Analytics Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) Hi Everyone, @smac97 said something yesterday that I find interesting. He wrote: “I think the Church has, in 200 years, come up with an impressive array of reasons to accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. Our critics have not made nearly as much progress in those 200 years.” I strongly disagree with that and tend to see the trajectory going the other way. Rather than debate that in abstract, I'd like to take a step back and systematically evaluate the array of allegedly impressive reasons to accept the Book of Mormon. Here’s the approach: First, we’ll build a master list of evidentiary categories—specifically, the strongest “hits” that proponents point to in the scholarly/apologetic literature. Then we’ll work through the list one item at a time: I’ll use ChatGPT to generate a steelman version of the argument for why that item is considered good evidence. I’ll post that and give everyone a day to strengthen/refine it. I’ll then draft a critical response explaining whether or not I'm impressed and why Both will be written in a consistent format (~200-word executive summary + ~1500-word detailed version). Finally, I’ll submit both to a separate model (Claude) whose only job is to evaluate the relative strength of the evidence and assign an evidentiary score. On this one, I'll do my very best to provide unbiased prompts and only feed it the two documents--one with the evidence and one with my critical response. My goal here is not to “win” individual points or trick AI into giving one side an advantage. The real question is to what extent, in aggregate, these evidences point toward the Book of Mormon being a plausible ancient record. Each item will be evaluated on its own, but the long-term goal is to see whether all of these claims can coexist within a single coherent model. To keep things focused: We’re limiting “evidence” to things in the text itself or its claimed historical/geographical context We’re not including spiritual confirmation, plate witnesses, or general theological arguments Everyone is free to comment on the respective arguments I'll be presenting, and I'll incorporate comments to refine and strengthen the arguments as much as I can before I submit them to Claude. My main focus is to keep this moving: I'll present a draft of the steelman argument one day and give people a chance to comment on it and refine it and strengthen it as much as possible. The next day I'll present my critique and Claude's neutral evaluation of the point. The next day I'll move on to the next point. I'm not trying to relitigate all of this--I'm trying to create an integrated, comprehensive picture of the evidence. Everything will be evaluated from the perspective of being completely agnostic about spiritual/supernatural things. The only things being considered are the positive items on the list below. Anti-arguments and arguments for implausibility based on general scientific knowledge are excluded. Here is my draft master list of evidences I want to consider. What am I missing? Draft Master List of Evidences NHM / Nahom correlation — Possible match between “Nahom” in the text and NHM tribal region in Arabia Arabian travel route plausibility — Consistency of directions, terrain, and journey length with known Arabian geography Bountiful candidate locations — Coastal Oman/Yemen sites fitting fertile, ore-rich description Burial practices in Arabia — Claims that Ishmael’s burial aligns with regional customs Limited geography models — Internal consistency when the text is mapped to a constrained region (e.g. Narrow Neck of Land, Siden) Mesoamerican setting fit — Argument that the text’s overall geography and culture fit Mesoamerica specifically Chiasmus (e.g., Alma 36) — Complex inverted literary structures argued to reflect ancient Hebrew style Hebraic parallelisms — Repetition and poetic structures resembling Old Testament forms Wordplays and name meanings — Alleged Semitic puns embedded in the English text Narrative consistency over long text — Internal coherence across a large, rapidly produced work Complex intertextuality — Cross-references and narrative callbacks across distant parts of the text Semitic names in the text — Names argued to have plausible Hebrew/Egyptian roots Name frequency patterns — Statistical claims about realistic distribution of names Female names (e.g., Sariah) — Names argued to have ancient Near Eastern parallels Onomastic convergence beyond Semitic — Possible Egyptian or other ancient naming influences “Reformed Egyptian” plausibility — Argument that hybrid writing systems are historically plausible Early Modern English (EModE) features — Claims (associated with Stanford Carmack) that the text reflects non-19th-century English forms Alma 11 monetary system — Internal consistency and alleged parallels to ancient systems of weights/measures and exchange Hebrew legal parallels — Claims that legal procedures reflect ancient Israelite law traditions Ancient covenant/treaty patterns — Narrative structures resembling Old Testament covenant forms Colophons / authorial markers — Phrases like “and thus we see…” argued as ancient editorial devices Narrow neck of land — Geographic feature argued to match Isthmus regions (e.g., Tehuantepec) River Sidon candidates — Proposed correlations with specific Mesoamerican rivers Mesoamerican cultural parallels — Similarities in kingship, judges, and social organization Fortifications and warfare — Descriptions aligning with known pre-Columbian defensive structures Cement usage — Reference to cement construction matching some Mesoamerican practices Volcanic destruction imagery — 3 Nephi destruction scenes compared to volcanic/seismic events Long-distance trade plausibility — Trade networks used to explain materials or ideas Agricultural references — Crops and subsistence patterns argued to be broadly plausible Metallurgy reinterpretations — Claims that “steel,” “swords,” etc. may refer to non-literal equivalents Animals and fauna reinterpretations — “Horse,” “cattle,” etc. mapped to New World analogues Absence of explicit Old World plants/animals — Argument that omissions are consistent with migration/adaptation Anachronisms with proposed resolutions — Items once seen as problematic but later reinterpreted or reframed Shrinking anachronism list — Claim that the cumulative trend of alleged anachronisms over time is itself positive evidence for plausibility Record-keeping practices — Plausibility of metal plates or durable records in the ancient world Multiple authorship voices — Distinct narrative styles attributed to different contributors Editorial complexity (Mormon/Moroni) — Layered abridgment process claimed to explain structure Prophetic pattern consistency — Narrative arc resembling biblical prophetic traditions Law of Moses observance details — Cultural/religious continuity claims with ancient Israel Population growth models — Claims that demographic expansion is plausible under certain assumptions Calendrical/timekeeping references — Internal consistency in tracking years, reigns, and events Wordprint / stylometry studies — Statistical arguments for multiple authorship Edited April 23 by Analytics 1
Ryan Dahle Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Hi Everyone, @smac97 said something yesterday that I find interesting. He wrote: “I think the Church has, in 200 years, come up with an impressive array of reasons to accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. Our critics have not made nearly as much progress in those 200 years.” I strongly disagree with that and tend to see the trajectory going the other way. Rather than debate that in abstract, I'd like to take a step back and systematically evaluate the array of allegedly impressive reasons to accept the Book of Mormon. I admire your effort. But I think there are going to be some hurdles with this approach. And the main problem is just time. You see, I have been systematically building a case for the Book of Mormon (and other Restoration texts) for over ten years now--identifying, categorizing, systematizing, and evaluating various types of evidence supporting the text's authenticity. I already have a very elaborate list of major categories and sub-categories that I have identified, along with supporting publications (the document is over 100 pages in length, with just sources listed and no annotations or commentary). Some major categories have literally hundreds of underlying publications (books, articles, and other media), often which fit into various subcategories. So it would take a lot of time to work through what all is there, and to understand the nuances well enough to "steel man" the apologetic argument. Just take our recent conversations about EModE, for example. Over and over again, you admitted that you aren't an expert in this area. And, not to be rude, but it is clear you don't really understand much of the data or the claims being made about it. Which means that you don't seem to be in a particularly good position to "steel man" that particular type of argument. It is fairly technical and nuanced, and in order to responsibly engage with that line of data, you would need to actually read much of the research. You would also have to understand the underlying assumptions that are often guiding that research. I assume that a similar limitation is going to be present in lots of other categories. Which I think will have a significant impact in the aggregate on your final conclusions. That isn't to say that I myself have a perfect understanding of all these topics either. I certainly don't. But I think I have unique insight into the depth and breadth of the data that would need to be sifted through, as well as some of the technical hurdles to understanding it. And my general feeling over the years is that critics of the Church tend to not approach the positive data very systematically or comprehensively before reaching very confident conclusions about its evidentiary value. It's not something that you can just formulate a quick list about and then start whack-a-moling all the evidence. That being said, I applaud you for your efforts on this front and I don't think the discussion will be fruitless. This is just more of a cautionary warning about the challenge of attempting to address such a large topic in a fair and comprehensive way, even with the aid of AI (which tends to cater to our biases and will generally rely on consensus positions as a starting point). Edited April 2 by Ryan Dahle 3
Analytics Posted April 2 Author Posted April 2 16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I admire your effort. But I think there are going to be some hurdles with this approach. And the main problem is just time. That is definitely a huge problem, but there is another one that might be even bigger: my own cognitive biases. My secret weapon for dealing with the time and bias issues is AI: I will be relying almost exclusively on AI to create the steelman arguments, with some help from you to peer review what it comes up with. 16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Just take our recent conversations about EModE, for example. Over and over again, you admitted that you aren't an expert in this area. And, not to be rude, but it is clear you don't really understand much of the data or the claims being made about it. What I brought to the table on those discussions is that I do have a substantial amount of education, training, and experience with the nuances of statistical inference, and an understanding of the statistical assumptions that are implicit in different arguments. I've tried to carefully read what you and Carmack have shared here, and I'm not convinced. My issue with the EModE argument is not mainly descriptive but inferential. Even if the Book of Mormon contains unusual language forms, the crucial move is from “these usages are rare or absent in surviving corpora” to “Joseph Smith could not have produced them in 1829.” That is a strong conclusion resting on a fragile premise: namely, that our databases are good stand-ins for the full linguistic environment available to him. You've cited impressive-sounding counts of words in the databases, but they may still be incomplete, regionally skewed, genre-skewed, class-skewed, or simply missing ephemeral and noncanonical usage that never entered the kinds of records modern corpora preserve. I'll make my case more thoroughly when we get to it. 16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Which means that you don't seem to be in a particularly good position to "steel man" that particular type of argument. It is fairly technical and nuanced, and in order to responsibly engage with that line of data, you would need to actually read much of the research. You would also have to understand the underlying assumptions that are often guiding that research. In addition to using ChatGPT to create the steelman arguments, I'll also use it to help me understand them--behind the scenes, I'll explain to GPT my thoughts and impressions of the data, and will do my best to make sure my critical responses are in fact responsive to the nuances of the points. This won't make me a linguist of course, but I'll feel comfortable with the opinions I come up with. And that point, the biggest challenges will be making sure that Claude is as unbiased as possible when evaluating the steelman apologetic arguments and my critical responses. 16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: That being said, I applaud you for your efforts on this front and I don't think the discussion will be fruitless. This is just more of a cautionary warning about the challenge of attempting to address such a large topic in a fair and comprehensive way, even with the aid of AI (which tends to cater to our biases and will generally rely on consensus positions as a starting point). This won’t settle the question, but it should at least clarify where the strongest arguments actually succeed or fail, and whether they can all hold together at the same time. 1
Calm Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) 22 hours ago, Analytics said: My secret weapon for dealing with the time and bias issues is AI: I will be relying almost exclusively on AI to create the steelman arguments, with some help from you to peer review what it comes up with. Going into detail about one potential problem with using AI as well as just throwing out a caution to those using AI for help with exploring and researching health issues like I currently am. The dietitian I went to yesterday for help with fine tuning diet and hydration informed me when I asked her how helpful Chat was cautioned Chat is great up to a point (she had recommended it for finding FODMAP recipes and altering them to match my preferences as well as calculating macros since I am mentally resisting using a food tracking app for some reason) as it tends to focus on one solution and match everything to that rather than reevaluate each time new info comes in. I have noticed a fixation on certain foods I have already told it I don’t eat. I also have noticed that with hydration questions. Almost all my symptoms are now being explained as “that makes sense given your sensitivity to…”. Apparently how likely Chat is going to do this varies with disorders. She says her heart drops when someone says they have been using Chat to deal with their kidney disease because its tendency to stay focused on the wrong things is actually dangerous. With my variety of issues it’s a mixed bag, but potentially dangerous because there is so little actually known about fibromyalgia. I have been surprised that fibromyalgia is now hardly ever included in its appraisal of how something is going to affect me. Normally I ask it for academic sources for anything it claims and then actually read them. I have found that a lot of its “academic” sources are not and that many articles do not support claims, so I was already cautious. Even so, we had to spend sometime correcting some mistaken ideas I had picked up from assuming Chat was at least in the ballpark….which was the purpose of the visit so very glad I gritted my teeth and went, especially because I haven’t been able to double check with deep dives lately because of ridiculously low energy levels…and the dietitian is pretty sure that’s on my fibromyalgia and not hydration levels unlike Chat, lol Bottom line…if you have kidney disease go to your doctor and dietitian to manage the disease, not Chat Not quite bottom line….relying on AI to evaluate when lacking expertise enough oneself to accurately judge that evaluation isn’t the best idea when bias and tendency to focus when it shouldn’t appears to be built in. AI is great for saving time. Using it to control for bias….that is problematic in my view. I get that better models are more effective, but if I understand correctly from discussions with my programmer son, it’s pretty baked in at this point. I would love to be corrected (correctly of course) on this, but the experts I do know that I have talked to about this are always preaching major caution over bias. Edited April 3 by Calm 2
webbles Posted April 2 Posted April 2 Is Isaiah (especially Deutero-Isaiah) in that list? And for the editorial complexity, does that include the complexity of how an ancient historian who lived hundreds of years apart from most of what he is writing about would actually describe things? The Limited Geography Models and the Narrow Neck and the River Sidon seem to be the same thing or have a lot of overlap. 2
Analytics Posted April 2 Author Posted April 2 19 minutes ago, Calm said: Going into detail about one potential problem with using AI as well as just throwing out a caution to those using AI for help with exploring and researching health issues like I currently am.... Hi Calm, I think what you’re describing is real: AI does have a tendency toward premature narrowing and confirmation bias, similar to humans. Where I’d push back a bit is on the idea that using AI to manage bias is inherently problematic. It depends heavily on how it’s used. In your example, the issue is that the model is being allowed to settle too quickly on a single explanatory frame and then interpret everything through it. That’s exactly the behavior I’m trying to avoid in this project. The way I’m structuring this is to force the opposite behavior: One model is tasked with generating the strongest possible version of an argument A separate model is tasked only with evaluating competing arguments side-by-side And both are constrained by prompts that require them to consider alternative explanations and internal weaknesses So rather than relying on AI to give “answers,” I’m using it to surface competing models and force explicit comparison between them. For what it’s worth, if you wanted to reduce the kind of bias you’re seeing in a health context, you can prompt against it directly. For example: I want you to act like a cautious clinician, not an explainer. Given my symptoms, list the top 5–7 plausible causes ranked by likelihood. For each one, give: (1) what supports it, (2) what argues against it, and (3) what specific evidence or test would help rule it in or out. Do not assume one diagnosis—keep multiple hypotheses alive. Also tell me what the most dangerous possibility is, even if unlikely, and why. That doesn’t eliminate bias, but it changes the behavior from “explain everything with one story” to “compare multiple competing explanations.” 1
Ryan Dahle Posted April 2 Posted April 2 1 hour ago, Analytics said: That is a strong conclusion resting on a fragile premise: namely, that our databases are good stand-ins for the full linguistic environment available to him. You've cited impressive-sounding counts of words in the databases, but they may still be incomplete, regionally skewed, genre-skewed, class-skewed, or simply missing ephemeral and noncanonical usage that never entered the kinds of records modern corpora preserve. That's fine to question the assumptions upon which the data are built. That is always necessary and important. But that wasn't the only issues in our past conversations. You seemed to not understand the nature of much of the data and how it relates to the databases. And your theories for why the data would be missing from the databases (such as appealing to a sacred language) seem to be mostly unfounded. But, like you said, we don't need to rehash all that here. The point is simply that if you really want to steel man the arguments, you are going to have to sufficiently understand their nuances. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: This won’t settle the question, but it should at least clarify where the strongest arguments actually succeed or fail, and whether they can all hold together at the same time. Probably one of the best ways to test this is to find an AI platform that doesn't know anything about you and doesn't have any history of past conversations with you. Then it will be easier to control for bias, especially if one doesn't lead it in any direction. The problem is that the better versions cost money, and I'm not sure if you can just have a blank-slate discussion if you already have a profile and a history of conversations with a particular AI model. It will also help to compartmentalize the issues. You need to take them on their own terms one at a time without ever asking AI to contextualize them in the larger controversy. You also can't ever let it know which way you lean, even by implication. Only once you have addressed all of the issues in isolation, and with a strong emphasis on avoiding bias and on conforming to typical standards and principles of evidence in that domain, should these issues be used in the broader conversation of BofM authenticity (in a more Bayesian style analysis). This type of compartmentalization can help distinguish what the evidence might mean on its own terms versus what it means when filtered through a strong skeptical or apologetic lens, based on extraneous data. Another helpful tip would be to ensure you are transparent about the full conversations you are having with the AI, so that others can assess any conversation elements that might be leading to bias. You also might want to sometimes collaborate with other about prompts before sending the AI on a task to evaluate something. Those are just some general thoughts/tips, which may or may not be helpful to you. 1
Analytics Posted April 2 Author Posted April 2 33 minutes ago, webbles said: Is Isaiah (especially Deutero-Isaiah) in that list? I think this is a critical issue, not an element of the "impressive array of reasons to accept the Book of Mormon." I can add it if you want to, but I want to focus on hits. Note the following edit to the list: Anachronisms with proposed resolutions — Items once seen as problematic but later reinterpreted or reframed Shrinking anachronism list — Claim that the cumulative trend of alleged anachronisms over time is itself positive evidence for plausibility That is intended to capture Roper's recent article. I don't want to talk about anachronisms that have been allegedly neutralized. I want to talk about things apologists think are hits. 33 minutes ago, webbles said: And for the editorial complexity, does that include the complexity of how an ancient historian who lived hundreds of years apart from most of what he is writing about would actually describe things? Yes, to the extent this is a "hit", I think this is covered under editorial complexity. And just to be clear, I'm doing this all in real time, so the exact scope of these statements won't be finalized until the steelman posts are written. 33 minutes ago, webbles said: The Limited Geography Models and the Narrow Neck and the River Sidon seem to be the same thing or have a lot of overlap. True. I crossed those out and clarified that they are part of LGM. Thanks for the constructive help! 3
The Nehor Posted April 2 Posted April 2 1 hour ago, Analytics said: My secret weapon for dealing with the time and bias issues is AI: I will be relying almost exclusively on AI to create the steelman arguments, with some help from you to peer review what it comes up with. What purpose do you even serve in this situation if you want AI to do everything and then someone else to check the work? Also LOL at the idea that using AI will eliminate bias. Do you know how AI works at all? 3
Analytics Posted April 2 Author Posted April 2 17 minutes ago, The Nehor said: What purpose do you even serve in this situation if you want AI to do everything and then someone else to check the work? The most fundamental point of all this is to force me to consider the alleged "impressive array of evidence" in a systematic way. AI will do the grunt work of creating the first drafts of the steelman arguments, and Ryan and whoever else is interested can then check them to ensure they are as strong as possible. That is when my work begins. I'll carefully read these steelman arguments and see what I make of them. I'll write my responses, and will bounce my ideas off of AI to ensure that I understand the arguments I'm responding to. I'll then leverage AI to help me write my analysis in the clearest way possible. Claude keeping score on the back end will hopefully produce something interesting for us to think about. 17 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Also LOL at the idea that using AI will eliminate bias. Do you know how AI works at all? I’m not claiming AI eliminates bias. I’m claiming it can be used to reduce some biases. Contemporary models can be prompted to do more than produce a fast first-pass answer: they can decompose the task, compare competing explanations, check for contradictions, audit assumptions, and separate the job of constructing an argument from the job of judging it. I don’t need that process to be perfect; I just need it to be less biased than my own instincts. Saying "it’s just token generation" doesn’t prove it is biased just as saying “the brain is just neurons firing” doesn't prove higher-level reasoning doesn't exist. 2
JAHS Posted April 2 Posted April 2 I spent several months one year studying all scriptures that mentioned any cities, lands, rivers, etc and then constructed my own internal map of the Book of Mormon land. It was interesting that I found no inconsistencies for the relative locations of all the sites.
Calm Posted April 3 Posted April 3 2 hours ago, JAHS said: I spent several months one year studying all scriptures that mentioned any cities, lands, rivers, etc and then constructed my own internal map of the Book of Mormon land. It was interesting that I found no inconsistencies for the relative locations of all the sites. How does this match up with similar maps?
Zosimus Posted April 3 Posted April 3 12 hours ago, Analytics said: We’re limiting “evidence” to things in the text itself or its claimed historical/geographical context I mentioned the scorecard I've been working on in the other thread, in case its helpful here: Category A. Flora (Items 1-8) Scorecard Category B. Fauna (Items 9-18) Scorecard Category C. Metallurgy and Materials (Items 19-27)Scoredcard Category D. Writing Systems and Record-Keeping (Items 28-33) Scorecard Category E. Weapons and Military (Items 34-42) Scorecard Category F. Economy, Trade, and Monetary System (Items 43-48) Scorecard Category G. Government and Law (Items 49-53) Scorecard Category H. Religion and Temples (Items 54-58) Scorecard Category I. Vehicles, Transport, and Maritime (Items 59-62) Scorecard Category J. Demographics and Settlement (Items 63-67) Scorecard Category K. Chronology and Civilization Trajectory (Items 68-70) Scorecard Category L. Physical Geography (Items 71-82) Scorecard Global Scorecard & Conclusion: Which Geography Most Resembles the Book of Mormon? Master Comparison Matrix: Categories A-L (Items 1-82) 1
Ryan Dahle Posted April 3 Posted April 3 8 hours ago, Zosimus said: I mentioned the scorecard I've been working on in the other thread, in case its helpful here: Just perusing these scorecards, I see lots of problems, both in methodology for interpreting the text and in how items are scored, and sometimes just blatant errors of fact or notable omissions. In any case, I actually don't think this is the type of data that is most significant anyways. These aren't the types of things that apologists typically use as strong lines of evidence of authenticity. I think the best way to view the archaeological/cultural data is as a decently viable defense against alleged anachronisms, not as a robust arena of positive evidence. Part of the reason for this is that a lot of these types of things would be "guessable" by someone who was inventing an ancient society. Other challenges involve uncertainties about the prevalence of items within a society, potential disparities in archaeological detection, and questions about translation flexibility. In many cases, assumptions about the text and the data could drastically alter the final scoring of items. And often those assumptions can't be proven one way or another. This leads to systemic uncertainty. That isn't to say that these scorecards are worthless. I think they are helpful in several ways. But I don't think they should be viewed as reliable final assessments of the collective data. 2
Calm Posted April 3 Posted April 3 (edited) 20 hours ago, Analytics said: Hi Calm, I think what you’re describing is real: AI does have a tendency toward premature narrowing and confirmation bias, similar to humans. Where I’d push back a bit is on the idea that using AI to manage bias is inherently problematic. It depends heavily on how it’s used. In your example, the issue is that the model is being allowed to settle too quickly on a single explanatory frame and then interpret everything through it. That’s exactly the behavior I’m trying to avoid in this project. The way I’m structuring this is to force the opposite behavior: One model is tasked with generating the strongest possible version of an argument A separate model is tasked only with evaluating competing arguments side-by-side And both are constrained by prompts that require them to consider alternative explanations and internal weaknesses So rather than relying on AI to give “answers,” I’m using it to surface competing models and force explicit comparison between them. For what it’s worth, if you wanted to reduce the kind of bias you’re seeing in a health context, you can prompt against it directly. For example: I want you to act like a cautious clinician, not an explainer. Given my symptoms, list the top 5–7 plausible causes ranked by likelihood. For each one, give: (1) what supports it, (2) what argues against it, and (3) what specific evidence or test would help rule it in or out. Do not assume one diagnosis—keep multiple hypotheses alive. Also tell me what the most dangerous possibility is, even if unlikely, and why. That doesn’t eliminate bias, but it changes the behavior from “explain everything with one story” to “compare multiple competing explanations.” Thank you for the suggestion. I might even pass it on back to my dietitian for her to pass on to her clients (she loved my advice on tofu I had picked up on FB…for those interested in a tasty, low calorie protein source but tofu is seen as blah in flavor and texture, I highly recommend this: freezing tofu—the firmer forms work best—changes its texture, dries it out some making the texture is closer to meat when crumbled, also absorbs marinade much better for stronger flavor; boiling in salted water is easier for better absorption of flavors, but I prefer freezing with the more interesting texture as well). Edited April 3 by Calm
Analytics Posted April 3 Author Posted April 3 Evidence 1: NHM / Nahom correlation Prompt: I am evaluating the following alleged positive evidence for Book of Mormon historicity: NHM / Nahom correlation — Possible match between “Nahom” in the text and NHM tribal region in Arabia Write the strongest fair-minded steelman case for why proponents consider this a genuine “hit” supporting an ancient origin. Requirements: Do not critique the argument Do not include weaknesses or counterarguments Present the case as a careful, well-informed apologist would Clearly distinguish between: the underlying facts or data being cited the interpretation of those facts the assumptions required to treat this as evidence for historicity Be precise and restrained (no hype or exaggeration) Define the scope of the evidence item clearly, including what is central to this claim and what related issues are secondary or belong to other evidence items Avoid relying on broader arguments unless they are necessary for understanding this specific claim Output format: Executive summary (~250 words) Detailed explanation (~1,500 words) A short section titled “Core inferential steps” that explicitly lays out how the argument moves from facts → conclusion Executive summary The steelman case for the NHM/Nahom correlation is that 1 Nephi contains a short, incidental-looking reference to a place “which was called Nahom,” presented not as a name newly given by Lehi’s party but as an already existing local name. In the same travel sequence, the text says the party had been moving roughly south-southeast and then, after Nahom, traveled “nearly eastward.” (The Church of Jesus Christ) Proponents regard this as potentially significant because ancient South Arabian evidence independently attests the consonantal name NHM in Yemen, in the same general region apologists associate with Lehi’s Arabian journey. Most important are three inscribed altars from the Barʾan temple near Maʾrib. Their inscriptions identify a donor, Biʿathtar, as descended from Nawʿum “the Nihmite,” anchoring the NHM name in that area in the first millennium BC, with scholars dating the altars roughly to the seventh–sixth centuries BC or thereabout. Separate lines of evidence, including early modern maps and later Arabic sources, also preserve Nihm/Nehhm as a geographic name in that region. (Academia) The argument is not that this proves the whole Book of Mormon. The narrower claim is that one specific Arabian place-name in the narrative appears to correlate with a real ancient regional name, and that this correlation fits the text’s travel logic better than a random similarity would. The central data are the NHM inscriptions, the persistent place-name tradition, and the narrative’s directional notice. The interpretation is that Nahom reflects authentic Old World geographical memory. The key assumptions are that Semitic names are often compared by consonantal root, that NHM could plausibly vocalize as Nahom, and that a tribal/regional name could function in the text as “the place” called Nahom. (BYU Studies) Detailed explanation Scope of this evidence item A careful apologist would define the scope narrowly. The claim is not, by itself, that the whole Arabian route has been reconstructed, nor that Bountiful has thereby been established, nor that every feature of Lehi’s journey has been archaeologically confirmed. The core claim is simpler: the Book of Mormon mentions a place called Nahom at a specific point in the travel narrative, and there is a plausible ancient Arabian correlate, NHM/Nihm/Nehhm, attested independently in Yemen. The significance proponents see lies in the combination of name, chronology, and geographic fit. (The Church of Jesus Christ) Related issues do exist, but they are secondary here. One secondary issue is whether the route from that area reasonably turns eastward. Another is whether later identifications of Bountiful line up with that turn. Another is whether Joseph Smith could realistically have had access to such information. Those questions matter in broader arguments, but the NHM/Nahom item, taken on its own, is principally about one apparently preexisting Arabian name in the text and whether an ancient real-world analogue exists. (BYU ScholarsArchive) The underlying facts or data being cited The first data point is textual. In 1 Nephi 16, after a south-southeast phase of travel, the narrative states: “Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.” Immediately afterward, in 1 Nephi 17:1, Nephi says that “from that time forth” they traveled “nearly eastward.” Apologists often stress the wording “the place which was called Nahom,” because elsewhere in the same narrative Lehi’s party explicitly names locations themselves, as with Shazer and Bountiful. That contrast suggests, in their reading, that Nahom is being treated as an existing local name rather than a fresh label invented by the travelers. (The Church of Jesus Christ) The second data point is epigraphic. Excavations at the Barʾan temple complex near Maʾrib in Yemen uncovered more than twenty inscribed votive altars, including three carrying the same inscription. According to Warren Aston’s summary of the excavation reports and inscriptions, these three altars name the donor as Biʿathtar, son of Sawdum, grandson of Nawʿum, “the Nihmite.” Aston says this “firmly anchors” the NHM tribal name to that location and period. He also reports that Christian Robin initially dated the altars between the seventh and sixth centuries BC, while later work placed them in an earlier phase of temple construction, around the eighth to seventh centuries BC. (Academia) A third data point is continuity of the name. BYU Studies summarizes evidence that Nihm/Nehhm was preserved as a geographic name in the same general area in early modern maps and earlier Arabic materials. It notes that Carsten Niebuhr’s eighteenth-century map showed “Nehhm” north-northeast of Sanaʿa and treated it as a principality or district rather than merely a tribe. It also points to earlier sources: D’Anville’s 1751 map, medieval Arabic authors, and Hamdānī’s tenth-century writings, which use Nihm as both a tribal and geographic term. The point apologists draw from this is that NHM is not a modern apologetic invention or a fleeting inscriptional oddity; it is a historically persistent regional name. (BYU Studies) A fourth data point concerns the tribe/place relationship in Yemen. The same BYU Studies article argues that in northern Yemen tribal identity and territorial identity are tightly linked, and that tribal names routinely function as place names. It cites scholars describing Yemeni tribes as territorially fixed, with known borders, and notes that ancient South Arabian inscriptions can use tribal names in toponymic ways. On that basis, references to NHM in inscriptions can reasonably be taken as evidence not only for a people but also for a region or territory bearing that name. (BYU Studies) A fifth data point is the broader route context. UNESCO describes the incense trade as a major network extending from Yemen and Oman toward the Mediterranean. Kent Brown’s summary of the Nahom argument states that the likely NHM location sits at a bend in the incense trail system, where the direction of movement changes in a way proponents consider relevant to Nephi’s notice that the party then traveled “nearly eastward.” This is not the main datum, but it is a supporting geographical fit often included in the case. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre) The interpretation of those facts From these data, the apologist’s interpretation proceeds cautiously. First, Nahom is read as a preserved local toponym. Because the text does not say “we called the place Nahom,” but instead “the place which was called Nahom,” proponents infer that Nephi is referring to an established name already in use in Arabia. That matters because it means the correspondence is not simply between a made-up travel-stop label and a real-world name; it is between a textually preexisting local name and a real ancient Arabian name. (The Church of Jesus Christ) Second, NHM is treated as the relevant linguistic match. In Semitic languages, consonantal roots carry primary weight, while vowels are often underdetermined or omitted in writing. The inscriptions and later regional forms preserve NHM/Nihm/Nehhm/Nehem. Proponents therefore argue that “Nahom” is a plausible vocalization or Anglicized rendering of the same underlying consonantal sequence. In their view, the important point is not exact modern English spelling but the survival of the three consonants N-H-M in the right setting. (Academia) Third, the inscriptions are interpreted as chronologically meaningful. If the NHM name is attested in Yemen in inscriptions dated around the early first millennium BC, and if 1 Nephi’s narrative is set around the late seventh to early sixth century BC, then the name is not merely old in a vague sense; it is old enough to belong to the world the narrative claims to inhabit. Proponents see this chronological overlap as one reason the correlation feels substantive rather than superficial. (Academia) Fourth, the geographic fit is taken as cumulative support. The proposed NHM region lies in the part of Yemen where proponents think Lehi’s party would have passed after traveling down the western side of Arabia. The text’s notice that the party later moved “nearly eastward” is then read as fitting the geography of the trail system near that region. The route point is not the claim by itself, but it strengthens the sense that this is the right NHM rather than just any similar consonant sequence somewhere in Arabia. (BYU ScholarsArchive) Fifth, some proponents regard the burial context as suggestive. Aston notes that Semitic roots connected with NHM have been associated with comforting, mourning, and death, and he proposes a possible ancient association with burial regions north of Maʾrib. A restrained steelman would not make this the centerpiece, because it is more interpretive than the inscriptional evidence. But proponents sometimes see it as an additional thematic resonance: the text mentions a burial at Nahom, and the name may carry associations with mourning. (Academia) The assumptions required to treat this as evidence for historicity A fair-minded steelman also makes its assumptions explicit. One assumption is linguistic: that Semitic onomastics should be compared primarily at the consonantal level. Without that assumption, NHM and Nahom may look less compelling. With it, the correlation becomes more plausible because the core consonants align. (Academia) A second assumption is that a tribal designation can also function as a place designation. The inscriptions themselves refer to a Nihmite affiliation, and the Book of Mormon refers to “the place which was called Nahom.” The bridge between those two formulations depends on the documented Yemenite pattern in which tribe and territory strongly overlap and tribal names regularly serve as toponyms. (BYU Studies) A third assumption is that the Book of Mormon travel narrative is at least attempting concrete geographical reference in this part of 1 Nephi, rather than operating in a purely literary or symbolic mode. The steelman case presupposes that these travel notices are the kind of details one might expect from a text preserving memory of an actual journey. (The Church of Jesus Christ) A fourth assumption is cumulative reasoning. Proponents generally do not treat NHM/Nahom as mathematically decisive. They treat it as a “hit” because several lines converge: a preexisting-looking place name in the text, an independently attested ancient NHM in Yemen, continuity of the name as a region, and a travel sequence that plausibly fits the geography. In apologetic reasoning, the force comes from the convergence of these elements rather than any single datum in isolation. (Academia) Why proponents regard it as a genuine “hit” On a steelman reading, what makes this feel like evidence is not merely that two names sound alike. It is that the Book of Mormon appears to preserve a local Arabian name that the travelers did not coin, that the name corresponds at the consonantal level to NHM, that NHM is attested in the relevant region in antiquity, that the name persists there as a territorial designation, and that the travel narrative’s directional logic can be read as matching that setting. For proponents, that is exactly the kind of modest but concrete geographical correlation one would expect if the text had some genuine rootedness in the ancient Near East. (The Church of Jesus Christ) That is why careful apologists typically present Nahom as a meaningful but bounded item of evidence. They are not claiming that an inscription saying “Nahom” exactly as spelled in English has been unearthed, or that the whole route has been solved by this one discovery. The claim is narrower and, in their view, stronger for being narrower: an ancient Arabian NHM appears to line up with the Book of Mormon’s Nahom in name, time, and place well enough to count as a real evidentiary correspondence. (Academia) Core inferential steps Textual fact: 1 Nephi refers to “the place which was called Nahom,” and later says the group traveled “nearly eastward” from that point. (The Church of Jesus Christ) External fact: Ancient South Arabian inscriptions from near Maʾrib attest the name NHM/Nihm in the early first millennium BC. (Academia) External fact: Nihm/Nehhm is also preserved in later maps and Arabic sources as a geographic region in the same general part of Yemen. (BYU Studies) Interpretive move: Because Semitic names are commonly compared by consonantal root, NHM is treated as a plausible equivalent of Nahom. (Academia) Interpretive move: Because Yemeni tribes are strongly identified with territory, evidence for NHM as a tribe can also support NHM as a place or region. (BYU Studies) Interpretive move: The proposed NHM region fits the narrative’s directional sequence well enough to reinforce the identification. (BYU ScholarsArchive) Conclusion: Therefore, proponents treat NHM/Nahom as a genuine evidentiary “hit”: a plausible preservation in the Book of Mormon of an authentic ancient Arabian place-name, which in turn supports the possibility of an ancient origin for this part of the narrative.
Ryan Dahle Posted April 3 Posted April 3 38 minutes ago, Analytics said: I am evaluating the following alleged positive evidence for Book of Mormon historicity: Here is a treatment of a line of evidence (involving tombs) that gets a little bit watered down in the summary: Quote To this day, the desert landscape of northern Yemen is dotted with extensive, ancient burial grounds. As Jean-François Breton has noted, “tombs have been found in fairly dense concentrations throughout the [Yemeni] countryside.”106 Aston has long drawn attention to the large ancient necropolises at Ruwayk and Jidran,107 where thousands of above-ground cairns, or “turret tombs,” stretch across the outlying desert east of the Wadi Jawf.108 Alternatively, when Brown visited Yemen to film the documentary Journey of Faith, Yemeni archaeologist Abdu Othman Ghaleb took him to an ancient cemetery “with thousands of burials at the eastern end of Wadi Nihm where it turns north and runs toward Wadi Jawf.”109 In addition to these, there are several other places of burial within or near the “eastward turn zone” defined above. According to Alessandro de Maigret, there are also “huge necropolises” of circular cairns “in the mountains on the borders of the Jawf valley.”110 Starting west of Barāqish, on the slopes of Jebal Yām, these tombs “continue almost uninterruptedly as far as Jabal Silyām,” as documented by Angela Luppino.111 Turret tombs were also found to the north, on Jebal al-Lawd, which lies on the northeastern edge of the Wadi Jawf.112 Further south, turret tombs were found near the village of Milḥ.113 Italian archaeologists have documented and mapped the distribution of these and other turret tomb necropolises that are spread across the Yemeni landscape (see Map 3).114 Based on current evidence, most of these turret tombs were built in the early 3rd millennium bc,115 but many were either built or reused in the first millennium bc and even into the early centuries ad.116 Human remains recovered in the cairns just north of Ṣirwāḥ, for example, were radiocarbon dated to between the eighth century bc to the first century ad, and the tombs along the southern edge of the Jawf are also believed to have been in use during this same time-period.117 Since these tombs are typically found in isolated regions of the desert, far away from any major ancient settlements, they are generally believed to have served remote “outsider” populations, such as nomads, foreigners, and travelers connected with the caravan trade.118 They may have been connected to the “Arabs,” which were a distinct ethnic group in antiquity that lived on the periphery of South Arabian society (more on this below).119 Imported items from as far away as Iran recovered from some of these tombs “seems to point to a certain ‘internationality’ of the people who buried their dead in these towers,” and other evidence indicates “the deceased had to be preserved during long journeys before reaching the designated tomb.”120 Thus, these burial grounds with turret tombs were in active use when Lehi’s family would have arrived in South Arabia, and in some cases may have been used by long-distance, foreign/international travelers. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a home-run piece of data. But some critics have gone so far as to say there is no real relationship between this region and meaningful burial sites. To the contrary, I think it fits that context quite well. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted April 3 Posted April 3 44 minutes ago, Analytics said: I am evaluating the following alleged positive evidence for Book of Mormon historicity: It might help if you specifically fed the AI some of the best and most recent research on certain topics, rather than assuming it will find them and prioritize them in the macro analysis. Here are some publications that you might give it specifically, ask it to analyze them, and then give it a chance to update or refine any of its previous arguments: Neal Rappleye, “The Nahom Convergence Reexamined: The Eastward Trail, Burial of the Dead, and the Ancient Borders of Nihm,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 1–86; Neal Rappleye, “The Place—or the Tribe—Called Nahom? NHM as Both a Tribal and Geographic Name in Modern and Ancient Yemen,” BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 2 (2023): 49–72; Neal Rappleye, “An Ishmael Buried Near Nahom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 33–48; S. Kent Brown, “Nice Try, But No Cigar: A Response to Three Patheos Posts on Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 19 (2016): 149–152; Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, “Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 8 (2014): 157–185; Warren P. Aston, “A History of NaHoM,” BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 2 (2012): 78–98; Stephen D. Ricks, “On Lehi’s Trail: Nahom, Ishmael’s Burial Place,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 1 (2011): 66–68; James Gee, “The Nahom Maps,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 (2008): 40–57; S. Kent Brown, “New Light: Nahom and the ‘Eastward’ Turn,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 111–112, 120; 4
Ryan Dahle Posted April 3 Posted April 3 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: A restrained steelman would not make this the centerpiece, because it is more interpretive than the inscriptional evidence. But proponents sometimes see it as an additional thematic resonance: the text mentions a burial at Nahom, and the name may carry associations with mourning. I have a fairly lengthy article detailing this this topic that is co-authored by Neal Rappleye. We will be presenting it, in summarized form, at the Interpreter's Small Plates conference in May. Suffice it to say, I think the wordplay/literary aspect of this name is quite a bit stronger than it is sometimes given credit for. I won't spoil the article, but anyone who is interested can look forward to it in the next few months. 3
webbles Posted April 3 Posted April 3 3 hours ago, Analytics said: A careful apologist would define the scope narrowly I think the wording of the "steelman case" could be improved. Maybe include in the prompt for the AI to write the steelman case from the apologist point of view. Don't say it is a "steelman case". Because the way it is written, it feels like the author of the argument doesn't actually believe the argument and is just trying to make the best steelman case. 2
Analytics Posted April 3 Author Posted April 3 Thanks for the feedback @webbles and @Ryan Dahle. How does this look? Evidence 1: NHM / Nahom correlation Version 2 Prompt: I am evaluating the following alleged positive evidence for Book of Mormon historicity: NHM / Nahom correlation — Possible match between “Nahom” in the text and NHM tribal region in Arabia Write a strong, fair-minded case for this evidence in the first person, as though you are an informed and thoughtful apologist who genuinely considers this a meaningful piece of positive evidence for an ancient origin. The goal is to present the argument in its strongest intellectually serious form, such that a well-informed proponent would recognize it as fair and accurate. Requirements Write in the first person Present the case as a careful, well-informed apologist would Maintain an analytical, evidence-focused tone, not a personal or devotional tone Avoid sounding like a detached third-party description of a “steelman” Do not critique the argument Do not include weaknesses or counterarguments Do not hedge or undercut the argument Tone and Style Guidance The voice should sound like someone advocating a serious evidentiary case, not sharing a personal testimony or subjective reaction Emphasize evidence, reasoning, and inference, not personal feelings or impressions Minimize phrases such as: “I find…” “to me…” “what persuades me…” Prefer formulations like: “I argue that…” “the strongest point is…” “this is significant because…” Be precise, restrained, and intellectually honest Avoid hype, exaggeration, or rhetorical flourish Content Requirements Clearly distinguish between: the underlying facts or data being cited the interpretation of those facts the assumptions required to treat this as evidence for historicity Define the scope of the evidence item clearly, including: what is central to this claim what related issues are secondary or belong to other evidence items Avoid relying on broader arguments unless necessary for understanding this specific claim Treat the audience as informed and potentially skeptical Output Format Executive summary (~250 words) Detailed explanation (~1,500 words) A short section titled “Core inferential steps” that explicitly lays out how the argument moves from facts → conclusion Optional References to Consider If specific references are provided below, use them to refine and strengthen the argument. You do not need to cite every source explicitly, but you should incorporate their strongest relevant insights. Neal Rappleye, “The Nahom Convergence Reexamined: The Eastward Trail, Burial of the Dead, and the Ancient Borders of Nihm,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 1–86; Neal Rappleye, “The Place—or the Tribe—Called Nahom? NHM as Both a Tribal and Geographic Name in Modern and Ancient Yemen,” BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 2 (2023): 49–72; Neal Rappleye, “An Ishmael Buried Near Nahom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 33–48; S. Kent Brown, “Nice Try, But No Cigar: A Response to Three Patheos Posts on Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 19 (2016): 149–152; Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, “Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 8 (2014): 157–185; Warren P. Aston, “A History of NaHoM,” BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 2 (2012): 78–98; Stephen D. Ricks, “On Lehi’s Trail: Nahom, Ishmael’s Burial Place,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 1 (2011): 66–68; James Gee, “The Nahom Maps,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 (2008): 40–57; S. Kent Brown, “New Light: Nahom and the ‘Eastward’ Turn,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 111–112, 120; Executive summary I argue that the NHM/Nahom correlation is one of the more substantial pieces of positive external evidence for the Book of Mormon’s ancient setting because it involves a specific place-name in the correct general region of Arabia, associated with the right kind of social and geographic reality, appearing at a narratively significant point in Lehi’s journey. The core claim is not simply that NHM and Nahom look similar. The stronger claim is that the Book of Mormon places Nahom in a travel context that coheres with what we know about southern Arabian tribal geography: a real NHM/Nihm name existed in Yemen, it functioned as both a tribal and geographic designation, and it appears in the region where one would expect a caravan route to permit a major directional turn eastward. The underlying data are relatively concrete. Ancient inscriptions attest the consonantal form NHM in Yemen. Later and modern geography preserves Nihm as a known tribal and territorial name. In 1 Nephi, Nahom is not presented as a site Lehi names, but as an already existing place-name encountered on the journey, and it is associated with the burial of Ishmael and followed by a turn “nearly eastward.” Those are the main facts that matter. My interpretation is that this is a genuine historical convergence rather than a casual resemblance. It is significant because the Book of Mormon does not merely need any Arabian-sounding name; it reflects a place embedded in an actual Arabian naming landscape and in a plausible overland route. The assumptions required are limited and identifiable: that NHM could reasonably be rendered Nahom in English vocalization, that tribal territory could function as a place-name, and that a real ancient traveler could refer to such a locale in precisely this way. On that basis, I regard NHM/Nahom as meaningful evidence that the text preserves authentic Old World geographic memory. Detailed explanation I argue that the NHM/Nahom correlation deserves to be treated as a serious evidentiary argument because it is a convergence of text, geography, and epigraphy rather than a vague atmospheric parallel. The strength of the case lies in keeping the claim properly defined. The central claim is narrow: the Book of Mormon refers to a place called Nahom in Arabia, and there is strong evidence for an ancient and enduring NHM/Nihm name in the relevant part of Yemen, in a setting that fits the narrative’s travel sequence. That is the evidence item. Broader issues such as the identification of Bountiful, the total reconstruction of Lehi’s route, or the overall plausibility of every stage of the Arabian journey are related but secondary. They may reinforce the cumulative picture, but they are not the essence of the NHM argument. The first thing to note is what the Book of Mormon itself says. In 1 Nephi 16, the party is traveling through Arabia along the Red Sea corridor, then at some point reaches a place called Nahom, where Ishmael dies and is buried. After that, the group continues and eventually turns “nearly eastward.” For purposes of this argument, three textual features matter. First, Nahom is presented as an existing name, not one newly bestowed by Lehi. Second, the location is associated with burial. Third, it stands at a point in the narrative where the route changes direction toward the east. Those are not decorative details. They define the specific profile of the claim. The underlying external data correspond remarkably well to that profile. The most important fact is that NHM is attested in ancient Yemenite inscriptions. In other words, this is not merely a modern map coincidence. The relevant consonantal form existed in South Arabia in antiquity. That matters because Semitic place-names are commonly represented by consonantal roots, while vowels vary in transmission and later pronunciation. The Book of Mormon’s “Nahom” and the inscriptions’ NHM are therefore not being compared as fully vocalized modern spellings. They are being compared at the consonantal level, which is the right level for ancient Semitic onomastics. On that basis, the match is not superficial. It is exactly the sort of match one would look for in comparing an English-transliterated text with ancient South Arabian evidence. The second major fact is that Nihm has existed not only as an inscriptional form but as a durable tribal and geographic designation in Yemen. That point is important because some discussions assume that the Book of Mormon must be referring to a neatly bounded “town” or “city” called Nahom. That is too narrow a model. In tribal Arabia, a tribal name and the territory associated with that tribe can function together as both social and geographic markers. Travelers do not need a modern municipality for a place-name to be meaningful. A caravan traveler could quite naturally say he came to the land, district, territory, or tribal region identified by a particular name. If NHM/Nihm operated in that way, then the Book of Mormon’s usage becomes more rather than less plausible. It reflects Arabian realities instead of imposing modern Western categories onto them. The burial reference is also significant. I do not argue that NHM must etymologically mean “burial place” in order for the case to work. The stronger formulation is more restrained. The text situates Ishmael’s burial at Nahom, and the Arabian context is one in which tribal territory and long-used travel corridors would be natural places for burial and mourning to occur. Some source discussions have also explored semantic associations of the NHM root with mourning or related ideas in Semitic usage. Even without making that semantic connection carry too much weight, the narrative detail remains notable: the text does not place Ishmael’s burial in an invented oasis with a transparently meaningful name; it places it at what appears to be an actual preexisting locale in Arabia. That is exactly how a historical travel account would tend to read. The directional detail strengthens the case further. After Nahom, the Book of Mormon says the group turned “nearly eastward.” That line is often treated as incidental, but I regard it as one of the strongest features of the argument. A real journey through Arabia could not simply turn east at any arbitrary point and continue meaningfully. Terrain, routes, tribal territories, and water access matter. The significance of the Nihm region is that it sits in a part of Yemen where an eastward turn toward the Hadramawt and ultimately the southern coast makes geographic sense in relation to known routes and natural travel corridors. This does not require claiming that we can reconstruct every campsite or mile of the journey. It is enough that the text places Nahom at a point where an eastward turn is plausible and intelligible. That is the kind of narrative specificity that becomes more impressive when grounded in real geography. Another important feature of the case is the narrative stance of the text. Nahom is not introduced with the language the Book of Mormon often uses when Lehi or Nephi names a place after an event or person. That contrast matters. The text elsewhere signals when a name is being newly assigned. Here it does not. Instead, Nahom appears as a place already known by that name. For me, that is exactly what one would expect if the account preserved a genuine Old World toponym encountered by travelers rather than a retrospective invention. The argument is not merely that a similar name exists somewhere in Arabia. The argument is that the internal literary behavior of the text treats Nahom as an inherited external place-name, and that behavior aligns with the external evidence. This is where the argument rises above coincidence. Coincidences do occur, and I do not deny that in general. But not all coincidences are equal. A weak coincidence would be finding some vaguely similar modern name somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula and attaching significance to it after the fact. The NHM/Nahom case is stronger because several elements converge: a consonantal match, ancient attestation, a Yemeni location on the right broad segment of the journey, a setting compatible with tribal territorial naming, and a narrative position consistent with a subsequent eastward turn. Each element on its own might be modest. Together they form a coherent pattern. I also regard the antiquity of the evidence as especially important. If the only evidence were a modern tribe named Nihm, the argument would still be interesting, but more vulnerable to the concern that the name might be recent or accidentally similar. The inscriptional attestation changes the character of the argument. It shows that the NHM form is not a late curiosity; it belongs to the naming world of ancient South Arabia itself. That does not prove that Lehi’s group passed through that region. But it does establish that the Book of Mormon’s Nahom fits a real and ancient Arabian name rather than an anachronistic projection. The case is also strengthened by understanding what kind of knowledge would have been difficult to supply casually in 1829. The issue is not whether Joseph Smith or anyone else could have invented an exotic-sounding name. Of course an invented name is always possible in the abstract. The more focused question is whether the text reflects an actual Arabian place-name embedded in a plausible travel sequence, in a region not well known in detail to ordinary English-speaking Americans of that period. The NHM evidence matters because it is not just “an Arabic-looking word.” It is a specific convergence with a geographically meaningful name preserved in the right zone of Arabia. That is the sort of thing that begins to look less like generic invention and more like authentic retention. I want to be clear about the assumptions required, because identifying them makes the argument more intellectually serious, not less. First, I assume that NHM can reasonably underlie the English form Nahom. In Semitic languages, that is a standard sort of relationship between consonantal root and later vocalization. Second, I assume that a tribal name and a place-name can overlap in Arabian usage. The evidence strongly supports that as a normal feature of the region. Third, I assume that a travel record could refer to a tribal territory as a place where a major event occurred, including burial. Again, that is entirely plausible in context. Fourth, I assume that the directional notice about turning eastward is intended as a real geographic marker rather than a meaningless narrative flourish. Given the travel narrative structure of 1 Nephi, that is the natural reading. Those assumptions are not ad hoc rescue devices. They are ordinary historical and linguistic assumptions of the kind one regularly makes when correlating ancient texts with ancient geography. Once those assumptions are stated openly, the inferential move becomes straightforward: the text refers to a real Arabian place-name in a realistic way. I also think it is important not to overload the argument. The NHM/Nahom correlation is not the whole case for the Book of Mormon, and I do not present it as if one item alone settles every question. Its real value is evidentiary specificity. It is one of those places where the text appears to touch the external world at a point that is difficult to explain as random. If a text claiming roots in the ancient Near East contains a travel narrative through Arabia, and within that narrative it preserves a plausible preexisting place-name corresponding to an ancient Yemeni NHM/Nihm region at the right stage of the route, that deserves to count as positive evidence. Not conclusive evidence by itself, but genuine evidence. In that sense, the NHM argument is methodologically important. It shows what a serious historical argument for the Book of Mormon looks like when properly framed. It does not rely on vague symbolism. It does not depend on emotionally resonant language. It does not ask the reader to accept sweeping conclusions from thin parallels. Instead, it focuses on a concrete datum: a named Arabian location in the text, correlated with an anciently attested name in a plausible geographic context. That is why I consider it meaningful. The significance lies not in dramatic rhetoric but in the ordinary logic of historical convergence. So the strongest version of the claim is this: the Book of Mormon preserves the name Nahom as an existing Arabian place encountered on Lehi’s journey; ancient inscriptions and later geography attest NHM/Nihm in Yemen; the social reality of tribal territorial naming explains how such a name would function as a place designation; and the text’s placement of Nahom before an eastward turn fits the geography of southern Arabia in a way that is historically intelligible. Taken together, those factors make NHM/Nahom a substantial and serious piece of evidence supporting an ancient origin. Core inferential steps Facts / data The Book of Mormon refers to a place called Nahom, treats it as a preexisting name, associates it with Ishmael’s burial, and places it before a “nearly eastward” turn. Ancient South Arabian inscriptions attest the consonantal form NHM in Yemen. Nihm/NHM is also preserved as a tribal and geographic name in that same general region. The location fits a plausible point at which an overland journey could continue eastward across southern Arabia. Interpretation “Nahom” is best understood as an English vocalization of the ancient Semitic consonantal form NHM. The text is referring to a real Arabian locale, likely identified through tribal-territorial naming conventions rather than a modern-style town name. The narrative preserves an authentic geographic memory rather than an invented exotic name. Assumptions required Ancient Semitic names can be matched at the consonantal level despite variation in vowels. A tribal name can function as a geographic place-name. The directional note in 1 Nephi is intended as a real travel marker. Conclusion Because the text preserves a plausible preexisting Arabian name in the right region, in the right narrative role, and within a realistic travel sequence, NHM/Nahom functions as meaningful positive evidence for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. 2
Ryan Dahle Posted April 3 Posted April 3 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Analytics said: How does this look? I think it is fair enough, as far as it goes. There are obviously going to be areas of potential pushback (eastward turn sequence, questions of statistical significance as a biblical-sounding name and as a Arabian place name, the question of whether it was written as nhm or nḥm in Nephi's text, and so forth). But I'm confident that most of these types of concerns have actually been sufficiently dealt with in the literature, or that they will be soon enough. Several months ago Kolby Reddish went on Mormon Stories to try to debunk the Nahom evidence with John Dehlin, and it was clear to me that neither of them had been keeping up on the scholarship or had actually carefully read Neal's more recent papers. So, at this point, I'm pretty confident that the evidence is what apologists claim it to be. And, to be clear, I think the AI's reserved talking points are warranted. Nahom is not proof, especially not when viewed in isolation. But it is pretty remarkable evidence and shouldn't be dismissed. Edited April 3 by Ryan Dahle 2
Zosimus Posted April 4 Posted April 4 19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: In any case, I actually don't think this is the type of data that is most significant anyways. These aren't the types of things that apologists typically use as strong lines of evidence of authenticity. I tend to agree, but even then I do find a lot of people still insisting that one be completely familiar and versed with massive books like Mormon's Codex, with all the same methodological problems, blatant errors of fact and notable omissions. Responding to Sorenson's work is grueling and tedious, but its a prerequisite to the discussion. The more significant data will be parsed in time 19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Part of the reason for this is that a lot of these types of things would be "guessable" by someone who was inventing an ancient society. Yes
Zosimus Posted April 6 Posted April 6 On 4/3/2026 at 1:19 AM, Ryan Dahle said: I already have a very elaborate list of major categories and sub-categories that I have identified, along with supporting publications (the document is over 100 pages in length, with just sources listed and no annotations or commentary). Some major categories have literally hundreds of underlying publications (books, articles, and other media), often which fit into various subcategories. So it would take a lot of time to work through what all is there, and to understand the nuances well enough to "steel man" the apologetic argument. Are you planning to publish your list and the publications you are working from? With tools like Claude Cowork and Obsidian as a memory vault, sorting and parsing and presenting is no longer a time-consuming process. I'm building out an Claude Cowork project on this same topic, and would like to include every source possible. I'm not even interested in writing the prompts, I'll make it available for eveyone to access and query the database as they choose 1
3DOP Posted April 6 Posted April 6 This thread seems to hinge on the notion that the Book of Mormon is necessarily a work of actual history. What if it is more fittingly in the genre of true, but pious fiction? Are the parties here agreed that if the Book of Mormon is ahistorical, that the CoJCoLDS is false? I am a Catholic as most here know. I have been around for a lot of years now mainly to defend my Church against Apostasy theory. I am thinking that most LDS here would not go to any other "church" if they become unbelievers in LDS claims. It seems like, above all, Mormons are thoroughly materialistic. NO substance is immaterial. I wish that I could help Mormons who begin to doubt LDS claims would also question the arguably false metaphysics they have assumed. Analytics, hi. I find your method to be fair and honorable. I don't want to derail here. We should all just want to identify the best explanation for the "Jesus Event". Maybe that should come after this examination? Just wanting to feel relevant here and friendly to all. Happy Easter Monday. Carry on. Rory 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now