Jump to content

The meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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

It's all good. No need to bow out. I appreciate the explanation. 

My beliefs are definitely ultra conservative, bordering on fundamentalist. I have a firm belief that the scriptures and the stories written in them are authentic and really happened. For example I am a very firm believer in the literal world wide flood in the days of Noah. 

I likewise have a very firm belief in the original teachings and doctrines of the church. My beliefs align with the original"standard beliefs" in the church, but I guess today I am in the minority. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I disagree that there are "many paths in the gospel of Jesus Christ." I believe the scriptures and teachings of the prophets clearly spell out a single straight and narrow path. Each of us must decide for ourselves what path we will follow, and which path we believe is right.

Though it seems we disagree on some fundamental issues, I appreciate the good will and I wish you well on your quest for truth as well. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

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. 

No worries. I totally understand.

On the other hand I know the work Robert Smith has done. I appreciate his insights and have learned a great deal from his writings, so I'm not fazed by the criticism of two "authorities" who I know absolutely nothing about. But I will look into their criticisms when I get a chance because I believe in embracing all truth.

Maybe there is some flaw in Robert Smith's interpretation of the name Mahonri Moriancumer and maybe not. Once I look into it I'll post my findings. 

Link to post

Well, Ether it is Hebrew or it is not.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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.

Some of the brethren in Deseret/Utah Territory days thought that Shem was Melchizedek, and this has carried over to our day, but I think a plain reading of D&C 84 (the priesthood lineage) makes it clear that he wasn't. Verse 14: "Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah." 

That doesn't sound like Melchizedek was Noah's son to me. 

Link to post
19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Some of the brethren in Deseret/Utah Territory days thought that Shem was Melchizedek, and this has carried over to our day, but I think a plain reading of D&C 84 (the priesthood lineage) makes it clear that he wasn't. Verse 14: "Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah." 

That doesn't sound like Melchizedek was Noah's son to me. 

I agree that this verse in D&C 84:14 does make it sound like Melchizedek is not Shem, since Noah is Shem's father. 

Of course it may also be that this verse is simply ambiguous because the Lord didn't want the connection of Shem-Melchizedek to be definitively set forth in scripture for whatever reason.

I don't really have a position on whether or not Shem and Melchizedek are the same person. Could go either way in my opinion. 

I think Abraham would have known Shem whether Shem is Melchizedek or not.

Just out of curiosity do you have any quotes by the brethren in early Utah about Shem and Melchizedek being one and the same?

I haven't looked into this in a while and can't remember who said what. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

Just out of curiosity do you have any quotes by the brethren in early Utah about Shem and Melchizedek being one and the same?

I haven't looked into this in a while and can't remember who said what. 

Yes and no. My files are in boxes in storage, somewhere. We're in our third consecutive housesitting stint, and I just last week learned that certain files are not in the house where I thought they were (my son on a mission had asked for some things). 

This from the 1973 Ensign leans towards Melchizedek being Shem, but not convincingly, in my opinion. ;) 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/11/i-have-a-question/is-it-possible-that-shem-and-melchizedek-are-the-same-person?lang=eng

The more interesting question to me is that lineage in D&C 84. Esaias "received [the priesthood] under the hand of God," and Esaias "also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him" (verses 11-12). So, why didn't Abraham ordain him? And why did Elias have the keys of the dispensation of Abraham (D&C 110)? What kind of conditions were there that necessitated Elohim Himself ordaining Esaias, especially when there were priesthood holders at that time? I think there are some fascinating details about that time and place we don't have. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, rongo said:

This from the 1973 Ensign leans towards Melchizedek being Shem, but not convincingly, in my opinion. ;) 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/11/i-have-a-question/is-it-possible-that-shem-and-melchizedek-are-the-same-person?lang=eng

The more interesting question to me is that lineage in D&C 84. Esaias "received [the priesthood] under the hand of God," and Esaias "also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him" (verses 11-12). So, why didn't Abraham ordain him? And why did Elias have the keys of the dispensation of Abraham (D&C 110)? What kind of conditions were there that necessitated Elohim Himself ordaining Esaias, especially when there were priesthood holders at that time? I think there are some fascinating details about that time and place we don't have. 

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

There are a couple of different possibilities in regards to Esaias receiving the priesthood under the hand of God. 

First of all, the phrase that Esaias received the priesthood under the hand of God does not neccessarily mean that God personally ordained Esaias. It could also mean that he sent some unnamed angel or even mortal to ordain him. 

Look at this scripture for example:

1 Thus saith the Lord God, the Mighty One of Israel: Behold, I say unto you, my servant Edward, that you are blessed, and your sins are forgiven you, and you are called to preach my gospel as with the voice of a trump;
 2 And I will lay my hand upon you by the hand of my servant Sidney Rigdon, and you shall receive my Spirit, the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which shall teach you the peaceable things of the kingdom;

(D&C 36)

In this verse the Lord is talking about personality laying his hands on someone and ordaining them, but through the hands of another priesthood holder. 

People also lived very far apart in those days, so Esaias may not have been near any other mortal priesthood holder to ordain him at the time of his ordination. This may have necessitated God himself (or more likely the angel of his presence) to personally ordain Esaias.

As for Elias from D&C 110, this is not the same individual as Esaias. 

While we are not told who this Elias in D&C 110 is, my conclusion is that he is the Elias who will restore all things spoken of in D&C 77 and other places in the scriptures, whose mission it is to restore all things and gather the tribes of Israel.

The statement that he conferred the keys of the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham refers back to this passage from the Book of Abraham:

9 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;
10 And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;      11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

(Abraham 2)

So Elias delivering the keys of the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham is talking about delivering the keys of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in the latter and last days, which is connected with the mission of Elias to restore all things and gather the tribes of Israel.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I think there's a typo here. What are you trying to say?

 

Perhaps literal translations are not the best way to understand language, and this is proof

  • Haha 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps literal translations are not the best way to understand language, and this is proof

Rorty is back in style.

By the way, I'm back on the board for a bit. Let's have some fun. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, rongo said:

Some of the brethren in Deseret/Utah Territory days thought that Shem was Melchizedek, and this has carried over to our day, but I think a plain reading of D&C 84 (the priesthood lineage) makes it clear that he wasn't. Verse 14: "Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah." 

That doesn't sound like Melchizedek was Noah's son to me. 

The Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 32b) as well as the Jewish Aramaic targums (Targums Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan) suggest that Shem was Melchizedek.[1]


[1] Michael Astour, “Mechizedek (Person),” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:686; see the thorough discussion and bibliography in J. W. Welch, “The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13:13-19,” in J. Lundquist & S. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, 2 vols. (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1990), II:238-272.

  • Like 2
Link to post
19 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.

I would appreciate it if you could see your way clear to always refer to that Robert J. Smith with his middle initial.  That might help avoid confusion.  I see nothing in his comments that would suggest that he is a Hebrew scholar.  Amazon claims that "he completed his Ph.D. in Historical Languages at the University of Utah, following studies at the University of Texas. He has done post-doctoral studies in Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew at the University of Utah and at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has taught in Utah and California.  The author is revising his first book, currently out-of-print, Scriptures of the Last Days, and expects to publish an enlarged version in late 1999."

I have never heard of a PhD in "Historical Languages," which sounds as phony as a three dollar bill.  However, another source says it was in "Historical Linguistics," which sounds far more credible.  What year did he graduate?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 12/6/2020 at 5:45 PM, LDS Watchman said:

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.

I'm a lot less interested in criticizing a man who has passed away and cannot defend himself, but I did not verify that anything was correct, and whatever he may or may not have told you, he did not have even a rudimentary grasp of Hebrew.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have never heard of a PhD in "Historical Languages," which sounds as phony as a three dollar bill.  However, another source says it was in "Historical Linguistics," which sounds far more credible.  What year did he graduate?

I have no idea what year he graduated. I believe he completed his studies post doctoral studies in Jerusalem some time in the late 1980s, but I don't know for sure.

 

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I did not verify that anything was correct

I'm sorry, but you did in fact say that some of his Hebrew was correct, while taking serious issue with his overall interpretation. 

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

he did not have even a rudimentary grasp of Hebrew.

He made his own translations of the 12 prophets, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel from Hebrew. 

I think he had a rudimentary grasp of Hebrew. 

Have you looked at any of his translations and commentaries of verifiable Hebrew? Or are you writing him off solely on this one interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer?

Perhaps he did stretch things with his Mahonri Moriancumer interpretation. I don't know, I haven't looked into your criticism yet. Like I said, what he was doing in trying to put this English name back into Hebrew wasn't an exact science and he didn't do this in a scholarly paper either. It was done on the fly in an informal commentary for his friends and other interested individuals in a weekly Book of Mormon commentary he was doing. 

Edited by LDS Watchman
Typo
Link to post
On 12/6/2020 at 1:21 PM, LDS Watchman said:

the meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer. The meaning of this name is a powerful proof that the Book of Mormon is true.

I missed how the name Mahonri Moriancumer is proof that the Book of Mormon is true. Its not a personal name that is found in the Book of Mormon.

Moriancumer is in there, but that seems to me to be a portmanteau of morian and cumr, two historical Asian groups that are believed to have sailed east and settled the same peninsula in Jaredite times. 

Morian/Mauryan in Jaredite times
Cumr/Kumr in Jaredite times

That's a powerful proof that the Book of Mormon is true.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I missed how the name Mahonri Moriancumer is proof that the Book of Mormon is true. Its not a personal name that is found in the Book of Mormon.

Moriancumer is in there, but that seems to me to be a portmanteau of morian and cumr, two historical Asian groups that are believed to have sailed east and settled the same peninsula in Jaredite times. 

Morian/Mauryan in Jaredite times
Cumr/Kumr in Jaredite time

That's a powerful proof that the Book of Mormon is true.

Very interesting.

So are you suggesting that Mahonri Moriancumer was not the name of the brother of Jared and that this account of Joseph's naming of a child as Mahonri Moriancumer and saying that this was the name of the brother of Jared is dubious?

It would seem to me that either Moriancumer is the name of two groups who lived in the area were the Jaredites passed through on the journey to the Americas or it is the name of the brother of Jared, but not both.

Link to post
1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm sorry, but you did in fact say that some of his Hebrew was correct, while taking serious issue with his overall interpretation. 

I pointed out that "coom" was indeed a verbal root, and then I went on to say that it could not maintain that form in order to say anything approximating what he suggested it meant. Not a single other statement about Hebrew was correct, and the one word he successfully identified as Hebrew was completely and utterly mangled in his explanation. 

Quote

 

He made his own translations of the 12 prophets, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel from Hebrew. 

I think he had a rudimentary grasp of Hebrew. 

 

No, not if he thought "on" means "light," or that you can indicate instrumentality by adding the suffix "on." That's just pure and utter nonsense. First semester Hebrew students know better than that.

Quote

Have you looked at any of his translations and commentaries of verifiable Hebrew? Or are you writing him off solely on this one interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer?

I don't need to look at any translations or commentaries. He made numerous wildly unaccurate statements about entirely basic and simple principles of the Hebrew language. He did not know Hebrew. 

Quote

Perhaps he did stretch things with his Mahonri Moriancumer interpretation. I don't know, I haven't looked into your criticism yet. Like I said, what he was doing in trying to put this English name back into Hebrew wasn't an exact science and he didn't do this in a scholarly paper either. It was done on the fly in an informal commentary for his friends and other interested individuals in a weekly Book of Mormon commentary he was doing. 

And as I pointed out, his claims do more harm than good.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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. 

We see these kinds of "proof" that Joseph Smith/Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham etc pop up pretty regularly.  They all seem to only have LDS scholars try to fit something to make a case which is always the same case.  Joseph Smith could not have possibly come up with this stuff without revelation from God.  I have yet to see ANY of these attempts convince non-believers to all the sudden accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.  That is not how it works.  More often they turn out like this, failing to convince nonbeliever, and even worse, further undermining credibility that Joseph Smith is what he claims to be. To a non-believer, it is a fraudulent claim propping up what they believe to be a fraudulent prophet.

Your reckless post seems to have not only failed to convince non believers, it has also utterly been rejected by believing members.  Sloppy science doesn't increase belief, it undercuts belief.  It looks like an attempt to convince people using completely made up facts with no credibility.  Can you see how that can be more harmful than helpful?

Edited by california boy
Link to post
14 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I think there's a typo here. What are you trying to say?

 

It’s a pun. I shouda included a smiley. 

Interesting thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Rorty is back in style.

By the way, I'm back on the board for a bit. Let's have some fun. 

10:4 good buddy and I am not ONLY meaning Moroni.....  ;)

 

Link to post
11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Rorty is back in style.

By the way, I'm back on the board for a bit. Let's have some fun. 

10:4 good buddy, and I don't necessarily mean Moroni.  Speaking of literalism, I can't imagine a greater "coincidence" than, on a radio, "10/4" meaning "message acknowledged" along with Moroni speaking of that in 10:4 and that the twin towers fell on "9/11" which connotes an emergency.

But the literalists only see.....   who knows?  ;)

 

Link to post
19 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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. 

Nothing substantive for this critic to chew on. This Robert J. Smith guy appears to be quite the mess and I wholeheartedly trust Dan and RFS. At least there is a difference between "feeling" inspired vs being inspired. RJS seems the former and not at all the latter.

Link to post
17 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 
 

Pfft! Utter hogwash! You know we hold you in much higher regard.  We aren't all idiots. 🤣

Link to post
17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, Ether it is Hebrew or it is not.

And Hebrew is either a reformed/revised/altered/modified version of another language that preceded it or it is not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Pfft! Utter hogwash! You know we hold you in much higher regard.  We aren't all idiots. 🤣

I expect you to know that you are not authorized to speak for me.  Like Rodney Dangerfield I can say I don't get any respect and like God I can say I do not respect anybody more than anyone else.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...