There is no case to be made for a historical Book of Mormon

[_Meadowchik]

I guess it's hard for me to say. In French, I have rarely if ever heard someone say "adieu" in normal conversation. It seems to be reserved for permanent goodbyes. And there is not such a specific word like that in English, as far as I know. That's why in English we use words like croissant, or algebra, or pinata, because there is not an English word for them. It's not necessarily an affectation to say use a strange and foreign word when we don't have an accurate alternative.

I don't agree, at all. Joseph Smith could have used a collective or string of English words to express any manner of good byes -- from "farewell for a little season" to "I bid you an everlasting farewell until me meet again at the judgment seat".

Smith was being a smartass by using the French. It just goes to show that French doesn't belong in the Book of Mormon anymore than German or Spanish. There are plenty of English words to describe exactly what the Book of Mormon was trying to imply.

And yet none of those are one word, Shulem. But that doesn't mean he wasn't being a smart-ass, too.

[_Meadowchik]

If God really wanted to express the permanence of the goodbye, why not just show "Goodbye forever!" on the rock in the hat?

I actually agree that "adieu" is in a lower tier of problems in the Book of Mormon. I think the apologists play it down too far, though. It is kind of weird.

That's not quite what it means. "To God" is (and this is my amateur opinion, of course. I am not a linguist) is more like "Goodbye for the remainder of this life until we meet at the judgment seat, if and when we do." It's the most permanent of earthly goodbyes, you could say.

[_Symmachus]

If God really wanted to express the permanence of the goodbye, why not just show "Goodbye forever!" on the rock in the hat?

I actually agree that "adieu" is in a lower tier of problems in the Book of Mormon. I think the apologists play it down too far, though. It is kind of weird.

I always found the title "Christ" most off-putting. It wasn't Jesus's last name, for god's sake, but the way you find it in, e.g. 2 Nephi, is as a particular name of the true Messiah, which is the general category: Christ is the particular Messiah. Christ and Messiah mean the same thing (one's Aramaic/Hebrew transliterated, the other is Greek), but we are asked to assume there was a distinction in the purported source text.

[Anonymous]

I think the OP goes too far in saying that "no case" for historicity is possible. I think Grant Hardy, Brant Gardner, and the folks at Book of Mormon Central have done a creditable job on that front. As the LDS Bible Dictionary's entry on miracles aptly notes: "Christianity is founded on the greatest of all miracles, the Resurrection of our Lord. If that be admitted, other miracles cease to be improbable." One can quibble with the word "improbable"--"impossible" is probably better--but the basic idea holds. If one grants the foundational premises of Christianity, a historical Book of Mormon is not out of the question. The Book of Mormon itself recognizes the seeming anachronism of its pre-Christian Christianity and has a sensible explanation for it:

Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand. Behold, I say unto you, is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be at the time of his coming? Is it not as necessary that the plan of redemption should be made known unto this people as well as unto their children? Is it not as easy at this time for the Lord to send his angel to declare these glad tidings unto us as unto our children, or as after the time of his coming? (Alma 39:17–19; cf. Alma 24:14)

[_Res Ipsa]

The only case for historicity of the Book of Mormon is that Loki is God.

[_moksha]

I think the OP goes too far in saying that "no case" for historicity is possible.

Excellent point. We know that people came from the Old World to the New World via a migration. It is just the other details which are in question.

Incidentally, in the Missouri travel stories, does it say how people migrated from Missouri to the plains of the Serengeti? Does it specify boat travel or following the coastline of the land bridge across the Bering Sea?

[_Physics Guy]

I always found the title "Christ" most off-putting. It wasn't Jesus's last name, for god's sake, but the way you find it in, e.g. 2 Nephi, is as a particular name of the true Messiah, which is the general category: Christ is the particular Messiah. Christ and Messiah mean the same thing (one's Aramaic/Hebrew transliterated, the other is Greek), but we are asked to assume there was a distinction in the purported source text.

At least his middle initial isn't specified.

[_Gray Ghost]

I think the OP goes too far in saying that "no case" for historicity is possible. I think Grant Hardy, Brant Gardner, and the folks at Book of Mormon Central have done a creditable job on that front. As the LDS Bible Dictionary's entry on miracles aptly notes: "Christianity is founded on the greatest of all miracles, the Resurrection of our Lord. If that be admitted, other miracles cease to be improbable." One can quibble with the word "improbable"--"impossible" is probably better--but the basic idea holds. If one grants the foundational premises of Christianity, a historical Book of Mormon is not out of the question. The Book of Mormon itself recognizes the seeming anachronism of its pre-Christian Christianity and has a sensible explanation for it:

If you're talking about miracles, you're not talking about history or historicity. Miracles are outside of the academic discipline of history. Miracles are a matter of faith, theology, and doctrine - an entirely different area than history. There is certainly a case for a theological Book of Mormon, but not a historical one.

The passage itself you quote from also seems anachronistic. Why would an ancient person need to write an apologetic to explain why they know about future events far in advance? Ancient people believed in prophecy. That actually reads like a modern person writing an apologetic for why Nephites seem to know all about Christianity (including post-Biblical Christianity) while Christianity is absent from the Tanakh.

[_moksha]

I will help with some novel apologia that folks at both the Interpreter and Bloeme Alomee can use at their leisure: Moroni was traveling north to Canada with the gold plates in order to sell the copyright. His travel party was set upon by a band of Sovereign Citizens insensed over lax border security and seeing wild bands of Nordic Jews in their territory when they maintained a firm gentleman's agreement against that sort of thing through restrictive covenants.

[_Kishkumen]

I think the OP goes too far in saying that "no case" for historicity is possible. I think Grant Hardy, Brant Gardner, and the folks at Book of Mormon Central have done a creditable job on that front. As the LDS Bible Dictionary's entry on miracles aptly notes: "Christianity is founded on the greatest of all miracles, the Resurrection of our Lord. If that be admitted, other miracles cease to be improbable." One can quibble with the word "improbable"--"impossible" is probably better--but the basic idea holds. If one grants the foundational premises of Christianity, a historical Book of Mormon is not out of the question

It seems to me that you are conflating categories here. Let’s stick with the historical question. Someone arrives at my office door on campus claiming to have translated an ancient book in an unknown language. I ask him for the original manuscript. He tells me an angel took it back.

Conversation over.

At that point it does not matter to me that it was an angel that took the source document. The fact is that the translator can not produce the original document. What evidence is there that there is an original document? Affidavits his friends and family signed? That’s not good enough. The claim is that he translated a book, but he can show me no book. Am I simply to take his word for it? No.

Let’s say I am still intrigued, against my good sense and methodological commitments, to look at his translation. I start reading and quickly notice a host of anachronisms and straight up cribbing from the King James Bible.

Now the conversation about historicity really is over. There is no reason to go on. This is not a translation of an ancient text, period. First, it can only be a translation of an ancient text if there is an ancient text. If there is no ancient text, but I am still curious, I want to see credible marks of antiquity. Boatloads of anachronisms and plagiarism end my curiosity very quickly as an ancient historian. Might I still be curious about the book as a text of its time and religious environment? Of course, but there is no reason to entertain the book’s antiquity.

Phil Jenkins essentially said the same thing, and of course he, too, was correct. He said it much better than I did, but we are essentially in agreement. And nothing any LDS scholar has written to support the book’s antiquity, no matter how clever and eloquent, can stand against these most basic methodological problems.