Questian 4 The Unbelievers: How do you account for Lehi's Trail and "land of Jerusalem"?

[Robert F. Smith]

My "lol, really?" was directed to your claims that mormons don't believe in miracles.

it doesn't cohere better with physics because it doesn't have meaning in that field in the first place. "immaterial", "more pure or fine matter", etc... these things don't mean anything intelligible.

I was merely giving a Tibetan example of how normal assumptions might be wrong. After all, it is you who are making the "supernatural" claim.

I simply adopt the more rational position (of Bertrand Russell for example) that abrogation of natural law is nonsense. Why would anyone adopt it? Perhaps for the convenience of rejecting it, and thus eliminating the possibility of rational discussion of a matter which induces cognitive dissonance?

Close observers of Mormonism have commented on this tendency to regard all phenomena as unitary and in accordance with natural law. That is why Pratt's discard of immaterialism as absurd should be so instructive -- because modern science agrees wholeheartedly!! Science doesn't know of anything but matter & energy, which are interchangeable.

Thus, does Thomas F. O'Dea claim that "There is actually no room in Mormonism for philosophy as distinct from theology" (The Mormons [uofChicago, 1957], 233).; and thus does James E. Talmage say that miracles are

[Robert F. Smith]

I already explained my position, so I don't intend to explain it again. I CFR'd for evidence that a place called Nahom existed in 600 B.C. That has yet to be demonstrated.

That you don't understand the critics position doesn't by default prove Nahom was a place. My arguments have nothing to do with whether or not Smith had access to maps. If he did, I think he would have used Nehhm. But it's obvious he didn't since he identified the sea in Isaiah 9:1, JST (2 Ne. 19:1) as the Red Sea. I've made other points, like how the Jews survived a 7 year passage across the Empty Quarter that remain unanswered.

In historical studies of this kind (which are a regular staple of archeology, biblical history, Egyptology, and the like) one doesn't necessarily have to provide absolute proof for everything. It is quite enough to have reasonable indicators. In this case (Nahom), you insist that some actual place be proven to exist at about the right location in 600 BC. One only rarely has that luxury in ancient history. It is enough that one can show that, over time, the name itself has existed in various forms in that region (on altars, as a place, as a tribe), which only goes to back up the notion that it is credible that such a place existed as described in the Book of Mormon. But did it actually exist? We cannot know based on the available evidence, but the credibility of such a place being the cemetery of Ishmael is much enhanced by the existing evidence.

The Isaiah 9:1 point is moot, as I have indicated.

The notion that Clan Lehi spent 7 years in the Empty Quarter is nonsense. You have invented that notion for polemic purposes and the text does not suggest such a thing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 12 March 2011 - 03:37 AM, said:I know of no reason why they would follow the main Incense Route

jmordecai: I think foreigners traveling in a foreign land would likely follow the main routes for trading and water.

I know of no poll of so-called "FARMS apologists" which has been taken on that matter. There may be some people both in and out of the Maxwell Institute who hold that Classic-Main-Route view, but I am unaware of them.

http://maxwellinstit...xwell+Institute

This is a jumble of general search results none of which have anyone claiming that Clan Lehi adhered to the main Incense Route. Were you serious, you would find an actual quote from someone making such a claim -- not simply give me a bunch of articles to wade through.

Quote Smith:

Even though I saw the "Journey of Faith" DVD, I can't recall that position being taken by the narrator. Perhaps you could name the persons who take that position?

jmordecai:

S. Kent Brown to name one.

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/nahom/

This is a blatantly anti-Mormon website, and it deliberately misstates what Mormon scholars have been saying, even going so far as to claim that "To mitigate the absurdity that a group of Jews survived seven years crossing the Empty Quarter, apologists have been moving the spot where the Jews would have turned to head towards Bountiful, to get it below the Empty Quarter."

The only people moving anything are the anti-Mormon polemicists.

In addition, a note under a Kent Brown quote falsely states that Nahom is not a Hebrew word. That's just dumb.

[jmordecai]

Jesus consistently quotes from the Septuagint Greek version of the OT (or at least whoever wrote Matthew used that source), except when he occasionally quotes an Aramaic Targum -- but translated into Greek, which Jesus likely never used. Our earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are centuries later, and even the Qumran mss of Isaiah are at least 5 centuries after Isaiah. Aside from that, we do not know what was on the Brass Plates, including any possible errors. So drawing hard and fast conclusions from just this one item is nearly impossible. Biblical texts have many such "problems," but that is not taken to mean that there is something wrong with the whole. Simply a matter of textual criticism, and certainly to be expected.

Thus my point for Nahom: drawing hard and fast conclusions from just this one item is nearly impossible.

[jmordecai]

The notion that Clan Lehi spent 7 years in the Empty Quarter is nonsense. You have invented that notion for polemic purposes and the text does not suggest such a thing.

It's not my notion. You'll have to take that up with S. Kent Brown.

You have to build a time line to account for the eight years before you can easily dismiss this:

- From Jerusalem to the Red Sea (3 day journey).

- From the Red Sea to Valley of Lemuel (3 day journey)

Here the men marry the daughters of Ishmael (1 Nephi 16:7)

- From Lemuel to Shazer (4 day journey)

1 Nephi 16:13

- From Shazer to Nahom ("the space of many days")

- By 1 Nephi 17:1 the women bear children (Brown says this is evidence of about 1 year from Jerusalem to Nahom)

- 1 Nephi 17:4 places the total journey in the wilderness at 8 years.

Back out 1 year to Nahom and that leaves you with 7 years to Bountiful.

[jmordecai]

This is a jumble of general search results none of which have anyone claiming that Clan Lehi adhered to the main Incense Route. Were you serious, you would find an actual quote from someone making such a claim -- not simply give me a bunch of articles to wade through.

What interest (outside of Nahom/Bountiful) would FARMS have concerning the Frankincense Trail? I take it you are not too familiar with most of the apologetic work done on Nahom. I quick sampling of the links I provided you would have yielded these quotes, just from the first page.

All parties agree that Lehi and company had to follow the Frankincense Trail, for the simple reason that it was the only way to survive the journey.

David A. LeFevre, We Did Again Take Our Journey

Lehi (who lived "at Jerusalem," and had tents, etc.), when warned to flee for his life, most likely went directly to the Frankincense Trail...

Eugene England, Through the Arabian Desert to a Bountiful Land: Could Joseph Smith Have Known the Way?

Modern research has recovered knowledge of an ancient caravan route, "The Frankincense Trail," from Dhofar, the ancient source of that precious material, to near Jerusalem; the trail conforms in detail to Joseph Smith's account of distances, turns, and specific geography...

Eugene England, Through the Arabian Desert to a Bountiful Land: Could Joseph Smith Have Known the Way?

Nibley and others note that this simple travel account fits well with what is now known of the ancient trade routes that carried frankincense from Oman and Yemen northward to the Mediterranean markets.

Noel B. Reynolds, Lehi's Arabian Journey Updated

[cdowis]

It's not my notion. You'll have to take that up with S. Kent Brown.

You have to build a time line to account for the eight years before you can easily dismiss this:

- From Jerusalem to the Red Sea (3 day journey).

OK

- From the Red Sea to Valley of Lemuel (3 day journey)

Here the men marry the daughters of Ishmael (1 Nephi 16:7)

OK

REmained in the Valley of Lemuel xxxxx? Let's say 5 years.

- From Lemuel to Shazer (4 day journey)

1 Nephi 16:13

OK

- From Shazer to Nahom ("the space of many days")

Remained in Shazer.... journey itself took XXXXX years... let's say 2 years.

- By 1 Nephi 17:1 the women bear children (Brown says this is evidence of about 1 year from Jerusalem to Nahom)

These children.... are they the very first children who were born.... or just "children" .. Please show me how many children, when the "children born in the wilderness" were in order of birth.... or was this just an observation that they continued to bear children even while traveling in the wilderness.

PS. If you want to quote Brown, bring him here on the forum to answer these questions. Otherwise you need to answer them.

- 1 Nephi 17:4 places the total journey in the wilderness at 8 years.

Back out 1 year to Nahom and that leaves you with 7 years to Bountiful.

Only if you make assumptions outside the BOM text itself. Please answer the XXX questions from the BOM text -- chapter and verse. For example, how long did they stay in the Valley of Lemuel?

I have shown where the 7 years are included in the journey. Now prove me wrong.

[Mellybug]

Mordecai...one cannot draw any conclusions about the time of travel based off of the women having children after the men gain wives. It grants a MINIMUM of time but the greater maximum possible length of time is not established or, more importantly, closed down to a narrow window. The text does not tell us if they become pregnant immediately as infertility was an issue back then as it is now. It does not tell us if there were miscarriages before successful birthing which is very likely with the travel and activity going on as described. We do not even know if there were any children birthed before this that were not mentioned which could also be a possibility as mentioning child bearing in connection with this place may be to show only the hardship described not the strict order of events. To put out the timeline in that fashion is to assume many things not stated by the actual text.