The characters Martin Harris took to Prof. Anton- which part or verse of the Book of Mormon are they?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Professor Anthon did not see the plates so he could not sincerely validate if they were copied
correctly. 

You are absolutely right.  He couldn't have validated that they were copied correctly.  But fortunately he wasn't asked "if they were copied correctly". 

 

[2BizE]

On 2/19/2021 at 2:51 PM, theplains said:

That part of the record for the history of the church says:

64 - “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been 
translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman 
celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the 
translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the 
Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that 
they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true 
characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they 
were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been 
translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and 
was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the 
young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. 
I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

65 - “He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out 
of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that 
there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the 
plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were 
sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed 
book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon 
had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”

Regarding the standards for certifying something as authenticate in those days, what 
type of professor (as in Anton) and doctor (as in Mitchell) would provide a certificate 
of authenticity when they never saw the original characters on the plates from which 
they were supposedly copied from?

If you look at this history in the Joseph Smith Papers, you can clearly see some of this history was written later in separate ink. Specifically the part where it talks about the sealed book. This appears to be fabricated at a later date.

[InCognitus]

38 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

If you look at this history in the Joseph Smith Papers, you can clearly see some of this history was written later in separate ink. Specifically the part where it talks about the sealed book. This appears to be fabricated at a later date.

You're referring to this page right here, correct?   History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834]

Is the part you claim to be "fabricated at a later date" just this sentence?   "I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them, he replied “I cannot read a sealed book”. 

Are you suggesting that someone made up the part about fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy and added it later?

If that's the case, then I'm curious as to how the 1832 history fit into your fabrication theory.   See History, circa Summer 1832, p. 5, where Joseph Smith says that Martin Harris received a revelation in which he learned that he must make the trip to New York fulfill the Isaiah prophecy:

Quote

in December following we mooved to Susquehana by the assistence of a man by the name of Martin Har[r]is who became convinced of th[e] vision and gave me fifty Dollars to bare my expences and because of his faith and this rightheous deed the Lord appeared unto him in a vision and shewed unto him his marvilous work which he was about to do and <h[e]> imediately came to Suquehannah and said the Lord had shown him that he must go to new York City  <with> some of the characters so we proceeded to coppy some of them and he took his Journy to the Eastern Cittys and to the Learned  <saying> read this I pray thee and the learned said I cannot but if he would bring the blates [plates] they would read it but the Lord had forbid it and he returned to me and gave them to <me> <to> translate  and I said I said cannot for I am not learned but the Lord had prepared spectticke spectacles  for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters and thus the Propicy [prophecy] of Isiaah was fulfilled which is writen in the 29 chaptr concerning the book

 

[TheTanakas]

On 2/25/2021 at 4:15 PM, InCognitus said:

The certification from Professor Anthon was to the fact that they were "true characters", not whether they were copied correctly.

Do you or @theplains know what the difference is between characters of Egyptian and Reformed
Egyptian?

[TheTanakas]

On 2/23/2021 at 5:28 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

He tore up the certificate and wanted to translate the plates himself. Based on the v64 text he was perfectly happy to make the claims initially and even generate a certificate. Destroying the certificate, saying angels don't minister, and wanting to translate the plates himself doesn't change that.

Based on how I'm reading that verse, Harris' explanation about how the plates were located was
the impetus for Anton tearing up the certificate.

Do you read it the same way?    For a professional person, why would it matter how the plates
were located determine if you are going to authenticate something as authentic or not?

[JustAnAustralian]

18 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Do you read it the same way?    

Yes. He was happy to authenticate the characters as real and the translation as correct until he found out how the plates were found.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Do you or @theplains know what the difference is between characters of Egyptian and Reformed
Egyptian?

I'm sure you know what theplains thinks about this, but "reformed" simply means that it was improved in some way over the original.  So "reformed Egyptian" describes an improved Egyptian writing script.  Scholars are aware of improvements in the Egyptian script over time, such as these shown below:

Whatever script the Nephites used for keeping their record, it was a "reformed" or altered version of an earlier script. 

[TheTanakas]

On 3/4/2021 at 3:50 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

Yes. He was happy to authenticate the characters as real and the translation as correct until he found out how the plates were found.

What explanations of how the plates were found do you believe would have led
Professor Anton not to rip up his certificate of authenticity?

[TheTanakas]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:02 PM, InCognitus said:

Whatever script the Nephites used for keeping their record, it was a "reformed" or altered version of an earlier script.

Were Laban's plates written in normal Egyptian or reformed Egyptian or one of
other 3 you mentioned earlier?

In your earlier picture, I don't see any progression of advancement between the
hieroglyphs, hieratic, and demotic styles.  Do you?

Edited March 6, 2021 by TheTanakas

[Steve Thompson]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:02 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm sure you know what theplains thinks about this, but "reformed" simply means that it was improved in some way over the original.  So "reformed Egyptian" describes an improved Egyptian writing script.  Scholars are aware of improvements in the Egyptian script over time, such as these shown below:

Whatever script the Nephites used for keeping their record, it was a "reformed" or altered version of an earlier script. 

Just for your gee whiz files, the hieroglyphic inscription above is not an original hieroglyphic text, but a modern transcription of the hieratic text below it.  In other words, they are the same text in two different scripts.  Scholars today generally transcribe a hieratic text into hieroglyphic when offering a translation (or at least transliterate it) .  The only reason I mention this is to point out that the hieroglyphic inscription above contains signs that wouldn't normally occur in an inscription originally written in hieroglyphic (the repeated small strokes, for example).  And while I'm pointing out irrelevant facts, the text is from a papyrus known as the Abbot papyrus, and describes the inspection of a royal tomb thought to have been robbed.  

[InCognitus]

26 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Were Laban's plates written in normal Egyptian or reformed Egyptian or one of
other 3 you mentioned earlier?

They called it "reformed Egyptian", which simply means it was an improved version of the Egyptian writing script.  Any improvement in a writing script could be called "reformed", like the hieratic or demotic script posted earlier.

30 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

In your earlier picture, I don't see any progression of advancement between the
hieroglyphs, hieratic, and demotic styles.  Do you?

Absolutely I do.  You may need a closer look, the writing is rather small in the prior image:

  

Which writing script do you think would be easier to use?  The logographic elements on the left, where you need to draw a complete picture to say what you want to say?  Or the more cursive style on the right?  The styles going toward the right are all more simplified and improved writing systems.  They would be much easier to use.

 

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

What explanations of how the plates were found do you believe would have led
Professor Anton not to rip up his certificate of authenticity?

Buried in a stone box. If they had left God out of it completely it would have come across similar to plenty of other archaeological finds.

 

4 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Were Laban's plates written in normal Egyptian or reformed Egyptian or one of
other 3 you mentioned earlier?

Presumably, since they were being kept in Jerusalem by rich Jews,  the brass plates would have been kept in the appropriate Hebrew script for the time they were created.

[theplains]

On 3/4/2021 at 12:57 AM, 2BizE said:

If you look at this history in the Joseph Smith Papers, you can clearly see some of this history was written later in separate ink. Specifically the part where it talks about the sealed book. This appears to be fabricated at a later date.

I saw a mention in the Joseph Smith Papers where it says it was the angel Nephi, not Moroni,
who visited him.

[theplains]

On 3/4/2021 at 3:23 PM, TheTanakas said:

Do you or @theplains know what the difference is between characters of Egyptian and Reformed
Egyptian?

Hi Peter.

I'll loop @InCognitus in here too since you addressed both of us.

I don't know the answer to your question, but after reading Moroni 9:33, it seems the record
written in Hebrew is more reliable than the record written in whatever characters Moroni was
referring to. 

"And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the
Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye
would have had no imperfection in our record".
 

[theplains]

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

They called it "reformed Egyptian", which simply means it was an improved version of the Egyptian writing script.  Any improvement in a writing script could be called "reformed", like the hieratic or demotic script posted earlier.

Absolutely I do.  You may need a closer look, the writing is rather small in the prior image:

  

Which writing script do you think would be easier to use?  The logographic elements on the left, where you need to draw a complete picture to say what you want to say?  Or the more cursive style on the right?  The styles going toward the right are all more simplified and improved writing systems.  They would be much easier to use.

 

I would say hieratic and demotic are simpler to use than hieroglyphs.  Based on the pictorial you
provided,  I see that hieratic is simpler in some cases than demotic and some demotic is simpler
in some cases than hieratic.

What improved version of Egyptian was the Book of Mormon written in?

Edited March 7, 2021 by theplains

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, theplains said:

I saw a mention in the Joseph Smith Papers where it says it was the angel Nephi, not Moroni,
who visited him.

I believe you are talking about https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/5.  This is a draft for the Joseph Smith's history and was later published in the Times and Seasons.  This draft is dated to 1838-1839 and it is almost definitely an error where it says Nephi.  There are many earlier sources that identify the angel as Moroni (including at least one non friendly source).  See https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Moroni%27s_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni#Question:_Are_there_sources_which_identify_the_angel_that_visited_Joseph_as_.22Moroni.22_that_date_prior_to_the_.22Nephi.22_error.3F for a list of earlier sources.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

There are many earlier sources that identify the angel as Moroni (including at least one non friendly source).  

I've never understood these accounts of Joseph and members of the Whitmer family seeing Moroni wandering around. For example (from the link you posted):

After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. - Messenger and Advocate - 1835

If that was Moroni, why didn't Joseph recognize him? Why would the Lord need to reintroduce Moroni to Joseph after the translation of the Book of Mormon was completed?

Also, Mary Whitmer identified this person wandering around with gold plates in his rucksack as Brother Nephi.

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've never understood these accounts of Joseph and members of the Whitmer family seeing Moroni wandering around. For example (from the link you posted):

After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. - Messenger and Advocate - 1835

If that was Moroni, why didn't Joseph recognize him? Why would the Lord need to reintroduce Moroni to Joseph after the translation of the Book of Mormon was completed?

Also, Mary Whitmer identified this person wandering around with gold plates in his rucksack as Brother Nephi.

You've got the wrong citation.  The quote you said was from "Messenger and Advocate - 1835" is actually from Mormonism Unvailed, p. 277, published in 1834, and is among the first anti-Mormon publications.  You may have gotten that quote from the FAIR Mormon website, and I can see that their reference structure on that page may be a little confusing.  The citation precedes the quotations in this web link.  

The context of the Mormonism Unvailed quote is as follows.  The book is retelling a story supposedly told by Lemon Copley, who said that Joseph Knight told him the story, who says he heard it from Joseph Smith, as retold by the author (E.D. Howe), and you know how those stories go:

Quote

Mr. Copley testified, that after the Mormon brethren arrived here from Susquehannah, one of them, by the name of Joseph Knight, related to him a story as having been related to him by Joseph Smith, Jun. which excited some curiousity in his mind, he determined to ask Joseph more particularly about it, on the first opportunity. Not long after it was confirmed to him by Joseph himself, who again related it in the following manner: After he had had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary gray apparel, sitting upon a log, having in his hand or near by. a small box. On approaching him, he asked him what he had in the box. To which the old man replied, that he had a MONKEY, and for five coppers he might see it. Joseph answered, that he would not give a cent to see a monkey, for he had seen a hundred of them. He then asked the old man where he was going, who said he was going to Charzee. Joseph then passed on, and not recollecting any such place in that part of the country, began to ponder over the strange interview, and finally asked the Lord the meaning of it.  The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again.

Here we have a story related by our modern prophet, to his followers, for no other purpose, as we conceive, but to make his pretensions more "marvelous in their eyes." A celebrated Mormon prophet, of ancient times, and one of modern date, have an interview in the woods, and hold a conversation about a MONKEY; one prophet of the Lord relating a falsehood to another!!!

I think the FAIR Mormon website is trying to establish the solid fact that "Moroni" was always the name of the angel who visited Joseph, and that the name "Nephi" written in the history was obviously misspoken or miswritten and is clearly an error.  This particular source (Mormonism Unvailed) is a hostile witness to that fact.  There is solid evidence of that fact in many other places.

Below is the full quote from the Messenger and Advocate, 1835, as written by Oliver Cowdery:

Quote

I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering. You are aware of the fact, that to give a minute rehearsal of a lengthy interview with a heavenly messenger, is very difficult, unless one is assisted immediately with the gift of inspiration. There is another item I wish to notice on the subject of visions. The Spirit you know, searches all things, even the deep things of God. When God manifests to his servants those things that are to come, or those which have been, he does it by unfolding them by the power of that Spirit which comprehends all things, always; and so much may be shown and made perfectly plain to the understanding in a short time, that to the world, who are occupied all their life to learn a little, look at the relation of it, and are disposed to call it false. You will understand then, by this, that while those glorious things were being rehearsed, the vision was also opened, so that our brother was permitted to see and understand much more full and perfect than I am able to communicate in writing. I know much may be conveyed to the understanding in writing, and many marvelous truths set forth with the pen, but after all it is but a shadow, compared to an open vision of seeing, hearing and realizing eternal things. And if the fact was known, it would be found, that of all the heavenly communications to the ancients, we have no more in comparison than the alphabet to a quarto vocabulary. It is said, and I believe the account, that the Lord showed the brother of Jared [Moriancumer] all things which were to transpire from that day to the end of the earth, as well as those which had taken place. I believe that Moses was permitted to see the same, as the Lord caused them to pass, in vision before him as he stood upon the mount; I believe that the Lord Jesus told many things to his apostles which are not written, and after his ascension unfolded all things unto them; I believe that Nephi, the son of Lehi, whom the Lord brought out of Jerusalem, saw the same; I believe that the twelve upon this continent, whom the Lord chose to preach his gospel, when he came down to manifest to this branch of the house of Israel, that he had other sheep who should hear his voice, were also permitted to behold the same mighty things transpire in vision before their eyes; and I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age, saw also, before he hid up the same unto the Lord, great and marvelous things, which were to transpire when the same should come forth; and I also believe, that God will give line upon line, precept upon precept, to his saints, until all these things will be unfolded to them, and they finally sanctified and brought into the Celestial glory, where tears will be wiped from all faces, and sighing and sorrowing flee away!   (Oliver Cowdery M&A 1 (April 1835), p.109)

Every single reuse of the name as "Nephi" can be retraced back to the error in the History, so it was a one time error that was copied in other publications.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

What improved version of Egyptian was the Book of Mormon written in?

They used whatever version that they used.  Moroni said, "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:34).

Edited March 7, 2021 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't know the answer to your question, but after reading Moroni 9:33, it seems the record
written in Hebrew is more reliable than the record written in whatever characters Moroni was
referring to. 

"And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the
Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye
would have had no imperfection in our record".

As you can see from Moroni 9:33, they didn't use Hebrew because it would take up more space on the plates.  Apparently the Egyptian script they used was more concise and condensed than Hebrew, and thus it is the reason they chose it to keep their record. 

I compare it to choosing to save a photo on your computer hard drive as a .JPG file instead of .BMP (bitmap) file.  The .JPG files are compressed and are about 1/10th of the size of a .BMP image, but elements of the photo are removed in order to compress it and you risk losing some quality in the image if you choose to edit the photo.  But the image quality of a .JPG file is good for normal purposes and it saves you a ton of space.  But who knows, maybe someday in the future people will adopt a new way to compress photos, and the ability to unpack the compression of a .JPG file may be obsolete.  And in that situation we may need special interpreters (conversion software) in order to view them.

Edited March 7, 2021 by InCognitus

[Rajah Manchou]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You've got the wrong citation.  The quote you said was from "Messenger and Advocate - 1835" is actually from Mormonism Unvailed, p. 277, published in 1834, and is among the first anti-Mormon publications.  You may have gotten that quote from the FAIR Mormon website, and I can see that their reference structure on that page may be a little confusing.  The citation precedes the quotations in this web link.  

I decided to just copy straight from the FairMormon article linked to in the comment I was responding to. 

Quote

The context of the Mormonism Unvailed quote is as follows.  The book is retelling a story supposedly told by Lemon Copley, who said that Joseph Knight told him the story, who says he heard it from Joseph Smith, as retold by the author (E.D. Howe), and you know how those stories go:

But there were three different sightings of this old gentleman identified as Moroni. (1) the sighting retold by Leman Copley (2) David Whitmer's telling of their encounter with the old man on the road to Cumorah/Charzee (3) Mary Whitmer's account of seeing the golden plates in the old man's backpack. 

Three different accounts from three different sources, and none of them seem to connect the old man named Moroni with the Angel Moroni that visited Joseph Smith numerous times previous to these encounters. 

Let's take the David Whitmer account for example: 

When I was returning to Fayette with Joseph and Oliver all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old-fashioned wooden spring seat and Joseph behind us, while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon who saluted us with, “good morning, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah.” This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked round enquiringly of Joseph the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again.

Sounds to me like Joseph Smith didn't recognize this old man as Moroni in the accounts we have of the two different encounters. Mary saw, I assume, the same old man and called him Brother Nephi every time she told the story. So, who was this old man with golden plates in his backpack?

[webbles]

52 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Sounds to me like Joseph Smith didn't recognize this old man as Moroni in the accounts we have of the two different encounters. Mary saw, I assume, the same old man and called him Brother Nephi every time she told the story. So, who was this old man with golden plates in his backpack?

The story of David Whitmer doesn't indicate whether Joseph Smith recognized him or not.  So it is possible that Joseph Smith recognized him.  But even if Joseph Smith didn't, this could be similar to the Biblical story of Jesus where he walked with two of his disciples after his resurrection and they didn't recognize him.  Maybe resurrected beings can look different if needed?

As for Mary, I found an article in the Interpreter that has several accounts of her story - https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/another-account-of-mary-whitmers-viewing-of-the-golden-plates/

The only account (from Elvira Pamela Mills) where the man tells Mary his name has him say "Moroni".  The other accounts don't mention him saying his name.  The one from David Whitmer says he thinks it is the same man that he saw on the way to Cumorah based on her description of him.  And the one from John C. Whitmer says that she always calls him "Brother Nephi".  Based on those accounts, it feels like the man didn't tell Mary what his name was.  Instead, he just showed her the golden plates and comforted her.  Mary's the one who named him "Brother Nephi" and she was the only one that saw him and talked to him.  David Whitmer made a guess that it was really Moroni but he could be wrong.  The rest are all assuming that it had to have been Moroni.  It could be that the man really was Nephi or it could be that she made the assumption that it was Nephi and was never told his real name.

[2BizE]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

They used whatever version that they used.  Moroni said, "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:34).

We have no evidence that the characters from the plates have anything to do with the story of the BoM because the plates were never used in the translation process.  It was Joseph placing a magic rock in a hat and dictating the words he saw.  The plates of Gold could have contained something completely different than what is found in the BoM.

[Rajah Manchou]

On 3/7/2021 at 9:52 PM, webbles said:

The story of David Whitmer doesn't indicate whether Joseph Smith recognized him or not. 

Correct, it doesn't indicate that Joseph recognized the man with the plates as Moroni. Likewise, in the Copley story, Joseph did not recognize the man with the plates as Moroni.

Likewise, it also seems to be the first time Whitmer (and presumably Joseph Smith) heard the name Cumorah. The name of the old man's destination was Charzee. Not Cumorah.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/19/2021 at 5:07 PM, cinepro said:

And my favorite blog on the subject, from a non-member who investigates unknown texts:

https://ciphermysteries.com/2009/06/01/the-anthon-transcript

Pelling has a much more recent (and helpful) discussion, for those wishing to try their hand at decipherment: https://ciphermysteries.com/2016/03/20/decrypting-the-caractors  .