Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, we reject your traditions, at least many of them. And we don’t use the same canon as you. So why do you and Prodigal think that bringing up the fact that Catholicism came up with a canon many years ago has any bearing on whether there was an apostasy?

Perhaps you should study up on how the biblical canon came about. And yes, you do use the same canon, minus the books the Protestants removed.

The fact is that there are some obvious contradictions in the Bible. People who agree about this will necessarily point to many of the same contradictions to prove their point.

So what was your point? Was it that Mormons are really closet atheists? Or did you just bring it up to smear the Mormons with some guilt by association?

I agree with many atheists that the Earth is round, and I use many of the same arguments when I make that point. Gee, I feel so dirty…

Yes, Mormons are a breath away from atheism. Why do think it is that so many former mormons are atheist?

Doesn’t doctrinal development mean that people start teaching something that was not taught before? What is “doctrine,” if not what is taught?

No, that is not what it means at all.

 

[BDawg]

But it is taken as proof. You’re just splitting hairs. Bickmore is an apologist, and so is the host of the website on which the book is posted.

Let me get this straight. You accuse Bickmore of claiming his arguments constituted proof of LDS claims. And then, when confronted with a quotation from the book where he explicitly stated that he was not making any such claim, you are sticking to your position? Why? Because Bickmore is an apologist.

Is this some kind of “original sin” for “apologists”? No matter how careful they are NOT to make such claims, and explicitly say they are not making them, they are still guilty? So, do Catholic apologists suffer from the same “original apologist’s sin,” or did their Catholic baptism take care of that?

No, not to deny the existence of your evidence. I only say that it’s insufficient to support the validity of your claims about the BoM. Except for NHM (see below), there’s nothing even remotely connected to any person or place name in the BoM in the archeological record. As I said to mfbukowski, y’all keep using the BoM to prove the BoM. That’s not good enough since I don’t accept the BoM as evidence that Nephites existed. You need to give me something external to the BoM (and not someone’s personal testimony) to convince me.

I see. So, when the Book of Mormon describes a complex disaster that PERFECTLY matches eyewitness accounts of major pyroclastic volcanic eruptions, and there are lots of pyroclastic volcanoes in Mesoamerica (where the Book of Mormon is supposed to have taken place,) and there is ice core evidence that there was a major eruption about the right time… that’s all “internal” to the Book of Mormon.

When we collect long lists of non-Biblical names in the Book of Mormon that also turn up in ancient Jewish and Egyptian documents from the proper time period, that’s all “internal” to the Book of Mormon.

When the Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites started making a certain odd type of fortification around cities at a certain time period, and then archaeologists find just such fortifications in Mesoamerica, that’s all “internal” to the Book of Mormon.

I could go on.

I happen to be a geologist, by the way, and the volcanism evidence I mentioned is shockingly good, I can assure you. There is no way Joseph Smith could have described something like that so perfectly.

When evaluating evidence for such claims, you have to ask several questions to be responsible about it. How bold is the claim? What kind of evidence is it reasonable to expect, under the circumstances? And so on.

In the case of the Bible, the place names have often stayed the same for thousands of years. Jerusalem is still there! So it isn’t a very bold claim for the Bible to say there was a place called Jerusalem. If we find evidence for that, what’s the big deal? It certainly doesn’t add much in support of the claim that the Bible is inspired.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it was written by a backwoods farmer at a time when not much was known about Mesoamerica or the ancient Mideast. So if we start finding that it predicts the existence of a bunch of names and a place named “Nahom” in a particular part of ancient Arabia, and that evidence for such things actually turn up, it’s a bit of a shock! How could Joseph Smith have gotten such things right–repeatedly?

 

[BDawg]

I’ll look into Albright, check his credentials, and see what his academic peers in his discipline have to say about him. I admit that this is quite interesting. But it’s still very suspicious that there’s not a shred of identifiable evidence in the New World linked to Nephites or Lamanites, when there is evidence external to the Bible in the Old World that clearly corroborates certain person and place names found in the text.

Here’s a wikipedia page on him:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Albright

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You feel that’s reasonable to ask us for this, but you can’t even produce any documentation for the transfer of authority from Peter to Linus before the third century. It is an obvious double standard.

That’s 1.

Again, you are not even trying to understand my point of view.

Yes, I’m trying to understand. It just seems you can’t accept that I disagre with your view.

And yet, we don’t have any contemporary documentation for the transfer of Peter’s authority to Linus.

That’s 2.

Agreed. And I would LOVE to see you try to produce some documentation of Peter passing his authority as chief apostle to Linus.

That’s 3.

It isn’t. But I always hope to have conversations with people who try to understand what I’m saying. I honestly don’t get the feeling that you are.

I was trying to understand your view and I accept that’s what you believe.

I numbered 3 times in this thread that appears you are trying to shift the topic. Yet, when I asked you about the Mormon belief on the divinity of Christ, you told me to find another thread. This seems to be a “double standard”, as you call it.

Again, I apologize you expected more out of our discussion than I was willing to concede too. It appears, by your “tone”, that this discussion is heading in a new direction that I have to desire to participate in.

Peace,

 

[jean8]

I have noticed that in arguments between Catholics and Mormons on apostolic succession, sooner or later the Catholic will bring up the “gates of hell” prophecy, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

This scripture seems to be the cornerstone to the Catholic belief that there would never be an apostasy of the Catholic church.

But Mormons typically have no problem “getting around” that view.

One answer a Mormon might give is “That prophecy is right. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the true church, the LDS church”.

Another Mormon answer is that the “rock” being referred to is not Peter at all, but the “rock of revelation”.

Still another Mormon answer I have seen is the belief that this prophecy has nothing to do with apostasy or apostolic succession, but is in fact referring to ministry for the dead which Catholics see as prayers for those in purgatory, and Mormons see as vicarious ordinance work for the dead, including baptism for the dead as mentioned in 1Corinthians 15:29.

Those who take this position hold that when Jesus “descended into hell” (as per the Apostles Creed, and other scriptural references) He in fact, smashed the “gates of hell” and so these gates did not prevail against His church.

But as I recall, I have not heard a word from Protestants on their view of this scripture. From a Protestant perspective, what does it mean?

Did the reformation show that the Church had apostasized and thus that the “gates of hell” DID prevail? Or was the prophecy about Christianity in general, and so the gates did NOT prevail?

What do you think?

Mormons follow the teachings of Joseph Smith. he was killed in a gun battle in a bar.
He also wrote up their first doctrine. this doctrine has had many changes since it’s origin.
They are heretics. Sad to say.

jean8

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Mormons follow the teachings of Joseph Smith. he was killed in a gun battle in a bar.
He also wrote up their first doctrine. this doctrine has had many changes since it’s origin.
They are heretics. Sad to say.

jean8

Actually, I believe Joseph Smith was shot in jail, according to the account as told in Wikipedia.

John Taylor, who became the third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made these statements concerning the death of Joseph Smith:

“Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, ‘Would any of you like to have this?’ Brother Joseph immediately replied, ‘Yes, give it to me,’ whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket… I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs… (Hyrum was shot in the face and was killed instantly, John Taylor continued)
I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, ‘Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!’ He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died.” (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 100, 102 & 103)"

 

[mfbukowski]

Mormons follow the teachings of Joseph Smith. he was killed in a gun battle in a bar.
He also wrote up their first doctrine. this doctrine has had many changes since it’s origin.
They are heretics. Sad to say.

jean8

wow.

 

[kevangreen]

wow.

he was shoot in the back while jumping from a 3 story jail,
then shoot several other times as he fell to the ground
he was finally scalped
by people dressed as Indians.
a very interesting group of people to read about
are a group that was called the “CATHARS”
they were the first religion to claim that the catholic church was wrong and that god game given them his authority,
but unfortunately for them they dealt with a slightly more aggressive catholic church, and were wiped out to the last child.

 

[BDawg]

Prodigal,

I came in with no expectation whatsoever that you would change your mind. Again, you keep having conversations in your head that spill out into the forum.

 

[NewSeeker]

Here’s a wikipedia page on him:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Albright

Thanks. He looks like he’s the real mccoy. I’m interested in reading what he said about Egyptian names in the BoM in full context.

 

[kevangreen]

Prodigal,

I came in with no expectation whatsoever that you would change your mind. Again, you keep having conversations in your head that spill out into the forum.

the mark of a genius
mind is always goin

 

[paul_c]

The Catholic Church was founded on the teaching of the Apostles, which was in turn founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ and the revelations of the Holy Spirit. These teachings have come down to us both as written scripture (which the Mormon’s recognize but interpret in different ways) and also tradition (which they don’t).

The question I want to ask the vocal Mormon’s on this board is why they think that the Catholic Church is lying about what it teaches. What would be the motivation for men who have devoted their entire lives to God to lie about what God told them, thus exposing their souls? Furthermore, what would be their motivation to make up doctrines like the fact that Mary was conceived without sin and was brought body and soul to heaven?
Did they stand to gain anything personally by doing so? The fact is, the Church has no motivation to make up false doctrines and every motivation to be true to the Apostolic teaching.

Now compare that to Joseph Smith and his motivations. As discussed in the previous posts, Joseph Smith was a poor, downwardly mobile 23 year old farmer when he had his first revelations. He made his money using “seer stones” to find lost treasure, usually unsuccessfully. Clearly he had motivation to make up his own doctrine and collect a religion around him, parlaying that into personal wealth. In 1832, he was tarred and feathered by his own followers, who were angry that he was taking their frontier property. If that wasn’t enough, he decided that he could also have plural wives, marrying as many as 27 women, 10 already married to other men and many others who were teenagers as young as 14. Smith told one prospective wife that her submission would insure the eternal salvation of her father’s household. Furthermore, once sealed for eternity by priesthood authority, Joseph revealed that such couples would continue to procreate in the next life, becoming “enlarged” and, in effect, gods. He ultimately propositioned the wife and daughter of William Law, his second in command, causing Law to break with him and start a newspaper exposing Smith. Smith destroyed the printing press, landing him in jail. He was subsequently assassinated there by a gang of five that was acquitted of all charges. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

With this in mind, why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was trustworthy to overturn basic doctrines of Jesus Christ? For instance, scripture is clear that Jesus said God was spirit and that no one saw God except the son. Yet Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in bodily form…Why is Joseph Smith, who parlayed his “revelations” into property, a following and ultimately 27 wives, more credible than the Apostles who gave their lives for the faith asking nothing in return?

 

[kevangreen]

The Catholic Church was founded on the teaching of the Apostles, which was in turn founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ and the revelations of the Holy Spirit. These teachings have come down to us both as written scripture (which the Mormon’s recognize but interpret in different ways) and also tradition (which they don’t).

The question I want to ask the vocal Mormon’s on this board is why they think that the Catholic Church is lying about what it teaches. What would be the motivation for men who have devoted their entire lives to God to lie about what God told them, thus exposing their souls? Furthermore, what would be their motivation to make up doctrines like the fact that Mary was conceived without sin and was brought body and soul to heaven?
Did they stand to gain anything personally by doing so? The fact is, the Church has no motivation to make up false doctrines and every motivation to be true to the Apostolic teaching.

Now compare that to Joseph Smith and his motivations. As discussed in the previous posts, Joseph Smith was a poor, downwardly mobile 23 year old farmer when he had his first revelations. He made his money using “seer stones” to find lost treasure, usually unsuccessfully. Clearly he had motivation to make up his own doctrine and collect a religion around him, parlaying that into personal wealth. In 1832, he was tarred and feathered by his own followers, who were angry that he was taking their frontier property. If that wasn’t enough, he decided that he could also have plural wives, marrying as many as 27 women, 10 already married to other men and many others who were teenagers as young as 14. Smith told one prospective wife that her submission would insure the eternal salvation of her father’s household. Furthermore, once sealed for eternity by priesthood authority, Joseph revealed that such couples would continue to procreate in the next life, becoming “enlarged” and, in effect, gods. He ultimately propositioned the wife and daughter of William Law, his second in command, causing Law to break with him and start a newspaper exposing Smith. Smith destroyed the printing press, landing him in jail. He was subsequently assassinated there by a gang of five that was acquitted of all charges. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

With this in mind, why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was trustworthy to overturn basic doctrines of Jesus Christ? For instance, scripture is clear that Jesus said God was spirit and that no one saw God except the son. Yet Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in bodily form…Why is Joseph Smith, who parlayed his “revelations” into property, a following and ultimately 27 wives, more credible than the Apostles who gave their lives for the faith asking nothing in return?

good point
the bible speaks of false prophets, and sain even if
and angel brings you a gospel not to listen.
predicting smith i say

 

[BDawg]

Hi Prodigal,

I thought I owed you one more attempt at an explanation. You really do try to be polite, but I will explain why I find your behavior here so frustrating.

I like to have reasonable conversations–even if we end up disagreeing. In a reasonable conversation, you listen to what others have to say, and then respond, based on what they have said. You are trying to communicate TO THEM.

But you have not been doing this, in many cases. For example, you argued that if there were an apostasy, Jesus’ promises would have been false. I explained how we interpret those promises differently than you. Then you came back with an argument something like this: “If Jesus went back on his promises by allowing an apostasy, then that makes me wonder about your view of Christ’s divinity. How do Mormons view Christ’s divinity?” Let me point out a couple things about this.

1. Since I already explained that we don’t think Jesus went back on his promises, what does YOUR interpretation of those promises have to do with OUR view of Christ’s divinity? This is an absurd point, unless you truly didn’t know how we interpret those promises. But I told you how we interpret those promises, so I have to conclude that you aren’t paying attention to anything I say.
2. I have been around this board long enough to know that you have participated in long discussions about Mormon views of God and Christ. So either you already know that we believe Jesus is fully divine (although we define divinity differently than you,) or you weren’t listening to anything we said.

This kind of thing happens over and over with you. I commend you for trying to speak civilly, but polite words don’t make a reasonable conversation. There has to be real communication, and you don’t seem willing to do that.

 

[NewSeeker]

Let me get this straight. You accuse Bickmore of claiming his arguments constituted proof of LDS claims. And then, when confronted with a quotation from the book where he explicitly stated that he was not making any such claim, you are sticking to your position? Why? Because Bickmore is an apologist.

Is this some kind of “original sin” for “apologists”? No matter how careful they are NOT to make such claims, and explicitly say they are not making them, they are still guilty? So, do Catholic apologists suffer from the same “original apologist’s sin,” or did their Catholic baptism take care of that?

I see. So, when the Book of Mormon describes a complex disaster that PERFECTLY matches eyewitness accounts of major pyroclastic volcanic eruptions, and there are lots of pyroclastic volcanoes in Mesoamerica (where the Book of Mormon is supposed to have taken place,) and there is ice core evidence that there was a major eruption about the right time… that’s all “internal” to the Book of Mormon.

When we collect long lists of non-Biblical names in the Book of Mormon that also turn up in ancient Jewish and Egyptian documents from the proper time period, that’s all “internal” to the Book of Mormon.

When the Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites started making a certain odd type of fortification around cities at a certain time period, and then archaeologists find just such fortifications in Mesoamerica, that’s all “internal” to the Book of Mormon.

I could go on.

I happen to be a geologist, by the way, and the volcanism evidence I mentioned is shockingly good, I can assure you. There is no way Joseph Smith could have described something like that so perfectly.

When evaluating evidence for such claims, you have to ask several questions to be responsible about it. How bold is the claim? What kind of evidence is it reasonable to expect, under the circumstances? And so on.

In the case of the Bible, the place names have often stayed the same for thousands of years. Jerusalem is still there! So it isn’t a very bold claim for the Bible to say there was a place called Jerusalem. If we find evidence for that, what’s the big deal? It certainly doesn’t add much in support of the claim that the Bible is inspired.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it was written by a backwoods farmer at a time when not much was known about Mesoamerica or the ancient Mideast. So if we start finding that it predicts the existence of a bunch of names and a place named “Nahom” in a particular part of ancient Arabia, and that evidence for such things actually turn up, it’s a bit of a shock! How could Joseph Smith have gotten such things right–repeatedly?

Hi Bdawg,

Isn’t this all circumstantial evidence? Yes, I agree that the evidence you cite (NHM, ice core analysis, BoM-Egyptian parallels) is not evidence merely internal to the BoM, but it’s not nearly as compelling as the existence of Jerusalem is to lead me to conclude that the books in the Bible truly are of ancient origin. This says nothing about the validity of religious claims in the text, but it does increase my confidence that Jerusalem has been around for a very long time and that the city as described in the Bible is probably the same city we know today.

Besides, you keep saying NHM=Nahom. Nahom isn’t carved on the altar; NHM is. How do we know NHM in Arabia was pronounced Nahom? Are there other variants of NHM extant in ancient literature? If not, then that would strengthen your case. Also, the ice core evidence is interesting, but was the sample taken from Mesoamerica or elsewhere (e.g. Greenland)? Are there enough layers in that same sample that a temporal distribution of volcanic activity can be determined? How frequent were volcanic eruptions in Mesoamerica 2000 years ago and how intense was the average eruption? I’m interested in learning whether the eruption you refer to represents a massive spike in the intensity of eruptions relative to the distribution mean. That would be very compelling evidence indeed of a major cataclysmic event (and it would have to be quite a large spike to represent enough power to cast down mountains and sink cities into the ocean). But, of course, the ice core must have come from Mesoamerica, or contain traces of material found only in Mesoamerica (if that is where BoM lands truly were) to be sure we’ve found evidence of a Mesoamerican eruption. Otherwise, it could be the evidence comes from some other volcanic eruption that occurred around the time of Christ (e.g. the eruption that destroyed Pompeii in 79).

Regarding Joseph Smith, I don’t think it’s a stretch for a backwoods farmer, Bible literacy, and a vivid imagination to come up with what he came up with. Perhaps he truly was a religious genius, like Albright and Howard Bloom both contend. I can buy that.

NS

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Bdawg,

Isn’t this all circumstantial evidence? Yes, I agree that the evidence you cite (NHM, ice core analysis, BoM-Egyptian parallels) is not evidence merely internal to the BoM, but it’s not nearly as compelling as the existence of Jerusalem is to lead me to conclude that the books in the Bible truly are of ancient origin. This says nothing about the validity of religious claims in the text, but it does increase my confidence that Jerusalem has been around for a very long time and that the city as described in the Bible is probably the same city we know today.

Besides, you keep saying NHM=Nahom. Nahom isn’t carved on the altar; NHM is. How do we know NHM in Arabia was pronounced Nahom? Are there other variants of NHM extant in ancient literature? If not, then that would strengthen your case.

NS

We’ve discussed NHM before with bdawg. dzheremi, who is a linguist, kindly pointed out the issues with NHM being equal to Nahom. You can read it in this thread.

 

[mfbukowski]

he was shoot in the back while jumping from a 3 story jail,
then shoot several other times as he fell to the ground
he was finally scalped
by people dressed as Indians.
a very interesting group of people to read about
are a group that was called the “CATHARS”
they were the first religion to claim that the catholic church was wrong and that god game given them his authority,
but unfortunately for them they dealt with a slightly more aggressive catholic church, and were wiped out to the last child.

what can I say? unbelievable

 

[BDawg]

We’ve discussed NHM before with bdawg. dzheremi, who is a linguist, kindly pointed out the issues with NHM being equal to Nahom. You can read it in this thread.

That was interesting, Rebecca. I don’t remember reading that. In any case, the Arabic linguist dzheremi talked to said the vocalization could have been “Nahom,” “Nahum”, or any combination of vowels between the consonants–ancient semitic languages didn’t have vowels. So, this person has confirmed that “Nahom” is a possible interpretation.

So, we have the Book of Mormon claiming there is a place “called Nahom” southeast quite a ways from Jerusalem, and that Ishmael was buried there. Around this place, Lehi’s party turned eastward across Arabia. Book of Mormon scholars since the 40’s and 50’s have been pointing to exactly this area as the probable place for Nahom, because this is where the ancient Frankincense Trail turned eastward.

Now we find, in exactly the area where the Frankincense Trail turns eastward, a place that was called “NHM”, which could have been vocalized as “Nahom,” and definitely something rather close. There is a burial ground there from this time period.

Finally, if you follow the Frankincense trail directly eastward, like Nephi said, and then keep going across the Empty Quarter, you come to the only place along the East coast of Arabia that would match the place Nephi called “Bountiful,” because it was so fertile.

Yep. Bible literacy + fertile imagination = THAT. Sure.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. Since I already explained that we don’t think Jesus went back on his promises, what does YOUR interpretation of those promises have to do with OUR view of Christ’s divinity? This is an absurd point, unless you truly didn’t know how we interpret those promises. But I told you how we interpret those promises, so I have to conclude that you aren’t paying attention to anything I say.
2. I have been around this board long enough to know that you have participated in long discussions about Mormon views of God and Christ. So either you already know that we believe Jesus is fully divine (although we define divinity differently than you,) or you weren’t listening to anything we said.

This kind of thing happens over and over with you. I commend you for trying to speak civilly, but polite words don’t make a reasonable conversation. There has to be real communication, and you don’t seem willing to do that.

Hey BDawg,

You have to understand, some of the things you say are completely foreign to those of us who are learning about Mormon intepretations, for the first time. I apologize for repeated questioning, and my difficulties comprehending.

I asked about the Mormon view of Christ’s divinity for several reasons. Catholics accept Jesus as God, all powerful and able to fulfill his promises and prophesies, admittedly according to our interpretation.

I’ll try and explain it this way, Catholics believe the Bible to be God inspired and without errors. You’ve told me Mormons believe the Bible to be God Inspired, with a caveat.

Now you tell me that Mormons believe Jesus is fully divine, although Mormons define differently than Catholics do. Is this another caveat?

I’m afraid you’re mistaken about me participating in long discussions about Mormon views of God. While I have entered into several discussions with Mormons, I never knew anything about Mormons until I entered those discussions. I entered in discussions by researching the Mormon Church founder and have gone from there.

There have been a few occasions where I asked questions that were not answered or I wasn’t able to comprehend the answers given. I did searches online and found answers and tried to re-enter the discussions to find Mormons angered at things I discovered. They were quick to condemn me and say I received the information through anti-Mormon sources.

I really do not enjoy those type discussions and have avoided them. Just as I do not like anti-Catholic sources quoted, I felt it unfair to use what Mormons claimed were anti-Mormons sources.

Now, I am being told I don’t listen. I feel that’s been a two way street, with the big difference being most Mormons on these forums know, or claim to know, more about Catholicism than I do about Mormonism.

I’m not interested in changing. As I’ve said, I was trying to understand what Mormons believe. If I’m not allowed to ask, that becomes suspicious to me. How else is one to know what Mormons believe, without asking?

Above all, it’s not worth “fighting” (arguing) over in my opinion.

Peace,

 

[RebeccaJ]

That was interesting, Rebecca. I don’t remember reading that. In any case, the Arabic linguist dzheremi talked to said the vocalization could have been “Nahom,” “Nahum”, or any combination of vowels between the consonants–ancient semitic languages didn’t have vowels. So, this person has confirmed that “Nahom” is a possible interpretation.

So, we have the Book of Mormon claiming there is a place “called Nahom” southeast quite a ways from Jerusalem, and that Ishmael was buried there. Around this place, Lehi’s party turned eastward across Arabia. Book of Mormon scholars since the 40’s and 50’s have been pointing to exactly this area as the probable place for Nahom, because this is where the ancient Frankincense Trail turned eastward.

Now we find, in exactly the area where the Frankincense Trail turns eastward, a place that was called “NHM”, which could have been vocalized as “Nahom,” and definitely something rather close. There is a burial ground there from this time period.

Finally, if you follow the Frankincense trail directly eastward, like Nephi said, and then keep going across the Empty Quarter, you come to the only place along the East coast of Arabia that would match the place Nephi called “Bountiful,” because it was so fertile.

Yep. Bible literacy + fertile imagination = THAT. Sure.

All speculation. You seem to have grabbed onto it could be possible, but seem to ignore that there are more possiblilities. Which, makes the probability of NHM behing your Nahom, 1 out of how ever many combinations NHM could possibly be.

It’s beyond “fertile imagination”, it is wishful thinking.