bluebell Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am: What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record? Is there any evidence? And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything. Just evidence in support of. 3 Link to comment
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted August 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 10, 2020 34 minutes ago, bluebell said: Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am: What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record? Is there any evidence? And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything. Just evidence in support of. Here is a video which deals with that. One among many at Book of Mormon Central. The BMC love for the inland Incense Trail has no justification whatsoever, but the general approach is otherwise pretty good. 6 Link to comment
Popular Post OGHoosier Posted August 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 10, 2020 Hold onto your butts, folks. In my opinion, there is evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. I wouldn't say proof: proof is in fact not to be expected, per Dallin H. Oaks. That said, if God chooses to grant it, I won't complain. A great one-stop shop for Church scholarship on the Book of Mormon is Book of Mormon Central. Their archives have papers and research on all sorts of things Book of Mormon, from apologetics to theology. There's also a difference, as Ben McGuire mentions, between historicity and verisimilitude. One of my favorite parts about the Book of Mormon is the onomasticon, or names list. The names in the Book of Mormon, and associated literary features present at some parts in the text, have convinced me that the author of the Book of Mormon was someone with more than a passing knowledge of Hebrew. This militates against Joseph Smith as author of the text, but doesn't necessarily support the text as historical; a savvy author on the JarMan model could probably produce that in my opinion. That said, I have my evidentiary disagreements with any model that requires Joseph to be copying from a manuscript, thus I think the onomasticon is valid evidence for authenticity regardless. Lots of examples of wordplays, grammar, and other linguistic features of the Book of Mormon would fall into this category. There are, however, evidences that suggest historicity, full stop. Probably the most striking is the identification of Nahom, as mentioned in 1 Nephi 16:34. The correspondence is quite striking: the name of the place has changed in terms of vowels but retains the consonants which are the essentials of Hebrew script. Prominent burial grounds have been identified in the area, and the toponym does date back to the appropriate time. Most significantly, it is in the right place compared to other proposed locations along Lehi's Trail in the Old World. The site is generally referenced in a few maps available in 19th-century America, but for Joseph to have come across them or integrated them into a Hebrew wordplay on the word for "mourning" is unlikely. For more information see here, here, and here. In general, the plausible identifications of locations in Arabia along a plausible trail is a striking recommendation for the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Another good one is the recovery of a seal of Malkiyahu, ben hamelek, or son of the king.. See here for a good summary. Long story short: according to known rules of Hebrew naming, we can confirm that there was a person in Zedekiah's Jerusalem who could fit the description of Mulek, son of Zedekiah. The significance of this find is summarized here. There are others, primarily in the form of correspondences between Book of Mormon texts and Mesoamerican cultural and geographic features. There's too many candidates to list here but anything by Brant Gardner or John Sorenson should provide plenty. Finally, @Robert F. Smith has a wonderful paper called "The Preposterous Book of Mormon" which he will likely link to if he hasn't already. 10 Link to comment
Duncan Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am: What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record? Is there any evidence? And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything. Just evidence in support of. https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/historicity-book-mormon from Elder Oaks! He gave another similar talk at BYU in 1993 2 Link to comment
bluebell Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Here is a video which deals with that. One among many at Book of Mormon Central. The BMC love for the inland Incense Trail has no justification whatsoever, but the general approach is otherwise pretty good. Thanks!! How are these videos received by other scientists or academics? I'm really looking for 'good' evidence and not the weird stuff that is all over the internet. 2 Link to comment
bluebell Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, Duncan said: https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/historicity-book-mormon from Elder Oaks! He gave another similar talk at BYU in 1993 I was actually just reading this! 1 Link to comment
bluebell Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 48 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: Hold onto your butts, folks. In my opinion, there is evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. I wouldn't say proof: proof is in fact not to be expected, per Dallin H. Oaks. That said, if God chooses to grant it, I won't complain. A great one-stop shop for Church scholarship on the Book of Mormon is Book of Mormon Central. Their archives have papers and research on all sorts of things Book of Mormon, from apologetics to theology. There's also a difference, as Ben McGuire mentions, between historicity and verisimilitude. One of my favorite parts about the Book of Mormon is the onomasticon, or names list. The names in the Book of Mormon, and associated literary features present at some parts in the text, have convinced me that the author of the Book of Mormon was someone with more than a passing knowledge of Hebrew. This militates against Joseph Smith as author of the text, but doesn't necessarily support the text as historical; a savvy author on the JarMan model could probably produce that in my opinion. That said, I have my evidentiary disagreements with any model that requires Joseph to be copying from a manuscript, thus I think the onomasticon is valid evidence for authenticity regardless. Lots of examples of wordplays, grammar, and other linguistic features of the Book of Mormon would fall into this category. There are, however, evidences that suggest historicity, full stop. Probably the most striking is the identification of Nahom, as mentioned in 1 Nephi 16:34. The correspondence is quite striking: the name of the place has changed in terms of vowels but retains the consonants which are the essentials of Hebrew script. Prominent burial grounds have been identified in the area, and the toponym does date back to the appropriate time. Most significantly, it is in the right place compared to other proposed locations along Lehi's Trail in the Old World. The site is generally referenced in a few maps available in 19th-century America, but for Joseph to have come across them or integrated them into a Hebrew wordplay on the word for "mourning" is unlikely. For more information see here, here, and here. In general, the plausible identifications of locations in Arabia along a plausible trail is a striking recommendation for the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Another good one is the recovery of a seal of Malkiyahu, ben hamelek, or son of the king.. See here for a good summary. Long story short: according to known rules of Hebrew naming, we can confirm that there was a person in Zedekiah's Jerusalem who could fit the description of Mulek, son of Zedekiah. The significance of this find is summarized here. There are others, primarily in the form of correspondences between Book of Mormon texts and Mesoamerican cultural and geographic features. There's too many candidates to list here but anything by Brant Gardner or John Sorenson should provide plenty. Finally, @Robert F. Smith has a wonderful paper called "The Preposterous Book of Mormon" which he will likely link to if he hasn't already. That's awesome, thanks! 1 Link to comment
Popular Post OGHoosier Posted August 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Thanks!! How are these videos received by other scientists or academics? I'm really looking for 'good' evidence and not the weird stuff that is all over the internet. Book of Mormon videos are basically the distilled-for-popular-consumption version of the papers available on the Book of Mormon Central archive. Those feature more detail, scholarly attribution, etc. As you might expect, scholars outside the whole Mormon Studies debates don't take notice. 5 Link to comment
2BizE Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 I believe there is little historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. BoM scholars have indicated it is a 19th century Protestant understanding of the Jewish people. There was a time in the past when many thought it was full of historical wonder. That seems to be fading. And I’m fine with that. I believe it is inspired and is important. Even Pres. Nelson discussed this a few years ago with mission presidents suggesting “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages.” https://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-Shares-What-the-Book-of-Mormon-Is-Not/s/82550 2 Link to comment
bluebell Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 43 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: Book of Mormon videos are basically the distilled-for-popular-consumption version of the papers available on the Book of Mormon Central archive. Those feature more detail, scholarly attribution, etc. As you might expect, scholars outside the whole Mormon Studies debates don't take notice. Are there any peer reviewed papers on the subject? Link to comment
Rivers Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 The Nahom thing is the most impressive evidence of which I am aware. But is it possible Joseph Smith saw it on a map somewhere? Link to comment
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: Are there any peer reviewed papers on the subject? I found this: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/ Edited August 10, 2020 by Tacenda Link to comment
OGHoosier Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Rivers said: The Nahom thing is the most impressive evidence of which I am aware. But is it possible Joseph Smith saw it on a map somewhere? The sources I gave to bluebell in my post are commentaries on that question. 1 Link to comment
bluebell Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I found this: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/ Thanks Tacenda! Link to comment
Popular Post OGHoosier Posted August 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 10, 2020 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: Are there any peer reviewed papers on the subject? Papers published in Interpreter are peer-reviewed, I believe the same holds for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. The peer reviewers are generally members of the Church, which prompts some to consider it invalid peer review at times. If I may digress (and reveal a degree of my defensiveness in so doing), I personally don't think that's a valid critique as, outside the Mormon Studies world, there's not a requirement for absolute ideological diversity in peer reviews - if it were so, every Biology department would have to have a Discovery Institute peer reviewer on speed dial. Furthermore, I'm generally suspicious of peer-review as a ticket-to-ride - it's a useful tool to enhance the quality of work but it's not a guarantor of quality and therefore, in my opinion, doesn't deserve to be a ticket to entry when it comes to the general discourse. For this reason, I believe that pieces from these sources deserve to be entered as evidence and have a place at the table, to be debated on their merits - not dismissed out of hand. 6 Link to comment
Calm Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, bluebell said: Are there any peer reviewed papers on the subject? Depends on what you mean by this. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted August 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 10, 2020 (edited) I believe there is a lot of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I've tried to keep up on the ongoing discussion and I've published around 40 essays touching on the topic. That makes me a Book Mormon scholar with a name and a specific body of work. Not a generic "a lot of people are saying" sort of intellectual shortcut. Here are ten things, off the top of my head, that I think are important. 1. In 1953 Nibley pointed out that the Rennaisance scholars, in dealing with a influx of newly discovered texts, learned through careful experience, the best way of detecting what is authentic and what is spurious. Quote One of the best-established disciplines in the world is the critical examination of written texts to detect what in them is spurious and what is genuine. … [T]he rules given by Blass are all obvious enough on experience and reflection, but every one of them is a stumbling block to the superficial critic, and [Page 86]they have all been scrupulously avoided by those attacking the Book of Mormon. To begin with, says Blass, “We have the document, and the name of its author; we must begin our examination by assuming the author indicated really wrote it.” You always begin by assuming the text is genuine. What critic of the Book of Mormon has ever done that? …Thus while we can never prove absolutely that the Book is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that is it what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable. (Hugh Nibley, “New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study” in CWHN 8, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Study, 1989), 55–56. 2. There is a difference between testing whether a thing is true, and testing whether it is orthodox, or popularly accepted. Alma 32 makes a distinction between looking for "cause to believe," something that comes short of perfect knowledge," and absolute knowing. There are those who want perfect knowledge, to be forced to believe, rather than invited. 3. The case for the Book of Mormon has gotten far far better than it was when I started looking. There is a world of difference between Jack West's Trial of the Book of Mormon cartoon book that I started with in the early 60s, and things like Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, Brant Gardner's Second Witness commentaries, the Aston's In the Footsteps of Lehi, and Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, and scores of others, that adorn my bookshelves now. John Clark gave a wonderful presentation at the 2005 Joseph Smith conference on this topic, and Matt Roper recently updated it. The case for the Book of Mormon is much better than it used to be, and that comes from people drawing on sources and information that no one in the world had access to in Joseph Smith's day. 4. A closer look always brings surprises. In England in 1974, I had an investigator complain that the account of King Benjamin's sermon was unrealistic. Not everyone would have believed, he complained. People aren't like that. I suppose I could have taken his objection as the definitive disproof of the Book of Mormon, and left my mission for the freedom of agnosticism, but I put the question on my intellectual shelf. Because I did, and kept my eyes open, I wrote this: https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/ 5. That kind of experience taught me that I will always learn far more about the case against the Book of Mormon from believers than I will learn of the case for the Book of Mormon from skeptics. Many of my own essays came about in dealing with skeptics. For instance, when I read a 1981 Sunstone essay by an RLDS scholar, arguing against the historicty of the text, I noticed that he happened to be wrong about everything. He was not up-to-date when he wrote, and could not know the future. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol22/iss2/8/ 6. Superficial critics often use questions as a way to close doors than can easily be opened. For instance, I'd been aware that some critics see Alma as too much like Paul, and imply simple plagiarism by Smith. It seems to me that any of them could have written this, but it was me that did. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss1/2/ 7. There are some remarkable believing LDS scholars, who employ critical tools and approaches that would never occur to me. And if I look at what they are doing, I can see much further than I can if left to myself. For instance, Larry Poulson here: https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf Or John Welch, here: https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/illuminating-sermon-temple-sermon-mount 8. 3 Nephi 6:8 says "And there were many highways cast up, and many roads made, which led from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place." If you have Disney +, you can watch the National Geographic Special showing the results of a recent LiDar survey that shows what has been hidden beneath the jungles of Mesoamerica.. 9. People like Ben McGuire, Alan Goff, and Matthew Bowman have shown that the literary connections between the Book of Mormon and the Bible are far more subtle and sophisticated that superficial plagiarism. For instance, McGuire here: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol18/iss1/12/ 10. And there is Margaret Barker's work. I ran across The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God in a Dallas bookstore, recognizing the title because the same passage had been quoted by two different LDS scholars in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. That encounter has turned out to have a significant effect on Book of Mormon scholarship. I had a long standing question: "Is the Book of Mormon too Christian before Christ?" But as Thomas Kuhn says, the same question that can be a "counter-instance" for one person, can be a puzzle for another. If I had treated that question as a counter-instance rather than a puzzle, had I given up on faith, I would have missed some of the most remarkable experiences and most mind expanding and soul enlarging and delicious and fruitful reading of my life. I would not even have known what I was missing. And it would have happened anyway. Noel Reynolds told me that my writing Paradigms Regained saved him the trouble of doing so. But because I got involved, and read and wrote, I feel a connection to movements larger than I am, when I consider her talk on the Book of Mormon, her collaboration with me, and more recent moments like this: I've made the case that Barker's work fulfills the prophesy in 1 Nephi 13:39-41 FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited August 10, 2020 by Kevin Christensen 6 Link to comment
Duncan Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 (edited) I have a book, which is a collection of articles about this subject, not just the Book of Mormon. It's called, "Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures" and voila it's online! https://rsc.byu.edu/book/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures Edited August 10, 2020 by Duncan 1 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Rivers said: The Nahom thing is the most impressive evidence of which I am aware. But is it possible Joseph Smith saw it on a map somewhere? Nahum, just slightly different in spelling, is a book in the Hebrew Bible. 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 3 hours ago, bluebell said: Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am: What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record? Is there any evidence? And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything. Just evidence in support of. bluebell, you're one of the smartest posters, haha! And, I believe, you have credentials in history right? Forgive if I overstep, but why are you asking for evidence? You surely have read/discussed many threads on this subject haven't you? Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 10, 2020 (edited) Quote Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am: What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record? Is there any evidence? And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything. Just evidence in support of. Yes, there is evidence. Quite a bit, IMO. The sufficiency and probative value of the evidence is very much in dispute, but the existence of the evidence is pretty hard to deny. Putting aside "evidence" from the Spirit, I would first point to the text overall. Its origins need to be accounted for. I don't think Joseph Smith could have written it at all, let alone in the timeframe involved. Second, I would point to the statements of the Witnesses, and to the credbility of those witnesses (starting, perhaps, with Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses). Third, I would point to evidences within the text. Its complexity. Its narrative structure. Linguistic elements. It's internal chronological and geographic consistency. Hebraisms. Chiasmus. Lots and lots of good stuff in here. Fourth, there are some evidences which have some sort of interaction with or facet touching on archaeology. See, e.g. this article: Five Compelling Archeological Evidences For the Book of Mormon. The "five evidences" are: Metal Plates The Nahom Altar Cement in Mesoamerica The Seal of Mulek Barley in the Americas Of these, the Seal of Mulek seems to be the one that I think critics would be most likely to construe as "archaeological" (read: artifactual) evidence (though the Nahom Altar seems pretty hard to ignore). But both of these are Old World artifacts, and I think critics want artifacts from Mesoamerica. Fifth, I would point an interested party to the Book of Mormon Central website: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ Sixth, I would point an interested party to Jeff Lindsay's "Book of Mormon Evidences" page: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml Seventh, I would point an interested party to FAIR's page about evidences for the Book of Mormon: https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon Eighth, I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) These are the resources that immediately come to mind. Much of what is termed "evidence for the Book of Mormon" is better characterized as "assumptions regarding and interpretations of evidence for the Book of Mormon." Thanks, -Smac Edited August 10, 2020 by smac97 5 Link to comment
InCognitus Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Nahum, just slightly different in spelling, is a book in the Hebrew Bible. But a place with that name in the exact location where the Book of Mormon says it should be? 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 4 hours ago, bluebell said: Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am: What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record? Is there any evidence? And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything. Just evidence in support of. Would you be willing to expand your target audience to people who may know only as much as you do, or must someone be more knowledgeable than you are in this subject? And btw, you misspelled knowledgeable. Anywho, as you may or may not already know, evidence of history lays in the fact that whatever happened actually happened as it happened, so anyone who knows what happened has that knowledge as evidence of what happened. Everything else on top of that is just fluff or a derivative of what actually happened. People in the past wrote the Book of Mormon, for example, and what they wrote is what they knew about what they knew had happened. Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Are there any peer reviewed papers on the subject? It would be a rare non-LDS scholar who would give Joseph Smith the time of day. Angels and stuff like that. Although there are a few who might give him a nod as they pass by. IMO. What do you think would be acceptable evidences of historicity? I think contemporaneous written records would be invaluable, but unfortunately they are quite scarce. Not knowing precise locations makes it even more difficult. Edited August 10, 2020 by Bernard Gui 1 Link to comment
bluebell Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: bluebell, you're one of the smartest posters, haha! And, I believe, you have credentials in history right? Forgive if I overstep, but why are you asking for evidence? You surely have read/discussed many threads on this subject haven't you? Because I'm being lazy basically. This is not a subject that I have spent much time on myself, as it's not one that holds a lot of interest for me, but if posters, who do find this stuff interesting and have spent time in the subject, had references on hand that they could share with me, getting those seemed like a much better use of my time and energy than spending the day (or longer) trying to track them down myself. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts