Jump to content

do We Believe Joseph Smith or Lds Apologists? Joseph Says He Could Translate Egyptian.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's like losing a loved one, but replace it with belief. It's like telling someone their mate isn't who they say they believe with all their hearts they are. 

Tacenda, I really think this is how it feels. Losing belief in something you have devoted your entire life to  and then finding it is not what you believed it was can feel like losing a loved one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

So where is the part where he claims to translate Egyptian?

I thought I was being generous. What term would you suggest if not translate for someone who wants his intended readers to believe he possesses the ability to speak a language no one at that time in America believed had been verbally transliterated from Egyptian to English and yet in reality only produced made up gibberish for the express purpose of making others think he could speak Egyptian  

 

Edited by Fair Dinkum
  • Like 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I thought I was being generous. What term would you suggest if not translate for someone who wants his intended readers to believe he possesses the ability to speak a language no one at that time in America believed had been verbally transliterated from Egyptian to English and yet in reality only produced made up gibberish for the express purpose making others think he could speak Egyptian  

Do you believe in the same letter that Joseph is also saying that he can translate Chaldean, Greek, French, Turkish, German, Arabic, Spanish, Samaritan, Italian, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, and Latin?

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Hi Tacenda.  Can you help me understand your analogy?  Are you saying I should trust what someone says about who my mate is over my own view, based on 40+ years of daily personal experience in coming to understand my mate?  Not sure I see the logic there.

 

I guess the analogy is far reaching, but to a lot of people that thought the BoA was actually translated from papyri and not through revelation, it might be a shock. And if someone, me, finds out Joseph Smith had more wives than Emma, and before that had stayed up till the wee hours in the morning reading the books in a series called, "The Work and Glory" and in them it didn't go into that part but only says he was commanded, but never shows he lived it, well that's another thing. And to find out that the temple was similar to Masonry and that Joseph copied part of it, is another. And then to find out about something you've heard about but not known it was church members involved, and did the killing in the mountain meadows massacre, that's another. Stuff like this I guess. Like your partner hiding a secret life that you had no idea about, I guess. 

Link to post
6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

In a 1843 letter to The Green Mountain Boys, Joseph “tries” to convince the recipient of his letter that he is quite conversant in multiple languages. He even includes examples of his proficiency in each of these languages including many known and a few dead languages. Despite wanting his intended audience to believe he was allegedly fluent in each of the languages he claimed he could speak, Egyptian was one he failed miserably at when seen with a modern lens. 

This letter confirms that Joseph couldn’t speak Egyptian but wanted those around him to believe he could. 
  
Sorry, but why isn’t this problematic? 

 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/transcript/general-joseph-smiths-appeal-to-the-green-mountain-boys-december-1843?print=true

I speak fluent Spanish, and Joseph certainly did not know that language. 
Ancient Egyptian is a dead language. If it wasn’t for the Rosetta Stone we would not be able to translate anything. The idea that anyone can speak it at all strikes me as rather pretentious. 
I don’t see where JS claimed to speak it in his letter. I’ll accept that he translated some papyri. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks for your thoughtful response Tacenda.

A couple of thoughts.  I probably spend more time than most studying Church history, including Joseph Smith, but I don’t approach that study with the idea that it will lead me to definitive truth on any historical matter or figure.  Joseph died long before anyone now living was born.  I can read what he wrote about himself and what others wrote about him.  I can form opinions, but I can’t know him, just as I can’t know with certainty about events in Church history.  My working assumption is that early saints were a mixed bag...just like we are.  They did many great things and made many mistakes...I can love them without feeling the need to lionize them.  FYI, I found Professor Bushman’s book on JS thoughtful and compelling.

While I probably spend more time than most studying Church history, I spend far, far more time communing with God.  History can be interesting, but to know God is to have eternal life.  The more time I spend in communion, the less fear and doubt I have in my life.  My capacity to love and forgive increases.  I’m happier.  It’s always time well spent.  He lives and wants me to learn how to better know Him and I want that as well...more than anything else.

Good for you, let's roll. Everyone handles it differently. My journey is a long one, and I still haven't come up with a decision. Which might be best, because I can live in both worlds. One world searching, struggling and another world of behaving like nothing has happened just to keep the peace and not be looked at like a crazy person, but hopefully a safe person. This board has helped immensely, and I glean from yours and others' testimonies, despite knowing every wart and fault of previous leaders and church problems. And what comes through is all of you have a love for the church and God/Christ, by the spirit.

Link to post
6 hours ago, webbles said:

Considering that Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect, what's wrong with him boasting?  Why do believers have to believe that Joseph was infallible when he never claimed that and in fact explicitly denied it?

Accepting Joseph Smith is a prophet doesn't mean that he was a perfect being.  It just means that God used him to reveal His truth.  There's plenty of precedent for prophets to be infallible.

Perhaps the second occurrence is fallible, then I concur. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

In a 1843 letter to The Green Mountain Boys, Joseph “tries” to convince the recipient of his letter that he is quite conversant in multiple languages. He even includes examples of his proficiency in each of these languages including many known and a few dead languages. Despite wanting his intended audience to believe he was allegedly fluent in each of the languages he claimed he could speak, Egyptian was one he failed miserably at when seen with a modern lens. 

This letter confirms that Joseph couldn’t speak Egyptian but wanted those around him to believe he could. 
  
Sorry, but why isn’t this problematic? 

 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/transcript/general-joseph-smiths-appeal-to-the-green-mountain-boys-december-1843?print=true

 

5 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I'll take a stab at this: I think he's saying that the Saints have suffered enough that in any language what they have dealt with is unjust and horrible. It's being done for rhetorical effect, not to prove he is a master linguist. I think that the context is about the struggles they're going through and trying to gain sympathy for their cause. I have a hard time believing someone's main goal in that letter is to prove how smart they are and prove they're a linguistic genius, but rather to emphasize the gravity of their situation. I can understand why with all the horrible things happening at the time to his followers, friends and family.

Amen.  Joseph Smith's linguistic ability was but a minor point of the letter (if, indeed, it was a point at all).  His brief use of all of those other languages was, I believe, intended to illustrate his point that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not have had to suffer such ill treatment elsewhere, not only at the hands of the people but at the hands of the government, that they had suffered at the hands of United States citizens and officials. 

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 4
Link to post
7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I thought I was being generous. What term would you suggest if not translate for someone who wants his intended readers to believe he possesses the ability to speak a language no one at that time in America believed had been verbally transliterated from Egyptian to English and yet in reality only produced made up gibberish for the express purpose making others think he could speak Egyptian  

 

Someone using hyperbole?

In the same sense I offer you this blessing from a fictional language: Prayne de crabug ahm keike rinedere be-yogt iglo kes gron!

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"Obviously"?  So would you "obviously" also assume from that that Joseph could translate Chaldean, Greek, French, Turkish, German, Arabic, Spanish, Samaritan, Italian, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, and Latin?

Yes because the Rosetta Stone had not been translated yet and nobody knew Egyptian.   So, yes, Obviously.

Link to post
14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

In a 1843 letter to The Green Mountain Boys, Joseph “tries” to convince the recipient of his letter that he is quite conversant in multiple languages. He even includes examples of his proficiency in each of these languages including many known and a few dead languages. Despite wanting his intended audience to believe he was allegedly fluent in each of the languages he claimed he could speak, Egyptian was one he failed miserably at when seen with a modern lens. 

This letter confirms that Joseph couldn’t speak Egyptian but wanted those around him to believe he could. 
  
Sorry, but why isn’t this problematic? 

 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/transcript/general-joseph-smiths-appeal-to-the-green-mountain-boys-december-1843?print=true

Upon reflection, and having read the letter in question, I not only do NOT see anything problematic here, I reject out of hand the notion that “Joseph ... wanted those around him to believe he could” speak Egyptian. That is a strained and absurd conclusion not sustained by anything in the letter (which, as has been pointed out here, was not actually written by Joseph himself). 
 

I hold with those here who perceive that the wording is simply a flowery and rhetorical way to convey the message that decent people of all cultures would condemn the oppression inflicted upon the Latter-day Saints. I see here no indication of the attempted fraud you are charging him with. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
11 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I thought I was being generous. What term would you suggest if not translate for someone who wants his intended readers to believe he possesses the ability to speak a language no one at that time in America believed had been verbally transliterated from Egyptian to English and yet in reality only produced made up gibberish for the express purpose making others think he could speak Egyptian 

What is noteworthy in that endeavor to prove that Joseph misled people is that you don't actually need evidence.  You simply make the appropriate apriori assumptions, and the jury must have returned its verdict --as far as you are concerned.  Just another case of lynch law in action.

Is that what you found reading my brief study?  You said that you would report back.

  • Like 3
Link to post
16 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-jerks-scientists-find

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885 

PS: Read Joseph’s Green Mountain Boys letter Bro. Lloyd you’ll have a field day correcting his spelling and grammatical errors. Guess Joseph and I have something in common. 

It appears to me that you regularly salt your posts with deliberate grammatical errors in order to obfuscate.  Is that a fair assumption?

Link to post

image.png.a833dee5f38bfb7c43f28aa12cde1d82.pngimage.png.a833dee5f38bfb7c43f28aa12cde1d82.pngimage.png.a833dee5f38bfb7c43f28aa12cde1d82.png

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Does anybody know anything about this Cowdery document? Are those meant to be four reformed Egyptian characters?

ZHwd3gR.png

Yes, the character for “book” in the phrase "Book of Mormon" is written nearly identical to a known early Demotic Egyptian form of mdЗt “book.”[1]

 image.png.a9f134cd18b9bd1b2ef6410699b55194.png            

The characters for "interpreters of Languages" are reminiscent of the hieroglyphs for ancient Egyptian Wr & Tm, the two stones worn on a necklace around the neck of the High Priest of the Temple of Re at Heliopolis.[2]


[1] W. Erichsen, Auswahl frühdemotischer Texte, 3 vols. (Kopenhagen: Munksgaard, 1950), III:108b.  Early Demotic is contemporary with Lehi & Nephi.

[2] Joseph who was sold into Egypt's father in law was just such a HP of Re at Heliopolis (On).  Also known as the Great Seer of Heliopolis. Nibley, Dialogue, III/2:104;  Urkunden, IV, 1542, 16; Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, I, 36*; II, 267*; Erman & Grapow, Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache, I:329.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Do you believe in the same letter that Joseph is also saying that he can translate Chaldean, Greek, French, Turkish, German, Arabic, Spanish, Samaritan, Italian, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, and Latin?

He wants to leave the impression that he is conversant in multiple languages  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is noteworthy in that endeavor to prove that Joseph misled people is that you don't actually need evidence.  You simply make the appropriate apriori assumptions, and the jury must have returned its verdict --as far as you are concerned.  Just another case of lynch law in action.

Is that what you found reading my brief study?  You said that you would report back.

That is my intent...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It appears to me that you regularly salt your posts with deliberate grammatical errors in order to obfuscate.  Is that a fair assumption?

That’s an interesting perception. Purposely misspelling to obfuscate. Hmmm. I’m an articulate and yet life long terrible speller. Always have been. Spelling has never been my gift. But once written out I  reread what I have written and can sense that a particular word isn’t quite right. When I do sense this I correct it. Thus my penchant for multiple edits to my posts. But you’re accusing me of purposely misspelling for some nefarious motivation. Interesting. Que QAnon...more conspiracies afoot. 

Edited by Fair Dinkum
  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...