Fascinating Discussion By Apologist And Vogel

[Fly Fisherman]

http://podcastmyotherchurch.com/forum/index.php?topic=327.0

Actually, the whole thread there is quite interesting. Lots of good discussion, including Book of Mormon archeology.

Anybody want to discuss some of the Nahom arguments?

[Uncle Dale]

Anybody want to discuss some of the Nahom arguments?

Not unless somebody is still arguing that the place name was not printed on British maps of Yemen,

reproduced and sold in Philadelphia and other American cities many years before 1830.

Uncle Dale

[Fly Fisherman]

Vogel says,

"The BOM says "the place which was called Nahom." It doesn't say by whom. Apologists say by pre-existing peoples, later known as NiHMites, with whom the Lehites interacted but failed to mention. Apologists also suggest that Ishmael was burried in the cemetery there, but some critics question the propriety of a Jew being burried in a heathen cemetery. But all that is mere speculation. Others critics and at least one apologists (Kent S. Brown) have pointed out NHM (Hebrew) has a hard H, while NHM in Aribic has a soft H. Nahom in Hebrew means to "mourn," but in Arabic it means something different, which has caused some apologists to suggest that Nephi used the name in a different way than its inhabitants. At present there isn't enough evidence to determine of this was the BOM's NHM, or just a coincidence. Besides the name and general location, there isn't a description or the place or even mention of the people in the BOM to build a case. It is inconclusive."

Also, Vogel says,

"Coincidences do happen. Coincidence cannot be ruled out. Nahom wasn't discovered by Mormon scholars researching Lehi's trail. Two alters with NHM--listed under Nihm--were already known to non-Mormon scholars. Mormon researchers discovered that, and used that to resolve the debate over which route Lehi travled. At most NHM can only be counted as possible evidence for the BOM, even for those who already believe it is a historical document. For all believers know, there could be a real NHM somewhere else (which has no relationship to Nihm or the Nihmites), perhaps closer to the Red Sea, named Nahom because of the mourning over Ishmael's death, for which there is no archaeological evidence. The reason why this possibility can't be ruled out is because there isn't enough evidence to verify the Nihm theory. That leaves the BOM without any direct evidence establishing it as a historical document."

[grego]

That leaves the BOM without any direct evidence establishing it as a historical document.

Sorry I guess I'm [not] up on the times, but what *would* be considered by all to be "direct evidence" for any document to be historical?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Vogel says,

"The BOM says "the place which was called Nahom." It doesn't say by whom. Apologists say by pre-existing peoples, later known as NiHMites, with whom the Lehites interacted but failed to mention.

Dan Vogel 101: "Nothing could have existed apart from what is specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon text." For example- Lehi's company somehow managed to not use the restroom for years at a time- in fact, they never went to the bathroom, because the "Lehites" failed to mention that fact.

Apologists also suggest that Ishmael was burried in the cemetery there, but some critics question the propriety of a Jew being burried in a heathen cemetery. But all that is mere speculation.

That is curious, isn't it? A dead person, by the unwritten law code of the universe, must be buried at a "cemetary." Also, the "Lehites" should have treked back to Jerusalem to bury Ishmael. How selfish of them to just leave him at some apparently "heathen" cemetary. We know it must have been heathen: the only religious people lived at Jerusalem. There weren't any mysterious desert sectaries or anything of the like...

Others critics and at least one apologists (Kent S. Brown) have pointed out NHM (Hebrew) has a hard H, while NHM in Aribic has a soft H. Nahom in Hebrew means to "mourn," but in Arabic it means something different, which has caused some apologists to suggest that Nephi used the name in a different way than its inhabitants. At present there isn't enough evidence to determine of this was the BOM's NHM, or just a coincidence. Besides the name and general location, there isn't a description or the place or even mention of the people in the BOM to build a case. It is inconclusive."

So it could be or it couldn't be, depending on who you talk to.

Also, Vogel says,

"Coincidences do happen. Coincidence cannot be ruled out.

Dan has struck gold here; this is confounding to those scholars who automatically "rule out" coincidence. As a sidenote, it's funny that Dan automatically rules out the supernatural. It's ok to rule out whatever Dan wants to rule out, but don't rule out what Dan says not to rule out. This is Dan's world, we're just living in it.

Nahom wasn't discovered by Mormon scholars researching Lehi's trail. Two alters with NHM--listed under Nihm--were already known to non-Mormon scholars. Mormon researchers discovered that, and used that to resolve the debate over which route Lehi travled.

The great debate, even.

At most NHM can only be counted as possible evidence for the BOM, even for those who already believe it is a historical document. For all believers know, there could be a real NHM somewhere else (which has no relationship to Nihm or the Nihmites), perhaps closer to the Red Sea, named Nahom because of the mourning over Ishmael's death, for which there is no archaeological evidence.

I wasn't aware anyone viewed it as unequivocal proof that the Book of Mormon is an authentic record.

The reason why this possibility can't be ruled out is because there isn't enough evidence to verify the Nihm theory. That leaves the BOM without any direct evidence establishing it as a historical document."

Other than the book, itself, of course?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sorry I guess I'm ont up on the times, but what *would* be considered by all to be "direct evidence" for any document to be historical?

Photographic evidence?

Wait...photoshop.

Uh...Nephite artifacts that says "This belongs to Nephi" ought to do it.

Wait..Joseph Smith probably learned that name from one of the millions of books he read, depsite his mothers assertions he was not prone to reading.

Hmmm... dang. Maybe Mr. Vogel can enlighten us.

"When this Dan meets World!"

[PacMan]

Dan said:

That leaves the BOM without any direct evidence establishing it as a historical document.

Actually, what was presented is direct evidence of establishing the BOM as a historical document. It is not conclusive, nor proof. I agree that it needs be taken with a grain of salt for what unknowns do still exist. But to leverage argumentum ad ignoratium to such extremes is shear irresponsibility. Let us not confuse critical thinking with dragging feet and refusing to concede evidence for what it is--evidence.

PacMan

[cdowis]

Not unless somebody is still arguing that the place name was not printed on British maps of Yemen,

reproduced and sold in Philadelphia and other American cities many years before 1830.

Uncle Dale

I have asked this question before.

What purpose does JS have to make such authentic details? Who is his audience that he has to go to such lengths to give us authentic egyptian names, akkadian words, a real valley in the middle of the desert, extensive geographic details for Bountiful where Nephi launched his ship, etc etc.

Why is it that a century later that we are still discovering these details?

Can you say the same thing for Spaulding's books?

[Luigi]

Photographic evidence?

Wait...photoshop.

Uh...Nephite artifacts that says "This belongs to Nephi" ought to do it.

Wait..Joseph Smith probably learned that name from one of the millions of books he read, depsite his mothers assertions he was not prone to reading.

Hmmm... dang. Maybe Mr. Vogel can enlighten us.

Well what documents would you consider historical? Let's face it if someone claims to have translated an ancient record by using a special stone and divine powers most consider that a sufficient reason for seriously questioning it's authenticity since there is absolutely no precedent for such (even if a person is religious no scripture had ever allegedly been brought forth in that way). Consequently it would take an overwhelming amount of archeological evidence for most people to accept the work as ancient. If the book had some similarities to ancient culture or geography they would be dismissed as coincidences(since of course multiple coincidences should be expected) or as having some other explanation (such as the alleged fraud having access to some contemporary source). For historians in general to accept the BoM as a historical document would require virtually every historical detail presented in the BoM matching the archeological evidence unless historians start allowing spiritual evidence evoked from personal prayer.

[Obiwan]

Critics need to stop looking at the tree and ignoring the forest.

Nahom or shalom it doesn't matter.... What matters is that, Lehi's entire journey with all the details accurately and plausibly matching exist at each and every step of that journey. Nahom by itself is only "one" small evidence of 100's in that journey. Joseph nor anyone else could have put that together, and it all match so well, unless they had lived there, traveled there, and did so during the same time frame of history as Lehi. Read up http://www.nephiproject.com

The Book of Mormon is true revelation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well what documents would you consider historical? Let's face it if someone claims to have translated an ancient record by using a special stone and divine powers most consider that a sufficient reason for seriously questioning it's authenticity since there is absolutely no precedent for such (even if a person is religious no scripture had ever allegedly been brought forth in that way). Consequently it would take an overwhelming amount of archeological evidence for most people to accept the work as ancient. If the book had some similarities to ancient culture or geography they would be dismissed as coincidences(since of course multiple coincidences should be expected) or as having some other explanation (such as the alleged fraud having access to some contemporary source). For historians in general to accept the BoM as a historical document would require virtually every historical detail presented in the BoM matching the archeological evidence unless historians start allowing spiritual evidence evoked from personal prayer.

Here is the truth behind Vogel's argument, all along. Hugh Nibley was right after all, bless his soul.

There ain't no such things as angels and gold books!

[Luigi]

Here is the truth behind Vogel's argument, all along. Hugh Nibley was right after all, bless his soul.

There ain't no such things as angels and gold books!

Maybe you might address the argument itself, so far you've only proved your admiration for Hugh Nibley.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe you might address the argument itself, so far you've only proved your admiration for Hugh Nibley.

But that's the point, Luigi. Why discuss "evidences" [evidently, Dan Vogel doesn't know what "evidence" even is,] when anything you bring up will be summarilly dismissed on the basis that Joe Smith was a pious fraud or a lunatic or a clever conman (take your pick) who duped people into believing he spoke with an "imaginary" God?

[Uncle Dale]

I have asked this question before.

What purpose does JS have to make such authentic details? Who is his audience that he has to go to such lengths to give us authentic egyptian names, akkadian words, a real valley in the middle of the desert, extensive geographic details for Bountiful where Nephi launched his ship, etc etc.

Why is it that a century later that we are still discovering these details?

Probably because nobody is really interested except Latter Day Saints -- and among that group,

probably only the LDS and FLDS are strongly committed to BoM historicity/authenticity.

The RLDS used to sponsor a research group called the "Zarahemla Institute," or some such thing.

They eventually gave up trying to prove the BoM true via archaeology, paleo-anthropology, linguistics,

and such.

If somebody wants to keep "discovering details," it will have to be the LDS -- because none of the

other Latter Day Saints have the resources nor the institutional interest to pursue the subject.

Can you say the same thing for Spaulding's books?

I can quote the authors of the Enigma book, in their response to Matt Roper. They said that

the more they continue their research, the more previously unknown historical material they uncover

in support of their claims --- and that they challenge FARMS et al., as to whether Zarahemla

will be excavated before conclusive evidence turns up for the Spalding-Rigdon claims.

All of that is aside from my own investigations. I continue to post to the web most of what I find --

but I do not make a big show of that process.

I do not know how it impacts upon "Spaulding's books," but the recent discovery, that Rev. Sidney Rigdon

lived within walking distance of a reported money-digger follower of Joseph Smith, in 1826-27, may

be the sort of thing that historical researchers should look into.

However, if nobody but Mormons is interested in "discovering these details," then the number of LDS

interested in "discovering these details" regarding Rigdon's early religious career can be counted on

the fingers of one hand (and not even using half of its fingers).

UD

[Luigi]

But that's the point, Luigi. Why discuss "evidences" [evidently, Dan Vogel doesn't know what "evidence" even is,] when anything you bring up will be summarilly dismissed on the basis that Joe Smith was a pious fraud or a lunatic or a clever conman (take your pick) who duped people into believing he spoke with an "imaginary" God?

Your original point of ridicule was the criteria for a historical document and my point was that the BoM does not meet the criteria to be accepted as a historical document until virtually every historical aspect of it was shown to be in line with archeological evidence since the method which it allegedly came forth has never been shown to be reliable. Now with that said we can certainly evaluate each historical aspect and see if the Book of Mormon is in line with the historical evidence. The trail of Lehi seems to be fairly correct with our understanding of the geography and ancient travels of the Arabian peninsula-I think most agree on that point and so that certainly would be a point towards the historical accuracy of the BoM. BUT on most other historical points in the BoM, especially those in the New World there have been few non LDS archeologists which have been convinced that the BoM is in line with current historical evidence. Thus given the fairly broad consensus of not accepting the means of divine translation of an ancient record AND the consensus of most non LDS archeologists that many of the historical points made in the BoM are not consistent with historical evidence the few points which ARE considered consistent would logically be explained as either coincidence or as being derived from unknown sources by the alleged fraud.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your original point of ridicule was the criteria for a historical document and my point was that the BoM does not meet the criteria to be accepted as a historical document until virtually every historical aspect of it was shown to be in line with archeological evidence since the method which it allegedly came forth has never been shown to be reliable.

The assertion that historical documents must be proven by archeological evidence is ridiculous.

Now with that said we can certainly evaluate each historical aspect and see if the Book of Mormon is in line with the historical evidence. The trail of Lehi seems to be fairly correct with our understanding of the geography and ancient travels of the Arabian peninsula-I think most agree on that point and so that certainly would be a point towards the historical accuracy of the BoM. BUT on most other historical points in the BoM, especially those in the New World there have been few non LDS archeologists which have been convinced that the BoM is in line with current historical evidence.

Why would non LDS archeologists even care to try it? What makes archeology so rock-solid in your view? My impression of the field was greatly adjusted by an anthropology class in college.

Thus given the fairly broad consensus of not accepting the means of divine translation of an ancient record AND the consensus of most non LDS archeologists that many of the historical points made in the BoM are not consistent with historical evidence the few points which ARE considered consistent would logically be explained as either coincidence or as being derived from unknown sources by the alleged fraud.

But what are these non LDS archeologists comparing the BoM to? And what in the BoM are they comparing? Nibley has made a most powerful case for the structure of the Nephite society, in my opinion, and it doesn't look like an Arnold Frieburg painting.

[Luigi]

The assertion that historical documents must be proven by archeological evidence is ridiculous.

Historical documents that come to us by generally accepted methods, no, those that come to use other means, yes. Otherwise how do you suggest that we determine the historicity of documents from anyone else in the future who happens to claim that he/she has translated an ancient document by divine power while the ancient source material is not available for public viewing?

Why would non LDS archeologists even care to try it?

Are you kidding? If they felt there was a reasonable chance of finding such evidence if nothing else just the base motives of mullah would drive them (not to mention the unquenchable desire of man to prove the divine). If there was overwhelming consistent archeological evidence of a book brought forth in the method of the BoM that would make for a fairly lucrative TV special.

What makes archeology so rock-solid in your view?

I don't know if I would call it rock-solid-certainly it has it's problems but I haven't found anything very convincing in the alternatives.

But what are these non LDS archeologists comparing the BoM to? And what in the BoM are they comparing?

The only thing they could compare it to, the Mesoamerican civilizations that we've discovered. They would obviously compare it to anything the BoM stated that could be compared. What animals did they use, what language did they speak/write, what was their system of exchange, what was their system of worship, or keeping time, etc?

[SouthBayMC]

Thanks for the link Fly. This is interesting.

[The Dude]

I agree with Dan's criticisms, having made them some of them myself.

Let us not confuse critical thinking with dragging feet and refusing to concede evidence for what it is--evidence.

Let's not confuse open-mindedness with broadening our definition of "direct evidence" to the point where it looses all meaning. A burial ground that may or may not have been used by Lehi. An inscription that may or may not refer to a place name in the BoM. A trail that might have been followed by Lehi, or might not. If you call this stuff as direct evidence, then critics are way ahead of you with lists of 19th century place names that are similar or identical to names in the BoM. That must be direct evidence that the BoM is a 19th century invention, right?

Well, I don't think it is. And neither is NHM direct evidence of anything -- except that the site was used by people who could carve letters in stone.

[grego]

Luigi wrote:

Your original point of ridicule was the criteria for a historical document and my point was that the BoM does not meet the criteria to be accepted as a historical document until virtually every historical aspect of it was shown to be in line with archeological evidence since the method which it allegedly came forth has never been shown to be reliable. Now with that said we can certainly evaluate each historical aspect and see if the Book of Mormon is in line with the historical evidence.

So is this the basis for judging a historical document to prove it's true?

[cdowis]

BUT on most other historical points in the BoM, especially those in the New World there have been few non LDS archeologists which have been convinced that the BoM is in line with current historical evidence.

This has been discussed and beaten to death.

Please give us a list of non-LDS archologists who have read the BOM, who have made a detailed list of historical details in the book which can be checked against the current state of archeology.

Your point falls flat on its face because nonLDS archeologists will not bother to read a book delivered by an angel, much less do such a detailed study.

I have cited an archeological find which fits well with a BOM background, which otherwise has no explanation. But the archeologists do not even consider the BOM as an explanation because...... it is a book delivered by an angel.

Thus given the fairly broad consensus of not accepting the means of divine translation of an ancient record AND the consensus of most non LDS archeologists that many of the historical points made in the BoM are not consistent with historical evidence

PLEASE be specific. Give us a list of nonLDS archeologists who have read the BOM and have given a detailed analysis of the text of this book, comparing it to the historical evidence.

CALL FOR REFERENCES, PLEASE.

the few points which ARE considered consistent would logically be explained as either coincidence or as being derived from unknown sources by the alleged fraud.

Yep, just a coincidence. Again, we have discussed that topic in detail.

The antimormon arguments are like weeds. You kill them off with logic, and the antis, a few months later, bring them up as though it had never been discussed.

[Glenn101]

No one (probably) will ever be to prove that the Book of Mormon is true by archaeology. The same is true for the Bible. The only thing that archaeology has proven about the Bible is that some of the place names that are found in the Bible.

But is ther rock solid evidence for the flood? Believers will affirm, but many other less believing geologists will say nay. Is there any real rock solid evidence for the Israelite 400 year sojourn in Egypt? That is one of the real biggies. After all of these years of archaeological exploration in Egypt is there such scant evidence to afirm the Biblical story?

The Valley of Lemuel/Nahom/Bountiful story from the Book of Mormon has found some very strong support from archaeology. Acceptable candidates for each of those places have been found, and in the correct places in relationship to each other.

Even if, as Dan Vogel suggests, that another place name Nahom is found somewhere else, that would be irrelevant, because it would be in the wrong place. What we do have are three existing geographic locations that appear in the correct locations, with characteristics which fit the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon very well.

None of that proves the book of Mormon to be true. It only lends credence to Old World part of the book of Mormon story.

The Spaulding theory which keeps cropping up ignores all of the real evidence that has been found. Firstly, the original manuscript bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There has been no peer reviewed studies that have established Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, nor Solomon Spaulding as the author(s) of any portion of the Book of Mormon.

Worprint studies done by John Hilton using methods that have been peer reviewed and that have been proven to work have ruled out either of those gentlemen as the authors of the Book of Mormon. I have seen no peer reviewed refutation of that by anyone qualified in the field.

There are those who believe that a second manuscript must exist because the first one was not the one. However, even if a second manuscript could be found, it would be irrelevant, because neither Signey Rigdon, Solomon Spaulding, nor Joseph Smith, according to the wordprint studies, could have written the Book of Mormon.

Now, as to American archaeology and the Book of Mormon, no evidence has been uncovered that proves the Book of Mormon to be false. Some things have been found which would lend credence to the story, such as the use of cement in some areas, and there are some things which have plausible explanations. Some of those explanations have been derided, but that is irrelevant. The Book of Mormon has to be construed as the authors meant it, not as to how Tom, ****, or Harry may wish to interpretet it.

And there are many things that we have not found and may never find. Which will not prove anything one way or the other.

I believe in the Bible, not because of archaeology. If that were the basis of my belief, I would have fallen away in unbelief long ago. There are so many contradictions and inconsistencies in that book. But my belief in it is based on the testimony of the Holy Ghost, so the lack of evidence of the Children of Israel in Egypt not an issue with me.

The same goes for the Book of Mormon. I have received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that it is true. That is all I really need.

Glenn