The apologist may say that what the original document was referring to was simply a sundial, but the person translating it knew that it was some sort of timepiece and chose a timepiece they were familiar with, a clock.
If the play "Julius Caesar" were purported to be a historical document, originally written in Latin in 44 BC and translated by someone in the 1600's, claiming that God gave them the translation of that document, would that one clock anachronism be enough for you to disbelieve that it was truly from 44 BC or a translation from God?
Some Latter-day Saints believe that there is some archaeological evidence supporting the BOM, many know there is little or no evidence and continue to believe in the book's authenticity despite these challenges.
Critics cite numerous problems with the text that indicate it is of more modern origin such as anachronisms, DNA evidence, lack of archaeological evidence, linguistic problems, etc.
29) that actively discouraged members from studying the historicity of the Book of Mormon because such efforts would prove "fruitless," that differing theories regarding Book of Mormon geography would "undermine faith" and that any theories put forth by scholars were nothing more than "personal speculations." LDS critics maintain that the BOM is a work of fiction created in the 19th century.
Critics do not accept that the BOM relates an actual history of real people who came to the Americas and were steel-smelting, chariot-driving, Christ-worshipping, temple-building people multiplying into millions, yet left absolutely no trace of their existence.For example, William Shakespeare wrote in his play, "Julius Caesar," that Brutus said, "Peace!