One possible way of dealing with "anachronisms", Mormon and/or Moroni just messed up.

[Olavarria]

Mormon 8:17

17)And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mormon 9:31,33

31)Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

33)And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Mormon was writing long after the whole Ammon, Lamoni and the chariots thing occured. Maybe, the appreance of the chariot+horse combo was a product of Mormon's own error?

[Mortal Man]

Mormon was writing long after the whole Ammon, Lamoni and the chariots thing occured. Maybe, the appreance of the chariot+horse combo was a product of Mormon's own error?

Are you saying that Mormon had more horses and chariots than Lamoni?

[volgadon]

Mormon 8:17

17)And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mormon 9:31,33

31)Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

33)And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Mormon was writing long after the whole Ammon, Lamoni and the chariots thing occured. Maybe, the appreance of the chariot+horse combo was a product of Mormon's own error?

Or it served a didactic purpose.

[lostindc]

Or it is a book full of divinely inspired stories that are not necessarily history

[Doug the Hutt]

Or it is a book of inspirational (not necessarily divinely-inspired) stories with no real ties to a real history whose purpose is to encourage placing Christ (you know, the real Jesus Christ of the New Testament) central in our lives. The activities that occurred after its development were the results of a pauper and his superstitious constituents just trying to pull themselves out of a pit of total socioeconomic insignificance (can't say I blame them for having motivation to change their circumstances).

[thesometimesaint]

Or it is just the limitations of JS vocabulary, or that the supposed anachronisms will resolve themselves with time, or a hundred differing ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with the truth claims of the BoM.

[cinepro]

Mormon was writing long after the whole Ammon, Lamoni and the chariots thing occured. Maybe, the appreance of the chariot+horse combo was a product of Mormon's own error?

So we have an accurate translation of the event as it was recorded ~AD 400 , instead of as it was recorded ~90 BC?

Or it is just the limitations of JS vocabulary, ...

The words "Curelom" and "Cumom" (and indeed all the proper nouns) would seem to indicate the translation process was not limited to Joseph Smith's vocabulary.

[cdowis]

Mormon was writing long after the whole Ammon, Lamoni and the chariots thing occured. Maybe, the appreance of the chariot+horse combo was a product of Mormon's own error?

Please enlighten us. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Are you saying that Mormon has chariots and Lamonai did not? Or..... what???

[USU78]

Please enlighten us. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Are you saying that Mormon has chariots and Lamonai did not? Or..... what???

It has been proposed, as hinted at by volga, above, that whoever wrote the story of Ammon and the chariots/horses did so in order to make a rhetorical point about Ammon's royalty: Both Joseph and Joseph's sons are reported as engaging in royal behavior that takes the form of taking care of horses and chariots. Ammon is reported as doing the same thing, acting royally while making ritual submission to somebody else.

Joseph prepares his own chariot and horses (rather than having a slave do it) in order to meet his father upon the latter's decent into Egypt after the "divining cup" incident, paralleling Jacob's own royal submissiveness to Esau all those years earlier. He then sends gifts of horses to Jacob with his sons, just as Jacob had sent gifts to Esau. In doing so, both Joseph and Jacob established a pattern of humble royals.

Ammon does the same thing: he royally humiliates himself in serving the Lamanite king by taking care of his chariot and horses . . . and by sending gifts to the same: the severed arms. Doesn't matter whether there were actual chariots and horses . . . whoever wrote the story down created an intentional parallel to both Joseph and Jacob's acts centuries earlier.

Thus either through foul-up or intentional parallel-building or both, Mormon or Alma or somebody else [court scribe?] wrote a stylized tale intended to make the rhetorical point of proper behavior by the royally submissive Ammon when dealing with the bad guy Lamanites, serving the larger purpose of teaching the lesson of how the Nephite nation might have been saved: through royal submissiveness.

Or something.

[Darth J]

Mormon 8:17

17)And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mormon 9:31,33

31)Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

33)And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Mormon was writing long after the whole Ammon, Lamoni and the chariots thing occured. Maybe, the appreance of the chariot+horse combo was a product of Mormon's own error?

How would Mormon have erroneously put something into the story that he wouldn't have known existed, since wheeled chariots pulled by horses did not exist in the pre-Columbian western hemisphere?

Similarly, since the book of Ether is an abridgment by Moroni, and the book of Ether mentions elephants, how would Moroni have known what an elephant was (if we impute another apparent anachronism to an ancient writer)?

[Darth J]

Or it is a book of inspirational (not necessarily divinely-inspired) stories with no real ties to a real history whose purpose is to encourage placing Christ (you know, the real Jesus Christ of the New Testament) central in our lives. The activities that occurred after its development were the results of a pauper and his superstitious constituents just trying to pull themselves out of a pit of total socioeconomic insignificance (can't say I blame them for having motivation to change their circumstances).

Yes, because if there's one book in which we can have complete faith in its historical accuracy, it's the Bible.

Or is the New Testament a book of inspirational (not necessarily divinely-inspired) stories with no real tie to a real history whose purpose is to encourage placing Christ (you know, the Jesus Christ of the New Testament for whom absolutely no independent historical evidence has been found that he ever even existed) central to our lives. The activities that occurred after its development were the results of a group of Jewish fishermen and a neurotic former Pharisee and their superstitious constituents just trying to pull themselves out of a pit of total socioeconomic insignificance (can't say that I blame them for having motivation to change their circumstances when they were supposed to be God's chosen people but had been conquered by the Romans).

I mean, if you want to open that door, let's go all the way in.

[Nathair/|\]

How would Mormon have erroneously put something into the story that he wouldn't have known existed, since wheeled chariots pulled by horses did not exist in the pre-Columbian western hemisphere?

Similarly, since the book of Ether is an abridgment by Moroni, and the book of Ether mentions elephants, how would Moroni have known what an elephant was (if we impute another apparent anachronism to an ancient writer)?

Why wouldn't it be entirely reasonable to describe a travois or something similar as a chariot and a mammoth as an elephant?

[cdowis]

How would Mormon have erroneously put something into the story that he wouldn't have known existed, since wheeled chariots pulled by horses did not exist in the pre-Columbian western hemisphere?

You speak with a certainty. Please help those poor sods who think wheeled chariots were possible at that time.

Similarly, since the book of Ether is an abridgment by Moroni, and the book of Ether mentions elephants, how would Moroni have known what an elephant was (if we impute another apparent anachronism to an ancient writer)?

You are unaware that there were elephants (wooly mammoths) in mesoamerica? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Mammoth

Anachronisms can be a tricky thing. An example is the Baghdad battery, predating the modern battery by more than a millenium.

[Darth J]

Why wouldn't it be entirely reasonable to describe a travois or something similar as a chariot and a mammoth as an elephant?

That isn't the issue. Neither is the historicity of The Book of Mormon. The issue is what the OP is asking.

The OP to me seems to be assuming that a "chariot" means a "chariot" and that it was Mormon around 400 A.D. or so who made the mistake, not Joseph Smith.

And the mammoth/elephant thing isn't the question, since they look almost exactly the same and I don't think that if there were any mammoths in ancient history (as opposed to ancient pre-history), ancient people probably would not have distinguished between the two (e.g., the Old Testament says whales are fish and bats are birds).

The question is that, even if you assume that there were mammoths or mastodons around when the Jaredites were around, how would Mormon or Moroni have known what an "elephant" was since neither of them would have ever seen one?

[Darth J]

cdowis:

How would Mormon have erroneously put something into the story that he wouldn't have known existed, since wheeled chariots pulled by horses did not exist in the pre-Columbian western hemisphere?

You speak with a certainty. Please help those poor sods who think wheeled chariots were possible at that time.

Similarly, since the book of Ether is an abridgment by Moroni, and the book of Ether mentions elephants, how would Moroni have known what an elephant was (if we impute another apparent anachronism to an ancient writer)?

You are unaware that there were elephants (wooly mammoths) in mesoamerica? http://en.wikipedia....lumbian_Mammoth

Anachronisms can be a tricky thing. An example is the Baghdad battery, predating the modern battery by more than a millenium.

The OP assumes that "chariots" really meant "chariots." So I am responding to the OP.

But if you have found a pre-Columbian wheeled chariot pulled by horses in the Americas, please let the rest of the world know.

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

http://www.fallacyfi...g/ignorant.html

As for your mammoth idea, from the Wikipedia article you cited:

The Columbian Mammoth was one of the last members of the American megafauna to go extinct, with the date of disappearance generally set at approximately 12,500 years ago.^[1] However, several specimens have been dated to 9,000 years ago or less and one near Nashville, Tennessee was reliably dated to only about 7,800 years ago.

So it's only outside The Book of Mormon timeline by several thousand years. This doesn't really help explain how Moroni would have known what an "elephant" was.

Edit: The Baghdad battery----is there a religious work somewhere that talked about batteries in the ancient Middle East, was dismissed as an anachronism, and later vindicated by the discovery of the Baghdad battery? Because if there is, then it might be relevant to the OP. But you haven't demonstrated that relevancy yet.

[Doug the Hutt]

Yes, because if there's one book in which we can have complete faith in its historical accuracy, it's the Bible.

Or is the New Testament a book of inspirational (not necessarily divinely-inspired) stories with no real tie to a real history whose purpose is to encourage placing Christ (you know, the Jesus Christ of the New Testament for whom absolutely no independent historical evidence has been found that he ever even existed) central to our lives. The activities that occurred after its development were the results of a group of Jewish fishermen and a neurotic former Pharisee and their superstitious constituents just trying to pull themselves out of a pit of total socioeconomic insignificance (can't say that I blame them for having motivation to change their circumstances when they were supposed to be God's chosen people but had been conquered by the Romans).

I mean, if you want to open that door, let's go all the way in.

Darth J, you may very well be correct. The Bible may very well be 100% fables, tales, campfire stories that evolved into wonderful fiction over generations. There's a whole litany of things I can confidently state that I do not believe ever occurred -- Adam, Eve, a talking snake, Noah and his 2-or-7-of-every-kind-of-critter-in-the-world, Enoch, people turning to salt, languages being poofed into existence by God Himself just because He can't stand people building tall structures (makes you wonder how many languages He'll poof for us once He notices the Dubai Tower)....or Jehova killing the ark-steadier but doing nothing to a 'giant' Philistine who pwned the Israelites & stole their little trophy, or Golem biting off Frodo's fingers to obtain 'the Precious', or just about a million other stories. I've pretty much written off the Old Testament as being a collection of fictional stories that somehow became the means for religions to deliver their messages. Sometimes I stare at the Jesus the Messiah one -- did Jesus *really* exist? Did "Holy Ghost" really come down and get Mary pregnant? Did Jesus really not get beaten severely and grounded for a year for running off to some strange temple without telling his parents? I don't really know. I used to be >999.99999% certain that everything the Church told me was just as good as money in the bank. Then I found out that they'd been using $3 bills for an awful long time. At the very least we can pinpoint Jerusalem on a map (Zarahelma? Zarahemla? Anyone? *cough*)(

), and we find remains of people known as "Romans" as mentioned in the Bible, though we find no "Jaredite" or "Lehite" remains...or giant mounds of people from a huge freakin' battle in upstate New York, though we find remains of animals like glyptodonts dating back tens of thousands of years... I guess the only thing I hang onto is *hope* that the NT Jesus is real, but I fully admit that he too may be just wishful thinking, or perhaps an icon to rally behind like the Greek heros, but for a more mundane cause such as imperialistic ransacking of so-called 'holy lands'. And if he isn't real I can still accept some of my favorite teachings like that 'do unto others' bit, and the various parables focusing on being prepared, and the stories of redemption, and the ability to fly -- love that one. Actually I feel quite peaceful about accepting it all as fiction intended to inspire people to be better than they would if left to their own anarchic devices. Or on a darker note, I can also see religion as Morpheus described -- just another way to control us.

Just my .000002 cents.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

The OP assumes that "chariots" really meant "chariots." So I am responding to the OP.

I have challenged the OP on his assumptions.

But if you have found a pre-Columbian wheeled chariot pulled by horses in the Americas, please let the rest of the world know.

YOU are the one making the statement that it is an anachronism. You have placed the burden upon yourself to prove your assertion. I merely called your bluff.

As for your mammoth idea, from the Wikipedia article you cited:

Please give us the dating for the Jaredites. This mammoth was in 5800BC (are you certain this was not during the Jaredites????), but, again, YOU have the burden to prove this is an anachronism. YOU make the assertion and YOU have the burden.

BTW, "Not found, not exist" does not prove anything. I realize this is very annoying, but you made the assertion, dear chap.

So it's only outside The Book of Mormon timeline by several thousand years. This doesn't really help explain how Moroni would have known what an "elephant" was.

You continue to make assertions. Your opinion is not proof, the consensus of the scientific community is not proof, "not found, not exist" flawed logic is not proof, your continued repetition of the assertion is not proof.

Edit: The Baghdad battery----is there a religious work somewhere that talked about batteries in the ancient Middle East, was dismissed as an anachronism, and later vindicated by the discovery of the Baghdad battery? Because if there is, then it might be relevant to the OP. But you haven't demonstrated that relevancy yet.

The Bagdad battery shows that opinions can change with a new discovery. I quote myself, "Anachronisms are a tricky issue." Just a simple discovery of the mammoth remains of a recent (1000BCE) time period can change what you claim to be an anachronism.

Just one discovery.... You must think we are fools to have made such a silly assertion with such absolute certitude.

And now you are arguing with me.

Amazing.........Give us your proof, please. You made the assertion, you are arguing your point, give us your proof beyond opinions, assertions, and "not found, not exist".

[Darth J]

cdowis:

The OP assumes that "chariots" really meant "chariots." So I am responding to the OP.

I have challenged the OP on his assumptions.

But if you have found a pre-Columbian wheeled chariot pulled by horses in the Americas, please let the rest of the world know.

YOU are the one making the statement that it is an anachronism. You have placed the burden upon yourself to prove your assertion. I merely called your bluff.

As for your mammoth idea, from the Wikipedia article you cited:

Please give us the dating for the Jaredites. This mammoth was in 5800BC (are you certain this was not during teh Jaredites????), but, again, YOU have the burden to prove this is an anachronism. YOU make the assertion and YOU have the burden.

BTW, "Not found, not exist" does not prove anything. I realize this is very annoying, but you made the assertion, dear chap.

So it's only outside The Book of Mormon timeline by several thousand years. This doesn't really help explain how Moroni would have known what an "elephant" was.

You continue to make assertions. Your opinion is not proof, the opinions is not proof, "not found, not exist"is not proof, your continued repetition of the assertion is not proof.

We are not fools.

Edit: The Baghdad battery----is there a religious work somewhere that talked about batteries in the ancient Middle East, was dismissed as an anachronism, and later vindicated by the discovery of the Baghdad battery? Because if there is, then it might be relevant to the OP. But you haven't demonstrated that relevancy yet.

Give us proof, please. Not opinions, not continued assertions, not "not found, not exist" flawed logic, give us proof of your assertions.

The pre-Columbian people of the Western world had lightsabers, just like Star Wars. And robots. Dinosaurs were also still alive when the Mayans built their civilization. Just because nobody has found evidence of these things doesn't mean they didn't exist. And since nobody can prove that they didn't exist, you can't make the assertion that the Aztecs didn't have lightsabers because you can't prove that they didn't. That's how burden of proof works, you know.

Unless that isn't how it works.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

2. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
3. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
   ......

Examples of Burden of Proof

2. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
   Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
   Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
3. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
   Jill: "What is your proof?"
   Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
4. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

http://www.nizkor.or...n-of-proof.html

Your Wikipedia mammoth article DOES NOT SAY 5800 years ago. It says 7800 years ago. John L. Sorenson at the Maxwell Institute thinks that the Jaredites were around

"from perhaps 3250 to 2800 B.C. On the other hand the final date seems to be on firmer ground, but conceivably it could be stretched as late as 400 B.C." http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=28

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says, "The Jaredite origin in the Old World probably dates to the third Millennium B.C., which due to the scarcity of historical material presents obstacles to the use of comparative literature or archaeology." http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Jaredites

The Church News says, "The Jaredite story begins in the Middle East at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people at the tower of Babel (about 2200 B.C.) and before they were scattered throughout the world." http://www.ldschurch...a-new-land.html

EDIT:

Hint:

"The Nephites and Lamanites did not have Old World-style chariots" does not equal "The Nephites and Lamanites did not exist."

"Mammoths and mastodons were extinct long before the Jaredites" does not equal "The Jaredites did not exist."

SECOND EDIT:

The issue also is not how did the Jaredites know what an elephant was. The issue is how did Moroni know what an elephant was? (Joseph Smith was translating Moroni's abridgment of Ether's writings.)

[Darth J]

Following up on what I said before:

If Mormon made a mistake---there were no chariots in Book of Mormon lands but he put it in there anyway---begs the question of how Mormon knew what a chariot was..........

Then I think the "how did they know what an elephant was?" is a similar question.

The only time elephants are mentioned is when Moroni is summarizing the Jaredite history.

BUT, Moroni also talks about the Jaredites having curelom and cumoms (Ether 9:19).

So here's how this appears to have gone:

Ether writes Jaredite history........or possibly one or more people write Jaredite history and Ether compiles and finishes it, like Moroni did for the Nephites.

Then Moroni is prophetically able to interpret the book of Ether and put it into The Book of Mormon.

Then Joseph Smith prophetically translates what Moroni wrote.

So Joseph Smith is translating what MORONI wrote, not what Ether wrote (I know that's stating the obvious).

And so these are the questions that we can't really answer:

Was it Joseph Smith who didn't know what cureloms and cumoms were, or was it Moroni who didn't know what they were?

• Cureloms & Cumoms

These strange animals are mentioned only once in the Book of Mormon (Ether 9:19) and are listed with other useful animals including the elephant. Although we have no idea as to what these animals were, there are a few interesting theories. First of all, it seems that these terms are Jaredite words. It is entirely possible that Moroni did not know what these animals were, so he merely translated them according to their Jaredite names. It is also possible that there is no English equivalent so Joseph Smith merely transcribed the Jaredite names. As noted by Dr. Sorenson, the book of Ether suggests that these animals were more

[cdowis]

snip

Your Wikipedia mammoth article DOES NOT SAY 5800 years ago. It says 7800 years ago.

Do the math. 7800 years ago is 5800BCE. You are definitely not smarter than a fifth grader.

John L. Sorenson at the Maxwell Institute thinks that the Jaredites were around

"from perhaps 3250 to 2800 B.C. On the other hand the final date seems to be on firmer ground, but conceivably it could be stretched as late as 400 B.C." http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=28

Perhaps he is right, or perhaps he is mistaken.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says, "The Jaredite origin in the Old World probably dates to the third Millennium B.C., which due to the scarcity of historical material presents obstacles to the use of comparative literature or archaeology." http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Jaredites

The BOM does not tell us the dates, but if Sorenson and the EOM says it, it must be true.

Remember that they are using "Bible chronology", from the date of the Tower of Babel, and not "science chronology". These two chronologies do not match up, considering that science chronology indicates that there were inhabitants living in America prior to Adam.

If you are going to give us dates from science, and then dates from the BOM, you then have to synchronize those dates. Or you can simply say that the Bible, BOM, and all other scriptures are false, there is no God, and end of discussion.

If you say, "People were living in America 10,000 years ago, then there were no Nephites, no Jaredites, no BOM plates, no Moroni, etc." That would be a logical conclusion, and we can simply shut down not only this thread, but the whole discussion board.

This discussion, this forum, is based on Bible chronology, and if you cannot accept that, there is no common ground for continued discussion. You cannot blithely mix the two without address the underlying issue that they are not compatible. In this particular case, we see a date of 5800BCE in science, and 3000BCE in the BOM, both of which are only approximate anyway.

snip

EDIT:

Hint:

"The Nephites and Lamanites did not have Old World-style chariots" does not equal "The Nephites and Lamanites did not exist."

You are confused. "Not found XXX, therefore XXX did not exist." You are adding YYY to the statement.

"Not found chariots, therefore chariots did not exist" is a logical fallacy.

"Mammoths and mastodons were extinct long before the Jaredites" does not equal "The Jaredites did not exist."

SECOND EDIT:

The issue also is not how did the Jaredites know what an elephant was. The issue is how did Moroni know what an elephant was? (Joseph Smith was translating Moroni's abridgment of Ether's writings.)

I agree that there is an issue on how the BOM was translated. Considering his use of the word, he was probably familiar with the animal. Perhaps the large plates of Nephi made some mention of them, from the early days.

[cdowis]

Following up on what I said before:

If Mormon made a mistake---there were no chariots in Book of Mormon lands but he put it in there anyway---begs the question of how Mormon knew what a chariot was..........

He clearly knew what a chariot was.

Then I think the "how did they know what an elephant was?" is a similar question.

The only time elephants are mentioned is when Moroni is summarizing the Jaredite history.

I really find your sense of certainty with amusement. Please give us your source of the large plates of Nephi. You clearly have them at hand, since you can tell us what they contain.

BUT, Moroni also talks about the Jaredites having curelom and cumoms (Ether 9:19).

So here's how this appears to have gone:

Ether writes Jaredite history........or possibly one or more people write Jaredite history and Ether compiles and finishes it, like Moroni did for the Nephites.

Then Moroni is prophetically able to interpret the book of Ether and put it into The Book of Mormon.

Then Joseph Smith prophetically translates what Moroni wrote.

So Joseph Smith is translating what MORONI wrote, not what Ether wrote (I know that's stating the obvious).

And so these are the questions that we can't really answer:

That is why I am on this forum. I don't have the certainty that you seem to have, but I do have a reasonable possibility. Mormon was familiar with this animal, and the large plates may have told him about them. They are the earliest Nephite record, and it is possible that they came across this animal. Mormon had this record available to him.

snip

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

There are perhaps dozens+ proper nouns in the BoM. Not too sure that the presents of any of them indicates a tight translation. Maybe those two words are like "Audieu".

[John Larsen]

cinepro:

There are perhaps dozens+ proper nouns in the BoM. Not too sure that the presents of any of them indicates a tight translation. Maybe those two words are like "Audieu".

I don't understand your point. Could you please explain how "Curelom" is like "Adieu"?

[USU78]

I don't understand your point. Could you please explain how "Curelom" is like "Adieu"?

Both go bye-bye?

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen:

While JS did know what Adieu meant in English, it is possible that he didn't know what "Curelom" meant and just put down the word as it appeared on the plates.