The Place Which Was Called Nahom

[questioner]

I am unaware of any contradictory evidence, and am aware of confirmatory evidence. Since all known evidence agrees with the hypothesis, I am warranted in believing the hypothesis.

This whole thread is full of opposing opinions on the subject. A quick read would reveal some of that contradictory evidence that you are looking for.

[Log]

As Brigham said, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."

[questioner]

As Brigham said, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."

Gotcha. It's not that the evidence doesn't exist, you just refuse to look at it. Oh well.

[Log]

Since when are opinions evidence?

[The Dude]

I am unaware of any contradictory evidence, and am aware of confirmatory evidence. Since all known evidence agrees with the hypothesis, I am warranted in believing the hypothesis.

Well, you are warranted in believing the hypothesis is likely to be true, but unless direct evidence is provided, you should maintain some doubt. I'm really quite surprised that you have no doubt that this is the precise location of Ishmael's burial, based solely on the evidence. It's intriguing, but even if we assume the BoM is true, the evidence is far from conclusive. For example, if we take K-Dave's summary, we've got:

1) The location is just about perfect. It is within 1 degree directly west of Bountiful.

Yes, "Bountiful" is also a location not positively identified. I don't know what it's worth that it's "within 1 degree" west of the putative Bountiful, since Nephi didn't state such precise coordinates and if we are to believe the apologetics surrounding the "narrow neck of land" it seems the Nephites didn't consistently use the same N/S/E/W compass that we refer to. So this piece of evidence is overstated and based on convenience, IMO.

- The dating of the altars is right at 600 B.C.

This is good. If the dating was not 600 B.C. then critics would be screaming for it, so this is valuable.

The semitic roots of the name Nahom relate to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning. Fitting for a burial location.

Mere parallelomania. We don't know what the inscribed N-H-M stood for, and that's the problem.

Close to the area where the altar was found is a huge burial complex (the largest in Arabia) that goes back to possibly 3000 B.C.

This adds nothing to the relevant date (600 BC). Nephi/Joseph never said anything about Nahom being a huge burial site dating back to 3000 BC. It's quite superfulous.

K-Dave also states "...these correlations are probably as good as it's going to get." He's right about that. Do you honestly think this adds up to "no rational doubt"?

Think about the implications. If NHM does equal Nahom of the Book of Mormon, and there's no way JS could have known that, then it does amount to proof that the BoM is historical -- doesn't it? This is what I've been trying to get at since I entered this thread. If this is proof that the BoM is historical -- not just another correlative hint, but a rock solid fact directly connected to the BoM, then critics who don't accept it must be intellectually dishonest for the sake of saving their non-faith. Or they are stupid and just don't get it. That's the implication.

I think most people who frequent this board are more willing to say NHM isn't proof, it isn't a sure thing. There is room for doubt, even assuming the BoM is true. Ishmael could have been buried somewhere else and NHM could stand for some other name or word that is lost to us.

In an earlier thread on NHM, I said:

LDS apologists have claimed this is proof, or near-proof, that the Book of Mormon is historical.

To which Dr. Peterson replied:

This overstates the conclusion that Latter-day Saint scholars have drawn from the find.

I've heard nobody claim that the NHM find "proves" the historicity of the Book of Mormon, nor even that it nearly does. What I've heard is that NHM is striking evidence for Book of Mormon historicity.

It seems to me that if NHM equals Nahom, then it proves the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If it's just a piece of circumstantial evidence, that leaves reason to doubt, and it does not prove historicity. I believe the latter is what the evidence warrants, and as such, all the arguments about the probability of JS guessing N-H-M are without foundation.

[kawikadave]

There are only two (maybe three if you include Shazer) places from the Old World where the group actually lived or visited that had already been named - Jerusalem and Nahom. I'm not smart enough to know if Shazer is a name that their group could have given a place or if it was already called that before they arrived.

In any case, until New World geography - as it relates to the Book of Mormon - reveals itself more clearly, Nahom is really one of the few attached place names we have. If there's a solid case to be made, it will relate to Nahom.

I agree with you Dude. If it can be proven that NHM = Nahom then the historicity of the Book of Mormon will be proven. The issue seems to be that it can't be proven, but circumstantial evidence (time, place, use, etc.) can be used to bolster the connection. I think that's what Dr. P is trying to point out. NHM = Nahom can't be proven at this point. There are only logical connections.

For example, if we take K-Dave's summary, we've got:

Yes, "Bountiful" is also a location not positively identified. I don't know what it's worth that it's "within 1 degree" west of the putative Bountiful, since Nephi didn't state such precise coordinates and if we are to believe the apologetics surrounding the "narrow neck of land" it seems the Nephites didn't consistently use the same N/S/E/W compass that we refer to. So this piece of evidence is overstated and based on convenience, IMO.

You're being overly coy here. Of course you know what I'm talking about when I refer to "Bountiful." I think the evidence for the site in Oman matches very well. Wouldn't you agree? But how can there be proof if the site is given a name by the group that doesn't appear to be a permanent place name?

All you can go on is the narrative. The story said they had tall trees, ore, a high cliff, fruit, honey, etc. A place directly east from Nahom matches that criteria. Coincidence? You might say it is, but I think you'd have to admit that you don't need to use a hammer to fit the puzzle pieces together.

This is good. If the dating was not 600 B.C. then critics would be screaming for it, so this is valuable.

You should note of course, that it was a non-LDS French scholar that dated the materials to 600 B.C. I'm glad you realize how important this piece is.

Mere parallelomania. We don't know what the inscribed N-H-M stood for, and that's the problem.

And yet the consonants line up. You have to admit that's worth something. If the consonants on the altar were KWV would we be having this discussion? I don't think so.

This adds nothing to the relevant date (600 BC). Nephi/Joseph never said anything about Nahom being a huge burial site dating back to 3000 BC. It's quite superfulous.

It's a lesser quality connection, in my totally amateur way of viewing this, but it fits. Narrative says Ishmael died and was buried in a place called Nahom. It just so happens there is an extensive burial ground in the area.

K-Dave also states "...these correlations are probably as good as it's going to get." He's right about that. Do you honestly think this adds up to "no rational doubt"?

Until something appears that can resolve the NHM/Nahom issue conclusively, I don't see how it will move beyond good circumstantial evidence, but I'm not an expert (have I mentioned that already?)

I think another discovery that could further bolster the evidence would be an archaeological find that shows a ship was constructed on the Oman site or other evidence that ties Lehi's party to that area.

Would that impress you Dude? I know teams are visiting the area to see if any evidence remains. We'll see...

[ed2276]

It doesn't matter if the word Nahom can be rendered as N-H-M. Sure it can. The significance of NHM comes from it being attached to a particular site in Arabia, where apologists would like to say Lehi and company buried Ishamel. That has not been shown. Until the site -- not the letters -- is proven to be the same as mentioned in the BoM, all these games about "how did JS know?" are without foundation.

Ishamel could have been buried somewhere else or may be only a fictional person. We'll never know.

So you won't give the site even the possibilty of being the N-H-M of the BoM unless someone digs up Ishmael's body and finds his photo ID in his wallet?

[The Dude]

So you won't give the site even the possibilty....

Huh? Did you just get here? Read my other posts, please.

[The Dude]

You're being overly coy here. Of course you know what I'm talking about when I refer to "Bountiful." I think the evidence for the site in Oman matches very well. Wouldn't you agree? But how can there be proof if the site is given a name by the group that doesn't appear to be a permanent place name?

I agree that it's more of the same but without the letters BNTFL. The fact that there's no graffiti this time is your problem.

You should note of course, that it was a non-LDS French scholar that dated the materials to 600 B.C. I'm glad you realize how important this piece is.

Sure, but the scholar was German, I thought.

And yet the consonants line up. You have to admit that's worth something. If the consonants on the altar were KWV would we be having this discussion? I don't think so.

I said the root of Nahom is irrelevant since we don't know that NHM=Nahom. This is not really a response.

It's a lesser quality connection, in my totally amateur way of viewing this, but it fits. Narrative says Ishmael died and was buried in a place called Nahom. It just so happens there is an extensive burial ground in the area.

And I guess if there wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion?

Would that impress you Dude? I know teams are visiting the area to see if any evidence remains.

Do you really think God will let them find proof that the BoM is historical? Wouldn't that kind of destroy the need for faith, or something like that?

Finally, back to ed2276: Based only on the evidence, I don't fault anyone who already believes in the BoM for thinking the NHM site could be the one described in the BoM. At the risk of sounding coy, I'd say it's a very reasonable fit.

[ed2276]

Huh? Did you just get here? Read my other posts, please.

11 PAGES WORTH??????? Oh , alright.

[ed2276]

Finally, back to ed2276: Based only on the evidence, I don't fault anyone who already believes in the BoM for thinking the NHM site could be the one described in the BoM. At the risk of sounding coy, I'd say it's a very reasonable fit.

Ahhhh , thanks for saving me the time of going back and reading everything.

From the little I've read about it , it seems that there is , as you say , a reasonable fit. I know that it isn't absolute proof or conclusive , but there does seem to be a pretty good match being shown in that region that fits with the BoM narrative of Lehi's travels. Is what is there proof of the truth of the BoM ? No. Still , I find the possibilty to be exciting and of great interest.

[SolarPowered]

There are only two (maybe three if you include Shazer) places from the Old World where the group actually lived or visited that had already been named - Jerusalem and Nahom.

To stir the pot a bit, I recall that Potter's book talks about a place named "Shazer", that's in the right place. (I don't currently have access to the book, so I can't go back and check exactly what he said.)

[kawikadave]

You should note of course, that it was a non-LDS French scholar that dated the materials to 600 B.C. I'm glad you realize how important this piece is.

Sure, but the scholar was German, I thought.

From the Maxwell Institute web site:

"Dating the Altars

French researcher Christian Robin, author of many works dealing with the Nahom/Nihm area, has assigned a date of between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. for altar 1.

[Christian Robin et al., eds., Yemen au Pays de la reine de Saba, 144.]"

A German funded team initiated the excavation of the site. Again from the Maxwell Institute web site:

"The federally funded Deutches Archaeologisches Institut (DAI), headquartered in Berlin, initiated the excavation of the Bar'an temple in 1988 as part of a larger project centered in the Marib province."

[kawikadave]

To stir the pot a bit, I recall that Potter's book talks about a place named "Shazer", that's in the right place. (I don't currently have access to the book, so I can't go back and check exactly what he said.)

From Jeff Lindsay's site http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme17.shtml:

Regarding the place name Shazer, Nigel Groom's Dictionary of Arabic Topography and Placenames (Beirut: Libraire du Liban; London: Longman, 1983; as cited by Potter and Wellington, p. 73) contains an entry for a similar word, "shajir," giving the meaning: "A valley or area abounding with trees and shrubs."

Rgarding the name "Shazer," Hugh Nibley wrote:

The first important stop after Lehi's party had left their base camp was at a place they called Shazer. The name is intriguing. The combination shajer is quite common in Palestinian place names; it is a collective meaning "trees," and many Arabs (especially in Egypt) pronounce it shazher. It appears in Thoghret-as-Sajur (the Pass of Trees), which is the ancient Shaghur, written Segor in the sixth century. It may be confused with Shaghur "seepage," which is held to be identical with Shihor, the "black water" of Josh. 19:36. This last takes in western Palestine the form Sozura, suggesting the name of a famous water hole in South Arabia, called Shisur by Thomas and Shisar by Philby. . . . So we have Shihor, Shaghur, Sajur, Saghir, Segor (even Zoar), Shajar, Sozura, Shisur, and Shisar, all connected somehow or other and denoting either seepage--a weak but reliable water supply--or a clump of trees. Whichever one prefers, Lehi's people could hardly have picked a better name for their first suitable stopping place than Shazer. (Lehi in the Desert [salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1952], p. 90.)

In a brief article in the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Nibley simply suggested that Shazer is derived from the Arabic shajer, meaning trees or place of trees ("Book of Mormon Near Eastern Background," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), p. 188).

The Book of Mormon description of Shazer as a place where Lehi's group would stop and go hunting--obviously a place with water and wildlife where one could stay for a while on a long journey--agrees well with the meaning of the word Shazer. Again, the Book of Mormon text provides a highly plausible name that accurately corresponds to the place described. But is there such a place in the area required by the Book of Mormon?

Before going any further, let us note that Shazer is introduced in a classic Hebraism: "we did call the name of the place Shazer" (1 Nephi 16:13). In normal English we would say that we called the place Shazer or named the place Shazer, but in Hebrew one would say that he called the name of the place, for it is the name that is called, not the place itself. This point is made by John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), p. 89.

But what of the place itself?

It turns out that there is a perfect fit for Shazer, a large, extensive oasis region with what is said to be the best hunting in all of Arabia, and it is in the right location to have been a four-days' journey south-southeast of the established location for the Valley of Lemuel, near a branch of the ancient frankincense trail and in the region of Arabia near the Red Sea called the Hijaz. This oasis is in the wadi Agharr.

I didn't want to bring Shazer into the discussion because again the evidence seems circumstantial to me. Worthwhile and interesting, but not convincing to the skeptics.

[Olavarria]

Sethbag

----------------------------------------------------

Her Amun: you kept asking what some given thing I mentioned in my post above had anything to do with Lehi and Moroni. The short answer is: everything. The slightly longer version is that we know absolutely nothing about Lehi and Moroni except what we have from Joseph Smith.

Not true, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris all knew Moroni. When he appeared to David and Oliver they even saw him and even heard him speak. Lets not forget that 8 other men saw and handled the plates.

When you can show me the excavations with Lehi and Moroni evidence and artifacts and such, referring clearly to the Lehi and Moroni of the Book of Mormon, identified as such and corroborated by good evidence and whatnot, then we can talk about Lehi and Moroni unconnected to Joseph Smith. But so long as all the information we have about Lehi and Moroni comes through Joseph Smith, the credibility of Joseph Smith has everything to do with whether or not it's like Lehi and Moroni ever even existed.

The problem is, as far as I know, there are no inscriptions of any mesoamerican dating from 600bc to 430ad. Its somewhat of a contrived test, you know could not be carried out historicity or not.

If Joseph Smith can be seen not to be credible, and to have invented other scripture, and made up doctrines

tottally begging the questian.

and acted out of character from how a true prophet of God would act, then there's no good reason to take his word for it on the Book of Mormon either.

Sounds liek an as hominum to me. You should reword this by saying: "acted out of character from how I THINK a true prophet of God would act". Heavenly Father is alot more liberal than many of us are willing or able to accept.

[Olavarria]

Sethbag

----------------------------------------------------

Not true, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris all knew Moroni. When he appeared to David and Oliverthey even saw him and even heard him speak.

The problem is, as far as I know, there are no inscriptions of any mesoamerican dating from 600bc to 430ad. Its somewhat of a contrived test, you know could not be carried out historicity or not.

tottally begging the questian.

Sounds liek an as hominum to me. You should reword this by saying: "acted out of character from how I THINK a true prophet of God would act". Heavenly Father is alot more liberal than many of us are willing or able to accept.

Remember, the witnesses at various times in there lives called him a fallen prophet, for much of the same claims you make BUT, they didnt deny the BoM. WHy? Because they knew Joseph was only its translator and that it was written and deposited centuaries before he was even born. They understood that the two were seperate.

[Sethbag]

Her Amun:

The Witnesses who said they saw Moroni saw him only in the presence of Joseph Smith, so I accept as a possibility that they really only "saw" Moroni because Joseph Smith suggested it to them, in the "power of suggestion" sense of the word. Other people, in a fit of religious ecstasy and enthusiasm, have in fact "seen" things under the suggestion of others, so this isn't unprecedented or obviously out of the question.

I don't know if they really saw him, or just were brought to a mental state where they were convinced that they'd seen him but really hadn't. We'll probably never know exactly how this went down. The key here is that Joseph Smith was involved directly in this experience, and therefor, going back to what I said in the previous post to which you were responding, there's nothing whatsoever establishing the "fact" of Lehi's or Moroni's existence which doesn't have Joseph Smith directly involved. Therefor, Joseph Smith's credibility is absolutely an issue.

I realize that you don't believe that Joseph Smith was lying when he claimed that he and the other Saints weren't practicing polygamy at a time when they certainly were. I do, and I think most others who aren't already steeped in the religion regard these deceptions as lies.

I realize that you don't believe that Joseph Smith invented, or made up, the Book of Abraham, but I do, and I think that most people not already steeped in the religion, who bother to examine the evidence at all, believe that he made it up.

It is not the fallacy of "ad hominem" to say that the credibility of the Book of Mormon is called into serious question by virtue of the fact that the Book of Mormon, so far as we know, comes straight from Joseph Smith, and when it is shown that Joseph Smith has lied and deceived others in the name of religion, and has invented other works of scripture. It would be "ad hominem" if I said the Book of Mormon isn't credible because Joseph Smith was a doodoo head.

You may disagree with my beliefs in these matters, as I disagree with yours, but I don't think you can get away with dismissing my beliefs as mere ad hominem crap that can be simply waved off and dismissed out of hand.

[Log]

Other people, in a fit of religious ecstasy and enthusiasm, have in fact "seen" things under the suggestion of others, so this isn't unprecedented or obviously out of the question.

Call for evidence.

[Dan Vogel]

Lognormal,

Call for evidence.

The following is a cut and paste of notes I have made in relation to a followup essay on the BOM witnesses. I hope you find them helpful.

In his 1990 book, Hallucinations in Clinical Psychiatry, Dr. Ghazi Asaad, associate professor of psychiatry at New York Medical College (Valhalla, New York), defines hallucinations as "perceptions that occur in the absence of corresponding external stimuli. ... [and] may involve any of the senses" (Asaad 1990, 5). Asaad discusses more than fifty causes of hallucination. ...

The famous eighteenth-century Viennese healer Franz Anton Mesmer, from whom the term "mesmerized" is derived, did not invent hypnotism. Indeed, the first recorded performance dates back to Khufu of Egypt more than 5,000 years ago, but there is no doubt that hypnotism goes back to the very origins of humankind and is an innate ability. Roughly 5-10 percent of humans are extremely suggestible and capable of deep hypnotic trance, 25-30 percent are minimally responsive, and the rest fall somewhere in between.

That hypnosis can induce auditory and visual hallucinations is a fact. In his handbook on hallucinations, Asaad states:

"Various types of hallucinatory symptoms may be induced in some people who are under the influence of a strong suggestion or hypnosis. They can also occur in certain individuals during dissociative states. It is believed that altered states of consciousness weaken the integrative function of the ego and impair the sense of reality, allowing the unconscious material to be projected, and hence become readily available to the person's sensory perception. In this context, hallucinatory phenomena that occur during altered states of consciousness are viewed as a mechanism that serves to facilitate the expression of unconscious conflicts or the fulfillment of certain needs" (Asaad 1990, 95).

--Asaad, Ghazi. Hallucinations in Clinical Psychiatry: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1990).

The following is from my essay in American Apocrypha:

While one might feel confident about visions experienced by multiple witnesses, such a phenomenon does not automatically rule out the possibility of hallucination. Group hallucinations are known to have occurred outside Mormonism. Consider, for example, the many appearances of the Virgin Mary, often to multiple witnesses;

See, for example, Patrick Marnham, Lourdes: A Modern Pilgrimage (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1981); William A. Christian, Apparitions in Late Medieval and Renaissance Spain (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981); Michael Carroll, The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).

or visions of Shakers in Lebanon, New York, in the early 1840s. In one instance, eight Shakers signed an affidavit attesting that they saw along with Emily Babcock "the holy Angel standing upon the house-top ... holding the Roll and Book."

Philemon Stewart, et al., A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; from the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth: Revealed in the United Society at New Lebanon, County of Columbia, State of New-York, United States of America (Canterbury, NH: United Society, 1843), 303, 304.

Psychologists Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones describe the phenomena of collective hallucination:

It is expectation that plays the coordinating role in collective hallucination. Although the subject matter of individual hallucinations has virtually no limits, the topics of collective hallucinations are limited to certain categories. These categories are determined, first, by the kinds of ideas that a group of people may be excited about as a group, for emotional excitement is a prerequisite of collective hallucinations. The most common causes of emotional excitement in groups are religious, and, indeed, phenomena related to religion are most often the subject of collective hallucinations. Second, the categories are limited by the fact that all participants in the hallucination must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination. This may take the form of a publicly announced prophecy, for example, or someone suddenly looking up and saying, "Lo, in the skey!" or words to that effect. Things in the sky, or at least overhead, are the most commonly seen collective hallucinations: radiant crosses, saints, religious symbols, flying objects, sometimes all these in combination. Once the general type of hallucination is established, it is easy to harmonize differences in the accounts. This may take place during the hallucination or in subsequent conversations (Zusne and Jones 1982, 135).

--Zusne, Leonard and Jones, Warren H. Anomalistic Psychology (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982).

[T-Shirt]

The famous eighteenth-century Viennese healer Franz Anton Mesmer, from whom the term "mesmerized" is derived, did not invent hypnotism. Indeed, the first recorded performance dates back to Khufu of Egypt more than 5,000 years ago, but there is no doubt that hypnotism goes back to the very origins of humankind and is an innate ability. Roughly 5-10 percent of humans are extremely suggestible and capable of deep hypnotic trance, 25-30 percent are minimally responsive, and the rest fall somewhere in between.

That hypnosis can induce auditory and visual hallucinations is a fact.

So, are you suggesting that Joseph Smith attempted to hypnotize Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer, but as long as Harris was present, he couldn't hypnotize any of them? Further, are you suggesting that once Harris left them, Joseph was then able to hypnotize Cowdery and Whitmer? And finally, are you suggesting that Harris, after leaving and praying, Joseph's attempts to hypnotize him were finally successful?

T-Shirt

[Sethbag]

Dan can speak for himself, but I don't think he was suggesting any particular sequence of events, nor techniques. He was providing some information relating to the power of suggestion. In the context of a religious experience that would naturally include a high level of enthusiasm and perhaps some religious ecstasy or some such. The fact that such things are possible suggests to me (there's that power of suggestion, maybe I'm hypnotizing myself?) that they be considered, alongside any claims of a supernatural explanation.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Dan Vogel,

Have any of these so-called group hallucinations of a religious nature been reproduced in a closed environment (by a trained hypnotist)?

Simply chalking a group vision of the Virgin Mary (or another religious entity) up to hallucination is a little different than a recorded case of someone actually making a group of people see the Virgin Mary (or another religious vision).

[Log]

The implication of Vogel's position, presuming what he's presented here is indicative, is that visions, revelations, and the like, are all hallucinations, no matter how many see the same thing and report such.

[Sethbag]

I'm not 100% certain that Joseph Smith would have to have consciously made the hallucination happen.

I had an experience on my mission that was tantamount to a religious ecstasy/hallucination, and I was 100% totally sincere in my belief that it was in fact the power of God.

[Log]

I had an experience on my mission that was tantamount to a religious ecstasy/hallucination, and I was 100% totally sincere in my belief that it was in fact the power of God.

How do you know it wasn't?