Talk:Nahom

Removed the following paragraphs...

The letters 'om' in Nahom may actually be a suffix

One critical position is that the last two letters in the name Nahom are a suffix, and that the resulting root would actually be NH rather than NHM. This position is supported by the presence of a number of place names in the New World portion of the Book of Mormon narrative that end with the letters "om". reference "Nahom: Evidence for the Book of Mormon Found in Yemen?" (HTTP). Retrieved 2007-01-12. /reference

After checking this source, it was obvious to me that (looking past the shoddy scholarship and obvious bias) this was not a source fit for citing in Wikipedia. It does not meet wikipedia's verifiability standards because it's a self published source (angel-fire) without an author who is a professional researcher in a relevant field (sean's faith page?). gdavies

There are multiple possible pronunciations for NHM other than Nahom

After wrestling with this paragraph for a considerable time I've opted to greatly reduce unless reliable evidence can be cited illustrating any serious critical argument along these lines.

"The current pronunciation of the location and tribal area is said to be Nihm rather than Nahom. Some critics state that it is extremely unlikely that the tribe associated with the place name changed its pronunciation. It is also stated that NHM ought to be pronounced Nachom rather than Nahom, which results in the name meaning something other than "to be sorry." Referring to the mourning associated with the burial of Ishmael, it is suggested that it would have been unlikely for the NHM tribe to "name themselves after a passing-through traveler who died there centuries later." referenced "Nahom: Evidence for the Book of Mormon Found in Yemen?" (HTTP). Retrieved 2007-01-12. The apparent contradiction of why the name ought to be pronounced Nachom while stating that the tribal pronunciation has not changed from Nihm is not addressed. /reference"

This source, as stated above is not fit for Wikipedia, but it is possible that these claims may be made in other places. Just to clarify for anyone who is interested, the Book of Mormon record makes it clear that Nahom was named prior to Lehi's party's arrival ("the place which was called Nahom", as opposed to "the place which they did call Nahom"). Further, one of the largest arabic burial sites is found in close proximity to the present location of Nihm, which accounts for the name of the site. It's entirely possible (and very probable) that the pronunciation of NHM in this area would change over the centuries (and perhaps among those who kept the record it changed as well). This paragraph also mentions a variant of "nachom." This is merely a variant of the inner consonant between "h" sounds found in biblical Hebrew (the one they spell as 'ch' not having an English equivalent). The cited article neglects this fact, fails to mention anyone who actually thinks it should be said this way and is representative of extremely poor and biased scholarship. gdavies 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why have multiple sites been proposed for Nahom?

Referring the the early work of Lynn Hilton from 1976, several critics state that NHM is only one of several sites that have been proposed by LDS scholars as Nahom. It is suggested that this casts doubt upon NHM being the only place now accepted by LDS scholars as the true location of Nahom. reference: Tanner (1996), p. 181. "Actually, there are two different locations which Mormon scholars have set forth as the 'place which was called Nahom.' . . . Nehhm is over 350 miles from Al Qunfudhah!" /reference; second reference, "Nahom: Evidence for the Book of Mormon Found in Yemen?" (HTTP). Retrieved 2007-01-12. /reference

Reference is to a Tanner? and also from the same angelfire page. The angelfire source isn't reliable or scholarly and should not be included. The Tanner's statement is vague and really irrelevant. The title itself is POV, I opted to shorten the paragraph to make it more direct while eliminating this source. Please elaborate or add sources/content! Thanks! gdavies 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vowel Variance

Currently, a statement is sourced to Gerald and Sandra Tanner regarding the "mismatch" of the modern word and that found in the Book of Mormon. "only three of the five letters in Nehhm agree with the spelling Nahom. The second letter in Nehhm is e rather than a, and the fourth letter is h instead of o. The variant spellings of Nehem, Nehm, Nihm, Nahm and Naham, do not really help to solve the problem.” This statement is indicative of an embarrassing lack of Hebrew understanding. Counting letters and discounting the facts of historical semitic languages (that they did not have vowels) really doesn't prove anything and should not belong in this article. The Tanner's cannot be considered an authority in this field and this "argument" certainly does not deserve any attention in this setting. gdavies 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality of critical sources

As you can see, it is very difficult to find good scholarly criticism of the Nahom/NHM connection in reliable printed sources. I was looking for a more credible source for the David Wright material on the "-om" possibly being a suffix. The problem is that Dr. Wright discusses all of this in a great level of detail in a chat group (which cannot be used as a source) and the only place I could find that linked to it or discussed it was the "seanie" page. I'll continue to search and see if Wright has published this material somewhere. I do agree that the "seanie" page is quite unscholarly however - I was simply trying to find as many criticisms as possible. The Tanner criticism, although it does indicate their total ignorance of Hebrew, does exist in a published source. Bochica 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks for your help on this one. I know there is limited scholarly discussion on this and other words (and their respective etymologies) outside the Mormon academic community, but I haven't yet found a reliable source. I might also point out that although the Tanner's are published, that does not necessarily merit their inclusion (i.e. they are far from meeting Wikipedia's standards for sourcing). I believe I replaced most of the information with general (yet unsourced) statements regarding common criticisms. gdavies 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sites proposed for Nahom?

Removing this section until we can get it sourced. I personally don't feel it's worthy of mention (esp. without sources). I understand this claim has been made by the Tanner's, but has no real validity. The Hilton's conjectured a location in Arabia (from general clues in the Book of Mormon) but (from what I understand, and like I said I need a source for this) they agreed with the new location immediately after evidence surfaced. The location is currently accepted by all LDS scholars I know of...

Referring to the the early work of Lynn Hilton from 1976,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  some have argued that several sites have been proposed by LDS scholars as Nahom. It is suggested that this casts doubt upon NHM being the only place now accepted by LDS scholars as the true location of Nahom.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

without sources this section is really unimportant, but if we can find some I think we can make it work. gdavies 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Nahom

This is really kind of a combined concern with the two previous sections here... but I'm a little bit troubled by the weakness of the critical arguments. For instance, "Questions about why a compass (the Liahona) was needed if Lehi was following a well-known route." This doesn't really apply to Nahom specifically, but it's a general (pointless, subjective, etc.) criticism of the Book of Mormon's story. Also, the whole "heathen cemetery" thing... we don't know whether it was a "heathen" cemetery, when it was created, etc. I know that doesn't change the fact that these criticisms have been made, but we might need to qualify them further ("what they suggest was a heathen cemetery" or the like) or provide LDS response... any ideas on this one? gdavies 08:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion, I placed the following, hidden comment in the text right after the "heathen cemetery" item:

1 Ne 16:34 says, "And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom." Even though buried in this place, it does not say that he was buried in an existing cemetery.

It was hidden so that editors would see it when editing but readers wouldn't. Anybody who watches this page would have seen the edit in the differences, so they would have known it was there. Since this comment has been there since February 12 without comment on the article page or here on the talk page, and you bring up the topic again, I have removed the item from the list. Val42 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire list of criticisms actually came from the same source: Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, however, he is simply restating criticisms that others have presented. His own criticism, which I highlighted separately in the article, is that he thinks that JS probably created the name from similar names found in the Bible. This criticism is adequately responded to in the article. I have no problem with removing the "heathen cemetery" reference until we find another source that can be cited which discusses its basis. The other item that ought to be removed is the one about the Liahona. I was thinking that this would be more appropriately placed in a discussion of Lehi's journey, and there is a specific response to this criticism that can be added from the Hilton's 1996 book. Bochica 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to have criticisms (whatever their value) stated on the page, but those that are particularly weak (such as the Liahona and the heathen cemetery) should be... not "refuted" but "responded to" in the text or removed altogether. I know we're trying to be NPOV by representing these points, but I think we need to be judicious in our inclusion of these arguments (on both sides of the aisle)... we should focus on the one or two that have some actual weight to them and briefly mention the others if we include them at all. Thanks! gdavies 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed the reference as to where these criticisms came from, so someone can add back in the "heathen cemetery" comment if they want. But the Liahona comment isn't relevant to this article, but it could be added to the Liahona article. Then these relevant criticisms can be responded to in the article. But one of the first things in the article should be a quotation of the verse that references Nahom. I'll add it in. Val42 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of this discussion, I made some changes to the Nahom article. It is mostly rearranging information, but I also added some information. Feel free to fix anything that I goofed up. Val42 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on moving the Liahona criticism to the Liahona article, until I noticed that there are no citations in that article other than scriptural references. I will eventually move it, but when I begin editing a page with no citations I tend to try add a full set of citations and references to the article (you can use this article as an example of what the other article would look like after I edit it...:-)). I'm not quite ready to make that commitment for the Liahona article yet. I also have no problem leaving the "heathen cemetery" out until we can find the actual source of the criticism. It wasn't Vogel - I think that he was just pointing out what someone else said. I need to find out who the "someone else" is eventually so that I can cite them as a source. Bochica 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'm fine with removing it for the time being as well, because (whatever its source) it doesn't seem to specifically relate to Nahom. I can see a small connection, but it seems more like a general criticism of the Book of Mormon narrative - certainly not a criticism of the proposed location of Nahom. gdavies 06:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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 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.

The wikipedia criticism section is lacking. It fails to mention Chris Johnson's observation of the need for a baseline to establish any satistical significance, something Jeff Lindsay does not dispute. Also, pretty much anywhere along the seaboard is a square peg that could be pushed into fit, etc.

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-significance-of-nahom-just-three.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAGasQ7j_ZI

There is as much, if not greater, satistical signficance to NHM and the BoM as there is Capt. Kidd/Comora Is. Apologists still provides no repeatable methodology that can be applied equaly to NHM and Capt Kidd a Comora. To apply their reasoning consistently, Pomeroy Tucker's testimony of Joseph Smith affinity for Capt. Kidd stories and the independent discovery of Comora and Moroni should have the same plausible connection. However, apologist dismisses it as a coincidence.

None of this is included in the wikipedia "criticism" section, which appears to read more like a pre-emptive apology.

See also Texas Sharpshooter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

Texas Sharpshooter, lets just start with NHM. A 140 miles inland is not “the same fertile parts”. Nehem is not a graveyard, it is a mountain range area and east of the famous incense trail. BOM doesn’t describe them moving across the mountains. The burial sites referenced with the inscriptions aren’t in Nehem. The altar does NOT have Nehem written on it. Objectively false. An altar was found. And it has ancient writings believed to resemble the English sounds N H M. But this refers to a family/tribe, not a physical place. And it’s not known that this tribal name matches with the Nehem place name. A whole bunch of liberties are being taken to correlate data for which no relationship has actually been established. That is just for starters on NHM, we could go on and on with the rest. It is all Texas Sharpshooter, self declared bullseyes.

See also, Chris Johnson's demonstration regarding debunking of the critic's connection of the 1827 Anthon Book, how that "connection" was stronger than NHM and it has been debunked much to apologist's delight.

http://www.mormonthink.com/coincidence.htm

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/6jd4fm/budding_apologists_create_book_of_mormon_nahom/

Jeff Lindsay refuses to acknowledge Andrew's patient, mature, and rational responses to Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smooth as found in the link above. Utterly incapable of rejoinding Andrew's retorts, Jeff goes to extensive efforts to censor Andrew and engage in ad hominem attack by labeling any reference to Andrew as "hostile". Though, Jeff did verbosely agree that Andrew was correct that to state the altar is not in Nehem.

Neal Rappleye, Stephen Smooth, Jeff Lindsay, et. al, are like little childen staring up at the clouds convincing each other they see the coulds form the same shapes and then self-declaring these shapes as “complex evidence” of some invisible hand modling their imagined forms. Their non-doctrinal beliefs do nothing but mock and ridicule our Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As Latter-day Saints all we can do is inform the world they do not represent our Church. Such Bible code style (which curoiusly also relies on missing vowels and vowel morphing) connection fabrication is not something our Church encourages or considers faith promoting. Quite the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.149.6.36 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

As Doug Weller points out, Neal Rappleye, Stephen Smooth, and Jeff Lindsay are unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.149.6.36 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.47.163 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s a load of unreliable sources. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Restructure

I just made some minor edits plus did some restructuring. I think that I improved the article thereby, but I think that there needs to be further restructuring and rewriting. I can see that these things need to be done, but I don't see how to do it at this time. I don't see major problems, but they are more than minor issues; somewhere in between. Someone please look over the article and see if you can fix it. Thanks. Val42 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nahom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909061253/http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2464 to http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2464
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

LDS Archaeologists?

The link to another wikipedia page references John Welch. Archaelogist or anthropologist? Social Archaeologist isn't the same thing as anthropologist? Furthermore, if John Welch is the implied reference, it would be "a" LDS anthropologist not "some".

https://archaeologysfu.ca/john-welch/ 201.149.6.36 (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)