(I just note that, because it kind of makes me wish that I’d gone further in studying philosophy.)

“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
(John 20:31)

“Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
(2 Thes 1:11-12)

“But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.”
(1 Peter 4:13-14)

“And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”
(1 John 3:22-34)

etc…

So at least some historical events (and Christ’s coming probably tops the list), when denied, pretty much imply a state of apostasy.

On the other hand, I feel no particular commitment to claiming absolute perfection for the scriptures, since the scriptures don’t seem to favor that.

I have a question about your initial framing of the question. As part of setting up the dilemma, you state I was taught, growing up, that Nephites and Lamanites were the (exclusive) ancestors of the American Indians, both in North and South America; it’s my understanding that this is still the widely-held teaching. I’m wondering if this isn’t a bit of a straw man that leans the discussion (perhaps unintentionally) away from the possibility of historicity right from the beginning, in the foundational premises of the inquiry. I don’t remember being taught growing up that the Nephites and the Lamanites were the “exclusive” ancestors of the American Indians. Are you sure this is what you were taught? I remember being taught that they were ancestors of the Indians, but I am balking at your assertion that this exclusivity was or still is the “widely-held teaching” of the Church. What effect does this mischaracterization of the Church’s teachings have, if any, on the framing of this discussion of historicity? Does it make historicity out to seem like it says too much and therefore needs to be discounted?

I agree with Rosalynde that historicity is very important, and for the reasons she notes. I would like to add something else that has been hinted at, but not strongly enough, in my opinion. Historicity of the Book of Mormon–in other words the ancient origin of that text, literally a collection of writings edited and compiled by someone named Mormon–is indeed, I believe very closely related to Truth, particularly to the truth claims of the Restored Gospel. On this point I am not merely referring to authority as some have already done above.

Let us take an example to see what I mean by this. Let us say that some kind of ancient scroll or writing is found somewhere in meso-America by archaeologists, translated by academics, and then it is discovered that it approximates, very closely, the text of King Benjamin’s speech. Dating techniques place the origin of the writing near the estimated time of King Benjamin. Why would that be important? What would the implications of that discovery be?

To believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ would still require faith, as Rosalynde pointed out. Viewed in isolation, therefore, all this would do for people’s faith in Christ would be to show them that people in meso-America shortly before the coming of Christ actually shared this crazy belief. But viewed in the context of JS’s role in the Restoration, this would have large implications for the truth claims of the prophet JS. At least it would imply that he was telling the truth about the Gold Plates and not lying. To believe the message of the Gold Plates would still require faith, and our salvation would still depend on our accepting Christ and his Atonement. But people would be forced to take that message seriously in the first place. Thus, historicity, including apologetics in favor of historicity, is important in my view because of its implications for the message of the Restored Gospel: it can underscore the truthfulness of that message.

“The historicity question as it is approached by most anti-mormons and by most apologists assumes the homogeneity of reason and the ontology of dead matter. ”

If I understood the preceding correctly, Dennis seemed to be saying that the problems he finds with the “historicity” question is that it flows from the twin assumptions that: 1, Everyone agrees with me as to what constitutes a reasonable argument; and 2, we can only really draw objective conclusions about empirically verifiable objects and actions (feel free to correct me if I have gotten either one of these things wrong).

Under these circumstances, what is the point in studying the past at all? In particular, what is the point in seeking to verify a particular way of telling the events? I suppose the answer would be so that we can tell stories that seem reasonable and true to us (I am not entirely adverse to an understanding of academia as advanced navel-gazing). However, this doesn’t necessarily make our stories more enlightening, more verifiable, or more compelling than stories told by children, bankers, witchdoctors, or lunatics.

“It reduces the story/narrative of religious life to the ontology of dead matter, and commits “blasphemy” by allowing theoretical science a place in religious story telling.”

This is the matter at the heart of current debates regarding Biblical historicity, in addition to those regarding LDS scripture. In the field of the Bible, the competing fields of literary criticism and biblical archaeology have come to an uncertain truce wherein they have decided that although one side can never throw out the other side’s evidence entirely, it is not possible to actually integrate knowledge from the two fields without observational interference. It simply requires too many assumptions on the part of the researcher in all known cases.

That said, it is somewhat false to compare the state of Biblical historicity to that of Book of Mormon historicity. While there is some archaeological evidence that appears to support some Biblical claims without a lot of finagling, I know of no such evidence in the New World (in this, I am including both hemispheric and limited-geography models). (Should I take a moment to explain that I think that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record translated by Joseph Smith via divine inspirtation? Cause I do.) This, of course, doesn’t really mean anything. The absence of evidence, especially in a wet climate like Mesoamerica and especially in a situation where we are not terribly certain what we should be looking for, should not constitute proof of anything other than the absence of evidence. The situation in the Middle East is unique and it would be a tad absurd to assume that we will find extensive records like we have in Mesopotamia and Egypt elsewhere. Will we ever find extensive records in Mesoamerica (or the whole of North/South America) like we have in Egypt? No, nor should we expect too in any place outside of deserts, which we wouldn’t normally expect your ancient civilizations to want to inhabit. All of which is a long way of saying that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is likely to be up in the air for a long time for people who care about it.

So, to get back to Steve’s original question, “How much of the history need be fact for the Book to still be true?“, I am not sure that this is right question. It will depend first on how you care to define “true” (which was ultimately what, I think, Dennis was trying to get at). A better question might be, “Should we care about historicity at all as part of our process in determining whether or not the Book of Mormon (Abraham, Moses, etc) is true?” I’m not sure. I think Nate, Rosalynde, and Paul Hoskisson are right in pointing to the issue of authority. You do seem to need an actual God and an actual Abraham for the Abrahamic covenant to be something more than a powerful myth. People point to the importance of establishing the historicity of LDS scripture to establishing the validity of Joseph’s position as a prophet, but this seems to me to be a different issue, somewhat likely saying that because Abraham Lincoln didn’t write all the things we thought he had (his secretary seems to have written some of his more famous letters) then Abe couldn’t really have been a very important president. It is going to be ultimately determined by your definition of what makes a prophet or a president, but most people probably won’t agree with you.

YES. I would also argue that it is, to this day, widely held concept of BoM historicity. I don’t think it’s a mischaracterization.

By the same token, I don’t think this example is central to the discussion, quite honestly.

John, this is what I remember being taught. I don’t believe exclusivity was necessarily ever explicitly discussed, but it certainly was assumed. Even if you want to deny the “exclusivity” clause, the last line of the second paragraph of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon would seem to indicate that a limited-geography approach is not what the church explicitly endorses today (or ever).