Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Themis]

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.

It should be obvious there are much more likely explanations. Is this really the best? Are Nevo or others aware of something much better then this? We could name many very good pieces of evidence that do not support a historical Book of Mormon.

[_Uncle Ed]

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."

Holy s***, 8 year-old children are going to have a lot of homework to do before they can say they have a basis to believe in the Book of Mormon and get baptized.

Now THAT is the most direct witticism I've seen from you.

One of my biggest issues over "problem areas" vis-a-vis the gospel is that I don't see "God" making belief that hard.

Of course the GAs will advise us to study only out of the "best books", i.e. the scriptures, their own words, and little if anything else: BKP's mantra is evidently to eschew anything but "faith promoting history" when studying church or any other history. It's because the "library" of conflicting evidence grows to an enormous, even unsupportable, size when we begin to study all of the seminal works on any topic. And when we have a growing number of "problem area" topics, the "required" reading corpus, in order to arrive at the level of "knowledgeable", continually increases in size until that attainment becomes impractical if not impossible....

[_honorentheos]

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

Price's ideas about the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha really do seem to be the most likely end point for those seeking to reconcile Joseph Smith as loose translator with the Book of Mormon being scripture.

I was very far down the road away from fellowshipping with the Saints when I read him, but it still had an effect on me. I wonder if, had I read him much earlier on, would it have been sufficient to encourage the belief there was a place for me within? I don't know.

[_Uncle Ed]

As virtually all of the New Testament writings have had their authors' names attached, how many of them are also pseudepigrapha?...

[_Elphaba]

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.

It depends. If the critics were never LDS, or never-believing Mormons, then yes, they cannot truly comprehend the TBM's underlying questions. However, if the critics were formerly TBMs, they do explicitly understand the questions because they once took the same approach themselves. In fact, in my opinion arguments made by critics who were once TBM carry more weight precisely because the memory of their former approach gives them a perspective TBMs who have always believed do not have.

I've even seen a few people who believed, lost their belief, then regained it. Speaking as a former TBM who is now completely convinced the LDS Church has no basis in truth, this is inconceivable to me. Thus, I acknowledge theirs would be an approach I would not understand, and I would give their arguments more weight than I would an always-believing TBM.

The point is, some people can understand all questions being asked regarding Mormon-related issues, and the different approaches to those questions, while others cannot. It depends on their respective experiences with the LDS Church.

Elphaba

[_Nightlion]

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.

Just how much wandering, suffering, and affliction could there be between where you THINK Nahom is from Jerusalem? Guys! They traveled all the way over to Vietnam. or Malaysia. It took them a couple of years to get there. And they did not want to be discovered in strange lands so they did not use fire. They did not wander around the Arabian Peninsula long enough to have children.

This is what I mean about LDS not wanting to prove the Book of Mormon so they ignore clues and make up fables.

[_Always Changing]

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

When was that article published? It doesn't say on that pdf version.

[_Kishkumen]

When was that article published? It doesn't say on that pdf version.

2002.

[_Spanner]

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

... It is impossible that someone outside of the movement wrote the book as a Bible pastiche and that Joseph Smith subsequently decided to build a religion about it.

So, as I have said, the Late War is not the Book of Mormon. It was a clear influence on the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon is obviously the product of Joseph Smith's immediate environment, whether by divine revelation or otherwise.

I totally agree with Dr Price's analysis concerning elements of Joseph's life and environment appearing in the book. However, I also see the clear influence of Sidney Rigdon throughout. Dr Price has noted the way the book addresses Campbellite theology as well

[_canadaduane]

And after they had eaten and drank, Carden opened his mouth, for he was troubled in his mind, and spake unto Decatur, saying: Lo! if this thing which hath happened be known unto the king, that one of the vessels of Britain hath struck her flag, and become captive to a vessel of the United States, what shall be done unto the captain thereof? for such a thing hath not been heard of among the nations of the earth.

Now there had not any such thing happened before, in the church; therefore Alma was troubled in his spirit, and he caused that they should be brought before the king.