I used to love how well the Book of Mormon seemed to fit into the Biblical narrative. For instance, I delighted in imagining Lehi preaching alongside Jeremiah and warning against the Babylonian captivity.
But shortly after I left the Church, I came across an argument that showed how the Book of Mormon actually distorted the historical setting in subtle but significant ways. It’s a simple but devastating argument because it rests entirely on a close reading of the Bible—specifically 2 Kings 24:14–16.
When I first came across this argument, I searched for apologetic responses. But the answers I found only raised more questions.
1. What the Bible Says About the Exile
2 Kings 24 describes the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, during the reign of King Jehoiachin. The result was a mass deportation:
“[Nebuchadnezzar] carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.” (2 Kings 24:14)
The next verse reiterates this:
“And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.” (2 Kings 24:16)
After this, Babylon appointed Zedekiah as king (v. 17). So when Zedekiah began to reign, Jerusalem had already been emptied of its elite class—soldiers, scribes, craftsmen, and wealthy landowners.
During this same general period, the prophet Jeremiah was active, delivering prophecies of impending judgment and exile. Jeremiah 25:1–11 contains his well-known prophecy of 70 years of Babylonian captivity, delivered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was also the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (circa 605 BC). This fits with the historical timeline, reinforcing that the first major Babylonian campaigns occurred before Zedekiah’s reign.
2. What the Book of Mormon Claims
According to 1 Nephi 1:4:
“For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah… my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days…”
The Book of Mormon opens at the start of Zedekiah’s reign, after the deportation described in 2 Kings 24. Yet it portrays a vibrant Jerusalem, where:
- Lehi has property, a house, and gold and silver (1 Nephi 2:4)
- LDS Scholars have described Lehi as a wealthy well-educated and highly skilled man:
- In Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites, Nibley describes Lehi as: “a man of considerable means and influence, possessing wealth in gold and silver and engaged in trade and craftsmanship.”
— Lehi in the Desert, BYU Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1974)
- Jefrrey Chadwick noted that Lehi’s “combined wealth probably placed Lehi’s family in an economic situation approaching Jerusalem’s upper class. Thus it is no surprise to read that, in addition to gold and silver, Lehi had possessed ‘precious things’ (1 Nephi 2:4; 3:22) and ‘all manner of riches’ (1 Nephi 3:16).
— Lehi’s House at Jerusalem and the Land of His Inheritance Jeffrey R. Chadwick
- In Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites, Nibley describes Lehi as: “a man of considerable means and influence, possessing wealth in gold and silver and engaged in trade and craftsmanship.”
- His sons can return to a powerful man, Laban, who commands at least 50 soldiers (1 Nephi 3:31).
- The brass plates—sacred genealogical and legal records—are still held in private hands
- The family of Ishmael and his multiple daughters lived there and had enough resources to go prepare to travel into the wilderness.
This creates a direct contradiction. The Bible says the elites are gone. The Book of Mormon says they’re still there.
2. LDS Apologetic Responses and Rebuttals
Here are some of the responses I have received when I raised this issue with Latter-day Saints.
Response #1: Zedekiah’s reign may have started before the deportation
Some argue that Zedekiah may have started reigning earlier than 2 Kings 24 implies—possibly during a co-regency or as a puppet ruler under Jehoiakim. This would allow Lehi to leave before the deportation.
Rebuttal: The Bible is clear: Zedekiah’s reign begins after the deportation.
“And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.” (2 Kings 24:17)
There’s no textual or historical evidence that Zedekiah ruled prior to Jehoiachin. Babylonian records also confirm this historical sequence:
The Babylonian Chronicle (BM 21946), part of a series of cuneiform tablets, describes Nebuchadnezzar’s 597 BC campaign against Jerusalem. It records that he captured Jehoiachin, installed Zedekiah as king, and carried off tribute—matching the biblical timeline. See D.J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (London: British Museum Press, 1956), 69–70.
This means that when 1 Nephi begins, the deportation has already taken place.
Response #2: 2 Chronicles 36 shows multiple deportations, including under Zedekiah
It’s true that 2 Chronicles 36 mentions deportations during Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah’s reigns. This is often used to suggest that some elites may have remained until a later exile.
Rebuttal: 2 Chronicles adds detail, but it doesn’t contradict 2 Kings. The deportation under Jehoiachin in 597 BC is the one that removes the city’s elite. The later deportation under Zedekiah (in 586 BC) comes at the very end of his reign—not at its start, when the Book of Mormon narrative begins.
So this does not rescue the setting of 1 Nephi. By the time Zedekiah is installed as king, Jerusalem has already been gutted of its upper class.
Response #3: Lehi didn’t live in Jerusalem, but outside in Beit Lehi
Some point to the archaeological site Beit Lehi, about 13 km from Jerusalem, and suggest that Lehi lived there and therefore would not have been deported. They cite an inscription and local oral traditions.
Rebuttal: 1 Nephi 1:4, 7 says Lehi “dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days,” and that “his own house” was “at Jerusalem.” The narrative also repeatedly places him and his sons in the city, including preaching to crowds and later interacting with Laban and city officials. This isn’t rural life—it’s urban elite life. LDS Scholar Jefrrey R. Chadwick argues based on this and additional textual evidence that Lehi lived in Jerusalem even though he owned property outisde of it.
As for the Beit Lehi site: – The inscription is likely connected to the biblical Lehi (from Judges 15), not the Book of Mormon. – There’s no archaeological evidence connecting this site to Lehi, Sariah, Nephi, or the Book of Mormon and unreliable oral traditions do not provide a substitute for this complete absence. Even LDS scholars have expressed skepticism about the connection. See Jeffrey R. Chadwick’s analysis, which concludes that claims linking Khirbet Beit Lei to the Book of Mormon are unwarranted and that the archaeological evidence does not support the association. (source).
Moreover, even if Lehi lived near Jerusalem, he would still have been part of the class that was exiled.
Additionally, the Book of Mormon depicts not just Lehi, but other socially established families such as Ishmael’s. Ishmael is portrayed as having multiple daughters of marriageable age, the social standing to intermarry with Lehi’s family, and enough resources to journey with them into the wilderness. This further underscores the implausibility that such prominent families would have remained in or near Jerusalem after the deportation of 597 BC. The presence of multiple well-off families—supposedly untouched by the exile—contradicts the biblical account that only the poorest were left.
Response #4: Jehoiachin’s age discrepancy between Kings and Chronicles casts doubt on the timeline
Some point to the numerical discrepancy between 2 Kings 24:8 (which says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old) and 2 Chronicles 36:9 (which says he was eight years old) to suggest the biblical timeline might be unreliable or open to reinterpretation.
Rebuttal: This is likely a scribal error in Chronicles—eighteen is likely the correct reading, given the context (e.g., Jehoiachin had a harem, 2 Kings 24:15). Even if the earlier age is correct, It has no effect on the broader chronology:
- Both Kings and Chronicles agree on the sequence: Jehoiakim → Jehoiachin → Zedekiah.
- Both affirm that Zedekiah was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar after Jehoiachin’s deportation.
- As discussed above, Babylonian records independently confirm this historical sequence.
Minor copyist errors do not provide grounds for rewriting the timeline to make room for Lehi and Laban after the deportation.
Response #5: Lehi Left Earlier
Some suggest that Lehi left before the deportation—perhaps earlier in Jehoiakim’s reign. Ironically, this would actually help the timeline issue regarding the Book of Mormon’s prophecy that Christ would come 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (1 Nephi 10:4; 3 Nephi 1:1).
If Lehi departed around 605–604 BC, this would place Christ’s birth around 5–4 BC, aligning more closely with historical estimates of Jesus’ birth.
However, this proposed fix creates a much bigger problem: the Book of Mormon is clear that Lehi’s prophetic ministry and departure occurred in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign (1 Nephi 1:4). If Lehi left years earlier, during Jehoiakim’s reign, the text is wrong on a foundational historical point.
So either the timeline is wrong by several years, or the setting in 1 Nephi is off by an entire reign. In trying to rescue the 600-year prophecy, one ends up undermining the Book of Mormon’s opening historical claim instead.
Response #6: Laban was a Babylonian Appointee
Laban’s position also raises historical questions. According to 1 Nephi 3:31, Laban commands at least fifty men and appears to have legal authority over sacred records, an unlikely proposition after the deportation. So some LDS scholars have suggested that he may have been a military officer or government official appointed by the Babylonians following the 597 BC deportation.
Rebuttal: However, this contradicts the Book of Mormon’s own timeline, which places Laban in power at the beginning of Zedekiah’s reign—before Babylon would have had time to reorganize local governance or appoint loyal administrators. Moreover, 2 Kings 24:14–16 emphasizes that all men of might and officials were already taken to Babylon, making it highly implausible that someone like Laban, whether a military captain or court official, would have remained.
Additionally, the Book of Mormon depicts Laban as consulting and interacting with the Jewish elders (1 Nephi 3:14), suggesting he was deeply integrated into the established Jewish leadership and community. This portrayal conflicts with the idea that Laban was a Babylonian-appointed regent or stooge, as such a figure would likely be an outsider with little genuine connection to the Jewish religious and political authorities.
Response #7: Skepticism of Jeremiah’s Prophecies Shows the Destruction Was Not Yet Complete
Some might argue that because many people in Jerusalem were skeptical of Jeremiah’s warnings, the destruction and exile couldn’t have been as severe as described, making the Book of Mormon’s depiction of a still-vibrant Jerusalem plausible.
Rebuttal: Most of this skepticism in Jeremiah’s writings occurred before the major deportation of 597 BC—the very event described in 2 Kings 24 that removed the city’s elite. By the time the Book of Mormon opens, at the start of Zedekiah’s reign, Jerusalem had already been emptied of its elite class.
By the time Lehi allegedly prophesied, the Babylonians had already taken many elites captive (2 Kings 24:14–16), and the people were aware that Jerusalem was under siege and vulnerable.
The skepticism was mainly about whether Jeremiah was a true prophet, and how to respond to God’s warnings—not denial that Babylonian conquest and exile were real and imminent.
Thus, the Book of Mormon’s setting does not align with the historical reality of a city already devastated and depopulated of its leaders, despite earlier doubts about Jeremiah’s prophecies.
A Foundational Historical Problem
The Book of Mormon opens with a historical setting that contradicts the biblical record and known history. It places elite, literate, wealthy families in Jerusalem after the Bible says they were removed. It therefore depends on a setting—both socially and politically—that did not exist by the time Zedekiah was installed as king.
This isn’t just a minor discrepancy. If Lehi and Laban couldn’t have existed in that setting, the Book of Mormon’s entire origin story collapses.
For anyone who takes the Bible and history seriously, this is a critical inconsistency that cannot be ignored.