Throw Out The Dates, Mayan Mystery

[Robert F. Smith]

Sitting hairs again. Everyone knows what I mean whn I say "Indian" in reference to the ancient peoples of the Americas. If you want I will refer to them by their real names of the which archaeologists do not accept. So thus, from now on, I will refer to them as Jarwdites, Nephites and Lamanites.

Of course we all know what is meant by the word "indian," and you can look it up in the dictionary and verify what I told you about it.

But you didn't get my point (as usual):  Your comments on the cultures of the New World are as inane as those of the discoverers who thought they were Indians from India.  That is why they misnamed them "Indians."  Their ignorance became the basis of a modern misunderstanding which you perpetuate.  You need to abandon your fantasies about the New World and adhere to fact.

I will start by asking you just where are the reformed egyptian languages in meso-America?

I'll be happy to answer your question, as usual, but does that mean that you are now willing to answer my questions in posts ## 8, and 21?  Or are you going to continue to ignore my requests?  Is there ever any give & take in your world?  Do you actually know what a discussion is?

 

Anyhow, if you want to see ancient Egyptian language in the New World, see my study on "Sawi-Zaa" (the languages of Oaxaca) at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/56696298-SAWI-ZAA .  "Reformed Egyptian" is a term applied only to the Egyptian writing system used by an extinct line of Nephite scribes.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Osborn]

I'll be happy to answer your question, as usual, but does that mean that you are now willing to answer my questions in posts ## 8, and 21?  Or are you going to continue to ignore my requests?  Is there ever any give & take in your world?  Do you actually know what a discussion is?

 

Anyhow, if you want to see ancient Egyptian language in the New World, see my study on "Sawi-Zaa" (the languages of Oaxaca) at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/56696298-SAWI-ZAA .  "Reformed Egyptian" is a term applied only to the Egyptian writing system used by an extinct line of Nephite scribes.

I answered your post #21 in my post #33. As for #8, I really dont care what exact year Christ was born, that is not part of this debate. I was making the point that Jarwdites and Nephites based their calendars off of biblical events or scriptural accounts.

I read through your article and completwly didnt see where you have shown reformed egyptian written down anciently in Meso-America. I have my own theories but I want to hear your reply.

[David T]

All the term 'reformed Egyptian' really tells us coming from a 4th Century Nephite is that it is definitely 'not Egyptian'.

Looking for what we know as any form of old-world Egyptian is looking for what the 4th century record keepers said they definitely did not write in.

It basically gives lip service to traditional way known to have been used in some way by ancestors, for continuity sake of sorts, while actually acknowledging that practically and in reality, the two share nothing but the name and association with sacred records.

Edited September 30, 2013 by David T

[MormonMason]

Why build a sea going vessel to go from the land of Bountiful by the narrow neck to go to the land northward if that distance was 100-200 miles? Thats ridiculous. The limited geography model fails rather miserably with the story of Hagoths shipbuilding and the migrations of exceedingly great distances. No civilization can be seen as travelinf such a small distace and then have it recorded as an exceedingly great distance.

Mormon thought Hagoth was a strange character, too.  Part of Hagoth's "exceedingly curious" behavior was his building of ships to sail to the land northward.  It was curious enough to warrant attention and to mention that he was a "an exceedingly curious man" for even undertaking such an odd thing.  Do you not even read the context before you remark?

 

 

5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

 

(Alma 63:5)

 

As to traveling a short distance and yet being an exceedingly great distance over land, if you know the topography of Mexico it makes perfect sense.  Hagoth would have at first followed the current along the shoreline up into the Gulf of California.  He would have landed the people but then they either would have had to have traveled into the dangerous Sonoran Desert, and many would have died, or migrated southward along the safer routes.  Mountain ranges would have made much of the terrain impassible.  Anything that would have allowed for passage would have required exploration, which would have required many miles of travel and an "exceedingly great" cumulative distance to cover.

 

Most would have simply begun migrating southward in the land and gone around the mountain ranges, which would have added several hundreds of miles more, each way, to their spreading about in the land by a southward route into Desolation, around the mountain ranges, and then back up toward the land described, at which they arrived after many days and covering an exceedingly great distance, with all the additional several hundreds of travel miles and longer migration time that would have been added as a result of Hagoth's curious plans.

 

But, again, notice that Mormon does NOT describe his own march to Cumorah in his own time as "an exceedingly great distance."  The distance was nothing of note to him in recording his march there from Desolation.  But, again, all this is more plausible and more easily reconcilable in a Mesoamerican setting.

[ksfisher]

Mormon thought Hagoth was a strange character, too.  Part of Hagoth's "exceedingly curious" behavior was his building of ships to sail to the land northward.  It was curious enough to warrant attention and to mention that he was a "an exceedingly curious man" for even undertaking such an odd thing.  Do you not even read the context before you remark?.

#2 definition of "curious" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is:

"Exhibiting care or nicety; artfully constructed; elaborate; wrought with elegence or skill."

And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, (Exodus 35:32)

to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship (1 Nephi 16:10)

And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich. (Helaman 6:11)

And they did work all manner of work of exceedingly curious workmanship. (Ether 10:27)

I believe this is the proper context in which to place Hagoth's curiosity,

[cursor]

Great info. 

Thanks for the "curious" scriptorial references.

[MormonMason]

#2 definition of "curious" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is:

"Exhibiting care or nicety; artfully constructed; elaborate; wrought with elegence or skill."

And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, (Exodus 35:32)

to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship (1 Nephi 16:10)

And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich. (Helaman 6:11)

And they did work all manner of work of exceedingly curious workmanship. (Ether 10:27)

I believe this is the proper context in which to place Hagoth's curiosity,

Unfortunately, Webster did not always carry all definitions of a word in its proper place, or sometimes even used something more obscure to the average reader.  It also does not address all dialectical forms of American English. Typically, it would be better to make use of the 1806 dictionary when looking into potential meanings of English words in the Book of Mormon.  However, that one is not of much help here, either.  That said, these dictionaries should only form a starting point.  Sticking with only an English dictionary and/or insisting that a word has the same meaning across the board in all occurrences makes it all too easy to engage in root fallacy.

 

In the text examples you gave above, curious in the sense of careful, skilled workmanship, etc., is warranted in the sense of definition 2 of the 1828 dictionary of Webster.  But when one speaks of a curious man in the sense of "being an exceedingly curious man," that also can have alternate senses besides being inquisitive, etc., sometimes having negative connotations.

 

In the case of the Hagoth instance, Mormon was not discussing how careful Hagoth was, how skillfully made he was, how skillful at shipbuilding he was, or how inquisitive he was regarding the land northward.  "Curious workmanship" or a like term would have been applied to the ship or he would have been referred to as a curious workman.  Instead, he is said to be exceedingly curious.  He got an unusual, odd, or strange idea to ride along the shore rather than enter the land northward from the narrow pass.

 

The word itself came into the English language from Old French, and from Latin before that.  The etymology of curious also carries the sense of odd, unusual or strange.  See the Anglo-Norman Dictionary, definition 4, under entry curios for that further etymology.  That fourth definition is the sense of odd, strange.  Also, if you check later revisions of Webster, you will find the same latter definition. But, even in the 1828 edition, take a look at definition 10 under entry curious.  You will see the word singular.  Look up singular and what do we find? Look at definition 5.  One of the definitions there is odd.

 

Another curiosity of the etymology is that it also could carry the sense of ambitious.  Even that definition might have been better than applying Webster's 1828 definition 2 across the board in the Book of Mormon, but I suppose that is another can of etymological worms.   But, I am thinking that the meaning of strange or odd is appropriate here in this one passage of the Book of Mormon.  It definitely did carry that meaning in Joseph Smith's time and before.  The Book of Mormon neither refers to the workmanship of the ships Hagoth built nor his skillfulness in shipbuilding.  The text would have used a phrase that said so.

Edited October 1, 2013 by MormonMason

[Rob Osborn]

Mormon thought Hagoth was a strange character, too.  Part of Hagoth's "exceedingly curious" behavior was his building of ships to sail to the land northward.  It was curious enough to warrant attention and to mention that he was a "an exceedingly curious man" for even undertaking such an odd thing.  Do you not even read the context before you remark?

 

 

As to traveling a short distance and yet being an exceedingly great distance over land, if you know the topography of Mexico it makes perfect sense.  Hagoth would have at first followed the current along the shoreline up into the Gulf of California.  He would have landed the people but then they either would have had to have traveled into the dangerous Sonoran Desert, and many would have died, or migrated southward along the safer routes.  Mountain ranges would have made much of the terrain impassible.  Anything that would have allowed for passage would have required exploration, which would have required many miles of travel and an "exceedingly great" cumulative distance to cover.

 

Most would have simply begun migrating southward in the land and gone around the mountain ranges, which would have added several hundreds of miles more, each way, to their spreading about in the land by a southward route into Desolation, around the mountain ranges, and then back up toward the land described, at which they arrived after many days and covering an exceedingly great distance, with all the additional several hundreds of travel miles and longer migration time that would have been added as a result of Hagoth's curious plans.

 

But, again, notice that Mormon does NOT describe his own march to Cumorah in his own time as "an exceedingly great distance."  The distance was nothing of note to him in recording his march there from Desolation.  But, again, all this is more plausible and more easily reconcilable in a Mesoamerican setting.

I always read the context. As was already mentioned, the word "curious" justifies the context. Of importance here is why Hagoth built the ship to begin with. In the semi-hemispheric model it makes perfect sense. The narrow neck was a type of natural barrier or difficult area of passage and thus one of the several reasons the Jaredites never migrated into the land southward. An area of desolation at the time of the Nephites Hagoth seized upon the opportunity to provide travel bypassing the narrow neck altogether to get the people north of desolation. My guess is that the Panama region was just as the text reads it being "Bountiful" a place of jungle like area and not readily easy for mass migrations to pass through easily. In support I give this verse-

23 And now he did not tarry in the land of Zarahemla, but he did march forth with a large army, even towards the city of Bountiful; for it was his determination to go forth and cut his way through with the sword, that he might obtain the north parts of the land. (Helaman 1:23)

Hagoths ships thus made sense. In the meso American model it makes no sense whatsoever as the lands northward from proposed locations are closer than the distance to the west sea to get to Hagoths ships. In the Meso-American model the main populations were towards the eastern side of the narrow neck area with Cumorah being also on the eastern side just north of the narrow neck. So then why woyld people travel from the east to get to Hagoths ships, sail north a few hundred miles then dock and let the people out so they can travel back across the land eastward? It doesnt fit any logic.

But, if the narrow neck truly is Panama region and it was somewhat jungle area then it makes perfect sense that Hagoths ships would take them from the upper northwest of Colombia northward past all the narrow neck and land of desolation and into the Sanoran desert area where they did indeed become exceedingly expert in cement in that area to build their houses.

[volgadon]

#2 definition of "curious" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is:

"Exhibiting care or nicety; artfully constructed; elaborate; wrought with elegence or skill."

And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, (Exodus 35:32)

to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship (1 Nephi 16:10)

And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich. (Helaman 6:11)

And they did work all manner of work of exceedingly curious workmanship. (Ether 10:27)

I believe this is the proper context in which to place Hagoth's curiosity,

 

Oh, exactly.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am confident that the entire region of meso-America was used heavily in Bom times. I am also of the belief that the majority of events by the Nephites and Lamanites took place in South America. I dont subscribe too much to the limited geography model for two reasons- first, I dont like to place limits on things as it may exclude the very truth were looking and searching for, and second- the text to me is much greater in scope than what some tend to think. I brought up the quote from Coe as an example that the general archaeology peoples do not view the BoM as anything factual or historical. My testimony for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon expands far beyond what modern science can dream up. In the end I will either have heaped a lot of faith in vain or my belief will come to fruitation and nothing will have been in vain.

This is what is called "hairbrained" thinking, which Martin Raish once characterized as "All that Glitters: Uncovering Fools' God in Book of Mormon Archaeology," Sunstone, 6/1 issue #25 (Jan-Feb 1981), 10-16, and reprinted by FARMS.  See it online at  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/025-10-15.pdf .  The cartoons are priceless.

A number of well-meaning people like you even write books on the subject (cf. Venice Priddis, The Book and the Map: New Insights into Book of Mormon Geography), thus subjecting those of us who take the Book of Mormon seriously to the kind of embarrassment which comes when a boorish relative comes to a gathering and has no idea what constitutes polite behavior.

Your "gut instincts" are a shame and an embarrassment to all who think that that the Book of Mormon withstands close academic scrutiny rather well.  Why?  Because you show a complete lack of faith that the document is so bona fide that it doesn't need crazy speculation to justify it.  The anti-Mormons love your double-speak, Rob.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have ideas just like anyone else. I dont have any kind of complex but rather an iquisitive mind that seeks out the truth. I put two and two together and a lot of times get mocked over it. Thats ok though because I will leave no stone unturned. My gut instincts tell me that the vast ancient ruins in the meso-American geography have Jaredite written all over them. Moroni used some specific details about the Jaredites that indicated that they were far more advanced as a civilization than his own nation ever was. In his abridgement he tells of a mighty nation who covered the land and built spacious buildings of every kind including many mighty cities. He even wrote that their crafts were of exceedingly curious workmanship. I have thought long and hard about all the evidence.

I see no indication whatsoever that you have "an inquisitive mind," that you "seek the truth," or that you "have thought long and hard about all the evidence."  Had you done so, we would at least see you discussing hard issues on this board rather than always responding with the sort of by gosh and by golly notions we might expect from a reader of the Chronicles of Narnia.

 

The great Mayan ruins were already long abandoned and even forgotten about when the first European explorers came. No native tribes knew who they were.

Were did this false notion come from?  Gut instinct?  Had you bothered to read my piece on Maya chronology, you would have realized that your gut instinct is completely misleading you.  A good corrective would be to see Mel Gibson's film Apocalypto, which accurately depicts Maya life in the Yucatan on the eve of the Spanish Conquest of Yucatan.

You look at the scope of the Jaredite empire and things start to add up in favor of the Mayans being that very Jaredite empire. The Mayans gloried in two things- the divineship idolatry of kingship and that of building cities and spacious buildings. These exact two things is what Moroni spoke of in his abridgement about them. We know that the Jaredites built many buildings of every kind and had many great cities. The language they used was a language that we know was recorded on large stones telling the take of kings and conquering nations. Somehow it was important in Jaredite culture to create stela for all the world to see. There is no mention of Nephites ever writing and creating monumental stela as did Corianrumr. Now certainly Corianrumr could of written his tale on something smaller. Why then did he write on a large stone telling the tale of his people? My opinion was it was tradition-part of their culture. Its what kings in his society did. This culture of the Jaredites is the Mayan.

A nice off-the-wall supposition which is also completely false.  The Maya and the Olmec lived and flourished in different places at different times.  You have completely bollixed the chronology.  This is tantamount to your declaring that the Israelites and Sumerians are the same culture.

................................................................   

One thing is for sure, the Mayans left a testimony of ruins showing the world they were perhapa the greatest nation on the earth for their times. Even the Nephites looked up in awe at the greatness od their fallen society.

An odd surmise, since the Nephites precede the great Maya Classic period, which is derivitive of the earlier cultures -- including the Olmec (Jaredites).

Im stickibg with my gut instinct here and going with the idea that the Matans were the Jaredites and that the correlation of dates is way off as deduced by archeoligy attempts. Call me a heretic if the world wants but the evidence to me lines up pretty well.

Still going with your belief that science is nonsense and that any fairy tale invented by you is automatically true.  You need to forget the Book of Mormon and read the Chronicles of Narnia.  After that, you might want to get caught up on Wagner's Ring Cycle, or in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

 

Edited October 1, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................   

I read through your article and completwly didnt see where you have shown reformed egyptian written down anciently in Meso-America. I have my own theories but I want to hear your reply.

As I said, and which you ignored: "Reformed Egyptian" is a term applied only to the Egyptian writing system used by an extinct line of Nephite scribes.

There is no indication  that it was used for any other purpose.  However, since we also know from the Book of Mormon text that Egyptian language was used by those scribes, it is at least interesting that examples of that language do show up in Oaxaca (these languages are still spoken there).

[Robert F. Smith]

I found this guys blog pretty interesting and quite thourough. There are 8 parts explaining why the Mayan correlation issue is a problem-

http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/2012-the-maya-calendar-correlation-problem-pt-1/

Thanks for that, Rob.  It is interesting.  However, did you understand any of it?

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................... As for #8, I really dont care what exact year Christ was born, that is not part of this debate. I was making the point that Jarwdites and Nephites based their calendars off of biblical events or scriptural accounts.

.........................................................

 

Rob Osborn, post #8, on 25 Sept 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

The Nephites counted out days and years they were removed from Jerusalem by Lehi ans family. After Christ came they counted from that time forward.

 

 

I replied:

He asked you for exactitude, and you give him this?  What exact year did Lehi leave Jerusalem?  What exact year was Jesus born?

 

You mean that your gut instinct doesn’t have an opinion?

Edited October 1, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Osborn]

This is what is called "hairbrained" thinking, which Martin Raish once characterized as "All that Glitters: Uncovering Fools' God in Book of Mormon Archaeology," Sunstone, 6/1 issue #25 (Jan-Feb 1981), 10-16, and reprinted by FARMS.  See it online at  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/025-10-15.pdf .  The cartoons are priceless.

A number of well-meaning people like you even write books on the subject (cf. Venice Priddis, The Book and the Map: New Insights into Book of Mormon Geography), thus subjecting those of us who take the Book of Mormon seriously to the kind of embarrassment which comes when a boorish relative comes to a gathering and has no idea what constitutes polite behavior.

Your "gut instincts" are a shame and an embarrassment to all who think that that the Book of Mormon withstands close academic scrutiny rather well.  Why?  Because you show a complete lack of faith that the document is so bona fide that it doesn't need crazy speculation to justify it.  The anti-Mormons love your double-speak, Rob.

I will politely ignore this...

[Rob Osborn]

Thanks for that, Rob.  It is interesting.  However, did you understand any of it?

Do you think I understood any of it? I wouldnt of called the dates into question if there werent issues with the correlation dates by serious scholars of the subject. His posts bring up my whole point about why archaeology has its huge holes.

[David T]

As I said, and which you ignored: "Reformed Egyptian" is a term applied only to the Egyptian writing system used by an extinct line of Nephite scribes.

 

I think it might be more accurate to say "Reformed Egyptian" is a term applied to the otherwise undescribed writing system used by an extinct line. We know that it is not Egyptian, but only 'called such among us'.

 

Joseph himself tended use Egypt and Egyptian as stand-ins for something 'Ancient and Hidden'.

 

I would be very surprised if Mormon's composition wasn't far more similar to contemporary local writing systems. What is clear is that Mormon did not write in what Nephi wrote in.

 

Because only the Nephite plate-keeping line would have had any reason to call it 'Reformed Egyptian' for sacred continuity, we shouldn't expect for any such writing system when/if discovered to be linguistically classified anything like an Old World Egyptian writing system. The text itself shows that we shouldn't expect that. 

 

What we do know is that it wasn't in and of itself clearly written in a popular general public writing system (Mormon knew that a 'key' would be needed to interpret it), but perhaps written in what would be considered a cypher of sorts. He probably assumed the general public language would continue on - his writing in this Sacred Writing thus wouldn't be 'sealed up' by his use of that language then.

Edited October 1, 2013 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

I have ideas just like anyone else. I dont have any kind of complex but rather an iquisitive mind that seeks out the truth. I put two and two together and a lot of times get mocked over it. Thats ok though because I will leave no stone unturned. My gut instincts tell me that the vast ancient ruins in the meso-American geography have Jaredite written all over them. Moroni used some specific details about the Jaredites that indicated that they were far more advanced as a civilization than his own nation ever was. In his abridgement he tells of a mighty nation who covered the land and built spacious buildings of every kind including many mighty cities. He even wrote that their crafts were of exceedingly curious workmanship. I have thought long and hard about all the evidence.

I see no indication whatsoever that you have "an inquisitive mind," that you "seek the truth," or that you "have thought long and hard about all the evidence."  Had you done so, we would at least see you discussing hard issues on this board rather than always responding with the sort of by gosh and by golly notions we might expect from a reader of the Chronicles of Narnia.

 

The great Mayan ruins were already long abandoned and even forgotten about when the first European explorers came. No native tribes knew who they were.

Were did this false notion come from?  Gut instinct?  Had you bothered to read my piece on Maya chronology, you would have realized that your gut instinct is completely misleading you.  A good corrective would be to see Mel Gibson's film Apocalypto, which accurately depicts Maya life in the Yucatan on the eve of the Spanish Conquest of Yucatan.

You look at the scope of the Jaredite empire and things start to add up in favor of the Mayans being that very Jaredite empire. The Mayans gloried in two things- the divineship idolatry of kingship and that of building cities and spacious buildings. These exact two things is what Moroni spoke of in his abridgement about them. We know that the Jaredites built many buildings of every kind and had many great cities. The language they used was a language that we know was recorded on large stones telling the take of kings and conquering nations. Somehow it was important in Jaredite culture to create stela for all the world to see. There is no mention of Nephites ever writing and creating monumental stela as did Corianrumr. Now certainly Corianrumr could of written his tale on something smaller. Why then did he write on a large stone telling the tale of his people? My opinion was it was tradition-part of their culture. Its what kings in his society did. This culture of the Jaredites is the Mayan.

A nice off-the-wall supposition which is also completely false.  The Maya and the Olmec lived and flourished in different places at different times.  You have completely bollixed the chronology.  This is tantamount to your declaring that the Israelites and Sumerians are the same culture.

................................................................   One thing is for sure, the Mayans left a testimony of ruins showing the world they were perhapa the greatest nation on the earth for their times. Even the Nephites looked up in awe at the greatness od their fallen society.

An odd surmise, since the Nephites precede the great Maya Classic period, which is derivitive of the earlier cultures -- including the Olmec (Jaredites).

Im stickibg with my gut instinct here and going with the idea that the Matans were the Jaredites and that the correlation of dates is way off as deduced by archeoligy attempts. Call me a heretic if the world wants but the evidence to me lines up pretty well.

Still going with your belief that science is nonsense and that any fairy tale invented by you is automatically true.  You need to forget the Book of Mormon and read the Chronicles of Narnia.  After that, you might want to get caught up on Wagner's Ring Cycle, or in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

So rather than counter my logic you mock it ?

[Rob Osborn]

I think it might be more accurate to say "Reformed Egyptian" is a term applied to the otherwise undescribed writing system used by an extinct line. We know that it is not Egyptian, but only 'called such among us'.

 

Joseph himself tended use Egypt and Egyptian as stand-ins for something 'Ancient and Hidden'.

 

I would be very surprised if Mormon's composition wasn't far more similar to contemporary local writing systems. What is clear is that Mormon did not write in what Nephi wrote in.

 

Because only the Nephite plate-keeping line would have had any reason to call it 'Reformed Egyptian' for sacred continuity, we shouldn't expect for any such writing system when/if discovered to be linguistically classified anything like an Old World Egyptian writing system. The text itself shows that we shouldn't expect that. 

 

What we do know is that it wasn't in and of itself clearly written in a popular general public writing system (Mormon knew that a 'key' would be needed to interpret it), but perhaps written in what would be considered a cypher of sorts. He probably assumed the general public language would continue on - his writing in this Sacred Writing thus wouldn't be 'sealed up' by his use of that language then.

The Jaredites had their own written language and until it was deciphered it wasnt used at all by Nephites. The Nephites had their own distinct language from that of the Jaredites. At least we should find 2 very distinct writtwn languages. Why is it we only find the one?

[David T]

The Jaredites had their own written language and until it was deciphered it wasnt used at all by Nephites. The Nephites had their own distinct language from that of the Jaredites. At least we should find 2 very distinct writtwn languages. Why is it we only find the one?

 

There are many languages at use in contemporary America, none of which is explicitly and uniquely Mormonese. Archaeologists would not determine a 'Mormon' language (artifacts of the short-lived Deseret Alphabet notwithstanding). Subcultures generally need to adapt - especially when you want to communicate, trade, etc with the rest of society-at-large.

[ksfisher]

The Jaredites had their own written language and until it was deciphered it wasnt used at all by Nephites. The Nephites had their own distinct language from that of the Jaredites. At least we should find 2 very distinct writtwn languages. Why is it we only find the one?

 

A quick search of everyones most reliable source, Wikipedia, lists "5 or 6" writing systems used in Mesoamerica.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_writing_systems

[cursor]

"It is logical to expect that the array of environmental settings and the multiple peoples occupying them would be reflected in the number and distribution of languages spoken anciently in Mesoamerica. Around the world, the more broken the terrain, the more fragmented is the distribution of languages. It is impossible to know precisely how many tongues were used in Mesoamerica, but two hundred would not overstate the number. (These were distinct languages, each on unintelligible to speakers of other languages, not merely dialects.)

 

"Linguists are far from united on how these tongues related to each other. Some reckon that five or six major, independent families were involved. Those families differ from each other as much as, say, the Semitic family (including Hebrew) differs from the Indo-European family (including English and Latin). But other language experts are less willing to lump diverse languages into such gross families. The number of groupings they recognize is closer to two dozen, each seemingly independent from the others. Certain single languages have no apparent relatives at all in the area. No evidence hints that there was ever one dominant language or language family throughout Mesoamerica."

 

John L. Sorenson

[Rob Osborn]

I am speaking of "written languages". Why do we only find one style in meso-America if there really should be at least 2 separate and distinct written languages?

[poulsenll]

I am speaking of "written languages". Why do we only find one style in meso-America if there really should be at least 2 separate and distinct written languages?

Please read!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_writing_systems

Larry P

Edited October 1, 2013 by poulsenll

[Rob Osborn]

Please read!!!!http://en.wikipedia....writing_systemsLarry P

Link doesnt work