Anthon Transcript Verified As Reformed Egyptian?

[teddyaware]

Furthermore I refuse to believe a work as asinine as that one has preliminary research or that anyone in the field would ruin their professional reputation by endorsing it.

I think there is a good possibility your observations may turn out to be correct. The only problem I have is how easily you dismiss something you haven't even read and analyzed. This is surely exactly the same kind of thinking that causes many to not even give the Book of Mormon a fair shake. After all, what reasonable and educated person could possibly believe a young, uneducated country bumpkin from a 19th century New York backwater town, who claimed to converse with God and angels no less, could possibly produce any literature that would be worth reading?

 

I try to keep an open mind because the Saviour said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It seems an untenable position to be a Latter-day Saint who wants others to read and seriously ponder our sacred books -- in spite of their exceedingly curious provenance -- and at the same time dismiss out of hand the literary works of others who seem they might have something significant to say. I will not dismiss Deleanu as a fraud until his work is actually read and analyzed. As the saying goes, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

I  started this thread with the hope that someone on this board had already read and analyized Deleanu's work. But what I got instead is a bunch of cocksure negative opinions by folks who haven't read his work. 

Edited January 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[maklelan]

I think there is a good possibility your observations may turn out to be correct. The only problem I have is how easily you dismiss something you haven't even read and analyzed. This is surely exactly the same kind of thinking that causes many to not even give the Book of Mormon a fair shake. After all, what reasonable and educated person could possibly believe a young, uneducated country bumpkin from a 19th century New York backwater town, who claimed to converse with God and angels no less, could possibly produce any literature that would be worth reading?

 

I try to keep an open mind because the Saviour said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It seems an untenable position to be a Latter-day Saint who wants others to read and seriously ponder our sacred books -- in spite of their exceedingly curious provenance -- and at the same time dismiss out of hand the literary works of others who seem they might have something significant to say. I will not dismiss Deleanu as a fraud until his work is actually read and analyzed. As the saying goes, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

I  started this thread with the hope that someone on this board had already read and analyized Deleanu's work. But what I got instead is a bunch of cocksure negative opinions by folks who haven't read his work. 

 

I've read more than enough of his texts to know he has absolutely no clue whatsoever what he's talking about. It's dillettantish nonsense. Like I said, there's nothing even approximating actual empirical evidence of any of the claims. It's just a bunch of naked assertion and dilettantish nonsense. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On a slight tangent, a friend mentioned these today saying he was disturbed by how much the original manuscript looks like childish squiggles and distorted English letters.

I mentioned that it's not known for certain that the copy we have today is the actual version copied off the plates by Joseph. I promised him I'd look for other info supporting the transcript.

Any suggestions? (Not the book in this thread!)

Two non-Mormon Egyptologists (Richard A. Parker & W. C. Hayes) thought it looked like actual Egyptian.

 

An excellent 19th century photo of it has been found, http://mormonitemusings.com/2013/08/26/19th-century-photo-of-joseph-smiths-caractors-discovered/ , and scholarly articles are forthcoming.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

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

I  started this thread with the hope that someone on this board had already read and analyized Deleanu's work. But what I got instead is a bunch of cocksure negative opinions by folks who haven't read his work. 

I suggest that you read some of his work in preview form, free, on Amazon, or at Scribd.com.  Then tell me what you think.  We've given you lots of substantive information in addition to opinions.  Now its your turn.

 

Reformed Egyptian and Its Decipherment, Daniel Deleanu (Toronto: LogoStar Press, Nov 1, 2012); 117p.  

Dr. Daniel Deleanu’s book is an objective study of the original language of the Book of Mormon, which he has reconstructed starting from his own “Rosetta Stone,” namely the controversial "Anthon Transcript", which he proves to be absolutely authentic, and the so-called "Ferrini Lead Fragment", a tiny piece from a scroll found in Israel that once belonged to Bruce Ferrini, the antiquities dealer who put on the market the Gospel of Judas. Dr. Deleanu clearly evinces Reformed Egyptian’s Semitic roots and, through etymological research, its connections with Paleo-Hebrew, with the script it borrowed from Egypt, and, possibly, with several Mesoamerican languages. Dr. Deleanu is an independent researcher who is not affiliated in any way with the LDS Church or any other religious institution

 

Reformed Egyptian Grammar: Volume 1 - Morphology, Daniel Deleanu (Toronto: LogoStar Press, Oct 20, 2012); 153pp. 

The first volume of the "Reformed Egyptian Grammar" by Daniel Deleanu, PhD, is an objective study of the original language of the Book of Mormon, which he has reconstructed starting from his own “Rosetta Stone,” namely the controversial "Anthon Transcript," which he proves to be absolutely authentic, and the so-called "Ferrini Lead Fragment," a tiny piece from a scroll found in Israel that once belonged to Bruce Ferrini, the antiquities dealer who put on the market the Gospel of Judas. Dr. Deleanu clearly evinces Reformed Egyptian’s Semitic roots and, through etymological research, its connections with Paleo-Hebrew, with the script it borrowed from Egypt, and, possibly, with several Mesoamerican languages. Dr. Deleanu, who holds a doctorate magna cum laude in philology (the study of ancient languages and literatures) is an independent researcher who is not affiliated in any way with the LDS Church or any other religious institution

 

Reformed Egyptian Grammar: Volume 2 - Syntax, Daniel Deleanu (Toronto: LogoStar Press, June 25, 2013); 204pp.

The second volume of the "Reformed Egyptian Grammar" by Daniel Deleanu, PhD, is an objective study of the syntax of the original language of the Book of Mormon, which he has reconstructed starting from his own "Rosetta Stone," namely the controversial "Anthon Transcript," which he proves to be absolutely authentic, and the so-called "Ferrini Lead Fragment," a tiny piece from a scroll found in Israel that once belonged to Bruce Ferrini, the antiquities dealer who put on the market the Gospel of Judas. Dr. Deleanu clearly evinces Reformed Egyptian's Semitic roots and, through etymological research, its connections with Paleo-Hebrew, with the script it borrowed from Egypt, and, possibly, with several Mesoamerican languages. Daniel Deleanu holds, among other degrees, a doctorate magna cum laude in philology.

 

The Reformed Egyptian Verb, Daniel Deleanu (Toronto: LogoStar Press, Aug 1, 2013); 137pp.  

After the decipherment of Reformed Egyptian and the publishing of its first grammar book, Daniel Deleanu enlarges the corpus of Reformed Egyptian studies with this essential volume in which he analyzes in detail the Reformed Egyptian verb, both morphologically and syntactically, offering lots of examples and etymons.

 

Reformed Egyptian Lexicon, Daniel Deleanu (Toronto: LogoStar Press, Aug 22, 2013); 174pp.  

The first attempt, after the decipherment of Reformed Egyptian by Daniel Deleanu in 2012, at creating a lexical database in order to accompany the two volumes of his Reformed Egyptian Grammar.

 

The Egyptian Book of the Dead, According to the Papyrus of Ani, A New Translation, by Daniel Deleanu (Toronto: LogoStar Press, Dec 16, 2011); 186pp.

 

Poems in Hieroglyphic Egyptian: by Daniel Deleanu (Toronto: LogoStar Press, Sept 30, 2011); 44pp. also available as eBook (PDF): $3.00.

 

TAO TE CHING, By LAO TZU: Translated from Classical Chinese by Daniel Deleanu (Buxton Univ. Press, Nov 11, 2011); 71pp.  eBook (PDF): $2.00, Download immediately.

 

Deleanu, Daniel, The Logoarchetype (Lincoln, Neb: Writer’s Club Press/iUniverseBooks, 2003), read free, or download for $3.99 at  http://www.scribd.com/doc/82405377/The-Logoarchetype –written entirely in logosophistic English.

 

Edited January 1, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[The Nehor]

I think there is a good possibility your observations may turn out to be correct. The only problem I have is how easily you dismiss something you haven't even read and analyzed. This is surely exactly the same kind of thinking that causes many to not even give the Book of Mormon a fair shake. After all, what reasonable and educated person could possibly believe a young, uneducated country bumpkin from a 19th century New York backwater town, who claimed to converse with God and angels no less, could possibly produce any literature that would be worth reading?

 

I try to keep an open mind because the Saviour said that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It seems an untenable position to be a Latter-day Saint who wants others to read and seriously ponder our sacred books -- in spite of their exceedingly curious provenance -- and at the same time dismiss out of hand the literary works of others who seem they might have something significant to say. I will not dismiss Deleanu as a fraud until his work is actually read and analyzed. As the saying goes, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

I  started this thread with the hope that someone on this board had already read and analyized Deleanu's work. But what I got instead is a bunch of cocksure negative opinions by folks who haven't read his work. 

 

Then get ripped off and buy the book and analyze it. I don't live in a glass house. I don't publish hack works about topics I do not understand with fake endorsements from dead specialists. I think you demean the Book of Mormon by comparing it to this book.

[canard78]

Two non-Mormon Egyptologists (Richard A. Parker & W. C. Hayes) thought it looked like actual Egyptian.

 

An excellent 19th century photo of it has been found, http://mormonitemusings.com/2013/08/26/19th-century-photo-of-joseph-smiths-caractors-discovered/ , and scholarly articles are forthcoming.

 

 

Terryl Givens notes that the markings on the transcript "have been variously described as everything from Phoenician writing to Mayan script to occult symbols, from 'a Nubian corruption of Egyptian' to secret masonic code... -SNIP-

 

• Micmac Indian script
• Demotic Egyptian
• Mesoamerican cylinder seals
• Old South Arabian and Old North Arabian
• Tironian notae
• Ogham script
• English shorthand systems

 

Thanks both of you.

It seems I was too hasty in taking the "it's not known to be the original" approach and instead would be better off sharing some of these perspectives.

 

The additional articles after Robert's link are very interesting, especially part 2 of 3:

http://mormonitemusings.com/2013/09/22/the-caractors-go-to-new-york/

[Robert F. Smith]

Deleanu, Daniel, Reformed Egyptian and Its Decipherment (Toronto: LogoStar Press, 2012); 117pp.  ISBN 978-1-300-36566-2

 

Daniel Deleanu, Reformed Egyptian Grammar, vol. I: Morphology (Toronto: LogoStar Press, 2012); 153pp.  ISBN 978-1-300-34311-0

 

These are the only two of Daniel Deleanu’s books which I have thus far been able to find and read (I found them at the LDS Church History Library in SLC).  They provide an adequate explanation of his method and the results of his attempt to decipher Reformed Egyptian and the so-called “Anthon Transcript.”

 

Reading between the lines of his books, it is clear that Deleanu began by scanning the Anthon Transcript (AT), selecting a set of characters from it which resemble (to a greater or lesser degree) Latin letters, and attempted to read the AT.  Despite the fact that no coherent message either in English or Hebrew was obtained thereby, he simply went on to present his conclusions in several books.  In so doing, he discussed the theoretical basis of his decipherment, and the implications for Book of Mormon studies (even throwing in some apologetics).

 

He reported in his Decipherment book (5) that “Reformed Egyptian¹ uses an alphabetic script.  The task of its decipherment has been accomplished by employing the Anthon Transcript as a sort of ‘map legend’ for the signs/characters . . . .”   He footnoted (n. 1) that “Reformed Egyptian designates both the language in which the Book of Mormon was originally written and its Script, as mentioned therein (Mormon 9:32-35).”  What he means by that is that, through a tortuous evolutionary sequence (from Proto-Sinaitic writing and its source in ancient Egyptian rebus script, and via Paleo-Hebrew), one ends up with an essentially Hebraic script and language:  Reformed Egyptian is not Egyptian at all, but rather Hebrew written in a sort of evolved Paleo-Hebrew and Latin script!!

 

The Anthon Transcript itself (6) is not “a quote,” since it does not contain enough “recurrent sign groups,” and is “not an abjad, . . .”  Moreover, a “source . . . of equal value . . . is the so-called Ferrini Lead Fragment,” which (8 ) was inscribed “in a combination of Aramaic and Reformed Egyptian, . . .”  That fragment (9) has been his “Rosetta Stone” in decipherment of “the original language . . . of the Book of Mormon.”  This was done “on purely onomasiological principles,” i.e., “an a priori” and “heuristic modus operandi,” in which (10, n. 2), following Roland Barthes, the AT evinces “’a colourless writing freed from all bondage to a pre-ordained state of language’” (citing Barthes, Writing Degree Zero, 82), “with which we have associated the Anthon Transcript, a writing that later on turns into ‘a dreamed-of language whose freshness, by a kind of ideal anticipation, might portray the perfection of some Adamic world where language would no longer be alienated’” (citing Barthes, 94). 

 

Indeed (11), “the onomasiological analysis proper” employs “a quasi-deconstructionist method borrowed from Jacques Derrida.”  He goes on in that vein for several pages, but does happily provide a good deal of substantive discussion and examples elsewhere when it comes to showing what his conclusions are.

 

He explains that (13) the “graphic forms” of “Hieratic, Demotic, and Coptic” “were all ‘reformed’,” which is probably a true statement.  However, his examples and conclusions elsewhere show almost no knowledge of ancient Egyptian, and his books on this issue (the decipherment of the AT) might just as well have never even concerned themselves with Egyptian.  Egyptian is apparently  irrelevant for his purposes.

 

Just so (14), “the Anthon Transcript, . . contains all true signs which the Weltgeist-Wortgeist pair needs for the ontological representation of the world of the Book of Mormon, and all its philological properties are given in it a priori.”

 

Along with the Ferrini Lead Fragment he also employs other questionable documents, such as (24) the Los Lunas Stone (Decalogue Rock) at Hidden Mountain, NM, as an instance of the evolution of Reformed Egyptian script.  He states (25) that the Los Lunas Stone cannot be a fake (26), because Paleo-Hebrew script was unknown until the 20^th century -- which is a completely false statement (it has been in use all along among the Samaritans).

 

He also covers the (34) evolution “from Paleo-Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian,” of which the Spangler Nodule “represents the first step.”  He cites a Ben Urrutia SEHA paper on that Nodule.

 

In comparing signs in the AT to those known elsewhere, Deleanu (34-55,66-68) tends to free associate signs from any and every available script, no matter from where or when, and no matter whether authentic or fake, including the Jordan Lead Codices, Sinaia Lead Plates, the Tartaria Tablets, Alaska Script, Brahmi, Devanagri, Tibetan, etc.

 

He wisely observes that (72-73) translation problems/inaccuracies in Book of Mormon and Bible are often based on human error, citing Joel M. Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning (NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2010).

As an example, he sees Book of Mormon “elephant” as a peccary, the “horse” as a wild burro (which he believes is native to the Americas).

He has a chart (78, and on page 13 of his Reformed Egyptian Grammar, I) of the entire Reformed Egyptian alphabet, which he says is written from left to right.   In that chart (68), he presents Reformed Egyptian in two different alphabets, minuscule (lower case) and majuscule (capital letters).

 

Finally, he concludes that (75) “The very authenticity of the Reformed Egyptian language and script has now been fully proven.”

In volume one of his Reformed Egyptian Grammar, Deleanu says that (8 ) “Reformed Egyptian is . . . a sort of ‘shorthand’ of Paleo-Hebrew written in Egyptian characters . . ,” yet I can see nothing Egyptian or shorthand about it.  Deleanu never addresses the supposed space-saving qualities of his reformed Egyptian alphabet used on the Book of Mormon plates.  Indeed, the Nephites would have been better off using Paleo-Hebrew script instead of this alphabetic Deleanu concoction.

 

Aside from the non-use of the majuscule letters which he charts, Deleanu never uses most of the “Caractors” in the Anthon Transcript.  He simply doesn’t address that question.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Tiki]

Deleanu, Daniel, Reformed Egyptian and Its Decipherment (Toronto: LogoStar Press, 2012); 117pp.  ISBN 978-1-300-36566-2

 

Daniel Deleanu, Reformed Egyptian Grammar, vol. I: Morphology (Toronto: LogoStar Press, 2012); 153pp.  ISBN 978-1-300-34311-0

 

These are the only two of Daniel Deleanu’s books which I have thus far been able to find and read (I found them at the LDS Church History Library in SLC).  They provide an adequate explanation of his method and the results of his attempt to decipher Reformed Egyptian and the so-called “Anthon Transcript.”

 

Reading between the lines of his books, it is clear that Deleanu began by scanning the Anthon Transcript (AT), selecting a set of characters from it which resemble (to a greater or lesser degree) Latin letters, and attempted to read the AT.  Despite the fact that no coherent message either in English or Hebrew was obtained thereby, he simply went on to present his conclusions in several books.  In so doing, he discussed the theoretical basis of his decipherment, and the implications for Book of Mormon studies (even throwing in some apologetics).

 

He reported in his Decipherment book (5) that “Reformed Egyptian¹ uses an alphabetic script.  The task of its decipherment has been accomplished by employing the Anthon Transcript as a sort of ‘map legend’ for the signs/characters . . . .”   He footnoted (n. 1) that “Reformed Egyptian designates both the language in which the Book of Mormon was originally written and its Script, as mentioned therein (Mormon 9:32-35).”  What he means by that is that, through a tortuous evolutionary sequence (from Proto-Sinaitic writing and its source in ancient Egyptian rebus script, and via Paleo-Hebrew), one ends up with an essentially Hebraic script and language:  Reformed Egyptian is not Egyptian at all, but rather Hebrew written in a sort of evolved Paleo-Hebrew and Latin script!!

 

The Anthon Transcript itself (6) is not “a quote,” since it does not contain enough “recurrent sign groups,” and is “not an abjad, . . .”  Moreover, a “source . . . of equal value . . . is the so-called Ferrini Lead Fragment,” which (8 ) was inscribed “in a combination of Aramaic and Reformed Egyptian, . . .”  That fragment (9) has been his “Rosetta Stone” in decipherment of “the original language . . . of the Book of Mormon.”  This was done “on purely onomasiological principles,” i.e., “an a priori” and “heuristic modus operandi,” in which (10, n. 2), following Roland Barthes, the AT evinces “’a colourless writing freed from all bondage to a pre-ordained state of language’” (citing Barthes, Writing Degree Zero, 82), “with which we have associated the Anthon Transcript, a writing that later on turns into ‘a dreamed-of language whose freshness, by a kind of ideal anticipation, might portray the perfection of some Adamic world where language would no longer be alienated’” (citing Barthes, 94). 

 

Indeed (11), “the onomasiological analysis proper” employs “a quasi-deconstructionist method borrowed from Jacques Derrida.”  He goes on in that vein for several pages, but does happily provide a good deal of substantive discussion and examples elsewhere when it comes to showing what his conclusions are.

 

He explains that (13) the “graphic forms” of “Hieratic, Demotic, and Coptic” “were all ‘reformed’,” which is probably a true statement.  However, his examples and conclusions elsewhere show almost no knowledge of ancient Egyptian, and his books on this issue (the decipherment of the AT) might just as well have never even concerned themselves with Egyptian.  Egyptian is apparently  irrelevant for his purposes.

 

Just so (14), “the Anthon Transcript, . . contains all true signs which the Weltgeist-Wortgeist pair needs for the ontological representation of the world of the Book of Mormon, and all its philological properties are given in it a priori.”

 

Along with the Ferrini Lead Fragment he also employs other questionable documents, such as (24) the Los Lunas Stone (Decalogue Rock) at Hidden Mountain, NM, as an instance of the evolution of Reformed Egyptian script.  He states (25) that the Los Lunas Stone cannot be a fake (26), because Paleo-Hebrew script was unknown until the 20^th century -- which is a completely false statement (it has been in use all along among the Samaritans).

 

He also covers the (34) evolution “from Paleo-Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian,” of which the Spangler Nodule “represents the first step.”  He cites a Ben Urrutia SEHA paper on that Nodule.

 

In comparing signs in the AT to those known elsewhere, Deleanu (34-55,66-68) tends to free associate signs from any and every available script, no matter from where or when, and no matter whether authentic or fake, including the Jordan Lead Codices, Sinaia Lead Plates, the Tartaria Tablets, Alaska Script, Brahmi, Devanagri, Tibetan, etc.

 

He wisely observes that (72-73) translation problems/inaccuracies in Book of Mormon and Bible are often based on human error, citing Joel M. Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning (NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2010).

As an example, he sees Book of Mormon “elephant” as a peccary, the “horse” as a wild burro (which he believes is native to the Americas).

He has a chart (78, and on page 13 of his Reformed Egyptian Grammar, I) of the entire Reformed Egyptian alphabet, which he says is written from left to right.   In that chart (68), he presents Reformed Egyptian in two different alphabets, minuscule (lower case) and majuscule (capital letters).

 

Finally, he concludes that (75) “The very authenticity of the Reformed Egyptian language and script has now been fully proven.”

In volume one of his Reformed Egyptian Grammar, Deleanu says that (8 ) “Reformed Egyptian is . . . a sort of ‘shorthand’ of Paleo-Hebrew written in Egyptian characters . . ,” yet I can see nothing Egyptian or shorthand about it.  Deleanu never addresses the supposed space-saving qualities of his reformed Egyptian alphabet used on the Book of Mormon plates.  Indeed, the Nephites would have been better off using Paleo-Hebrew script instead of .

Deleanu is totally-off base. Because everyone knows the Anthon Transcript is false because it doesn't contain Maya Glyphs.

Are we to suppose the Anthon Transcript was accurately recorded by the Prophet Joseph Smith from the Gold Plates when numerous Latter-Day LDS Scholars who are active members in the Church in good standing, many who are or were Professors at BYU with PhDs, have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location for the Book of Mormon? Obviously, the Prophet Joseph Smith made up these characters that he recorded on the Anthon Transcript just to deceive the learned professors in his day to get them to approve of his future book-selling.

Now Deleanu, not heeding our current Latter-Day learned LDS Professors who have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location for the Book of Mormon, has fallen to the idea that the Prophet Joseph Smith knew the geographical location of the Book of Mormon, because Reformed Egyptian characters should have been Maya Glyphs, since everyone knows our Latter-Day learned LDS Professors who have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location, know more than the Prophet Joseph Smith ever knew about the geographical location of the Book of Mormon.

So don't let any Reformed Egyptian or study of it, get in the way of your believing that the location of the Book of Mormon occurred in Mesoamerica because we all know that Latter-Day learned LDS Professors who have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location for the Book of Mormon, know more than the Prophet Joseph Smith ever knew about the geographical location for the Book of Mormon.

[The Nehor]

Deleanu is totally-off base. Because everyone knows the Anthon Transcript is false because it doesn't contain Maya Glyphs.

Are we to suppose the Anthon Transcript was accurately recorded by the Prophet Joseph Smith from the Gold Plates when numerous Latter-Day LDS Scholars who are active members in the Church in good standing, many who are or were Professors at BYU with PhDs, have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location for the Book of Mormon? Obviously, the Prophet Joseph Smith made up these characters that he recorded on the Anthon Transcript just to deceive the learned professors in his day to get them to approve of his future book-selling.

Now Deleanu, not heeding our current Latter-Day learned LDS Professors who have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location for the Book of Mormon, has fallen to the idea that the Prophet Joseph Smith knew the geographical location of the Book of Mormon, because Reformed Egyptian characters should have been Maya Glyphs, since everyone knows our Latter-Day learned LDS Professors who have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location, know more than the Prophet Joseph Smith ever knew about the geographical location of the Book of Mormon.

So don't let any Reformed Egyptian or study of it, get in the way of your believing that the location of the Book of Mormon occurred in Mesoamerica because we all know that Latter-Day learned LDS Professors who have identified Mesoamerica as the geographical location for the Book of Mormon, know more than the Prophet Joseph Smith ever knew about the geographical location for the Book of Mormon.

 

Uhhhhhh....you aren't familiar with the Book of Mormon are you?

 

The Reformed Egyptian language was a mixture of Hebrew and Egyptian and it was a special language to the Nephites. Other then the priests and leaders of the Nephites no one knew how to read Egyptian or Hebrew. Even in the time of King Benjamin he had to make especially sure his sons learned the old languages so they could read the original scriptures they brought over and that Nephi wrote.

[Tiki]

Uhhhhhh....you aren't familiar with the Book of Mormon are you?

The Reformed Egyptian language was a mixture of Hebrew and Egyptian and it was a special language to the Nephites. Other then the priests and leaders of the Nephites no one knew how to read Egyptian or Hebrew. Even in the time of King Benjamin he had to make especially sure his sons learned the old languages so they could read the original scriptures they brought over and that Nephi wrote.

Oh I see! Thank you for the astute observation!

And the language on the Brass Plates wasn't written down on what was presumably paper and handed out to the people for them to study. It was first translated from the language on the Brass Plates to Maya Glyphs then written down. This, so the Nephites who were never the Maya but lived among them, could understand the Scriptures on the Brass Plates because only the priests and leaders of the Nephites knew only how to read Egyptian or Hebrew.

This despite the Priesthood of God, which was had among the Nephites, only allowed very few "priests" just like in our day, which after being ordained deacons and teachers at ages 12 & 14, become Priests and Leaders in the Priesthood.

So shall I infer correctly from your astute observation, that only Nephite women and unworthy Nephite Men who were not eligible to hold the priesthood, who again were not Maya, but lived among the Maya, did not understand Hebrew and Egyptian?

Or shall I infer from your astute observation that you don't understand the concept that to have the Priesthood conferred upon a man, makes him eventually a "Priest" and a "Leader" and/or you believe the Brass Plates were hidden away and its language not shared among the Nephites because their Priestly Leaders who held the Priesthood of God, had a secret hidden agenda to suppress the Truth so they could rule over the People' similar to what Laman and Lemuel claimed of his younger brother Nephi?

Or are so you enamored with Latter-Day learned LDS Professors with PhDs who have identified Mesoamerica as the location for the book of Mormon, that your common sense is thrown out the window?

I found it comical that some on here are treating this subject of Reformed Egyptian so seriously, when Reformed Egyptian or the Anthon characters were never found among ancient Maya ruins, while the same who are serious about this promote a Mesoamerica setting.

So this is new to me: "Only the Nephite Priests and Rulers knew Reformed Egyptian! This because the Nephites spoke Mayan, but weren't the Maya!"

Is this similar to the Ancient Catholic Church holding Mass in Latin while the uneducated masses marveled in wonder at the unknown tongue?

Edited March 15, 2014 by Tiki

[Bikeemikey]

Uhhhhhh....you aren't familiar with the Book of Mormon are you?

The Reformed Egyptian language was a mixture of Hebrew and Egyptian and it was a special language to the Nephites. Other then the priests and leaders of the Nephites no one knew how to read Egyptian or Hebrew. Even in the time of King Benjamin he had to make especially sure his sons learned the old languages so they could read the original scriptures they brought over and that Nephi wrote.

Well said.

[Tiki]

Well said.

Poorly said, by one to make up excuses for a Mesoamerica setting.

The Lord allowed Laban to lose his drunken head so that Nephi and his descendants could have the Law written on the Brass Plates.

To claim only a few Nephite Leaders knew the language on it, is ludicrous.

[The Nehor]

Oh I see! Thank you for the astute observation!

 

You are quite welcome.

 

 

And the language on the Brass Plates wasn't written down on what was presumably paper and handed out to the people for them to study. It was first translated from the language on the Brass Plates to Maya Glyphs then written down. This, so the Nephites who were never the Maya but lived among them, could understand the Scriptures on the Brass Plates because only the priests and leaders of the Nephites knew only how to read Egyptian or Hebrew.

 

Pretty much. Though it is more likely that only most of the priests had access to the translated scriptures. I doubt that most of the population was literate. It is also important to note that the scriptures they used were not the Book of Mormon but the teachings of their own current prophets with bits of their own history combined with even less of pre-migration scripture. Of course they also followed the Law of Moses until the time of Christ which means that was most likely translated and distributed amongst the literate.

 

 

This despite the Priesthood of God, which was had among the Nephites, only allowed very few "priests" just like in our day, which after being ordained deacons and teachers at ages 12 & 14, become Priests and Leaders in the Priesthood.

So shall I infer correctly from your astute observation, that only Nephite women and unworthy Nephite Men who were not eligible to hold the priesthood, who again were not Maya, but lived among the Maya, did not understand Hebrew and Egyptian?

 

There is no way to be certain how the Priesthood was distributed amongst the Nephites but it is likely that those who were holders of the priesthood and were literate had translations.

 

 

Or shall I infer from your astute observation that you don't understand the concept that to have the Priesthood conferred upon a man, makes him eventually a "Priest" and a "Leader" and/or you believe the Brass Plates were hidden away and its language not shared among the Nephites because their Priestly Leaders who held the Priesthood of God, had a secret hidden agenda to suppress the Truth so they could rule over the People' similar to what Laman and Lemuel claimed of his younger brother Nephi?

 

Yes, just like our not distributing the gold plates to all members of the Church and to the world at large is a secret agenda intended to suppress the Book of Mormon instead of an open attempt to share it in a language the reader will understand. We even hide the English version we have. Why....when my brother went on a mission to Brazil he was distributing PORTUGUESE Book of Mormons if you can believe that. Truly we hide the scriptures well by giving them to people in their native tongue.

 

 

Or are so you enamored with Latter-Day learned LDS Professors with PhDs who have identified Mesoamerica as the location for the book of Mormon, that your common sense is thrown out the window?

I found it comical that some on here are treating this subject of Reformed Egyptian so seriously, when Reformed Egyptian or the Anthon characters were never found among ancient Maya ruins, while the same who are serious about this promote a Mesoamerica setting.

 

I have no attachment to the idea that Nephites were Mayans. Even if they were I see no reason to believe that they would decorate their buildings with a dead language instead of the common tongue.

 

 

So this is new to me: "Only the Nephite Priests and Rulers knew Reformed Egyptian! This because the Nephites spoke Mayan, but weren't the Maya!"

Is this similar to the Ancient Catholic Church holding Mass in Latin while the uneducated masses marveled in wonder at the unknown tongue?

 

I have no idea if they spoke Mayan or what they spoke. It is actually the exact opposite of Catholic priests using Latin. It would be what Catholic Priests do now. Using the language the people speak.

 

Incidentally based on your your inferences I astutely determined that you are a cretinous idiot. Thanks for stopping by Meldrum. Please come again.

[cdowis]

 

 

Is this similar to the Ancient Catholic Church holding Mass in Latin while the uneducated masses marveled in wonder at the unknown tongue?

 

Tiki,

 

May I ask you, have you ever given a lecture in shorthand?  Or is shorthand only a *written* form, not a language.

 

If you had actually read the BOM, you would know Refrmed Egyptian was Hebrew writings using an Egyptian script ==>> a form of shorthand writing.  

 

Now tell us again about common sense.

[Bikeemikey]

Poorly said, by one to make up excuses for a Mesoamerica setting.

The Lord allowed Laban to lose his drunken head so that Nephi and his descendants could have the Law written on the Brass Plates.

To claim only a few Nephite Leaders knew the language on it, is ludicrous.

 

Not if you consider pre-existing populations in the Americas. There language would have been the dominant verbal language of the region. Lots of different subsets of community have their own language. I mean in 1000's of years from now when someone finds a computer program I use written in C++ will they be confused by the fact that I have no idea what C++ was, that I couldn't read it.

 

Our societies survive on languages that only tiny subsets of the population can read. This is more about technical language and programming today, historically this was true of written religious texts.

[Calm]

Thanks for stopping by Meldrum. Please come again.

I am under the impression Tiki is more HGT than Meldrum, though I definitely could be wrong.

[Stargazer]

Dunning-Kruger effect in action. There is no one more self-assured of their own understanding then a total idiot.

Rep +1 for Dunning-Kruger effect. I gots to be more careful of some of my own pronouncements, I perceive.

[Stargazer]

Tiki,

 

May I ask you, have you ever given a lecture in shorthand?  Or is shorthand only a *written* form, not a language.

 

If you had actually read the BOM, you would know Refrmed Egyptian was Hebrew writings using an Egyptian script ==>> a form of shorthand writing.  

 

Now tell us again about common sense.

And this reminds me of Tolkien, too. The Feanorian script was invented by the Eldar specifically to be able to record any spoken language, and hence if one were to read a given passage out loud, another would hear it in the source language. Or so Tolkien said.

Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion, but it just popped into my head and I was compelled to write it.

[bcuzbcuz]

And this reminds me of Tolkien, too. The Feanorian script was invented by the Eldar specifically to be able to record any spoken language, and hence if one were to read a given passage out loud, another would hear it in the source language. Or so Tolkien said.Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion, but it just popped into my head and I was compelled to write it.

I prefer the Babel fish from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Just pop one into your ear and any language, known or unknown, will be instantly translated

[Bikeemikey]

I prefer the Babel fish from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Just pop one into your ear and any language, known or unknown, will be instantly translated

Hence the saying, "you sassed that hoopy ford prefect, there's a frued who really knows where his towel is". (From memory so spelling may be off.)

Edited March 16, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[jaxenro]

Couldn't they have just looked it up on the Internet? As Abraham Lincoln said, everything on thd Internet is true

[cdowis]

Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion, but it just popped into my head and I was compelled to write it.

 

There is another thread on controlling our thoughts.  You might want to check it out.  

[HiJolly]

I'm a nerd, so... 

 

This thread is more entertaining than YouTube videos! 

[Calm]

Must be conference time...a sighting of HiJolly has been reported...