Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

By the way, I highly recommend this insightful and groundbreaking article by Dr. Price. Mormon Studies scholars are still catching up to his insights.

http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_75.pdf

[_Darth J]

I was always taken with the clear-headed hypothesis of Professor Robert M. Price:

Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints movement, even the Book of Mormon itself, are repeatedly mentioned in its pages in an unmistakable fashion.

He's right, you know.

Mormon 8

32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.

33 O ye wicked and perverse and stiffnecked people, why have ye built up churches unto yourselves to get gain? Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls? Behold, look ye unto the revelations of God; for behold, the time cometh at that day when all these things must be fulfilled.

[_mentalgymnast]

Very insightful post.

Indeed it is.

Most assuredly.

Regards,
MG

[_DarkHelmet]

By the way, it looks like I was too modest in suggesting that critics of Book of Mormon historicity read the works of Gardner and Sorenson before dismissing it.

I have never been interested in reading propaganda. If I wanted to learn about the history of Wal-Mart, I would intentionally avoid any books or documentaries written by loyal Wal-Mart employs and funded by the Wal-Mart board.

I might be interested perhaps in an unbiased third party's review of Book of Mormon historicity. But it wouldn't be a high priority on my reading list. The jury is not out on the Book of Mormon. The case is closed. Nobody, outside of church members, takes it seriously as a historical text, and nobody ever has.

[_beastie]

In one way, I'd agree with you. But it requires seeing that the subject of investigation differs between most Mormon believers and most critics.

It's taken time for me to realize that in Mormonism orthopraxy is significantly more important than orthodoxy. The pews in any given ward on any given Sunday include people whose beliefs span an incredible spectrum from complete apathy towards the teachings of correlated Mormonism to the ultra-conservative/fundamentalist. And there is a lot of tolerance for someone holding unconventional beliefs...so long as they perform in accordance with the expected behaviors. From birth, (where this last year we saw unorthoprax attempts at a baby blessing lead to troubles for a poster) through youth, one's choice of a spouse, how and where one marries, what one watches for entertainment, etc., etc., to what one is buried in, the religion of Mormonism is particularly concerned with what one does.

I think, then, that when critics and believers engage in discussion they often are seeking the truth of two different things. Because, frankly, it is immaterial to the critic HOW to be Mormon, while to the believer how to be Mormon is the essence of seeking truth. Over my time on this board this was made clear to me best in watching never-mo's engage with Mormonism, often initially respectfully, expecting discussion and debate that might be mutually edifying and philosophically rewarding only to be met with frustration. It is a clash of different cultures, not different beliefs or understandings.

I speculate that what is often described as the breaking of one's shelf of suspended disbelief is the moment when the former Mormon ceases to feel obligated to engage in Mormon orthopraxy. At that moment, the truth of Mormon history ceases to be compelling reason to dress, eat, and act in accordance with Mormon teachings. It's not that the understanding of Mormon history changed itself, it's that it's relation to how one lives their life changes.

I say all of that because at a very real level I think believers are engaged in pursuing truth of a kind that is meaningless to critics and non-Mormons except as an exercise in anthropology. Unless one is seeking to understand what it means to BE Mormon, truth seeking as Mormon believers engage in it is simply uninteresting or even inaccessible to the non-orthoprax. While the Mormon can engage Mormon history til the sun goes down seeking motive and method for more edifying and involved participation and understanding of LDS orthopraxy. That doesn't mean the believer isn't engaged in seeking truth, it's just a unique kind of truth that requires a certain perspective to value.

Where I disagree with Water Dog's statement is in devaluing the type of truth the critic is engaged in seeking, and which probably seems dismissive of the types of truth a believer values. If a critic seeks and finds sufficient reason to place the Book of Mormon fully in a 19th century context and discusses the reasons for this being the case, it's just as valid a form of truth seeking. It just happens to be of a kind that appears contradictory to the truth seeking process of the Mormon seeking to better understand how to be Mormon.

in short, it's not a case of answering the same question differently or one side engaging it more earnestly than the other. Both sides are asking different underlying questions that are not explicitly understood by both sides when engaging in discussing a particular topic.

All I can do is add my AMEN to the praise this post has already received.

[_beastie]

I have been poking in and out of this thread. I saw Beastie's invite, but I wasn't sure if if was for me...especially where I haven't even been that active, hardly at all, in this thread. I thought she was talking to the other poster who also has the "MG" signature. Is she talking to me? Sorry to sound sort of wishy washy. I'm just not sure why she would be pin pointing me out when I wasn't really saying much or fully participating on this thread.

by the way, my recent observation/opinion still stands, for what it's worth.

Regards,
MG

Sorry for the confusion. I believe it was really Nevo who posited that one couldn't engage meaningfully about the historicity of the Book of Mormon without reading Sorenson's Codex and Gardner's published work.

So, Nevo, how many of Sorenson's footnotes have you researched?

And how do you respond to the points I made on my website about how problematic it is for Brant to claim that the polities described in the Book of Mormon would be so minor that they could not reasonably be expected to have had an impact on Mesoamerican history?

See these two pages in particular:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/holy-lord.html

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/politi ... power.html

For detailed examples of Sorenson's misuse of sources see these two pages:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.html

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/metallurgy.html

[_Themis]

By the way, it looks like I was too modest in suggesting that critics of Book of Mormon historicity read the works of Gardner and Sorenson before dismissing it.

On the Interpreter blog, Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smoot have posted a list of 73 or so "canonical" works supporting Book of Mormon historicity, 45 of which are thick books.

Rappleye (who I like a lot) concludes: "It is my genuine view that any honest treatment of this issue by critics needs to take into account all, or at the very least most of the above, along with several additional works relevant to the subject."

So get reading folks!

I have read many apologetic arguments over the years. How about providing the best piece of evidence you think supports Book of Mormon historicity. You would think if you really had a good case you would want to help others see it.

[_Kishkumen]

Isn't the best evidence NHM?

Anyway, it is one of those bits that is usually trotted out when metallurgy, obsidian swords, and tapirs get laughed off the board.

[_Themis]

Isn't the best evidence NHM?

I don't know of any better, which is not a good sign. NHM can have so many meanings, and Nahom is an unlikely one. I know there is more then one site in which they have found the inscription, but the only one I know of is not used as a place name for the location, but is on some alters donated at a temple location. The one dated to about Lehi's time is donated by "Bi‘athtar, son of Sawad, son of Naw‘an, the Nihmite".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

Nevo, or anyone else, is there something better then this to support Book of Mormon historicity.

by the way If we bring in the Book of Abraham it really destroys any hope Joseph and others weren't making this stuff up.

[_Kishkumen]

I think the NHM thing is definitely one of those mildly intriguing coincidences. Of course, a much likelier origin for the Book of Mormon's Nahom is the Biblical Nahum, since, after all, Nahum means "comforter", and according to the Book of Mormon:

And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.
And it came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father, and because of their afflictions in the wilderness; and they did murmur against my father, because he had brought them out of the land of Jerusalem, saying: Our father is dead; yea, and we have wandered much in the wilderness, and we have suffered much affliction, hunger, thirst, and fatigue; and after all these sufferings we must perish in the wilderness with hunger.

Mourning and comfort. Not too difficult to put those two together.