tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post7669808133970568618..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: About That Burial Marker in Yemen for a Man Named Ishmael: Impossible That He Was a Hebrew?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49829776619521728982022-04-24T00:46:48.220-05:002022-04-24T00:46:48.220-05:00Jack writes: "it is a known quantity that a r...Jack writes: "it is a known quantity that <b>a region</b> called NHM or Nehem <b>or some other variant</b> of the three letters exists "<br /><br />Thank you for clarifying. A region with some other variant of Nahom is rich, beautiful, and complex detail. How could someone not be convinced?<br /><br />Your self-declared matches to self-declared markers have already been addressed several times. Your only rejoinder appears to be chanting "precise location" over and over again while falsely accusing others of making "logically fallacious" statements instead of addressing them.<br /><br />Of course, the article did not delve further into your other concerns because the links at the end of the article did. The best link is this one, where Andrew Davis single-handedly takes on Neal Rappleye, Stephen Smoot, James Culter, and Jeff Lindsay.<br /><br />https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/6jd4fm/budding_apologists_create_book_of_mormon_nahom/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37450009087583678822022-04-23T21:21:51.604-05:002022-04-23T21:21:51.604-05:00The above comment was posted by Jack.The above comment was posted by Jack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80208678045438453482022-04-23T21:21:01.080-05:002022-04-23T21:21:01.080-05:00Anonymous,
The article you link to leaves out som...Anonymous,<br /><br />The article you link to leaves out some very important details and is logically fallacious. The fact is that in spite of the author's claim that no Book of Mormon sites have been found--it is a known quantity that a region called NHM or Nehem or some other variant of the three letters exists -- and has existed since the time of Lehi -- in the precise location were we would expect to find it according the Nephi's account. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-158803561160777862022-04-23T13:27:12.757-05:002022-04-23T13:27:12.757-05:00https://www.mrm.org/finding-nahom-the-continuing-s...https://www.mrm.org/finding-nahom-the-continuing-search-for-archaeological-confirmation-of-the-book-of-mormonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27055726280614563382022-04-22T19:42:49.861-05:002022-04-22T19:42:49.861-05:00Dear Anonymous,
This time, I'm not "Jonat...Dear Anonymous,<br />This time, I'm not "Jonathan Swift" [no Modest Proposal] in thanking you for your kind, thoughtful response. If I read you correctly, I think I can begin to understand why you find yourself on Jeff's blog so often, and with such vigor and passion. <br /><br />Like you, I've thought a lot about what it means to be moral. (I take it that you think being moral is a good thing!) Curious how you would define morality; I mean specifically. What does it mean to be moral, after all? How do you know whether you or someone else really are a moral person, in the main? What attributes might govern a genuinely moral person? Would there be a set of principles that a moral person would adhere to, or would it be that such a person one would intuitively know whether or not said behavior is moral?<br /><br />Best,<br />John S. Robertson<br />ps. Of course and obviously, please don't feel the need to respond to any of the above.<br />John Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11973487301463295866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2685788237814169122022-04-22T18:28:49.377-05:002022-04-22T18:28:49.377-05:00"Really all that religion provides you is a s..."Really all that religion provides you is a sense that someone else (God) approves (or not) of your sense of morality."<br /><br />For the vast majority of human souls who have live as paupers, peasants, servants, or slaves, religion instills a hope that a better life is to come and that losses will be made up.<br /><br />JackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39691772336364999152022-04-22T14:57:52.037-05:002022-04-22T14:57:52.037-05:00“I thoroughly enjoy reading them, though. And it&#...“I thoroughly enjoy reading them, though. And it's sort of entertaining to read the negative comments.”<br /><br />John,<br /><br />This is a great description of why I come to this blog and respond. If there seem to be problems in logic, statements of fact, or if there’s outright disengenuity, I like to point it out and give Jeff or any of the other respondents a chance to rebut my observations. Often times the debate devolves into childish name calling, which can be entertaining for its own part, but it isn’t the primary reason I come here—nor do I tend to participate in that form of “discussion.”<br /><br />“If I had to do it all over again, I would make those self-same covenants because they are the very foundation of I've tried to conduct my life.”<br /><br />I’m the opposite. I have learned that many of the “truths” I was taught growing up are either not true, or have been colored by a very positive brush by the LDS faithful. I’ve also discovered that morality exists independent of religion and being a good person (or righteous in LDS parlance) doesn’t depend upon a testimony of Joseph Smith or even Christ. Really all that religion provides you is a sense that someone else (God) approves (or not) of your sense of morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-92092237229449063052022-04-22T11:30:42.758-05:002022-04-22T11:30:42.758-05:00Dear Anonymous,
Sigghhh.
John S. RobertsonDear Anonymous,<br />Sigghhh.<br />John S. RobertsonJohn Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11973487301463295866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75764791957740471992022-04-22T08:48:05.981-05:002022-04-22T08:48:05.981-05:00Jon Swift Robertson 8:30 - You went through the lo...Jon Swift Robertson 8:30 - You went through the looking glass and now critiquing your own reflection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22624632047193509482022-04-22T08:46:06.305-05:002022-04-22T08:46:06.305-05:00Jack 7:58 - Come on now, brother. You are going in...Jack 7:58 - Come on now, brother. You are going in circles and deliberately talking past people. What you present is self-declared markers and self-declared matches. Saudi is full of cementaries and oasises.<br /><br />"Apologists are looking for possible locations that might match what Smith wrote. Your reference may be to the land of the Nihm tribe (hardly a good homonym and also unconvincing because [1 Nephi] 16:34 refers to a location, not a general tribal area) in Yemen, or perhaps to Nehhm, an even less convincing homonym that ought to be pronounced nothing like "Nahom". Keep looking."<br /><br />We can look for some inscriptions between your self declared Nahom and Jerusalem along the red sea and will eventually find something like Shizer and we can self declared it Shazer the hunting place. Kenney-Lincoln type parallels and connection.<br /><br />Jack writes: "which probably meant " Which is the whole point all this "rich" detail from "careful" readings .... sigghhhAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36919127195005768822022-04-22T08:30:58.729-05:002022-04-22T08:30:58.729-05:00Dear Anonymous,
Thanks so very much for your kind,...Dear Anonymous,<br />Thanks so very much for your kind, generous, and thoughtful response. Once again, and as always, your words reveal a person whose ability to frame an argument is well beyond anything perspicuous! Amazing!<br /><br />Yours,<br />Jon Swift Robertson John Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11973487301463295866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40491179505458687102022-04-22T08:18:25.529-05:002022-04-22T08:18:25.529-05:00"So you’re saying 3 days’ travel, on foot or ..."So you’re saying 3 days’ travel, on foot or by camel, would bring one “by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea,” let alone to the wadi that Jeff proposes is Lehi’s first residential stop? By my math, the description doesn’t add up to the reality."<br /><br />It's not three days from Jerusalem. It's three days travel in the wilderness--which probably meant that Lehi traveled three days beyond the southern border of Judah or thereabouts.<br /><br />Jack Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65421282445381492692022-04-22T07:58:51.907-05:002022-04-22T07:58:51.907-05:00"Saying Saudi Arabia exist and therefore the ..."Saying Saudi Arabia exist and therefore the marker matches is reaching the absurd."<br /><br />Come now, brother. It's not that Saudi Arabia merely exists. It's that it exists with every geographic detail found in the book of 1Nephi--and all in the proper place and time according to the directions and logic of the text.<br /><br />Jack Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75177725582718050302022-04-21T23:39:30.188-05:002022-04-21T23:39:30.188-05:00Anon 8:32 - Perfect response and I do not think Jo...Anon 8:32 - Perfect response and I do not think John S. Robertson answered your question.<br /><br />John - You are confusing the Lindsayites with Latter-day Saints. They are not the same. And no one here has suggested the Lindsayits are "unintelligent, stupid, foolish, mindless, brainless, idiotic, imbecilic, witless" just the opposite in fact they are very intelligent, just fundamentally dishonest. However, you have convinced me some will never overcome their dishonesty. But please quite claiming your beliefs are LDS doctrine or that you represent our Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68449477093960788332022-04-21T23:02:51.363-05:002022-04-21T23:02:51.363-05:00Dear Anonymous (among the "Anonymi":),
I...Dear Anonymous (among the "Anonymi":),<br />I don't believe I'm presumptuously confident that Jeff's posts are spot on. I thoroughly enjoy reading them, though. And it's sort of entertaining to read the negative comments. There's a grand and ancient tradition for apologetics. Apologetics are not what I hang my hat on as regards my commitment to my chosen beliefs, however.<br /><br />MORE generally, my commitment as a Latter-Day-Saint is a matter of choice and faith, not a matter of presumptuous confidence. I confess there's a lot I don't understand. I can tell you this, though. I do love the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the covenants I made from my youth. If I had to do it all over again, I would make those self-same covenants because they are the very foundation of I've tried to conduct my life of 79 years. I've had a good life, and I love it, and I'm grateful for it. It hasn't always been easy—like everyone else I know.<br /><br />If you feel differently about your association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, whatever it may have been, I'm fine with that; your choice of course. And if you want to spend your time showing it's wrong-headed, again your choice obviously. I just don't understand why you'd want to; your motivation. I imagine you have your reasons. Maybe to help other benighted souls like me :)?<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />John S. RobertsonJohn Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11973487301463295866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7443971253916332032022-04-21T20:32:12.357-05:002022-04-21T20:32:12.357-05:00I suppose one could ask the same of you, John. Wha...I suppose one could ask the same of you, John. What keeps you trying to sway others to your way of thinking? Is your reason better or more righteous than mine?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46380378893379977962022-04-21T14:58:52.030-05:002022-04-21T14:58:52.030-05:00Dear All Anonymi,
If you gentlemen think the Lind...Dear All Anonymi,<br /><br />If you gentlemen think the Lindsayites are unintelligent, stupid, foolish, mindless, brainless, idiotic, imbecilic, witless in their misbegotten beliefs, I ask you: what's the point in wasting your time unceasingly saying so—especially if you genuinely know you are absolutely right? There's a vanishingly small chance that you could ever, ever save them from themselves. I'll bet there's a better way you could use your time.<br /><br />With Sincerity,<br /><br />A Witless Linsayite — John S. Robertson<br /> John Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11973487301463295866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4672937094856751532022-04-21T10:26:36.985-05:002022-04-21T10:26:36.985-05:00“There they are--and they correspond perfectly wit...“There they are--and they correspond perfectly with what we know about the Arabian peninsula today.”<br /><br />So you’re saying 3 days’ travel, on foot or by camel, would bring one “by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea,” let alone to the wadi that Jeff proposes is Lehi’s first residential stop? By my math, the description doesn’t add up to the reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80147593372459080082022-04-21T02:46:03.836-05:002022-04-21T02:46:03.836-05:00Jack - Saying Saudi Arabia exist and therefore the...Jack - Saying Saudi Arabia exist and therefore the marker matches is reaching the absurd. Also<br /><br />"Apologists are looking for possible locations that might match what Smith wrote. Your reference may be to the land of the Nihm tribe (hardly a good homonym and also unconvincing because [1 Nephi] 16:34 refers to a location, not a general tribal area) in Yemen, or perhaps to Nehhm, an even less convincing homonym that ought to be pronounced nothing like "Nahom". Keep looking."<br /><br />https://www.quora.com/Like-Joseph-Smith-Mohammed-also-claims-an-angelic-visitation-Should-we-believe-both/answer/Dick-Harfield?comment_id=151780055&comment_type=2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-91589569745313961722022-04-21T02:26:01.280-05:002022-04-21T02:26:01.280-05:00Anonymous (10:42):
"The big difference is th...Anonymous (10:42):<br /><br />"The big difference is that the scroll or book in your hypothetical would still be available to be viewed. In the BoM, you’re talking about a copy of a translation. The source document was supposedly written in Hebrew using Egyptian hieroglyphs—a practice that has no precedent. The translation occurred without the translator referring to the source document. The source document was removed from the earth by divine intervention. There are many circumstances about the BoM that disqualify it as 'top notch evidence.'"<br /><br />This is what I was suggesting in the second paragraph of my last comment. Even if the two documents had the exact same geographic data points--the BoM's markers would be rejected as evidence simply because it's impossible to drill down to its miraculous provenance. <br /><br />Why? There they are--and they correspond perfectly with what we know about the Arabian peninsula today. It shouldn't matter if the BoM were produced by an alchemist or delivered by a Martian--if the markers match they match. <br /><br />Somehow the text of 1Nephi is correct on those points *in spite* of its provenance--and that's evidence that someone involved in the production of the Book of Mormon new something about the Arabian Peninsula--how ever goofy the story behind it may seem.<br /><br />Jack Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88671731151401578492022-04-21T00:49:51.299-05:002022-04-21T00:49:51.299-05:00The Lindsayites definition of evidence is the same...The Lindsayites definition of evidence is the same as Donald Trumps. Anyone who disagress with their self declared evidence is a fool, dishonest, and apostate.<br /><br />https://www.mediaite.com/trump/you-lost-piers-morgan-and-trump-trade-vicious-insults-in-preview-for-upcoming-fox-news-interview/<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27056616432045426862022-04-20T14:31:02.448-05:002022-04-20T14:31:02.448-05:00The Lindsayites verbal abuse those that pointed ou...The Lindsayites verbal abuse those that pointed out their abuse of English.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88148626038756508792022-04-19T23:39:39.856-05:002022-04-19T23:39:39.856-05:00Anon 10:07 - Nice analysis. However, the insiders ...Anon 10:07 - Nice analysis. However, the insiders are also using different definitions for "meaninful, substantive dialogue"<br /><br />meaninful, substantive dialogue<br /><br /> 1. Preaching to the choir<br /><br /> 2. Singing the preacher's praises<br /><br />As far they know they are engaging meaningful, substantive dialogue. Begs the question, why are they even allowing the public to watch their choir rehearsals when they know the public will heckle?<br /><br />They do so to propagate the self lie that their specialized vocabulary is the normative vocabulary.<br /><br />Why would the public stick around to watch the choir rehearsal longer? There are plenty of other tourist attractions to visit?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82274689611325037072022-04-18T22:07:55.334-05:002022-04-18T22:07:55.334-05:00There are two groups here. The larger public, who ...There are two groups here. The larger public, who are outsiders looking in, and the insiders. The insiders are using specialized definitions for words such as "translated", "prophet", "revelations", "true", "witness", "evidence", "plausible", "coherent", "credible", etc.<br /><br />The stubborn ones are the insiders. If they wish to engage in dialogue, they need to recognize there are two sets of vocabulary. They refuse to do so. Instead, they verbally abuse the larger public for not modifying the normative definitions.<br /><br />Meaningful, substantive dialogue can not occur until the insiders admit they use words differently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88851174596704103002022-04-18T10:42:55.049-05:002022-04-18T10:42:55.049-05:00“If the geographical markers recorded in First Nep...“If the geographical markers recorded in First Nephi were found in book with a purely secular provenance they would be considered evidence--without question. Let's say those same markers were found on an ancient scroll that was nothing more than a tally of business transactions along the spice trail. Those markers would be considered top notch evidence--and even utilized to generate a rough map of the journey made by those who kept the record.”<br /><br />The big difference is that the scroll or book in your hypothetical would still be available to be viewed. In the BoM, you’re talking about a copy of a translation. The source document was supposedly written in Hebrew using Egyptian hieroglyphs—a practice that has no precedent. The translation occurred without the translator referring to the source document. The source document was removed from the earth by divine intervention. There are many circumstances about the BoM that disqualify it as “top notch evidence.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com