"Adieu" in the Book of Mormon

[charity]

Trespasser W, It isn't a problem to us. The only problem is for those straining at gnats trying to make it into something signficant when they can't. They are the ones with the problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

Trespasser W, It isn't a problem to us. The only problem is for those straining at gnats trying to make it into something signficant when they can't. They are the ones with the problem.

In effect, they are undercutting their own credibility, unwittingly demonstrating that they are so bent on discrediting the Book of Mormon that they can't recognize -- and acknowledge -- a stupid contention when they see one.

[Pahoran]

But MC, let's say that you are completely utterly correct. That the wording in the BofM was NOT Joseph Smith's, but was dictated entirely by God with no discretion on Joseph's part at all.

Then God really needs some grammar lessons.

I'm sorry, but that's false. Again.

I've already addressed the "grammar" whine (it's not an argument, just a whine.) Now you can pretend that my post is utterly unworthy of your attention if you want, but you don't get to repeat a rebutted claim without somehow dealing with the rebuttal. To do so is simply dishonest.

Assuming this, why can't God have used the word "adieu" to translate the term used by Jacob?

I never said he couldn't--only that it would be unlikely. The closest situation we have to compare is the Bible. In cases where adieu could have been used, experts chose not to use it. This leads me to believe that God, being an expert at all things, would have used similar translation procedures when he translated the BoM. Is this such an outragious assumption? Am I completely nuts for thinking God would translate the way a human expert does?

You would be, if that's what you actually thought. Because of course God being greater than all human "experts" can choose whatever word he sees fit to translate a text the "experts" have never seen, and not one of them is in a position to gainsay him.

The fact, however, is that you don't think that, because you don't believe in God at all.

Therefore this ridiculous fuss is merely opportunistic.

So, IF God's translating practices are in line with MOST expert scripture translators,

And why would they be?

then he probably wouldn't have used "adieu."

Since you don't know what word that "adieu" translates, you simply don't know that.

You also wrote:

I have no problem with this interpretation. If you want to claim that the word choice in the BoM is Joseph's and not God's, great. But if that's the case, then Emma, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris (among others) are all vicious anti Mormon liars who invented a false story about Joseph's method of translation.

If you want to claim that Joseph's mind provided the wording of the BoM, then someone is lying. We just have a difference of opinion as to whom it is.

I suggest you read Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 8 and 9, before repeating this falsehood.

To sum up:

1) "Adieu" is an ENGLISH word. Like thousands of other English words that you and I and everyone else uses every day, it is of French origin, but it is still perfectly good English.

2) Of all anti-Mormon arguments, this is the silliest. Sillier even than the "born at Jerusalem" argument--and that's saying something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Homestar Runner]

1) "Adieu" is an ENGLISH word. Like thousands of other English words that you and I and everyone else uses every day, it is of French origin, but it is still perfectly good English.

Not to mention that it's been an english word for over 600 years. Longer than the word "hamburger" for pete's sake.

[Pahoran]

1) "Adieu" is an ENGLISH word.  Like thousands of other English words that you and I and everyone else uses every day, it is of French origin, but it is still perfectly good English.

Not to mention that it's been an english word for over 600 years. Longer than the word "hamburger" for pete's sake.

Watch out; Hamburger is a German word (denoting a citizen of Hamburg) so obviously you can't be an expert translator if you use it as a common English word, can you?

What the herd of independent thinkers obviously don't get is that we are pretty much laughing at them; it's just that the joke is starting to get stale.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

1) "Adieu" is an ENGLISH word.

[Magyar]

1) "Adieu" is an ENGLISH word.

[Homestar Runner]

1) "Adieu" is an ENGLISH word.

[Magyar]

Good, but it also refers to a certain liquid contribution that horses periodically make to the ground around them.

[LadySundancer]

Lady Sundancer, I wasn't ignoring your other post. I have two threads mixed. I asked you in the another thread, the "How would the Church have been different if it weren't for polygamy?" to answer your statement that it would be different in many respects. Then you ignored that question through numerous posts. I ask again, what "respects" would the Church have been different. If you want to post on the other thread, I will look for the answer there. But please do respond.

And about the same word comment of mine. It has been so many days, and so many threads, I don't remember what I meant. Sorry.

charity,

You asked me no such question! I have no earthly idea what thread you're referring to, I have not posted on a polygamy thread, and you are wasting my time.

Lady Sundancer

[charity]

Lady Sundancer, I went back on some old threads and I couldn't find it either, and I agree, looking for it is a waste of both our time. I will concede your point. And we can both move on.

[Bsix]

This thread is has run to eight pages of posts. Isn't it about time for someone to compare Joseph Smith to David Koresh or Hitler?

Regards,

Six

[charity]

bsix, are you baiting the moderators?

[usadingo]

I'm just wondering why it's even being debated. I'm less concerned with the use of the word and more concerned with the language it supposidly came from- Reformed Egyptian, which has never been authenticated, but rather called a fraud.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm just wondering why it's even being debated. I'm less concerned with the use of the word and more concerned with the language it supposidly came from- Reformed Egyptian, which has never been authenticated, but rather called a fraud.

Who called it a fraud and, more to the point, why should we accept that person’s pronouncement?

This, by the way, rather nicely illustrates a common anti-Mormon technique. I call it the Yeah, but… offensive. When one of the stock complaints is shown to be devoid of merit, instead of conceding the fact, you quickly divert the discussion with some other more strident and, often as not, equally baseless attack.

As Bsix said, it's just a matter of time before the nasty comparisons to Hitler and Koresh start coming.

[usadingo]

Who called it a fraud and, more to the point, why should we accept that person

[Lachoneus]

Charles Anthon did in 1828.  Why should we accept it?  Because he's the person Martin Harris went to for authenticity of Joseph Smith's characters.  Anthon, was the professor of Greek and Latin at Columbia College.  When shown the characters, Anthon labeled them "a meaningless batch of crooked characters including "Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways."

In 1834, Charles Anthon wrote a letter in which he said:

    On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends of the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics."

In 1841, Charles Anthon wrote another letter in which he said:

On my telling the bearer of the paper that an attempt had been made to impose on him and defraud him of his property, he requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual "behind the curtain" see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them. The countryman then took his leave, with many thanks, and with the express declaration that he would in no shape part with his farm, or embark in the speculation of printing the golden book.

[Scott Lloyd]

Charles Anthon did in 1828.

[usadingo]

And thus, Anthon's credibility regarding this incident is lacking.

And thus we see, in usadingo's citation of Anthon, a demonstration of yet another anti-Mormon technique: Ignore clarifying perspective.

"Pro-truth" indeed!

Actually, if you view both letters in full, you'll see that Anthon's message remains the same from beginning to end- the characters were fake.

And even if you want to ignore Anthon, you then have to consider the sayings of Alan H. Gardiner (Oxford Egyptologist) who examined the Anthon script in 1956 and stated, "I see no resemblance between the characters of which you sent me a photograph and any form of Egyptian writing."

Then there's John A. Wilson (Professor of Egyptology, University of Chicago) who stated "The transcript cannot be recognized or read as any form of ancient Egyptian from the beginning of writing in Egypt about 3000 B.C. to the terminal stage of Coptic about 1000 A.D."

And don't forget Deanne G. Matheny, former BYU Anthropology teacher who wrote, "No one has convincingly demonstrated a link between any of them (i.e., Mesoamerica writing) and any Near Easter derived system or to anything resembling the Anthon Transcript."

See, you can point out what you may see as a descrepincy in Anthon's letters (and others see as a possible two different times throughout the conversation) and think that makes him completely untrustworthy. But you have to take into effect that his opinion remained the same as well as many other scholars.

[Pahoran]

Usadingo,

you wrote:

I'm not so much anti-Mormon as I am pro-truth.

Yeah, that's what all the anti-Mormons say. On cue and in unison. Save it for the home audience; we're not that gullible.

Actually, if you view both letters in full, you'll see that Anthon's message remains the same from beginning to end- the characters were fake.

So the fact that his testimony is impeached doesn't matter as long as the "message" remains the same. Got it.

See, you can point out what you may see as a descrepincy in Anthon's letters (and others see as a possible two different times throughout the conversation) and think that makes him completely untrustworthy.  But you have to take into effect that his opinion remained the same as well as many other scholars.

But what are we to make of the fact that the extant sample does not resemble his description?

And what are we to make of the rather significant fact that Harris returned from his visit with "the learned" more satisfied with Joseph's claims than he apparently was before?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Usadingo,

you wrote:

I'm not so much anti-Mormon as I am pro-truth.

Yeah, that's what all the anti-Mormons say. On cue and in unison. Save it for the home audience; we're not that gullible.

Actually, if you view both letters in full, you'll see that Anthon's message remains the same from beginning to end- the characters were fake.

So the fact that his testimony is impeached doesn't matter as long as the "message" remains the same. Got it.

See, you can point out what you may see as a descrepincy in Anthon's letters (and others see as a possible two different times throughout the conversation) and think that makes him completely untrustworthy.

[Beowulf]

Whew...

At least the topic has switched away from that French/English word.

I was just reading about Charles Anthon last night, in Dan Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith.

While Vogel is quite cynical about the truthfulness of JS' claims, he nevertheless thinks that Anthon was initially intrigued by the characters shown him by Martin Harris.

Only later, when Anthon realized he would be used by an outlandish cult (so to speak), did he get upset and claim that he had never given his imprimatur to the project.

A most interesting episode.

Beowulf

[Jaybear]

Q: 1. Why would Anthon lie? Should we attribute the difference in the letters to a lie, or to a failing memory of a curious but inconsequential event that occured some 14 years prior.

2. What basis would Anthon, or any other expert, have had for giving Harris a satisifying answer? Also how do you know that Harris returned "more satisfied." Is that something that Harris stated, or is that an observation made by JS.

Sorry, but I just can't imagine a farmer comming into an IVY league professor's office with a tale of golden plates that can't be looked at, written in "reformed eygyptian', and translated by a young man with the aid of magic spectacles, and then leaving the office fully satsified that he had not been conned. That's just abusd. Are we allowed to apply common sense when sorting out historical inconsistencies of accounts? Do apologist really feel comfortable writting off Anthon, is that just a public face?

[Beowulf]

Well, even Vogel thinks that Martin Harris returned from that session with Anthon "fully satisfied" that he was not being conned.

Of course, Harris is portrayed by Vogel as being remarkably gullible (along with ALL of Joseph's Family, Joseph Knight, the Whitmers... in fact, everybody who believed him in 1828).

Harris said that Anthon inspected the characters, thought they were truly ancient in design (but could not tell what language exactly), and wrote out a deposition to that effect. When Harris then told him where the characters came from (Gold Plates), Anthon asked for them to inspect for himself (understandable, I admit). Upon being told that was not possible, Anthon took back his deposition and tore it up, exclaiming "I cannot read a sealed book," thus immortalizing himself for quoting Isaiah 29 by accident.

It is understandable, too, that Anthon would want to change his story in the ensuing years, because it was devastating to his reputation (such as it was)...

Beowulf

[charity]

Jaybear, the account reveals the answer to your questions.

You asked: 1. Why would Anthon lie? Should we attribute the difference in the letters to a lie, or to a failing memory of a curious but inconsequential event that occured some 14 years prior.

Answer: Martin Harris presented the copy of the characters to Anthon without telling him where they came from. Anthon pronouned the characters of an ancient origin. He gave Martin a statement to that effect. Then he asked Martin where they came from. When Martin told him, he evidently became concerned that his professional reputation would be damaged if connected to something of supernatural nature. He asked for the paper back, and destroyed it. This accounts for his slip of the tongue on having immediately given a written response to Martin.

You asked: "What basis would Anthon, or any other expert, have had for giving Harris a satisifying answer?

Answer: The answer is, when Anthon responded initially it, it was because he recognized the characters as being just what they were said to be.

You asked: "Also how do you know that Harris returned "more satisfied." Is that something that Harris stated, or is that an observation made by JS."

Answer: Joseph reported it. But more importantly, Martin Harris raised the money for the publication of the Book of Mormon. Why would he have done that had Anthon told him the characters were a fraud, as Anthon reported. The purpose of going to Anthon in the first place was to reassure Martin so he would be willing to sell or mortgage his farm. Martin came home and did so. Doesn't that sound like he was "more satisfied?"