Viable Nephite colonies

[charity]

Perhaps you are not aware of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because you do not conisder it when presented to you. We know that Stephen Mack was interested in the Irish Catholic MS in question and may well have shared his interest and the script with Joseph Smith.

However, it really does not matter where Joseph Smith got the 17th century script. The fact is that it was available to Joseph Smith in terms of time and place.

What you seem to be forgetting is the the script that Joseph Smith claimed was "Reformed' Egyptian (no matter where he got it), was not "Reformed Egyptian", or any type of Egyptian or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language or script. This means that Joseph Smith was, in fact, lying when he said that it was "Reformed Egyptian".

And in believing his story, you are choosing to believe what has been documented as a lie. That is not faith, and it is certainly not "knowledge". It is magical thinking.

I agree that it would be better to return to the thread topic. However, your insistent expressions of unfounded belief need to be addressed for what they are.

Arc,you have obviously not studied the Book of Mormon itself. And yet you accuse me of unfounded belief. And your statement "documented lie" is the most magical thinking shown in this thread so far. You should know that as soon as a critic uses the word "lie" he shows himself not to be a scholar, but merely an anti. That is sad.

[Gary@rics]

Maybe my different perspective is from a knowledge of the history of science. That which you call "something more tangible" has so often been overturned. Mortality is prone to error. The witness of the Spirit is not.

True, the history of science is a constant flux of jumps, backing up, corrections, and starting again. I know that I am prone to error, even when I'm pretty sure about something. I'm not convinced that the witness of the Spirit is infallible, so we'll probably disagree on that point. I mean, I've known people who convincingly reported a confirmation of the spirit that later turned out to be wrong. My brother-in-law had an experience like that. I have not experienced the intense and lasting certainty that you describe. I'm a little bit jealous and I wonder what different path my life might have taken. I do have frequent experiences, however, of feeling an intuition--available only if I'm in something of a reverent state--that gently nudges me toward insights and inquiries that I would otherwise have missed. I really value those moments and many of them seem holy and precious. Sometimes, however, I'm wrong when I follow them. In my experience, there is no way for me to know anything with absolute certainty, whether it's intellectual thoroughness, checking again on my calculator, or listening to that sweet whispering of intuition. Maybe I'm just irredeemably fallible.

Even though I have not experienced the undeniable confirmation that you describe, I still think it's possible to know something about it and have relevant opinions. It might be like me trying to understand my wife's experience of childbirth: I have to base it on what I hear, commonalities in the ways other women describe the experience, and my own capacity to accurately paraphrase or describe what I imagine she experienced. I can't "know," but I can start to develop an understanding and over time come to appreciate.

Okay, I am ready for the "meat" of the discussion. How about the Irish Nephites? How do they explain Joseph Smith, Jr., producing Irish Tironian (?) characters that he said were based on the golden plates? The Gaelic character sets, from what little I've read, actually trace back to 600 AD or so, long after Lehi and his family left for America. I would imagine that if a small group of Nephites made it to Ireland, they would certainly be able to acquire the writing methods. If trans-Atlantic travel one direction is proposed, one might argue that some of their descendents returned via the same methods and taught the American Nephites about this form of shorthand. It seems like quite a stretch and it sure wouldn't fit with the "reformed Egyptian" description, however.

Ready when you are.

Gary@rics

Edit: I was just checking. A second Internet source said the first occurrence of Tironian notation--the original form--was in 63 BC. That pulls it closer. The specific characters reproduced by Joseph Smith: I wonder when they were first used. If it were after the ending chapter of the Book of Mormon, it would negate the utility of the transatlantic Irish Nephites hypothesis. Although, it would certainly be powerful stuff if there happened to be a genetic link between Native Americans and the Irish, especially if the genetic diversity in Ireland were less than that in the Americas, giving a directional arrow pointing from west to east. Something like that would be a totally unpredicted finding from a non-LDS perspective.

[notHagoth7]

I am sorry, notHagoth7. I did not intend to demean your topic. I find the idea of a group of people providing evidence that seems to confirm the reality of the Book of Mormon fascinating.

Thank you for clarifying.

I just meant to say that we don't need that type of evidence.

I respectfully disagree. And as I've mentioned elsewhere in the forum, here's why:

In my missionary prep class, my father taught that there were three crucial forms of conversion.

Spiritual. Social. And intellectual.

And he taught that each were crucial. Especially for retention.

As human beings, we need the spiritual. And we need to be included/loved by those who share such views. And we need things to make sense.

We're gifted with a spirit. A heart. And a brain. And an integrated faith can encompass all three.

For leaving the faith:

When people get either offended or excluded, the social aspect of that three-legged stool gets snapped.

And/or if people run into serious cognitive dissonance, the intellectual leg of their stool gets snapped.

A one-legged stool can be unstable.

Those who lack a social support system, and/or viable cognitive ramparts are among the first to leave.

Moving the other direction, fellowship (social conversion) is an onramp to embracing LDS beliefs.

Same with some cognitive issues.

The objective of both, however, are to lead to and sustain the core objective: spiritual growth.

And if the "what ifs" you wrote about, really exist, that would be fascinating. But it is not going to convert anyone to the reality of the Book of Mormon.

True. It won't convert anyone any more than you being a genuine friend to a neighbor would convert someone.

We both agree that the spirit converts.

However, the two other things, friendship and knowledge, simply open the door (or the heart, or the mind) for such a possible outcome.

Does that provide a sensible context for such an approach?

So this topic might serve as an onramp for some.

And a bulwark for others.

Either way, it's also rooted in my heritage - so I love it.

[notHagoth7]

One question on the above post, if I may.

As described in Alma (see below) Hagoth sailed into the west sea by the narrow neck of land.

If one subscribes to LGT Mesoamerica, this puts him into the Pacific Ocean headed for the Sea of Cortez. If one subscribes to LGT Northern States, it puts him into one of the Great Lakes. Both of these departure points are a long way from the Atantic Ocean.

Good points. For starters, here's a viable MesoAmerican solution:

For that region, the Pacific is the South Sea. Not the West Sea. (Early exploration maps of Mesoamerica even label it as the South Sea.)

For that region, depending upon one's frame of reference, the Atlantic is as viable, if not more so, for a west sea. In fact, if one takes the Grijalva as the River Sidon...from a reading of Alma 63, it almost cinches it.

And here's a chapter addressing how Nephite geography allows for the premise of the Atlantic Ocean, of all things, being the west sea. It includes a few more maps that might also be of help conceptualizing how the Atlantic potentially fits into the puzzle, regardless of whether one thinks Bountiful/Zarahemla was in North, Central, or South America.

[Gary@rics]

Patience Arc. The Tuatha De Danaan are waiting in the wings. We'll get to them soon enough.

In the meantime, the genealogy of alphabets and writings systems goes something like this:

Egyptian > Phoenician > Greek > Latin

In other words, even OUR writing system, our alphabet, is re-formed Egyptian.

We don't speak much Egyptian. But our alphabet derives from re-formed Egyptian characters.

As do many modern writing systems. Including Irish miniscule.

So if you're going to claim that Joseph simply lifted the characters from the Detroit Manuscript, at least be forthright enough to acknowledge that even those characters actually ARE re-formed Egyptian.

But we'll come back to Tiro and the fighting Irish later.

You're saying that every western language--from ancient Phoenician to French--is reformed Egyptian? That seems to trivialize the point that the Book of Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian, emasculating it to a vapid assertion, "At least we're pretty sure it wasn't Korean."

Gary@rics

[Arc]

notHagoth7,

Your earlier claim that essentially every form of writing in the modern western world can be designated as "Reformed Egyptian", is like claiming that all writing was derived from 60,000 year old pictographs. Both claims are true if one is willing to re-define words, but neither claim is relevant to the question at hand.

You have not bothered to explain how a writing system that was not even developed until the 8th century AD in the old world could have been used by populations in the New World several centuries before it was invented.

You have also not explained the fact that there is no record of such a language being used in the New World during Book of Mormon times.

In fact, the best research we have tells us that the only written language in the New World during the time period covered by the Book of Mormon was the Mayan glyph language - period.

These are facts, not speculation.

[Gary@rics]

I was re-reading previous posts and then editing mine and I missed yours. I had wondered about the Yucatan. It's not by any narrow neck of land, but there is certainly a way west and into the gulf current, which eventually weaves it's way into the north Atlantic.

Gary@rics

[charity]

Thank you for clarifying.

I respectfully disagree. And as I've mentioned elsewhere in the forum, here's why:

In my missionary prep class, my father taught that there were three crucial forms of conversion.

Spiritual. Social. And intellectual.

And he taught that each were crucial. Especially for retention.

As human beings, we need the spiritual. And we need to be included/loved by those who share such views. And we need things to make sense.

We're gifted with a spirit. A heart. And a brain. And an integrated faith can encompass all three.

For leaving the faith:

When people get either offended or excluded, the social aspect of that three-legged stool gets snapped.

And/or if people run into serious cognitive dissonance, the intellectual leg of their stool gets snapped.

A one-legged stool can be unstable.

Those who lack a social support system, and/or viable cognitive ramparts are among the first to leave.

Moving the other direction, fellowship (social conversion) is an onramp to embracing LDS beliefs.

Same with some cognitive issues.

The objective of both, however, are to lead to and sustain the core objective: spiritual growth.

True. It won't convert anyone any more than you being a genuine friend to a neighbor would convert someone.

We both agree that the spirit converts.

However, the two other things, friendship and knowledge, simply open the door (or the heart, or the mind) for such a possible outcome.

Does that provide a sensible context for such an approach?

So this topic might serve as an onramp for some.

And a bulwark for others.

Either way, it's also rooted in my heritage - so I love it.

Very well said. I can't disagree with anything you say.

[charity]

Good points. For starters, here's a viable MesoAmerican solution:

For that region, the Pacific is the South Sea. Not the West Sea. (Early exploration maps of Mesoamerica even label it as the South Sea.)

For that region, depending upon one's frame of reference, the Atlantic is as viable, if not more so, for a west sea. In fact, if one takes the Grijalva as the River Sidon...from a reading of Alma 63, it almost cinches it.

And here's a chapter addressing how Nephite geography allows for the premise of the Atlantic Ocean, of all things, being the west sea. It includes a few more maps that might also be of help conceptualizing how the Atlantic potentially fits into the puzzle, regardless of whether one thinks Bountiful/Zarahemla was in North, Central, or South America.

And if seagoing were really a highly developed skill among some, there is not reason if this is the narrow neck of land that there couldn't be both Atlantic and Pacific launch sites.

[notHagoth7]

Edit: I was just checking. A second Internet source said the first occurrence of Tironian notation--the original form--was in 63 BC.

Hi Gary,

I don't have any qualms fast forwarding to that topic. But I'll hold off on the Irish connection until we establish a bit more of a foundation. Basically, there are a number of problems with your source. It's an extrapolation. Of an extrapolation. Of an extrapolation.

The main challenge with a 63 BC claim for Tironian is that no one places Tiro or Tironian there. Plutarch, who the modern extrapolators are citing, wrote over a century after the events in question, wherein he didn't even place Tiro or Tironian at the scene. The modern extrapolation upon Plutarch, which claims Plutarch somehow must have meant Tiro runs counter to Cicero's specific testimony about Tiro. Tiro was dead decades before Plutarch was even born. So Cicero's testimony is exponentially more reliable than modern extrapolations. So it's not an issue of dueling testimony from ancient sources. It's an issue where modern extrapolation of Plutarch clearly didn't take Cicero's eyewitness testimony into account.

Here's a polaroid of the 63 BC event in question, in which Cicero played a key role:

I've examined it closely for any evidence of Tiro, and he's simply not there.

Seriously though, in historical interpretation, when given a choice between believing an eyewitness testimony and that of one who lived generations later, the former choice wins out - unless one has concrete grounds for dismissing the testimony closer to the actual event. For example, centuries after Tiro died, Jerome claimed he was born around 103 BC. Such a claim, however, runs contrary to Cicero's eyewitness testimony in 50 BC that Tiro was a young man at that juncture.

To reiterate, Plutarch, the person who supposedly placed Tiro at Rome in 63 BC actually does NOT place Tiro there. He simply places the introduction of clerks into Roman practice. More specifically, teams of clerks were needed to keep up with a single speaker. All this means is that in 63 BC, Cicero learned to value the skill of speedwriting. His antennae were out. And he would have greatly valued a servant who surfaced anytime after 63 BC who could improve upon the need to have an entire team of clerks to keep up with a single speaker.

Subsequently, a few years later, surprise! Tiro becomes Cicero's trusted slave, his right-hand man and his most trusted steward. A Joseph in Pharoah's court. Or a Daniel in Nebuchadnezzar's court. So one can't effectively cite modern interpolation to negate the fact that Tiro is first mentioned in Cicero's personal letters in the fall of in 54 BC, nine years after the trial in question. And in 50 BC, Tiro was described by Cicero as a young man. Having him be a key player in a trial thirteen years prior does not fit Cicero's testimony, and has no direct historical evidence.

So there are three problems with a 63 BC date for Tironian:

1) No contemporary or ancient writer places Tiro there.

2) It requires one to prefer modern interpolation at the expense of Cicero's eyewitness testimony.

3) It requires one to ignore the more likely reality that Tironian was a later improvement upon the 63 BC innovation of using clerical teams to record speeches. It simply demonstrates that after 63 BC, Cicero would have been on the lookout for someone with Tiro's talent of being able to capture someone's speech phonetically, in compressed shorthand (the forefather of modern stenography).

That pulls it closer. The specific characters reproduced by Joseph Smith: I wonder when they were first used. If it were after the ending chapter of the Book of Mormon, it would negate the utility of the transatlantic Irish Nephites hypothesis.

You're conflating Irish/Gallic script with Tironian. Tironian was a shorthand system. Irish/Gallic script is closer to typography than stenography.

1) Tironian emerged at the instigation of Tiro, a slave in Cicero's court who is first mentioned in the fall of 54 BC.

2) Therefore, other forms of writing (such as Irish/Gallic miniscule), although interesting, become irrelevant to the core discussion.

Although, it would certainly be powerful stuff if there happened to be a genetic link between Native Americans and the Irish, especially if the genetic diversity in Ireland were less than that in the Americas, giving a directional arrow pointing from west to east. Something like that would be a totally unpredicted finding from a non-LDS perspective.

Potential fingerprint matches are all over the place. Tironian is just one possible example.

Later in the thread, we can discuss Tiro's likely chain of custody - and how that relates to the Germanic/Celtic evidence we're drawing from elsewhere.

[notHagoth7]

You're saying that every western language--from ancient Phoenician to French--is reformed Egyptian?

Good question.

No. I'm not talking about the language.

I'm saying that the alphabets, the characters, are re-formed Egyptian characters.

Is the distinction clear?

If not, I can post the mutation of characters from culture to culture.

[notHagoth7]

I was re-reading previous posts and then editing mine and I missed yours. I had wondered about the Yucatan. It's not by any narrow neck of land,

Many MesoAmerican advocates view the region west of the Yucatan peninsula as the narrow neck.

but there is certainly a way west and into the gulf current, which eventually weaves it's way into the north Atlantic.

Yep.

[notHagoth7]

I think you are dealing with a lot of non-diffusionists. Do you have to go back to square one, and convince these guys that there was a lot of traveling back and forth between continuents in very early times?

It might be helpful. So if someone has a link to the book about that transatlantic topic that came out earlier this year, I'd appreciate you posting it here in the thread. (I think Daniel posted some info about it two or three weeks ago.) But I probably won't be addressing much of that directly.

Instead, some of the evidence we'll be drawing from specifically claims a westward origin for some of the European peoples in question.

Which, for some of those peoples, if we accept the testimony at face value, means west of the British Isles. And, while we're at it, there's the potential issue of the "whale path" which Beowulf mentions in the context of Shield, sandwiched in between Shield's mysterious childhood arrival and funeral, both by boat. There's a good reason the context of Scyld's arrival and departure might associate the sea in generl with a whale path. Here's a chapter on westward origins of Europeans, whale migration paths, and potential implications with the Atlantic Gulf Stream. (If the text bogs down, feel free to jump forward to page 13, where the discussion of whale migrations begins.)

If what I'm saying resonates with anyone, the Nephite record is not just scripture. If you have north European roots, it is likely also your family history. (At least from Nephi through Alma 63.) If you deem the premise valid, any chapters after that would instead be about your cousins once removed...pun intended.

[notHagoth7]

Your earlier claim that essentially every form of writing in the modern western world can be designated as "Reformed Egyptian", is like claiming that all writing was derived from 60,000 year old pictographs. Both claims are true if one is willing to re-define words, but neither claim is relevant to the question at hand.

If you remove the capital R, it might seem more relevant.

You might see why after I respond to your next concern.

You have not bothered to explain how a writing system that was not even developed until the 8th century AD in the old world could have been used by populations in the New World several centuries before it was invented.

Which writing system? I haven't addressed an 8th-century-AD writing system because I don't see how any such system is relevant to the discussion. By that I mean, what is clearly relevant is when Tironian originated. At least if one is going to claim that the Anthon Characters are a Tironian match. If you look back to your earlier post of Stout's table that compares Tironian script with characters from the Anthon manuscript, one can see that Gallo-Irish miniscule isn't even on the radar of this discussion. Those Tironian characters aren't Gallo-Irish miniscule. So the only thing I see as being relevant is that the Tironian in the narrative of the Detroit manuscript derived from an Irish manuscript. The rest of the Irish writing system doesn't shed any light on the matter pro or con.

Is there a reason I need to address Irish script? If there's some cognitive gap that I'm not yet seeing, feel free to point it out and I'll gladly see what I can do to oblige.

You have also not explained the fact that there is no record of such a language being used in the New World during Book of Mormon times.

OK. Here's an initial attempt. But American specialists can probably amend/improve this in a heartbeat:

1) The Book of Mormon specifically states that their records would perish unless preserved on plates.

2) And the narratives of Mormon and Moroni suggest that those plates, gold and brass, were preserved in one place.

3) Other accounts tell us that some of their scriptures were copied and distributed - but it would likely have been executed on materials that were much less expensive, perhaps like paper, papyrus, or vellum.

4) The one exception I can think of, if I recall correctly, is an inscribed stone mentioned in the text.

5) Paper and vellum survive better in dry climates.

6) None of the proposed Nephite homelands in the Americas match that climate.

So I wouldn't expect much, if any, of their writing to survive beyond the plates themselves - which were said to be secreted away so that they wouldn't be destroyed by the Lamanites. Is that a fair response?

In fact, the best research we have tells us that the only written language in the New World during the time period covered by the Book of Mormon was the Mayan glyph language - period. These are facts, not speculation.

Actually, it is a speculation. Even if it may not seem like one at first glance.

It is a speculation to assert that the currently-known written languages are the only ones that existed.

It would be akin to scientists asserting in 1900 that the only elements that will ever populate the element table are the elements they happened to have known then. Saying that something does NOT exist is a very definite form of speculation.

This is especially relevant since, if memory serves, the earliest form of ancient American writing was only discovered in MesoAmerica as recently as a few months ago. And it surprised people that such a thing was discovered. Life is funny that way.

[charity]

Instead, some of the evidence we'll be drawing from specifically claims a westward origin for some of the European peoples in question.If what I'm saying resonates with anyone, the Nephite record is not just scripture. If you have north European roots, it is likely also your family history. (At least from Nephi through Alma 63.) If you deem the premise valid, any chapters after that would instead be about your cousins once removed...pun intended.

I would wonder, however, given the evidence of lineages declared by patriarchs. Most of the British Saints have been declared to be of the tribe of Ephraim. That would say to me that the origin of the British Islanders comes from the lost tribes, and not from an eastward migration of people who descended from Mannasseh. But of course, we know only that Lehi was a descendant of Mannasseh, not what tribes Sariah, Zoram, Ishmael and his wife were from.

[notHagoth7]

You're saying that every western language--from ancient Phoenician to French--is reformed Egyptian? That seems to trivialize the point that the Book of Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian, emasculating it to a vapid assertion, "At least we're pretty sure it wasn't Korean."

Gary,

As I think about it more, the Nephite text referring to their characters as reformed Egyptian (instead of Hebrew) actually tells us quite a bit.

It tells us we might expect their characters to look more like re-formed Egyptian than re-formed cuneiform. That's an extremely sizeable clue.

So the more I think about it, it's not vapid at all. It's very relevant, both to what their writing system looked like, AND what it accomplished (compressing space).

In other words, regarding their writing system, that passage is QUITE relevatory, as is the phrase "re-formed Egyptian":

1) We should NOT expect it to resemble a derivative of Hebrew cuneiform (even though at least some of them understood a form of Hebrew)

2) We SHOULD expect it to resemble re-formed Egyptian characters, and there are comparisons out on the web comparing the Anthon characters favorably to demotic, if I recall correctly.

3) We should expect it to function similar to shorthand.

Tironian fits the bill nicely. It compares favorably to demotic. Unfavorably to cuneiform. And it's a form of shorthand.

The problem is when skeptics create a straw man and claim "reformed Egyptian" is some kind of language. It's not. It's a form of writing. (Even though the Nephite record does say that at least Nephi used the language of the Egyptians in creating his account.)

And demotic is believed to have emerged around 650 BC - so as contemporary as that is to Nephite's record, it makes sense why Nephites might refer to such writing as reformed or reformulated Egyptian. That's precisely what demotic was.

And in hindsight, for the sake of discussion, I will concede that calling modern Western scripts re-formed Egyptian is not the best argument - and I'm willing to discard it. Will that help us move forward?

(I'd prefer to focus on testimony from Europe.)

[notHagoth7]

I would wonder, however, given the evidence of lineages declared by patriarchs. Most of the British Saints have been declared to be of the tribe of Ephraim. That would say to me that the origin of the British Islanders comes from the lost tribes, and not from an eastward migration of people who descended from Mannasseh. But of course, we know only that Lehi was a descendant of Mannasseh, not what tribes Sariah, Zoram, Ishmael and his wife were from.

Good point. The question is also whether some of those blessings represent physical lineages, or adopted lineages.

I wouldn't imagine a person of pure Australian aboriginal stock to be a literal descendant of Abraham. But I would expect a convert from such a background to be aligned spiritually with the blessings of Israel. Which is what the New Testament makes clear - the doctrine of adoption is as real as literal descent. So being of Ephraim (or Judah, or Simeon) might imply a few things - but doesn't necessarily mean that Ephraim is one's paternal forefather. Most of us are mutts anyway. When it comes to pets, I've always preferred mutts to purebreeds. Insisting on owning the latter, for some reason, always seemed bordering on snooty to me. (If someone wants to spark a pet war, please launch a separate thread.) But I do currently have a chow - if that mends bridges some.

Also, to resolve the other half of your concern, some of the Semitic data attests to Semitic language influence in Europe prior to a few key phonetic shifts in northern Indo-European languages. If accurate, those assessments suggest there has been more than one influx of Semitic peoples into northern Europe - which has implications for the issue of scattering and gathering. (But we might get to some of that later, when we examine some of the linguistic testimony.)

[Gary@rics]

<snip. Potential fingerprint matches are all over the place. Tironian is just one possible example.

Later in the thread, we can discuss Tiro's likely chain of custody - and how that relates to the Germanic/Celtic evidence we're drawing from elsewhere.

I don't know that there's a need to belabor Tiro. I think it's actually irrelevant to your hypothesis. You are NOT saying (I think) that the plates of Laban were ever written in this character form. So the date of the first so-called Tironian characters doesn't matter. Rather, you postulate that the reformed (and presumably shorthand) Egyptian used by the Nephites was eventually carried to Ireland via Nephites. Which direction are you suggesting? Nephites to the Irish, or from the Irish to the Nephites?

According to Alma, Hagoth built several large ships. They travelled to the land north, although we're positing that possibly the voyagers merely followed the shores of the land north (e.g., North America) and ended instead in Ireland. According to Alma, the first ship returned the very next year. After it left the promised land a second time, it and the passengers were never heard from again.

You've been kind of cagey about your exact explanation, so I'm forging ahead based on what I can surmise. In your view, the narrow strip of land refers to the narrowest part of Mexico, the 140-mile waist just west of the Yucatan. According to the Book of Mormon, it should lead to the land north, which it certainly does. The group of Nephites departed the Yucatan, followed the gulf current to Ireland, and mingled with the people there.

Help me: do you think the Nephites acquired the characters while in Ireland? Or did they impart their own form of writing to the Irish? Either way, it would explain how some Book of Mormon characters bore a resemblance to this rare Irish script. The return trip of Hagoth's first boat (from the Book of Mormon) probably added an opportunity for bidirectional cultural exhanges between two continents. There might be some artifacts connecting the two, but only in the Yucatan and Ireland. I wonder if that also provided an explanation for there being a mention of horses in the Book of Mormon. Did Hagoth's first ship bring some from Europe when it returned? There would have been only a few horses, of course, which is why they left no pre-Columbian equine fossils.

Finally, there is a tantalizing non-causal connection between Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Irish culture. While it would not have played a role in explaining the similarities of the two character sets, there is a hint of some grander link. At least, that's what I thought I read in an earlier post of yours.

Am I at least on the right page of the playbook? If so, I want to hear about the European Nephites. I have never heard of that before. What's the scoop?

Gary@rics

Edit: Simultaneous posting!

[charity]

Good point. The question is also whether some of those blessing represent physical lineages, or adopted lineages.

I wouldn't imagine a person of pure Australian aboriginal stock to be a literal descendant of Abraham. But I would expect a convert from such a background to be aligned spiritually with the blessings of Israel. Which is what the New Testament makes clear - the doctrine of adoption is as real as literal descent. So being of Ephraim (or Judah, or Simeon) might imply a few things - but doesn't necessarily mean that Ephraim is one's paternal forefather. Most of us are mutts anyway.

I agree totally with the mutt theory. Or as my parents said, we were Heinz. You know 57 varieties. In fact I know of a family in my ward. The father is Jewish, and of his 5 children, 4 are declared to be of Ephraim and one of Judah. Another family I know, all are Ephraim, except one from the tribe of Dan. And please, no aspersions on the character of the mothers!

[ERayR]

Perhaps you are not aware of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because you do not conisder it when presented to you. We know that Stephen Mack was interested in the Irish Catholic MS in question and may well have shared his interest and the script with Joseph Smith.

However, it really does not matter where Joseph Smith got the 17th century script. The fact is that it was available to Joseph Smith in terms of time and place.

What you seem to be forgetting is the the script that Joseph Smith claimed was "Reformed' Egyptian (no matter where he got it), was not "Reformed Egyptian", or any type of Egyptian or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language or script. This means that Joseph Smith was, in fact, lying when he said that it was "Reformed Egyptian".

And in believing his story, you are choosing to believe what has been documented as a lie. That is not faith, and it is certainly not "knowledge". It is magical thinking.

I agree that it would be better to return to the thread topic. However, your insistent expressions of unfounded belief need to be addressed for what they are.

And you are a certified expert in Reformed Egyptian? Parden me but you are the one enamoured with proper degrees attached to your name so please produce.

[Arc]

If you remove the capital R, it might seem more relevant.

You might see why after I respond to your next concern.

Which writing system? I haven't addressed an 8th-century-AD writing system because I don't see how any such system is relevant to the discussion. By that I mean, what is clearly relevant is when Tironian originated. At least if one is going to claim that the Anthon Characters are a Tironian match. If you look back to your earlier post of Stout's table that compares Tironian script with characters from the Anthon manuscript, one can see that Gallo-Irish miniscule isn't even on the radar of this discussion. Those Tironian characters aren't Gallo-Irish miniscule. So the only thing I see as being relevant is that the Tironian in the narrative of the Detroit manuscript derived from an Irish manuscript. The rest of the Irish writing system doesn't shed any light on the matter pro or con.

Is there a reason I need to address Irish script? If there's some cognitive gap that I'm not yet seeing, feel free to point it out and I'll gladly see what I can do to oblige.

OK. Here's an initial attempt. But American specialists can probably amend/improve this in a heartbeat:

1) The Book of Mormon specifically states that their records would perish unless preserved on plates.

2) And the narratives of Mormon and Moroni suggest that those plates, gold and brass, were preserved in one place.

3) Other accounts tell us that some of their scriptures were copied and distributed - but it would likely have been executed on materials that were much less expensive, perhaps like paper, papyrus, or vellum.

4) The one exception I can think of, if I recall correctly, is an inscribed stone mentioned in the text.

5) Paper and vellum survive better in dry climates.

6) None of the proposed Nephite homelands in the Americas match that climate.

So I wouldn't expect much, if any, of their writing to survive beyond the plates themselves - which were said to be secreted away so that they wouldn't be destroyed by the Lamanites. Is that a fair response?

Actually, it is a speculation. Even if it may not seem like one at first glance.

It is a speculation to assert that the currently-known written languages are the only ones that existed.

It would be akin to scientists asserting in 1900 that the only elements that will ever populate the element table are the elements they happened to have known then. Saying that something does NOT exist is a very definite form of speculation.

This is especially relevant since, if memory serves, the earliest form of ancient American writing was only discovered in MesoAmerica as recently as a few months ago. And it surprised people that such a thing was discovered. Life is funny that way.

Since the Anthon Transcript is comprised of a mix of Tironian note, Gaelic Miniscule and Ogham code characters used specifically in Ireland between approximately the 8th and 17th centuries, both the Gaelic miniscule and Ogham code component are as much a part of the discussion as are the Tironian note characters. As a group, they help establish the provenance and source of the Anthon Transcript characters.

With regard to written records surviving in the climates found in Mesoamerica, there are a number of codices, wall murals, and Mayan glyph renderings on wood and stone that survived quite nicely. The only record we have of "reformed Egyptian" is on a scrap of paper of questionable provenance from 19th century New York.

You need account for the fact that the Olmec, Mayan and Toltec civilizations completely span the Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica and especially in the Yucatan. Not only do their written records say nothing about the Nephites or Lamanites or Hagoth, they are fairly clear as to what was happening in the Yucatan during Book of Mormon times. I can provide more details if you wish.

There is no evidence whatsoever for "exceedingly large ships' or open ocean marine technology of any kind in the Yucatan during that time period. I can also provide more information about why this is the case.

[notHagoth7]

I don't know that there's a need to belabor Tiro. I think it's actually irrelevant to your hypothesis.

It is relevant to Arc's assertion that resemblances to Tironian somehow proves Joseph a fraud.

When, in historical context, it suggests quite the opposite.

This thread is a spinoff of Arc's reference to Tironian. So to maintain continuity, I'll likely refer back to Tiro later.

You are NOT saying (I think) that the plates of Laban were ever written in this character form. So the date of the first so-called Tironian characters doesn't matter.

It only matters to those who claim that the Detroit manuscript somehow disproves the Book of Mormon. And to those who might be harmed by the claim that the Detroit manuscript is somehow Joseph's kryptonite.

Rather, you postulate that the reformed (and presumably shorthand) Egyptian used by the Nephites was eventually carried to Ireland via Nephites.

Not exactly. I'm not insisting that Tironian is a derivative of Nephite writing. But I AM saying that IF someone is going to posit a correlation between Tironian and the Anthon Manuscript, to be honest, one has to at least address the evidence that the young slave Tiro may have been Nephite. Which requires us to get back to Tiro later to address his likely chain of custody.

Which direction are you suggesting? Nephites to the Irish, or from the Irish to the Nephites?

I've never considered the latter option. Although the Nephites do mention extensive trade via shipping.

Since the Nephites had a long clerical/literary background, I would favor a Nephite to Roman/Irish route of transmission.

So while it is possible that trading contact with other cultures could conceivably have spread demotic the other direction, based on the first verses in the Nephite record, I suspect that Nephi brough demotic with him to the New World.

You've been kind of cagey about your exact explanation

? It's more a matter of instructional design. The idea is to disclose/discuss things in a helpful, appropriate sequence, to help make coherent sense. Putting the cart before the horse and addressing some things without laying a proper foundation can lead to cognitive dissonance (or worse). Does that provide a better context for the perceived "cagey-ness"?

In your view, the narrow strip of land refers to the narrowest part of Mexico, the 140-mile waist just west of the Yucatan.

Only if one insists that Bountiful/Zarahemla is in that region.

I don't pretend to know where it is - so I don't advocate any one specific region over another for Bountiful/Zarahemla.

I do have reason to believe, however, that the European connection suggested in this thread may one day help triangulate.

According to the Book of Mormon, it should lead to the land north, which it certainly does.

Depending on how one reads the text, it also says that the ocean itself is what leads to the land northward.

I'm of the opinion that "land northward" encompasses both Europe and portions of the New World.

The group of Nephites departed..., followed the gulf current to Ireland, and mingled with the people there.

Yes. Among other places.

Help me: do you think the Nephites acquired the characters while in Ireland? Or did they impart their own form of writing to the Irish? Either way, it would explain how some Book of Mormon characters bore a resemblance to this rare Irish script.

Keep in mind that Tironian is not of Irish origin. It was first introduced by Tiro at Rome, somewhere roughly around 50 BC. It spread from Rome to Ireland. The question is, where did Tiro get it? And I've simply posited that Tiro was a Nephite. I'll share the basis for that assertion later.

The return trip of Hagoth's first boat (from the Book of Mormon) probably added an opportunity for bidirectional cultural exhanges between two continents.

I'm not insisting that first voyage made it that far. Could be. We don't know. In the fictional story my wife and I wrote, basing it on what the Saints did in their expansion westward, I depicted the first voyage only taking them northward into the Americas to establish a base colony. And that it was the second (vanished) voyage which leveraged that base colony as a springboard to Europe, never to return. So one can attempt to reconstruct whether it was the first or the second voyage (or both) which made it to Europe. But we simply don't know. I will present evidence elsewhere from Europe which depicts a Hagoth arriving in Europe. IF accurate, that would mean that the second journey made it to Europe, since Alma 63 suggests he stayed behind to build more boats during the first voyage.

There might be some artifacts connecting the two, but only in the Yucatan and Ireland.

I agree that comparing artifacts might help triangulate. In fact I'd be surprised if the next generation or two doesn't have a general idea of where the heart of Nephite civilization was.

But I'm not advocating (or negating) MesoAmerica. Since Bountiful/Zarahemla could have been somewhere else in the Americas.

And our scope of exploration can extend beyond Ireland - since most of the evidence I've come across comes from other areas of northern Europe.

For example, Beowulf was written in England, but refers to events in Scandinavia and the Lowlands.

And Shield is remembered in England and Scandinavia, but is said to have lived in northern Germany and Denmark.

So Ireland is just one of the "isles of the sea" worth noting.

I wonder if that also provided an explanation for there being a mention of horses in the Book of Mormon. Did Hagoth's first ship bring some from Europe when it returned? There would have been only a few horses, of course, which is why they left no pre-Columbian equine fossils.

The Nephite record mentions horses several times, most of them long before Hagoth. So he can't account for Nephite horses.

Finally, there is a tantalizing non-causal connection between Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Irish culture. While it would not have played a role in explaining the similarities of the two character sets, there is a hint of some grander link. At least, that's what I thought I read in an earlier post of yours.

Yes. Seership. The gift of prophecy. The gift of healing. Such things are integrated within insular Celtic culture (the British Isles).

Am I at least on the right page of the playbook? If so, I want to hear about the European Nephites.

Yes. I've linked to several web-hosted chapters in previous posts. And I intend to do likewise with other content we're moving towards. I'd suggest finding those previous links and reviewing those chapters. To negate the need for hunting, I've pulled all three links together in this post.

[Arc]

And you are a certified expert in Reformed Egyptian? Parden me but you are the one enamoured with proper degrees attached to your name so please produce.

You are asking the question as if "reformed Egyptian", as being discussed here, were more than a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination.

I see a great deal of evidence that it was a figment of his imagination and, so far anyway, no evidence whatsoever that it was not.

[notHagoth7]

You need account for the fact that the Olmec, Mayan and Toltec civilizations completely span the Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica and especially in the Yucatan.

Need to? That would only be true if I'm advocating Mesoamerica for Bountiful/Zarahemla.

But I'm not. As the chapter I linked to about Nephite geography should make clear.

So I'll gladly leave that task of defending Olmec/Mayan/Toltec issues to the Mesoamerican advocates.

I can provide more details if you wish.

Feel free to create a thread to discuss it.

It's a topic that will garner good feedback from Mesoamerican advocates.

There is no evidence whatsoever for "exceedingly large ships' or open ocean marine technology of any kind in the Yucatan during that time period.

Again, the Yucatan argument isn't something I have need to throw my shoulder behind. Because others are pushing that one as they see fit.

Regardless of the size of ships one refers to, there was considerable transatlantic contact between the Old and New worlds. Again, let's not get caught up with the Yucatan. I'm currently Zarahemla-agnostic.

I can also provide more information about why this is the case.

If it negates the building of "exceedingly large ships" from the Yucatan, it's clearly a tangent topic, but I'd genuinely like to hear your argument on that - either here or in a separate thread.

[notHagoth7]

Since the Anthon Transcript is comprised of a mix of Tironian note, Gaelic Miniscule and Ogham code characters used specifically in Ireland between approximately the 8th and 17th centuries, both the Gaelic miniscule and Ogham code component are as much a part of the discussion as are the Tironian note characters. As a group, they help establish the provenance and source of the Anthon Transcript characters.

Claims to other European scripts being in the Anthon Manuscript offer no more of an issue than Tironian.

I'm demonstrating the viability of the premise for a Nephite infusion into northern Europe.

Since those other scripts also derive from (or through) northern Europe, one would have to establish two convincing arguments:

1) That the apparent similarities between the various scripts are more than coincidental

2) AND that the use of such scripts somehow HAS to be mono-directional (that the use of those scripts in northern Europe could NOT be due to Nephite migration(s)).

Feel free to have a go at it.

If either of those two elements can not be reasonably established, the entire Detroit manuscript premise loses whatever steam it might otherwise have had to discredit Joseph - and instead serves as helpful leverage to vindicate him. But stoke that fire as much as you'd like. I'm willing to hear you out.

With regard to written records surviving in the climates found in Mesoamerica, there are a number of codices, wall murals, and Mayan glyph renderings on wood and stone that survived quite nicely.

Acknowledged. That once again proves how little time I spend reading and thinking about Mesoamerica. I stand corrected.

The only record we have of "reformed Egyptian" is on a scrap of paper of questionable provenance from 19th century New York.

There's actually a bit more than that. I recall there being an advertisement or handbill from the 1830's or 40's that has seen some reproduction in recent years. And if "reformed Egyptian" is an earlier form of Tironian, there are thousands of such characters available...in Europe.