Deseret,desheret

[Olavarria]

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of...on/deseret.html

[fubeca]

Are you trying to argue for or against the church? I'm having trouble telling the difference. This isn't much different than Louis Farraken's rants. Talk about a painful paralell to draw.

FARRAKHAN: I'm looking at the Washington Monument and beyond it to the Lincoln Memorial. And, beyond that, to the left, to your right, the Jefferson Memorial. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of these United States and he was the man who allegedly freed us.

Abraham Lincoln saw in his day, what President Clinton sees in this day. He saw the great divide between black and white.

...

Abraham Lincoln, when he saw this great divide, he pondered a solution of separation. Abraham Lincoln said he never was in favor of our being jurors or having equal status with the Whites of this nation. Abraham Lincoln said that if there were to be a superior or inferior, he would rather the superior position be assigned to the White race. There, in the middle of this mall is the Washington Monument, 555 feet high. But if we put a one in front of that 555 feet, we get 1555, the year that our first fathers landed on the shores of Jamestown, Virginia as slaves.

In the background is the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial, each one of these monuments is 19 feet high.

FARRAKHAN: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president. Thomas Jefferson, the third president, and 16 and three make 19 again. What is so deep about this number 19? Why are we standing on the Capitol steps today? That number 19 -- when you have a nine you have a womb that is pregnant. And when you have a one standing by the nine, it means that there's something secret that has to be unfolded.

No politics, and stop engaging in presentism. -mods

[charity]

The word "deseret" is just one in along line of things that exmo's and non-mo's have to try to explain away in order to keep their non-belief intact.

Their desperation to do so is found in the post by fubeca. Run off on an a tangent which makes no sense in order to try to distract you from a valid point. What has Farrakhan got to do with anything? Just silly middle of the night ramblings I guess.

[William James]

The word "deseret" is just one in along line of things that exmo's and non-mo's have to try to explain away in order to keep their non-belief intact.

Their desperation to do so is found in the post by fubeca. Run off on an a tangent which makes no sense in order to try to distract you from a valid point. What has Farrakhan got to do with anything? Just silly middle of the night ramblings I guess.

What would be highly coincidental is if the word for "honey bee" in egyptian were actually "deseret." Everything is connected in some fashion; it is only a question of how closely. In the example given, even assuming that the information provided is accurate and not omitting critical information, it sounds to me like the relationship between the reformed egyption word for honey bee and the known egyptian etymology related to it is sufficiently far apart to be just as likely coincidence as non-coincidence.

Once again, Charity assumes that (1) it is non-believers who have to explain things; and (2) that the non-believers are acting in bad faith and have a goal of not believing. Yes, there are people out there who simply hate the church no matter what and so will never give it fair consideration. But I believe that many non-believers are intellectually honest with themselves and are simply making their best attempt to analyze things objectively. I also think many believers try their best to do the same, although a great many of believers do not and are guilty of distorting their analysis. We (including me) should be very careful not to assume that all non-believers (or other people) have an agenda to believe the way they do and that they will simply interpret all evidence with the goal of retaining their beliefs. Although it is very natural to interpret new information initially based upon the preliminary conclusions we have already reached, the key is to be open to re-weighing all the evidence each time we get new evidence to determine the likelihood that our preliminary conclusions need revision.

Fubeca's post appears to be an attempt to show how coincidental relationships, when painted in a certain way, can appear to be non-coincidental. Although I don't believe the illustration is very clear, I think the point is a correct one. There are countless examples (such as in conspiracy theories) of coincidence being painted as non-coincidence. We should be careful and skeptical about any extraordinary claim, though in the end we may choose to believe it as we see the evidence.

[charity]

William James, I explained in another post, that TBM's do not have a vested interest in such things as NHM or Deseret proving anything. Those kinds of things are interesting and emotionally satisfying, but our faith does not depend on them. The NHM site can be the exact place Nephi described. Or the real NHM site can be someplace else, and that is fine with us. We rely on our testimonies, and not the arm of flesh.

But non-believers, especially those who visit Mormon sites to "discuss" (or more often to argue) do have a vested interest in such things being NOT true. Because if they are correct, then the non-belief is seriously challenged. I did not say, nor intend to give the impression, that there is dishonesty on the part of anyone who wants not to believe. But humans are humans. If we run into something that is contrary to some deeply held belief, we are likely to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to maintain the belief. That is why we see often desperate attempts to refute something, such as NHM.

[Not quite me]

William James, I explained in another post, that TBM's do not have a vested interest in such things as NHM or Deseret proving anything. Those kinds of things are interesting and emotionally satisfying, but our faith does not depend on them. The NHM site can be the exact place Nephi described. Or the real NHM site can be someplace else, and that is fine with us. We rely on our testimonies, and not the arm of flesh.

But non-believers, especially those who visit Mormon sites to "discuss" (or more often to argue) do have a vested interest in such things being NOT true. Because if they are correct, then the non-belief is seriously challenged. I did not say, nor intend to give the impression, that there is dishonesty on the part of anyone who wants not to believe. But humans are humans. If we run into something that is contrary to some deeply held belief, we are likely to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to maintain the belief. That is why we see often desperate attempts to refute something, such as NHM.

I couldn't disagree more, charity. I don't care about these parallels, honestly. This one is a huge stretch, in my opinion, but my understanding of the church does not hinge on whether or not this link is valid or not. I have no vested interest in these things being NOT true.

[helix]

Why did the Jaredites use Egyptian to describe a bee?

I don't mean to rain on the parade. It's a very interesting link, but has a lot of what ifs for me to fully accept it.

[fubeca]

The word "deseret" is just one in along line of things that exmo's and non-mo's have to try to explain away in order to keep their non-belief intact.

Deseret is not an egyptian word for honeybee. Bt is. But the BOM, wasn't written in egyptian either, JS claims it was written in "reformed egyptian." "[were] handed down and altered by us" and that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:32-34). The book also describes this language as consisting of the "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 1:2).

Their desperation to do so is found in the post by fubeca. Run off on an a tangent which makes no sense in order to try to distract you from a valid point. What has Farrakhan got to do with anything? Just silly middle of the night ramblings I guess.

Farrakhan makes tortured parallels in order to prove his silly points, just like some bad apologists do. When the BOM says horse, it really means tapir. JS didn't have martial relations with his plural wives. LGT, which goes against everything the GAs have said for 170 years or so. BOA revelation theory, even though it goes against everything JS said about the BOA.

I think FARMS are probably the most effective "antis." When I had questions, I clearly saw the mental gymnastics and tortured explanations of FARMS and other bad apologetics.

[Not quite me]

Why did the Jaredites use Egyptian to describe a bee?

I don't mean to rain on the parade. It's a very interesting link, but has a lot of what ifs for me to fully accept it.

Well, yeah, there's that. I thought the Jaredites' language was not confounded at the tower of Babel. So, yeah, why Egyptian of all things?

[charity]

not quite: I don't understand your logic. I will explain mine, and then would you please clarify yours for me?

1. I have a "testimony" from God that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, translated with the power of God through Joseph Smith. This testimony does not depend on any physical fact of archeology, geography, linquistis, etc. Even if something turns up that doesn't look at all confirming, I can easily say, "I don't know what that is about, but I am confident that when God reveals all, this will be understood properly in context and will only confirm, not disconfirm, the Book of Mormon."

2. Non-believers have no such "testimony." These belief systems, however, for many people, are not objective--just the facts, ma'am--beliefs. These belief systems are rooted in untestable tenets, such as the non-existence of God. However, since they have a veneer of objectivity about them, they must bolster the untestable tenets with wordly knowledge. When there comes along a fact that contradicts their untestable belief, they can't say, "I have a testimony from no god at all that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction. I don't know what that is about, but I am confident that when the non-god reveals all, this will be understood properly in context and will only disconfirm, not confirm, the Book of Mormon."

Where am I wrong?

[Tarski]

Deseret

by Stephen Parker

The word Deseret is found in the most ancient book in the Book of Mormon, "And they did also carry with them Deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee" (Ether 2:3).

Because the Book of Mormon was written in "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32), Hugh Nibley has suggested that the etymology of the word Deseret is related to the ancient Egyptian word dsrt, read by Egyptologists as desheret. In Egyptian, dsrt means the red crown (of the king of Lower Egypt). The Egyptian word for bee is bt. In the discussion of the sign dsrt, Alan Gardiner, in Egyptian Grammar, states that was used to replacein two Egyptian titles wherewas used to mean the bty King of Lower Egypt. Thus, the title n-sw-bt was sometimes written as n-sw-bt, which literally means "He who belongs to the sedge plant (of Upper Egypt) and to the bee (of Lower Egypt)," normally translated "The King of Upper and Lower Egypt." This substitution of for has led Nibley to associate the Egyptian word dsrt and the Book of Mormon word Deseret.

That made no sense to me at all. Care to clarify?

[Not quite me]

not quite: I don't understand your logic. I will explain mine, and then would you please clarify yours for me?

1. I have a "testimony" from God that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, translated with the power of God through Joseph Smith. This testimony does not depend on any physical fact of archeology, geography, linquistis, etc. Even if something turns up that doesn't look at all confirming, I can easily say, "I don't know what that is about, but I am confident that when God reveals all, this will be understood properly in context and will only confirm, not disconfirm, the Book of Mormon."

2. Non-believers have no such "testimony." These belief systems, however, for many people, are not objective--just the facts, ma'am--beliefs. These belief systems are rooted in untestable tenets, such as the non-existence of God. However, since they have a veneer of objectivity about them, they must bolster the untestable tenets with wordly knowledge. When there comes along a fact that contradicts their untestable belief, they can't say, "I have a testimony from no god at all that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction. I don't know what that is about, but I am confident that when the non-god reveals all, this will be understood properly in context and will only disconfirm, not confirm, the Book of Mormon."

Where am I wrong?

I see where you're coming from: you think that whereas you and your fellow religionists recognize the subjective nature of your testimony, we exmormons cling to a false notion of objective knowledge.

Let me explain. Your testimony is indeed subjective and unrelated to notions of objective reality. You know because you feel. In my case, I know exactly what you meant. I had the spiritual experiences; I knew it was true.

Do I "know" the church is not true in the same sense? Nope. My lack of belief is subjective, though not quite in the same way yours is. I "don't know" because I can think; I can evalute evidence. Of course, that evidence can change, and I'm willing to re-evaluate my position. Are you?

We are dealing in probabilities, and my subjective conclusion is that the probability of Mormonism being true is decidedly low. So, when something like NHM comes along, I can weigh it against the rest of the evidence and adjust my conclusions accordingly. Amazingly enough, that does not involve some crisis of faith.

[Tarski]

The word "deseret" is just one in along line of things that exmo's and non-mo's have to try to explain away in order to keep their non-belief intact.

Their desperation to do so is found in the post by fubeca. Run off on an a tangent which makes no sense in order to try to distract you from a valid point.

What valid point? Maybe you would like to explain the deseret thing since I didn't understand Her Amun's difficult to read explanation. What is the connection between honey bee and King again?

Please clarify since you seem so sure of yourself.

[Not quite me]

The word "deseret" is just one in along line of things that exmo's and non-mo's have to try to explain away in order to keep their non-belief intact.

Their desperation to do so is found in the post by fubeca. Run off on an a tangent which makes no sense in order to try to distract you from a valid point.

What valid point? Maybe you would like to explain the deseret thing since I didn't understand Her Amun's difficult to read explanation. What is the connection between honey bee and King again?

Please clarify since you seem so sure of yourself.

Let me see if I can summarize:

The Jaredites, who spoke an unknown language, used the word "deseret" for honeybee.

bt is Egyptian for bee.

There was an Egyptian king whose name transliterates to dsrt, who was associated with bees.

Ergo, the Book of Mormon is true.

[Tarski]

not quite: I don't understand your logic. I will explain mine, and then would you please clarify yours for me?

1. I have a "testimony" from God that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, translated with the power of God through Joseph Smith. This testimony does not depend on any physical fact of archeology, geography, linquistis, etc. Even if something turns up that doesn't look at all confirming, I can easily say, "I don't know what that is about, but I am confident that when God reveals all, this will be understood properly in context and will only confirm, not disconfirm, the Book of Mormon."

2. Non-believers have no such "testimony." These belief systems, however, for many people, are not objective--just the facts, ma'am--beliefs. These belief systems are rooted in untestable tenets, such as the non-existence of God.

Where am I wrong?

You are wrong because you give the nonexistence of your God a special place. You forgot the nonexistence of elves, unicorns, antigravity machines, flat earth, flying saucers, superman etc. Also, which God? I disblieve in many such a Zeus, Thor, Baal etc. Is my belief system rooted in my disbelief in Thor?

The word "deseret" is just one in along line of things that exmo's and non-mo's have to try to explain away in order to keep their non-belief intact.

Their desperation to do so is found in the post by fubeca. Run off on an a tangent which makes no sense in order to try to distract you from a valid point.

What valid point? Maybe you would like to explain the deseret thing since I didn't understand Her Amun's difficult to read explanation. What is the connection between honey bee and King again?

Please clarify since you seem so sure of yourself.

Let me see if I can summarize:

The Jaredites, who spoke an unknown language, used the word "deseret" for honeybee.

bt is Egyptian for bee.

There was an Egyptian king whose name transliterates to dsrt, who was associated with bees.

Ergo, the Book of Mormon is true.

OK, but what was the association?

[Not quite me]

OK, but what was the association?

As near as I can tell (it's admittedly not well written), the addition of bt (bee) was to indicate that he was king over Lower Egypt (which, I can extrapolate, may have been known as the land of the bee). But this is just a guess, as the original post is pretty much indecipherable.

[Tarski]

OK, but what was the association?

As near as I can tell (it's admittedly not well written), the addition of bt (bee) was to indicate that he was king over Lower Egypt (which, I can extrapolate, may have been known as the land of the bee). But this is just a guess, as the original post is pretty much indecipherable.

um, o k.

[Not quite me]

OK, but what was the association?

As near as I can tell (it's admittedly not well written), the addition of bt (bee) was to indicate that he was king over Lower Egypt (which, I can extrapolate, may have been known as the land of the bee). But this is just a guess, as the original post is pretty much indecipherable.

um, o k.

Yes, it really is that bad. But this is the kind of "evidence" we "have to explain away."

Oh, wait. I think I have it. There's one more layer. dsrt means "red crown," which is associated with the king of Lower Egypt. Lower Egypt is also associated with bees.

So, here's the etymology:

Deseret (bee)>dsrt (red crown [of Lower Egypt])>n-sw-bt (king of the sedge and bees)

[fubeca]

not quite: I don't understand your logic. I will explain mine, and then would you please clarify yours for me?

1. I have a "testimony" from God that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, translated with the power of God through Joseph Smith. This testimony does not depend on any physical fact of archeology, geography, linquistis, etc. Even if something turns up that doesn't look at all confirming, I can easily say, "I don't know what that is about, but I am confident that when God reveals all, this will be understood properly in context and will only confirm, not disconfirm, the Book of Mormon."

People get false testimonies all the time about false things. People in UT especially get suckered into MLM, pyramid schemes, and other assorted scams. I know people that have prayed and had a spiritual witness that they should participate in a pyramid scheme. Me telling them it was illegal, unethical, and doomed to fail would not sway them.

People had testimonies that the world was flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. That the earth was the center of the universe. That is demonstrably false.

The islamofacist terrorists have spritual testimonies that Mohammad was the one and only true prophet. That the Koran is true, and that Allah wants them to bomb a bus full of people or fly planes into buildings.

Spiritual testimonies are completely invalid if they can be shown to be false. A spiritual testimony, in my mind is only valid when there is doubt and it is reasonable to believe one way or the other. For example, it can be shown that there was indeed a man named JC that lived in or around 0 AD or so. Most of the people and places in the NT exist today or shown to have existed. The question is, was JC the son of God?

With the BOM, none of the places, people, or events can be shown to ever exist. DNA evidence proves that the Native Americans are descended from Northeast Asia, rather than semitic peoples. Passages from the bible have the same errors that the KJV has. And then there's the anachronisms. It's simply not reasonable to believe that the BOM is literally a history of the Native Americans or any other people.

With regards to the BOM, the only reasonable thing to believe is that the BOM is basically a parable which has good teachings in it, but isn't literally true. Basically, what BH Roberts believed.

2. Non-believers have no such "testimony." These belief systems, however, for many people, are not objective--just the facts, ma'am--beliefs. These belief systems are rooted in untestable tenets, such as the non-existence of God. However, since they have a veneer of objectivity about them, they must bolster the untestable tenets with wordly knowledge. When there comes along a fact that contradicts their untestable belief, they can't say, "I have a testimony from no god at all that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction. I don't know what that is about, but I am confident that when the non-god reveals all, this will be understood properly in context and will only disconfirm, not confirm, the Book of Mormon."

Where am I wrong?

My belief system is mostly objective and deals in probabilities. The only way for the BOM to be true is if it took place on another planet. Or that God changed Lamanite DNA and removed any evidence of lamanites or nephites existing. Removed any evidence of cattle, goats, elephants, horses, chariots, steel, wheat, barley, silk, or gold/silver coins. That God magically removed human and animal waste products inside the jaredite barges.

What's the probability that a Hebrew people would choose to write a sacred record in the language of their enemies? How come the OT was written in Hebrew?

What are the chances that there was a universal flood in the last 5000 years? virtually none. Is the earth really only 6000 years old?

[The_Monk]

You should all read Kevin Barney's analysis of this. Kevin's on the FAIR board, written for FARMS, Dialogue, BYUStudies....

Part 1

Part 2

[Not quite me]

You should all read Kevin Barney's analysis of this. Kevin's on the FAIR board, written for FARMS, Dialogue, BYUStudies....

Part 1

Part 2

Thanks for the link. I think Barney and I agree on the nature of this "etymology": "too brilliant by half." And the article makes sense with the characters included.

Sort of reminds me of that guy on SNL who could come up with a good explanation for anything: "Yeah, that's the ticket."

[Olavarria]

What would be highly coincidental is if the word for "honey bee" in egyptian were actually "deseret." Everything is connected in some fashion; it is only a question of how closely.

[Olavarria]

I still dont understand why DSRT is a jaredite word when Moroni apparently had no access to Ether's original. Rather he seems to have a copy of King Mosiah's translation.

[fubeca]

I dont know what any of this has to do with the issue at hand. But since im bored Ill engage these points:

horse and tapir.Remember that the nephites did not have our modern taxonomical system.

You're forgetting that the BOM was supposedly translated "by the power of God." Why did God not correct that during the translation? It's a moot point anyways since riding around a tapir for warfare, agriculture, or transportation is not practical.

JS didn't have martial relations with his plural wives.

I believe he did have relations with them. That position(that he did) is also put forth in Rough Stone Rolling. Can you please rpovide a source for the assertion that he didnt?

[charity]

fubeca, you wrote . . .riding around a tapir for warfare, agriculture, or transportation is not practical. "

This is a call for a reference. Show me the passage in the Book of Mormon where it says what the horse was used for? I will be waiting. (Hint. Try Alma 18.) Also, show us what the usage of the English language in the 1820's shows us about the word chariot. Thanks in advance for following board rules when called for a source.