Some thoughts on the historicity of the BOM

[jay santos]

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.

I agree with this. I guess I would put enough coincidence level on Moroni and Cumorah being together on a map (and not just separately known to be Arabic) and also combined with the New England BOM proper names referenced above that it's enough for me to offset a "bullseye" like Nahom. I throw them all out.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The historicity arguments matter in so far as they cultivate or stunt intellectual, cultural, and spiritual growth. They seem capable of doing both. I, for one, wish we could get down to paying more attention to the text. Book of Mormon exegesis is often superficial and historicity arguments seem to be a kind of stand in. Too many Mormons tromp around the Yucatan, but don't have much of an understanding of the BoM. Too many Mormons reduce it to platitudes.

Ultimately, though, I don't think God cares what I think of BoM historicity. God isn't going to send me to hell for not thinking Nephi was an authentic, 7th century Jewish immigrant to the Americas. God is more concerned with whether or not I am growing than he is about the objects I engage during the growth process.

[wuapinmon]

The historicity arguments matter in so far as they cultivate or stunt intellectual, cultural, and spiritual growth. They seem capable of doing both. I, for one, wish we could get down to paying more attention to the text. Book of Mormon exegesis is often superficial and historicity arguments seem to be a kind of stand in. Too many Mormons tromp around the Yucatan, but don't have much of an understanding of the BoM. Too many Mormons reduce it to platitudes.

Ultimately, though, I don't think God cares what I think of BoM historicity. God isn't going to send me to hell for not thinking Nephi was an authentic, 7th century Jewish immigrant to the Americas. God is more concerned with whether or not I am growing than he is about the objects I engage during the growth process.

I agree, and this is why my 17-year-old self decided to not worry about Moroni being the capital of the Cumorah Islands. I got baptized because I knew that the BOM made me want to be a better man than I was.

[SeattleUte]

The historicity arguments matter in so far as they cultivate or stunt intellectual, cultural, and spiritual growth. They seem capable of doing both. I, for one, wish we could get down to paying more attention to the text. Book of Mormon exegesis is often superficial and historicity arguments seem to be a kind of stand in. Too many Mormons tromp around the Yucatan, but don't have much of an understanding of the BoM. Too many Mormons reduce it to platitudes.

Ultimately, though, I don't think God cares what I think of BoM historicity. God isn't going to send me to hell for not thinking Nephi was an authentic, 7th century Jewish immigrant to the Americas. God is more concerned with whether or not I am growing than he is about the objects I engage during the growth process.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=123

[jay santos]

The historicity arguments matter in so far as they cultivate or stunt intellectual, cultural, and spiritual growth. They seem capable of doing both. I, for one, wish we could get down to paying more attention to the text. Book of Mormon exegesis is often superficial and historicity arguments seem to be a kind of stand in. Too many Mormons tromp around the Yucatan, but don't have much of an understanding of the BoM. Too many Mormons reduce it to platitudes.

Ultimately, though, I don't think God cares what I think of BoM historicity. God isn't going to send me to hell for not thinking Nephi was an authentic, 7th century Jewish immigrant to the Americas. God is more concerned with whether or not I am growing than he is about the objects I engage during the growth process.

I've heard this kind of argument a lot. I just can't accept it. How could it not matter if Nephi was a real person or not? Yes, the text is important. I don't think it's a real danger to spend so much time investigating the historicity of the text and ignore actually reading it. The people discussing it here have probably all read it at least a dozen times.

If it was proven that Nephi was never a real person, I think there's still a way to salvage a belief in the church as a true church, but it changes a lot. It's certainly important. Right?

[Indy Coug]

The historicity issue is also important because some people wield it like a baby seal club on the believers.

[SeattleUte]

I've heard this kind of argument a lot. I just can't accept it. How could it not matter if Nephi was a real person or not? Yes, the text is important. I don't think it's a real danger to spend so much time investigating the historicity of the text and ignore actually reading it. The people discussing it here have probably all read it at least a dozen times.

If it was proven that Nephi was never a real person, I think there's still a way to salvage a belief in the church as a true church, but it changes a lot. It's certainly important. Right?

It has to not matter because the alternative is too terrible to even imagine.

[SeattleUte]

The historicity issue is also important because some people wield it like a baby seal club on the believers.

This is so ironic. The ONLY way to make that club impotent is SIEQ's way.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I've heard this kind of argument a lot. I just can't accept it. How could it not matter if Nephi was a real person or not? Yes, the text is important. I don't think it's a real danger to spend so much time investigating the historicity of the text and ignore actually reading it. The people discussing it here have probably all read it at least a dozen times.

If it was proven that Nephi was never a real person, I think there's still a way to salvage a belief in the church as a true church, but it changes a lot. It's certainly important. Right?

I think you've misunderstood my position, Jay.

[jay santos]

It has to not matter because the alternative is too terrible to even imagine.

Frankly, this is how that argument always sounds to me. It sounds like someone afraid to face doubt.

[Indy Coug]

This is so ironic. The ONLY way to make that club impotent is SIEQ's way.

You think this is ironic? If so, I look forward to your future abstentions for all future historicity discussions, Mr. I-spit-on-your-historicity-and-the-Nephite-horse-you-rode-in-on.

[TripletDaddy]

This is so ironic. The ONLY way to make that club impotent is SIEQ's way.

I don't get no respect.

[SeattleUte]

I don't get no respect.

If I rated progressive Mormons like Maters & Johnson rated sexual orientation SIEQ would be a 10 and you'd be a 9.5. I didn't know I had your permission to out you.

[woot]

Of, what do you think of FARMS? They have a couple of books that are filled with examples like the one in your post: Pressing Forward With the Book of Mormon, and Reexploring the Book of Mormon.

Another is when Lemuel murmurs that Laban is a mighty man who can command fifty men; as it turns out, during that period in Jerusalem (600 BC), military armies were broken into divisional numbers of fifty; a person of Laban's rank would have fifty men at his disposal.

Good guessing by Joseph.

I don't have any expertise on any of the topics covered in oxcoug's list (although I did just get an A in my one and only archaeology class! Huzzah!), but I did read several FARMS books back in the day, including both of those listed here, along with a few others including a bigger volume http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ...okstore/?id=12 specifically about evidence for the book of mormon. At the time I was wont to accept everything, but later I discovered something about their style.

They tended to present "facts" like those oxcoug has presented here in an exaggerated fashion, and in a way that leaves the impression that these are just a representative sample of a greater body of evidence. The reality seems to be that these are all very dodgy pieces of "evidence" to begin with, that few actual scholars would agree with, and that the things FARMS listed were absolutely everything they could think of out of much larger lists of facts that contradict the BoM's historicity.

Also, I will say that even if every one of the facts listed were true, parsimony, or "Occam's Razor," if you like, would still point strongly to coincidence being the explanation when the other option is a scenario in which god exists, chose a prophet to speak for him, had some golden plates buried in the ground to be found and translated several hundred years later by a young boy through the power of a peepstone in a hat, etc. And it's not even close.

[SeattleUte]

You think this is ironic? If so, I look forward to your future abstentions for all future historicity discussions, Mr. I-spit-on-your-historicity-and-the-Nephite-horse-you-rode-in-on.

It's a deal. I do generally abstain. See this thread. I think historicity arguments (in contrast to empirical study of the religion's rise and development in a larger cultural context) are a fool's errand for both apologists and skeptics.