When is a bullseye not a bullseye?

[_Runtu]

I've been watching with some amusement the thread over on MADB about the Comoros/Cumorah Islands with their capital of Moroni.

For a long time we've been treated to all sorts of nebulous connections between patched together pieces of the Book of Mormon and some obscure Middle Eastern practice or text. Generally when this happens, high-fives are exchanged, "bullseyes" pronounced, and skeptics are lambasted for not finding the bullseyes particularly compelling.

So, here Mary has a rather solid "bullseye" in the sense of two exact name matches, and the reaction is quite different. No high fives, no bullseyes. Instead, several posters pronounce the connection impossible, and Mary is told she's an exmo with an obvious axe to grind who is clearly willng to go to great lengths to destroy the church. And several posters come right out and say she is an idiot.

Now, I'm not saying that Joseph Smith got the names from the islands. For all I know, it could be a coincidence. But the bullseye here is a hell of a lot more solid than almost any of the bullseyes I can think of that have been touted on that board.

If Mary's bullseye is mere coincidence, it suggests that the weaker one touted by some believers are too.

[_Bond James Bond]

Link?

As to bullseyes in general, my argument has always been that bullseyes should be expected, given enough material between any two groups you surely will find overlaps. The question is, it mere coincidence or geniune chiasmus. I usually argue for coincidence.

[_Henry Jacobs]

That has been an entertaining thread. The answer to your question appears to be, "A bullseye is not a bullseye when it cannot possibly be a bullseye."

You know how when you're driving and there are birds sitting in the road, and as you get close, you watch the birds all jump and veer off in one direction or another. No matter how fast you're going, they adjust and get out of the way.

That's how reading that Cumorah thread feels to me. Every believer finds an evasive angle which gets them out of having to actually contact the issue of "why are modern place names found in an ancient document?"

Samples from that thread:

1. Comora was in very few gazetteers in 1830.
2. Joseph unlikely to have had one of the gazetteers that included it.
3. Moroni wasn't even the capitol of Comora until the mid-1900's.
4. Most americans had never heard of the place in 1830, much less RURAL americans!
5. This old anti-mormon chestnut has already been dealt with by FARMS(Roper)

It's interesting to see what types of things are sufficient to stop all further thought and investigation, for some folks.

[_KimberlyAnn]

When it's a Neph eye?

Or a Moron eye?

Perhaps when it's an Abinid eye?

So many Hebrew names in the Book of Mormon. So many bullseyes that it's dizzying.

I loved Henry Jacobs's post. Those birds better beware. Every now and again, one gets plastered to a windshield.

KA

[_SatanWasSetUp]

There has to be a reason why Moroni/Comoros were named that. Instead of just ignoring it why not investigate it. Perhaps some seafaring Nephites sailed there. Perhaps they were inpsired to name it that by the lord. Why ignore such an amazing name match?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

5. This old anti-mormon chestnut has already been dealt with by FARMS(Roper)

Whenever I hear about this Roper guy at FARMS, I picture him looking like this.

[_TAK]

Moroni wasn't even the capitol of Comora until the mid-1900's.

LOL! Worthy of a sig-line ..

[_truth dancer]

OK, it looks like I need to help out here!

There is a common origin for both languages.

The HG inspired the Nephites in the same way he inspired the settlers of the Comoros Islands.

Satan is trying to trick believers.

We don't know if the Nephites actually used these terms but this is how the words appeared to Joseph Smith in the hat.

Total coincidence.

If you look at the actual meanings of various syllables in the words you will know that the words are descriptive of the locality hence the similarities.

This has nothing to do with ones salvation.

Who cares?

Only naïve and lazy people worry about such stuff.

God's ways are not man's ways.

Finally, who does Mary think she is anyway. She must be a sinner or have had her feeling hurt or spoken badly of a leader.

Just trying to help out!

[_christopher]

Runtu-

An example of when to believe evidence is as below :

FARMS spokesman John Sorenson

"With [DNA] sampling, you may or may not find evidence of a connection to the Old World," he says. "If you do, that says something. If you don't, that says more research needs to be done."


From: "BYU Gene Data May Shed Light On Origin Of Book of Mormon's Lamanites", Salt Lake Tribune, November 30, 2000


So the answer is easily solved. If it supports current church teaching, it is good, if it doesn't it may be ignored......so,

Island Cumorha = bad
NHM = good

[_cinepro]

Link?

As to bullseyes in general, my argument has always been that bullseyes should be expected, given enough material between any two groups you surely will find overlaps. The question is, it mere coincidence or geniune chiasmus. I usually argue for coincidence.

That's a point on the issue no apologist ever wants to address:

Even if the Book of Mormon were not historical, you would expect there to be at least some "bullseyes" from random chance, right? How can you claim to find a bullseye you wouldn't expect until you have properly identified the bullseyes you would expect? Obviously, apologists claim to be able to identify and divine which bullseyes are from chance, and which are true evidence of Book of Mormon historicity. I'd just like to see their methodology in writing.