Is ldsfaqs For Real?

[_ldsfaqs]

The number one best evidence they have is NHM. And it's still not a match. Better luck next time!

Buzz false.... First, it IS a match. Second, it is only ONE of the hundreds of evidences on the entire journey.
Sure, maybe you aren't going to be convinced by any single "one" evidence.
But 100's together, in the proper order, the proper timeline, the proper place, etc. etc. can't be denied.

Read the book instead of knowing a little and thinking you know enough to judge, i.e. being the typical ignorant anti-mormon.

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm happy to study the evidences of the Church, I just want to do so using official Church material. You keep trying to drag me off into anti Mormon and unofficial material.

Come on, Church sources. Put up or shut up.

The Church doesn't produce "scholarship". The church focuses on the Gospel of Christ, making bad men good and good men better, thus, your requirement is stupid and ignorant.
Independent and objective scholarship is not "anti-mormon".

And stop lying to yourself. You're not happy to study the evidences for the Church.
If you were, you would seek the truth out from where-ever it comes.
This is the recent and unprecedented work out on the subject. They got access that other got little of previously.

I read your anti-mormon books. So, why won't you read ours? Stop the childish cop-out.

[_Drifting]

I'm happy to study the evidences of the Church, I just want to do so using official Church material. You keep trying to drag me off into anti Mormon and unofficial material.

Come on, Church sources. Put up or shut up.

The Church doesn't produce "scholarship".

At last, a factual statement.

But alas, still no Church sources.
I kind of knew your mouth was writing checks that the Church couldn't cash...

[_Buffalo]

The number one best evidence they have is NHM. And it's still not a match. Better luck next time!

Buzz false.... First, it IS a match. Second, it is only ONE of the hundreds of evidences on the entire journey.
Sure, maybe you aren't going to be convinced by any single "one" evidence.
But 100's together, in the proper order, the proper timeline, the proper place, etc. etc. can't be denied.

Read the book instead of knowing a little and thinking you know enough to judge, i.e. being the typical ignorant anti-mormon.

No, it's not a match. It doesn't translate as Nahom, and there are other inconsistencies.

Other evidences:

Trees: check!
Wilderness: check!
Rivers: check!

How could he have known???

[_Darth J]

Remember, I've been your ignorance,

To paraphrase Barack Obama, ldsfaqs is the ignorance we've been waiting for.

[_Darth J]

The number one best evidence they have is NHM. And it's still not a match. Better luck next time!

Buzz false.... First, it IS a match.

Of the different locations that the Church has touted as Nahom from the Book of Mormon, which one IS a match?

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07/in-searc ... l?lang=eng

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

http://LDS.org/liahona/2008/01/was-lehi-here?lang=eng

[_ldsfaqs]

Of the different locations that the Church has touted as Nahom from the Book of Mormon, which one IS a match?

http://LDS.org/liahona/1977/07/in-searc ... l?lang=eng

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

http://LDS.org/liahona/2008/01/was-lehi-here?lang=eng

1. You are so funny.
2. "Nahom" has been the SAME PLACE since the beginning.
3. You are confusing some of the other evidences of which there have been a couple different candidates for, i.e. the Valley of Lemual, etc.

I've studied both the Hilton's work and George Potter/Richard Wellingtons work.
I find the later studies on the couple of variations to be the most accurate candidates.

Anyway, again, a couple of evidences out of 100's for which we aren't 100% sure of which candidate is the actual candidate, doesn't somehow invalidate all the other evidences, the entire evidence chain. There are MANY valley's.... It's not surprising that there would be a question of which valley is the better candidate.

But again, Nahom has always been the same place. It was a major city/people of a particular time period.

You [personal attack deleted] don't even get BASIC FACTS right..... to degrade the Church with.

[_Drifting]

Why doesn't the Church officially support the Nahom theory?

It would be easy for them to check. Next time they are speaking face to face with Christ, under 'any other business' they could ask him to confirm where Nahom was/is.

Maybe they have and are distancing themselves from yet another crackpot apologetic that will need Oaks to stamp all over it at some point when he thinks nobody is looking.

[_Buffalo]

1. You are so funny.
2. "Nahom" has been the SAME PLACE since the beginning.
3. You are confusing some of the other evidences of which there have been a couple different candidates for, i.e. the Valley of Lemual, etc.

I've studied both the Hilton's work and George Potter/Richard Wellingtons work.
I find the later studies on the couple of variations to be the most accurate candidates.

Anyway, again, a couple of evidences out of 100's for which we aren't 100% sure of which candidate is the actual candidate, doesn't somehow invalidate all the other evidences, the entire evidence chain. There are MANY valley's.... It's not surprising that there would be a question of which valley is the better candidate.

But again, Nahom has always been the same place. It was a major city/people of a particular time period.

You [personal attack deleted] don't even get BASIC FACTS right..... to degrade the Church with.

He came close to the reason why this doesn't rise to the level of evidence. So close.

[_SteelHead]

Anyone comparing Mad moderation to the holocaust is "really" out of their gourd.