Some thoughts on the historicity of the BOM

[CardiacCoug]

My quick thoughts.

Nahom is a similar word to places named in the Bible (Nahum, Naham). The fact that there is a site on the Arabian peninsula named NHM is hardly "astonishing." Throw out some random place names (basically from the Bible, incidentally) and there are bound to be some actual Middle Eastern sites with similar names.

Paanchi is an actual Egyption name, but Korihor is not. Pahoran is not. Hermounts is somewhat similar to Hermonthis I suppose. But so what if you can find a handful of person and place names out of hundreds that are similar to some Egyptian person and place names? What about all the other names that are completely absent from any other historical record or are only found in the Bible? Don't you have to count those other names as evidence against historicity? I don't find a few real Egyptianoid Book of Mormon names out of hundreds to be "astonishing" or convincing in the slightest.

You're quoting a BYU-employed, LDS guy in John Tvedtness to support the reality of Reformed Egyption? Really? There are no objective scholars who are convinced in the slightest that this was an actual language. There was no full written script in the New World outside of the Mayans. There have never been any Egyptian writings discovered in the New World. We have an actual record of the characters copied down by David Whitmer in the Anthon Transcript and these characters are gibberish. You're throwing out a mountain of evidence against the reality of Reformed Egyptian as a language that was used in the Americas.

[CardiacCoug]

I think that is the key point that folks should not miss in what you are saying. We have actually talked about this issue in a fair amount of depth, so some of what I am about to say will be repetitive.

LA Ute, whose opinion I respect, has said something to the affect that it doesn't all have to make rational sense but it can't make no sense at all. It cannot be utterly absurd. I think what you are saying is that these things are ideas that allow people to not view it as utterly absurd, even if the evidence never approaches the level of independently satisfying any sort of burden of proof (which ever one wants to use).

I have described these as being very similar to the notion of reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial, I am not necessarily trying to set up a convincing alternative view as much as I am trying to make a juror ask them self whether they can really know for sure if the allegations are true. Is there a reasonable doubt? Have all the reasonable hypothesis of innocence been excluded. Similarly, such evidences, mostly circumstantial, don't attempt to independently set up a convincing alternative view, they are simply holding the door open that, from an evidentiary standpoint, the book might be an ancient record. There is a reasonable doubt that the critics are wrong on the evidence.

This of course excludes spiritual evidences (however one wants to define those, people certainly differ) which are in my opinion the only evidences that matter. I don't believe that it is necessary for belief to be plausible on the evidence because in my view there is such a paucity of non-spiritual evidence in favor of, and such formidable counter evidences and arguments, that trying to hold that door of plausibility open is more of a willing delusion than a reasonable view of available evidence. I also think that it frequently sets people who are new to the evidentiary arguments up for disappointment.

Why it should be that the non-spiritual evidences tilt so far in one direction, I cannot say. Certainly there are familiar explanations. But to me what is tough to deny is that Moroni's promise works for many, many people. The spiritual benefits and evidences are significant, even if they themselves are delusions in the eyes of some. I don't view them that way, not my own experiences nor those of others. That is not to say that I know we are right to be see them as evidence of the BOM or the divine or what have you, but I try to nurture that hope inside of me that they are that we call faith. For me this is a choice (though I know that some say faith is a gift and there is authority for that idea). Faith is the ultimate exercise of my free agency. For me that is enough because practicing my faith is sufficiently rewarding for me and my family.

What I believe comes from subjective experience that I think I share with others; it appears to me that I do. That doesn't whitewash any of the panoply of problems that people raise and often lose their testimonies over nor does it invalidate the spiritual experiences of people like Faith who believes that the spirit led her out of the church. That is okay, because these ultimate questions are questions I can only attempt to answer for myself. Only I can set the bar for how much evidence and what kind is satisfactory. I share all that only to make that point that I don't begrudge anyone the pursuit of objective evidences, or of plausibility as you put it, if that is important to them. I only say that it appears to me that serious pursuit of such things is hurtful more often than it is rewarding from a faithful perspective.

This is a great post. Thanks UD. I read the whole thing.

I don't mind people seeking some objective evidence supporting things like Book of Mormon historicity if they find that helpful. For me, though, it doesn't work to focus only on supporting evidence and ignore all the opposing evidence.

You can evaluate Book of Mormon historicity by (1) just throwing out a bunch of these "interesting", "supportive" , "faithful" facts OR (2) actually studying the evidence on both sides of the historicity debate.

The first method is a type of religious approach I suppose and the second method is a scientific approach.

[wuapinmon]

I think that is the key point that folks should not miss in what you are saying. We have actually talked about this issue in a fair amount of depth, so some of what I am about to say will be repetitive.

LA Ute, whose opinion I respect, has said something to the affect that it doesn't all have to make rational sense but it can't make no sense at all. It cannot be utterly absurd. I think what you are saying is that these things are ideas that allow people to not view it as utterly absurd, even if the evidence never approaches the level of independently satisfying any sort of burden of proof (which ever one wants to use).

I have described these as being very similar to the notion of reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial, I am not necessarily trying to set up a convincing alternative view as much as I am trying to make a juror ask them self whether they can really know for sure if the allegations are true. Is there a reasonable doubt? Have all the reasonable hypothesis of innocence been excluded. Similarly, such evidences, mostly circumstantial, don't attempt to independently set up a convincing alternative view, they are simply holding the door open that, from an evidentiary standpoint, the book might be an ancient record. There is a reasonable doubt that the critics are wrong on the evidence.

This of course excludes spiritual evidences (however one wants to define those, people certainly differ) which are in my opinion the only evidences that matter. I don't believe that it is necessary for belief to be plausible on the evidence because in my view there is such a paucity of non-spiritual evidence in favor of, and such formidable counter evidences and arguments, that trying to hold that door of plausibility open is more of a willing delusion than a reasonable view of available evidence. I also think that it frequently sets people who are new to the evidentiary arguments up for disappointment.

Why it should be that the non-spiritual evidences tilt so far in one direction, I cannot say. Certainly there are familiar explanations. But to me what is tough to deny is that Moroni's promise works for many, many people. The spiritual benefits and evidences are significant, even if they themselves are delusions in the eyes of some. I don't view them that way, not my own experiences nor those of others. That is not to say that I know we are right to be see them as evidence of the BOM or the divine or what have you, but I try to nurture that hope inside of me that they are that we call faith. For me this is a choice (though I know that some say faith is a gift and there is authority for that idea). Faith is the ultimate exercise of my free agency. For me that is enough because practicing my faith is sufficiently rewarding for me and my family.

What I believe comes from subjective experience that I think I share with others; it appears to me that I do. That doesn't whitewash any of the panoply of problems that people raise and often lose their testimonies over nor does it invalidate the spiritual experiences of people like Faith who believes that the spirit led her out of the church. That is okay, because these ultimate questions are questions I can only attempt to answer for myself. Only I can set the bar for how much evidence and what kind is satisfactory. I share all that only to make that point that I don't begrudge anyone the pursuit of objective evidences, or of plausibility as you put it, if that is important to them. I only say that it appears to me that serious pursuit of such things is hurtful more often than it is rewarding from a faithful perspective.

Done in by prolixity again.

I read it all. It was excellent.


On a related note, this almost made me not get baptized. I had a crisis of faith when I saw this:

[ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&q=moroni+comoros&fb=1&gl=us&ei= SU7RS_nOOYfkygSK4pDZBA&ved=0CBMQpQY&view=map&geoco de=FaA1Tf8d0-aTAg&split=0&hq=&hnear=Moroni,+Comoros&ll=-11.762504,43.346558&spn=0.377119,0.837021&t=h&z=11 &iwloc=A"]moroni comoros - Google Maps[/ame]

[Viking]

I said that the BOOK itself is neither supernatural nor an event. It is a document.

Here's what you said:

"The means and methods of its alleged discovery and translation have elements that would fit some descriptions of "supernatural"

What parts of its alleged discovery and translation would not fit some descriptions of supernatural?

[Uncle Ted]

Any reason you left off the famous Izapa Stela 5 (aka. "Tree of Life Stone") on your list? Of course, it has been the subject of a lot of debate.

[creekster]

Here's what you said:

"The means and methods of its alleged discovery and translation have elements that would fit some descriptions of "supernatural"

What parts of its alleged discovery and translation would not fit some descriptions of supernatural?

Digging a hole in the ground and writing on paper, perhaps?

[UtahDan]

Any reason you left off the famous Izapa Stela 5 (aka. "Tree of Life Stone") on your list? Of course, it has been the subject of a lot of debate.

I had forgotten about that one. Seems like it is what ER was referring to about an amateur of some description undertaking analysis that is above his head. The mischief of it, of course, is that people are eager to believe such things and it is damaging when someone who knows what they are talking about deconstructs it. I think that in general the church is pretty cautious now about allowing the imprimatur of its authority to be put on such theories, even by FAIR/FARMS.

Also, I finally remembered where I know Nahum from. He is the beggar from Fiddler on the Roof (One kopek? Yesterday you gave me two kopeks! So you had a bad week, why should I suffer?). You know, when the people of Anatevka left to escape the coming pogroms it is certainly conceivable that they headed for Yemen. Certainly Jerry Brock would not have known about any of this in the 60s when he wrote the musical. So...

[Uncle Ted]

I had forgotten about that one. Seems like it is what ER was referring to about an amateur of some description undertaking analysis that is above his head. The mischief of it, of course, is that people are eager to believe such things and it is damaging when someone who knows what they are talking about deconstructs it. I think that in general the church is pretty cautious now about allowing the imprimatur of its authority to be put on such theories, even by FAIR/FARMS.

I have always thought that stela 5 stone would look good hanging above my fireplace.

[pellegrino]

I have always thought that stela 5 stone would look good hanging above my fireplace.

For a limited time offer, you too can have one of your own!

http://www.maskeryandlund.com/izapa5.html

[jay santos]

I read it all. It was excellent.


On a related note, this almost made me not get baptized. I had a crisis of faith when I saw this:

moroni comoros - Google Maps

One one side you have Nahom as a reasonably compelling argument for historicity. And you have an argument that Joseph wouldn't have had easy access to any maps with Nahom on hit.

On the flip side you have Moroni Comoras the island in Africa and the argument that it was included in Captain Kidd books or whatever that Joseph read.

I really don't know what to make of it. I'm inclined to ignore both pieces of data.

[Indy Coug]

One one side you have Nahom as a reasonably compelling argument for historicity. And you have an argument that Joseph wouldn't have had easy access to any maps with Nahom on hit.

On the flip side you have Moroni Comoras the island in Africa and the argument that it was included in Captain Kidd books or whatever that Joseph read.

I really don't know what to make of it. I'm inclined to ignore both pieces of data.

Anyone done the etymology of Moroni on the Comoros?

[jay santos]

Anyone done the etymology of Moroni on the Comoros?

I don't understand. Where are you going with that?

[Indy Coug]

I don't understand. Where are you going with that?

It appears that some people believe the name "Moroni" is problematic because knowledge of that name was in the public domain circa 1830. The Comoros is an Arabic settlement.

You are left to conclude

1. Moroni is not an unreasonable name to find in a history of people with Arabic roots.

or

2. Joseph Smith was really trying hard to conjure up new names to use in the Book of Mormon and started expanding his search grid wider and wider to come up with a name like Moroni


To me, I don't think anyone can comfortably conclude the name Moroni helps or hurts the plausibility argument for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, so it is probably best to set it aside altogether.

[scottie]

Solon posted this on CG in the Historicity of BoM, valuable or secondary thread, back in the day:

All of the modern names are places within 500 miles of Palmyra, New York:

Modern-------Book of Mormon

St. Agathe-------Ogath
Alma-------Alma
Angola-------Angola
Boaz-------Boaz
Conner-------Comner
St. Ephrem-------Ephraim
Jacobsburg-------Jacobugath
Jordan-------Jordan
Jerusalem-------Jerusalem
Kish-kiminetas-------Kishkumen
Lehigh-------Lehi
Mantua-------Manti
Monroe-------Moroni
Oneida-------Onidah
Omer-------Omner
Rama-------Ramah
Sodom-------Sidom
Shiloh-------Shilom
Tenecum-------Teancum

I'm not trying to prove or disprove the book's truth. I think it's a bad idea to try to prove anything related to religion.

[Indy Coug]

This is right next to my house

http://www.delawareandlehigh.org/ind...trout-nursery/


and this is also a couple of miles away

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cumora...N&hl=en&tab=wl


P.S. I think it's hilarious that your list tries to correlate "Monroe" with "Moroni"