The meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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

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

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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?

I don’t know. I try to stick to the Book of Mormon text only. I get completely confused trying to make sense of everything else.

7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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.

Why not both? Morianton was the name of of a city in Nephite times and also the name of a Jaredite king. As George Potter points out in Voyages of the Book of Mormon: “we think it possible that the tribal name of the Jaredites was Moriancumer after the great prophet.” His opinion is that the Moriancumer tribe named the location where they built their ships Moriancumer.

My main point is there is an ancient Indo-Aryan tribe named the Morians. They controlled a port on the Indian Ocean named Moron. They travelled east in 2600 BCE and settled in a place they called Moron, or Komara. Another tribe in this same region and at the same time was named the Kumr. They were sons of Noah and sailed east in boats and settled in the same Komara. They later returned to the Arabian Peninsula and set up trading outposts in the Dhofar region of Oman, where the Lehites built their boat to sail to Komara.

All these Book of Mormon tribal names and place names have real world associations. It’s all right there in the historical record. There’s another thread with references and maps.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Mashed potatoes.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

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

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting new article from The Interpreter.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-was-a-rare-book-on-the-hindu-religion-a-source-for-the-book-of-ether/

[Rajah Manchou]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting new article from The Interpreter.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-was-a-rare-book-on-the-hindu-religion-a-source-for-the-book-of-ether/

Alexander Hamilton's account of the Indies is one of many from the late 18th century and early 19th century. But I don't see them as "sources" of the Book of Mormon text so much as glimpses into a history of the Israelites that inhabited the isles during a period of time when Europeans and Americans were more interested in lost tribe lore. For example, Hamilton was one of the first to report of the Manassehites in the isles of the East Indies and their copper plates showing "their own history from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to this present time." (source)

These earliest experts of Sanskrit believed that Hindus and Buddhists (known then as Gentoos) were a lost remnant of Israelites and that Brahmanism was a corrupted Abrahamic religion pre-dating Judaism.

The text of the Book of Mormon, particularly the Book of Ether, fits in this tradition. 

PS, the Marayu mentioned in my previous comment above is the same Maru (son of Jared) identified by Alexander Hamilton in his Key to the Chronology of the Hindus. The founder of the first bronze-age civilization in Southeast Asia, the one that aligns with the internal map of the Book of Mormon. More details here.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

- edit, i keep getting mixed up with this new editor -

Edited December 11, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

23 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting new article from The Interpreter.

Interesting, but both Toponce and Lindsay should look at all the letters written by Hamliton. There's much more substance in his earlier accounts. I read those articles and hear nothing more than two angry people.

[Rajah Manchou]

16 hours ago, Islamormoyid said:

I think it would be interesting to speculate on what the nature of that corruption of Abrahamic religion might have been.  

My thoughts exactly. Its strange that Toponce finds this account of a "Brother of Jared" but neglects to look at the origins of the account in Hindu scripture. Then doubly strange that Lindsay, rather than looking for the origins of these stories that resemble those in the Book of Ether, goes on the offense to counter Toponce.

Is no one curious about the similarities between the earliest civilizations in the east and those described in the Book of Mormon?

[Stargazer]

On 12/6/2020 at 7:08 AM, 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

Nemesis, where are the board guidelines? I wanted to review them, but I can't seem to find them.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nemesis, where are the board guidelines? I wanted to review them, but I can't seem to find them.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

 

OK, but I would recommend someone put them in a more general link. For example, the "Privacy Policy" at the bottom of the page appears to link to the board guidelines, but when you click on it, it goes here instead:

[mgy401]

On 12/7/2020 at 7:50 PM, 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 suppose it depends on what direction “through the lineage of his fathers” runs. 
 

Couldn’t one say that Prince William will receive the English throne “through the lineage of his fathers [and mothers], even unto Charles”?

The claim to birthright/royalty/priesthood runs backwards through the generations; but the birthright/royalty/priesthood itself runs forward, no?

Edited December 13, 2020 by mgy401

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I would recommend someone put them in a more general link.

PM or report it to mods if you want them to change it. They probably won’t see it just in your post. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/8/2020 at 8:48 AM, california boy said:

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

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

That certainly does happen.  However, it is not true that all non-believers have the same view on such matters.  The great William F. Albright twice signed statements that the BofM names Paanchi and Pahoron were authentic Egyptian names.  Non-Mormon professors Joseph Schultz (he is also a rabbi) and David Noel Freedman both stated in my presence that Mulek seemed to them to be authentic as a name of a son of King Zedekiah.  Jewish scholars in Israel had the late John Tvedtnes come speak on Hebrew names in the BofM at the 13^th  World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, August 2001; available online at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/ HebrewNames.pdf .  Moreover, Tvedtnes was asked to contribute two articles to the Jewish edited Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), II:195-196,787-788.  Many decades earlier, Hugh Nibley was asked to write an article on Jerusalem for the Encyclopedia Judaica.  The editor clearly liked a hard-hitting article Nibley had written earlier for the Jewish Quarterly Review.  LDS scholars are well treated and respected worldwide.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/7/2020 at 4:22 PM, LDS Watchman said:

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

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. 

 

On 12/7/2020 at 4:32 PM, LDS Watchman said:

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

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 can assure you that I am being quite serious in saying that Robert J. Smith knows nothing about Hebrew.  He gives no indication of having studied Hebrew of any kind, ancient or modern.

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I can assure you that I am being quite serious in saying that Robert J. Smith knows nothing about Hebrew.  He gives no indication of having studied Hebrew of any kind, ancient or modern.

Have you looked any of his work besides his interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer?

I doubt it.

Btw, here's what I found as I looked into his interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer.

His interpretation of Mahonri appears to be plausible, while his interpretation of Moriancumer looks like a bit of a stretch. 

Mahonri 

mah

"mah" means "who?"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4100.htm

Robert Smith’s interpretation of “mah” is verified, though he doesn’t mention that “who” is in the form of a question. 

on

"on" means "sun city" and was the name of a city in Egypt 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/204.htm

"On" is part of the word "Zion" or "Tsiyyon'" which is where the Lord's people dwelt.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6726.htm

The interpretation of “on” meaning “light” is not explicit, but it is a plausible meaning considering that the sun is the greatest source of light on the earth. Since “on” is also part of the word “Zion” which is where the Lord’s people dwelt and a Holy city, which could also easily represent “light” or something similar. Robert Smith’s interpretation of on as “light” or something similar is at least plausible.

Ri

"ri" means "moisture or water"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7377.htm

Robert Smith’s interpretation of “ri” is spot on as “moisture or water.”

Overall his interpretation of Mahori meaning “Who [provides or leads to] light [on the] water” appears to be a plausible interpretation.

Moriancumer 

mor

“mor” means to “keep, watch, or preserve”

I’m not sure why Robert Smith interpreted “mor” as “to change or perform a miracle.” 

"Er" has several different meanings in Hebrew. 

"Er" means "do or make" which does denote "instrumentality"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6466.htm

"Er"means "to be high or exalted, rise" and was used in proper names. 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4100.htm

Putting these two meanings for “er” together, this does suggest that the brother of Jared was “instrumental” 

An important factor to keep in mind is thst that we don't know precisely what language the Jaredites would have spoken. There's good reason to believe it was very similar to ancient Hebrew, but not identical. Nor do we know the difference between Nephite Hebrew in Moroni's day. 

My conclusion is that Robert J. Smith's interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer may be correct, but it doesn't look like the slam dunk he presents it as in his Book of Mormon commentary I quoted in the OP.

 

[Dan McClellan]

3 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Have you looked any of his work besides his interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer?

I doubt it.

Btw, here's what I found as I looked into his interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer.

His interpretation of Mahonri appears to be plausible, while his interpretation of Moriancumer looks like a bit of a stretch. 

Mahonri 

mah

"mah" means "who?"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4100.htm

Robert Smith’s interpretation of “mah” is verified, though he doesn’t mention that “who” is in the form of a question. 

on

"on" means "sun city" and was the name of a city in Egypt 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/204.htm

On does not mean "sun city." It is a toponym. It is the name of a city. The name may mean something in Egyptian, but that doesn't remotely mean we can simply transpose the same meaning into Hebrew. That's simply not how language works.
 

Quote

 

"On" is part of the word "Zion" or "Tsiyyon'" which is where the Lord's people dwelt.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6726.htm

 

Zion is another toponym. You have to make a case for a compound etymology for Zion. You can't just assert that because the English transliteration matches for the last part of this city name, you can import the meaning you've asserted for a different city name in another language. Additionally, the Hebrew spelling of Zion does not include the aleph that is always included in the Hebrew spelling of the Egyptian city name.

Quote

The interpretation of “on” meaning “light” is not explicit, but it is a plausible meaning considering that the sun is the greatest source of light on the earth. Since “on” is also part of the word “Zion” which is where the Lord’s people dwelt and a Holy city, which could also easily represent “light” or something similar. Robert Smith’s interpretation of on as “light” or something similar is at least plausible.

No, it's not, and you simply do not have the first clue what you're talking about. 

Quote

 

Ri

"ri" means "moisture or water"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7377.htm

Robert Smith’s interpretation of “ri” is spot on as “moisture or water.”

 

Nope, because the word is rwy/rvy, and this is an otherwise entirely unattested contraction that occurs only here and nowhere else. This is the exception to how this word is used, so there needs to be an argument for why this otherwise entirely unique form might show up.

Quote

Overall his interpretation of Mahori meaning “Who [provides or leads to] light [on the] water” appears to be a plausible interpretation.

It's only plausible if you don't know Hebrew or even how languages work in general. 

Quote

 

Moriancumer 

mor

“mor” means to “keep, watch, or preserve”

I’m not sure why Robert Smith interpreted “mor” as “to change or perform a miracle.” 

 

It's because he does not know Hebrew or how Hebrew works.

Quote

 

"Er" has several different meanings in Hebrew. 

"Er" means "do or make" which does denote "instrumentality"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6466.htm

 

You linked to a Strong's entry for the verb pa'al, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any "er" verb. "To do" or "to make" is most commonly the verbal root 'asah, as well.

Quote

 

"Er"means "to be high or exalted, rise" and was used in proper names. 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4100.htm

 

Here you just linked to the interrogative particle mah again.

Quote

Putting these two meanings for “er” together, this does suggest that the brother of Jared was “instrumental” 

This is becoming comical.

Quote

 

An important factor to keep in mind is thst that we don't know precisely what language the Jaredites would have spoken. There's good reason to believe it was very similar to ancient Hebrew, but not identical. Nor do we know the difference between Nephite Hebrew in Moroni's day. 

My conclusion is that Robert J. Smith's interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer may be correct, but it doesn't look like the slam dunk he presents it as in his Book of Mormon commentary I quoted in the OP.

 

As an expert in ancient Hebrew, his interpretation is not remotely correct. 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

On does not mean "sun city." It is a toponym. It is the name of a city. The name may mean something in Egyptian, but that doesn't remotely mean we can simply transpose the same meaning into Hebrew. That's simply not how language works.
 

Zion is another toponym. You have to make a case for a compound etymology for Zion. You can't just assert that because the English transliteration matches for the last part of this city name, you can import the meaning you've asserted for a different city name in another language. Additionally, the Hebrew spelling of Zion does not include the aleph that is always included in the Hebrew spelling of the Egyptian city name.

No, it's not, and you simply do not have the first clue what you're talking about. 

Nope, because the word is rwy/rvy, and this is an otherwise entirely unattested contraction that occurs only here and nowhere else. This is the exception to how this word is used, so there needs to be an argument for why this otherwise entirely unique form might show up.

It's only plausible if you don't know Hebrew or even how languages work in general. 

It's because he does not know Hebrew or how Hebrew works.

You linked to a Strong's entry for the verb pa'al, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any "er" verb. "To do" or "to make" is most commonly the verbal root 'asah, as well.

Here you just linked to the interrogative particle mah again.

This is becoming comical.

As an expert in ancient Hebrew, his interpretation is not remotely correct. 

No offense, but I really have a hard time taking you seriously. 

The Hebrew Lexicon on Bible Hub clearly shows that Robert J Smith's breakdown of Mahonri is not completely bogus and at least has some plausibility, especially considering that we don't know precisely what language the Jaredites spoke, what language Moroni spoke, or what the exact spelling of Mahonri is. There's definitely some wiggle room here to make a faith based interpretation of the name. 

Unless you think Bible Hub is clueless, too?

Your goal is clearly to attack this interpretation and paint it as completely bogus, even though you know there's at least some wiggle room. I suspect that you have an alterior reason for being so aggressive in your attacks against this interpretation.

You probably don't even believe the stories in the scriptures actually happened. 

I doubt you believe in the universal flood in the days of Noah or the confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel, which are central to the story of the Jaredites. 

Do you believe these stories to be true? Or do you consider them to be fairy tales or legend?

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Typo

[Dan McClellan]

4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

No offense, but I really have a hard time taking you seriously. 

The Hebrew Lexicon on Bible Hub clearly shows that Robert J Smith's breakdown of Mahonri is not completely bogus and at least has some plausibility

It does absolutely no such thing whatsoever. I've explained the problems with your appeals.

Quote

especially considering that we don't know precisely what language the Jaredites spoke, what language Moroni spoke, or what the exact spelling of Mahonri is. There's definitely some wiggle room here to make a faith based interpretation of the name. 

"Wiggle room" doesn't mean we can be *more* confident in our uninformed guesses, it means we have to be more *careful*.

Quote

Unless you think Bible Hub is clueless, too?

Your goal is clearly to attack this interpretation and paint it as completely bogus, even though you know there's at least some wiggle room. I suspect that you have an alterior reason for being so aggressive in your attacks against this interpretation.

It's because studying the scriptures and helping other people better understand them is literally what I do for a living, and this kind of nonsense makes it more difficult for me to do my job and for members of the Church to be better students of the scriptures.

Quote

 

You probably don't even believe the stories in the scriptures actually happened. 

I doubt you believe in the universal flood in the days of Noah or the confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel, which are central to the story of the Jaredites. 

Do you believe these stories to be true? Or do you consider them to be fairy tales or legend?

 

Depends on the story, but also entirely irrelevant.

[LDS Watchman]

36 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Depends on the story, but also entirely irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant.

Do you believe in the universal flood and the confounding of the language at the tower of Babel as described in the scriptures or not?

If not, then you have a major bias, which explains why you are so aggressive in your attacks on this interpretation. 

If you don't believe that these stories really happened, then you have no business "helping people better understand the scriptures."

Bible Hub literally shows that ri means moisture. You know it does. It also literally shows that "on" is the city of the sun. It doesn't matter if this is an Egyptian word or not. The bible was written in Hebrew, therefore "on" is a Hebrew word. 

On is also part of Zion. Now it may be a different on than the one that refers to the city of the sun, but it is nevertheless one of the roots of Zion. Which means that what Robert Smith wrote wasn't complete and utter nonsense.

Your insistance that this is all a bunch of nonsense exposes your bias. 

So please set the record straight Mr. Language Expert. Do you believe what the prophets of God have written in the scriptures about the great flood and the confounding of the language at the tower of Babel or not?

I would bet the farm that you don't.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Depends on the story, but also entirely irrelevant.

Dan:

Would you mind giving a few examples of Old Testament stories you think really happened (i.e., real people, in real places, etc.)? I'm also curious.

When the argument is over what could or couldn't have developed in languages, or how languages could or couldn't be related or linked, I think whether one accepts the Tower of Babel story as literal or figurative is relevant, for example. 

 I think LDS Watchman has a point. Most "higher critics" in the Church I've interacted with are usually loathe to admit to very much having literally happened. They often get annoyed and embarrassed at the literalist rubes who believe "this kind of nonsense" that "makes it more difficult for . . . members of the Church to be better students of the scriptures," as you said. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

Dan:

Would you mind giving a few examples of Old Testament stories you think really happened (i.e., real people, in real places, etc.)? I'm also curious.

When the argument is over what could or couldn't have developed in languages, or how languages could or couldn't be related or linked, I think whether one accepts the Tower of Babel story as literal or figurative is relevant, for example. 

 I think LDS Watchman has a point. Most "higher critics" in the Church I've interacted with are usually loathe to admit to very much having literally happened. They often get annoyed and embarrassed at the literalist rubes who believe "this kind of nonsense" that "makes it more difficult for . . . members of the Church to be better students of the scriptures," as you said. 

Being a better student of the scriptures does not translate to being a better disciple (or vice-versa), but  Elder Holland's "disciple-scholar" approach encourages the possibility where academics remember their commitment to the gospel: "When you’re writing for the household of faith, you should never write anything that would give your doctoral advisor just cause to accuse you of dishonesty. Likewise, when you are writing for an academic journal, you should never write anything that would give your ministering companion just cause to accuse you of disloyalty. Your soul must be one — integrated, intact, and whole — even as your voice may speak in different languages to different audiences."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/be-faithful-disciple-scholars-even-in-difficulty-elder-holland-says-at-maxwell-institute?lang=eng

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/elder-holland-gives-apostolic-charge-to-be-disciple-scholars/

https://universe.byu.edu/2018/11/11/elder-holland-invites-change-in-religious-education/

Regarding the importance (or unimportance) of the literalness of events, an example comes to mind: the dark skin in the Book of Mormon can be taken literally or figuratively, but given the Lord's purposes and dealings with the Lamanites as listed in the Title Page, must always be taken as an expression of His love, being the means of preserving the Gospel for repentant / returning Lamanites (as reiterated many times in the passages that touch upon the sign of the curse), and never used to justify the immorality of racism. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

So please set the record straight Mr. Language Expert. Do you believe what the prophets of God have written in the scriptures about the great flood and the confounding of the language at the tower of Babel or not?

I would bet the farm that you don't.

Banned behaviours on the board include attacking someone’s faithfulness to the gospel 

Quote

• Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Calm

[LDS Watchman]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Banned behaviours on the board include attacking someone’s faithfulness to the gospel 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

 

I'm not attacking his faithfulness. I'm questioning whether or not he believes in the literal global flood and the literal confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel.

It's becoming more and more common for active "faithful" members to not believe that the stories in the scriptures actually happened.

This is an important point considering his very aggressive attacks on a faithful interpretation which supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the other scriptures.

It's also important to establish his position on the confounding of the languages at the tower of babel, considering his self proclaimed expertise in ancient languages. 

I'm also not questioning his sincerity. I believe he is sincerely trying to undermine the historicity of the stories in the scriptures based on his comments, but I don't want to assume so I'm asking for clarification. 

He dodged the question the first time while continuing his aggressive attacks, so I'm asking again. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Typo