Evidence for God from Science

Seven, Thank you for the stirring reminder of how important faith and prayer is for really knowing the truth. Just as Paul wrote:

1Ti 6:20 ¶ O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

However, let us not underestimate the importance of science. Science will eventually reveal the truth of all things, however man's interpretation of it may not always.

tteows,
You are a keen observer. Let me clarify what you have misunderstood.

The fact of the matter is that the BoM does not paint an accurate picture of any of the N American civilizations....for if such was really the case we would be able to say where the events in the BoM must have taken place (b/c we could match the civilization described in the BoM with the known and discovered civilizations of N. A.).

I certainly did say in another post that the Book of Mormon "actually painted an accurate picture of those civilizations." In saying this I was specifically referring to the descriptions of culture, thought, and lifestyle. I was not referring to descriptions of exact locations of cities or lands in the Book of Mormon.
Book of Mormon archaelogy should not be measured with the same ruler that biblical archaeology is. There are numerous reasons for this, mostly either misunderstood by anti-mormons, or deliberately ignored.
http://www.farms.byu.edu/display.php?ta ... V3LnBocA==

Quote:

the Book of Mormon is about Jews in the ancient Americas (including all of North America, South America, and Central America)


Actually, this too is a false statement.
....well, isn't it a statement that reflects a position that was put forward by the early leadership of the LDS?...and isn't it a position that is still widely held among the LDS in the pews? You may think it false, but surely you should also acknowledge that LDS prophets have thought it to be true and many LDS today still think it to be true.

The false part of this statement is that the Book of Mormon does not teach that the events portrayed occured on a hemispherical model. It is true that many early LDS leaders and many current LDS believed it to be. But that is not necessarily a reflection of what is actually being taught in the Book of Mormon. It is not specifically stated in the text, and so a superficial read will cause some to believe it speaks of a continental civilization. However upon closer inspection most agree that the evidence is stacked against this hypothesis. Many LDS leaders have supposed it was on a continental scope, but many have not. In fact there is evidence that Joseph Smith himself believed the events to have occured in the MesoAmericas.

I challenge you to read the article posted above. This isn't an attack or a challenge on your intellect, but it contains information that most don't know and need to know when discussing these matters.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the BoM does not paint an accurate picture of any of the N American civilizations....for if such was really the case we would be able to say where the events in the BoM must have taken place (b/c we could match the civilization described in the BoM with the known and discovered civilizations of N. A.).

I certainly did say in another post that the Book of Mormon "actually painted an accurate picture of those civilizations." In saying this I was specifically referring to the descriptions of culture, thought, and lifestyle. I was not referring to descriptions of exact locations of cities or lands in the Book of Mormon.

It seems that you are missing my point....which i believe is the same point that Fortigurn is trying to make on the other thread.....so please allow me to restate it:
a) In support of the historical claims of the BoM you wish to say that the BoM "painted an accurate picture of those civilizations."
b) In order to deflect criticisms of the BoM you wish to say that those criticisms are invalid b/c we don't know where in the Americas the alleged events are to have actually occurred.

As a result, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. "Accurate" would mean that the details provided are true and an assertion of truthfulness would require independent verification. How is science/archeology to provide independent verification of the details of the culture, thought, and lifestyle (as seen in the BoM) when you can't even tell the scientist where in the americas the events are to have taken place? Should the archeologist be looking in California? Belize? New York? Let me take a specific example. A mormon propagandist (that is the appropriate counterpart to an anti-mormon, isn't it? ) may point out that domesticated barley was found in NA much to everyone's surprise. The MP would go on to say that this is support for the divine inspiration of the BoM b/c JS couldn't have known that barley was in fact grown domestically in NA and so the source of this knowledge must be divine. It would be declared to be an accurate description of the civilization b/c it actually names a crop available to the civilization. However, if I ask the propagandist to commit to locating the BoM events in Arizona b/c that is where the barley was found, the MP would refuse to do so (for various reasons). As such, unless the MP is prepared to commit to placing the events in Arizona, he can't claim that barley affirms an accurate description b/c he must acknowledge that the events in the BoM may have occured at a location that is nowhere near the location where ancient barley was found. The same goes for all the rest of your alleged accurate details. Until the Mormons specify where the BoM events occurred, archeologists cannot come up with evidence of culture, lifestyles and thought from that location so as to verify the accuracy of the details contained in the BoM. It's just that simple.

Your confusion is that you do not understand the nature of LDS thought. After a thorough and detailed study of the BoM, many LDS scholars have concluded that the most probable area for the habitation of the people in the BoM is in central america. This is based on archaeology, and careful reconstruction of traces of geographical descriptions. Then, when we go study that region more, we discover even more evidence that the events probably did occur in that region. In the light of so much evidence, we suppose that central america is a correct identification.
However, as a God-fearing people we cannot commit the church's position on these matters to our mortal understanding of science. Take for example the catholic church. For centuries it plain as day, all evidence supported the position that the earth was flat. Evidently that was not an inspired position. The Lord has chosen to not reveal the location of the events in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we do not assume to know. We can speculate, research, draw up theories, very strong one I might add, but ultimately we will not speak for the Lord.
So your conclusion is not wholly incorrect. Without a sure official stance on where the BoM events occured we cannot prove everything. But without that stance it allows us to continue to exercise faith, and trust that the book and the events therein are real. If we could absolutely prove without a shadow of a doubt to all people that the Book of Mormon is indeed the word of God, and do so through pure science, the work of the Lord would be frustrated, because faith( which by definition is to not have a sure knowledge) would no longer be an option, and it is by faith that we are saved.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:Your confusion is that you do not understand the nature of LDS thought.

I still don't think that there is confusion or misunderstanding over here...what you claim is no diiferent than what I have seen frequently before. I have seen it often enough to conclude that it is the favored strategy of Mormon propagandists. I would summarize it as:
a) putting forward a position that is most plausible in light of outside evidence, and then
b) claiming that the evidence verifies the veracity of the BoM
however, when someone,
1) points out a problem with the aforementioned Mormon position, the Mormon propagandist
2) explains that Mormonism is unscathed b/c other possible positions exist.

After a thorough and detailed study of the BoM, many LDS scholars have concluded that the most probable area for the habitation of the people in the BoM is in central america. This is based on archaeology, and careful reconstruction of traces of geographical descriptions. Then, when we go study that region more, we discover even more evidence that the events probably did occur in that region.

here you set up a) and b)

However, as a God-fearing people we cannot commit the church's position on these matters to our mortal understanding of science. .... The Lord has chosen to not reveal the location of the events in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we do not assume to know. We can speculate, research, draw up theories, very strong one I might add, but ultimately we will not speak for the Lord.

and here you set up #2 in case number 1 shows up

So your conclusion is not wholly incorrect. Without a sure official stance on where the BoM events occured we cannot prove everything.

so it seems what you want to say is that, if mesoamerica is the location of the BoM events, (which is merely a strong suspicion of LDS scholars), then I (Saragon) think that the BoM is amazingly accurate in its description of the mesoamerican culture of that era, but if any problem arises with that location then I (Saragon) am not "married" to that location...there is always another possible place.
Clearly you think that you can reserve 2) while still preserving the usefullness of a) and b). I disagree, but let's move on....What exactly are these accurate descriptions of which you speak? How about giving me the top five?

I hear crickets.

I hear crickets.

Fortigurn this was posted by you less than 24 hours from the time tteows last posted. Do you assume that I don't know what to say because I have not yet responded? Or are you merely trying to make it appear that way in order to portray me as a fool? Which is it?
What you interpret as crickets is actually a very busy week, and being side-tracked by other threads.

I still don't think that there is confusion or misunderstanding over here...what you claim is no diiferent than what I have seen frequently before. I have seen it often enough to conclude that it is the favored strategy of Mormon propagandists. I would summarize it as:
a) putting forward a position that is most plausible in light of outside evidence, and then
b) claiming that the evidence verifies the veracity of the BoM
however, when someone,
1) points out a problem with the aforementioned Mormon position, the Mormon propagandist
2) explains that Mormonism is unscathed b/c other possible positions exist.

Let's get organized:

1)This discussion originated with a question about the maps used by Mormon authors, that do not correspond with any known modern sites. I replied that the Book of Mormon does not provide enough detail to draw a very good map.

2) You then asked how we can claim to believe that the events occured in any region(specifically MesoAmerica) if the BoM does not have enough detail to allow us to know that. You even quoted myself saying that the BoM paints an accurate picture of mesoamerican cultures, and proposed a contradiction.

3)You then described your understanding of LDS "apologetics" on this issue:

a) In support of the historical claims of the BoM you wish to say that the BoM "painted an accurate picture of those civilizations."
b) In order to deflect criticisms of the BoM you wish to say that those criticisms are invalid b/c we don't know where in the Americas the alleged events are to have actually occurred.

4) I explained that it is not wholly incorrect. We do not know with 100% certainty that the events happened in Meso-America, and that is because we simply dont have enough information, from science or from the Lord.
I did explain however that there is much evidence pointing to that locale, and that even without an official revelation many have subscribed to the theory.

5) Apparently that wasn't good enough for you, since you continued in the same line of thought. You cant understand how we can claim that the BoM events occured in MesoAmerica based on details provided in the text, and then turn our backs on that theory when opposition is found, claiming that we "just dont know".

I am not sure why you believe supporters of the limited geography theory(LGT) frequently resort to claiming that we cant be held responsible because we dont know. That is not my experience. Instead I see that they vigorously defend it, and fight it to the death.
Your clever analysis of my explanation as being a perfect example of what you mean is not accurate. I did claim that MesoAmerica is a suitable and likely candidate for BoM geography, but I did not run from that claim by stating that the Lord has not yet revealed it. That statement was made in response to the side conversation that was going on in this thread about early LDS leaders teaching a Hemispherical model, and modern scholars teaching a LGT model. There has not been a claim to revelation, and therefore shifting our model is not reprehensive. It was not meant as a way out of tough opposition to the MesoAmerican thoery.

What exactly are these accurate descriptions of which you speak? How about giving me the top five?

I wont pretend to be an expert on this subject. I know very little MesoAmerican history, and I base all my knowledge off the study of others. The MesoAmerican area is a great fit for a variety of reasons, mostly because it fits the descriptions of the BoM people better than anywhere else on the American hemisphere for that time period. It held complex advanced civilizations, and has demonstrated many similiarities, similarities that Joseph Smith could not have possible known back when he wrote the BoM.

Sargon

Sargon wrote: What you interpret as crickets is actually a very busy week, and being side-tracked by other threads.

yes, the insects were called out prematurely

Let's get organized:

always a good idea

1)This discussion originated with a question about the maps used by Mormon authors, that do not correspond with any known modern sites. I replied that the Book of Mormon does not provide enough detail to draw a very good map.

and I agree, and this is why we see various locations put forward by Mormondom....and it forces one to look for other evidence so as to try to establish location.

4) I explained that it is not wholly incorrect. We do not know with 100% certainty that the events happened in Meso-America, and that is because we simply dont have enough information, from science or from the Lord.
I did explain however that there is much evidence pointing to that locale, and that even without an official revelation many have subscribed to the theory.

and many in the Mormon camp also reject that theory....but in any event it would seem that now you are not in a position to provide the alleged accurate descriptions so that we can decide for ourselves if such exist and if they are sufficient to serve as evidence of location

5) Apparently that wasn't good enough for you, since you continued in the same line of thought. You cant understand how we can claim that the BoM events occured in MesoAmerica based on details provided in the text, and then turn our backs on that theory when opposition is found, claiming that we "just dont know".

actually I said that such an option is available to you should conflicting evidence arise....this idea I expressed in this way:
"and here you set up #2 in case number 1 shows up "
with #1 and #2 having been described as:
"however, when someone,
1) points out a problem with the aforementioned Mormon position, the Mormon propagandist
2) explains that Mormonism is unscathed b/c other possible positions exist"

Your clever analysis of my explanation as being a perfect example of what you mean is not accurate. I did claim that MesoAmerica is a suitable and likely candidate for BoM geography,...

and apparently you did so w/o knowing why....we agree that you can't do so on the basis of the geographical evidence contained in the BoM as it is so non-specific that multiple possible locations have been put forward by the LDS....meso-america is merely one possible candidate and you would need evidence (such as accurate descriptions of the culture that match with location specific archaeological evidence to pin point the location)

.... but I did not run from that claim by stating that the Lord has not yet revealed it.

agreed...I said that you have that option reserved to you should evidence eliminate meso-america as a candidate or cause a preference for a different location. That is what I meant by:
"so it seems what you want to say is that, if mesoamerica is the location of the BoM events, (which is merely a strong suspicion of LDS scholars), then I (Saragon) think that the BoM is amazingly accurate in its description of the mesoamerican culture of that era, but if any problem arises with that location then I (Saragon) am not "married" to that location...there is always another possible place"

I wont pretend to be an expert on this subject. I know very little MesoAmerican history, and I base all my knowledge off the study of others. The MesoAmerican area is a great fit for a variety of reasons, mostly because it fits the descriptions of the BoM people better than anywhere else on the American hemisphere for that time period. It held complex advanced civilizations, and has demonstrated many similiarities, similarities that Joseph Smith could not have possible known back when he wrote the BoM.

again, you shouldn't be making this claim unless you can provide these many similarities or provide what others have supplied as the accurate descriptions.

You mentioned Nahom earlier and I think Jeff Lindsay of internet blog fame lists it as possibly the strongest archaeological evidence in verification of the BoM....you seem like an intelligent, patient and civil fellow and therefore I would be happy to look at that bit of evidence with you...if you are so inclined. What do you say? BTW if you say "yes" be warned I am also busy and it might be days and even a week before I can respond....or, on the other hand, work could experience a Christmas slow down and I might be able to knock off a post per day....in any event, neither of us should be hasty in calling on the crickets

I appreciate the civility. It is often missed in forums such as these.

Let us continue.

One interesting thing about the Book of Mormon, is that it claims to be records of a people with semitic roots. The Book of Mormon is drenched in undeniable evidence that the book was truly written by a people who carried many semitic traditions, traditions that Joseph Smith nor anyone of his era was aware of, evidence that did not come to light until many years later. If you were inclined to talk about that, I would be much more helpful.

On the topic of evidence for a MesoAmerican setting, the Book of Mormon also shines. However as I confessed earlier I am much less familiar with it, mostly because I have not devoted the necessary time for it. But there a few interesting things I do know. I am actually asking for a book called "A MesoAmerican Setting for the Book of Mormon" by John L. Sorenson for Christmas. Another one I want is "Images of the Book of Mormon" by the same author. I have seen those two books referenced to often in my studies.

I have read the evidence for and against the claims that Nahom in the Book of Mormon corresponds to a location in Arabia described in Nephi's journey. The only real anti-mormon apology for this coincidence is just that, that it is a big coincidence. I dont mind exploring this topic further with you, but again it is not my strong point.

One of the most oft heard accusations against the BoM is that Joseph simply used the world around him to create the BoM. It is claimed that he used his frontier knowledge of Indians to invent stories about the Lamanites and Nephites. It use to be that Joseph Smith was a total fraud because he claimed the Indians had cement, silk, metal tools, wine, and participated in bloody wars. EVERYONE in his day knew that that was simply false. However after more exploration has been done all of those things have been discovered to have been normal parts of ancient MesoAmerican civilization. That leaves us with only 2 options. Either Joseph Smith got extremely lucky and continues to be extremely lucky, or the Lord indeed has called a prophet in these latter days.

Sargon

Sargon, what I would like to do is explore the appropriateness of comments such as these:

Sargon wrote:
The only real anti-mormon apology for this coincidence is just that, that it is a big coincidence...
....EVERYONE in his day knew that that was simply false. However after more exploration has been done all of those things have been discovered to have been normal parts of ancient MesoAmerican civilization. That leaves us with only 2 options. Either Joseph Smith got extremely lucky and continues to be extremely lucky, or the Lord indeed has called a prophet in these latter days.

these are the types of claims that I see from the LDS, and I am inclined to believe that they considerably over state the degree of "coincidence" or "luck" that would be required....so that I would amend your closing comment to read:
If the LDS are right in the way they analyze the evidence, then that leaves us with only 2 options. Either Joseph Smith got extremely lucky and continues to be extremely lucky, or the Lord indeed has called a prophet in these latter days. On the other hand, if their analysis is bad, then it may be that JS wrote enough and in such an ambiguous fashion, such that eventually certain possible matches could be made. I would like to look at the LDS analysis of the "Nahom find" as I have seen it to be categorized as possibly the best verification of BoM authenticity and I would like your feedback on my analysis.... so I will take you up on your offer to look into that matter. thank-you.

If I can do you a favour by providing my feedback in one of the other areas that you mentioned, then I would be happy to do so.

Sargon wrote:

I hear crickets.

Fortigurn this was posted by you less than 24 hours from the time tteows last posted. Do you assume that I don't know what to say because I have not yet responded? Or are you merely trying to make it appear that way in order to portray me as a fool? Which is it?
What you interpret as crickets is actually a very busy week, and being side-tracked by other threads.

We're all very busy Sargon, but your church has invested thousands of dollars and decades of research and writing into this issue. If you had answers, you would only have to link to them. It wouldn't take you a minute.

But the official position of the church is one you do not wish to defend. For this reason you're compelled to scratch and scrape among the bits and pieces of the new ideas which have been coming out recently, proposed by the likes of Sorenson, who can't even gain acceptance within the wider LDS community.

That's why you have a problem here - your church doesn't have the answers, and you're reduced to hunting for the recent books of a fringedwelling apologist. Nothing you quote from him will be 'official' church teaching, and if you can dismiss Brigham Young and Joseph Smith's words on the Book of Mormon as irrelevant, then why should we listen to this guy?

I thought we might as well get organized first, before we proceed to look into the Nahom find:

A. The relevant portions of Nephi
chapter 2
2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness.
3 And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him.
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.
5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.
6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water
... 8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.
9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness


chapter 16
12 And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman.
13 And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer.
14 And it came to pass that we did take our bows and our arrows, and go forth into the wilderness to slay food for our families; and after we had slain food for our families we did return again to our families in the wilderness, to the place of Shazer. And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea.
15 And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days, slaying food by the way, with our bows and our arrows and our stones and our slings.

33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.
34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

chapter17
1 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness.
2 And so great were the blessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon raw meat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings.
3 And thus we see that the commandments of God must be fulfilled. And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and strengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did provide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness.
4 And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, *even eight years in the wilderness.
5 And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.
6 And it came to pass that we did pitch our tents by the seashore; and notwithstanding we had suffered many afflictions and much difficulty, yea, even so much that we cannot write them all, we were exceedingly rejoiced when we came to the seashore; and we called the place Bountiful, because of its much fruit.

Sargon wrote:One interesting thing about the Book of Mormon, is that it claims to be records of a people with semitic roots. The Book of Mormon is drenched in undeniable evidence that the book was truly written by a people who carried many semitic traditions, traditions that Joseph Smith nor anyone of his era was aware of, evidence that did not come to light until many years later. If you were inclined to talk about that, I would be much more helpful.

I'm inclined to talk about that. I would be interested to see this 'undeniable evidence', and see you prove that it 'did not come to light until many years later'.

On the topic of evidence for a MesoAmerican setting, the Book of Mormon also shines.

For decades your church has said the same about the North/South America setting. What evidence do you have that yours is the official church view, and that this evidence 'shines'?

One of the most oft heard accusations against the BoM is that Joseph simply used the world around him to create the BoM.

You have been shown clear evidence of this. You were shown the many names in the Book of Mormon which were borrowed from local geographical place names, and a map showing that the local geographical area corresponds exactly to the geography of the Book of Mormon. You were also shown the many 'Semitic' names which were available to Smith in contemporary religious literature, words you claimed he could not have known without inspiration.

It is claimed that he used his frontier knowledge of Indians to invent stories about the Lamanites and Nephites. It use to be that Joseph Smith was a total fraud because he claimed the Indians had cement, silk, metal tools, wine, and participated in bloody wars. EVERYONE in his day knew that that was simply false.

Actually he made these claims about the alleged Semitic people who came to the Americas, as I recall. I'm not aware that any evidence has been found to support this yet.

However after more exploration has been done all of those things have been discovered to have been normal parts of ancient MesoAmerican civilization.

But Joseph Smith did not say he was describing Meso-American civilization, and the descriptions in the Book of Mormon don't fit Meso-American civilization either.

tteows has chosen to talk about the claims of LDS apologists on the topic of Nahom. I have accepted his proposal, and for the remainder of this thread that will be the conversation. I refuse to venture into off-topic debates in this thread. If you truly would like to discuss other things, such as the undeniable evidence that the BoM was written by semitics and not by a New Yorker then please open a new thread.

Bear with me, I am almost done with my finals. Happy Holidays.

Sargon

Recent finds/discoveries (as described by Mormon sites with a bit of editing) .....I don't know if any non-Mormons have ever went to the "Lemeul" and "Bountiful" sites to verify the claims of the LDS, but I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt:

Re the/one place the LDS offer as the location of the "Valley of Lemeul"

A valley lies just over 70 miles (on the ground, not in a direct line) south of Aqaba. It is a narrow gorge cut through a massive granite mountain. It consists of three sections: the upper valley (or the Waters of Moses), the canyon of granite, and the lower canyon. The upper valley constitutes an oasis that lies at the south end of a twelve-mile long wadi—known locally as Wadi Tayyib al-Ism— that leads down from the north. The upper valley sits like a pleasant jewel, spread out over approximately one square mile with several hundred palm trees and 12 wells that local residents call the Waters of Moses.
The final section of the valley is the lower canyon and the beach. The granite canyon opens out into a flat gravel floor just a few feet above sea level. This level area at the mouth of the canyon is about 3/8 mile long. This is the most impressive section of the canyon. Here the height of the canyon walls rises approximately 2,000 feet straight up from the canyon's floor.
The floor of the canyon descends steadily. Within a few hundred feet, a spring begins to flow as the canyon floor drops to the level of the underground reservoir. The waters form the small river that runs above ground almost the rest of the way. At the point where the river comes to a level grade in the canyon floor, it runs just underground, leaving the soil moist. But soon the grade increases in its descent, and the river reappears. It is last seen as it reaches a gravel bed in the lower part of the canyon about 3/8 mile from the beach. From there, the water runs underground to the gulf.

Re the place that the LDS offer as Nahom:

A German archaeological team under the leadership of Burkard Vogt has been excavating the Baran temple in Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom that lies about 70 miles due east of modern Sana, the capital of Yemen......Among the artifacts uncovered at the temple, the excavators turned up three inscribed altars that they date to the seventh or sixth centuries B.C., generally the time that Mormons ascribe to Lehi and his family. The inscription (on the 2nd altar) reads that a certain "Biathar, son of Sawad, son of Nawan, the Nihmite" donated the altar to the temple. the altar has been part of a traveling exhibit of artifacts from ancient Yemen...." Nihmite appears as NHMY.

As one travels south-southeast of Jerusalem along the major trunk of the ancient Arabian trade route(the incense trail), at a location near Marib the route branches east toward the southeastern coast.

Re a couple of the places that the LDS offer as the location of Bountiful

The area of Salalah and Wadi Sayq are proposed by Jeff Lindsay as possible locations for Bountiful. Briefly, Wadi Sayq offers the largest body of coastal fresh water on the Arabian peninsula, with a beautiful freshwater lagoon. Wadi Sayq has dates, honey, and several species of trees, such as the sycamore fig and tamarind, that may be suitable for ship building. Both sites have coastal areas ideal for an encampment on the seashore, and it is accessible from the interior desert.

The area of Salalah and the nearby ancient port of Khor Rori is offered as the general site for Bountiful . According to the LDS it meets many of the criteria that Wadi Sayq does, if one allows Bountiful to include a harbor two or three miles away from an area rich in tropical fruit (the port Khor Rori and the lush regions of Salalah aren't all within a stone's throw of each other).

Both of these locations are easterly of Marib.

The LDS's (in particular, Jeff Lindsay's found here) claims with respect to the “river Laman” and the valley of Lemuel are as follows:

In general:

The critics chuckle that there are NO RIVERS flowing into the Red Sea, at least not anything that could be said to be "continually" flowing……following Nephi's directions almost inevitably would lead one to encounter the oasis and the spring that is the source of the "River Laman" at the beginning of the Valley of Lemuel, and that this is just where the Book of Mormon says it is. It is there--and no one in the Americas knew of it in Joseph Smith's day. Few experts know of it in this day. But it is there, an incredibly rare perennial stream in Arabia.

Re: the fact that the “river” is really a stream:

Could Potter's small stream, shallow and just a few feet wide, at most, qualify as a river? In the published article, Potter notes that there are several Hebrew words which could qualify as the "river" of 1 Nephi 2, most of which refer to any running stream

Re: the fact that the stream disappears as it nears the Red Sea:

The river currently descends into rocky rubble as it approaches the Red Sea. According to Dr. Wes Garner, a retired geologist from King Fahad University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia, movement of the continental plates has caused the canyon to rise significantly since Lehi's time--the rocky place where the stream disappears as it approaches the Red Sea was previously submerged. Lehi probably would have faced a larger river that visibly flowed into the Red Sea.

Re: location:
How about the location? The Book of Mormon text appears to say that Lehi and his family traveled for three days in the wilderness after the reached the Red Sea (after "he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea"). Is the candidate for the Valley of Lemuel in a reasonable location to match the text? Yes--it's 70 miles south of Aqaba--that's the land distance that must be traveled by foot (or by camel), not the distance along a straight line. That's a plausible but challenging distance on foot for three days travel, and a piece of cake by camel.


Ttoews's analysis:

Re: general and location.

Contrary to Lindsay's claim the stream is not “just where the Book of Mormon says it is.” Also I would object to the claim that the “Book of Mormon text appears to say that Lehi and his family traveled for three days in the wilderness after they reached the Red Sea.”
The Book of Mormon says the group departed into the wilderness. There is no indication as to what direction they traveled. It says they came to the borders near the shore of the Red Sea. There is no indication as to where they came near to the Red Sea. It could have been at Gulf of Suez, the Gulf of Aqaba, or the larger body of the Red Sea proper. As such, the stream is not “just where” the BoM said it would be b/c the BoM is not at all specific.

The BoM then goes on to say, “And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.” Please note that there is no indication that the three days is to be counted from the point at which they neared the Red Sea. It is quite possible that JS got this terribly wrong and had the party leaving Jerusalem into the wilderness, approaching the Red Sea and then going on to find the river all within three days. This of course is an impossible time line and so Lindsay must say that the “Book of Mormon text appears to say that Lehi and his family traveled for three days in the wilderness after the reached the Red Sea.” Again, b/c there is no indication as to where they neared the Red Sea, the three days travel time (if it is to be counted from that point) is of no help in locating the river/stream b/c they could have neared the Red Sea at any point that would have allowed them to subsequently travel south southeast from the river/stream.

Re: stream vs. river

Lindsay reconciles this by saying that “there are several Hebrew words which could qualify as the "river" of 1 Nephi 2, most of which refer to any running stream”. The problem that I see with that explanation is that the “translation process” used by JS is described as being divinely controlled and verified and so, in that process, God should have inspired JS to use the English word “stream” instead of “river”. The other reconciliation available to the LDS is pointing out that the stream may have had a considerably greater rate of flow in 600 BC…..but that cuts both ways, in that the stream may have had a considerably lesser rate of flow in 600 BC.

Conclusion:

When the dust clears, JS (in the BoM) stated that in 600BC +/- there was a river that flowed into the Red Sea. It was described as continually flowing and from the text it can't be said where on the Red Sea the river should be found. Assuming we limit the location to the eastern shore and the north half of the Red Sea, we would have JS claiming that in 600BC +/- there was a river that flowed into the Red Sea somewhere within a 700 mile stretch. Given those broad parameters, that a stream has been found within the 700 mile stretch is not something that I would classify as any sort of verification of authenticity…and it is possible that the passage at this point is terribly wrong b/c it might be that JS had the party doing the absolutely impossible by leaving Jerusalem into the wilderness, approaching the Red Sea and then going on to find the river all within three days

So Sargon, would you agree or disagree with my analysis?

I will analyze the claim wrt NMH next.