In October 1993, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke at the annual dinner of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, an organization of Latter-day Saint scholars on the campus of Brigham Young University in those days. His topic was “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” which he defended against the suggestion beginning to emerge in some circles that the Book of Mormon be viewed as “inspired” but non-historical.

I agreed with him then, and I agree with him now. That said, it’s important to be clear in distinguishing essentials from non-essentials and what absolutely requires defense from what is of little consequence

For example, the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ are utterly fundamental to Christian belief generally and to Latter-day Saint faith in particular. If Jesus could somehow be demonstrated never to have physically risen from the grave, the implications for Christianity would be profound and devastating. On the other hand, if the Old Testament book of Esther turned out to be an ancient novella rather than literally true, that would have no discernible impact upon any vital Christian belief.

It matters very much that Jesus was a real historical person. Whether or not Job was a real historical person scarcely matters at all. The book of Job might, as some allege, be ancient Hebrew dramatic fiction. If so, its truths would be more on the order of those in “Hamlet” or “King Lear,” but no significant doctrine would fall.

The thesis of the opening chapters of Genesis — that God, not blind chance, created the world — is vital, but knowing exactly how to correlate the biblical creation account with current scientific theories is much less so.

Several perplexing historical problems surround the book of Daniel, too, and it may have been written many centuries after the events that it purports to describe. However, nothing crucial to Christian theology rests upon an early date for Daniel. Nothing much rises or falls with the story of Daniel in the lion’s den or with the tale of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

The historicity of the Book of Mormon, by contrast, seems fundamental to the beliefs of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If there were no ancient Nephites, the founding events of the modern Restoration (involving, among other things, Nephite plates and a resurrected Nephite prophet) become confusing at best. If no Nephites existed, the power of the Book of Mormon as a second witness for Jesus Christ (who, it says, appeared among the Nephites after his resurrection in Judea) is substantially weakened if not altogether destroyed. So the book’s overall historicity plainly deserves defending by believers.

But members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aren’t obligated to defend the enormous stone walls of Arnold Friberg’s painting of Samuel the Lamanite, which seem more indebted to photographs of Cusco, Peru, than to the actual text of the Book of Mormon itself (e.g., at Alma 53:3-4). Nor are we obligated to argue for pre-Columbian coinage in the Americas, since, although the chapter heading to Alma 11 once mentioned “Nephite coinage,” the actual scriptural text in that chapter says nothing about minted coins but, rather, describes standardized weights of metal — a very different thing.

It’s far more important to know that the events narrated in the Book of Mormon took place than, interesting though the topic is, to know the place where they occurred. The precise GPS coordinates of the Jaredite city of Lib aren’t essential to our salvation; the Atonement of Christ is.

It’s not necessary to die on every hill. We should choose our battles wisely.

I close, though, with three timely but unrelated items:

When last week’s column initially appeared, it gave an incorrect URL to Jeff Lindsay’s hilarious send-up of certain anti-Mormon explanations for the Book of Mormon, “A Day in the Life of Joseph Smith, Translator Extraordinaire.” Here, though, is the correct Web address: jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml.

Royal Skousen’s important and very helpful Yale University Press edition of “The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text” is now in its third printing, while the background arguments for his various text-critical judgments, previously available only in several large printed books, have just been made freely accessible online by The Interpreter Foundation. These are indispensable resources for serious Book of Mormon scholarship.

The 2014 Temple on Mount Zion Conference and the 2014 Sidney B. Sperry Symposium are both being held on the campus of Brigham Young University this weekend.

Daniel Peterson teaches Arabic studies, founded BYU's Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, directs MormonScholarsTestify.org, chairs mormoninterpreter.com, blogs daily at patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson, and speaks only for himself.