Some thoughts on the historicity of the BOM

[TripletDaddy]

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.

You give him bonus progressive points for a lack of orthopraxy (sleeping during religious services) while penalizing me for my orthodoxy (multiplying and replenishing the Earth).

You are engaging in moniker discrimination. I don't know if there is such a word as monikerism, but if there were, you would definitely be a monikerist.

[SeattleUte]

You give him bonus progressive points for a lack of orthopraxy (sleeping during religious services) while penalizing me for my orthodoxy (multiplying and replenishing the Earth).

You are engaging in moniker discrimination. I don't know if there is such a word as monikerism, but if there were, you would definitely be a monikerist.

It's discretion, not bias. Don't argue with the judge.

[wuapinmon]

It's discretion, not bias. Don't argue with the judge.

Where do I rate on your scale?

[UtahDan]

You give him bonus progressive points for a lack of orthopraxy (sleeping during religious services) while penalizing me for my orthodoxy (multiplying and replenishing the Earth).

You are engaging in moniker discrimination. I don't know if there is such a word as monikerism, but if there were, you would definitely be a monikerist.

I think I have told this before, but I remember going to my older daughter's first grade class on pirate day (no Ute jokes, this is in Utah County!) many years ago and she flat out would not wear the eye patch her mother had gotten her. Pretty much all the kids had one on and pretty quickly pointed out that she didn't. I jumped in to save her by explaining that there are one eyed pirates and two eyed pirates; she is a one eyed pirate. It was like I had cast a spell. "Am I a one eyed pirate or a two eyed pirate," a little voice asked. And then another, and soon a line had formed and I got to pronounce each child in the class a one or two eyed pirate.

This is a lot like that. So, SU, what is my score? (imagine an emoticon that conveys "hopeful" right here)

[SeattleUte]

Where do I rate on your scale?

6-9. Not sure.

[Jacob]

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?

I think you've misunderstood my position, Jay.

I tend to agree with hay santos here. And if we've misunderstood, then please clarify, SEIQ.

It seems to me, that for the BOM to matter at all, it must at least be what it's creators claimed it is--a historical document translated with divine help. If it is not, then it is a fraud. And I don't think I'm setting up a false dichotomy here. After all, its the same argument that the progenitors and keepers of the faith make all the time.

So, if the BOM is not a historical document i.e. Moroni and Nephi were authentic people who did or wrote the things claimed, then I don't understand what use it is in drawing nearer to God, or why I should bother with exegesis. if God doesn't care whether you think the BOM is historical, or true in some sense, then I can't imagine why he would care if you participated in the LDS faith or its ordinances.

If indeed "God is more concerned with whether or not I am growing than he is about the objects I engage during the growth process", then it seems like many other faiths could do the trick. Though I suppose that depends on what you mean by "growing."

[jay santos]

I tend to agree with hay santos here. And if we've misunderstood, then please clarify, SEIQ.

It seems to me, that for the BOM to matter at all, it must at least be what it's creators claimed it is--a historical document translated with divine help. If it is not, then it is a fraud. And I don't think I'm setting up a false dichotomy here. After all, its the same argument that the progenitors and keepers of the faith make all the time.

So, if the BOM is not a historical document i.e. Moroni and Nephi were authentic people who did or wrote the things claimed, then I don't understand what use it is in drawing nearer to God, or why I should bother with exegesis. if God doesn't care whether you think the BOM is historical, or true in some sense, then I can't imagine why he would care if you participated in the LDS faith or its ordinances.

If indeed "God is more concerned with whether or not I am growing than he is about the objects I engage during the growth process", then it seems like many other faiths could do the trick. Though I suppose that depends on what you mean by "growing."

SIEQ, go ahead and push him down the rabbit hole. I think he's ready.

[SeattleUte]

Where do I rate on your scale?

Regarding satan as a real dude is a minus 3

[ERCougar]

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.
buried in the ground to be found and translated several hundred years later

This is a nice summation of how I feel (and what I was trying to say) about these apologetics. I've been burned too many times on these things to put much stock in them. So, while I find everything ox has pointed out here interesting, I'm a little skeptical about just how true or valid the points made are, while at the same time, not expert enough to critique them.

Interestingly, I could say the same thing about many anti-Mormon arguments--they're stated much more strongly than they end up being, once you get beneath the surface. Plenty of misquotes, poor sources, etc.

I'll throw this out for the group--what if there were some clear unmistakable evidence that came to light that absolutely disproved the existence of Nephi/Moroni/etc? Would you leave the church? I know the answer for Cardiac, I think I know it for SIEQ, I'm curious about everyone else (including myself). Maybe this is a better poll question.

[LA Ute]

I haven't studied this entire thread (I am not attracted to historicity discussions here), but my simple believer's mind takes these verses from D&C Section 1 seriously:

Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments ....

[that] after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

To me (and I am speaking for myself), if I believe the above, there is room for allegory and some non-doctrinal mistakes ("the mistakes of men") in the BofM but not much room for the idea that the BofM is anything but the word of God, historical or not. It is not good to argue about such thngs, I think.

JUst sayin'.

[SeattleUte]

goshdamit scottie, how dare you post this.

NAHOM. Repeat: NAHOM. It's AMAZING

Viking, I'd like to solicit a donation from you. Why don't you buy Cougarguard from Laban (much more civilized than Nephi/God's approach) and donate it to CUF. Let's get a five year contract with Waters; minimum x no. of new words from him a day. He can have his own forum.

[UtahDan]

I haven't studied this entire thread (I am not attracted to historicity discussions here), but my simple believer's mind takes these verses from D&C Section 1 seriously:



To me (and I am speaking for myself), if I believe the above, there is room for allegory and some non-doctrinal mistakes ("the mistakes of men") in the BofM but not much room for the idea that the BofM is anything but the word of God, historical or not. It is not good to argue about such thngs, I think.

JUst sayin'.

If you had read the thread, you would see that I quoted you. And that I said that the historicity stuff doesn't matter. Day late and a dollar short pal.

[LA Ute]

If you had read the thread, you would see that I quoted you. And that I said that the historicity stuff doesn't matter. Day late and a dollar short pal.

I am old and tired. Thank you for carrying the fight to the heathen.

[oxcoug]

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.

Well I'm glad these were your "quick thoughts" because if they were your "deeply considered exegesis" I'd worry....

The existence of the place Nahom is only potentially "astonishing" given the entire context which I addressed but you didn't. (1) That it's been located on what is the only plausible route down and across the Arabian Peninsula that Team Lehi could have taken, (2) that of all the places Team Lehi stops on its flight from Jerusalem it is the only one that stands out as already being called something as opposed to be named something by the nomads, (3) that the place in question was a site known anciently for burials and this is where they bury Ishmael. Subtract those items from the equation and yeah, I'm with ya - not so interesting.

Re Tvedtnes - who cares who's paying him when he's given you an easily falsifiable quote? "The use of Egyptian symbols to transliterate Hebrew words and vice versa is known from sixth century B.C. texts discovered at Arad and Kadesh-Barnea." And how do you leap from my citation of Tvedtnes to the conclusion that there are no scholars that support the conclusion?

You say Pahoran isn't of Egyptian derivation - on what grounds? William Foxwell Albright, as quoted, said otherwise. Why should I take your word over his? And why do you get to dismiss a Tvedtnes reference and then just say, without any support or citation, that Pahoran and Korihor don't have Egyptian parallels?

I also don't see your point on this: "Don't you have to count those other names as evidence against historicity?" No. Not really. Given the sheer capacity of ancient records to simply disappear the fact that a majority of place and personal names from a mixed group that went to a faroff land wouldn't be found all over the Middle Eastern historical record isn't that surprising at all.

[oxcoug]

The list was a fairly random sample

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.

there's plenty more out there.

Never intended it to be more than a sampling.