Part Two
I don’t know if you was around to hear the first part of this tale where I talked about a farm boy said he dictated a book out of a hat and all the outlandish ways that book managed to sneak back and take a peak at history, coming up with a passel of authentic old names, books writ on gold plates, Hebrews writing stuff in Gyptian, and Injuns building outta cement. Well, that ain’t all that book done cribbed. Here’s some more.
Weird Ways of Writing
Well, it’s not just the names and the cement by a long shot. It’s the way the whole book is written. Seems that a long time ago, the Jews used to write in a funny way. And I’m not just talking about them using no vowels, neither. When they had something important to say, they would straight up and say it the same as you and me. But then, they would turn around and unsay it the same way they said it the first time. Sort of like, “Old King Cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he.” Now I ain’t no ancient Israelite, but I can say that much. Though come to think of it, I probably wouldn’t say it in normal conversation. Or even if I was dictating a book out of a hat.
But the Jews liked it so much they said it a lot more complicated like, and stuck lots of it in the Old Testament. I never seen it before it was pointed out to me, but it’s there just the same. I also never seen it in this farm boy’s book till it was pointed out to me, but it’s there just the same, too. A smart Mormon missionary first saw it there in the 1960’s. Imagine it sitting there all the while and nobody noticing it till then. And all over, just like in the Old Testament. And lots more complicated and fancified than Old King Cole. In fact, there’s this long chapter in this book (named after that boy Alma) that’s nothing but one big long example of this kind of old world writing. It beats anything you can find in the Old Testament, too, though it might not be considered polite to say so in mixed company.
And here’s this farmboy just dictating out of a hat all the live long day, easy as you please, and he comes up with this stuff. I guess he just read the Bible a lot and absorbed it by ozzymosis or something.
Are we in Bethlehem yet?
Jesus Ain’t Born in No Jerusalem
Even though this farm boy looks like an absolute pip on everything in the Bible, he makes at least one bone-headed mistake in that Alma book of his. He says Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Now you don’t have to be much of a Bible expert to know that just ain’t so. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. Every kid knows that. Farm boy had a lot of chances to fix that, too. He corrected lots of things in his book when he went to printing new editions and all, but never saw fit to change the birthplace of Jesus from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. I guess it plumb slipped his mind. At least a hundred years later, though, college edicated Bible experts figured out that there did used to be a land of Jerusalem, and that Bethlehem was right there in it. If the book had said Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem, that might be a problem. But no, it’s right there that Jesus was born in “Jerusalem, the land of our fathers.” Ain’t no place in the Bible that the land of Jerusalem is mentioned; just the city. I reckon that’s another mistake that just happened to turn out right. Lucky farm boy.
Walking the Walk
But this farm boy ain’t done pulling rabbits out of his hat. In fact, the biggest, hairiest rabbit of all was hiding in plain sight in the first 50-pages or so of his book. It has to do with geography. The first part of the book talks about this family leaving Jerusalem, and how they left on account of they weren’t well cottoned to by their neighbors, and how they went south down by the Red Sea where they found a “river of water.” River of water? What was that farm boy thinking writing “river of water”? What else does he think a river is going to be made out of? Chocolate? They got any kind of rivers in New York other than water? Even in 1829? I do very much doubt that.
And what is he doing putting a river of water in Saudy Arabia, anyway? Any durn fool knows there ain’t no rivers of water or anything else over there in Saudy Arabia. That there’s nothing but desert. It’s like the dark side of the moon. Only not so dark. But that’s what he says in his book anyways. Funny thing is some exploring Mormon boys went out into Saudy Arabia over a hundert years later and guess what they found? A river of water! And it flows into the Red Sea, just like the books says it would. And it flows year round, too, just like the book says it would. And even though nobody thunk there was a river of water anywhere in Arabia, turns out there is one. Right about where the book says it is, too.
River of Water
Not only that, the book says the river runs through a big old valley. Them Mormon boys brought back pictures with ’em. Sure looks like a big old valley to me that this river runs through.
Big Old Valley of Stone
Then these Jewish folk head along the shore of the Red Sea, going deeper and deeper south into Araby. Now Araby’s a purty big place but they sticks right along the shore line there. I don’t know if this farm boy knew it, but that’s the only way to go when you’re traveling thru Araby. In fact, it used to be called the Frankysense trail. Anybody who went anywhere else was a dang fool cuz they couldn’t last more than a day inland. No water. Miserably hot. The Frankysense trail had some wells along it that folks could at least wet their whistle at. This book makes sure the folks hew right along this trail, though.
Then these folks get to a place where one of ‘em dies. Guess mebbe he wasn’t getting enough water after all. They name the place after the guy who croaks—Nahom. I know this is getting to sound like I’m just repeating myself, but durned if there isn’t an actual place down there along the trail right about where they would have stopped called NHM. Did I mention those Near Eastern folk didn’t like vowels? Some German archeologists found a couple of altars there with the place name on it, plain as day. It said NHM. They didn’t find it the altars till more than 150-years after the book was writ, though. And at least one of those altars dated back to right when the book says these folks was passing through. You put some vowels in there, and you sure enough can come up with Nahom pretty easy like. I took myself to some figuring last night, and if you take the vowels out of the alphabet, you got about 20 letters left. To come up with one right letter would be 1 in 20 odds. To come up with two right letters would be 1 in 400 odds. But to come up with three right letters like this book done would be 1 in 8,000 odds. Those are tough odds to beat. Maybe this farm boy should have been race horse betting stead of face in a hat dictating. Looks like he done bet on a nag named Nahom to win.
Can You See the letters “NHM”?
But there’s more. This book says from Nahom, the folks changed course and started heading just about due east. They went through a lot of desert and had lots of trials and tribulations. Finally, they reach the coast and what do you think this book says they find? A beautiful, lush area just teeming with shrubbery and greens. They are so happy to see this place, they call it Bountiful. If I was writing a book, I wouldn’t put in some place like Bountiful in Saudy Arabia. That’s just crazy. But guess what? There is such a place in Araby. And it matches the book’s description of Bountiful. It’s even got trees to make a boat out of, which the book says is just what they did. It’s even got honey bees buzzing around, just like the book says is there. It’s even got iron ore on the surface of the ground not far distant, which is a big help cause the book says they made some iron tools out of it and it would be pretty hard to find the iron to make the tools if it wasn’t there, or if it was so deep in the earth they couldn’t dig it out.
Looks Bountiful To Me
Skinny Dipping in the Desert
Crazier still is this is the only place in all of Araby that looks all lush and nice like this. It’s not like they got nice spots all over the place. Craziest of all is if you start at the place those German archeologists say was NHM and head just about due east, you can’t help but run into Bountiful. It’s less than one degree of due east. What are the odds of that, I wonder? And it’s not like this Bountiful place was super well known. Most folks who lived in Arabia didn’t know about it. That’s cause it’s in a way out of the way place where people don’t go much. No reason to. Not much there. Just this lush, green place, exactly like this book described in 1829. Western folk knowing bout this place in 1829? Not likely? Farm boys knowing bout this place in 1829? Less so.
How many folks know bout it today? Not many, I spect.
What Are the Odds?
For all the world, these first pages of the book sound like they was writ by somebody who actually walked the walk, instead of just talking the talk. And not much of this stuff was even knowed back in 1829. Leastwise not in upstate New York by the average farm boy. It’s like this boy was using stuff out of a whole bunch of books that hadn’t been written yet, and basing his book off discoveries that hadn’t been discovered. It sure is something, land sakes.
I don’t know how he done it, but it sure must have taken a whole lot of work. And yet he’s just talking and talking with his face in a hat, throwing out names and places and complicated ways of speech like there was nothing to it.
Here’s the part I really don’t get. If I had gone to all that work to make up a book and try to make it sound like it was for real, you can bet I would come along later and point out all this good stuff to other folks and say, “See? This shows the book is real!” But this farm boy never done that. And he never had nobody else do it, neither. Once he talks this 600 page book out of a hat, he really don’t seem to pay it much nevermind from that point on. He barely talks about it at all when he is preaching. It’s like he just throws off a 600-page book like it’s no big deal and then goes on to other things. He just did not understand the value of a hard day’s work.
Last Words
There’s a lot of other stuff about this book that I could go on and on about, but I better stop right there. I got chores to tend to. Besides, if this ain’t enough to convince you, I reckon nothing will. It couldn’t be no plainer if a salamander done transfiggered hisself into an angel and done konked a body over the head with a set of gold plates.
The last thing I’ll say is that there was a smart lawyer feller a while back named Wigmore. He was a real expert on legal evidence and whatnot. He came up with this doctrine that he called “the doctrine of chances.” That’s just a fancy lawyer way of saying, “What are the odds?” We all know what a coincidence is. We’ve all had coincidences happen to us at one time or another. What Wigmore says is that if a feller is charged with a crime and he don’t confess and there ain’t no eye-witness, sometimes a bunch of coincidences can be enough to prove he did it, just the same. One coincidence can be just that, a coincidence. Two of ‘em and it looks a little bit more like the feller’s guilty of something, but it could just be bad luck. Three coincidences and it’s starting to look pretty bad for the feller. At some point, you just gotta throw up your hands and say enough’s enough. That’s too many coincidences for me to believe you’re innocent. Looks like you gotta hang for it.
At some point, there’s just too many dang coincidences in this book to believe it came from a 23-year old farm boy in upstate New York. Specially in 1829. Looks like that farm boy is guilty of something. And what he’s guilty of is dictating an ancient book from out the bottom of a hat. Looks like he might haveta hang for it, too.
I been around a long time, and this old world’s been around a lot longer. I suppose this old world’s seen a lot of strange things in its time. Mebbe some things even stranger than this. But for the life of me I just don’t know when.
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
“but durned if there isn’t an actual place down there along the trail right about where they would have stopped called NHM”
Not exactly. NHM isn’t a place, but a tribal name. Like most names that Joseph Smith borrowed from the Bible, derivatives of Nahum/Nahom are replete through the Bible. There are also place names throughout Palestine/Arabia that also utilize those three consonants in that succession, making it a virtual lock that Nephi could have hit his bullseye through whatever fictitious route he took. As for the 1 in 2,000 argument… that is an interesting misuse of applied statistics.
More remarkable than the coincidences that are stretched to fit here are the coincidences that don’t exist. Semitic DNA does not coincide with mesoamerican DNA. Semitic languages do not coincide with mesoamerican languages. Anachronistic BOM weapons, technologies, foods do not correspond to mesoamerican weapons.
The odd use of a folksy language not withstanding, I find nothing new and nothing compelling here to suggest ancient origins of the book of mormon.
Thanks for your comments, ScottH.
I think your logic is lacking. You say there are names in the Bible that fit the same basic pattern of NHM, so you assume Joseph cribbed such a name from the Bible. The most obvious candidate is the minor prophet Nahum.
But Joseph doesn’t use it as a person’s name, but the name of a place. And as you tacitly admit, it just happens to be in the exact right place, dating to the exact right time, in the exact right conjunction with another astounding connection of “Bountiful” almost due east from Nahom’s location.
This is a far cry from what you term a “virtual lock.”
And would you care to supply any of the “place names throughout Palestine/Arabia that also utilize those three consonants in that succession” that you allege exist?
And when you do so, could you please make sure they are along the borders of the Red Sea? And that a location matching the Book of Mormon description of the land “Bountiful” is almost due east? And that these names were known to Joseph Smith at the time he dictated the Book of Mormon?
It is my opinion that the Book of Mormon is a thornier knot to unravel than many give it credit for. This section gives every indication it was written by a person who traveled through the Arabian peninsula circa 600 B.C.E.
“It is my opinion that the Book of Mormon is a thornier knot to unravel than many give it credit for. This section gives every indication it was written by a person who traveled through the Arabian peninsula circa 600 B.C.E.”
Sorry Corbin, but I would have to respectfully disagree. This section of the BoM does not give every indication of having been written by someone who traveled through the Arabian peninsula circa 600 BCE. To the contrary, it gives many indications of having not been written by said person at said time. Various aspects of the narrative are dubious while the geographical and personal names point to their having been created by someone unfamiliar with the original ancient Hebrew and Semitic contexts in which they are situated in the narrative.
With regard to the correlation of Nahom in the BoM to the Sabaean/southern Arabian tribal name nhmy, I don’t find it to be very compelling at all:
1) It is not as clear as many suppose that they are in fact words based on the same Semitic roots. The English letter h could be theoretically be a realization of several Semitic/Hebrew consonants. While these words look very similar in their transliterated forms, we have to keep in mind that the repertoire of sounds in the Semitic languages Nahom could possibly stem from complicates attempts to connect it to South Arabian nhmy.
2) We have to look at BoM toponyms and personal names as a whole, and resist making quick judgments about the authenticity of Nahom until we place it in that broader context. When we do this, we see that aside from several names that seem to derive from the biblical text or are otherwise biblical sounding, a large number of names are almost completely implausible, either as Hebrew personal names/toponyms or as Arabian toponyms (e.g. Nephi, Laman, Lemuel; Shazer, Irreantum)
3) While it is true that the tribal name nhmy is attested in an area that matches the BoM description in a general way, it is critical to note that this is just one of many other tribal names in the same region (the word probably has something to do with a stone or stone cutting). When we keep in mind this diversity of names, it becomes significantly less remarkable that the the BoM’s Nahom happens to match, at least superficially based on the English consonants, the triliteral root nhm somewhere in the region of Marib. In other words, this kind of correlation could have been easily been effected with many other possible triliteral roots.
4) The region of Marib was one of the most developed and densely populated areas of South Arabia during this period. The idea that Lehi’s group would take the time to mention the burial of Ishmael in a place belonging to some minor tribal grouping and at the same time fail to notice the far more prominent urban centers and structures of the region and the people who would have been working and living all around them to me is simply implausible.
So your post boils down its just being dumb luck?
Coincidence is always possible, but getting the correct identification of a place named NHM (where there is a huge cemetery, by the way)in the borders of the Red Sea, and almost due east from there being a place in Saudi Arabia that actually matches the BOM description of Bountiful is too much for me to believe it was written by an upstate New York Yankee farm boy in the early 19th century.
No Corbin, my comment boils down to what you think is “a correct identification” is not. I’m saying that all those factors only give an appearance of authenticity when not examined very close. When you examine them more closely, they fall apart.
I lived in Western Saudi Arabia near the area of where it is believed to be where Nephi found wood for his bow. In fact, my husband, with the help of a local, found a tree that may have been one, or something like the one, that Nephi used. We traveled to many places along the mountain and seashore and did not see anything close to NHM. I visited an AOL Arabic-speaking chatroom and asked them for the meaning of NHM and was told it wasn’t Arabic.
Hi, Pat!
If you are saying that you and your husband found a tree in Western Saudi Arabia that was similar to the one Nephi is described as using to make a bow and arrow, that is very interesting.
I don’t know exactly where you traveled along the shore, but NHM is a tribal area dating back to 600 BCE that has been determined by non-Mormon archeologists to be in the location described by the Book of Mormon vis-a-vis Jerusalem, the Red Sea, and “Bountiful.”
NHM is a root word in Arabic and Hebrew (both Semitic languages, I believe). The following is quoted from a wiki article:
______________________________________
Meaning of the name NHM
Vowels in Hebrew are spoken but not written.[5] Therefore, roots in Semitic languages such as Hebrew or Arabic utilize only the consonants and not the vowels (Roper 1997, pp. 87–145).[6] Some of the variant names based upon the Semitic root NHM found in both Arabic and Hebrew texts are Nahum, Naham, Nihm, Nehem and Nahm (Reynolds 1997, p. 380). The root NHM has different meanings. The South Arabian root NHM is related to stone cutting. The Hebrew root NHM is found repeatedly in the Bible and relates to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning (Damrosch 1987, pp. 128–29).[7] Scholars consider this root appropriate when used to refer to a place of burial and the expression of mourning (Goff, Sorenson & Thorne 1991, pp. 92–9). This theory is corroborated by a huge area of ancient burial tombs at ‘Alam, Ruwayk, and Jidran about 25 miles (40 km) north of Marib that were examined by a French team at approximately the same time that the Bar’an excavation was completed. This burial complex is the largest such burial area known anywhere in Arabia (Aston 2001).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom
The next paragraph deals not with the Lehite migration but instead with the first or Jaredite exodus and presents some difficulties that make the first migration a highly improbable event; as such it casts doubt on all of the other truth claims about the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
That under-educated, backwoods farm boy inserted a lot of “facts” into his “wonder tale”, but then there exist both true facts and false facts. One example: linguists today completely reject the Tower of Babel story as an ancient, pre-scientific explanation for the worldwide diversity of languages. The Tower Story then is an ancient mythological explanation for a wholly natural development that modern linguists and anthropologists have readily and convincingly explicated. Therefore, if there was no tower, there would have been was no reason for the alleged migration by the Jaredite people to the western hemisphere (if they really existed in the first place.)
Then there is the troublesome true fact that modern Mesoamericans originate exclusively from Eastern Asia, and extensive DNA analysis has proved this to be the case. To date no DNA evidence has surfaced indicating Middle Eastern origins for any of the numerous Native American population samples taken from North, Central, and South Americas. (See Simon G. Southerton’s “Losing a Lost Tribe”.) Furthermore, archaeological findings place some of the early migrations from Asia from about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago, thousands of years before the putative Jaredite migration.
Next, there are significant geographic issues concerning the location where these immigrant Middle Eastern peoples settled in the “land where no man had dwelt”. Joseph Smith and successors claimed that the Lehite groups eventually populated both the North American and South American continents. Evidently some of Smith’s “evidence” for this was the existence of numerous mounds and artifacts discovered in the region where Smith lived. (In fact both alleged Jaredite and Nephite final battle scenes, involving millions of combatants, centuries apart, were fought in that same region; almost in the exact same spot.) Yet today, after decades of research and on- site archeological excavations, on both continents, no one has located or identified any ancient pre-Columbian city, or even a region, that contains any evidence of Nephite/Lamanite occupation. Additionally, none of the Book of Mormon names has been uncovered here in the Americas during this time. Now some may claim that the evidence is there—but is yet to be discovered. It is possible I suppose; anything is possible, but after numerous and extensive excavations any such discovery now seems highly improbable. At the same time numerous artifacts, hieroglyph writings, and structures thus far discovered show a far different world than that described in the Book of Mormon. Specifically, Smith incorrectly assumed that the Jaredites and/or Lehites had horses, chariots (Jaredites), wheat, barley, sheep, goats, oxen, steel swords and tools, coinage, and a seven day calendar among other things. Yet excavations show that none of these things ever existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. But things such as maize, squash, gourds, deer, turkeys, dogs, and llamas, for example, are not mentioned in Smith’s production, yet they were all grown, raised, or utilized in various ways by pre-Columbian Americans. And barter rather than coinage was the method used for exchange by these peoples. (See Michael D. Coe’s books “The Maya” and “Mexico”).
I could go on because the evidence against the historical Book of Mormon is far greater that any alleged evidence in its defense. It takes only a modest effort to discover this evidence and, of course, a willingness to seek the truth
That was superb, Brent.
Since leaving the Church, I’ve begun exploring various faiths from an observer standpoint. Having had the same “type” of debate with people from various religions, I’ve come to see that facts have nothing to do with faith. I have debated Muslims/Bahai/Christians/Scientologists/and (of course) Mormons, and every time I make a “slam dunk” argument, they sidestep.
You can have every good, science-based argument in the world and it will not change someone’s opinion if they believe in something. Because their knowledge is not founded on science. It’s founded on their family, their upbringing, their self-identity, and their feelings of self-worth. I challenge any Mormon in this discussion thread to have a religious debate with a faithful and educated member of another faith (i.e., not the people I debated on my mission) and see if you “win.” My guess is that you’ll end up feeling frustrated by their obstinacy and blindness.
A “willingness to seek the truth” typically involves looking at evidence on both sides of an issue.
You have responded to nothing I have written, but instead have gone straight to arguing the other side.
Too often I see people dismiss evidence in favor of BOM authenticity with a wave of the hand, as has happened several times already in posts responding to this article.
Although I am new around these parts, here is where I am coming from–The BOM shows obvious signs of having been produced anciently. The BOM also shows obvious signs of having been produced in early 19th century upstate New York.
In these types of discussions, what usually happens is people promote one side or the other, emphasizing the evidence in favor of their view while discounting the evidence against.
The bottom line for me is that the BOM is not either true of false, either ancient or modern, either authentic or a forgery.
It is not either/or.
It is both/and.
From my perspective, it is only the both/and position that accommodates all the evidence.
Individual preference may differ . . .
Point #1When I was active (but had doubts) I used to read FARMS articles and Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. I found some of their evidence intriguing but a lot of it “a stretch,” to say the least. And I found myself frustrated, thinking, “Why does the BoM have to be stretched to make it fit science?” Why isn’t the archeological evidence fitting Joseph Smith’s revelations?
I also read early statements from W.W. Phelps and Orson Pratt regarding the geography of the BoM covering all of North and South America, but then John Sorenson and FARMS arguing a more limited geography, I began to wonder whether any of it was true. It seems that the argument was once: “It’s so obvious that the Native Americans are the Lost Tribe”… But with the increase of DNA and archeological evidence, apologists are forced further and further into the corner. Eventually, the easiest explanation is that it’s not true (Occam’s Razor).
Point #2 When it comes to the scientific method, you cannot discount evidence to the contrary easily. You can’t just wave your hand and make it go away. Your theory has got to allow for all the evidence or you need a new theory. Religion (not just Mormonism) does not abide by these rules. It can pick and choose what evidence supports it and disregard anything else. You argue that we skeptics are choosing to ignore the “good” evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Speaking for myself, I don’t think that I am. Some of this evidence has an alternate explanation, in my mind. Some of it has been cobbled together by modern day apologists. And some of it (of course) is intriguing and I have no answer for it. I freely admit that. But the huge holes in the other stuff is what makes me feel that it’s incorrect.
Point #3 I have a lot of respect for members. I once believed and my whole family is still active. But (renumerating my previous point) I do believe that a lot of religious belief is based in belief NO MATTER WHAT. Faith comes after wanting to believe, Moroni teaches. What apologists do is find scientific evidence to support their religious conviction.
Hi, Jared!
There is virtually nothing in your post with which I disagree.
I think our way of looking at things is quite similar.
Thanks for your comments!
Awesome article, more evidence comes forth, yet those who choose blindness over sight will continue to falter. God continues to vindicate his prophet and his work, let the critics fight and kick against the pricks if they choose.
What did you just call me, Remy?
Seriously, though, I appreciate your enthusiasm!
After just posting that I think the BOM of issue is not either true or false, but both/and, you may have a different opinion of me.
I have been thinking about maybe writing the next blog post arguing the modernity of the Book of Mormon.
How do you think that would go over?
this whole story is wonderful and I appreciate the effort… but you made it too difficult and incredibly annoying to read using the exaggerated backwards local yokal speech that makes your narrator sound so ignorant… and it ‘dumb downs’ your work… too bad… you could have used language that wasn’t so horribly exaggerated
Thanks for appreciating the effort, Karen!
Sorry it was difficult and “incredibly annoying.”
One of the ideas with the narrator sounding ignorant is my attempt to give the view of the average contemporary of Joseph Smith to the Book of Mormon if he could somehow go into the future and learn all the discoveries that have been made since 1830 that indicate links between the BOM and the ancient world.
Sorry if I laid it on a little too thick!
Jared, you speak the truth with clarity.
Actually, Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, _at_ Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
It doesn’t say IN Jerusalem now does it? I thought that was the apologetic argument and this was most definitely an apologetic blog. Richard Wellington and George Potter wrote a book called Lehi in the Wilderness which has a picture of the ‘river of water’ and it is a mere stream.
Virgins don’t get pregnant, least of all give birth. If you think a virgin can do that – you likely need to think again. Even the word virgin is a mistranslation in the KJV that the church insists on using.
Why do you need to believe this nonsense?
Hi, Jean.
Thanks for taking the time to read; and thanks for your comments. I appreciate your taking the time to post.
The “apologetic” on Alma 7:10 has come a long way from “in” versus “at” in the last few decades, with the surfacing of some ancient documents showing that Jerusalem was considered to be a “land” that extended beyond the city proper to include the city of Bethlehem a few miles to the south of the city.
I don’t know if Mary was a virgin in the way we typically think of the term today, though the scriptures seem to say that she was (which I recognize may be a misunderstanding of the term adopted from Isaiah’s “Emmanuel” prophecy in which the term “virgin” means only “young woman.”
Science has come to the point where a woman can conceive a child without ever having had sexual intercourse with a man.
If we know how to do it today, I don’t suppose it is too much of a stretch to think God knew how to do it two thousand years ago.
LOL, right on, Jean.
Presumably, apologetic attempts to validate Book of Mormon truth claims with archaeological evidence is to give scientific evidence in support of the claimed historicity.
The issue i see with this is that it is a pseudoscientific approach. This is the same way that paranormal researchers approach science. You are assuming the conclusion and attempting to prove your assumption.
If you want to convince anyone that doesn`t already believe, you will need to begin without any assumptions on historicity and present your evidence, which should be left to speak for itself.
For example, in the case of NHM and Nahom. Statements placing limits on what Joseph Smith could not have known need to provide evidence. While it is impossible to prove either way, we can at least partially back up our claims. An analysis of maps available at libraries near where Joseph Smith lived and worked would be a good place to start, seeing as the name Nahom appears on several middle eastern maps of the early 1800`s. Showing that none of these were held in libraries near Joseph Smith would be more compelling than finding a place with an altar with NHM on it.
In particular, showing that the maps mentioned in John Gee`s The Nahom Maps were not available tp Joseph Smith would be a good place to start.
If there is no way to examine the records of the neighboring bookstores and libraries, and consequently no way of knowing what Joseph Smith couldn`t have known, then maybe its time to stop using this as proof, as Joseph Smith very well may have had access to this information.
Just some thoughts.
In any case, interesting read. Thank you for posting this.
Thanks for your input, Patrick.
I think much of the difficulty in evaluating evidence for and against the ancientness of the BOM is the way in which it was claimed to be brought forth, which was by the ministering of angels, gold plates, and a glowing rock in a hat.
It is hard to disentangle the two.
I believe that if the BOM were just some text that was brought forth in a non-miraculous manner, and if conclusions as to its authenticity were not fraught with religious consequences, it would be easier for people on all sides to deal with it in a more rational way.
If the conclusion that the BOM is ancient meant nothing more than that it is ancient (and not that it is also, in some sense “true”), then it would be an easier discussion to have. And the same goes for a conclusion that the BOM is modern.
With few exceptions, those who do not believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet inevitably line up on the side of the BOM being a modern production, while those who do believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet line up on the side of the BOM being ancient.
But if, as I believe, the BOM is a modern document with ancient roots; or alternatively an ancient document with modern interpolations; it will win few supporters from those whose religious beliefs “require” them to argue it is either all modern or all ancient.
I think it is most helpful to examine this proposition without the necessity of trying to simultaneously make that proposition square with a predetermined religious belief. And my view is that such an approach leads to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not either modern or ancient, but that is both modern and ancient.
It is not an either/or proposition, but both/and.
And this, I think, would agree with your point about assuming conclusions and attempting to prove assumptions.
It is my understanding that the map that had the Nahom name on it was not available in Joseph Smith’s area. And I doubt that Joseph Smith would have known about it. The Smith family was poor, worked hard all day (like every other poor person at that time and even today) and did not have access to things like a big city would have, especially a library. Remember they lived in a wilderness area.
It is interesting that the critics/enemies/anti’s pepper their arguments with “possible”, “maybe”, “might have”, “could have” and on and on. The critics also say things like “Joseph Smith might have known so and so because so and so lived 30 miles away”. Really?! The critics grasp at straws all the time. The critics have nothing but assumptions.
There are articles by non LDS scholars that talk about how “land of ______” was used quite frequently in the Book of Mormon times and Biblical times. There have been ancient writings discovered with this exact language of “land of_____” and it refers to the towns surrounding a larger city (and the larger city was considered the “captial” city of the region). Bethlehem is six miles away from Jerusalem proper. Jerusalem was the largest city at that time so all the surrounding towns are part of the land of Jerusalem including Bethlehem.
If one really thinks about this we tend to use the same kind of terminology today in the areas where we live.
The critics have nothing but assumptions? I’m going to laugh about that one all day
Thanks for your comments, JG!
While I think the evidence for ancient origins of (at least parts) of the Book of Mormon is strong, I try to be careful about saying things like “all the critics have is assumptions.”
This is a two-edged sword.
As I expect to set forth in an upcoming article, the evidence for modern origins of the Book of Mormon is at least as strong as the evidence for its ancient origins.
When the evidence for BOM modernity is discussed, the shoe is on the other foot and it has been my experience that then “all the TBM’s have is assumptions.”
We must strive as hard as we can to not let our belief in the rightness of our cause (whatever that may be) blind us as to the strength of opposing arguments or the weakness of our own.
We must follow the truth, as God gives us the light to see the truth, wherever it may lead, confident in the belief that through finding the truth, we will also find God.
JG, one reason that many critics use “might have,” “could have,” and other qualifying statements is because many of them try to approach things from a scientific perspective; and science dictates that you don’t make absolute statements unless you’re 99.99% sure (and even then, you leave room for doubt). Religion doesn’t do that.
You see qualifying statements as a sign of weakness. I see them as a sign of objectivity.
The whole premise of the book of Mormon is an assumption because we have no copy of the gold plates since they were mysteriously taken back to heaven. The burden of proof lies on those that believe in the book of Mormon to show its authenticity. So far nothing other than assumptions about possible connections has been shown. None of those prove the book to be true. I could I make an assumption that based on the millions and millions that were killed in some of the battles that there should be battlegrounds with all that evidence….nothing. I will would assume that all those who “witnesses” the plates would have actually signed their on names on the statement that they witnessed the plates…..the assumptions can go on and on. My assumptions are based on lacking any credible evidence to prove the claim that church makes on the historicity and truthfulness of the book. I don’t work in apologetics and assume the end result is already determined
Garrett,
I’m going to jump in here. Your first statement is problematic for a few reasons:
1)We have no original copy (let alone a copy in the original Greek) of any of Homer’s or Socrates’ writings. Yet we know that at one time they existed. So you should probably revise that part of your argument.
2)You have misappropriated the word assumption, when perhaps you meant evidence. The argument as presented, just makes no sense.
3)You, as well as many traditional-believing Mormons, have misused the word “proof”. Very little can be proven. We can present evidences (based on facts) for a certain conclusion and you can disagree with the conclusion. You can disagree with how the facts have been interpreted as evidences for a certain conclusion. But, we all should probably stay away from using the word proof. Facts, evidences, conclusions, and proofs are three different animals.
4)The last part, starting with the number of dead in the Nephite/Lamanite wars, just doesn’t make sense.
5)We went to the Neville’s and didn’t catch anything, but Lance had already caught a toad for the girls. His name is Peewee. I’ll let you guess why “wee” is the last part of his name.