The voyage of Lehi and Company

[_Daniel Peterson]

Wow. What a powerful rebuttal.

Semitists will be blown away, and those who actually understand the NHM issue will be silenced.

Or will say to themselves with a sigh, "Why even bother?"

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The LDS church claims a stone altar in Yemen bears the inscription "NHM".

I don't believe the "LDS church" has ever claimed anything concerning a stone altar in Yemen.

Sir,

That is true. It is just a stone marker.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_William Schryver]

It is just a stone marker.

I don't believe the "LDS church" has ever claimed anything concerning a stone marker in Yemen.
.
.
.
.
=========================>

[_DarkHelmet]

Is it possible that during their voyage to the new world, Lehi and Company stopped at the Island of Cumora near the village of Moroni before sailing around Cape Horn and that both names got incorporated into the Reformed Egyptian list of possible names?

If so, would this not prove more compelling that the current proof of Nahom?

.

I think it is a very good possibility that they visited Moroni and Comoros. How else would those names get into the Book of Mormon? Also, I'm sure Laman and Lemuel's wives partied in Moroni with some Asian tourists and got themselves knocked up. This would explain the Asian DNA.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It is just a stone marker.

I don't believe the "LDS church" has ever claimed anything concerning a stone marker in Yemen.
.
.
.
.
=========================>

Sir,

I am not sure where you draw the line between "the church" and its institutions, but for me they are one and the same. Brigham Young University is close enough, I am sure, to be considered part of "the church". After all, if a professor falls out of line with the Mormon church he or she is fired or excommunicated by the Mormon church. You are welcome to split hairs over this assertion.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_William Schryver]

Sir,

I am not sure where you draw the line between "the church" and its institutions, but for me they are one and the same.

Then you don't have a very good understanding of how things work in "the church." In fact, people who understand these things find it quite easy to draw a line of demarcation between the church, its official doctrine and policies, and its various affiliate institutions.

[_harmony]

Sir,

I am not sure where you draw the line between "the church" and its institutions, but for me they are one and the same. Brigham Young University is close enough, I am sure, to be considered part of "the church". After all, if a professor falls out of line with the Mormon church he or she is fired or excommunicated by the Mormon church. You are welcome to split hairs over this assertion.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I always find it more helpful to distinguish between the corporate church/church leaders and the apologists. One is not tied to the other by anything more than the flimsiest of cords. Apologists are not responsible for dumb decisions made by church leaders, and the church leaders are not responsible for dumb arguments floated about by the apologists. One does not equal the other, and it's unfair to conflate the two.

[_maklelan]

Then you don't have a very good understanding of how things work in "the church." In fact, people who understand these things find it quite easy to draw a line of demarcation between the church, its official doctrine and policies, and its various affiliate institutions.

This is why MI publications all carry disclaimers stating the opinions of the articles do not necessarily represent the position of MI, BYU, or the Church. Everything indicates pretty clear separation, but some people's denigration of the Church doesn't work that well unless such a separation doesn't exist, so they nakedly assert it doesn't exist and accuse everyone who disagrees of "splitting hairs," just to try to protect their silly little paradigm. It's juvenile propaganda and absolutely nothing more.

[_Sethbag]

You're a smart guy, and smart people usually have this thing about believing that they're seeing things clearly, and being rational. What's funny is how often this is not true.

Except when it's you, right?

Wrong. I've said this before, many times, and I'll probably say it quite a few times again. I was a smart guy too, and I "thought around" all of the problems with Mormon truth claims that had been building up slowly in my mind for decades. The big difference between me and you on this issue is that I finally recognized that I was doing that, and made myself take that recognition seriously. I then decided, in a knock-down, hair-pulling internal struggle between my natural inclination toward intellectual honesty and my natural impulse to be loyal to the tribe and testimony, not to do that anymore.

That's the difference. I'm probably not any smarter than you are, but I recognized I was using my smarts to find ways to keep on believing things that didn't deserve to be believed, and managed, against all of the internal safeguards years of Mormon beliefs puts up around the cherished testimony, to stop using my smarts to "think around" the problems.

And that was the beginning of the end of my testimony, because I'm here to witness you to, that without serious work and effort in "thinking around" the evidence against it, the Mormon worldview stands no chance against reality. Just as the JW worldview stands no chance against reality without the years of training and practice in JW "defense against reality" mental conditioning. Just as the Scientology worldview stands no chance without the conditioning Scientologists experience to prepare their minds to receive utter nonsense as sacred truth.

The Mormon worldview really does fall apart against the backdrop of reality that easily. All it takes is to recognize that you are using your intelligence to look for ways to keep believing things when evidence exists that shows them to be manmade phenomena.

Your biggest mental block is that you don't think you're doing this. You probably find it hard to believe that you could be doing this. You feel so sure and confident that you're not doing this. This can't possibly be happening with you, can it?

It helps to consider all the other religious believers from other religions and churches out there in the world. How many of them are using their intelligence to "think around" evidence that contradicts their religious teachings? Do they realize that they're doing it?

One of the last things that happened with me before I made my painful realization was that I was arguing religious stuff with this friend of mine at the Catholic seminary (now one year away from his ordination). I realized up close and personal just how much he was using his intellect to think around the problems I was pointing out with his beliefs. Right around the same time, I was reading some FARMS defenses and book reviews, and it just struck me right between the eyes, that we (Mormons) do the exact same thing I saw so clearly in my friend. I was forced to really be introspective about my own way of thinking about these problems, and realized that I had been doing it too, for years.

It was all up with my testimony from that moment, though I didn't really fully accept that for a few months yet.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mr. Maklelan,

I refer you to my other thread dealing with a Mormon apologist's Modus Operandi. Please do not succumb to the temptation.

There have been many articles in The Ensign that deal with "NHM" as evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me