, loaded trade goods on board, with these also most likely being stored in the cargo hold."
And yet there are historians who take it seriously.
No, there are some apologists and a few rare contraries, but the field of history roundly rejects such claims. No matter how many times you repeat it, that does not make it any more accepted.
I agree that it is a long way from becoming accepted in scientific circles, except by a very fringe element, and that faith is still required to believe it. Perhaps you will never have the chance to see it from my point of view. I have seen too many impossible things to discount it.
I maintain that you have been lied to and have swallowed the lies, hook, line and sinker. As to your actually having, "seen too many impossible things." Please tell us about the impossible things that you have seen, that bear on this discussion.
It is possible to look at the anachronisms and lose faith,
Of course it is, that's what faith is about and why I reject it totally. As Mark Twain observed: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
... but it is also possible to look at the many anachronisms that have disappeared, without the help of a single word being changed in the Book of Mormon. There are far less anachronisms today than there were in 1830. I prefer to look at the big picture. In another 40 years, there will be even fewer anachronisms. I for one, will not wait for the scientific community to catch up. I must act with what I already know to be true.
First of all, please let us in on the disappearing anachronisms. Second of all, the BOM is supposed to be "inspired" by God, all it takes is one single anachronism to knock the whole shebang back into the cocked hat it came out of.
Our "story", given that we don't know if "horses" referred to European horses, or some other animal suggestive of a horse, is that either one could still be true. With the latest scientific evidence showing that horses may have always been in North America, I wonder if the "donkey" isn't the more problematic reference. Either way, apparently that is off the subject.
Horses went extinct in the New World long before any of the Mormon tales concerning the New World. There is no other animal suggestive of a horse that was living in the New World, especially none that would be used in the phrase used in the BOM: "horses and chariots." The latest scientific evidence contradicts what you say, there is no creditable evidence that horses, even small remnant groups were to be found in North America after the Pleistocene Extinction. "Donkey" the real word use in the BOM is "a$$" but that gets censored to "***" on the board.

A common reference for horses used by apologists like Mike Ash, a Mormon who is on the management team for theFoundation for Apologetic Information & Research(FAIR), an international, volunteer, non-profit organization that produces material defending the LDS faith is: Clay E. Ray, “Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan,”
Journal of Mammalogy 38:2 (1957), 278.

Ashe quotes Ray: “The fact is, however, that there does appear to be archaeological support that horses existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. In 1957, for instance, at Mayapan (a site corresponding to Book of Mormon lands/times) horse remains were discovered at a depth considered to be pre-Columbian.”

This is just he usual quote mining. It took some doing, but I have a copy of Ray’s paper.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
What was actually said was:

"The remains of horses have been reported from cave deposits in the state of Yucatan, Mexico, on two previous occasions. Mercer (THE HILL CAVES OF YUCATAN, LIPPINCOTT, PHILA., 1896, p. 1972 and map opposite title page) found horse remains in three caves in the Serrania, a low range of limestone hills lying in southwestern Yucatan and trending roughly parallel to the southwest border of that state. The horse material was associated with pot sherds and other artifacts and showed no evidence of fossilization. Cope (in Mercer op. cit. p. 172, footnote) examined the material and considered it referable to Equus occidentalis on morphological characteristics but noted absence of fossilization.

Hatt records numerous fragments of Equus ?conservidens from Actun Lara, one of Mercer’s caves, (1953, Cranbrook Inst. Sci., Bull. 33, pp. 71-72 and map 2). These remains were tentatively referred to Equus tau by R. A. Stirton (in Hatt, p. 71). Hibbard regards E. tau as probably synonymous with E. conservidens (1955, Contrib., Mus. Paleo. Univ. Mich.,12:61). Although the teeth and bones were in many cases heavily encased in lime, pottery occurred throughout the deposits and two foot bones present in the upper layer of two layers in which horse remains occurred were identified as those of domestic cattle.

It is now possible to report horse remains of probably pre-Columbian age from a new locality in Yucatan. This material consists of one complete upper molar and 3 fragmentary lower molars, all preserved in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Cat. No 3937), The teeth constitute a part of a large collection of vertebrate remains obtained by archaeologists of the Carnegie Institution of Washington during excavation at the Mayan ruins of Mayapan, Yucatan (20,38N,89,28W). This collection was submitted to the author for identification, and a checklist of the material is in preparation. The horse teeth were collected in cenote Ch’en Mul (Section Q, topographic map of the ruins of Mayapan, Jones, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Dept. Archaeology, Current Rept. 1, 1952) from the bottom stratum in a sequence of unconsolidated earth almost 2 meters in thickness. As in the deposits reported by Mercer and Hatt, pottery occurs throughout the stratigraphic section. The horse teeth are not specifically identifiable. They are considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization. Such mineralization was observed in no other bone or tooth in the collection although thousands were examined, some of which were found in close proximity to the horse teeth.

It is by no means implied that pre-Columbian horses were known to the Mayans, but it seems likely that horses were present on the Yucatan Peninsula in pre-Mayan time. The tooth fragments reported here could have been transported in fossil condition as curios by the Mayans, but the more numerous horse remains reported by Hatt and Mercer (if truly pre-Columbian) could scarcely be explained in this manner." CLAYTON C. RAY, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. Received May 28,1956).


Note the comment concerning "mineralization" and "transport as curios." It was clear to the discoverer that these teeth were no naturally deposited there.
This is nothing new. The Jaredite swords were made of iron or steel, since they were "cankered with rust". I was referring to the Nephite swords. There is no mention of the Nephite swords being cankered with rust. So yes... I believe that somewhere in America there was a tribe that had iron swords, and I know them as the Jaredites. As a society the Jaredites completely obliterated themselves in a series of wars. The Jaredites were not descendants of Jared, and didn't even refer to themselves as Jaredites. They were a large group of people and may have included multiple distinct bloodlines. Most people associate them with the Olmecs. Did the Olmecs have iron swords? I don't know of any, and that is a problem that speaks to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Did they all rust away? Perhaps. They didn't teach sword making to the Nephites, that much is certain.
No one had iron or steel swords, no one. There is no evidence, direct of indirect of the presence of iron or steel swords in the Pre-New World, especially on the scale or arming and entire army with them.
Are there similarities between the Jaredites and the Olmecs? Yes... one is a penchant for carving their royal histories into stone.
They also both had ten finger, ten toes, two arms, two legs, a head, etc. So what? It seems to me that all stone carving peoples the world wide did that, though in the Old World such carvings (and other art) often showed horses, chariots, swords, etc., notably absent in the New World.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
Do you still really want to maintain that, in that context, you were asking an "honest question": "Did they have a single metallurgist among them?"
Yes, it was an honest question - an afterthought. The point was that people do forget to bring things that we would consider important - like farm equipment. Many of the people on the Mayflower were factory workers by trade, so it would be surprising if they didn't know at least a little of metalurgy, but I am not an expert on the Mayflower. The old phrase comes to mind "Look before you leap", but that little acorn of wisdom really doesn't describe living by faith, where one often leaps before they look. Joseph Smith was commanded to build a Temple, despite not having the money or the land. So he bought land on credit and started the construction before the land was really his. When he ran out of money, and the payment for the land came due, there was a very real risk that everything they had already done would come to naught as the land reverted to its former owner. On the very last day, a recent convert came to town, after traveling several hundred miles with his wife and children during winter, and paid off the mortgage. I've had experiences of my own where I leaped before I looked, and witnessed miracles. So I reject that idea that all ocean voyages are well planned, or that people are great at anticipating their future needs. I also reject the idea that all people live by fear. Some people do live by faith.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
No, there are some apologists and a few rare contraries, but the field of history roundly rejects such claims.
That is very black and white thinking. Apologists can also be historians. Hugh Nibley was both an apologist, and a historian. He believed the Book of Mormon to be genuine. His research was real, and his works haven't been refuted. He was published in several peer reviewed magazines, and respected by those who knew him. He wrote "Lehi in the Desert", where he shows the Middle Eastern influences in the Book of Mormon. He wrote another large volume about the Jaredites. Other works are about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Joseph Smith Papyri, ancient religious customs and rites, and early Christianity. He was expert in several languages. Perhaps the highest praise was overheard during one of his speeches, when another scholar whispered a little too loudly that it was indecent for a man to know that much. The "Field of History" is too broad for everyone to be an expert on everything. He was perhaps the world's foremost authority on the Book of Mormon.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
In two posts you appear to be trying to avoid dealing with any of the questions that were raised, you fail to address any of the anachronisms identified, and you attempt the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority in the person of one Hugh Nibley, based solely on the fact that back in the 1960s, before he established himself as a Mormon apologist, he published a few papers in respectable journals. Doesn't cut it, you're just avoiding the issues and hoping everyone is off the scent..
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
That is very black and white thinking. Apologists can also be historians.
No, you absolutely cannot be both an apologist and a historian. The two are in direct conflict. Just like you can't be a politician running for office and at the same time be a journalist reporting on the election campaign. It is a conflict of interest.

I am not saying an apologist cannot be trained in history and well informed. But that alone does not make them historians. It is the job of historians to be impartial and to examine the evidence without bias. It is the job of an apologist to try to defend a particular position. You cannot do both.


An apologist cannot be impartial, they admit to having an agenda. Nothing wrong with having an agenda as long as you are honest about it. But you cannot do the job of a historian while you are trying to promote a particular dogma.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
As far as Nibley "never being refuted."

[quote="wiki]Scholarly criticism

Kent P. Jackson and Ronald V. Huggins have criticized Nibley for misusing or misrepresenting sources, and for sloppy citations.[32][33] Shirley S. Ricks responded to Huggins, saying Nibley's use of sources was good, and describes the extensive work done to vet Nibley's citations during preparation of more recent editions of his work.[34]

Nibley has also been criticized for his use of evidence drawn from widely disparate cultures and time periods without proper qualification.[35] More specifically, Douglas F. Salmon finds Nibley guilty of "parallelomania" in his effort to connect the Book of Mormon to various ancient texts. Salmon notes:

"The number of parallels that Nibley has been able to uncover from amazingly disparate and arcane sources is truly staggering. Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor.[36]"
[/quote]
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
First of all, please let us in on the disappearing anachronisms.
1) Thomas O’Dey, in 1957, stated, “Every commentator on the Book of Mormon has pointed out the many cultural and historical anachronisms, such as steel. A steel sword of Laban in 600 B.C.”
Of course, now we know that they did have steel swords in Jerusalem in 600 BC. Such a sword is now on display at Jerusalem’s Israel Museum, dating from 700 BC.
2) The Book of Mormon also mentions the plates of brass, a possession of Laban who lived in Jerusalem in 600 BC. No other examples of brass plates were known to exist, so it was considered an anachronism. Now, of course, several examples have been unearthed.
3) Barley was recently proven to exist in ancient America, as it was found in several Native American gravesites.
4) Stone monuments were unknown to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, yet the Book of Mormon mentions them. Many thousands have since been found.
5) Thrones. The Book of Mormon mentions thrones, when no thrones were known to exist in North America in 1830. The critics were wrong.
6) Palaces. The Book of Mormon mentions palaces, when no palaces were believed to exist in North America. The critics were wrong again.
7) Large Cities. No one believed that large cities, as described in the Book of Mormon, existed in North America.
8) Fortifications. Many of the cities in the Book of Mormon were surrounded by fortifications; a large ditch was dug around the cities, the dirt piled into a berm that also surrounded the city. Atop the berm was a fortification of timbers. None were known to exist in 1830, but now there are several that have been found. Palenque is perhaps the most noted, but there are others.
9) Cement is mentioned in the Book of Mormon dating to the 1st century. It wasn't until the last 50 years that cement was discovered in North America - dating from the 1st century.
10) Highways. The idea that the "savages" built highways was ridiculous in 1830. Now we know of several examples.
11) Military clothing; the military clothing of the Book of Mormon is described in detail and doesn't match any known clothing of the local indian tribes. It is a match for Mexican and Mesoamerican tribes.
12) Swords, spears, javelins, and slings were all considered to be anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Examples of all have been found.
13) Human sacrifice is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. It was once considered to be an anachronism.
14) Reading and writing; no one believed that any of the natives could read and write as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
15) The Book of Mormon describes two advanced civilizations - the older one in the north; two more than were known to exist in 1830.

There are two distinct classes of anachronisms; those that occur in the Old World and those that appear in the New World. The first two are examples of anachronisms concerning the Old World. Today we know much more about the Old World than we do about the New World.
Almost all of the New World anachronisms are still anachronisms for New York and its environs, but few of them are anachronisms for Mexico. That is why many believe that Mexico or Mesoamerica is the land of the Book of Mormon.

Wade Miller is a scientist and archeologist who has written a book describing the evidence for the animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon. If the archeological evidence is to be believed, then several more supposed anachronisms can be taken off the list, including elephants and horses.
 
Top