Zenos, Zenock and Isaiah walk into a bar...

Book of Mormon (1 Nephi- Alma 49): Doctrines & Evidences
October 25, 2010

To start off the lesson, Brother Wood lifted a long chain off his desk and showed it to us.  He told us that nowhere in the Old Testament are chains referenced in any spiritual manner, but he was sure we all knew of the many Book of Mormon references to the chains Satan binds us with.  Brother Wood than had us name four ways information traveled in Old Testament times.

His answers:

1) Word of Mouth (Prophet)
2) Word of Mouth (Angels)
3) Word of Mouth (Holy Ghost)
4) Written (Declarations, Letters, Proclamations, Books)

Moses 5:58 "And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost."

"How did Moses know that?"  Brother Wood asks us.  "He's got Adam's book.... Let me tell you this:  prophets quote past prophets without attribution."   (That means they don't cite each other... I had to look that one up.)  He continues, "The Book of Mormon begins and ends with the concept of 'tender mercies'" and then rants for a few minutes about how our two worst enemies are physical death and spiritual death because you can do nothing about them and for those who disagree with Mormonism, he tells them, "We'll see you then", meaning he'll see them in the afterlife.  Death is cold, unfeeling, he tells us.  BUT, "Thank goodness the Lamb (Jesus) saved us... You wanna be a smart alec?  Talk to me on the day you die.  Then you'll know that your best friend is the Savior.  I talked to a guy-- aren't the Large & Spacious Building people loud and obnoxious??-- and he said he didn't think the Book of Mormon was true, and I asked him if he'd read it, and he told me yes, and I said 'You're a liar."  No one who's read it, disagrees with it because the minute you [read it], you find Jesus."

So, by this time I am thoroughly confused; we jumped from chains, to oral tradition, to prophet's citations, to the phrase "tender mercies", to a fear tactic that left me reeling, and to a claim that left me rolling my eyes.  [Yes, Brother Wood, I have read the Book of Mormon 8 times through, and have prayed about it with a sincere heart, and I do not believe it to be what it is claimed to be.]  I'm not following his train of thought in the least... Honestly, I didn't understand the train of thought until he wrapped it up at the end of the lesson.  I will now try to unravel Brother Wood's brain, so it's easier for you to understand.

Brother Wood: Those anti-Mormons like to say that Joseph Smith copied stuff out of the Bible and put it into the Book of Mormon, but we know that there are so many similarities because they were citing the same source.... Today, I am going to prove to you that Joseph Smith would not have had the time to copy these things.

(At this point in the lesson, I assume he means they were both citing God, and I am excited for him to substantiate his claim.)

On the board are several corresponding scripture similarities:

Malachi 4:2 

1 Nephi 22: 24

John 10:14-16 & Psalm 23

Alma 5: 38-39

1 Cor. 15:49

Alma 5:14

Luke 3:9

Alma 5: 52

1 Cor 12:8

Moroni 10:9-11 

 John 5: 28-29

Mosiah 16:11

1 Cor 13:4-8

Moroni 7:45-47

1 John 3:2

Moroni 7:48 

1 Cor 15:54-56

Mosiah 16:7 

We commence playing the game "Who's Quoting Whom?"  Brother Wood begins by making the claim that because all of these particular scriptures are after Lehi has left Jerusalem (and therefore would not possess the records) are proof that the Book of Mormon is true.  I'm glad he didn't go into that for his sake, because the claim is a train wreck ready to happen, as it requires the assumption of the Book of Mormon's truth to be made.

"I would suggest," Brother Wood whispers, "they're both quoting somebody else."

Zenos and Zenock are two prophets quoted and mentioned heavily in the Book of Mormon.  They are not to be found anywhere in recorded history or in the Bible.  Brother Wood says that Satan took out specific Biblical chapters that talked about Zenos and Zenock (and Enoch and maybe even Shem) because they were such amazing prophets.

Zenos and Zenock were said to live around 1700 BC, after Abraham (Helaman 8:19-20), their teachings were on the Brass Plates-- the copy of the Bible up until 600 BC-- (1 Nephi 19:10, 21), they were the ancestors of Book of Mormon people (3 Nephi 10:15-16), they prophesied of destruction at the time of Christ's death, particularly to the "remnant of their seed"/Israel.  Zenock died a martyr's death (Alma 33:17).  Zenos died a martyr's death (Helaman 8:18).

Brother Wood then had us flip to Alma 33.  The author is quoting Zenos, and Zenos uses some form of the word "mercy" 7 times in the next several scriptures.  This, Brother Wood tells us, makes him believe Nephi and Isaiah and all the other Book of Mormon and Biblical prophets are quoting Zenos and Zenock.  And this is how we know that the Book of Mormon is true.

So....  the problem with this thought process is that in order to believe Biblical prophets were quoting Zenos and Zenock, you have to assume the Book of Mormon is true and therefore assume Zenos and Zenock lived, because there is no empirically testable proof for Zenos and Zenock's existence.  But why would you need to believe that Zenos and Zenock were being quoted?  To use as evidence for the Book of Mormon's truth.

And that is the end of Brother Wood's lesson about who is quoting whom in the Bible and Book of Mormon...  I feel it leaves much to be desired.

Of course, this is not the end of the lesson.

But I am going crazy... I'll come back later tonight and talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls and Enoch.





References:
Wikipedia: Zenock
Hugh Nibley-- Dead Sea Scrolls: Q & A
Wikipedia: Zenos
Book of Enoch
Barauk Ale, Enoch, Moses
Book of Mormon

The Land of Nahom

Book of Mormon (1 Nephi- Alma 49): Doctrines & Evidences

October 20, 2010

SHORT SUMMARY

--The Land of Nahom: Archaeologists may have found the site where Ishmael (1 Nephi 16:34) died. What did they find, and what does it prove?

I just enrolled in institute, middle of the semester, so I'm only just learning my teacher's name. He seems impressive enough., certainly full of the voracity, fervor, conviction necessary to take on a job like his. Online, we'll call him “Brother Wood”.

He begins his lesson by pointing to the white board and saying that 1993- 1994 was a “bad year for atheists”. I'm an atheist, and wondered what he meant by that. Had he heard of a proof for God that I hadn't? I was definitely intrigued. He turned on a movie.

The film is “Journey of Faith" All I know is that it was a Mormon-made discussion on the historicity of the early part of the Book of Mormon, the part where Nephi's family travels through the wilderness, and the archaeological evidence for the path they took.  This is a summary of how they believe it went down:

Lehi and his family followed the Frankincense Trail if not close to it, because they would have needed water, and water was scarce.  The traveled in tents (similar to Bedoin tribes, perhaps?).  Camels, though they were not mentioned, must have been their pack animal of choice because they can go long distances due to their fat deposits in their humps.  Travelling consisted of fattening up your camels, taking the jump by travelling to the nearest well (which was usually very far away).  They probably needed to stay somewhat close to the mountains as they provided shelter for animals, and the family needed meat and food.  It probably took about a year to travel (because the women start having babies on the trek, says Brother Wood).  Ishmael was probably very sick and died near to Nahom, where he was buried, which probably caused great mourning because, as an Israelite, it was sad he was not able to be buried near home.  

An archaeological expedition revealed in 1994 a burial ground and mummified remains mummified differently than the tradition of Egypt.  The burial ground dated to around 600 bc (when Nephi should have been passing through) and it was near a large altar whereon was carved the letters "NHM".  

The end of the movie had several historians (I assume they're historians) posing the question "How could Joseph [Smith] possibly have known Nahom?"  Brother Wood repeated the question to us, "How did he know about Nahom where you buried dead people?"  He added that this area had been taken over Al Qaeda, and that if any of us went in there now we'd be killed and that it's a crazy place.  ...I am unsure how that had to do with the topic on hand...

One of the most prominent responses from critics is that NHM doesn't equate to "Nahom", and that there could have been 25 combinations of N + vowel + H + vowel + M.  (Nihom, Nahm, Neham, Nohom, etc)  This has always been a point of contention, however, because Hebrew doesn't have written vowels and the vowels often switch in the same word.  Nahom may not equal NHM, but it's circumstantial at best of it not being the place they laid Ishmael to rest.  

There are other responses from critics.  One of which is that we only have one correct vowl-substitution/pronunciation for NHM, Nihm. Concerning this, FAIR said "Some may wonder why the name Nihm is being likened unto Nahom. Of course, they are different. However, Brother Brown makes an important point when he informed us, "in Semitic languages one writes with consonants rather than vowels. Hence, the name is NHM. These letters make up the name on the altars and also the name Nahom." One difference is worthy of note, when considering how NHM would have been pronounced, which determines how we add vowels to the word in English. The south Arabian NHM would have been said with a soft "H" sound, thus rendering it "Nihm." However, the "H" in Hebrew, would likely have been a strong "H" sound, the Hebrew letter, "het," resulting in "Nahom." Additionally, Lehi and his family would have associated NHM with "a Hebrew term which was familiar to them, that is, Nahom.""  The idea is that the tribes would have pronounced it "Nihm", but Lehi and his family would have only known to pronounce it "Nahom".  Mormon Think retorts "Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely a tribal place name changed its pronunciation. Remember the inscription is most probably a tribal name, not merely a location. Are we to suppose the pronunciation was changed from Nahom to Nihm? This is an assumption that we simply cannot make without forcing the evidence."  

Several locations have been found in the Arabian Peninsula with names similar to Nahom.  "Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Nehemiah 7:7) and Nahum (Nahum 1:1) all appear in the Bible."-- Article on Nahom   It could be that NHM referred to a tribe from one of these places.

Lehi and his family had been commanded that they not light many fires, even to the point where they ate raw meat (1 Nephi 17:2, 12).  He mentions this after making a bellows in chapter 17, after chapter 16 when they reached Nahom.  They would've needed a pretty good reason to not cook their meat since it would have gone against the Torah, not to mention the health risks associated with eating uncooked meat.  Not having a fire would make them much more difficult to spot by passer-bys.  The area where the altars were (NHM), was well-populated enough that it would have blown their cover.  Perhaps they had to stop to bury Ishmael with respect.

Mormon Think addresses the grammatical issue associated with NHM and its translation to "Nahom" when it says, "Even if it were derived from "NHM", the word "Nahom" cannot be shown to be an independent word. In other words, it could be the case that the placename was "Nah" and the -om part is merely a suffix. This point further militates against an identification of "NHM" with a placename called "Nahom."

In the message board discussion referenced above, David Wright notes an error on the part of LDS apologist John Tvedtnes. Tvedtnes, in his article "Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon," associates Nahom with Hebrew n-kh-m, but errs when he suggests that Nehhem in Yemen is the same root. Nehhem has a soft "h" but NHM has a hard "h" as in Scottish "loch" as we saw earlier. Since the two roots (n-h ans n-ch) differ, there is no point in making an association between them, and in fact it is wrong to do so."

MY CONCLUSION:

The discovery of an altar with the letters "NHM" is interesting, especially in terms of it matching a vague idea of where the city should lie, were the Book of Mormon true.  However, the mash-up of evidence is not conclusive, certainly not enough to make it an irrefutable evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity.  

References:  

Evidence for the Book of Mormon: Do Nahom & Bountiful Exist?

Mormon Think: NHM

Archaelogical Evidence for Nahom

LDS Cinema: Journey of Faith

Nahom in the Book of Mormon

Fair LDS: Arabia and the Book of Mormon

Wikipedia: Nahom

Book of Mormon

Nephi Project: On Nahom

(Also, at the end of the lesson we talked about proof for Biblical King David on the Mesha Stele at the Louvre... interesting, but I think I'll stick to Book of Mormon stuff for now, eh?)

A Short Introduction

My name is Jack, and I used to be Mormon. I stopped attending church meetings almost two years ago, and took my name off the records a year ago. I was devoutly Mormon while Mormon, and had a great interest in all things Mormon. I guess things don't change that much, because I am still greatly interested in where I come from, and what I was (and wasn't) taught.

I have enrolled in two LDS institute classes at my local university, “Church History: Joseph Smith to Martyrdom”, and “Book of Mormon (1 Nephi- Alma 49): Doctrines & Evidences”. These two subjects (evidences of the BoM and early church history) still intrigue me.

You may echo Elder Neal A. Maxwell's (a late apostle of the LDS church) frustration: they can leave the church, but they can't leave it alone. He's referring to the veracity with which many ex-Mormons “attack” the LDS church's doctrines and history. Why do I spend my time on things that don't affect me anymore? Honestly, what more of an answer do I need than that this is understandably interesting to me.