A quick random sample of theological anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

[_Gray Ghost]

This chapter was not selected because it was particularly anachronistic. Just a random chapter that I read a while back. When you have just a bit of basic background on academic Biblical scholarship, the anachronisms pop out all over the place in the Book of Mormon.

This has nothing to do with horses and steel - those have been done to death. These are theological/ideological anachronisms. Just as with technology, new ideology just doesn't appear in a vacuum. It evolves over time, in a particular time and place.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 7?lang=eng

2 And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ.

So this Sherem guy is supposed to be a staunch Law of Moses orthodox New World Jew, but for some reason he's opposed to the idea that the Messiah would come? First off, there was no messianic expectation at the time to begin with, in the sense of a Messiah who would be rescuing anyone - that developed after the Babylonian captivity, in the old world. For a Hebrew at this time, saying a messiah would come would be no more controversial than saying a high priest or king would come.

And he labored diligently that he might lead away the hearts of the people, insomuch that he did lead away many hearts; and he knowing that I, Jacob, had faith in Christ who should come, he sought much opportunity that he might come unto me.

The notion of "faith in Christ" (faith in the anointed King of Israel) is a entirely anachronistic to the Judaism of the time. The messiah wasn't there to have faith in him, that wasn't the point at all.

And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.

This idea of Satan as an evil cosmic force in opposition to God would be anachronistic for the time. That didn't come until 300-200 BCE in the Old World.

And it came to pass that he came unto me, and on this wise did he speak unto me, saying: Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ.

Again the "gospel" of the messiah wouldn't have made any sense in this time period.

7 And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and akeep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence. And now behold, I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is bblasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot ctell of things to come. And after this manner did Sherem contend against me.

Even Jesus himself didn't advocate for doing away of the law of Moses. These are doctrines that only developed after Jesus - what are they doing here, supposedly 500 years before Jesus?

And I said unto him: Deniest thou the Christ who shall come? And he said: If there should be a Christ, I would not deny him; but I know that there is no Christ, neither has been, nor ever will be.

Again, a devout Jewish person wouldn't be "denying the Messiah" nor would that even be considered a "sin" in Judaism. Sin was about action, not beliefs.

And he spake plainly unto them, that he had been deceived by the power of the devil. And he spake of hell, and of eternity, and of eternal punishment.

None of the concepts here existed in Judaism 500 years before Jesus. Not hell, not eternal punishment, not the devil (in this sense). They just didn't.

It goes on and on and on. It's no wonder the Book of Mormon has never been taken seriously as a historical text. The anachronisms are overwhelming, and obvious when you are primed with even just a bit of pertinent background historical information about the ancient world.

[_Equality]

I'm guessing the apologetic response will be something along the lines of this:

The gospel as understood by latter-day saints was given to Adam, but then multiple apostasies occurred so these concepts were lost to the Jews of biblical times, but were preserved by Lehi/Nephi/Jacob. So that explains all the theological anachronisms.

[_Gray Ghost]

I'm guessing the apologetic response will be something along the lines of this:

The gospel as understood by latter-day saints was given to Adam, but then multiple apostasies occurred so these concepts were lost to the Jews of biblical times, but were preserved by Lehi/Nephi/Jacob. So that explains all the theological anachronisms.

Yes, that's the typical theological position of normative Mormonism. However, that response wouldn't actually be responsive to the historical issues identified, because it's not grounded in any kind of historical analysis or data.

[_Maksutov]

I'm guessing the apologetic response will be something along the lines of this:

The gospel as understood by latter-day saints was given to Adam, but then multiple apostasies occurred so these concepts were lost to the Jews of biblical times, but were preserved by Lehi/Nephi/Jacob. So that explains all the theological anachronisms.

Kind of like describing Freemasonry as an "apostate endowment".

[_Fence Sitter]

I'm guessing the apologetic response will be something along the lines of this:

The gospel as understood by latter-day saints was given to Adam, but then multiple apostasies occurred so these concepts were lost to the Jews of biblical times, but were preserved by Lehi/Nephi/Jacob. So that explains all the theological anachronisms.

Yes, that's the typical theological position of normative Mormonism. However, that response wouldn't actually be responsive to the historical issues identified, because it's not grounded in any kind of historical analysis or data.

Sure it is. It is grounded in a 19th century milieu historical analysis.

[_jfro18]

Thanks for posting this!

I was listening to I think someone on either Mormon Stories or Infants on Thrones (so John Hamer or David Bokovoy I think?) and they were talking about how insane it is that the Book of Mormon people are doing Christian practices that they would have had no idea existed while at the same time the Book of Mormon ignores the Jewish practices/rituals they damn well would have been doing.

Like... that alone is such a massive problem, but it's really hard to explain to a believing member because you need to get deep in the weeds. It's like explaining how the Book of Moses or Book of Abraham both fail to realize that there were multiple source texts, so when Joseph Smith integrates it as if from Moses or Abraham, it simply can't work.

And yet my family believes... and refuses to even think about these things. So perhaps I'm the crazy one. :)

[_Stem]

...in steps in Teryl Givens.

Ah yes...well you see...Joseph was inspired to write these things not because that is what they thought of old, nor what happened, it was what mattered to Joseph's day. That is to say he gathered these ideas from various sources of his day, kind of like a collage, but it's really bricolage, and then, through inspiration, used them in the tale that became the Book of Mormon. On that premise it is completely expected that these so-called "anachronisms" showed up in the text. God wouldn't have it any other way. That's how we know it's really scripture. Good find...it has enhanced my testimony.

[_Dr Exiled]

Sure, but the Book of Mormon gave me an emotional feeling one day in church. Doesn't that trump all the anti discussion about supposed anachronisms? Feelings are where it's at and I've had many such feelings from time to time that tell me that the church is true. Just ask the leaders about how feelings take the place of critical thinking when it comes to the church and any of these so called issues. If I feel it, and the church leadership approves of how I apply the feeling, it must be true.

[Guest]

Thanks for posting this!

I was listening to I think someone on either Mormon Stories or Infants on Thrones (so John Hamer or David Bokovoy I think?) and they were talking about how insane it is that the Book of Mormon people are doing Christian practices that they would have had no idea existed while at the same time the Book of Mormon ignores the Jewish practices/rituals they damn well would have been doing.

Like... that alone is such a massive problem, but it's really hard to explain to a believing member because you need to get deep in the weeds. It's like explaining how the Book of Moses or Book of Abraham both fail to realize that there were multiple source texts, so when Joseph Smith integrates it as if from Moses or Abraham, it simply can't work.

And yet my family believes... and refuses to even think about these things. So perhaps I'm the crazy one. :)

I think the issue is that the general public really is very poorly informed about the state of Biblical scholarship. So unless you have a real personal interest in it, you're unlikely to know much about these issues, or you're just as likely to be diverted along the path of apologetic readings, which are not academic in nature at all. So all the problems aren't immediately obvious without a lot of background information, and that background information isn't easily accessible - the stuff they post on the history channel about the Bible tends to be nonsense, for instance.

It's kind of like reading a book purporting to be from the 1700s that uses all kinds of 21st century concepts. It would be obvious to us, but not at all obvious to a lay person living in the year 3000.

[_Gray Ghost]

...in steps in Teryl Givens.

Ah yes...well you see...Joseph was inspired to write these things not because that is what they thought of old, nor what happened, it was what mattered to Joseph's day. That is to say he gathered these ideas from various sources of his day, kind of like a collage, but it's really bricolage, and then, through inspiration, used them in the tale that became the Book of Mormon. On that premise it is completely expected that these so-called "anachronisms" showed up in the text. God wouldn't have it any other way. That's how we know it's really scripture. Good find...it has enhanced my testimony.

The Book of Mormon is actually very similar to the book of Daniel, so I suppose there's that.


[*] Daniel is a backdated story written in the second century BCE, but purportedly from the 6th century BCE

[*] The Book of Mormon is a backdated story written in the 19th century CE, but purportedly from the 6th century BCE to the 5th century CE

[*] Daniel is an invented character, rather than a historical figure

[*] Nephi, Mormon et al are invented characters rather than historical figures

[*] Daniel contains very accurate backdated prophecy, that starts to go wrong when the prophesies start to involve actual future events (from the time of writing)

[*] The Book of Mormon contains very accurate backdated prophecy, that starts to get vague when the prophesies start to involve actual future events (from the time of writing)

[*] Daniel is an apocalyptic work, concerned with the imminent eschaton

[*] The Book of Mormon is an apocalyptic work, concerned with the imminent eschaton

[*] Daniel's message is a message of hope to Israel under the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes, saying that God would soon liberate them

[*] The Book of Mormon has several messages that are perhaps similar but not identical; a message to the "Lamanites" that God would soon redeem them, a message to humble Christians that God would soon bring about the eschaton. Messages of hope, but in a different historical context.

[*] Both are set in the context of the Babylonian captivity