The Nahom Follies

[_cinepro]

Hamblin is practicing some judicious selection in approving (or not approving) comments on the blog. I made several responses to points that were being discussed, and most were "unapproved".

Sadly, my best observation didn't make it through. Hamblin argued that every BYU student is required to take classes on The Book of Mormon, but I helpfully pointed out that BYU recently replaced the previous required classes with a new class called "The Teachings and Doctrine of the Book of Mormon", which is obviously not about the historicity of The Book of Mormon at all.

[_canpakes]

Hamblin is practicing some judicious selection in approving (or not approving) comments on the blog. I made several responses to points that were being discussed, and most were "unapproved".

Sadly, my best observation didn't make it through. Hamblin argued that every BYU student is required to take classes on The Book of Mormon, but I helpfully pointed out that BYU recently replaced the previous required classes with a new class called "The Teachings and Doctrine of the Book of Mormon", which is obviously not about the historicity of The Book of Mormon at all.

Are you violating Rule 4 from this page? : )

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticm ... ngagement/

For this reason, I don't post under my pseudonym. But I won't post under any legal name, either, as the requirement isn't worth it.

[_honorentheos]

It is this dilemma that we run into over and over again. If God cares he would lay things out explicitly so that no mistake can be made, per Jenkins.

Evidence for Zarahemla.

I guess that my first question would be, "why Zarahemla"?

More to the point - Christianity isn't predicated on a particular lost town being rediscovered. I'm sure that there are a number of Biblical locations that cannot be confirmed with surety but they don't dictate if Christianity - or even the Bible itself - is 'valid'.

But, let's say that we had a particular town in mind, from the Bible - let's say, Babel. We can't confirm that it exists - for whatever reason - so we move on to another target, of which the Bible has many. And we'll find some that exist, and we'll see archaeological evidence that confirms at least some social, theological, fiscal, legal, - whatever - aspects that link those sites to the Biblical narrative in some or many ways.

Using the same methodology with the Book of Mormon - what would our next target be?

There isn't one. We cannot find a site that exists in South America that bears any true resemblance or shares the social, fiscal, legal, or theological characteristics of the alternate reality described in the Book of Mormon. All of the basics are remarkably different - timekeeping, sculpture, deities, social structures, recreation (decapitated head soccer, anyone?), monetary systems, foods grown, animals used, methods of worship - all seem very different than what was described in the Book of Mormon - regardless of folks as far back as Hugh Nibley trying to draw feeble connections. The sheer mass of differences is overwhelming.

That's why we have the response that Jenkins gives. Just a sherd - something that can be definitively linked to the Book of Mormon narrative. Yes, it doesn't need to say, 'Made in Zarahemla' - it doesn't need to. It just needs to conform to the general unique societal aspects outlined in the Book of Mormon, as opposed to being some sort of rigid minor utilitarian item like a device to hold grain... yet we cannot even find an example of the latter that fits Smith's tale.

And that is why Ruben's challenge to Jenkins is not really much of a challenge. It asserts that we conclude that if we cannot find 'a piece of Zarahemla' that we must still acknowledge that the Book of Mormon can be a reality. Notwithstanding that we aren't looking specifically for Zarahemla - we're just looking for anything amongst the vast selection of Mesoamerican ruins and artifacts that corresponds with the particular and important aspects of Nephite and Lamanite history and culture. Yet despite the best efforts of many dedicated and talented LDS, this has yet to be accomplished.

It isn't just Zarahemla. It's everything, and nothing is the result.

So we are left with: No God...or no God who really cares...or faith is necessary for some reason...or Joseph Smith was a fraud along with so many others (back to God doesn't care...). So if one chooses to believe in God he/she is left with 1. a God who doesn't care that people are believing crazy stuff...

... Which happens, and is the situation for the majority of the Earth's population by even your own reckoning. In other words, how many people alive today believe in what the Church labels as the One True Doctrine? Why does anyone else believe anything different?

Thus we can conclude that God may not care that some people believe 'crazy stuff'. Maybe it really isn't about believing 'crazy stuff' at all, anyway, be it that the world rides on the back of a turtle, or that we should baptize dead people. Instead, maybe it's all about how we treat ourselves and the others around us.

That would be something that we can all use our free will and mental faculties to engage in - no matter what our faith beliefs are. That's a fair test, and a fair enough task to ask.

... or 2. a God who for some reason wants us to live by faith.

This isn't mutually exclusive of the prior item.

But, if or no - If the idea is to live by faith in God, then why does a believer need a quorum of mortals to tell him what to believe about God? If that's really the case, then you are back to #1 on your list - i.e., God doesn't really care, because that quorum of old men has a very small audience, and that audience can really just be under the same test as everyone else... of doing right by others regardless - or in spite of - whatever peculiar conditions and requirements dreamed up by that quorum of old men are added to the list.

I can see why some would take the route of 'no belief in God' because that simplifies everything. But what about the rest of us that choose to believe? Choosing a God who doesn't care doesn't really add up. So we're back to faith.

This thought is incomplete.

'Doesn't care'... in what? Crazy stuff? Or in God? Or in being the best person one could be to others? Or in love, friendship, kindness, compassion, empathy? Pizza?

Seriously, what is 'the thing'?

The Book of Mormon must ultimately be accepted on faith. Thus, no Zarahemla and everything else you can throw in that same direction. And Nahom is a possibility but not a sure thing.

The Book of Mormon does not necessarily need to be accepted on faith if evidence exists that confirms a number of aspects of it. And it's a false dilemma to be imposed on someone to say that the entire Book must be accepted or not on faith anyway. One could easily separate out Biblical geography from certain theological precepts within it but that doesn't 'invalidate the Bible'; that concept is meaningless - as much as saying 'The Church is True'. These are nice catchphrases, but ultimately serve only to shame or coerce people into believing one set of things or another.

Is it that simple? I'm probably missing something...

It depends. But you are posing arguably simple challenges and predetermining complicated conditions to either satisfy or nullify them.

I would agree with the original poster and MG's implications that the discovery of Zarahemla would almost essentially prove the Nephites existed which is only hypothesized in one theory to my knowledge: That of the Book of Mormon being a true account of an ancient people somewhere in the New World. While there are those who doubt the Bible's ties to history completely, I think they are in a minority and likely to be considered cranks or poorly informed by scholars in the applicable fields. As the Jenkins argument makes clear, currently anyone toting the existence of real Nephites as history is more likely to be the crank or poorly informed.

However, the argument as presented brings to my mind a visual. Perhaps MG would include it in his thought experiment.

That visual is of a lever balanced on a fulcrum. Weight representing evidence for or against the Book of Mormon could be seen as bricks stacked on either side where appropriate. Let's say the fulcrum on which the lever is balanced represents one's willingness to believe Joseph Smith may have been a prophet of God. My impression of the thought experiment, and the general approach MG has been applying in this thread, is of someone who keeps asking to move the fulcrum closer and closer to the side of the evidence against the Book of Mormon. Assuming this is because when left balanced they aren't comfortable with the obvious and quick "clunk" it makes as the evidence against drives down hard. So, we are asked to keep inching the fulcrum in favor of the Book of Mormon being a book made possible by a God to be accepted as real...but what we really are doing is just moving the fulcrum directly under the evidence against the Book of Mormon side so it would be impossible for it to tip down even if the evidence against the Book of Mormon were overwhelming.

Moving the fulcrum that far leaves the evidence for the Book of Mormon appearing to balance out the evidence against...but the simple machine involved is no longer a lever capable of performing work. It's a cantilevered plank that uses the weight of the argument against directly over the fulcrum to hold up the possibility the Book of Mormon is still potentially true. It's just silly to take if for anything but evidence the argument against is overwhelming unless one is fine with simply halting the ability to measure the evidence against one another. Kind of like one's critical thinking capacity stops being critical thinking along the way of moving the fulcrum that far.

One shouldn't fault Jenkins for leaving a discussion leading to a pointless yet obvious eventuality.

[_I have a question]

This is like the chicken and egg scenario. He made tools from the metal in the ore that he obtained using the tools that were made from the ore that he mined from the tools that were crafted from the ore.

As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't be surprise if Lehi and Co. had basic tools with them as they crossed the desert. The question is whether or not they brought all of the tools necessary for building a ship.

http://www.ageofsail.net/aosbt.asp

Not that these tools are exactly like the ones Nephi would have used, but you get the picture...

Regards,
MG

Apparently not....

4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/2?lang=eng

MG, I see you've quickly moved the thread onto something else.....

[_mentalgymnast]

But, let's say that we had a particular town in mind, from the Bible - let's say, Babel. We can't confirm that it exists - for whatever reason - so we move on to another target, of which the Bible has many. And we'll find some that exist, and we'll see archaeological evidence that confirms at least some social, theological, fiscal, legal, - whatever - aspects that link those sites to the Biblical narrative in some or many ways.

Using the same methodology with the Book of Mormon - what would our next target be?

Do we know that we are comparing apples with apples? As we look at Old World culture vs. New World Culture and their patterns of record keeping, in all of its varied forms, would we expect the same 'basis in fact' to come out of both systems?

A number of folks have attempted to do so in a theoretical fashion and we can look at their work, in regards to either Meso-American archaeology or the Meldrum theories, but we don't have anything that marks out Zarahemla, as a matter of fact, or anywhere else mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The million dollar question is should we expect this to be the case?

...God may not care that some people believe 'crazy stuff'. Maybe it really isn't about believing 'crazy stuff' at all, anyway, be it that the world rides on the back of a turtle, or that we should baptize dead people. Instead, maybe it's all about how we treat ourselves and the others around us.

Mormonism teaches that people will be judged according to the light that they were given/had. I think you're right that everyone will be 'judged' according to how we treat others and how we take care of ourselves. A majority of people in the world have this 'imperative' implanted in their core being of who they are at birth.

But, if or no - If the idea is to live by faith in God, then why does a believer need a quorum of mortals to tell him what to believe about God?

They wouldn't...unless that quorum of 'old men', as you describe them, have unique access to the Holy Ghost as special witnesses to keep us up to speed in areas that are of special import in our own day and time.

Seriously, what is 'the thing'?

I think that if there is any one thing that God cares about it is that ultimately all of his children are happy. That is what I wish for my kids. There are some common things that bring happiness to my/our kids and there are other things, unique to each child, that bring them happiness. I think we could say that this is the same for humanity as a whole. God recognizes that, no big surprise there. I don't think it is a stretch that he 'gives gifts' according to that which we are willing/able to receive. He doesn't over burden us with that which will not bring us personal happiness. Only that which will meet our own personal objectives/personality/goals/emotional needs/requirements, or what have you. In other words's, I don't think that it matters to God whether everyone is a Mormon. Or a Catholic. Or Muslim, etc. Only that we/they are moving towards their greater good/light.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

So let’s see where we are with MG’s extensive ad hoc defense necessary to even assume NHM could have been a location from the Book of Mormon.

Lumber that size and quantity is not transported overland, hence however they got it was by sea, which would have to be by boat, a large boat.

That makes sense.

So we have established that however they built the boat it needed to be:
1. By a harbor in use at 600 BCE.
2. Have a supply of wood for sale of the quantity and quality necessary to build a transoceanic vessel, being shipped into that harbor.
3. Lehi and Co. would have to be able somehow find the means to purchase that material along with the tools to build it since it has been shown they did not bring any with them when they left Jerusalem.
4. The boats being brought into the harbor would have to be just big enough to carry this timber but not large enough to make transoceanic voyages.
5. Built and launched by Nephi who has no experience building boats.
6. The boat is so unusual that no man has ever built one before, and as I pointed out above it is never built again – (yes I know boats are referenced in the Book of Mormon but can you show me where they build this type of boat again, reference it or even attempt another transoceanic voyage in the Book of Mormon MG?)
So has MG provided answers to any of these question?

No, instead what we see are responses like this one

I think I've been open to new possibilities that would lead to probabilities. Unless we explore the possibilities how can we then settle on or make educated hypotheses? To be honest, you seem unwilling to do so.

I think we should hold open the possibility that God may have told Nephi to build his own ship under the direction of the Lord. For some reason, this seems to be a non-starter for you.

There may have been other factors also. I just mentioned one.

Or accusations like this:

You seem to be avoiding the exploration of possibilities.

Or feigned ignorance & purposeful misunderstanding like this:

So God instructs Nephi on how to build a type of ship unlike any other, in which they cross the ocean.

Hey, at least you're entertaining that as a possibility.

They get to the new land where...they never build ships of that type again.

What type?

Go to the LDS Scriptures. Plug in "ships" and "shipping" into the search bar. It's kind of fun.

How is it, in spite of their ability to remember all those other things in the new world, they forgot how to build those ships?

Or did they?

So here's where we are at now.

Lehi & Co take off from Jerusalem around 600 BCE without the money or tools necessary to build a ship. They spend 8 years wandering in the wilderness to make a journey that could have been done ina fraction of that time, during which time one single location name is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, that if you ignore the fact it is a tribal name and not a location, and arbitrarily insert the necessary vowels, you can make it match that location name in the Book of Mormon, after which they build a boat for the very first time that no one has ever built before or again, at an active harbor no one knows about, using material and tools they had no resources to purchase, from a supplier no one can specifically name, and make a first time transoceanic voyage with no experience sailing this kind of voyage, to the Americas, to land at a location that even believers can't agree on.

It's not hard to see why Utah is the fraud capitol of the nation, if being open to possibilities means believing this story is remotely possible.

MG,

I have some vacation swamp land time shares I want to sell you that has "possibilities".

[Guest]

I would agree with the original poster and MG's implications that the discovery of Zarahemla would almost essentially prove the Nephites existed which is only hypothesized in one theory to my knowledge: That of the Book of Mormon being a true account of an ancient people somewhere in the New World. While there are those who doubt the Bible's ties to history completely, I think they are in a minority and likely to be considered cranks or poorly informed by scholars in the applicable fields. As the Jenkins argument makes clear, currently anyone toting the existence of real Nephites as history is more likely to be the crank or poorly informed.

However, the argument as presented brings to my mind a visual. Perhaps MG would include it in his thought experiment.

That visual is of a lever balanced on a fulcrum. Weight representing evidence for or against the Book of Mormon could be seen as bricks stacked on either side where appropriate. Let's say the fulcrum on which the lever is balanced represents one's willingness to believe Joseph Smith may have been a prophet of God. My impression of the thought experiment, and the general approach MG has been applying in this thread, is of someone who keeps asking to move the fulcrum closer and closer to the side of the evidence against the Book of Mormon. Assuming this is because when left balanced they aren't comfortable with the obvious and quick "clunk" it makes as the evidence against drives down hard. So, we are asked to keep inching the fulcrum in favor of the Book of Mormon being a book made possible by a God to be accepted as real...but what we really are doing is just moving the fulcrum directly under the evidence against the Book of Mormon side so it would be impossible for it to tip down even if the evidence against the Book of Mormon were overwhelming.

Moving the fulcrum that far leaves the evidence for the Book of Mormon appearing to balance out the evidence against...but the simple machine involved is no longer a lever capable of performing work. It's a cantilevered plank that uses the weight of the argument against directly over the fulcrum to hold up the possibility the Book of Mormon is still potentially true. It's just silly to take if for anything but evidence the argument against is overwhelming unless one is fine with simply halting the ability to measure the evidence against one another. Kind of like one's critical thinking capacity stops being critical thinking along the way of moving the fulcrum that far.

One shouldn't fault Jenkins for leaving a discussion leading to a pointless yet obvious eventuality.

As always, I enjoy reading your stuff, Honor. I think that over time, for me, the fulcrum has remained, and still does, somewhere towards the middle of the weight bearing structure that rests on it. It moves to the right and/or the left...but up to this point never so far that the fulcrum cannot handle the load on either side. I'd be more likely to use the visual of a balance scale. The scale has not tipped one way or the other to the point that I cannot recalibrate. That's why I'm where I'm at and you're where you're at.

Of course you need to factor in the variables such as life experience, natural intelligence, family, investment, curiosity, moral compass, and a host of other things, as we determine whether we value/accept where the 'other' has the fulcrum placed or what balances/imbalances their scale. As I've said before, I can recognize why some folks at a particular point in time in their faith journey may find imbalance on their own scale and/or, OTOH, an inability to support the weight as they're attempting to use a lever to support their belief system with a fulcrum that is no longer in a place that makes it possible for them to support the weight.

But, being human (we after all are quite malleable and at times fickle in our thinking), I think that these variables can/do change for different folks over time as long as one is open to new ways of thinking and interacting with information.

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

...

But, being human (we after all are quite malleable and at times fickle in our thinking), I think that these variables can/do change for different folks over time as long as one is open to new ways of thinking and interacting with information.

[_mentalgymnast]

Apparently not....

4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/2?lang=eng

MG, I see you've quickly moved the thread onto something else.....

I am not so locked into scriptural 'exactness' that I can not allow for Lehi and Co. to have carried some tools along with them. My gosh, wouldn't there be some tools/implements that would be necessary for survival over a period of eight years? I don't think God did everything for them.

That is an interesting turn of the phrase though. "And took nothing with him". I wonder what the 'message' is here and what the point was in stating this 'fact'. Interesting that this would be said at all. Thanks for pointing it out.

Do you think this phrase was included to explicitly point out that no tools were taken?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

So we have established that however they built the boat it needed to be:

Let's cut out all the 'facts' that are not actually known in their entirety. When all was said and done the ship had to be:

Seaworthy and able to set sail from the coast.

So here's where we are at now.

Lehi & Co take off from Jerusalem around 600 BCE without the money or tools necessary to build a ship.

Do we know that the means and resources to build a ship were, as a matter of fact, not available to Lehi and Co.?

They spend 8 years wandering in the wilderness to make a journey that could have been done ina fraction of that time...

What's the hurry?

...during which time one single location name is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, that if you ignore the fact it is a tribal name and not a location...

That, as you know, is open for interpretation/debate.

...and arbitrarily insert the necessary vowels, you can make it match that location name in the Book of Mormon, after which they build a boat...

Well, first they have to get from Nahom (if you're willing to accept that it is also a place name) to Bountiful. But that's neither here nor there I guess.

...for the very first time that no one has ever built before or again...

At this juncture we are left to decide whether or not God actually helped Nephi in this process. If He didn't, then I can see where you're coming from.

...at an active harbor no one knows about...

Well, you don't. It would be nice to hop in a time machine and go back to that place at that time to see what the actual logistics entailed in launching a boat. I'm open to the possibility that a boat could be built and launched if the process of doing so is on the coastline... ... and the 'coast is clear', so to speak, for heading out to open waters.

...using material and tools they had no resources to purchase...

You don't know that for a fact.

...from a supplier no one can specifically name...

Ok. I have something to share with you. Drum roll please. The supplier was, "Haashim's Lumber and Supply Co., Bhojas, India". There, now you have it.

...and make a first time transoceanic voyage with no experience sailing this kind of voyage, to the Americas...

Again, was God involved in the teaching process? Was God involved as the Lehites were sailing across the ocean. If not, I can see your point.

...to land at a location that even believers can't agree on.

Interestingly, including Joseph Smith.

It's not hard to see why Utah is the fraud capitol of the nation, if being open to possibilities means believing this story is remotely possible.

I've never fallen for any of the schemes/frauds you're referring to. Should I move out of Utah so as not to fall prey to something that I'm apparently inclined by natural disposition to do?

I have some vacation swamp land time shares I want to sell you that has "possibilities".

Private message me. I may be interested. Should I just give you my credit card number right now?

Regards,
MG