The Place Which Was Called Nahom

[SolarPowered]

Maps copy from each other. This is a given.

By knock off I don't mean a xerox copy, I mean another map company that tries to get market share by producing a similar product at a cheaper price.

Well, the company has been famous for a while. There is also this quote from http://www.williamtalbot.com/maps/mpw_sept_pink_spandom.html

"Pinkerton's popular atlas was reissued by his English contemporary John Thomson in 1817. The map offered here is from the uncommon first American edition of Pinkerton's atlas, published in 1818 by T. Dobson & Son in Philadelphia. It contains some information not included in the earlier, Thomson edition, as for example El Paso, which appears on the present map as a garrison, the “Presidio del Paso del Norte.” Pinkerton also includes a variety of information about the Spanish Intendancies, as well as highly specific facts about Native American tribes and nations that seem to have come directly from Humboldt."

My point in mentioning Xerox and Kodak was to (unsuccessfully) point out that producing a "knock off" of a map was substantially more difficult in those days than it is today, as one would have to laboriously hand-engrave the plates needed to print the map. Thus, I am dubious that there were a lot of people "knocking off" other people's maps.

Is the referenced atlas by Pinkerton where the Nehhm map appeared? If not, do you have specific information about the map in question?

I note that your quote states that the American edition was "uncommon", which would appear to contradict the assertion that it was "popular" here, and that Joseph Smith might reasonably have had access to it. (Assuming that the quoted material is applicable to the "Nehhm" map in the first place.)

[Olavarria]

In 1 Nephi 16 we read:

34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

I was watching a great video called Journey of Faith in which is said that this could possibly have been a site in Yemen. Not only that, but it is even plausible, as the video shows, that Nephi and his family would have traveled through there on their journey.

On top of that, this site was discovered well after Joseph Smiths time. To me, this was a really cool.

I know that there was a critic that has attacked this theory, but to my knowledge there was an apologetic in response to it.

Anyone else have comments about this?

Here are some things, that I think are relevant when talking about Lehi's trail. They are taken from Kent Brown's paper: "New Light from Arabia on Lehi's Trail" from Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon and Journey of Faith

Because I don't feel like typing so much, I will only describe what is written instead of cut and pasting.

1) The libraries that Joseph Smith could have visited during his New England years are :Dartmouth College in Hanover , New Hampshire which was close to where the Smiths lived when Joseph was between the ages of 5-7 years old, and John H. Pratt's Manchester lending library, near Palmyra where Joseph spent his teenage years from 1816 on up.

2) Contemporary maps that deal with the Nehem tribal area do not appear in those libraries during the times that Joseph lived near their vicinities.

3) It took 10,000 Roman soldiers 6 months to venture down the west side of Arabia, from Luece Come(probably modern Aynunah) to the city of Marisaba(perhaps ancient Marib). It took roughly the same time for Lehi's people to travel from "the valley of Lemuel'(Wadi Tayyib al ism) to Nahom(the Nehem tribal area).

We know this because shortly after Ishmael's buriel the birth of the first children are mentioned, marrieges occuring in the Valley of Lemuel. The roman army lost soldiers due to unhealthy water and food; the Lehites lost Ishmael and complaned of starving in the wilderness.

4) Nahom.......Nehem, comes from the south arabic Nahama, to cut stone. The Nehem tribal area existed during the time of Lehi, were it exists today as revealed by 3 Marib temple alter inscriptions. In other owrds, NHM was the right name, in the right place, at the right time.

5) After the Lehites stay at Nahom, "they did travel nearly eastward from that time forth". Such a path from Nehem will lead you to the Dofar Region of Oman. Satelite imagery from this region shows that it is a little sliver of green on the east coast of the Arabian peninsula. The region contains:lush, green vegetation, fruit, honey, timbers and ever so small ore deposits.

6) The Dhofar region also has an ancient ship building tradition, dating to as far back as 500BCE.

[Olavarria]

Please give me the name of one mideast archeaologist who is not LDS, who now believes that there was once a city called Nehom where that stone was found.

where in the BoM does it say Nahom is a city?

[Daniel Peterson]

-1-

In the future if we are involved in a discussion with someone, and we find out they haven't read the source material that supports an argument and are still attempting to refute the argument, we should say we were "jaybeared."

I like the suggestion! The phenomenon isn't all that unusual, of course, among anti-Mormon critics, but I think that the verb to jaybear will be a handy and concise way of referring to it in the future.

-2-

What do you mean by "lending" library? Was there a library at all in the area? How do you know?

There was a very small subscription/membership library in Manchester. We know because the late and much lamented Erich Robert Paul (who also authored Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992]) wrote an important article on the subject.

And we learn from Professor Paul that the Smiths were not members of the library. Which is not surprising, because they were poor and membership was relatively expensive.

How do you know?

We know what the library held because, amazingly, a list of the library's holdings survives from essentially the period of Joseph Smith, and because it was included in Professor Paul's study.

Do you suppose that surviving holding records are neccessarily accurate or complete?

To the best of my knowledge, we have no reason to believe that the surviving records are inaccurate, incomplete, or fraudulent.

How many copies existed in the area and why is it impossible that JS may have been allowed to enjoy the map or similar map owned by a friend of the family?

That would be an excellent research topic for you to pursue.

Was the Pinkleton map the only map that had NHM?

No. There was an eighteenth-century map produced by the Danish traveler Carsten Niebuhr. A copy of it exists in the Dartmouth College library, and some triumphant anti-Mormons have seen this as the smoking gun: Hyrum Smith attended Dartmouth Academy (a preparatory school associated with the college) for a short time, and Joseph Smith's leg operation was performed by a surgeon from Dartmouth; hence, Joseph knew of the Dartmouth map and used it in the formulation of 1 Nephi. There are several problems with this theory, though. Among them is the fact that Dartmouth says it acquired the map only in (if I recall correctly) 1938. Most conventional historians see this as too late for Joseph Smith to have used it in the production of the Book of Mormon.

Wouldn't there be likely knock-offs of the popular map around?

That would make an excellent reseearch topic for you to pursue.

In any event, as I've noted, a simple map of Arabia in the twenty-first or even the eighteenth or nineteenth century would not supply all of the information that makes the NHM matter so striking.

Now its a "complex" that needs "crafting"?? I submit that the crafting was done after the fact by apologists and the complex is a complex of imaginative, spurious or coincidental correlations. Like seeing detailed shapes in the clouds.

You're welcome to "submit" absolutely anything you like. I strongly suspect, though, that you're jaybearing us on this issue.

-3-

where in the BoM does it say Nahom is a city?

They don't call it jaybearing for nothing, you know.

[Wiki Wonka]

Neat, I looked it over. It seems to me, in my opinion, that the criticisms are pretty weak. Some of them even seem like counterfactual thoughts too, very interesting. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll definately look into it when I get off work.

Most of the criticisms listed in the Nahom Wikipedia article were taken from a footnote in the book Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. A few criticisms that were originally in the article were removed by several editors because they appeared to be too weak. My favorite criticism is the one from the Tanners (still in the article) in which they state that the vowels between Nahom and Nehhm don't match, therefore they can't be the same place.

[StriplingWarrior]

Most of the criticisms listed in the Nahom Wikipedia article were taken from a footnote in the book Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. A few criticisms that were originally in the article were removed by several editors because they appeared to be too weak. My favorite criticism is the one from the Tanners (still in the article) in which they state that the vowels between Nahom and Nehhm don't match, therefore they can't be the same place.

Interesting, because I thought the important part was the consonants. Also there are variations in translation of peoples names and places in the Bible all the time. That seems like a weak argument to me.

[Daniel Peterson]

My favorite criticism is the one from the Tanners (still in the article) in which they state that the vowels between Nahom and Nehhm don't match, therefore they can't be the same place.

That's a good one, all right.

I recently wrote a book about Muhammad. But there's another seventh-century Arabian founder of Islam out there who's called Mohammed. Like an idiot, I completely omitted him from my book. And there's one called Mohamed, too. And, astonishingly, there's yet another seventh-century prophet who founded Islam, who is known as Mahomet! And please don't get me started on all of the holy Islamic books like the Qurâ??an, the Quran, the Koran, the Coran, and the Alcoran.

[SolarPowered]

In the future if we are involved in a discussion with someone, and we find out they haven't read the source material that supports an argument and are still attempting to refute the argument, we should say we were "jaybeared."

I like that. It is a derivation similar to "malapropism", which was named after Mrs. Malaprop, a character in an 18th Century play, who was given to malapropisms.

[Wiki Wonka]

Interesting, because I thought the important part was the consonants. Also there are variations in translation of peoples names and places in the Bible all the time. That seems like a weak argument to me.

The consonants definitely are the key - the reason that the criticism by the Tanners is my favorite is because it demonstrates their total ignorance of the subject that they are criticizing.

[Wiki Wonka]

That's a good one, all right.

I recently wrote a book about Muhammad. But there's another seventh-century Arabian founder of Islam out there who's called Mohammed. Like an idiot, I completely omitted him from my book. And there's one called Mohamed, too. And, astonishingly, there's yet another seventh-century prophet who founded Islam, who is known as Mahomet! And please don't get me started on all of the holy Islamic books like the Qurâ??an, the Quran, the Koran, the Coran, and the Alcoran.

You are going to be in way big trouble when the Tanners Tanner finds out about this.

[Olavarria]

That's a good one, all right.

I recently wrote a book about Muhammad. But there's another seventh-century Arabian founder of Islam out there who's called Mohammed. Like an idiot, I completely omitted him from my book. And there's one called Mohamed, too. And, astonishingly, there's yet another seventh-century prophet who founded Islam, who is known as Mahomet! And please don't get me started on all of the holy Islamic books like the Qurâ??an, the Quran, the Koran, the Coran, and the Alcoran.

Dont forget the founder of the counterfit islam that ruled Spain: Mahoma

The other day I was listening to my Matisyahu CD and it appears that hasidic jews believe a guy named Moshe got the tablets on Sinai and not Moses. To make it worse the Muslims say it was a guy named Musa, and the people at my parents spanish stake say it was Moises. We must stop this false doctrine.

[Wiki Wonka]

Dont forget the founder of the counterfit islam that ruled Spain: Mahoma

The other day I was listening to my Matisyahu CD and it appears that hasidic jews believe a guy named Moshe got the tablets on Sinai and not Moses. To make it worse the Muslims say it was a guy named Musa, and the people at my parents spanish stake say it was Moises. We must stop this false doctrine.

We simply must remove those nasty consonants, and all ambiguity will be eliminated!

[Olavarria]

I think the following deserves repeating:

1) The libraries that Joseph Smith could have visited during his New England years are :Dartmouth College in Hanover , New Hampshire which was close to where the Smiths lived when Joseph was between the ages of 5-7 years old, and John H. Pratt's Manchester lending library, near Palmyra where Joseph spent his teenage years from 1816 on up.

2) Contemporary maps that deal with the Nehem tribal area do not appear in those libraries during the times that Joseph lived near their vicinities.

3) It took 10,000 Roman soldiers 6 months to venture down the west side of Arabia, from Luece Come(probably modern Aynunah) to the city of Marisaba(perhaps ancient Marib). It took roughly the same time for Lehi's people to travel from "the valley of Lemuel'(Wadi Tayyib al ism) to Nahom(the Nehem tribal area).

We know this because shortly after Ishmael's buriel the birth of the first children are mentioned, marrieges occuring in the Valley of Lemuel. The roman army lost soldiers due to unhealthy water and food; the Lehites lost Ishmael and complaned of starving in the wilderness.

4) Nahom.......Nehem, comes from the south arabic Nahama, to cut stone. The Nehem tribal area existed during the time of Lehi, were it exists today as revealed by 3 Marib temple alter inscriptions. In other owrds, NHM was the right name, in the right place, at the right time.

5) After the Lehites stay at Nahom, "they did travel nearly eastward from that time forth". Such a path from Nehem will lead you to the Dofar Region of Oman. Satelite imagery from this region shows that it is a little sliver of green on the east coast of the Arabian peninsula. The region contains:lush, green vegetation, fruit, honey, timbers and ever so small ore deposits.

6) The Dhofar region also has an ancient ship building tradition, dating to as far back as 500BCE.

[smac97]

Having carefully studied the relevant publications of Nibley, the Hiltons, the Astons, Kent Brown, and Potter and Wellington, you know that NHM isn't all "they can come up with" even in terms of Arabian culture and geography, and you also know both that NHM is pretty good indeed and that it's a richer and more complex hit than critics such as yourself are ever willing to acknowledge.

Critics such as Jaybear constantly complain that there is no "evidence" for the BoM's provenance. They use this as a bludgeon with which to beat the Church.

So you would think that these professedly open-minded folks would be willing to evaluate NHM, because it does a pretty good job of meeting the criteria for "evidence" proffered by our critics.

But they aren't willing. Instead, they become remarkably dense, shrill, and unreasonable. And I think I know why. I call it the "Transmission Gap Theory," and I've explained it here:

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.

...

William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

I wonder, though, if this argument yields the same result for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible.

The distinction I see between the two is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Hamblin noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

...

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Brandt Gardner agrees with me:

Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

That is a major difference in the issue of archaeology and text. The Book of Mormon is more dangerous than the Bible. If the Bible is historical and deals with religion, it can be seen as no different from any other historical text (they usually incorporate the dominant religion in the older traditions). The Book of Mormon, however, is a problem. If it is historical it becomes harder to dismiss. It is much easier to dismiss it at every turn, and therefore the level of archaeological support required by its critics is much different than that required for any other text of similar purported age.

So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discovery persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

Yes. Dangerous.

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Precisely. That is the reason that you won't see many non-believers giving any quarter here. Evidence that would be sufficient for Homer, for instance, is not sufficient for the Book of Mormon (actually - it wouldn't be for me either - I would want more -). Still, there is a point at which more should be sufficient.

I'm not sure how significant the NHM/Wadi Sayq evidence is. Yet. But Jaybear's glib (and markedly ignorant) dismissal of it provides further validation of some of the premises behind my Transmission Gap Theory.

There is an inverse relationship between the caliber of empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon and the rationality of anti-Mormon critics like Jaybear. That is, as the former increases, the latter decreases.

-Smac

[charity]

Of course, smac, they have so much to lose if anything archeological is proven.

[phaedrus ut]

1 Nephi

16:32 And it came to pass that I did return to our tents, bearing the beasts which I had slain; and now when they beheld that I had obtained food, how great was their joy! And it came to pass that they did humble themselves before the Lord, and did give thanks unto him.

16:33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.

16:34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

Completely ignored in this discussion is evidence discovered 1982 by D. Bluth of Payson,Ut. Mr. Bluth was a former BYU student and obviously well acquainted with the Book of Mormon. What Mr. Bluth discovered was nimh. In recreating an extant text and publishing his findings for a wider audience Mr. Bluth's research reveals something in common with NHM.

Like the altar that reads "Bi'athar, son of Sawad, son of Naw'an, the Nihmite, has consecrated to Almaqah Fari'at" a Nihmite is believed to be the tribal name of a person that came from a location with the root NHM. Just like the nihmite, nimh is the name of a particular location but also became the associated group name of those previously living at that location. In the text the protagonist journeys to nimh and battles those of nimh. Also matching is that this particular nomenclature and common usage has the acronym nimh pronounced as a single word rather than an initialism.

Additional evidence of antiquity nimh is also the Scottish Gaelic word for "poison" or "venom". This association with death is completely consistent with Ishmael's death in 1 Nephi 16:34.

The mathematically probabilities are far beyond coincidence. Right place right, right time, right word. Here is the list. This is a another BULLSEYE!

• Nmh and Nimh both tribal names and locations(HIT)
  
• Both are developed in a modern LDS context based on earlier written text (HIT).
  
• Both nhm and nimh as related to and associated with death and this is corroborated with a matching term in a ancient language(HIT).
  
• In the narrative of the texts we have both Ishmael sickness and death in 1 Nephi 16:34 and the apparently pneumonia of the protagonists family member in the nimh text(HIT).
  
• The nimh text has the use of a red stone amulet that doesn't have it's own powers but depends on the internal strength of it's possessor. This is much like the Liahonna working depending on righteousness(HIT).
  Both words have corroboration with a matching definition in an ancient language related to death.(Hit)
  

Additional details regarding nimh can be found here.

Phaedrus

[Daniel Peterson]

Funny. And not to be taken seriously.

[Sethbag]

I see the NHM thing as evidence in favor of the BoM.

That said, evidence is not the same as proof. I don't see the NHM stuff as proof of the BoM. I don't have a problem admitting that it's evidence. It obviously is evidence. It's information that can be explained by LDS in ways that support their position with respect to the BoM. That's what evidence means. I see the term "evidence" being just as abused by LDS in trumpeting NHM, as I see in non-believers denying its proper status as evidence in favor of the BoM.

To use the oft-abused trial court analogy, both sides of a trial will usually present evidence that favors their case. Even if in the end one side's case is shown not to be "true" or convincing, that doesn't mean that the evidence they presented wasn't really evidence.

As for the NHM stuff, I don't know how much weight it should have as evidence. It's certainly interesting from a faithful LDS perspective. From a non-faithful perspective, it's curious, and something which will no doubt see more discussion in the future. But it doesn't have to "worry" a non-believer. There are plenty of evidences against the BoM, evidences which I find to be convincing to me.

As far as the evidentiary value of the NHM stuff in the larger LDS truth context, I find it to be interesting, but no more than a finger in the dyke, where the hole in the dyke is actually a mile wide.

[phaedrus ut]

Funny. And not to be taken seriously.

Why the disclaimer?

[Jaybear]

SMAC: Critics such as Jaybear constantly complain that there is no "evidence" for the BoM's provenance. They use this as a bludgeon with which to beat the Church.

So you would think that these professedly open-minded folks would be willing to evaluate NHM, because it does a pretty good job of meeting the criteria for "evidence" proffered by our critics.

But they aren't willing. Instead, they become remarkably dense, shrill, and unreasonable. And I think I know why. I call it the "Transmission Gap Theory," and I've explained it here:

Sorry to interrupt your petty insults, I recognize that insulting the rationality, and intelligence of critics is part of your job as an apologist, but can we at least try to find common ground.

It is true, I profess to be open minded, but within reason.

By within reason, my mind is not readily "open" to the possibility of supernatural explanations.

For example, JS led people to believe that by placing a rock in his hat, he could see treasure buried beneath the earth, and then charged for his services as a seer.

My mind is open to the possibility that JS was lying, or was delluded into thinking he could see treasure, or I suppose he was playing a prank. But I reject, out of hand, the possibility that JS actually was in possession of a magic rock.

In order for me to accept the premise that the BOM is historical, I would have to believe in a supernatural explanation for the discovery, translation, and return of the golden plates.

I don't. But don't be offended, its not just supernatural Mormon claims I reject all supernatural explanations out of hand. IE, I don't believe Moses raised his hands, and the red sea parted. I don't believe Noah put all the animals in the world on an arc.

So when presented with the faith promoting, apologetic theory of NHM, the only relevant question I find worth discussing is whether there is a natural explanation for the "complex bullseye." As long as there is a credible natural explanation for this "remarkable" find, what is the point in discussing whether the parallels are accurate or contrived?

Charity: Of course, smac, they have so much to lose if anything archeological is proven.

Here is where you are wrong. I would be thrilled if you could come up with some "evidence" that defies a rational natural explanation ... something that will cause me to rethink rejecting out of hand supernatural explanations.

SMAC: There is an inverse relationship between the caliber of empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon and the rationality of anti-Mormon critics like Jaybear. That is, as the former increases, the latter decreases.

Thank you SMAC. I take great pleasure in the irony of having my rationality mocked and insulted, by an LDS apologist.

Next time you are in court, see if the "open minded" judge will let you present a defense premised on the existence of the supernatural event. (My client didn't rob the bank, it was a doppleganger, created by satan.)

[smac97]

I see the NHM thing as evidence in favor of the BoM.

So do I.

That said, evidence is not the same as proof.

Well, it can be. Proof is, after all, a quantum of evidence.

proof

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,

[smac97]

Sorry to interrupt your petty insults, I recognize that insulting the rationality, and intelligence of critics is part of your job as an apologist, but can we at least try to find common ground.

Oh, I so enjoy lessons in civility from folks who, say, have no problem with suggesting that Latter-day Saints think that it's "okay to employ some level of deception" when "doing the Lord's work."

It is true, I profess to be open minded, but within reason.

By within reason, my mind is not readily "open" to the possibility of supernatural explanations.

So anyone that does allow for "the possibility of supernatural explanations" is, by your reasoning, not operating "within reason." Is that a fair statement?

In order for me to accept the premise that the BOM is historical, I would have to believe in a supernatural explanation for the discovery, translation, and return of the golden plates.

I quite agree. That's why you are so adamantly opposed to reasoned discussion of any evidence for the Book of Mormon. Your mind is made up. There's no need to weigh evidence.

How convenient for you.

So when presented with the faith promoting, apologetic theory of NHM, the only relevant question I find worth discussing is whether there is a natural explanation for the "complex bullseye." As long as there is a credible natural explanation for this "remarkable" find, what is the point in discussing whether the parallels are accurate or contrived?

"As long as" and "credible." A whole lot of unproven assumptions in those few words.

Funny that you operating on faith, just of a different kind.

Thank you SMAC. I take great pleasure in the irony of having my rationality mocked and insulted, by an LDS apologist.

I'd much rather see a substantive review of the data from you. But it's not forthcoming, is it? So a little nose-tweaking is all I get to do.

If I was as dismissive of your inquiries as to my position as you are as to yours, you'd rake me across the coals.

Next time you are in court, see if the "open minded" judge will let you present a defense premised on the existence of the supernatural event. (My client didn't rob the bank, it was a doppleganger, created by satan.)

Wow. Here it is again! A few weeks ago I observed:

It's become rather common for critics such as yourself to resort to legal technicalities when participating in informal debates on an Internet message board. See, for example, this thread, in which Analytics made a supremely silly argument about how the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon would not stand up in court.

Or this thread, in which Rollo Tomasi suggested that we would need expert witness testimony to falsify Martha Beck's allegations about "excised" microfilms at the BYU library (my own first-hand inspection of the microfilm, you see, was not sufficient).

It's a weird tactic, and one that appears to only be applied by critics when they don't want to or cannot deal with LDS truth claims (or any evidence in favor of an LDS apologetic position).

-Smac

[Sethbag]

Smac, I'm trying to be polite about this, and I think you are too, but I don't want to get too deeply into an argument with you over it, so I won't go line by line in response to your response to me.

I think the word "evidence" is abused by TBMs when they start talking as if this is a slam-dunk, proving the BoM to be true. Don't deny that a lot of TBM posts regarding NHM have come across that way.

I agree that proof is also evidence, but not all evidence is proof. No argument there. I think NHM is evidence, I don't think it's proof.

As far as why I don't really go into great detail on NHM, the reason is that I don't have the knowledge necessary to do so. I already spend more time on these boards than I should, and I will never, ever have the time to really go investigate all of the archeological finds and read all of the books and papers and whatnot and become enough of a subject-matter expert to try to refute, if possible, things like this. NHM is an issue that I'm content to observe when it comes up, and hopefully over time we'll see more discussion of it pro and con, and hopefully some of that will be helpful.

As for my "non-treatment" of evidence for the BoM, I'm not sure that's fair. I've just come into this thread and stated that I recognize the NHM issue's status as evidence in favor of the BoM. I'm not sure what further "treatment" you want. If that's all the BoM has going for it, I think it's pretty slim pickings, considering the arguments against it. Obviously the arguments against the BoM are legion, and it's beyond the scope of this thread to go into them, but we both know a lot of them come up repeatedly here.

Additionally, the whole LDS context and early church history works against the BoM in my estimation. The possibility that the BoM is true is materially lessened, in my estimation, by the apparent fact that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham. I feel the proponderence of evidence shows that he did make it up. I would go so far as to say I think a higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt could be applied here, because I don't think the Nibley approach is "reasonable", nor is the kind of stuff Her Amun likes to trot out for our viewing pleasure. Playing the Six Degrees of Hugh Nibley on the BoA just doesn't cut it with anyone but insiders already steeped in the belief system.

In my conception of the meaning of the word "prophet", I cannot find room for a prophet to make up one book of holy scripture, and yet have credibility in claiming that another one really was received by miraculous means, and is true. You know, fool me once, shame on â?? shame on you. Fool me â?? you can't get fooled again.

So yeah, NHM is evidence for the BoM, and I won't say it isn't. Is it also proof? I don't think so. And I don't think it even comes close, especially considering the weight of evidence on the other side of the scale.

[SolarPowered]

Sethbag, I for one appreciate that you've been quite open-minded on the subject of NHM. Kudos!

[Jaybear]

Oh, I so enjoy lessons in civility from folks who, say, have no problem with suggesting that Latter-day Saints think that it's "okay to employ some level of deception" when "doing the Lord's work."

>>> I believe we have had this discussion. I do think SOME LDS are willing to employ deception to further what they think is the Lord's work. The phrase "milk before meat" comes to mind.

So anyone that does allow for "the possibility of supernatural explanations" is, by your reasoning, not operating "within reason." Is that a fair statement?

>>>> That was not the purpose of the phrase "within reason."

I am simply saying that my mind is open within limits, within certain parameteres, etc.

I quite agree. That's why you are so adamantly opposed to reasoned discussion of any evidence for the Book of Mormon. Your mind is made up. There's no need to weigh evidence.

>>>> If i were adamantly opposed to reasoned discussions of the evidence, I wouldn't be here. We have had many such discussions.

How convenient for you.

"As long as" and "credible." A whole lot of unproven assumptions in those few words.

>>>> I recognize that some assumptions can never be proven. In that case, the relevant question is whether the assumption is reasonable. I have never backed away from such a discussion.

Funny that you operating on faith, just of a different kind.

>>>> No. That is not what the word "faith" means.

I'd much rather see a substantive review of the data from you. But it's not forthcoming, is it? So a little nose-tweaking is all I get to do.

>>> Its difficult to get to a substantive discussion when you come here and insult my intelligence and rationality. Do you want to discuss the substance of the issue, or this obnoxious theory you have contrived that measures the rationality of critics? I am not the one lobbing insults on this thread.