The Nahom Follies

[_Fence Sitter]

Why would you expect that God would accomplish a certain operation/task/scenario of events in the easiest way possible? There are so many examples of 'simpler' ways to accomplish what to us would seem to be the more positive outcome. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Laman and Lemuel (if you want to believe they existed), and many others. The easy way out would have been to see to it that these guys were pushed out with the one third (if you believe in that) or to cause a stroke, or an accident, or a terminal disease. But no, God took the more difficult path, which as a sidenote, included the deaths of many folks that didn't have to die. At least I would assume God didn't need to take large numbers of people back 'home' all in one fell swoop.

Some options. 1. No God 2. A God that enjoys and gets his kicks from killing people and watching people cry and little babies die. 3. A God that for some reason allows bad dudes to do bad things for some long range purpose.

Number three doesn't seem...to us...like the "easier way" for God to accomplish something good. But it's the only option that I am comfortable with...but not really...

I agree that there may have been easier ways to get Lehi and Co. over to the New World.

Why would God choose to do, and let others do, things the hard way? The fact seems to be, that if there is a God...he operates in this fashion...number three. I suppose we could come back to number two...

Yuck.

A lot of us really don't want to go to number 1...so what would you suggest?

Regards,
MG

I am not a writer (well I could just stop there) capable of creating a fictional narrative intended to be passed off a real history. I can, however, find reason to question narratives that don't make sense for me. So when you ask how I would have done it, I expect any thing I dream up would be susceptible to the same problems we run into from Joseph Smith's fictional creations and on a much larger scale, only mine would be obvious 21st century imaginations.

What strikes me time and time again, when I examine religious claims, especially claims in Mormonism, is that they are clearly driven by what the claimant thinks is possible to do. So for example, take the story Joseph Smith tells of God helping Lehi escape Jerusalem and sailing to American in a boat God helps them build, one of miraculous design. Joseph Smith knows no other way to get from Jerusalem to the Americas than by boat, but understands it has to be a better boat than what was available at the time of Lehi so Joseph Smith adds this portion about a design not known to man at that time. Well, if God is going to introduce them to new technology why not just fly the from just outside Jerusalem directly to where ever it is TBM think they arrived in the Americas? I mean he already is giving them a boat like no one has ever seen, why not make it a plane? Or use some sort of Star Trek transporter and make them think it was a dream. Why doesn't God just use technology not known to even Joseph Smith to accomplish getting Lehi and Co there? The answer is, because Joseph Smith is making it up and therefore nothing like that ever happens. Joseph Smith is not capable of seeing what technology could do, technology God would have long ago mastered.

As I pointed out earlier, if Nephi really made this boat capable of crossing the ocean, and he was as capable as the Book of Mormon indicates in every other area, including transmitting written information, why do we never see them build another boat of that type of try and cross another ocean. We see Moroni 1000 years later claiming he has all these records passed down in an unbroken line or prophets but somehow this is a skill they have lost?

By the way if God could teach Joseph Smith how to translate the gold plates with out even having them near why did Nephi have to kill Laben to get the plates. Couldn't God just have revealed them to Nephi later on in the Americas the same way Joseph Smith received them?

Why does Nephi have to build a new kind of ship to sail across the ocean, when God has already transported a similar group of people centuries before across the ocean in barges? (Another really ridiculous story for those of us not inclined to accept Goddit.)

What ever happen to the Book of Mormon being needed to bring the Lamanites back to the gospel? Somewhere Laben is asking for his head back.

[_honorentheos]

Hey MG,

I'm glad you shared this quote because he makes a point I brought up earlier in the thread -

So now you're saying not only did Lehi and Co. not take along tools/implements...which you seem to be letting up on now... but that they had no means by which to obtain water and fodder for their animals?

The Roman historian
Pliny the Elder (23 bc–ad 79) described the economics
of the frankincense route this way: “Indeed
all along the route they keep on paying, at one place
for water, at another for fodder, or the charges for
lodging at the halts.” 9 The course of the Frankincense
Trail can be explained in one word—water,
the most precious commodity of all to the desert
traveler. The Hiltons noted: “The history of Arabia
is written with water, not ink.”10 The great oases
of western Arabia—Tabuk, Hijra (Madain Saleh),
Dedan (Ula), Medina, Mecca, and Najran—are
all found on the Frankincense Trail or a branch
thereof. Indeed, the course of the Frankincense
Trail was no coincidence; it was there because it
provided a reliable water supply and thus offered
the traveler the best chance of surviving a crossing
of the great deserts.
While we do not have texts from Lehi’s day
that mention the dangers of crossing the Arabian
desert (notably marauders and lack of water) or the
necessity of taking the Frankincense Trail,scholars
assume that the documented historical situation of
later date has remained fairly constant over time
and thus is an accurate indication of the challenges
that Lehi’s party found in Arabia.

I don't see how they could have survived on their trek without the means to provide water for themselves and their animals. They also needed to feed their animals. It seems as thought you're saying that the text of the Book of Mormon has to be very explicit...down to their toothbrushes...as to what they didn't or did have on their journey.

For one that doesn't even believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God you sure are a stickler on how to interpret it.

Regards,
MG

Here's the critical piece:

Indeed, the course of the Frankincense Trail was no coincidence; it was there because it provided a reliable water supply and thus offered the traveler the best chance of surviving a crossing of the great deserts.

Remember early in the thread when I pointed out that part of what makes the NHM evidence untenable is that it creates contradiction with the Book of Mormon narrative? That being, in order for the Lehite party to be traveling to that part of modern day Yemen they would have been following this established route.

The text tells us that part of the godditit in the story is his directing the Lehites to water and supply points along the way. But not just any water or supply points; God was directing them to "the most fertile parts of the wilderness".

There is a problem with the idea the Lehite party would be a) in the wilderness, b) traveling to the most fertile parts of the wilderness, c) following the spice trail, but d) not burning much fire and avoiding being seen. It's a greenish-red kinda problem.

And, as the quote pointed out (essentially saying much better what I had tried to say earlier in this thread) the trade route became a trade route precisely because it was where there was water and the ability to survive the journey along that route.

What I find interesting about the Book of Mormon compared to the Exodus narrative is that the tribes and peoples who wrote down the Exodus legend had first hand knowledge of just how problematic journeying in the wilderness would have been due to the water problems. Their solution is much more magical, but probably because they know just how improbable it would be for their people to wander around without divine food and water provisions. Joseph Smith, writing from the background of the eastern United States frontier, lacked the context to envision the problem. Instead, he imagines an improbable scenario and then talks about the problems that came with hunting game being the big issue for the Lehites.

Using our imaginations, I think it's very easy to imagine why this is a strong indicator the author of 1 Nephi did not travel across the Arabian peninsula through the wilderness. Of the options available, that of our 19th c. prophet becomes the obvious choice for author of the narrative.

So, let's add that to the column titled, "Why the Old World Evidence for the Book of Mormon does more Damage than Good to the Official Origin Story of the Book of Mormon". Granted, that column title won't fit in your average Excel table. But of all the improbables we have to deal with here, I think that one is one of the smaller ones.

[_I have a question]

MG (who I hold in high esteem as a person), is not holding open his options in God belief. Only in Joseph Smith's version of God belief. It's a shame that he puts his faith in such an unworthy messenger.

Hey thanks, Quasimodo. Here's the thing...it's not like I haven't thought about this. It's just that, for me, if God isn't behind or a part of what's going on with the restoration of the CofJCofLDS, I'm one of those folks that would either push God out the window, or I would have to believe that God doesn't give a tinker's damn about what's going on here. That He would let such a scam...that proclaims to bring people to a state by which they can become like God...that people can receive certain ordinances and, if worthy, return to God...that He would let an organization exist that has the gall to proclaim the message that it does...is ludicrous. The message of the CofJCofLDS is just TOO big and authoritatively top heavy compared to say, Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses, to give it a pass...from God. I don't look to Joseph Smith, primarily, as the focus for why I give the benefit of the doubt to the LDS Church. It has more to do with the message and that the alternatives just don't seem to be too attractive or make any more...actually less...sense that the doctrines/theology of the LDS Church.

Granted, I fully realize that the doctrines/theology of the church can be found in bits and pieces, here and there, all over the place. But in the church there's just a lot stuff that is part of 'one great whole'.

Regards,
MG

If God wasn't behind or a part of it, how would it look/act any different?

[_Chap]

MG - we can stop arguing when you are prepared to sign up to a statement more or less equivalent to the following:

"(a) I agree that the story of Nephi's ship-building as narrated in the Book of Mormon, if regarded as a story of what ordinary people could have accomplished by the means likely to have been at their disposal under the specified circumstances, and absent miraculous intervention, is highly implausible.

(b) I, however, hold that the deity I believe in intervened and gave assistance that made Nephi and his companions able to build an ocean-going ship. That deity made possible what would have been more or less impossible without his aid."

I just want to see you separate those two clauses. It's the way you keep sliding from one to the other and fuzzing the boundary that I find displeasing to my perhaps overly fastidious sensibility.

So - didn't I get your position right? Is there anything in either of those two statements that you take exception to?

I'm Ok if you separate the two. On number one I'd also include everything that happened from the time Lehi and Co. left Jerusalem to the arrival at Bountiful.

But, yeah, close enough.

There is a scripture in the modern day canon that says that to God all things are spiritual even when we see it as purely physical/temporal. I think that there was an interrelationship between God and Lehi and Co. that allowed for their individual effort and creativity and God's help. It was a physical effort, indeed, but there was a spiritual component also. Nephi wasn't on his own. And like you say, if God wasn't involved at all I think that it may have been highly unlikely that Nephi could have done what he did...especially if the design/build of the ship was beyond the standard at that time.

Regards,
MG

Thanks. Without miracles, the "Nephi built an ocean going ship" story is simply mission impossible. We agree on that.

You are OK with miracles, and I'm not. But that would be for another thread.

I shan't feel obliged to read this one any further.

[_ldsfaqs]

Both Kevin G. and the Balor University "historian" should read the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences...." which is a misleading title because it's actually 100's of evidences entirely validating Lehi's ENTIRE JOURNEY.... not simply "Nahom".

The 81 actually refers to the 81 points that the Book of Mormon mentions about the journey that the evidences on the ground all validate, in the right places, directions, timelines, names, characteristics, etc. etc.

But anti's and the willful ignorant have never been interested in the actual truth, but to judge instead in their ignorant limited knowledge.
Kevin G. and his friends "micro-focus" on Nahom is ignoring the 100's of other evidences which fully verify 1 Nephi.
The anti-mormon focuses on a tree, while ignoring the Forest around it. People really need to read that book, stop ignoring it.
I haven't seen an anti-mormon yet who's actually read it.

[_I have a question]

Both Kevin G. and the Balor University "historian" should read the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences...." which is a misleading title because it's actually 100's of evidences entirely validating Lehi's ENTIRE JOURNEY.... not simply "Nahom".

The 81 actually refers to the 81 points that the Book of Mormon mentions about the journey that the evidences on the ground all validate, in the right places, directions, timelines, names, characteristics, etc. etc.

But anti's and the willful ignorant have never been interested in the actual truth, but to judge instead in their ignorant limited knowledge.
Kevin G. and his friends "micro-focus" on Nahom is ignoring the 100's of other evidences which fully verify 1 Nephi.
The anti-mormon focuses on a tree, while ignoring the Forest around it. People really need to read that book, stop ignoring it.
I haven't seen an anti-mormon yet who's actually read it.

Do you think Bill Hamblin has read it?
Why is he not using it in his replies?

[_ldsfaqs]

Do you think Bill Hamblin has read it?
Why is he not using it in his replies?

There is so much evidence related to the Restoration out there, everyone has their interests and focuses.
Maybe Google and see what Hamblin might have said on the book?

Here's what Hugh Nibley said of the book, and a Non-LDS Pulitzer Prize Winner for his book in which he mentions the Book of Mormon itself, which I quote part of......

"This is a great and beautiful book, written with just one end in view. That is to make a single point, and the authors have left no stone unturned to leave the reader completely convinced on what it is. An exhaustive travelogue takes the reader in the route of Lehi's family. It is the setting of a land that excites the imagination and challenges description. The bare bones of the earth show through and provide a dramatic setting for a story told in detail. The writers study the route six times, and the reader is challenged to follow it by many unusual photographs, never published before. Most of the books in the extensive bibliography were published in the present two decades, and yet the Mormons still use the first edition of the Book of Mormon. And every step of the way we are invited to put the history to the test, and given ample evidence to do it. The authors bring up every argument that might be made against the authenticity of 1 Nephi, a very risky thing to do. The book of 1 Nephi is where Joseph Smith is most vulnerable. And it is where Joseph Smith is most specific. Potter and Wellington list 81 points to prove this. But why only 81? The story of how the family arrived in the new world is only the beginning of the wonders, but in this neat package we have all the evidence we need to convince us. The mysterious and romantic landscape of Arabia leaves us bemused. These photographs are not only of another land, they are of another world. Joseph Smith was free to unleash a prodigal imagination, yet he has stayed within bounds every step of the way. The authors have challenged him from one side and another, and Joseph Smith, as they point out, has never the slightest cause for embarrassment. After this, those who challenge the Book of Mormon will have some heavy explaining to do."
Dr. Hugh Nibley

November 7, 2003

In his book “What Hath God Wrought?—The transformation of
America, 1815-1848, Daniel Walker, who won a Pulitzer Prize in History for this work, wrote:

“True or not, the Book of Mormon is a powerful epic written on a grand scale with a host of
characters, a narrative of human struggle and conflict, of divine intervention, heroic good and
atrocious evil, of prophecy, morality and law. Its narrative structure is complex…the dominant
themes are biblical, prophetic, and patriarchal, not democratic or optimistic. It tells a tragic story
of a people who, though possessed of the true faith, fail in the end. Yet it does not convey a
message of despair, God’s will cannot ultimately be frustrated.

The Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature, but it has never been accorded the
status it deserves, since Mormons deny Joseph Smith’s authorship, and non-Mormons,
dismissing the work as a fraud, have been more likely to ridicule than read it.” P. 314.

[_Fence Sitter]

FAQS,

Would you mind outlining the single most compelling piece of evidence from the Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences...." besides the NHM & trade route items we have already discussed?

[_canpakes]

Here's what Hugh Nibley said of the book, and a Non-LDS Pulitzer Prize Winner for his book in which he mentions the Book of Mormon itself, which I quote part of...... <snip>

Then there's this guy:

Bio: Dr. Jeffrey R. Chadwick serves at BYU as Jerusalem Center Professor of Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies, and also as Professor of Religious Education in the Department of Church History and Doctrine [emphases in Bible and Jewish Studies, Comparative Religion, Islam].

Courses Taught: Near Eastern Studies (NES 136, 326, 336), Archaeology (NES 101, 398), Ancient Near Eastern History (ANES 239), Ceramic Typology of Israel (ANES 392), Writings of Isaiah (RELA 392), Old Testament (RELA 301, 302, 303), New Testament (RELA 211, 212, 213, 311, 411, 511), Book of Mormon (121, 122), Book of Mormon in the Land of Jerusalem (NES 101, RELA 392), Survey of Judaism and Islam (RELC 357), Judaism and the Gospel (RELC 355), Survey of World Religions (RELC 351).

Areas of Research: Archaeology of Israel, Archaeolody of the Near East, Archaeology of the Bible, Judaism and the Jewish People, Early Mediterranean Christianity, Islamic History and Doctrine, Hebrew Bible, New Testament

Languages: Hebrew (modern, ancient), German, Arabic, Aramaic, Greek (ancient), Egyptian (ancient), Mayan (ancient southern classic)

https://religion.BYU.edu/jeffrey_chadwick

Here's what he says about 'Lehi in the Wilderness'...

This book is a remarkable read. From the outset, however, it was clear that theories proposed by the authors run counter to textual descriptions in Nephi’s own record. In my opinion, entire chapters of Lehi in the Wilderness are unreliable efforts at mapping out the movements of Lehi’s party after leaving Jerusalem. In spite of their best efforts and noble intentions, Potter and Wellington miss the mark in terms of some of the most important places Nephi described. Quite simply, “they’re digging in the wrong place.”

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.by ... adwick.pdf

Of particular note in Chadwick's analysis is seen on p. 212, where he shines a light on one of the methods used by Potter and Wellington to make their case - magical tectonic activity that has lifted the surface of the land up and shifted the reference geography.

If Potter and Wellington need to claim that God has been moving the land around that much to try and make their story 'work', I'm inclined to think that there's not much reality backing that story up.

[_Chap]

Of particular note in Chadwick's analysis is seen on p. 212, where he shines a light on one of the methods used by Potter and Wellington to make their case - magical tectonic activity that has lifted the surface of the land up and shifted the reference geography.

If Potter and Wellington need to claim that God has been moving the land around that much to try and make their story 'work', I'm inclined to think that there's not much reality backing that story up.

Indeed:

So the fact that the stream at Tayyib al-Ism flows perennially is certainly not proof that the wadi was the valley of Lemuel. But another aspect of that stream is certain evidence that the site could not have been the valley of Lemuel. The stream has no mouth into the Red Sea. Nephi reported that the river Laman “emptied into the Red Sea” and that the valley was “near the mouth” of the stream (1 Nephi 2:8). But the stream at Tayyib al-Ism terminates nearly half a mile inland from the beach, far up the canyon. This should seal the case against Tayyib al-Ism.
Potter and Wellington recognize that this is a problem. Their solu- tion for dealing with this inconsistency is one of the more remarkable theories put forth in the entire book. They suggest that the mountain- ous land mass on the Gulf of Eilat’s east coast is two hundred to four hundred feet higher now than it was in Lehi’s time! An “LDS geologist” informed them that the lowest part of their wadi and the beach at its west end were actually submerged under hundreds of feet of water at the time of Lehi (pp. 38–39). The Red Sea supposedly ran inland through the wadi back then, to a point where it met the Tayyib al-Ism stream. Thus, they claim, their river actually did empty into the Red Sea anciently, when the Arabian coastal land mass was as much as four hundred feet lower than it is now (and the current beach far under water).