The meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/5/2020 at 11:21 PM, LDS Watchman said:

LDS Hebrew scholar Robert Smith provided the following commentary on the meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer. .........................

Perhaps you could cite for me where I supposedly said all this?

On 12/5/2020 at 11:21 PM, LDS Watchman said:

.....................................
     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. ....................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 Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian, likely using logograms to shorten the space used.  For example, a single Egyptian hieratic squiggle for "honey-bee" (dšrt/deseret/archaic Hebrew dbrt "honey-bee") would be all that was necessary to represent the Jaredite word for honey-bee.  Remember, the book of Ether had already been translated into Nephite before Moroni edited it.

Quote

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

On does appear in the Hebrew Bible as the place name (transliterated from Egyptian) for the city of Heliopolis, "Sun-City," in Egypt.  Hebrew ṣîyyôn (Greek siōn) "Zion," is however unrelated.  Zion is likely derived from Hittite sius “god”[1] (= Greek Zeus), which has the suffix -nas added when it is part of a phrase (“city of,” “stronghold of,” “mount of”), siunas, which can be shortened to siun (G. Mendenhall). 

---

[1] As in the Anitas document, and in the Proclamation of Telepinus (reminiscent of the book of Ether, according to John Gee). See Hittite siu-, siuna- “god” (Akkadian ilu; Sumerian DINGIR, DINGIR^LUM, DINGIR^LIM); − siunan antuhsa- “man of god, oracle”; − ^dsiusmis = ^*sius-mis "my god," or ^*sius-smis "their god"; siussummin = ^*siun-smin  "their god (Acc.)"; from Hittite Lexicon online at http://www.premiumwanadoo.com/ cuneiform.languages/ en_lexique_hittite.htm#z (Olivier Lauffenburger).

On 12/5/2020 at 11:21 PM, LDS Watchman said:

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.

My colleague Paul Hoskisson (former editor in chief of the Book of Mormon Onomasticon at BYU) has noted the root rwh, rwy appears in Hebrew and other North-west Semitic languages: Qal-form, “to drink one’s fill, to be refreshed”; Piˁel-form, “to give to drink abundantly, water thoroughly”; and Hifˁil-form, “to water thoroughly” (riho “water” in Socotri; Qatabanian rwy Airrigation system@; Sabean, yhrwy[n]  Aprovide with irrigation,@ and rwym is “a well, or watering place”; perhaps Saudi Irriyāḍ “Riyadh,” which is an oasis, from the plural of Arabic rawdah “meadow, garden”).

On 12/5/2020 at 11:21 PM, LDS Watchman said:

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

Although you (or whomever) are correct about Hebrew imperative qûm “Arise!” the rest of your ideas here are bunk.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, longview said:

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

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?

Maybe so.  I'd sure like to know where I said all that.  Reads very much like something Jerry Grover might have come up with.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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

I believe Robert Smith's breakdown ................................

I should be having a breakdown.  Maybe I'll take two aspirin and continue in the morning.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I should be having a breakdown.  Maybe I'll take two aspirin and continue in the morning.

Your twin brother by another mother perhaps? A Robert J Smith. 
 

Nice of you to pause your vacation to offer correct info. 

[Calm]

15 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I believe Robert Smith's breakdown of the name is pretty accurate. I have found his interpretations to be very accurate.

How would you know they were very accurate if not an expert yourself?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours 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

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

Since you are also listed as an author on that same website, you clearly know this "Robert Smith," who is likely you yourself as a second pseudonym.  You need to cease using my name immediately.  I wouldn't have minded so much if you were making coherent claims about the Book of Mormon Onomasticon, which I have been working on for years.  Does WordPress realize what sort of chicanery you are engaged in?

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your twin brother by another mother perhaps? A Robert J Smith. 
 

Nice of you to pause your vacation to offer correct info. 

There is actually another Robert F. Smith out there who is LDS, the author of books like "Baptists At Our Barbeque."  He is a bit younger than me, and his middle initial stands for a different name than mine.  However, he never pretends to be a Hebrew scholar.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 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

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

Glad to know that someone believes in me -- that I would not spout such nonsense.  Thanks, Mark.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Glad to know that someone believes in me -- that I would not spout such nonsense.  Thanks, Mark.

That lack of footnotes should have made it obvious even if Nevo was joking, he was saying he was quoting scholar Robert Smith and yet...it felt wrong, but I could not figure it out. I bet that is why Nemesis popped in as well. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Calm

[LDS Watchman]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you could cite for me where I supposedly said all this?

It's a different Robert Smith. Robert J. Smith. 

Robert Smith is a very common name. 

If you read through the rest of the thread, you'll notice that I immediately clarified this once someone mixed you up with him.

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since you are also listed as an author on that same website, you clearly know this "Robert Smith," who is likely you yourself as a second pseudonym. 

I am the author of that website, but I'm neither Robert Smith, nor do I know him personally. I certainly don't pretend to be him. I'm simply someone who has read his work and finds value in it. I also have an acquaintance who was closely connected with Robert Smith before he died in 2018. He's the one who shared Robert Smith's work with me. He's also contributing to this new website.

Robert Smith used to have a website years ago called last days unsealed, where he made his work available. The goal of the current website is simply to share Robert Smith's work with those who may be interested.

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to cease using my name immediately.  

I'm not using your name. I've never heard of you or read anything you have written. The Robert Smith I'm referring to was a real person who was also an LDS Hebrew scholar. It's just a coincidence that you two happen to share the same first and last name. 

If you have a problem with what this other Robert Smith wrote that's fine. But there's no need to make baseless accusations against me. If you had read through the thread you would have quickly seen that no one was trying to use your name and credentials. Guess this goes to show that the old saying is right about what happens when we assume.

Sorry you got all worked up in the middle of the night over nothing.

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Awesome how revelation works, isn't it.  Like how while I was reading your words that I am now quoting I received revelation from God which enabled me to see and understand some light and truth from your words, as if your words and the revelation from God worked together to help me see and understand the light and truth.  And then I was inspired to wonder why there was ever a need for spectacles, if revelation from God and words from others were all that were necessary to see and understand light and truth, at which point I saw and understood that the spectacles were only an aid to help the person wearing the glasses to be in the proper frame of mind.

One of the main problems with English, I think, is that most of the words have multiple meanings so that the person reading those words has to make a choice of how to interpret them, so maybe Adam's words were more explicit.

[Ahab]

7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It's a different Robert Smith. Robert J. Smith. 

Robert Smith is a very common name. 

If you read through the rest of the thread, you'll notice that I immediately clarified this once someone mixed you up with him.

I am the author of that website, but I'm neither Robert Smith, nor do I know him personally. I certainly don't pretend to be him. I'm simply someone who has read his work and finds value in it. I also have an acquaintance who was closely connected with Robert Smith before he died in 2018. He's the one who shared Robert Smith's work with me. He's also contributing to this new website.

Robert Smith used to have a website years ago called last days unsealed, where he made his work available. The goal of the current website is simply to share Robert Smith's work with those who may be interested.

I'm not using your name. I've never heard of you or read anything you have written. The Robert Smith I'm referring to was a real person who was also an LDS Hebrew scholar. It's just a coincidence that you two happen to share the same first and last name. 

If you have a problem with what this other Robert Smith wrote that's fine. But there's no need to make baseless accusations against me. If you had read through the thread you would have quickly seen that no one was trying to use your name and credentials. Guess this goes to show that the old saying is right about what happens when we assume.

Sorry you got all worked up in the middle of the night over nothing.

When reading Robert F. Smith's words it is almost essential that you have your sense of humor button turned on, otherwise you may not be able to sense that he is joking.  But there is no need for alarm.  If you don't get it then you just don't get it.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Ahab

[LDS Watchman]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

How would you know they were very accurate if not an expert yourself?

I have studied all of Robert Smith's new translations and commentaries. Whenever he rendered a word differently than the mainstream or made a unique interpretation I always verified what he was saying by looking at a Hebrew bible and comparing his translation and commentary to other translations. 

His translations and commentaries have always checked out. 

Since I'm not fluent in Hebrew, it's a little more difficult for me to verify his interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer. Since he was putting a name in English back into Hebrew and then providing the interpretation, I'm not able to use my usual means of verification. 

I haven't have had the time to research the attacks on Robert  Smith's interpretation by Dan and Robert F. Smith, but based on my past experience with Robert Smith I consider his interpretation to be trustworthy. In their attacks on his interpretation, Dan and RFS actually verified that at least part of Robert Smith's interpretation is correct. I still need to look into their other claims. 

It seems you are content to trust that Dan and RFS are more knowledgeable than Robert Smith, but I honestly couldn't care less what their backgrounds are. An appeal to authority (unless it's the scriptures or a prophet) means nothing to me. 

[LDS Watchman]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When reading Robert Smith's words it is almost essential that you have your sense of humor button turned on, otherwise you may not be able to sense that he is joking.  But there is no need for alarm.  If you don't get it then you just don't get it.

Actually he was completely serious. He had very strong opinions. 

I don't always agree with what his spin on things, but I find it refreshing that he didn't beat around the bush and said exactly what he believed.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Actually he was completely serious. He had very strong opinions. 

I don't always agree with what his spin on things, but I find it refreshing that he didn't beat around the bush and said exactly what he believed.

I was thinking about when he said this: "Perhaps you could cite for me where I supposedly said all this?" and this: "You need to cease using my name immediately."

Robert F. Smith knows he is not the only person on this planet that has the name Robert Smith and he also knows (or at least he should have known) that he didn't say what you said Robert Smith said.

And people can be joking/funny even when other people think they are serious.

[mfbukowski]

test

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

It seems you are content to trust that Dan and RFS are more knowledgeable than Robert Smith, but I honestly couldn't care less what their backgrounds are. An appeal to authority (unless it's the scriptures or a prophet) means nothing to me. 

So you prefer Robert Smith's authority above Dan and Robert F. Smiths but "appeals to authority mean nothing, unless the speaker is a prophet."

Uh huh.

But Robert Smith is not a prophet, therefore your statement is contradictory.

Edited December 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is actually another Robert F. Smith out there who is LDS, the author of books like "Baptists At Our Barbeque."  He is a bit younger than me, and his middle initial stands for a different name than mine.  However, he never pretends to be a Hebrew scholar.

Oh my gosh- I saw that title once and I thought-  "HUH?"

[california boy]

On 12/5/2020 at 10:21 PM, LDS Watchman said:

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.  
 

Can I as who you wrote all of this out for?  Members who already believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet?  Or to try and convince unbelievers that Joseph Smith must have been a prophet?

[LDS Watchman]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was thinking about when he said this: "Perhaps you could cite for me where I supposedly said all this?" and this: "You need to cease using my name immediately."

Robert F. Smith knows he is not the only person on this planet that has the name Robert Smith and he also knows (or at least he should have known) that he didn't say what you said Robert Smith said.

And people can be joking/funny even when other people think they are serious.

I thought you were talking about Robert J. Smith, not Robert F. Smith.

Boy, it is easy to get these two mixed up. 

Robert J. Smith was dead serious in his commentaries.

Don't know what kind of sense of humor Robert F. Smith has. This is literally the first time I've read anything from him. He sounded serious to me. But maybe he was just joking around. 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can I as who you wrote all of this out for?  Members who already believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet?  Or to try and convince unbelievers that Joseph Smith must have been a prophet?

I wrote it out for both groups.

I figured believers, such as myself would find it interesting and be able to add it to their quiver of defenses against critics.

I also thought that those who are going through a faith crisis and currently doubting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, because of what they may have read in some anti-Mormon work like the CES letter, might find it helpful and give them a reason to "doubt their doubts."

And finally I though it would give critics who reject the authenticity of the Book of Mormon something to chew on. 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So you prefer Robert Smith's authority above Dan and Robert F. Smiths but appeals to authority mean nothing, unless the speaker is a prophet.

Uh huh.

But Robert Smith is not a prophet, therefore your statement is contradictory.

There's no contradiction.

I'm not appealing to Robert Smith's authority. I was only giving him credit for the interpretation, not saying that it has to be true because Robert Smith wrote it. 

I don't know jack squat about what Dan on RFS have written or what their credentials are. On the other hand I have invested a lot of time in studying Robert Smith's work and consider his translations and interpretations to be of value. 

I'm curious why you are being so hostile about this?

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

There's no contradiction.

I'm not appealing to Robert Smith's authority. I was only giving him credit for the interpretation, not saying that it has to be true because Robert Smith wrote it. 

I don't know jack squat about what Dan on RFS have written or what their credentials are. On the other hand I have invested a lot of time in studying Robert Smith's work and consider his translations and interpretations to be of value. 

I'm curious why you are being so hostile about this?

Sorry.

I will gladly bow out.

I did not mean to be "hostile"

I think we are all getting a little too sensitive around here.   I did not see your position as coherent with my world view and did not want to give any newbies reason to think that these are standard beliefs.

Let's just say that they are more "conservative" and literal than the usual poster hereabouts.   Many do not take the story of the flood for example as intended to be literal, or at least that is my observation

I wish you well.  There are many possible paths in the gospel of Jesus Christ and I believe He guides us to the one best for us and that yours is as "valid" as anyone's as long as you (or any of us) can honestly pass a temple recommend interview.  I believe more in orthopraxis than orthodoxy.

 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It seems you are content to trust that Dan and RFS are more knowledgeable than Robert Smith,

I know the work they do. They are exceptional even among the typical scholars imo, though not an expert myself so my opinion likely doesn’t count for much. 
 

It is not an appeal to authority when they detail out their objections.  

Edited December 8, 2020 by Calm

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

On the other hand I have invested a lot of time in studying Robert Smith's work and consider his translations and interpretations to be of value.

I respect that. I've read a bit of your blog and you seem like a sincere seeker. Good luck to you in your journey.

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out" (Proverbs 25:2).