The meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer

[LDS Watchman]

LDS Hebrew scholar Robert Smith provided the following commentary on the meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer. The meaning of this name is a powerful proof that the Book of Mormon is true.

     Jared was the fourth son of Joktan but head of his own family, and his people consisting of other families including his brother and his family and friends. Strangely, we are not told the name of the brother. Joktan had 13 sons who are named in the Bible; Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. There is not a Mahonri Moriancumer among them.  
     ...the brother is indeed one of the twelve brothers of Jerah or Jared, but that this new name was given him later as a description of the things he did. I will discuss this below...
     There is no revelation giving this name and the only record that I know of is in the journal of William 
F. Cahoon who tells that one day the prophet was passing by the house of his father, Elder Reynolds Cahoon, in Kirtland. His father called the prophet in and asked him to bless and name a new son just born to them. Joseph blessed the baby and gave him the name Mahonri Moriancumer. When he finished, he turned to Elder Cahoon and said, “The name I have given your son is the name of the brother of Jared.”       ... at that far off time, men were not given two names. There is no record of it ever happening in those days and for all the ensuing centuries up to the time of Christ...
     The brother of Jared is called that more than fifty times in the book of Ether and never once named. He is the only important figure not named. Why, we might ask, should this be the case? The answer is in the name itself. The only reason Moroni would not write his name is because it is too large and unwieldy. In addition, there is no symbol in reformed Egyptian that would give the name. Moroni would have had to invent a symbol for this long name and he did not want to do it. Instead he used a symbol they had that was used before or else he wrote it in Hebrew.  
     The name Jared was a common name used in Israel... There are fewer than 300 names in the Book of Mormon apart from the book of Ether. But there were millions of people who lived in the 1000 year history of the Nephites. It is obvious that the name Jared would have been, if not common, at least used among them. There would therefore be a symbol for this name and a symbol for brother of Jared. It would be concise and easy to engrave. Since there was no symbol for Mahonri Moriancumer, it would require writing out this long name in Hebrew. To avoid doing that, Moroni simply used the symbol for brother of Jared or possibly wrote it out in Hebrew. In Hebrew, brother of Jared has only three syllables. In English, the name has eight syllables, which is more than double the space. This alone proves that the brother of Jared had an unusually long name...
     The name is a descriptive title as are most names in Hebrew. They denote some characteristic or hope for the person named. It could be that this man was indeed one of Jared’s blood brothers, but his name was changed to reflect these characteristics. He was a man of great faith and leadership. He spoke with the Lord personally, and about whom the Lord said he had never seen such great faith. It is very likely, therefore, that the people of Jared gave him this description because of the mighty works he did.
     It is sometimes difficult to figure out what a name means because it is put together from parts of other words to form a new one. In the case of Book of Mormon names, we do not have the original Hebrew spelling. If Joseph’s spelling of the name is pretty accurate, then we can transliterate it to see what it means. The first name is pretty easy, as far as the parts go. Mah means something, what, how, who or which. Of course you recognize the word “on” which means light and is also metaphor for the Savior. This is part of the word Tzion in Hebrew, meaning holy people of the Lord and also the place where they reside. We spell it Zion today. On was the city of the sun where the holy people dwelt, so by link, “on” in this word means the same thing, Zion, but in a different place. Ri means water originally. Today it is used to mean moisture or dampness, but it also means irrigation. We can put these together and get something like Who [provides or leads to] light [on the] water. There is double meaning in this as you can see. He provided the illuminated stones that provided light in the boats. He also led them across the water to the land of Zion, although they never had a Zion civilization. 
     The last name is a little more difficult, but we can understand it. “Mor” means to change or perform a wonder. The word “ian” is a conjunction and I know of no other meaning. It means “in order to” or “for the purpose of.”  The root “cum,” pronounced “coom” is a common verb meaning “to raise up” or “to rise.” “To raise up” is a phrase we know from other scripture which means to save. The suffix –er indicates instrumentality. I think this is just the English translation of the suffix although there is a similar one in Hebrew.  
     Putting the parts together, we get a description of “Someone who performs wonders in order to lift, raise up, or save.” We can see from these descriptive terms the very things that the brother of Jared did while assisting the people to prepare for and cross the ocean. Because he did all these things, one short name was not enough to describe him and this was a long description rather than his given name. We only have the English spelling, as I said, but if the sounds are the same, the way I have rendered the names is probably very near the original and correct meaning. 
     This description is perhaps the biggest proof of the authenticity of the name, or more accurately, his title, because it fits almost exactly with what he did and who he was. He was a great prophet and performed wonders and miracles in getting the people across the water. 
     There is one final proof of the authenticity of this name... when the Jaredites came to the place where they settled for four years, they named the place Moriancumer... The area was undoubtedly named after the brother of Jared. He was the spiritual leader of the people and a great prophet. Why was the place not called Mahonri Moriancumer? As I showed above, Mahonri has a different meaning and the brother of Jared has not done these acts at the time they are at these waters prior to leaving. This title has to do with his providing light to cross the water. They have not built the boats or submarines yet, so this descriptive name would not have been given him until later. This, again, is a very important point. Had Joseph been making the name up, he would have added the first name at this point since he probably did not know what they meant... By only using the second name, again Joseph gives us a powerful evidence that the book is true, that he is a prophet and that his translation is correct and accurate.  
 

[Nemesis]

So what’s the set up for discussion? Or are you just preaching to an already predominantly LDS board?  Please set up threads for discussion and follow the board guidelines. 
 

Nemesis

[LDS Watchman]

8 hours ago, Nemesis said:

So what’s the set up for discussion? Or are you just preaching to an already predominantly LDS board?  Please set up threads for discussion and follow the board guidelines. 
 

Nemesis

Just passing on an interesting fact about the significance of the name Mahonri Moriancumer and how it is a powerful proof that the Book of Mormon is true. I thought people on this forum might find this to be of value, especially in light of a recent thread in which it was expressed that the Book of Mormon is not actually a translation of an ancient record, but a 19th century invention of Joseph Smith. 

So guess the set up for discussion is how this very powerful proof impacts those who are currently struggling with their testimony of the Book of Mormon.

For those who doubt the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, does this fact make any difference to you? 

[Dan McClellan]

11 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

The first name is pretty easy, as far as the parts go. Mah means something, what, how, who or which. 
 

My first issue with this is that the Brother of Jared was alive long, long before Hebrew ever existed as a language. In fact, a central part of the story is that their language was not confounded at Babel, which confounding would have ultimately led to the creation of the Hebrew language. So whatever language the Brother of Jared spoke, and whatever language his name was in, it definitely wasn't Hebrew. Joseph Smith probably would have identified it as the "pure" language of Adam, in which case we can not have any idea whatsoever what it means. There are also significant problems with the Hebrew etymology offered here, though. 

"Mah" is an interrogative particle. It's not an indicative, it asks (primarily) "who?" but can also ask "what?" or sometimes "why?" It doesn't designate someone who does something. 

Quote

Of course you recognize the word “on” which means light and is also metaphor for the Savior.

I don't recognize this word for "light." "Or" (אור) means "light" in Hebrew. און is a speculated root meaning to be strong or mighty, but it's unattested in Biblical Hebrew. 

Quote

This is part of the word Tzion in Hebrew, meaning holy people of the Lord and also the place where they reside. We spell it Zion today. On was the city of the sun where the holy people dwelt, so by link, “on” in this word means the same thing, Zion, but in a different place.

Nobody knows precisely what ציון means in Hebrew, but the most likely guesses are either "castle," based on the Arabic tsana, or "barren place," based on the Hebrew tsaon. "On" was absolutely not "the city of the sun where the holy people dwelt." -on is a suffix that is usually put on words to turn them into toponyms, or place names. 

Quote

Ri means water originally. Today it is used to mean moisture or dampness, but it also means irrigation.

This is kinda true of Arabic, but not Hebrew. Hebrew includes a vav between the resh and the yod, so it wouldn't ever by "ri" in Hebrew, it would be rewaya or something like that. 

Quote

We can put these together and get something like Who [provides or leads to] light [on the] water. There is double meaning in this as you can see. He provided the illuminated stones that provided light in the boats. He also led them across the water to the land of Zion, although they never had a Zion civilization. 

Well, because the interrogative particle would be asking a question, if we accepted the rest of the etymology (which I wouldn't), it would be asking, "Who provides light on the water?"

Quote

The last name is a little more difficult, but we can understand it. “Mor” means to change or perform a wonder.

The root mwr (מור) means to change oneself or to change or exchange something (or to shake), but it only ever occurs in the Hebrew Bible in the nifal or the hifil, so there would be additional preformative consonants attached to it, and if it wasn't a reflexive, it would have an infixed e-quality vowel, as well. "Perform a wonder" isn't attested anywhere that I can tell.

Quote

The word “ian” is a conjunction and I know of no other meaning. It means “in order to” or “for the purpose of.”  

I think this is being connected with ya'an (יען), which would require two distinct syllables, rather than a diphthong, and is quite a stretch for the English syllable -ian. 

Quote

The root “cum,” pronounced “coom” is a common verb meaning “to raise up” or “to rise.” “To raise up” is a phrase we know from other scripture which means to save.

קום means "to rise." It's something the subject does to itself unless you put the verb in another stem, like the causitive, in which case there would be a preformative ה and an infixed e-quality vowel. This verb is not used to refer to saving. There are multiple other roots that are used to refer to delivering or saving. 

Quote

The suffix –er indicates instrumentality. I think this is just the English translation of the suffix although there is a similar one in Hebrew.

You can't add a suffix to a Hebrew root to refer to instrumentality. That's just not how the language works. To refer to "one who does X," you would make the verb a participle, which rearranges the vowels of the root. If this root were being used as a participle, and particularly a masculine singular causitive participle ("one who raises up"), it would be meqym.
   

Quote

 Putting the parts together, we get a description of “Someone who performs wonders in order to lift, raise up, or save.” We can see from these descriptive terms the very things that the brother of Jared did while assisting the people to prepare for and cross the ocean. Because he did all these things, one short name was not enough to describe him and this was a long description rather than his given name. We only have the English spelling, as I said, but if the sounds are the same, the way I have rendered the names is probably very near the original and correct meaning. 
     This description is perhaps the biggest proof of the authenticity of the name, or more accurately, his title, because it fits almost exactly with what he did and who he was. He was a great prophet and performed wonders and miracles in getting the people across the water. 
     There is one final proof of the authenticity of this name... when the Jaredites came to the place where they settled for four years, they named the place Moriancumer... The area was undoubtedly named after the brother of Jared. He was the spiritual leader of the people and a great prophet. Why was the place not called Mahonri Moriancumer? As I showed above, Mahonri has a different meaning and the brother of Jared has not done these acts at the time they are at these waters prior to leaving. This title has to do with his providing light to cross the water. They have not built the boats or submarines yet, so this descriptive name would not have been given him until later. This, again, is a very important point. Had Joseph been making the name up, he would have added the first name at this point since he probably did not know what they meant... By only using the second name, again Joseph gives us a powerful evidence that the book is true, that he is a prophet and that his translation is correct and accurate.  

This strikes me as an incredibly problematic etymology. I wouldn't appeal to this as a "powerful proof" of anything. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Dan McClellan

[longview]

19 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Just passing on an interesting fact about the significance of the name Mahonri Moriancumer and how it is a powerful proof that the Book of Mormon is true.

I remember reading something many years ago that showed the same reasoning concerning the names of the patriarchs in the Book of Genesis.  I don't remember the source.  Decoding the names into sentences (or fragments of sentences) and stringing them in the proper sequence, we would get a description of the Plan of Happiness.

Maybe you can cite the source for Robert Smith's Thesis.  He might be the one that delved into the meaning of the names of the patriarchs?

[Dan McClellan]

27 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Just passing on an interesting fact about the significance of the name Mahonri Moriancumer and how it is a powerful proof that the Book of Mormon is true. I thought people on this forum might find this to be of value, especially in light of a recent thread in which it was expressed that the Book of Mormon is not actually a translation of an ancient record, but a 19th century invention of Joseph Smith. 

So guess the set up for discussion is how this very powerful proof impacts those who are currently struggling with their testimony of the Book of Mormon.

For those who doubt the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, does this fact make any difference to you? 

I would suggest this "fact" does far more harm than good to those who are struggling with their testimony of the Book of Mormon. 

[LDS Watchman]

5 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

My first issue with this is that the Brother of Jared was alive long, long before Hebrew ever existed as a language. In fact, a central part of the story is that their language was not confounded at Babel, which confounding would have ultimately led to the creation of the Hebrew language. So whatever language the Brother of Jared spoke, and whatever language his name was in, it definitely wasn't Hebrew. Joseph Smith probably would have identified it as the "pure" language of Adam, in which case we can not have any idea whatsoever what it means.

I'll have dig up some information, but from what I understand Hebrew is a corrupted version of the pure Adamic language, which was the language of creation. Originally they were the same language. 

The Adamic language was spoken before the flood, so this is the language Noah and his wife and sons would have spoken. One of his sons was Shem who was righteous and wouldn't have had his language confounded at the tower of Babel. Abraham no doubt new Shem. Many scholars believe that Shem and Melchizedek are one and the same. It's perfectly logical to conclude that Abraham spoke the same language as Shem, which would have been the Adamic language.

Languages do change over time however, which is why the Adamic language and ancient Hebrew are not exactly the same. 

I believe Robert Smith's breakdown of the name is pretty accurate. I have found his interpretations to be very accurate. Words in Hebrew have multiple meanings and we're dealing with a name written down in a journal in English and then putting it back into Hebrew, which is not an exact science. 

The meaning itself is a very interesting parallel to what the Brother of Jared did. And the addition of Mahonri to his name sometime after the Jaredites settled down by the seashore and named the place Moriancumer, is fascinating, too. There's no way Joseph Smith made that up. 

[LDS Watchman]

34 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I would suggest this "fact" does far more harm than good to those who are struggling with their testimony of the Book of Mormon. 

How so?

Edited December 6, 2020 by LDS Watchman
To focus on the most recent comment, not the entire exchange.

[Dan McClellan]

8 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'll have dig up some information, but from what I understand Hebrew is a corrupted version of the pure Adamic language, which was the language of creation. Originally they were the same language. 

We can pretty clearly chart the development of Hebrew from other Northwest Semitic languages. This may have been an acceptable bit of speculation in the 19th century, but it's not legitimate today. 

Quote

The Adamic language was spoken before the flood, so this is the language Noah and his wife and sons would have spoken. One of his sons was Shem who was righteous and wouldn't have had his language confounded at the tower of Babel. Abraham no doubt new Shem. Many scholars believe that Shem and Melchizedek are one and the same. It's perfectly logical to conclude that Abraham spoke the same language as Shem, which would have been the Adamic language.

This is neither logical nor scholarship. 

Quote

 

Languages do change over time however, which is why the Adamic language and ancient Hebrew are not exactly the same. 

I believe Robert Smith's breakdown of the name is pretty accurate. I have found his interpretations to be very accurate. Words in Hebrew have multiple meanings and we're dealing with a name written down in a journal in English and then putting it back into Hebrew, which is not an exact science.

 

Without any expertise in Hebrew, you're not really in a position to assert anything about how accurate his breakdowns are. You're correct the back-translating from English transliterations isn't an exact science, but that doesn't mean that demonstrably false assertions about the Hebrew language can just be ignored.

Quote

The meaning itself is a very interesting parallel to what the Brother of Jared did. And the addition of Mahonri to his name sometime after the Jaredites settled down by the seashore and named the place Moriancumer, is fascinating, too. There's no way Joseph Smith made that up. 

It's not a difficult thing to read interesting parallels back into made up claims about Hebrew.

[Dan McClellan]

12 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

How so?

Because doubts are based on analytical conflicts, and asserting such wildly irresponsible and easily falsified claims about the Hebrew language does not resolve those conflicts, it just multiplies them. When people see these claims are nonsense, it makes people think there isn't a legitimate case to make for the inspired nature of the Book of Mormon, and that the people insisting there is don't have any idea what they're talking about.

[2BizE]

Wow.  And I always thought it meant “name made up just to impress people into thinking I know Hebrew”

[longview]

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

The Adamic language was spoken before the flood, so this is the language Noah and his wife and sons would have spoken. One of his sons was Shem who was righteous and wouldn't have had his language confounded at the tower of Babel. Abraham no doubt new Shem. Many scholars believe that Shem and Melchizedek are one and the same. It's perfectly logical to conclude that Abraham spoke the same language as Shem, which would have been the Adamic language.

The Lord commanded the brother of Jared:

Ether 3:1  And behold, when ye shall come unto me, ye shall write them and shall seal them up, that no one can interpret them; for ye shall write them in a language that they cannot be read.

Was this language Adamic?  If so, our knowledge of Hebrew would probably not give us clues as to the contents of Adamic script?

[LDS Watchman]

5 hours ago, longview said:

I remember reading something many years ago that showed the same reasoning concerning the names of the patriarchs in the Book of Genesis.  I don't remember the source.  Decoding the names into sentences (or fragments of sentences) and stringing them in the proper sequence, we would get a description of the Plan of Happiness.

Maybe you can cite the source for Robert Smith's Thesis.  He might be the one that delved into the meaning of the names of the patriarchs?

I don't recall if Robert Smith provided an interpretation of the names of the patriarchs. If he did it would be in his Genesis commentary. 

The interpretation of the name Mahonri Moriancumer is from his Book of Mormon commentary. 

You can read his commentaries at the following website:

https://lastdaysunsealed.wordpress.com

2 hours ago, longview said:

The Lord commanded the brother of Jared:

Ether 3:1  And behold, when ye shall come unto me, ye shall write them and shall seal them up, that no one can interpret them; for ye shall write them in a language that they cannot be read.

Was this language Adamic?  If so, our knowledge of Hebrew would probably not give us clues as to the contents of Adamic script?

No, I don't think so.

The way I read this verse, the Lord was instructing the brother of Jared to record what he had learned in a new encoded language, which no one would be able to interpret without the gift of translation from God. He wasn't telling him to write it in the language he and his people were already using.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I don't recall if Robert Smith provided an interpretation of the names of the patriarchs. If he did it would be in his Genesis commentary. 

The interpretation of the name Mahonri Moriancumer is from his Book of Mormon commentary. 

You can read his commentaries at the following website:

https://lastdaysunsealed.wordpress.com

No, I don't think so.

The way I read this verse, the Lord was instructing the brother of Jared to record what he had learned in a new encoded language, which no one would be able to interpret without the gift of translation from God. He wasn't telling him to write it in the language he and his people were already using.

I regard Bob Smith highly, and consider him a personal friend.   He recently posted, if I remember correctly, that he was taking  break from this board for a while.

But you need to know that certainly Dan is more than qualified to comment on Hebrew and scriptural translation- in fact he works for the church in the translation department, helping to translate scripture.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, longview said:

The Lord commanded the brother of Jared:

Ether 3:1  And behold, when ye shall come unto me, ye shall write them and shall seal them up, that no one can interpret them; for ye shall write them in a language that they cannot be read.

Was this language Adamic?  If so, our knowledge of Hebrew would probably not give us clues as to the contents of Adamic script?

I believe that what we call "Adamic" is not a natural language but the "language" of revelation itself.   Adamic is seen as pure and undefiled and perfectly accurate in its meaning.

THAT to me describes perfectly the experience of non-linguistic communication with God through personal revelation- when it seems as if intelligence - or information- seemingly streams directly into one's mind through intuition.

Sometimes composers and others we describe how songs or music simply came to them intact, almost as if someone was speaking the words or playing the melodies and all they had to do is write them down.   That is the sort of thing I think "Adamic" is.

It is like driving down a winding mountain road and suddenly a gorgeous vista opens before you- with the ability to see for miles and miles ahead, with towns below, and forests and geological formations and all you can say verbally is "Wow"!

No words can describe it.

I believe this is one interpretation of what is referred to as the "Adamic" language- it is direct experience which is beyond words.

I believe the story of the tower of Babel is a metaphor for the principle that all human language is inexact and in some sense un-translatable in precise meaning- if you have ever tried to translate a passage - especially one when the idea presented is abstract or spiritual- the very notion that such can be translated "exactly" to perfectly represent the author's meaning, you will find that to be an impossible task.

So all natural languages are ambiguous and in translation, expressing the precise nuances of meaning into another language is virtually impossible, and the tower of Babel is a story expressing that view

And certainly Adamic cannot be "read" without the ability to read someone's mind.

So essentially that passage in Ether- in my opinion- refers to a language that "cannot be interpreted" because no one can interpret the direct experience of another!

In essence I believe it is saying "Get your own direct revelation for yourself because only God can give you the answer"

Edited December 7, 2020 by mfbukowski
It needed editing. What other reason could there be?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

One of his sons was Shem who was righteous and wouldn't have had his language confounded at the tower of Babel.

Wouldn’t that have depended on whether or not he asked to be so protected?

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I regard Bob Smith highly, and consider him a personal friend.   He recently posted, if I remember correctly, that he was taking  break from this board for a while.

But you need to know that certainly Dan is more than qualified to comment on Hebrew and scriptural translation- in fact he works for the church in the translation department, helping to translate scripture.

You must be referring to a different Robert Smith. The one I'm referring to died in 2018 and wasn't a member of this forum. 

I read on Dan's profile that he has a PHD in Theology and works with scripture translation. That doesn't mean he's more qualified than Robert Smith however.

Robert Smith was very qualified in Hebrew. He had a PHD in ancient Hebrew and was personally tutored by an old Rabbi in Jerusalem. He actually made his own translations of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the 12 prophets straight from the Hebrew. He knew his stuff.

In Dan's attempt to refute Robert Smith's interpretation, he actually verified that at least half of it was correct. I'm actually a little surprised that he is so dismissive of what Robert Smith said if he's really that knowledgeable of ancient Hebrew. Makes me wonder if he's really all that qualified.

Once I verify the rest of what Robert Smith said I'll get back to Dan. I'm very confident that Robert Smith is right.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I regard Bob Smith highly, and consider him a personal friend.   He recently posted, if I remember correctly, that he was taking  break from this board for a while.

When LDS Watchman said "LDS Hebrew scholar Robert Smith" I also assumed he was talking about our own Robert F. Smith, especially given RFS's love of etymologies.

But, yeah, this is a different, heretofore unknown "LDS Hebrew scholar" who "passed away a few years ago": About – Last Days Unsealed (wordpress.com)

The biggest giveaway, if you check out LDS Watchman's link, is that this Robert Smith's voluminous commentaries have no footnotes  Definitely not our guy.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Nevo

[longview]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So essentially that passage in Ether- in my opinion- refers to a language that "cannot be interpreted" because no one can interpret the direct experience of another!

The same chapter in Ether refers to the Lord requiring that the interpreters be stored with the sealed records?

[Nevo]

35 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Robert Smith was very qualified in Hebrew. He had a PHD in ancient Hebrew and was personally tutored by an old Rabbi in Jerusalem. He actually made his own translations of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the 12 prophets straight from the Hebrew. He knew his stuff.

I thought he claimed to have a Ph.D in Linguistics? Also, how do you know so much about him? I've never heard of the guy until today, but then I'm not big into "End of Days" speculation. Did Robert J. Smith ever publish anything other than Last Days Unsealed? Like anywhere, in any venue?

[LDS Watchman]

13 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I thought he claimed to have a Ph.D in Linguistics? Also, how do you know so much about him? I've never heard of the guy until today, but then I'm not big into "End of Days" speculation. Did Robert J. Smith ever publish anything other than Last Days Unsealed? Like anywhere, in any venue?

He published a couple of other books. His first book was called Scriptures of the Last Days. Last Days Unsealed is a short summary of his first book. He also published a commentary on Ezekiel. He wrote commentaries on the 12 prophets and Jeremiah, which I believe he published as well. I think the rest of his commentaries were never published and simply made available on his website.

I know so much about him because I have read most of what he has put in print and I also have a friend who was a very close associate of his before he died, who helped him with some of his commentaries and his old website. I also talked to Robert Smith once on the phone myself to ask him some questions. 

It honestly doesn't matter who Robert Smith is. What matters is what the scriptures say and what they mean. I have found Robert Smith's work to be a very valuable resource in understanding the scriptures. I thought his interpretation of the name Mahonri Moriancumer would be of interest to those who believe in the Book of Mormon and those who question it, which is why I shared it. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, longview said:

The same chapter in Ether refers to the Lord requiring that the interpreters be stored with the sealed records?

In fact I think the verse you quote makes my point even stronger and thanks for pointing that out.

Clearly the "interpreters" are not the kinds of devices you plug into a router and there is an app that knows the language that has been sealed and then it translates the words as a computer would.

We are not speaking about a natural human knowledge here, but revelation.

I believe that the "interpreters" operate as Joseph's seer stones did- that is, strictly by revelation.  Essentially what is being said in language which would be easily understood by a populace a few thousand years ago, perhaps prone to have a magical world view (which incidentally is fine with me- ) is that any "translation" would happen strictly by revelation.  Of course I may be mistaken- I was simply offering my opinion, and I see nothing in your comment which encourages me to believe that "Adamic" was a natural human language which could be translated in any way other than "the power of God"- in other words by pure revelation alone.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

When LDS Watchman said "LDS Hebrew scholar Robert Smith" I also assumed he was talking about our own Robert F. Smith, especially given RFS's love of etymologies.

But, yeah, this is a different, heretofore unknown "LDS Hebrew scholar" who "passed away a few years ago": About – Last Days Unsealed (wordpress.com)

The biggest giveaway, if you check out LDS Watchman's link, is that this Robert Smith's voluminous commentaries have no footnotes  Definitely not our guy.

Yes you are right and now thinking about it further and reading more of the content, that is NOT the sort of thing that Robert F. would write- he is a scholar through and through and would not make such fanciful parallels.  Not to mention that the timeline suggested is not possible, since Hebrew did not exist in the form suggested at the time when these events supposedly happened as Dan adeptly pointed out

I am far from being a BOM scholar and know nothing about Hebrew, and besides I do not even see a necessity for the BOM to have anything to do with "actual history" if such a thing actually exists, for it to be as powerful a volume of scripture as it is.   It totally turns the Creedal Christianity of Joseph's time on its head, and for me the doctrinal basis of it alone would be enough for me to accept it as scripture, and yet I have been blessed to receive a powerful spiritual witness as well.

Scripture needs to be judged with spiritual eyes, not through a scientific or historical dark looking glass which distorts the purpose of scripture entirely.

Edited December 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes you are right and now thinking about it further and reading more of the content, that is NOT the sort of thing that Robert F. would write- he is a scholar through and through and would not make such fanciful parallels.  Not to mention that the timeline suggested is not possible, since Hebrew did not exist in the form suggested at the time when these events supposedly happened as Dan adeptly pointed out

It's not a fanciful parallel at all. A language very similar to Hebrew did exist as a spoken language back then. We don't have any records from before the flood, so we don't know what the written language would have looked like. We do know that the names Adam and Eve and others before the flood are Hebrew names who have specific meanings in Hebrew.

While the point of Hebrew existing before Abraham cannot be definitively proven for certain, what we do know is that Moroni spoke and wrote in Hebrew (an altered from of Hebrew). He is the one who recorded the name Moriancumer, which would have been in Hebrew to him, since the record of Ether had been translated into Hebrew by King Mosiah. So the name is a Hebrew name and the meaning is significant. As is Mahonri. We also don't know the exact spelling of Mahonri other than what was recorded in a journal, which is likely just the author's best guess. 

We also do not know exactly what alterations the Nephites had made to Hebrew by the time Moroni engraved the record of Ether. And it must also be remembered that Moroni was using reformed Egyptian characters to convey Hebrew and that he lamented how this didn't do the Hebrew justice and made the record imperfect. 

So considering all of this there's absolutely no reason to write off the meaning of Mahonri Moriancumer as dubios. Heck, Dan the translation expert confirmed that half of it was spot on while trying his best to write it off.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not even see a necessity for the BOM to have anything to do with "actual history" if such a thing actually exists, for it to be as powerful a volume of scripture as it is.   It totally turns the Creedal Christianity of Joseph's time on its head, and for me the doctrinal basis of it alone would be enough for me to accept it as scripture, and yet I have been blessed to receive a powerful spiritual witness as well.

Scripture needs to be judged with spiritual eyes, not through a scientific or historical dark looking glass which distorts the purpose of scripture entirely.

I completely disagree. The Book of Mormon and other scriptures claim to be authentic historical records. If this is false, nothing can be trusted. If the Book of Mormon is not an actual authentic record of an ancient people written on golden plates, then Joseph Smith was a fraud and so is the restoration. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Typos

[LDS Watchman]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Wouldn’t that have depended on whether or not he asked to be so protected?

We don't even know that Shem was in Babel at the time. If he is in fact Melchizedek as some LDS scholars believe, then he may very well have already been in Salem by then. I don't believe that the Lord would have confounded this righteous man's language because of the wickedness of others.