The Place Which Was Called Nahom

[Sethbag]

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 have to add that I think the word "evidence" is abused by a lot of critics in the exact same way, ie: they think that agreeing that this is "evidence" in favor of the BoM is tantamount to agreeing the BoM's been proven, when that's obviously not the case. I think this confusion on both sides leads to some arguments, when it really shouldn't.

[SolarPowered]

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.

Sethbag, a few years ago FARMS embarked on research project triggered by a comment of Hugh Nibbley about something that is mentioned in the BoA being present in a couple untranslated Abraham texts. They went looking for these. The result was that they: 1) Identified 100+ themes that appear in the BoA that don't appear in the bible; 2) Found 100+ untranslated manuscripts dealing with Abraham from many parts of the world; 3) Found that ALL the themes in the BoA appeared in other Abraham texts, most of them many, many times; 4) Published a very large book on the subject, entitled Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham.

In my opinion, the end result of that study is pretty conclusive that however the BoA come about, it is almost certainly derived from one or more authentic Abrahamic texts. Which is exactly what Joseph Smith claimed it was.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

In other words, when considering religious claims, Jaybear's mind is open -- but not to the extent of allowing for the possibility that those claims are true.

Which means that his mind is closed.

I reject all supernatural explanations out of hand.

This is the marvelous labor-saving device that permits Jaybear to dispense with actually knowing anything about a specific religious claim before rejecting it. Hence the appropriateness of the English verb to jaybear.

Incidentally, the verb to jaybear has already entered into both German and Arabic as a loanword. For instance: Trotz allen Hinweisen auf die Schuld des Angeklagten, hat seiner Anwalt stets gedschayb

[smac97]

>> 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.

Oh, so people can believe in "the possibility of supernatural explanations" and operate "within reason?"

Don't be coy, Jaybear. Tell us what you think.

> Its difficult to get to a substantive discussion when you come here and insult my intelligence and rationality.

Right. You hang out on a message board about a religion (that you don't believe in).

You regularly denigrate and criticize the tenets of that faith (that you don't believe in).

You make blanket accusations of dishonesty against the members of that faith (that you don't believe in).

You suggest (and then retract) that "the possibility of supernatural explanations" of religious claims (that you don't believe in) are not "within reason."

And yet you gripe about my criticism of your lack of (or diminished) rationality as to empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon (after all, dismissing something "out of hand" as you put it doesn't exactly require much rationale).

> Do you want to discuss the substance of the issue,

Yes, but you won't. Dismissing it "out of hand" is not "discuss[ing] the substance of the issue."

> or this obnoxious theory you have contrived that measures the rationality of critics?

It was a joke, Jaybear. Gadzooks! If you were a Mormon and this thin-skinned, you wouldn't last a day on these boards.

> I am not the one lobbing insults on this thread.

Right. Suggesting that belief in "the possibility of supernatural explanations" is not operating "within reason" isn't insulting at all.

Blanket accusations of dishonesty isn't insulting at all.

-Smac

[Sethbag]

Wouldn't that be "Trotz aller Hinweisen..."? Trotz uses genitive case, except in some dialects.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wouldn't that be "Trotz aller Hinweisen..."? Trotz uses genitive case, except in some dialects.

Not necessarily. Hence such expressions as troztdem and trotz allem.

Either the genitive or the dative is acceptable, but the New Cassel's German Dictionary, for example, advises "Dat. or now less good Gen." -- even though, oddly, the actual example that it offers is trotz des schlechten Wetters.

It is true, of course, that certain dialects favor the dative in analogous cases where standard German would insist on the genitive. In Swiss German, for instance, they typically say wegen dem rather than deswegen.

[smac97]

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 ask that you demonstrate your assertion.

I have not seen Latter-day Saints suggesting that NHM is a "slam-dunk" that "proves" the Book of Mormon "to be true." That you subjectively feel that some comments "come across that way" is not persuasive to me.

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.

Agreed. And I would disagree with any Latter-day Saint who suggests that it is "proof."

I don't think Latter-day Saints want to be tied to "proofs." We want to walk by faith.

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.

Then perhaps your objection to LDS perceptions of the weight of the NHM/Wadi Sayq evidence should be reserved until you have studied the issue a bit.

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.

Well, you've said it's "evidence" but not "proof." Okay. That's fair.

But you've also complained that Latter-day Saints have hailed the NHM/Wadi Sayq evidence as "proof." I don't think that's correct.

You've also failed to address the evidence itself. Latter-day Saints have. This leaves a lacuna in the discussion.

Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon originated from gold plates that contained a record of a group of Israelites who traveled out of Jerusalem in "the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea" (that is, to the south). They then traveled "south south-east", staying "in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea." They called the place "Shazer."

During this time, Ishmael died and "was buried in the place which was called Nahom."

After burying Ishmael at Nahom, the other Israelites "travel[ed] nearly eastward from that time forth" until they came to a coastal area they called Bountiful. They stayed at this place for quite a while, building a ship that they then used to sail to the "Promised Land" (somewhere in the Americas).

Now, the "NHM/Wadi Sayq" evidence suggests that we can point to two geographic locations, both of which are described in ways that could not reasonably have been known to Joseph Smith (or, for that matter, anyone else in early 19th century upstate New York). Here are a few bits:

1. The etymology of the word "NHM" relates to "sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning," which correlates well with "Nahom" being a place for burial (and/or that Lehi and his group buried Ishmael there).

2. "NHM" is an established toponym that exists on the Arabian Peninsuela (south of Jerusalem) to this day. Altars at this location, with this word carved into them, have been dated to the era in which Lehi would have been traveling.

3. Heading "nearly eastward" from the NHM location, there is a place known as "Wadi Sayq," which fits virtually all of the descriptions of (and reasonable inferences about) the place the Lehites called Bountiful, including:

* The journey from Nahom must have provided reasonable access from the interior to the coast (not a trivial requirement given the difficult obstacles posed by mountains along much of the coast).

* Bountiful was on the coast, offering a place suitable for camping on the shore (1 Nephi 17:5,6) and for launching a ship (1 Nephi 18:.

* It was very fertile, with much fruit and honey, possibly game (1 Nephi 17:5,6; 1 Nephi 18:6).

* Enough timber existed to build a durable ship (1 Nephi 18:1,2,6).

* Freshwater was available year-round to enable a prolonged stay.

* There was a nearby mountain that Nephi described as "the mount" (1 Nephi 17:7; 18:3).

* Cliffs were available from which Nephi's brothers could threaten to cast him into the sea (1 Nephi 17:48)

* Ore and flint were available (1 Nephi 17:9-11,16).

* The winds and ocean currents there could permit travel out into the ocean.

4. There is fairly substantial evidence in favor of a location for Shazer as well, currently known as Wadi Agharr (see here). The etymology of the place name also supports the BoM's geographical description of it.

All of this requires a very simple explanation from Latter-day Saints, but a very complex and difficult explanation from our critics.

LDS can simply say "The correlations between the locations and descriptions of Nahom and NHM, of Shazer and Wadi Agharr, and of Bountiful and Wadi Sayq, and the relative locations of these places from each other, are explainable because the Book of Mormon is a historical book that was describing real places."

Critics, on the other hand, generally ignore it (as you are doing) or resort to tenuous, ad hoc theories that generally require conspiracies, huge libraries at Joseph Smith's disposal, and other points of sheer speculation. I think that it is perhaps this befuddlement on the part of our critics that may have emboldened the stray Mormon apologist from making claims broader than what the evidence currently allows.

If that's all the BoM has going for it, I think it's pretty slim pickings, considering the arguments against it.

Well, it's not the only thing. There's quite a bit of evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. This just happens to fit the anti-Mormon bill of archaeological and toponymic evidence they like to talk about.

But there's a whole lot more. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

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.

If Joseph Smith making up the Book of Abraham were indeed an established "fact," then you'd have a point.

But it isn't. And you don't.

I feel the proponderence of evidence shows that he did make it up.

As you said, this is best suited for another thread.

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.

Nobody is asking for you to admit that it is "proof." We don't think it is "proof."

But I would like to see it substantively addressed by our critics.

-Smac

[smac97]

This is the marvelous labor-saving device that permits Jaybear to dispense with actually knowing anything about a specific religious claim before rejecting it. Hence the appropriateness of the English verb to jaybear.

Can it also be a noun (i.e., "Yeah, he's spouting off about something he knows virtually nothing about. He's pulling a jaybear.")?

Or is that a verb phrase?

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

I see no reason that a verbal noun, or, better, a deverbal noun, might not be derived from the verb to jaybear.

In fact, I suspect that such a noun is about to appear.

"Witnesses are reporting a major jaybear on the Mormon Apologetics board, involving multiple posters. It's causing traffic slowdowns and considerable aggravation, but no serious injuries have resulted and garbage disposal units are reportedly en route. In the meantime, posters might consider alternate threads."

[Jaybear]

DCP: This is the marvelous labor-saving device that permits Jaybear to dispense with actually knowing anything about a specific religious claim before rejecting it. Hence the appropriateness of the English verb to jaybear.

Can it also be a noun (i.e., "Yeah, he's spouting off about something he knows virtually nothing about. He's pulling a jaybear.")?

I hate to interrupt two apologists mocking my rationality, especially when you are having so much fun, but despite your obvious superior intellect, neither of you have actually rebutted the opinion I offered, ignorant as it was, which is that the NHM theory is only compelling evidence to someone who already believes that JS was a prophet.

Since you both seem to believe that the NHM theory is "compelling" and "persuasive" evidence in support of the authenticity of the BOM, would it be too much to ask for the name of just one person, who did not initially believe that the BOM was authentic, but upon learning of NHM, is now a true believer.

Surely a theory as compelling and persuasive as NHM purports to be has actually persuaded or compelled one person to accept JS's claim.

Just one person. That's not asking too much I hope.

I can give a link to a board where a bunch of exmos congregate. Perhaps if you were to tell them about this remarkable NHM theory, they will come to their senses en mass and rejoin the LDS church. Afterall, there can't be any other rational explanation for the complex bulleye that NHM present, other than JS was a true prophet.

Let me know how it goes.

[Daniel Peterson]

I hate to interrupt two apologists mocking my rationality, especially when you are having so much fun,

No problem, Jaybear. I'm sure, if you stick around, that we'll have plenty of opportunities.

but despite your obvious superior intellect, neither of you have actually rebutted the opinion I offered, ignorant as it was, which is that the NHM theory is only compelling evidence to someone who already believes that JS was a prophet.

You presented no evidence or argument to support your claim.

What, exactly, do you imagine that there is to "rebut"?

We can't dispute your evidence, because you offered none. We can't fault your logic, because you offered none.

You seem to believe that the quality of an argument is to be determined not by examining the quality of its supporting evidence and analysis but by conducting man-on-the-street polls, or some such thing. I don't. I've never seen any logic textbook assert anything of the kind, either. And I certainly don't agree that people given to jaybearing have any reason to demand that we credit their opinion concerning ancient Arabian matters of which they admittedly know nothing.

I can give a link to a board where a bunch of exmos congregate. Perhaps if you were to tell them about this remarkable NHM theory, they will come to their senses en mass and rejoin the LDS church. Afterall, there can't be any other rational explanation for the complex bulleye that NHM present, other than JS was a true prophet.

You realize, of course, that the distinction between proof and evidence has even been discussed right here, on this very thread. There's not much justification for jaybearing it.

[smac97]

Jaybear,

I hate to interrupt two apologists mocking my rationality, especially when you are having so much fun, but despite your obvious superior intellect, neither of you have actually rebutted the opinion I offered, ignorant as it was, which is that the NHM theory is only compelling evidence to someone who already believes that JS was a prophet.

There's little point in rebutting an opinion, Jaybear. I'm interested in discussing the data.

And don't be so thin-skinned.

Since you both seem to believe that the NHM theory is "compelling" and "persuasive" evidence in support of the authenticity of the BOM, would it be too much to ask for the name of just one person, who did not initially believe that the BOM was authentic, but upon learning of NHM, is now a true believer.

I'm curious why you refuse to engage the evidence, and instead ask about what others think of the evidence.

Surely a theory as compelling and persuasive as NHM purports to be has actually persuaded or compelled one person to accept JS's claim.

So says the fellow who is admittedly ignorant of said evidence.

How many people outside the LDS Church care about archaeological and toponymic evidences in the Arabian peninsuela? Some critics pay a little attention (like you), but not much.

Just one person. That's not asking too much I hope.

Engaging the evidence rather than subjective reactions to it is all I ask. It's not too much I hope.

I can give a link to a board where a bunch of exmos congregate.

Yes. Objectivity reigns on RFM. And I bet they'll do as good a job or better of jaybearifying the issue.

Perhaps if you were to tell them about this remarkable NHM theory, they will come to their senses en mass and rejoin the LDS church.

But we don't want to do that. We want people to join the Church based on a spiritual witness, not archaeology.

You can hardly fault us for refusing to engage in proseletyzing tactics you presume to impute onto us.

Afterall, there can't be any other rational explanation for the complex bulleye that NHM present, other than JS was a true prophet.

What a jaybear! No substance. No analysis. Just ignorant sneering.

-Smac

[Cold Steel]

-A-

...NHM occurs not merely in modern Arabia but is attested, precisely, at the time of Lehi...[and] in exactly the right geographical relationship to Wadi Sayq...[and] meets all of the hydrological and botanical and geological and topographical requirements for Lehi's Old World Bountiful....

-B-

...I don't think it reasonable to suppose that Joseph Smith had access to a map of the Middle East that would have helped him to score the complex bull's eye represented by Nahom. Jaybear is, of course, welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

-C-

Though NHM was obscure, it was not known until 1996 that it was a burial site. The extensive stone cutting done at Nahom led many to believe it was exclusively for building monuments, but in 1996, mummified remains began to be uncovered. Even had Smith had access to a map, and even had he known NHM existed in 600 B.C., he could not have reasonably known it was a burial site. Thus another piece of the bulls eye.

No one thinks critics are all bullheaded, but on this one issue they really should give the devil his due. In fact, there are a number of areas they need to come clean on.

[Theophilus07]

-C-

Though NHM was obscure, it was not known until 1996 that it was a burial site. The extensive stone cutting done at Nahom led many to believe it was exclusively for building monuments, but in 1996, mummified remains began to be uncovered. Even had Smith had access to map, and even had he known NHM existed in 600 B.C., he could not have reasonably known it was a burial site. Thus another piece of the bulls eye.

No one thinks critics are all bullheaded, but on this one issue they really should give the devil his due. In fact, there are a number of areas they need to come clean on.

To read the posts here, you'd think the inscription says something like "Here stands the NHMY and the burial site mentioned in the Book of Mormon." It doesn't. It is an altar dedication naming the contributor who has a father who was a NHMYite. The trouble is, no one knows just what a NHMYite is in this context.

Incidentally, the copy of the inscription at the Maxwell website shows the word to NHMY, not NHM

Even if the adjective does refer to a tribe, there is nothing to link the tribe with any location or to think that the location of the tribe bears the tribe's name.

Sorry, but I really find nothing compelling about this inscription.

Theophilus07

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, the copy of the inscription at the Maxwell website shows the word to NHMY, not NHM

That's simply a nisba adjective. Omnipresent in Arabic, Hebrew, and other Semitic languages.

Iraq > Iraqi.

Kuwait > Kuwaiti.

Somebody who lives in Baghdad is a Baghdadi. Someone who lives in Egypt (Misr) is a Misri. Somebody who lives in Morocco (al-Maghrib) is a Maghribi.

Even if the adjective does refer to a tribe, there is nothing to link the tribe with any location

Other than the fact that the tribe appears to have been linked to that location for at least 2600 years.

or to think that the location of the tribe bears the tribe's name.

The tribe with that name appears to have been in the same area for twenty-six centuries. It would be exceedingly odd if nobody, during that time, ever had the thought occur to him that the area where NHM dwells is the territory of NHM.

Sorry, but I really find nothing compelling about this inscription.

Scarcely surprising.

[Christian]

This little debate has me wondering if anyone would dare undertake to consider the validity of the "NHM" argument compared to other "disproofs" of relifeous thinking. What comes to mind is the recent Discovery Channel story on the tomb of Jesus. (see http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html). I wouldn't say that the Tomb of jesus argument is a slam dunk by any means, but it relys on similar methods of proof. (E.g. the likleyhood that all these names purportedly related to jesus would be found in a tomb, including a grave for jesus himself--suggesting that his physical body was eventually buried, and not ascended to heaven).

Critics of the tomb of jesus idea focus on the fact that the methodology employed by the researchers was done somewhat deductively, with a presumption that a tomb actually existed. While a deductive approach to interpreting something isn't wrong per se, it just isn't as persuadsive to the archeolgists and others who do such research professionally. An inductive, approach would have been prefered as it doesn't allow for so much "curve fitting" of the data points.

I think the same criticism could be made of the NHM argument. Most who have researched and written about it have done their work (so far as I can tell) with a belief already in place that there is a route through the desert from Israel that is described in the BoM and the evidence that is availableis interpreted to fit that belief.

Is the methodolgy behind the NHM argument better than the tomb of jesus methodology?

Can you say that NHM is a "slam dunk" and that the tomb of jesus is not?

[Stargazer]

Oh jeeeeez!!!

The point is that it's plausible. If I said it was also plausible that Joseph ate potatoes would you demand an affadavit?

The task is simply to show that there is a mundane explanation.

That's done.

So, if I understand this line of reasoning correctly, if it were "plausible" that a map existed somewhere in the world that showed on the Arabian peninsula a place called "Nehom", during the time in which Joseph Smith brought forth the BoM, this "explains" how the place "Nahom" found its way into the text? And that's all you need to do to explain it all away? No need to demonstrate that this map had fallen into Joseph's hands, or those of his "confederates" (or, hah! the original author that Jaybear posits he plagiarized it from), and you say "That's done"? I can just picture your hands dusting themselves off because the logical heavy lifting just engaged in.

My goodness, this opens up a whole new vista of how to bunk/debunk everything, everywhere!

Prosecutor to Jury: "Isn't it glaringly obvious to any thinking person, that the suspect is guilty based simply on the fact that the victim was killed by a knife, and the suspect owns a knife, in fact several of them! There is no need to quibble about whether any of these particular knives was used in the crime, or even that he was the one who performed the dastardly deed. He's guilty! Guilty! Guilty!"

[Stargazer]

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

OK, I think you can let up on Jaybear, now.

He admitted that the evidence was interesting/curious and in favor of the BoM. Something Tarsky seems to be constitutionally incapable of. Jaybear simply has a highly skeptical worldview. The supernatural is not to be trusted -- it's a deception. If an angel visited him, he would first of all probably believe he was going insane and might seek psychiatric help.

I've known a few others like him, and the fact is that no matter how strong the physical evidence becomes in favor of the supernatural, he will not trust it. Period.

And yes, those of us who believe in the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, including the Book of Mormon, are not operating "within reason." In fact, all us theists are decidedly odd.

I have no problem with this.

[Jaybear]

OK, I think you can let up on Jaybear, now.

He admitted that the evidence was interesting/curious and in favor of the BoM. Something Tarsky seems to be constitutionally incapable of. Jaybear simply has a highly skeptical worldview. The supernatural is not to be trusted -- it's a deception. If an angel visited him, he would first of all probably believe he was going insane and might seek psychiatric help.

I've known a few others like him, and the fact is that no matter how strong the physical evidence becomes in favor of the supernatural, he will not trust it. Period.

And yes, those of us who believe in the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, including the Book of Mormon, are not operating "within reason." In fact, all us theists are decidedly odd.

I have no problem with this.

That's a bit overstated.

I don't believe in the supernatural. I have seen no reason, nor have been presented with a compelling argument to do so. If I were to be visited by an angel, I might reconsider my position on the supernatural, or I might question my sanity, or I might look until I find the strings. Hard to say, as I have never been visited by an angel.

SMAC: But we don't want to do that. We want people to join the Church based on a spiritual witness, not archaeology.

You can hardly fault us for refusing to engage in proseletyzing tactics you presume to impute onto us

News alert smac:

The "spiritual witness" is the most "compelling" evidence you have in favor of the historicity of the BoM.

The testimony of the 11 witnesses is also compelling and persuasive evidence for historicity of the BOM.

You use what works to bring people to your faith.

The testimonials of the good people who believe in the BOM and JS, and sacrifice their time and effort for the church is compelling and persuasive evidence for the BOM.

NHM is not persuasive, and is not compelling. It is only compelling and persuasive evidence of historicity, if you already believe the book is historical.

SMAC: There's little point in rebutting an opinion, Jaybear. I'm interested in discussing the data.

...

Engaging the evidence rather than subjective reactions to it is all I ask. It's not too much I hope.

Unfortunately, we took a detour in our discussion of the data when Professor Peterson, instead of presenting and defending the data/evidence that supports the amazing complex bulleyes of NHM, pointed to five apologetic articles, and said come back when you have done your homework.

When I said no thank, it was time to insult Jaybear.

Btw, if apologists are going to assert that evidence is "compelling" they have opened the door to discussions about to the subjective reaction to the evidence.

I will say it again, NHM, as presented here, is compelling and persuasive, only if you are already a true believer.

[Alf O'Mega]

Meanwhile, here are some links to previous discussions of NHM:

November 2006:

Nhm, The return of NHM

February 2005:

Historical Accuracy of the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon theories, Where did it come from?

BoM Archaeology Question

sr1030s claim that the Book of Mormon, is made by multiple authors.

May 2002:

Evidence of Nahom debunked?

March 2002:

No Positive Apologetic?

February 2002:

Nahom

Nahom, Nehhm, Comoros/Camora, Cumorah, Moroni

An Article from S. Kent Brown Re: Nahom/NHM - Pacumeni9 2/01

Another classic, from December 2005:

Probability and NHM

[The Dude]

I ask that you demonstrate your assertion.

I have not seen Latter-day Saints suggesting that NHM is a "slam-dunk" that "proves" the Book of Mormon "to be true." That you subjectively feel that some comments "come across that way" is not persuasive to me.

By my reading, Charity implies a slam-dunk when she says the anti's can't be open minded because they have so much to loose:

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

The NHM site is probably the best circumstantial evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Because it is circumstantial, and offers no direct connection to BoM events and people, critics have nothing to loose by admitting this much. In fact we should commend the apologists for the hard work and creativity that went into constructing such a complex set of connections.

The argument changes, however, when apologists elevate this set of circumstantial evidence into evidence so strong that critics must explain it to the apologist's satisfaction. This happens repeatedly in the form of "how could Joseph have known?" and the accompanying strawman joke about Joseph's vast library of maps and ancient documents. Such argumentation implies that the evidence is stronger than it really is.

[ed2276]

I will acknowledged that it is a "solid" hit for those that have the pre-existing belief that the BOM is an ancient document, and are thirsty for evidence confirming the validity of their beliefs.

it is the apologists that cling to assertion that those of us who believe that the BOM is fiction, are either ignorant, or irrational in clinging to their opinion that this NHM find is, at best, coincidental.

So , are you saying that those with a pre-existing belief in the BoM are deluding themselves when they find compelling evidence which matches the BoM narrative so closely as authenticating of its reality? Because they are believers they cannot be trusted to be objective? Their belief clouds their judgment? The reasoning being :

1. I believe the BoM is true.

2. I have read the BoM narrative about Nahom

3. There is an actual place in the world which matches the BoM narrative

4. Therefore , because I believe in the BoM , the evidence that exists supports the BoM as being true.

If so , would you say that those who do not believe in the BoM , who dismiss its Nahom narrative and its matching of an actual , known place in the part of the world where the BoM account puts it , who believe such things to be nothing more than coincidence , are deluding themselves? They are incapable of objectivity? Their disbelief clouds their judgment? The reasoning being :

1. I believe the BoM is fiction

2. I have read the BoM narrative about Nahom

3. There is an actual place in the world which matches the BoM narrative

4. Therefore , because I disbelieve the BoM , the evidence for the truth of the BoM is nothing more than JS's prior map reading or mere coincidence and so the BoM is nothing more than fiction.

Another question I have is why you think you can have your cake and eat it too? First , you suggest the possibility that JS may have had access to a map from which he or others carefully crafted his/their fictional story ; reference to such a map is how JS could have known of Nahom and accurately described the characteristics of the region. JS had knowledge of an actual place , an actual knowledge of the region and its features , and so was able to create a fictional story around that knowledge.

Now you suggest that JS conjured Nahom from his fantasy world and that , though the existence of Nahom and the characteristics and features of the area described in the BoM exist in reality , though JS didn't really know the actual features and characteristics of the region (he merely made them up ) the fact that they do exist in reality is merely coincidence. How do you reconcile these two opposite propositions?

[Cold Steel]

Sorry, but I really find nothing compelling about this inscription.

Tell me, Theo, with all the evidences proffered on this site for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, which ones do you find compelling? I'm just curious as to whether you don't find this particular topic compelling or whether it's all LDS topics.

[Jaybear]

So , are you saying that those with a pre-existing belief in the BoM are deluding themselves when they find compelling evidence which matches the BoM narrative so closely as authenticating its reality? Because they are believers they cannot be trusted to be objective? Their belief clouds their judgment? The reasoning being :

Whenever someone starts out with "So, are you saying..." I start to look for the strawman.

No that is not what I am saying.

This has nothing to do with being delusional.

Its about applying meaning the the words "compelling" and "persuasive."

If so , would you say that .....

1. I believe the BoM is fiction

2. I have read the BoM narrative about Nahom

3. There is an actual place in the world which matches the BoM narrative

4. Therefore , because I disbelieve the BoM , the evidence for the truth of the BoM is nothing more than JS's prior map reading or mere coincidence.

Replace:

3. Apologists found evidence to support an argument that there might have been an actual place which matches the BOM narrative

4. There are rational explanations for the alleged match, that do not require me to believe in angel and seer stones, such as the matches are contrived or coincidental; or that the writer of the BoM looked at a map of the mideast, when he wrote the narrative.

The evidence presented on NHM does not require that I rethink my disregard for superatural explantions of events.

Another question I have , is why you think you can have your cake and eat it too?

Because I am commenting on the persuasive value of evidence claiming to support the BOM, from the perspective of a non believer. My point is that NHM not persuasive or compelling because it does not cause anyone to change or even RETHINK their preexisting opinion.

Consider by contrast, if I were to argue that the fact that JS led people to believe he could find burried treasure by looking at rock in his hat and charged for his service, is persuasive and compelling evidence that JS was not credible or trustworthy, I would be at a disadvantage in making this assertion because I learned this after having already concluded that he was not credible. This fact serves to confirm my preexisting belief, and that puts me at a disadvantage in weighing the persuasive value of the evidence.

In dealing with evidence that shows JS is not credible, you are in a better position to assess whether, if true, its persuasive and compelling.

In dealing with evidence that shows JS was a true prophet, I am in a better position to assess whether, if true, its persuasive and compelling.

[ed2276]

Whenever someone starts out with "So, are you saying..." I start to look for the strawman.

If you choose to look at the question in an insecure way that is not my fault. I asked , "So , are you saying..." because I was seeking understanding about what you were saying.

No that is not what I am saying.

This has nothing to do with being delusional.

Its about applying meaning the the words "compelling" and "persuasive."

Replace:

3. Apologists found evidence to support an argument that there might have been an actual place which matches the BOM narrative

4. There are rational explanations for the alleged match, that do not require me to believe in angel and seer stones, such as the matches are contrived or coincidental; or that the writer of the BoM looked at a map of the mideast, when he wrote the narrative.

The evidence presented on NHM does not require that I rethink my disregard for superatural explantions of events.

Because I am commenting on the persuasive value of evidence claiming to support the BOM, from the perspective of a non believer. My point is that NHM not persuasive or compelling because it does not cause anyone to change or even RETHINK their preexisting opinion.

Consider by contrast, if I were to argue that the fact that JS led people to believe he could find burried treasure by looking at rock in his hat and charged for his service, is persuasive and compelling evidence that JS was not credible or trustworthy, I would be at a disadvantage in making this assertion because I learned this after having already concluded that he was not credible. This fact serves to confirm my preexisting belief, and that puts me at a disadvantage in weighing the persuasive value of the evidence.

In dealing with evidence that shows JS is not credible, you are in a better position to assess whether, if true, its persuasive and compelling.

In dealing with evidence that shows JS was a true prophet, I am in a better position to assess whether, if true, its persuasive and compelling.

Thank you for your clarification.