The Case Against Rigdon, Spalding, Pratt, Cowdery, et al

[Uncle Dale]

...An Israelite high priest in those days could easily have had

an Egyptian name. I'll make one up for you -- 'Pahoran,'

...

Solomon and Ethan continue the conversation

after their Hebrew teacher has left the room --

"'Pahoran,' what a strange name -- eh, Ethan?"

"Not all that strange, Solomon. You know that I've

been studying all the proofs of our American Indians

being descended from the Israelites."

"Yes, Ethan -- your favorite theory. But what has

that to do with Egyptian names?"

"Why, Solomon! -- Suppose some of those Israelites

high priests with the Egyptian names made it to the

New World! Suppose that they even brought Egyptian

writing with them."

"Nobody can read that..."

"Let me finish, Sol. I was just reading about Vasquez,

when he was first exploring the Carolinas. One of the

Indian names he found there was 'Pahor!'"

"So what?"

"Solomon, you are such a dunce! 'Pahor' is obviously

derived from 'Pahoran!' -- Yet another proof that the

Indians came from the Old World!"

UD

.

[Glenn101]

Goodness gracious! Why would a scholar in 1800

have needed that? The old Egyptian vocabulary was

preserved in Coptic. The Arabic speaking Egyptians

never managed to suppress that ancient tongue.

It was from Coptic that the Rosetta Stone's preliminary

translations were extended and verified.

UD

The Coptic script on the Rosetts Stone was used to help crack the hierglyphics. But were there any Coptic linguists at Dartmouth when Spalding matriculated and even afterwards?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

The Coptic script on the Rosetts Stone was used to help crack the hierglyphics.

But were there any Coptic linguists at Dartmouth when Spalding matriculated and even afterwards?

Glenn

It isn't just a matter of scripts. Coptic was a major spoken

language in Egypt in the 1700s and 1800s. Arabic was used by

the elite, the rich, the devout, -- but there was still a

Coptic Christian Church and Coptic-speaking peasants. And

there were foreign linguists who understood and documented

the language. The French occupation of Egypt brought with it

the side-project of scientific study of all sorts.

It is not at all unlikely that an ancient languages teacher

(of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.) at Dartmouth would have been

aware of advancements in Coptic studies, both before Napoleon's

"scientific" occupation of Egypt and afterwards.

The best example you might cite for a name in the BoM which

should not have been known to such a Dartmouth linguist would

be Paanchi. The name is first mentioned in Hel. 1:3 -- in a chapter

that both Jockers and I attribute to Spalding. The name has the

added feature of being associated with the fellow's father, Pahoran.

At first glance, it might seem a compelling discovery, to know

that both of these names have a rough equivalent in Egyptian --

that is, a proper noun that is pronounced about like the most

likely BoM pronunciation.

But notice, also, that there is a third name associated with

these two "Egyptian" names, and that is Pacumeni, the second

son of Pahoran. Pacumeni is not an Egyptian name, but rather,

belongs to the group of BoM names sharing a common syllable:

Cumeni, Teancum, Moriancumer, Mocum, etc.

These names show all the signs of artificial construction,

based upon re-use of a syllable, modified by prefixes and

suffixes, to create seemingly related names. There are many

such unique and artificial constructions in Spalding's

Roman Story.

If Pacumeni is "Jaredite," in origin (rather than Egyptian),

and if Pacumeni's relatives share his Pa syllable, then

that is the method Spalding used to create unique fictional names.

So, the unhappy Mormon might reply, that Paanchi contains the

double vowel oddity of "aa," which LDS linguists have argued

is an ancient Egyptian pronunciation. So then what?

Two other BoM names also have the "aa" -- Aaron (which is Egyptian)

and Isaac (which is Hebrew). The Bible supplies "aa" names, and

Spalding would not have needed to look any further than its pages,

to get an idea about doubling Panchi's "a" to get "aa."

When I lived in Nepal, the Kathmandu antiques market had shops

that sold antique coins from the region, one of which was a

silver "paanchi." The word is usually carelessly transliterated

from the devanagri script into Roman letters, as "panchi." If you

do Google searches for "panchi" and India, or Indian coins, you'll

see the short transliteration.

But the proper pronunciation for "five" in Sanskrit, Hindi and

Nepali is "paanch" -- with the double a. The paanchi coin is

called a "fiver" (short for "twenty-fiver") in Nepali and

Hindi. And so its proper English transliteration is "paanchi."

I may still have one of these antique coins in my old scrapbook.

You can see the proper rendering in Roman letters, on page 115 of

"Govind Narayan's Mumbai: An Urban Biography from 1863" at the

Google Books site.

Because I came upon "paanchis" in Nepal, should I have assumed

that their name was derived from ancient Egyptian? Or, would I

be more correct in assuming it was due to coincidence.

Put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters, for a thousand

years, and one of them will probably spell out p-a-a-n-c-h-i.

I'm not impressed with the LDS example in Helaman 1:3.

Show me something better.

UD

.

[Glenn101]

I'm not impressed with the LDS example in Helaman 1:3.

Show me something better.

UD

.

(From the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.5, Part.1, Ch.2)

There is a remarkable association between the names of Lehi and Ishmael which ties them both to the southern desert, where the legendary birthplace and central shrine of Ishmael was at a place called Be'er Lehai-ro'i. Wellhausen rendered the name "spring of the wild-ox jaw-bone," but Paul Haupt showed that Lehi (for so he reads the name) does not mean "jaw but "cheek," which leaves the meaning of the strange compound still unclear. One thing is certain, however: that Lehi is a personal name. Until recently this name was entirely unknown save as a place name, but now it has turned up at Elath and elsewhere in the south in a form that has been identified by Nelson Glueck with the name Lahai, which "occurs quite frequently either as part of a compound, or as a separate name of a deity or a person, particularly in Minaean, Thamudic, and Arabic texts." There is a Beit Lahi, "House of Lahi," among the ancient place-names of the Arab country around Gaza, but the meaning of the name has here been lost. If the least be said of it, the name Lehi is thoroughly at home among the people of the desert and, so far as we know, nowhere else.

(From the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.5, Part.1, Ch.2)

Strange Names

The stamp of Egypt on Lehi's people may be clearly discerned in the names those people and their descendants. Hebrew and Egyptian names together make up the overwhelming majority and occur in about equal strength, which is exactly what one would expect from Mormon's claim that both languages were used among them (and which would certainly not be the case were Hebrew the only spoken language), but Hittite, Arabic, and Ionian elements are not missing. First, consider a few Egyptian names, setting off the Book of Mormon names (BM) against their Old World equivalents (OW).

Aha (BM), son of the Nephite commander in chief.

Aha (OW), a name of the first Pharaoh; it means "warrior" and is a common word.

Aminadab (BM), Nephite missionary in the time of the judges.

Amanathabi (OW), chief of a Canaanite city under Egyptian domination. This name is "reformed" Egyptian.

Ammon (BM), the commonest name in the Book of Mormon.

Ammon (Amon, Amun) (OW), the commonest name in the Egyptian Empire: the great universal God of the Empire.

Ammoni-hah (BM), name of a country and city.

Ammuni-ra (OW), prince of Beyrut under Egyptian rule. The above might stand the same relationship to this name as

Cameni-hah (BM), a Nephite general

Khamuni-ra (OW), Amarna personal name, perhaps equivalent of Ammuni-ra.

Cezoram (BM), Nephite chief judge.

Chiziri (OW), Egyptian governor of a Syrian city.

Giddonah (BM), a) high priest who judged Korihor, b) father of Amulek.

Dji-dw-na (OW), the Egyptian name for Sidon.

Gidgiddoni and Gidgiddonah (BM), Nephite generals.

Djed-djhwt-iw-f and Djed-djhwti-iw-s plus ankh (OW), Egyptian proper name meaning "Thoth hath said: he shall live," and "Thoth hath said: she shall live," respectively. On this pattern the two Nephite names mean "Thoth hath said I shall live," and "Thoth hath said: we shall live," respectively.

Giddianhi (BM), robber chief and general.

Djhwti-ankhi (OW), "Thoth is my life"; see above.

Gimgim-no (BM), city of Gimgim, compare Biblical No-Amon, "City of Amon."

Kenkeme (OW), Egyptian city, cf. Kipkip, seat of the Egyptian dynasty in Nubia.

Hem (BM), brother of the earlier Ammon.

Hem (OW), means "servant," specifically of Ammon, as in the title Hem tp n 'Imn, "chief servant of Ammon" held by the high priest of Thebes.

Helaman (BM), great Nephite prophet.

Her-amon (OW), "in the presence of Amon," as in the Egyptian proper name Heri-i-her-imn. Semitic "l" is always written "r" in Egyptian, which has no "l." Conversely, e Egyptian "r" is often written "l" in Semitic languages.

Himni (BM), a son of King Mosiah.

Hmn (OW), a name of the Egyptian hawk-god, symbol of the emperor.

Korihor (BM), a political agitator who was seized by the people of Ammon.

Kherihor (also written Khurhor, etc.) (OW), great high priest of Ammon who seized the throne of Egypt at Thebes, cir. 1085 b.c.

Manti (BM), the name of a Nephite soldier, a land, a city, and a hill.

Manti (OW), Semitic form of an Egyptian proper name, e.g., Manti-mankhi, prince in Upper Egypt cir. 650 b.c. It is a late form of Month, god of Hermonthis.

Mathoni (BM), a Nephite disciple.

Maitena, Mattenos, etc. (OW), two judges of Tyre, who at different times made themselves king, possibly under the Egyptian auspices.

Morianton (BM), the name of a Nephite city and its founder, cf. the Nephite province Moriantum.

Meriaton and Meriamon (OW), names of Egyptian princes, "Beloved of Aton" and "Beloved of Amon" respectively.

Nephi (BM), founder of the Nephite nation.

Nehi, Nehri (OW), famous Egyptian noblemen. Nfy was the name of an Egyptian captain. Since BM insists on "ph," Nephi is closer to Nihpi, original name of the god Pa-nepi, which may even have been Nephi.

Paanchi (BM), son of Pahoran, Sr., and pretender to the chief-judgeship.

Paanchi (OW), son of Kherihor, a) chief high priest of Amon, b) ruler of the south who conquered all of Egypt and was high priest of Amon at Thebes.

Pahoran (BM), a) great chief judge, b) son of the same.

Pa-her-an (OW), ambassador of Egypt in Palestine, where his name has the "Reformed" reading Pahura; in Egyptian as Pa-her-y it means "the Syrian" or Asiatic.

Pacumeni (BM), son of Pahoran.

Pakamen (OW), Egyptian proper name meaning "blind man"; also Pamenches (Gk. Pachomios), commander of the south and high priest of Horus.

Pachus (BM), revolutionary leader and usurper of the throne.

Pa-ks and Pach-qs (OW), Egyptian proper name. Compare Pa-ches-i, "he is praised."

Sam (BM), brother of Nephi.

Sam Tawi (OW), Egyptian "uniter of the lands," title taken by the brother of Nehri upon mounting the throne.

Seezor-am and Zeezr-om (BM), a depraved judge, and a lawyer, resp., the latter also the name of a city.

Zoser, Zeser, etc. (OW), Third Dynasty ruler, one of the greatest Pharaohs.

Zemna-ri-hah (BM), robber chief.

Zmn-ha-re (OW), Egyptian proper name: the same elements as the above in different order--a common Egyptian practice.

Zeniff (BM), ruler of Nephite colony.

Znb, Snb (OW), very common elements in Egyptian proper names, cf. Senep-ta.

Zenoch (BM), according to various Nephite writers, an ancient Hebrew prophet.

Zenekh (OW), Egyptian proper name; once a serpent-god.

[Uncle Dale]

(From the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.5, Part.1, Ch.2)

...

From the collected works of Dale R. Broadhurst:

Names of Persons and Places in Spalding's Story

America

Asia

Atlantic

Bambo Banbo

Baska Baske

Bithawan Bilhawa Bilhawan

Boakin Boakim

Bombal

Britain

Catarangus Colorangus Cataraugus

Chaldea

Chiauga Chianga Chiango

Christ

Christian(s)

Conco Como

Coneaught

Constantine

Crito Crito

Deliwah

Deliwan(s)

Deliwan

Deliwares

Deliwan[nucks]

Drofalick Drafolick

Droll Tom

Egypt

Elseon Elsion

Erie Eri

Europe

Europeans

Fabius

Galanga

Gamanko Gamasko Gannack

Gamba Gambo

Geheno

Geneseo

Tolanga

Golanga

Great Lakes

Great Mountain

Great River

Habolan Habelon Habelen

Hadokam Hadocam

Haloon

Hakoon

Hadoram

Hamack

Hamback Hambock

Hamboon

Hamelick

Hamkien Hamkon

Hamko

Hamkol

Hamkoo

Hamul

Hanock

Hanuck

Helicon Hilicon

Helion

Heliza

Hemock

Lamoch

Hodaram

Hodacam

Holiza

Indians

Italy

Jeshurun

Jesus Christ

Kalo

Kato

Kelsock

Thelford

Kentuck

Kentucks

Kentuckan(s)

Labamack

Labanco

Labanko

Labarmock

Labamack

Lakes (Great)

Lakoonrod

Lakoon

Lambon

Lambdon

Lamesa

Lamoch

Lamock

Lamack

Latin

Lobasca Lobaska

Labaska

Lobasko

Lucian

Mammoons

Mammoth

Michigan Meshigan

Mississippi

Moonrod

Nunapon Numapon

Nimapon

Ohian Ohians

Ohio

Owaho

Ohons

Owhahon

Ontario

Platonic

Rambock

Rameck

Ramuck Ramack

Rankoff Rancoff

Sciota

Suscowah

Roman

Rome

Sabamah

Sambal Sambul

Sambol Sanbal

Sciotan(s)

Siota

Siotans

Suscowah

Taboon

Tolanga Talanga

Talangos

Tolanga

Trojanus

Ulipoon

UD

[Glenn101]

From the collected works of Dale R. Broadhurst:

Names of Persons and Places in Spalding's Story

The number which are authentic Egyptian or Hebrew names is?

Glenn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

From the collected works of Dale R. Broadhurst:

Names of Persons and Places in Spalding's Story

UD

This is great evidence that Rigdon cribbed Spauldings writings for the BoM.

[Uncle Dale]

The number which are authentic Egyptian or Hebrew names is?

Glenn

You can count them for yourself.

Notice the way in which Spalding created unique names --

by adding prefixes and suffixes to a shared syllable.

This is precisely the way many unique names were created

in the Book of Mormon.

However, I have nothing more to say.

As I understand it, the LDS doctrine states that Solomon

Spalding could not possibly have contributed to the BoM,

and therefore it is impossible that he could have inserted

any of its unique or obscure names.

My viewpoint is just the opposite.

Solomon Spalding could have created the Book of Mormon names,

using the same system he elsewhere used; copying names from diverse

sources, and modifying their root syllable, with prefixes and suffixes.

I have responded to this thread more than any other participant.

I've done my share of the work. If you wish to understand what

I've said better, then go back and re-read what I've said.

UD

[Glenn101]

You can count them for yourself.

Notice the way in which Spalding created unique names --

by adding prefixes and suffixes to a shared syllable.

This is precisely the way many unique names were created

in the Book of Mormon.

However, I have nothing more to say.

As I understand it, the LDS doctrine states that Solomon

Spalding could not possibly have contributed to the BoM,

and therefore it is impossible that he could have inserted

any of its unique or obscure names.

My viewpoint is just the opposite.

Solomon Spalding could have created the Book of Mormon names,

using the same system he elsewhere used; copying names from diverse

sources, and modifying their root syllable, with prefixes and suffixes.

I have responded to this thread more than any other participant.

I've done my share of the work. If you wish to understand what

I've said better, then go back and re-read what I've said.

UD

Thank you for your responses Dale.I think I understand what you have said very well. And since you have indicated that you wish not to say anything further, I will respect that and not comment on the points of your final post. If no one else posts further, I may post a summary of what I feel are the point that have been made. But as usual, we wind up agreeably disagreeing.

Glenn

[Calm]

But Edgar Rice Burroughs created hundreds of unique

names, ape-language words, and character-relationships

which play, and re-play, and re-play again throughout his

22 or so "Tarzan books." I think somebody one pointed out

one inconsistency among all of that literary creation.

It's been ages since I was reading all that stuff, but if I recall correctly there were some significant problems with the timing on the later books, issues dealing with what his son was doing when and some confusing relationships. I'd have to doublecheck, but my memory says that PJ Farmer who did a 'biography' of Tarzan 'solves' the issues by creating an adopted son to cover the encounters when the real son is supposed to be off flying in wars and stuff. Anyway, I would be rather surprised if this claim was correct. Even though I only managed to read about half of them, I remember thinking there were some conflicts myself.

The explanation by fans for all the inconsistencies is that Burroughs was trying to disguise the people of the 'real stories' behind the fiction, much like Watson (or Doyle if you prefer) did for Sherlock Holmes.

I think you need to find another example. (I am not saying there aren't authors who are capable of doing this, I'm only speaking up as a Burrough's fan...as much as it would have been nice for his writings to be as consistent as you claimed, it isn't so).

For reference, here's a link that deals with the issue as an aside while addressing the real issue of the Tarzan books...what was the species of the apes who raised the young Greystoke?: http://www.straightd...arzan-raised-by

[Uncle Dale]

...

I think you need to find another example.

...

Perhaps so -- but he was the first writer who came to mind, when the

assertion was made that writers could not develop and manage so many

characters, in an extended body of writing.

I have been to Tarzana and interviewed the late "Hully" Burroughs;

the former writer's son. It appears that preserved notes and

character tabulations were either sparse, or kept mostly in the old

author's head. A couple of map sketches came to light -- a few other

literary odds and ends -- but nothing like a great pile of notes.

The son recalled watching his father speak into a dictaphone for

hours on end -- with only a rare consultation of one of his own

works of fiction, from off the bookshelf. Hully was convinced that

his father had dictated at least a few of his later novels entirely

from an imaginative stream-of-conscious creativity. Only when the

final proofs came back from the publishers did a stray name need

to be reconciled with a previous novel, or an unwieldly paragraph

corrected.

All I know is that I could not have created so many unique names

and character relationships, and kept it all straight in my head.

Such writers must truly be one-in-a-million.

UD

.

[Calm]

To my knowledge, Margaret Barker is the only scholar who has never yet been LDS (in this life) who has taken a serious look at the Book of Mormon. You can read one of her articles at the posted link.

According to John Tvedtnes:

John Tvedtnes has related particular personal experiences in which he understood Chaim Rabin and David Flusser, two very significant Israeli scholars now deceased, to allow the distinct possibility that Latter-day Saint claims have authentic roots in ancient Judaism.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=631

This has been mentioned in a couple of places, I don't believe it's ever been able to be independently confirmed however.

(Please ignore if this is off topic, I am merely posting it for Nathair's information as he likely has not come across this before.)

[Nathair/|\]

According to John Tvedtnes:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=631

This has been mentioned in a couple of places, I don't believe it's ever been able to be independently confirmed however.

(Please ignore if this is off topic, I am merely posting it for Nathair's information as he likely has not come across this before.)

Thank you, I had forgotten about that. I am happy to know I was wrong about the "only."

Derail over.

Yours under the enlightened oaks,

Nathair /|\

[noel00]

It isn't just a matter of scripts. Coptic was a major spoken

language in Egypt in the 1700s and 1800s. Arabic was used by

the elite, the rich, the devout, -- but there was still a

Coptic Christian Church and Coptic-speaking peasants. And

there were foreign linguists who understood and documented

the language. The French occupation of Egypt brought with it

the side-project of scientific study of all sorts.

It is not at all unlikely that an ancient languages teacher

(of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.) at Dartmouth would have been

aware of advancements in Coptic studies, both before Napoleon's

"scientific" occupation of Egypt and afterwards.

The best example you might cite for a name in the BoM which

should not have been known to such a Dartmouth linguist would

be Paanchi. The name is first mentioned in Hel. 1:3 -- in a chapter

that both Jockers and I attribute to Spalding. The name has the

added feature of being associated with the fellow's father, Pahoran.

At first glance, it might seem a compelling discovery, to know

that both of these names have a rough equivalent in Egyptian --

that is, a proper noun that is pronounced about like the most

likely BoM pronunciation.

But notice, also, that there is a third name associated with

these two "Egyptian" names, and that is Pacumeni, the second

son of Pahoran. Pacumeni is not an Egyptian name, but rather,

belongs to the group of BoM names sharing a common syllable:

Cumeni, Teancum, Moriancumer, Mocum, etc.

These names show all the signs of artificial construction,

based upon re-use of a syllable, modified by prefixes and

suffixes, to create seemingly related names. There are many

such unique and artificial constructions in Spalding's

Roman Story.

If Pacumeni is "Jaredite," in origin (rather than Egyptian),

and if Pacumeni's relatives share his Pa syllable, then

that is the method Spalding used to create unique fictional names.

So, the unhappy Mormon might reply, that Paanchi contains the

double vowel oddity of "aa," which LDS linguists have argued

is an ancient Egyptian pronunciation. So then what?

Two other BoM names also have the "aa" -- Aaron (which is Egyptian)

and Isaac (which is Hebrew). The Bible supplies "aa" names, and

Spalding would not have needed to look any further than its pages,

to get an idea about doubling Panchi's "a" to get "aa."

When I lived in Nepal, the Kathmandu antiques market had shops

that sold antique coins from the region, one of which was a

silver "paanchi." The word is usually carelessly transliterated

from the devanagri script into Roman letters, as "panchi." If you

do Google searches for "panchi" and India, or Indian coins, you'll

see the short transliteration.

But the proper pronunciation for "five" in Sanskrit, Hindi and

Nepali is "paanch" -- with the double a. The paanchi coin is

called a "fiver" (short for "twenty-fiver") in Nepali and

Hindi. And so its proper English transliteration is "paanchi."

I may still have one of these antique coins in my old scrapbook.

You can see the proper rendering in Roman letters, on page 115 of

"Govind Narayan's Mumbai: An Urban Biography from 1863" at the

Google Books site.

Because I came upon "paanchis" in Nepal, should I have assumed

that their name was derived from ancient Egyptian? Or, would I

be more correct in assuming it was due to coincidence.

Put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters, for a thousand

years, and one of them will probably spell out p-a-a-n-c-h-i.

I'm not impressed with the LDS example in Helaman 1:3.

Show me something better.

UD

.

Dale the BOM mentions a lot about mounds of dirt. Vogel in his book Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon references several sources in the area about Indian Mounds. Did the area Spalding lived around have Indian Mounds and does the mention of mounds in the BOM occur more frequently in those chapters attributed to Spalding?

[Glenn101]

Dale the BOM mentions a lot about mounds of dirt. Vogel in his book Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon references several sources in the area about Indian Mounds. Did the area Spalding lived around have Indian Mounds and does the mention of mounds in the BOM occur more frequently in those chapters attributed to Spalding?

The area around where Spalding lived in Ohio indeed did have mounds. The discovery of one of those mounds seems to have been what sent him off on his literary journey. He had some of his workers excavate at least part of one mound and thus knew that it was a burial mound.

This is a description of the burial mounds from one internet site I visited "Burial Mounds are mounds that were used to bury people such as chiefs, shamans, and priests of the Adena and Hopewell cultures. They were buried with different items such as pottery, projectile points, beads, and pipes. Other lesser members of the tribe were cremated and placed into tiny log tombs that were then covered with dirt. The burial mounds were built in layers, which had corpses on each level. The mounds range in size from 20-300 feet in diameter and were cone shaped. Each family had there own burial mound."

The word "mounds" is not found in the Book of Mormon. There are several places in the book of Mormon, notably Alma and Ether where the dead from battles were buried in shallow graves or just heaped up in a pile without noting any effort to cover them. Three times in Alma, once in Mormon, and once in Ether.

As to the the chapters most probable for Spalding, according to the jockers study among the limited candidate set and those heaps, I do not know. I am sure Dale will fill in the blanks.

Glenn

[noel00]

When I wrote that I was only writing from memory and did not have my copy of Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon at work. SInce home I looked on pages 31-32 where Vogel argues that buildings etc in the BOM are described in general terms while the mounds of earth in Alma 48:8, Alma 48:4,Alma 50:1-5 and Alma 53:3-4. Anyway Dale do these chapters show Spalding's wordprint?

[Robert F. Smith]

3. The now (for critics) infamous cry of a chiasmus, a chiamus, we don't need no stinking chiasmus.

Are you suggesting that the same author produced "Treasure of Sierra Madre"?

[Robert F. Smith]

The Coptic script on the Rosetts Stone was used to help crack the hierglyphics. But were there any Coptic linguists at Dartmouth when Spalding matriculated and even afterwards?

Glenn

It isn't just a matter of scripts. Coptic was a major spoken

language in Egypt in the 1700s and 1800s. Arabic was used by

the elite, the rich, the devout, -- but there was still a

Coptic Christian Church and Coptic-speaking peasants. And

there were foreign linguists who understood and documented

the language.

It is not at all unlikely that an ancient languages teacher

(of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.) at Dartmouth would have been

aware of advancements in Coptic studies, both before Napoleon's

"scientific" occupation of Egypt and afterwards.

The best example you might cite for a name in the BoM which

should not have been known to such a Dartmouth linguist would

be Paanchi. The name is first mentioned in Hel. 1:3

The name has the added feature of being associated with the fellow's father, Pahoran.

At first glance, it might seem a compelling discovery, to know

that both of these names have a rough equivalent in Egyptian --

that is, a proper noun that is pronounced about like the most

likely BoM pronunciation.

But notice, also, that there is a third name associated with

these two "Egyptian" names, and that is Pacumeni, the second

son of Pahoran. Pacumeni is not an Egyptian name, but rather,

belongs to the group of BoM names sharing a common syllable:

Cumeni, Teancum, Moriancumer, Mocum, etc.

These names show all the signs of artificial construction,

based upon re-use of a syllable, modified by prefixes and

suffixes, to create seemingly related names. There are many

such unique and artificial constructions in Spalding's

Roman Story.

If Pacumeni is "Jaredite," in origin (rather than Egyptian),

and if Pacumeni's relatives share his Pa syllable, then

that is the method Spalding used to create unique fictional names.

So, the unhappy Mormon might reply, that Paanchi contains the

double vowel oddity of "aa," which LDS linguists have argued

is an ancient Egyptian pronunciation. So then what?

Two other BoM names also have the "aa" -- Aaron (which is Egyptian)

and Isaac (which is Hebrew). The Bible supplies "aa" names, and

Spalding would not have needed to look any further than its pages,

to get an idea about doubling Panchi's "a" to get "aa."

When I lived in Nepal, the Kathmandu antiques market had shops

that sold antique coins from the region, one of which was a

silver "paanchi." The word is usually carelessly transliterated

from the devanagri script into Roman letters, as "panchi." If you

do Google searches for "panchi" and India, or Indian coins, you'll

see the short transliteration.

But the proper pronunciation for "five" in Sanskrit, Hindi and

Nepali is "paanch" -- with the double a. The paanchi coin is

called a "fiver" (short for "twenty-fiver") in Nepali and

Hindi. And so its proper English transliteration is "paanchi."

I may still have one of these antique coins in my old scrapbook.

You can see the proper rendering in Roman letters, on page 115 of

"Govind Narayan's Mumbai: An Urban Biography from 1863" at the

Google Books site.

Because I came upon "paanchis" in Nepal, should I have assumed

that their name was derived from ancient Egyptian? Or, would I

be more correct in assuming it was due to coincidence.

Put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters, for a thousand

years, and one of them will probably spell out p-a-a-n-c-h-i.

I'm not impressed with the LDS example in Helaman 1:3.

Show me something better.

UD

Dale

You and Glenn are both wrong. There was only demotic, hieroglyphic, and Greek on the Rosetta Stone. No Coptic. And Coptic was already a dead, liturgical language long before Napoleon's Egyptian expedition.

However, it is true that some linguists could read Coptic (such as Champollion), but it is most unlikely that any American scholar (whether at Dartmouth, Princeton, or Harvard) knew even one word of Coptic. Even if they did, it would not have helped them create Book of Mormon or Spalding Manuscript names.

The late William F. Albright was immediately struck by the clear Egypticity of names like Paanchi and Pahoran (both actually attested in ancient Egypt) and even signed statements to that effect beginning in 1949 (in response to the April 1948 Nibley article in the Improvement Era). He and Nibley had an opportunity to discuss this and other issues while Hugh was on his sabbatical at Johns Hopkins a few years later, and Hugh talked about their conversations in his final series of lectures -- Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 1988-1990, 4 vols. (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2004), II:423 (semester 2, lecture 54).

By the way, Cumeni is a Nephite place-name, so that Pacumeni would mean something like "The Cumenite" (Pa is the Late Egyptian definite article), and one sees this type of construction also in Pathros "The Land Southward (Nubia)" in Isaiah 11:11 = II Nephi 21:11 -- aside from the fact that this is also a common English phrase in the Book of Mormon, a Book of Mormon written in Egyptian. Nibley also pointed out other dead-ringers for Egyptian names, such as Manti (the Neo-Assyrian pronunciation, based on their syllabic spelling of Egyptian Mntw/Month: Nibley, Since Cumorah, 463 n. 107; Gabor Takacs, Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, III:3). Other names, such as Nephi, are actually well-known names from ancient Egypt, and Anti-Nephi-Lehi is probably formed with the Egyptian relative adjective nty in order to create the meaning "Who-is-of-Nephi-Lehi" (Lamoni), or the plural as "Those-who-are-of-Nephi-Lehi," which was indicative of their changed status: No longer Lamanites, they sought to "have a new name" (Alma 23:16), just as Lamoni had done. Likewise, some of the weights named in Alma 11 appear to have been taken over from Egyptian (along with some Hebrew terms), the whole system adapted with the same Egyptian numerical ratio from a known Egyptian system -- just as was used in ancient Judah and Israel in the days of Lehi, though the Bible gives no hint of what has now been recovered archeologically (see Stefan Wimmer, Palastinisches Hieratisch [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008]; and William Dever, "Weights & Measures," in P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary [s.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985], 1128-1129, and Tables B & C). One such non-Egyptian weight-name is available in the Book of Mormon in a spelling otherwise known only from the 5th century Jewish settlement at Elephantine, se'an (A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. [Oxford, 1923/ reprint Wipf & Stock, 2005], 63:3). Mere accidental correspondences are, of course, of no value. The comparisons must be systematic and reasonable.

This is merely a hint at what is to be forthcoming from FARMS soon.

[Robert F. Smith]

As an outsider, I would at least hope that if an LDS scientist

made a discovery not in compliance with LDS doctrine, that he

or she would be free to publish that discovery, without fear

of losing his/her calling, temple recommend, or reputation.

If that freedom has not been granted, then I do not see

how the scientific method can be fully implemented by the

scholars and academics Glenn indirectly cites.

What would we make of the fact (?) that no Jewish scientist

throughout history ever reached a professional conclusion

not in agreement with the Talmud? Or if no Catholic scientist

ever made a discovery not sanctioned by Papal authority?

Would we not guess that a religious prejudice had interfered

with the proper application of the scientific method and the

right of those Jewish/RCC scientists, to publish findings not

immediately acceptable by fellow Jews or Catholics?

"Bro. Copernicus, the Holy Father, Clement VII, will see you now..."

UD

Dale

I haven't thought of you as an "outsider" since before I corresponded with you while you were in Nepal. You are an authentic part of the Restoration, even if your ancestors didn't go west with Brother Brigham (after all, neither did Emma or Joseph III -- and I recall with fondness the friendship of men like Grant McMurray, Richard Howard, and Wayne Ham). We may have our differences, but there is nothing like the Roman Catholic Inquisition superintending all legitimate research and scholarship by LDS or RLDS members. I have always felt free to go in any direction which my research has led me, and none of my friends have objected. Indeed, they have encouraged me. And the LDS among us all have temple recommends.

The real issues entail careful, fact-based research (with good research design) in which we share our views, cite sources, and accept legitimate criticism. These are the elements of any worthwhile scientific project, and the late William F. Albright felt proud of the fact that his students could come from any background or viewpoint (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and atheist) and still conduct solidly based research.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you can back this statement up, with confirmation from a consensus

of non-LDS experts in the subject, I'll concede the issue. Certainly,

after all these years, the world's experts in Hebrew have been consulted.

What opinion did they render to the Mormons?

Like I said, I WILL accept LDS scholarship, so long as it is confirmed by a

scholarly consensus, outside of the Church membership.

I would also accept the official biography of Kim Jong-il, if its assertions

were backed up by confirmation from outside of North Korea.

It is a remarkable claim, from a people who are Marxist atheists, and who

follow Lenin's maxim, that religion is the opiate of the people.

If a nation of atheists can proclaim supernatural cosmic events accompanying

the birth of their political savior, then that puts them into the same class

as the Scientologists.

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the RLDS are right, when they testify to

God-given revelation that their church is the one true church, that Brigham

Young originated polygamy, and that Nephites are true.

All I look for is outside confirmation for such extraordinary claims.

Why should I accept them, if the vast majority of the world's educated

people do not accept them? Obviously, I should at least exercise caution.

UD

Well, of course, Bertrand Russell argued in print that Marxism was a religion, and he was quite right, but I don't understand why any of us should believe that the LDS Church is some sort of totalitarian regime like unto North Korea or the Church of Scientology. Those are very odd comparisons, and you might want to ask Prof. Jan Shipps of Indiana-Purdue Univ., or Prof. Larry Foster of Georgia Tech (both non-Mormons who have studied Mormonism) whether they feel that your comparisons are legitimate. Another important researcher, now dead, was Thomas F. O'Dea, a Roman Catholic sociologist who made a major study of Mormons decades ago and wrote a book on it called The Mormons (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957/ reprint Phoenix, 1964). Read it and tell me whether you find any inkling of the horrific totalitarianism with which you compare the LDS Church. I know that the RLDS Church once preached that sort of thing, but I had imagined that no one any longer believed it. Certainly I never met anyone in Independence who felt that way.

[Uncle Dale]

...

there is nothing like the Roman Catholic Inquisition superintending

all legitimate research and scholarship by LDS or RLDS members.

...

I will try to respond to your other thoughtful remarks when time allows.

But I do wish to share with you the tremendous pressure brought against

me during the 1970s and 1980s, when I was attempting to research the

polygamy of Joseph, Hyrum and William.

The pressure was greatest and most noticeable at the local branch

level -- but I also felt it from regional representatives and

visiting apostles.

It was more subtle at the "World Church" level -- in such place as

Graceland College and Headquarters in Independence. But even then,

when Grant McMurray was the head archivist, any investigator of

Smith family polygamy immediately ran into roadblocks, diversions,

delays and official discouragement.

Behind closed doors apostles and stake presidents would admit to

that pre-Brigham polygamy -- even admit that the Smiths taught it

as a Church doctrine at Nauvoo.

Then, when those doors were opened, and the general membership

could see and hear what was being discussed, the very same RLDS

leaders would base practically the entire rationale for the

Reorganization on Brigham's polygamous apostasy.

It was very much "like the Roman Catholic Inquisition superintending"

my thoughts, actions and potential advancement in callings. Although

it was not the major reason for my leaving Community of Christ, it was

the "last straw" in my final official counsel from my priesthood

superiors.

All I said was ----> "If Joseph Smith was a practicing, doctrine-teaching

polygamist (and he most certainly was just that); then the RLDS Church did

NOT restore the 'True Church' and the Reorganization rests upon a

false foundation."

Perhaps in the year 2010 such a statement can be voiced from the

podium, during a testimony session. But when I said it, it was anathema.

Suppose some LDS scholar came to a similar discovery regarding

the foundation of the LDS Church. Would he/she be free to voice

that conclusion as a religious teaching?

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

I would also criticize serious creationists for spending a lot of time and effort on "creation science", once I had seen enough of it to know it is a useless endeavor that can add nothing of value to society. I do not see a need to address creationism in a "meaningful" way, once sufficient information is collected to ascertain its real value.

And I am sure you would agree that Scientology can be safely criticized after the most cursory consideration of its truth claims.

Is one obliged to seriously consider and address every absurdity in a "meaningful way" before passing judgment and moving on?

The issue, to be fairly considered, would have to assume that any critic would have to know something about the issue under inquiry, whether it be the internal claims of the Book of Mormon or the science underlying creationism. In my experience, most of the dismissive critics are unable to do more than wave their hands and walk away. They are not capable of an informed discussion on either subject. In the latter case, for example, one must have a number of basic science courses under one's belt even to get started (at least a year each of biology, physics, chemistry, or the like -- geology, or paleontology, for example). And a real commitment in time is required to do the inquiry justice. Then a willingness to read materials put out by both sides of the debate, as well as attendance at real, live debates between Ph.D.s on either side.

I can recall skeptically attending a number of debates in which Dr. Duane Gish (creationist and a Ph.D. in biochemistry) took on scientists who were every bit his equal, such as Dr. Vincent Sarich of UC Berkeley, and coming away with considerable respect for the notions of "intelligent design," as well as "special creation." However, Dr. Sarich made some particularly telling points with molecular biology. Both were cordial and well behaved. Tell me of your background and specific experiences, if you have any.

Apriori judgments that some "absurdity" is unworthy of our study is, of course, perfectly O.K., as long as we own up to the fact that we have not given the subject a reasonable assessment. "Cursory consideration" is not the same as reasonable assessment, and cannot be used to reach any sort of conclusion. Apriori conclusions are just that -- biased and made before judicious consideration -- what we would never want to be done to us in a court of law, nor in the court of public opinion. All of us merely want fair consideration, not snap judgments made on zero evidence. How would any of us feel if 12 jurors took one look at us and (without hearing any testimony) decided we were guilty of some crime we hadn't committed? That's what's called a "kangaroo court." Mormons are only asking for a fair hearing. Why do you refuse that simple request?

[Robert F. Smith]

About possible BoMs hebrew roots http://www.lds.net/f...ve-book-mormon/

Just a jewish rabbi telling his IMHO.

Why would JS ask Emma if there was a wall around Jerico... who was writting at that moment? Why JS never asked where they had stopped, before ... dinner... but just continued translation direct, where he had been? Even if done just for show it would require very special consentration as NEVER to go back to anything on the script.

Wasn't that Joseph asking Oliver whether there was a wall around Jerusalem?

[Uncle Dale]

...

it is most unlikely that any American scholar (whether at Dartmouth, Princeton, or Harvard) knew even one word of Coptic. Even if they did, it would not have helped them create Book of Mormon or Spalding Manuscript names.

...

It was not my contention that Siolomon Spalding or Ethan Smith,

or even one of their noted professors, Dr. John Smith, of Dartmouth

spoke Coptic. The point I made was that within the Coptic-speaking

population of Egypt, ancient words and names had been preserved,

even in the face of Arabic being the nation's language.

How many isolated Christian peasants in 1800 spoke Coptic, I do

not know. I assume that their priests and scholars knew it and

were able to differentiate an Arabic name from an Egyptian name.

If, in the 1820s, somebody had taken a list of the made-up names

from Spalding's Roman story, along with a list of names still

being used by Egyptian Christians, to Dr. Samuel Mitchill, I'd

guess that he could have differentiated the made-up names from

actual Egyptian proper nouns.

How many other pre-1830 scholars could have told us that

"Pashur" and "Paarai" seemed more authentically ancient, than

"Lamesa" and "Lobaska"?

I do not know -- but I grant it possible that tranliterations

reasonably close to ancient names could have been derived

from the available scholarship and authentic ancient texts

such as the Bible.

If LDS scientists wish to publish the so-called "Egyptian" names

in Helaman as proof that the text could NOT have been constructed

before 1830 in English, (with insertions of some exotic names),

then that is their prerogative. I do not see, however, that

such assertions should necessarily force persons such as

myself to concur with such LDS faith-promoting.

If a consensus of non-LDS scholars eventually sustain the

LDS position (in the same way they sustain other linguistic

and historical facts), then I promise to take another look.

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

I will try to respond to your other thoughtful remarks when time allows.

But I do wish to share with you the tremendous pressure brought against

me during the 1970s and 1980s, when I was attempting to research the

polygamy of Joseph, Hyrum and William.

The pressure was greatest and most noticeable at the local branch

level -- but I also felt it from regional representatives and

visiting apostles.

It was more subtle at the "World Church" level -- in such place as

Graceland College and Headquarters in Independence. But even then,

when Grant McMurray was the head archivist, any investigator of

Smith family polygamy immediately ran into roadblocks, diversions,

delays and official discouragement.

Behind closed doors apostles and stake presidents would admit to

that pre-Brigham polygamy -- even admit that the Smiths taught it

as a Church doctrine at Nauvoo.

Then, when those doors were opened, and the general membership

could see and hear what was being discussed, the very same RLDS

leaders would base practically the entire rationale for the

Reorganization on Brigham's polygamous apostasy.

It was very much "like the Roman Catholic Inquisition superintending"

my thoughts, actions and potential advancement in callings. Although

it was not the major reason for my leaving Community of Christ, it was

the "last straw" in my final official counsel from my priesthood

superiors.

All I said was ----> "If Joseph Smith was a practicing, doctrine-teaching

polygamist (and he most certainly was just that); then the RLDS Church did

NOT restore the 'True Church' and the Reorganization rests upon a

false foundation."

Perhaps in the year 2010 such a statement can be voiced from the

podium, during a testimony session. But when I said it, it was anathema.

Suppose some LDS scholar came to a similar discovery regarding

the foundation of the LDS Church. Would he/she be free to voice

that conclusion as a religious teaching?

UD

Yes, I recall very well the time when Richard Howard published the article in the Saints' Herald accurately placing the blame for polygyny at the feet of Joseph Smith. Of course he and Grant had known very well that this was a fact long before it was published, and this was merely one of a number of new directions being taken by the RLDS tradition which proved difficult for many faithful members. The Book of Mormon as an authentic document and other Restoration "distinctives" were being jettisoned, and even the succession of descendants of Joseph Smith in the Presidency ended -- since Pres. Wally B. had no male heirs. Some high officials within the RLDS Church had been preparing for this new direction for a long time, beginning with the young men who began attending Protestant seminaries just after WW II (on the G.I. Bill). I knew several who graduated from St. Paul School of Theology (Methodist), and the die was cast by the mid-sixties with the so-called "Position Papers." I also recall that Olive Wilcox's Church of Christ on Crysler St. was undergoing a similar metamorphosis into a Protestant congregation -- in that case something akin to a Nazarene Church -- and they sent their children to college at Bob Jones University after they had finished local Baptist high school graduation. By the way, I have nothing against Methodists or Nazarenes. My granddad was a Methodist minister, as was my uncle Jim. Good people.

Of course, you know very well that an LDS scholar noisily preaching that the Book of Mormon is not authentic ancient history, etc., might find himself on the outside looking in. Of course that didn't happen to Prof. Sterling McMurrin, despite his publicly expressed opinion that the Book of Mormon was pure fiction. The suggestion that one must perforce worry about life and limb is just not accurate, and I know personally that when Dr. David P. Wright left BYU and got a good job at Brandeis he carried with him an excellent letter of recommendation from BYU. That he couldn't stay at BYU was no surprise to anyone. Why would the Church pay him to deny fundamental LDS beliefs? Fawn Brodie's work speaks for itself and there was no surprise that she was unchurched for it. She and her husband had excellent careers at UCLA and she did very well in her book writing and publishing endeavors. This is still a free country, Dale.

Bob