The Nahom Follies

[_Maksutov]

That's why when some folks, Themis for example, try to reduce folks...well, me anyways, to some kind of unthinking automaton or morgbot I exclaim: Aarrgh!

Although he is partially on target...as you can see from what I've tried to lay out in this post. He probably thinks he needs to educate me on what is going on internally inside my head.

I think I have it pretty well figured out.

Regards,
MG

You're a nice fanatic, MG. But I wouldn't trust you with any kind of real responsibility. I don't think you're capable of learning. I'm glad you're happy and have peace with your understanding.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ok. So we're at the following points regarding the OP:

- Nahom is the name of a location within the Book of Mormon narrative.

- Joseph Smith most likely tweaked the name from the biblical book Nahum.

- NHM is an Arabian stone emplacement made by the Nihm/Nehem tribe.

- The boat described in the Book of Mormon would've exceeded ship and ship building technologies at the time.

- The land in Arabia couldn't have provided all the materials needed to build this ship.

- The dry dock location is exceptionally stupid.

- Deus ex machina... Maybe literally.

V/R
Doc

[_Kishkumen]

- NHM is an Arabian stone emplacement made by the Nihm/Nehem tribe.

Don't forget that Nehem is Mehen spelled backwards. I am sure that is highly significant.

[Guest]

- NHM is an Arabian stone emplacement made by the Nihm/Nehem tribe.

Don't forget that Nehem is Mehen spelled backwards. I am sure that is highly significant.

Course it is. They named the place after a popular board game that they used to play a lot when they were wandering around in the desert all those years:



It was really big, back in the day.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4148/mehen


Now if they found one of those boards stateside, that would be a guaranteed Nephite artefact, no question.

Oh yes, and Nephi got so good at playing that he won a ship off this guy they met on the beach. He knew his Dad wouldn't approve of gambling, so he pretended that he had built it himself.

I'm off to Mormon Interpreter with this one!

[Edited once for typo]

[_Kishkumen]

I'm off to Mormon Interpreter with this one!

Give my regards to the editor!

[_mentalgymnast]

You're a nice fanatic, MG.

Ha. That's the first time that I can ever remember being called that. Nice, that is. Joking. A fanatic? My modus operandi has always been to look right, look left, and I usually find that I am in the middle somewhere. I've always been of the opinion that whatever truth there is, it is usually found between two extremes and/or two poles. I am definitively NOT a fanatic, unless it comes to getting my cardio workouts done each week. Bummer though. I've been quite sick (thus, some extra reading time and play time on this board) for over a week now. Haven't been able to get out on my runs let alone much of a walk. I think I got a nasty germ when I flew back east a few weeks ago to see my second oldest daughter.

But I wouldn't trust you with any kind of real responsibility.

Responsibility? What's that? I'm retired. I used to be quite responsible.

I don't think you're capable of learning.

I have learned that I am definitely in the minority here. Does that count for anything? I suppose that from your POV it's the misapplication of any of my larnings (nod to Jed Clampett) that is really the issue. I should apply my learning and bank it towards doubt and/or leaving religious belief, right? Just like you, I found at one time there was a fork in the road. I took a different one than you. But, hey, I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt and say that you're still learning and that you CAN learn. I used to be in the education profession and realize/understand that you may learn differently than others, Maksutov, but you can learn with the best of them. Maybe some day I'll be able to keep up with you and see things "as they really are" (nod to Neal Maxwell).

I'm glad you're happy and have peace with your understanding.

Happiness. That's something that we all seek, right? I'm also glad that you're happy and have peace with your understanding..whatever that understanding is. I don't rightly know...

It's interesting that you would think that I have an "understanding". I wonder what you mean by that...

Is is something concrete? Something malleable? Something ethereal? Something real?

I think we're all seekers, aren't we? Tell you what, I won't judge how much you "understand" (whatever you mean by that) if you'll do the same.

Ok, back to Nahum or Nahem or Nahom or whatever other vowels you want to throw in there.

Regards,
MG

[_Zub Zool oan]

Hi MG.

So the only possible default position is that Mormonism has to be the one. That out of the thousands of things that should have been found if the book were rooted in reality, and we don't find them, we can still just keep waiting and some day the magic piece or artifact will show up? Archaeologists develop their information piece by piece. Inscriptions, burials, garbage piles, writings if available, and many other factors. The absence of animals, plants, language etc. has already told a story they are not wrong about. Rather than some unitary artifact, all the excavations would now need to start turning up all the pieces that show the Book of Mormon to have described the civilization it came from.

You are searching for the TRUTH. What if there isn't any. I mean in the sense of Christianity and salvation and redemption and so forth. God has presided over the establishment of tens of thousands of groups, cults, religions and churches, because he loves us so much? I mean, the overkill on making salvation challenging is more like overkill to the 10th power don't you think? If there were 10 or a dozen maybe it would be more palatable, even so, you still have an entity that created the entire universe and if he is indeed as childish, mean, jealous and vicious as he describes himself in the books, would you really want to spend forever with this creature? Has your mind been conditioned to let the bad stuff roll off like water off a ducks' back and be so afraid of your mortality that you can contort to any description of this creature and feel it is divine and unquestionable? Or is all this a case of there is so much noise that the likely answer or THE TRUTH is that there isn't enough information to come to any conclusion?

[Guest]

Hi MG.

So the only possible default position is that Mormonism has to be the one.

I think I have recently, in a roundabout way, said that Mormonism doesn't have to be the one. It is for those that are facing in the direction that Mormonism faces.

That out of the thousands of things that should have been found if the book were rooted in reality, and we don't find them, we can still just keep waiting and some day the magic piece or artifact will show up? Archaeologists develop their information piece by piece. Inscriptions, burials, garbage piles, writings if available, and many other factors. The absence of animals, plants, language etc. has already told a story they are not wrong about. Rather than some unitary artifact, all the excavations would now need to start turning up all the pieces that show the Book of Mormon to have described the civilization it came from.

I know this sound rather quaint or over simplified and even naïve...but I think about what Pres. Hinckley said one time. That is, that the truth of the Book of Mormon will more than likely not be found external to its covers. But that it will be found within. I think that many folks are spending most, if not all (Professor Jenkins and many others) their time outside of the covers of the Book of Mormon to the exclusion of what might be found within. Then when someone says what I just said the unbeliever will say, well, tell me what's in between the covers that makes the Book of Mormon divine/unique. The think is, it really can't be shared. It can only be experienced. Although, granted, once one is familiar with all of the external...and some of the internal...issues of the Book of Mormon Pres. Hinckley's admonition is a bit more difficult to swallow. But, nonetheless, if a person is going to have a 'testimony' of sorts in regards to the Book of Mormon, I'm thinking that Pres. HInckley's formula is the only one that will have the potential of bringing a seed/degree of faith into a person's mind/heart.

You are searching for the TRUTH. What if there isn't any.

If there is a God there is Truth.

I mean in the sense of Christianity and salvation and redemption and so forth.

In the market place of ideas, for me, I find the concept of Atonement the only 'theory' that seems to make sense...in the long run. Although, let it be said, that's on the assumption that there is a creator/God and that there is some kind fail safe mechanism built into the universe that makes everything right, if not here and now, down the road.

God has presided over the establishment of tens of thousands of groups, cults, religions and churches, because he loves us so much?

If God has created an opportunity for billions of unique/individual souls to experience everlasting life...isn't that enough? If our basic human instinct is to act and not to be acted upon...controlled from the outside...then there needs to be an almost infinite amount of wiggle room and agency given to man. It doesn't surprise me in the least that there would be a myriad number of different ways that humanity contructs/creates to seek the divine. And they are all going to have defects/holes in them because they ARE the creations of men. As long as a religion or belief system or no system at all results in folks seeking for the greater good of humanity and understanding/love, I think God is totally cool with that. Even if there is a True religion, LDS'ism let's say, that doesn't take away from the greater plan that God may have for the Universe. The Church plays a part, and important part for a subgroup/set of people...but not for everyone.

I mean, the overkill on making salvation challenging...

Basic salvation, achieving the greater good that is within us, is challenging for ALL of us. And all of humanity has that in common, if we stick around long enough. It makes sense to me that this thing called 'exaltation' would be somewhat more of a challenge in some respects. And not everyone is up to it or even wants to take that path.

...[when you] have an entity that created the entire universe and if he is indeed as childish, mean, jealous and vicious as he describes himself in the books

Why do you feel obligated to believe everything you read in ALL of the scriptural canon. Brother Brigham saw through that charade right off. It is a trap, sometimes of our own making, that we feel duty bound to accept all the carnage and mayhem that we see in the Old Testament and at times in the Book of Mormon as being the result of a "mean, jealous, and vicious" God. Common sense would tell me that God isn't that way...so there's got to be something else going on.

...would you really want to spend forever with this creature?

If He is a loving Father, then yes.

Has your mind been conditioned to let the bad stuff roll off like water off a ducks' back...

No, not at all. But I do need to look for possible explanations/alternatives that would lead me in a direction by which I can see God as good. And if He is good, by nature, then there HAS to be some explanation for the apparent anomalies and contradictions. Granted, they are not always easy to find. I haven't found explanation for some of the issues that are well known and well written about.

...and be so afraid of your mortality that you can contort to any description of this creature and feel it is divine and unquestionable?

I think we all consider death and what may or may not come after. If there is an afterlife I wouldn't be surprised to find and all loving God there.

Or is all this a case of there is so much noise that the likely answer or THE TRUTH is that there isn't enough information to come to any conclusion?

There is a LOT of distraction and noise, I agree. But I would like to think that truth cuts through and dissipates/annihilates error...even if by slow and natural means. Again, that's where can only see some kind of a 'fail safe' mechanism in place to make everything that is wrong...right, as the eternities continue on.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

That's why when some folks...try to reduce folks...well, me anyways, to some kind of unthinking automaton or morgbot I exclaim: Aarrgh!

Although he is partially on target...as you can see from what I've tried to lay out in this post. He probably thinks he needs to educate me on what is going on internally inside my head.

I think I have it pretty well figured out.

Regards,
MG

Hey mg,

I appreciate your candor in your post. It was interesting.

[_honorentheos]

I would add a couple of thread-derailing thoughts, though.

I have had similar conversations with many a person; Mormons, Christians, athetists, and a sprinkling of new-age or McEastern religion practitioners. And across the spectrum I've found that this is likely a more authentic point of view when that person has determined the most substantial thing they've learned to that point was real tolerance for other's views. It seems to be the touch-stone that reveals whether such thinking is another way of saying, "What I believe to be true is true...for me. And I therefore assume the right to hold all other views contained within this assigned worldview. You believe what you want." or "We all see through a glass, darkly. Therefore, where my belief crosses over into your right to live your beliefs it ceases to be justified. There, I will not follow it that far."

Marriage equality doesn't seem to be an issue with you, which I respect and it points to your view honestly being one gained from experience rather than convenience. What gets tricky, for me anyway, is accepting that even tolerance may be wrong or built on a flawed foundation. Hell, I suspect it has had negative evolutionary value through most of human history so when we read of the rise of nationalism, see lines of social divisions widening in chasms, and failures to find common ground in even the most obvious circumstances where all parties would have been better off if not having won outright...maybe it's not "truth" in a real sense.

The question then rises up: Are potentially self-destructive ideals worth pursuing? Is it meaningful to believe strongly in the higher value of pluralism and informed democratic social orders when it seems it's unrealistic that they can outcompete the other alternatives in the market place of ideas? Does believing they have higher value than the alternatives mean I'm using the wrong metrics?

In some ways, I think we share some things in common. Just not Mormonism. :)