The Place Which Was Called Nahom

[Tarski]

Prove it. Call for reference. Where is the affadavit of a person who saw Joseph pouring over maps in the Palmyra (or any other) library?

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.

[StriplingWarrior]

Oh, also for discussion, something that I think Journey of Faith talked about was the meaning of Nahom. I'd have to watch the video again, but isn't it's meaning important to this as well?

[myleague]

I didn't realize Joseph was such a gifted genius. How does one go from a supposed treasure seeker to one of the most gifted writers of the modern era? People try to discredit him for his childish money grubbing treasure seeking ways, then turn around and make him out to be this incredibly intelligent fraud. The Fact is, Joseph only had a 3rd grade education, yet it takes many PhD's years to try and prove him a fraud. How does on so simple confound the wise?

[Daniel Peterson]

How extensive does it have to be to have one copy of a popular map (Pinkerton)??

There was no Palmyra lending library. The Manchester library had no copy of Pinkerton. The Smiths weren't members of the Manchester library. You had to be a subscribing member in order to use it. They weren't, so they couldn't use the library anyway. In any event, the Pinkerton map would not have told Joseph Smith all of what he needed to know in order to craft the NHM/Wadi Sayq complex.

[Jaybear]

I didn't realize Joseph was such a gifted genius. How does one go from a supposed treasure seeker to one of the most gifted writers of the modern era? People try to discredit him for his childish money grubbing treasure seeking ways, then turn around and make him out to be this incredibly intelligent fraud. The Fact is, Joseph only had a 3rd grade education, yet it takes many PhD's years to try and prove him a fraud. How does on so simple confound the wise?

I suppose we could say that it takes many PhDs years to try to prove that he is not a fraud, and the best they can come up with is NHM.

[Daniel Peterson]

the best they can come up with is NHM.

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.

[myleague]

I suppose we could say that it takes many PhDs years to try to prove that he is not a fraud, and the best they can come up with is NHM.

Since, by our legal system he is innocent until proven guilty; it then becomes the sole responsibility of those trying to prove him a fraud to bear the burden of reasonable doubt. Suffice it to say there still isn't enough evidence to have reasonable doubt, to convict him of being a fraud.

[Jaybear]

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.

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.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

I suspect that it's ignorance. I don't think you've read any of the relevant literature.

Am I wrong?

If I'm right, you're not qualified to have an informed opinion on the topic.

[Wiki Wonka]

You might want to look here: Nahom. It looks like many of the sources regarding Nahom (pro and con) are listed.

[Jaybear]

I suspect that it's ignorance. I don't think you've read any of the relevant literature.

Am I wrong?

If I'm right, you're not qualified to have an informed opinion on the topic.

I am sorry to hear that you, and the other apologist that have raised this NHM issue a myriad of time on this board are wholly incapable of articulating the NHM argument in any meaningful sense.

Tell you what, when the LDS apologists convince just one nonLDS mideast archeologist, that there was in fact an ancient village named Nehom, just as the BOM says, I will read the articles you mention.

[StriplingWarrior]

You might want to look here: Nahom. It looks like many of the sources regarding Nahom (pro and con) are listed.

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.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am sorry to hear that you, and the other apologist that have raised this NHM issue a myriad of time on this board are wholly incapable of articulating the NHM argument in any meaningful sense.

Tell you what, when the LDS apologists convince just one nonLDS mideast archeologist, that there was in fact an ancient village named Nehom, just as the BOM says, I will read the articles you mention.

As I expected, I was right and you are not qualified to express an informed opinion on this topic.

[charity]

You mean jaybear has been expressing all this skepticism and he/she hasn't even read the research? Talk about a big sheeeeesh! What about it jaybear? Is the guiding rule of this type of argument? My mind is made up and I don't want to hear/read the facts?

[SolarPowered]

when... , I will read the articles you mention.

What??!!! All this time you've been saying that the research is wrong, and you haven't even read the research??!!!

It sounds like you're deeply in "troll" territory. (And that's only because I'm being charitable.)

[charity]

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."

[roman]

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."

OR in the future in someone asks you a question and you go to great lengths to answer, Then that person ignores you-----------we can call it "charitisms' : ---------oh just have a laugh and let it go

I'm mean nothing and am just having fun

[Jaybear]

As I expected, I was right and you are not qualified to express an informed opinion on this topic.

Well it really depends on the opinion that I choose to express.

Having read numerous times the arguments that you and other apologists on this board have presented on this very narrow topic, I find YOUR arguments wholly unpersuasive, and have repeatedly supported that position.

Frankly I would expect that if you and other apologists are going to come here and raise this NHM theory as compelling evidence to support the authenticity of the BOM, that in face of constructive criticism, you aren't going to wilt away, saying that one can't truly comprehend the persuasive value of the evidence without reading faith promoting apologetic work.

Charity: In the future if we are involved in 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."

Sure. I am all for that.

Can we also say that when someone instead of addressing criticism of an issue they raised, says well you can't possible express an informed opinion on ______ unless you have read _____, _____, and ____, that they have pulled a Peterson.

[StriplingWarrior]

Well it really depends on the opinion that I choose to express.

Having read numerous times the arguments that you and other apologists on this board have presented on this very narrow topic, I find YOUR arguments wholly unpersuasive, and have repeatedly supported that position.

Frankly I would expect that if you and other apologists are going to come here and raise this NHM theory as compelling evidence to support the authenticity of the BOM, that in face of constructive criticism, you aren't going to wilt away, saying that one can't truly comprehend the persuasive value of the evidence without reading faith promoting apologetic work.

Sure. I am all for that.

Can we also say that when someone instead of addressing criticism of an issue they raised, says well you can't possible express an informed opinion on ______ unless you have read _____, _____, and ____, that they have pulled a Peterson.

I think he meant other sources outside of this message board. I love this board and the information I learn from it, but there are many books and scholarly articles out there, including ones for this topic.

How can you say they are unpersuasive when you are not knowledgable on the topic? I think what you really want to say is that you have an opinion and nothing that anyone says will make it budge. I'm fine with that, don't agree with it, but you are free to express your opinion on this board.

[SolarPowered]

..., but you are free to express your opinion on this board.

Actually, board rules require one to back up his opinion with evidence, when challenged.

[Tarski]

There was no Palmyra lending library.

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

The Manchester library had no copy of Pinkerton.

How do you know?

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

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?

Was the Pinkleton map the only map that had NHM? Wouldn't there be likely knock-offs of the popular map around? Do I have to have owned a copy of Rand McNalley to have once noticed that there is a town called "Hicksville" in Virginia? I don't even remember how I learned that.

The Smiths weren't members of the Manchester library. You had to be a subscribing member in order to use it. They weren't, so they couldn't use the library anyway

In order to simply read while in the library?

And,... once again; how do you know?

In any event, the Pinkerton map would not have told Joseph Smith all of what he needed to know in order to craft the NHM/Wadi Sayq complex

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.

Low probability events happen everyday and if viewed with a suffiently magical attitude these can seem to prove all sorts of nonsense.

Here is an example: There was an old physics book in the barn a resident of Mantua Utah that I came accross while tresspassing in the barn. I coveted the old book and snuck in to read it many times.

Would anyone have known?

What if I gleened an obscure tid bit from such an old possibly rare book and weaved it into a story that I wrote later for a school assignment? If later generations cared enough about what I wrote to notice this then it may seem miraculous if the tid bit was really obscure. Maybe I remembered more than just a tid bit--maybe I remembered a "complex" of tidbits. Maybe the guy who owned the barn brought a book back from England during WWI or something. But it is just one of myriads of improbable contingencies of a life. It was just a thing that caught my fancy and stuck in my mind. Thats all.

It would only be miraculous if I were to come up with obscure knowledge systematically and on demand. Someone else must choose the questions before I play oracle. Otherwise it is just a game of pick and choose and by those dubious lights, Nostradamus is a prophet orders of magnitude greater than JS.

Notice: Later on there could be definitive evidence that I read the book (I might have said so in writing) but there could be not definitive evidence that I did not.

[SolarPowered]

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

Call for references on the assertion that the map was "popular." Do you in fact know how many copies were printed, and/or how many were imported to the United States, and when? Do you have any evidence of "knock-offs"? (Hint: Neither Xerox nor Eastman Kodak had been founded yet.)

[Jaybear]

I think what you really want to say is that you have an opinion and nothing that anyone says will make it budge.

Thank you, but I said what I meant, and meant what I said. There is no need for you to put words in my mouth.

Solarpowered: Actually, board rules require one to back up his opinion with evidence, when challenged. smile.gif

CFR: Please show me where the board rules say that.

[SolarPowered]

CFR: Please show me where the board rules say that.

The board rules, here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=boardrules, state, "If you are asked for documentation or given a call for references you are required to provide it."

P.S., I find it particularly ironic that you are issuing a "Call For References" regarding whether one is required to respond to a "Call For References."

[Tarski]

Call for references on the assertion that the map was "popular." Do you in fact know how many copies were printed, and/or how many were imported to the United States, and when? Do you have any evidence of "knock-offs"? (Hint: Neither Xerox nor Eastman Kodak had been founded yet.)

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 â??Presidio del Paso del Norte.â? 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."