The conensus on if the BoM is directly from God.

[cdowis]

dup

Edited October 2, 2016 by cdowis

[notHagoth7]

53 minutes ago, cdowis said:

...I am standing on a excavated site from the pre-Classic period.  How do I identify whether Nephites, Lamanites, Mayan, or some other group lived here?  Remember that the Nephites were very often in apostasy and we have almost no written records. 

Perhaps a crucifix, or a picture of the Blessed Mary?  Give me ONE way to identify a Nephite artifact....

Valid point. I would imagine that it would be near impossible to identify a people by archaeology alone - which some archaeologists readily admit.

An early inkling:

I was in a museum many years ago (nowhere in the Americas).

It was in a region that housed, among other things, artifacts from the first professional archaeological dig ever conducted in that region (that dig had been contemporary with Joseph Smith), and was from a settlement of a people that was known historically to have been in that region since at least the 1st century AD.

Needless to say, one small carved artifact on display there made a very distinct impact on me, and was *very* reminiscent of this:

...and thereby led immediately to the thought of priesthood - and led me reflect what an ancient artifact like that would be doing in a seemingly out-of-place setting like that.

I largely forgot about that artifact for years. Years later, after considerable study from various historical/linguist/archaeological/geological sources, I arrived at the conclusion that the ancient Nephite diaspora described in Alma and Helaman included a sizable transplant to that same general region.

Then, I remembered that museum artifact, housed among artifacts from an ancient people, whose name alone telegraphed intriguing meaning.

Edited October 2, 2016 by notHagoth7

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Let me ask for your help.

There are hundreds and thousands of artifacts.  Now please tell us how to identify whether a jade necklace was Mayan, Nephite, or some other group?  Let us suppose that there are hundreds of Nephite artifacts in museums, but how can we identify them?

I am standing on a excavated site from the pre-Classic period.  How do I identify whether Nephites, Lamanites, Mayan, or some other group lived here?  Remember that the Nephites were very often in apostasy and we have almost no written records. 

Perhaps a crucifix, or a picture of the Blessed Mary?  Give me ONE way to identify a Nephite artifact.

Almost all of the ancient names of the cities have been lost, and scientists use modern names (Spanish).  But there is one interesting exception.  There is a city that still has its ancient name in Belize == Lamanai.  

By a coincidence there was a Lamanite king by the same name.

 

How about something in reformed egyptian or hebrew?  That would be a great way to identify a Nephite artifact. How about evidence of chariots or horses?  Sadly, however, the artifacts currently identified can only be traced to people who migrated from siberia 15,000 years ago and not to israel of 600 b.c.  Nevertheless, there are forever possibilities that one day there will be a breakthrough in archeology or dna, etc. to save historicity.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

How about something in reformed egyptian or hebrew?  That would be a great way to identify a Nephite artifact.

There are indications that reformed egyptian was passed down for the specific purpose of keeping the records, and not a writing system in wide use. That would decrease the likelihood of finding any.

How about evidence of chariots or horses?

What evidence is there of horses from the Mongols, Huns, Golden Horde, etc. (the scourge of Asia and Europe for centuries, famous for their horse warfare)? My understanding is that there is nothing in the way of horse bones, even though we know that they had them in abundance. I've also heard that horse bones are notorious for not staying as remains over long periods of time unless they fossilize. Coupled with the hot, humid atmosphere in Central America, I'm not sure that we should expect to find any horse bones.

As for chariots, no one disputes the toy wheeled chariots found in the Americas. Critics say with a straight face that toys don't prove that there were bigger versions in use. Now, that's a stretch!

[canard78]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Let me ask for your help.

There are hundreds and thousands of artifacts.  Now please tell us how to identify whether a jade necklace was Mayan, Nephite, or some other group?  Let us suppose that there are hundreds of Nephite artifacts in museums, but how can we identify them?

I am standing on a excavated site from the pre-Classic period.  How do I identify whether Nephites, Lamanites, Mayan, or some other group lived here?  Remember that the Nephites were very often in apostasy and we have almost no written records. 

Perhaps a crucifix, or a picture of the Blessed Mary?  Give me ONE way to identify a Nephite artifact.

Almost all of the ancient names of the cities have been lost, and scientists use modern names (Spanish).  But there is one interesting exception.  There is a city that still has its ancient name in Belize == Lamanai.  

By a coincidence there was a Lamanite king by the same name.

I looked up "Lamanai" in the scriptures and then searched all of lds.org to double check. The result:

"Your search returned 0 results"

That's not a great start. I asked for evidence and you supplied a weak linguistic parallel. 

I don't need to tell you how to find your evidence. I'm saying there isn't any. By diverting to the topic of how hard it is to find any you're simply emphasising my point that the evidence is not there. 

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

How about something in reformed egyptian or hebrew?  That would be a great way to identify a Nephite artifact.

Would it?

The modern English alphabet we use in every post in this forum is one of *numerous* examples of reformed egyptian that just happens to be derived from an ancient form of Semitic writing - matching the origins of Nephite writing.

Same goes for the Latin alphabet, from which the English alphabet derives.

Quote

...it should come as no surprise that the development of the modern English alphabet involved several languages, hundreds of years...

Dating back nearly four thousand years, early alphabetic writing...relied on simple lines to represent spoken sounds. Scholars attribute its origin to a little known Proto-Sinatic, Semitic form of writing developed in Egypt between 1800 and 1900 BC....

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/09/the-origin-of-the-english-alphabet/

So the English alphabet traces back originally to a Semitic (Hebrews are Semitic) form of writing, developed in ancient Egypt centuries before Lehi.  Such is the great-grandfather of *many* (not all) modern alphabets, which are therefore modified/reformed Egyptian.

But can one deduce a people's heritage solely from the alphabet they happen to adopt/modify/reform? And if so, does widespread use of reformed egyptian alphabets throughout much of Western Civilization today somehow mean that everyone in the Americas and most of Europe somehow has some Nephite ancestry? :0)

Edited October 2, 2016 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

(reformed Egyptian alphabets - are now known to be widespread and common)

Quote

A number of experts agree that these inscriptions are the earliest alphabetic writing yet discovered and their location has forced a rethink on the origins of writing.

Up to now it has been believed that alphabetic writing was developed around 1600 BC - up to 300 years later than the Wadi el-Hol inscriptions - by Semitic people living in the Sinai Peninsula and further north in Syria and Palestine.

Scholars had thought that these languages - known as Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite - had been developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs.

But this new evidence has prompted the theory that the development took place in Egypt itself, during the period of the Middle Kingdom.

Dr Darnell believes that scribes among foreign mercenaries serving with the Egyptian army developed the simplified writing - initially through the work of hieroglyphic scribes who simplified the pictograms into a rudimentary alphabet for use by Semitic speakers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm

There's an intriguing Netflix documentary that demonstrates Egyptian chronology may have been shifted off its foundations - perhaps even intentionally.

So this origin of most western alphabets could trace to the descendants of Abraham, who migrated to Egypt under the protection of his great-grandson Joseph.

Edited October 2, 2016 by notHagoth7

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

There are indications that reformed egyptian was passed down for the specific purpose of keeping the records, and not a writing system in wide use. That would decrease the likelihood of finding any.

 

 

What evidence is there of horses from the Mongols, Huns, Golden Horde, etc. (the scourge of Asia and Europe for centuries, famous for their horse warfare)? My understanding is that there is nothing in the way of horse bones, even though we know that they had them in abundance. I've also heard that horse bones are notorious for not staying as remains over long periods of time unless they fossilize. Coupled with the hot, humid atmosphere in Central America, I'm not sure that we should expect to find any horse bones.

As for chariots, no one disputes the toy wheeled chariots found in the Americas. Critics say with a straight face that toys don't prove that there were bigger versions in use. Now, that's a stretch!

Well I guess one can see anything in the clouds if one looks hard enough.  Maybe the overwhelming number archeologists, anthropologists and DNA scientists are wrong about native american origins?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

How about something in reformed egyptian or hebrew? 

I assume you are unaware that virtually ALL of the written records (codex) were destroyed by the Spanish.

I assume that you do not read the BOM very much since you are not familiar with Mormon 9 [33] And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
[34] But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

We indeed find in mesoamerica that none other people knoweth the language
But we do find authentic Egyptian and Akkadian names and words in the BOM.

 

That would be a great way to identify a Nephite artifact.

We indeed find what the BOM tells us that we would find == one or more unknown languages unrelated to any other language, and no Hebrew.  Reformed Egyptian was not their vernacular but a specialized language/writing system for the sacred records.   

How about evidence of chariots or horses? 

I am confused. How would that identify these as being uniquely Nephite/Lamanite?  "Between this early dig and 1977, ancient horse bones were found in the Huechil Grotto of this same cave system. Exactly how they got there is unknown, but it is probable that they were brought in by early inhabitants, since it is believed that early man hunted native horses.4 Because these bones are not fossilized,5 there is a limit to how old they might be. A tantalizing (but rarely mentioned) sidenote is that these horse remains in some caves were found alongside potsherds and other human artifacts.6 "

Sadly, however, the artifacts currently identified can only be traced to people who migrated from siberia 15,000 years ago and not to israel of 600 b.c.  Nevertheless, there are forever possibilities that one day there will be a breakthrough in archeology or dna, etc. to save historicity.

The DNA issue has been extensively explored elsewhere.  The source of the American "flavor" of  haplogroup X is still an unsolved issue. But the Druze in the Middle East is one of several possible candidates.
 

 

[cdowis]

58 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I looked up "Lamanai" in the scriptures and then searched all of lds.org to double check. The result:

Sigh.  I guess you haven't read the BOM lately.

Alma 17:21

Edited October 2, 2016 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

Not really. It's easy to find evidences in hindsight. The only evidence for the existence of the Nephites is a series parallels. NHM & Bountiful is the best of an otherwise vague bunch. 

Book of Mormon scholars have all of Hebrew, Egyptian, Arab and Native American language and parallels in. Thousands and thousands of "data" points. It's reasonable that some of Joseph's creation would line up with all of those possible options.

Instead of parallels, can you go to the valley of Lemuel, NHM, the land Bountiful or Mesoamerica and find some actual evidence that the Nephites were there? 1000 years of Nephite culture. 100s of 1000s of people over multiple generations. Can you find me a single piece of independently verified evidence of them living there?

Something like this maybe? I know what some of you are going to say... "unreasonable expectations" - "mesoamerican humidity" - "etc etc." Maybe one day you'll be vindicated. Until then, I'll draw my conclusions from the available evidence. No evidence of an angel, no evidence of Nephites... no reason to believe the Book of Mormon isn't a 19thC invention.

You are moving the goalposts.

You went from "- that the BoM is the product of reasonably above average 19thC brilliance but with no supernatural explanation needed. I've read, listened to, watched and consumed multiple items of creative excellence in my life. They are all beyond my ability to replicate and sometimes leave me wondering how they are possible. None of them require angelic explanations to accept that they actually are, in fact, possible. "

You have been asked to provide some type of coherent explanation sans the supernatural for the production of the Book of Mormon. Instead, you jump back onto the "what has not been found" defense.

Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is one indication that it is not the product of nineteenth century learning or culture.

The work of Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack on the presence of Early Modern English that mostly predates the KJV is another indication that the Book of Mormon is not the product of nineteenth century learning or culture.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I looked up "Lamanai" in the scriptures and then searched all of lds.org to double check. The result:

 

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Sigh.  

Alma 17:21

You will probably have explain how Lamoni and Lamani are functionally equivalent Semitic names.

[canard78]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Sigh.  I guess you haven't read the BOM lately.

Alma 17:21

Sigh back at you. 

I'm fully aware of Lamoni. You said you'd found a Lamanai. 

Of course, you'll probably now make reference to Hebrew and vowels not mattering. We're then left with a place name of LMN matching a person called LMN. Do they also grow LMNs in America (you know, the yellow citrus fruit)? Maybe that's evidence too. 

[canard78]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Sigh.  I guess you haven't read the BOM lately.

Alma 17:21

 

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

You will probably have explain how Lamoni and Lamani are functionally equivalent Semitic names.

No need to. I'm fully aware of how it works. 

When you've only got a few letters that need to match and a huge mass of cities and cultures to pick from, it's no great surprise to find something.

On this basis, we could set the BoM in North America, Europe, Africa or Asia:

Lamoni - USA

Lamon - Italy, Russia, Canada, Philippines, Malaysia

Lamona - Burkina Faso, USA

Lamana - Indonesia, India, Poland

There are lots more. 

I know you've got lots more and I could pick them apart one by one and point out how each of them are reasonable coincidences given the "big data" you're working with. 

With the same huge group of scholars and hobbyists, as the Book of Mormon has, I could probably find a similar number of parallels between the Lord of the Rings and a geographic location in Europe. We could take English, Welsh/Celtic and German as our root languages and place names and find lots of matches. 

What we wouldn't find is any evidence of the actual battle of Minas Tirith or Bag End or Rivendell or the 9 rings to rule them all or the Grey Havens... because none of them ever existed. 

I could find a harbour or natural bay that could have been the gray havens and point out that it is a reasonable distance from a location that could have been Hobbiton or Rivendell.

But... if I went to any of those locations and spent £1000s digging for evidence, I would never find a single item proving that elves and hobbits ever lived there. I could probably find a mill or a candidate for the party tree or even a community that had a talking circle, but nothing conclusive.

Despite the many excursions by Mormons to Central America and, more recently, the possible location for Bountiful, no evidence of Lehites/Nephites have been found either.

The reason no one has bothered trying to find LOTR evidence is, I think, the same reason no-one has found BoM evidence. They are both the inventions of brilliant minds.

 

[canard78]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

Keep in mind, we're not just talking about verbatim quotes, but midrashes and new uses that Joseph made of KJV passages (e.g., "bright as the sun, clear as the moon, and terrible as an army of banners," etc.). Everyone agrees that he was very familiar with the Bible ---- even savant-like. I believe that God helped him with this super-human recall. 

Rongo, I apologise for the snark. The phrase is fine. Sometimes it is difficult to have a fact-based discussion when faith perspectives are different. It's true that if there really is a God, as described by Mormonism, that he could indeed do miraculous things like super-human recall. 

  

19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

...we also have the utter failure of critics to provide believers with anything close to a coherent theory, after over one hundred and eighty years, of how the Book of Mormon could have been produced in any other manner than that which is claimed by the LDS Church.

When specific theories are proposed, based upon some type of evidence, I can research the topics and try to provide some type of reasoned response. I cannot debate when there is no reasoned reply. I cannot debate with unfaith. I can only say. I disagree with the unfaith disagreement. One cannot argue with faith, or unfaith...

I recognise that the Book of Mormon, if a modern creation, is a significant piece of work. Americans should give it more attention as a publication. Whether one believes it to be a translation of ancient Americans or the invention of more modern ones, it's still am impressive volume in American history.

I also acknowledge that non-believers have a big task to explain where it came from. It is a deep and complex book. However, I don't think it's as sophisticated as you think it is. I think more significance and meaning is given to it by believers, because they have such a deep familiarity with it. 

I see this discussion as being in two possible camps: 

1. People with faith of some sort in an interventionist God can have this discussion about whether God would inspire Joseph or not. 
2. People without faith in a God like that (or no God at all) need to, instead discuss and explain in an entirely material way.

I'm in the second group. Whether there's a God or not (and I remain undecided), I think that the BoM's origin can be explained through "natural" causes. 

In terms of how it was done, I think it's a combination of early 1800s cultural and religious thought combined with both quotations from and expounding on KJV of the Bible. I think Oliver Cowdery either knowingly or unknowingly probably helped in the process.

We have witness accounts of the translation process. But many of them are second hand accounts. Until 1835, almost all of the accounts are not eye-witnesses. 

If Joseph was reading words from a glowing stone in a hat, why did it take so long when he was doing it with Emma/Martin as scribe? I think it's reasonably likely that Oliver was helping him along with the process.

[bcuzbcuz]

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is one indication that it is not the product of nineteenth century learning or culture.

Glenn

Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon? Or just names that with a stretch of the imagination could be similar to English spellings of such names? You don't get to count the name Moses...cause that was a real Egyptian name, but can be said to be common from the Bible. 

[notHagoth7]

11 hours ago, canard78 said:

Sigh back at you. 

I'm fully aware of Lamoni. You said you'd found a Lamanai. 

Of course, you'll probably now make reference to Hebrew and vowels not mattering. We're then left with a place name of LMN matching a person called LMN. Do they also grow LMNs in America (you know, the yellow citrus fruit)? Maybe that's evidence too. 

Brilliant suggestion, canard.

LMNs growing in the Old World and the New can surely be counted as evidence:

Laman was clearly a sourpuss. (According to Webster's 1828 dictionary, one meaning of sour is: "Expressing discontent or peevishness.")

Hence the LMN tree must have been named for his sour demeanor.

Issue solved. ;0)

[notHagoth7]

That said, to wax serious for the briefest of moments, even with the actual-valid vowel thing mentioned by others earlier, there was no such thing as standardized spelling until relatively recently, so the two names discussed earlier are a very viable match.

 

Question being: why? Can it be chalked up to more than coincidence? For starters, how ancient is the current name of that city? 

Edited October 3, 2016 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

1. "Lamanai" comes from the Maya term for "submerged crocodile", a nod to the toothy reptiles who live along the banks of the New River. 
2. From 1 Nephi: "And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman"
3. Also, from an ancient people that I believe derived from Nephites, in their language, lama had a somewhat similar meaning.

Mayan, Old World, European - 3 languages offer a parallel meaning - the former of which some deem to have at least *some* relation to Nephite/Lamanite stomping grounds, and the latter which I have reason to believe involved Nephite descendants. 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon? Or just names that with a stretch of the imagination could be similar to English spellings of such names? You don't get to count the name Moses...cause that was a real Egyptian name, but can be said to be common from the Bible. 

Okay, here is a list of Egyptian names from the Book of Mormon. I have left out the ones found in the Bible and the ones that seem to be more of a stretch to this non-linguist. Take this list and find English words that are close enough that as to not be ridiculous. The words must be from Joseph's day.

Paanchi, Pahoran, Pacumeni, Gidgiddoni, Helaman, Himni, Manti, Korihor, Morianton, Zenock

Whatever the case, it is uncanny how Joseph could have hit the mark so many times in taking whatever words he would have used and produced authentic Egyptian names. I do not know of any proper names that he "made up" that hav turned out to be gibbreish, non-sensical. The fact that he did this over 180 times is pretty good guessing. You should try it some time, without the use of a computer.

Glenn

[bcuzbcuz]

3 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

That said, to wax serious for the briefest of moments, even with the actual-valid vowel thing mentioned by others earlier, there was no such thing as standardized spelling until relatively recently, so the two names discussed earlier are a very viable match.

 

Question being: why? Can it be chalked up to more than coincidence? For starters, how ancient is the current name of that city? 

Well, I´d beg to differ. 

The Hebrew vowel sounds, according to:  Hebrew Nikkudot - 
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Two/Vowel_List/vowel_list.html

Hebrew has:
4 "a" type vowel sounds
5 "e" type vowel sounds
2 "i" type vowel sounds
4 "o" type vowel sounds
2 "u" type vowel sounds
Plus 1 unclassified vowel sound

Hebrew also had 6 double vowel, or diphthong sounds, a combination of vowels acting as a unit and producing a unique sound.

Hebrew has, therefore, 24 vowel sounds.

English also has a wide variety of vowel sounds, depending on where the speaker originates (southern states compared to Scotland, for example), and whether the comparison is between British English, American English, Canadian English, India English, etc., etc.

British English has 5 vowels as does American English, but British English has,according to Roach, (one language expert) a total list of 20 basic vowel sounds: with 12 monophthongs, 5 closing diphthongs , and 3 centring diphthongs. (Ladefoged, another expert has the same number but disagrees on where the sounds are placed). Go figure.

That´s 40 vowel sounds altogether. American English has four fewer sounds.

(If I were to include the Egyptian vowels I´d also have to include several thousand pages from scholars who fight arduously for their own interpretations. About all they agree on is that nobody knows for sure what vowel pronunciations the ancient Egyptians had.)
    

So, getting back to the LMN. If we stick to the original vowel set, the word LMN will have L (24 vowel sounds) M (24 vowel sounds) N. That´s Lamon, Lemon, Limon, Lomon, Lumon, Lymon? , or Laman, Lamen, Lamin, Lamon, Lamun, Lamyn....plus 24 to the power of 2, variations. My math may be off by a few, but hopefully, you get the idea.

Then, when Joseph Smith saw the words on his seer stone, the interpretation would be left up to him to approximate the vowel sounds he thought he was seeing. That gives an early 1800´s twist to it since we don´t know whether old English was still prevalent in rural New York. We certainly know that JS had a prevalence for thee and thou and other Biblical English expressions.

Is it lemon or loumin? The only way one can calculate a connection between two similar names, one from a scripture and one from a place, is if there is additional information that gives a clue that the words are related. So far, we have no such information. Three consonants are definitely not a connection between English and Egyptian, or Hebrew or proto-Levant.  

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon? Or just names that with a stretch of the imagination could be similar to English spellings of such names? 

 

William Foxwell Albright disagrees with you.

“There does appear to be evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he undoubtedly spent a great deal of money and effort in trying to master Egyptian, but, as you know, when the Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered and it is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language as being ‘Reformed Egyptian’.”

These words were written not by a Latter-day Saint, but by the doyen of American ancient Near Eastern Studies, William Foxwell Albright, in a letter addressed to Grant S. Heward of Midvale, Utah, an outspoken critic of the Book of Abraham. The letter, dated 25 July 1966, was located in the Klaus Baer correspondence file at the University of Chicago by LDS researcher Boyd Peterson, while collecting papers and correspondence relating to the work of his father-in-law, Hugh Nibley. Nibley was the first to point out the Egyptian nature of the Book of Mormon names Paanchi and Pahoran.

http://bookofmormonresearch.org/index/book_of_mormon_articles/albright-on-book-of-mormon

Edited October 3, 2016 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

I'm in the second group. Whether there's a God or not (and I remain undecided), I think that the BoM's origin can be explained through "natural" causes. 

In terms of how it was done, I think it's a combination of early 1800s cultural and religious thought combined with both quotations from and expounding on KJV of the Bible. I think Oliver Cowdery either knowingly or unknowingly probably helped in the process.

Great  theorizing ideas. But that is all we have heard for lo these many years. At least the Spaulding theorists had "something. Couldn't quite connect the dots (by a long shot, although one has to give them a "A" for their efforts). They are still looking for that second, mythical manuscript. I guess that maybe those who believe that the Book of Mormon came from Joseph's mind are still hoping to find some kind of manuscript from whence all of this came, because, as of now, all that has been produced are vague ideas with no coherent articulation of how it could have been accomplished.

As you have noted, that is really all that you need to keep your unfaith. But, if you really wish to help those who do not accept your speculation, give us something concrete. After all, LDS scholars in several different disciplines have given some good reasons not to worry about critics who say "I believe that Joseph could have done it this way or that way."

Glenn

[Glenn101]

18 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Then, when Joseph Smith saw the words on his seer stone, the interpretation would be left up to him to approximate the vowel sounds he thought he was seeing. That gives an early 1800´s twist to it since we don´t know whether old English was still prevalent in rural New York. We certainly know that JS had a prevalence for thee and thou and other Biblical English expressions.

You are assuming a fact not in evidence. There is no indication that Joseph saw the words without vowels. All the indications that we have is that the words were spelled out to him in English. Joseph had no Hebrew/Semitic education a the time and would have kown not what to do with LMN except to spell it LMN.

Glenn

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, canard78 said:

Sigh back at you. 

I'm fully aware of Lamoni. You said you'd found a Lamanai. 

Of course, you'll probably now make reference to Hebrew and vowels not mattering. We're then left with a place name of LMN matching a person called LMN. Do they also grow LMNs in America (you know, the yellow citrus fruit)? Maybe that's evidence too. 

No Hebrew needed ======================>>>>>>>>>>>>The two names sound virtually identical in the English language.  The name could have been spelled either way in the BOM, and are equivalent.

You say tomato, I say tomatah

You are getting desperate in your denials.

Edited October 3, 2016 by cdowis