What books did Joseph Smith have access to?

[t2t2]

It is good. But it is not the "church" that is TRUE. It is those experiences and those experiences are based on the gospel that the church, imperfect as it may be, shelters.

Frankly - I can disagree with none of the above other than the end results (thus far, shall we say?) of your quest.

For me, truth generally comes in small pieces and it is up to the individual to make something of those pieces...which is why we don't all come to the same conclusions.

This is my point all along. This all stems from "If you look at spirituality like chemistry you won't get very far." which I took offense to. We ALL look at things in a way we can relate to. You have your own methods. I have mine. To call your method superior simply because you arrived a belief that I have rejected is to call your way or path "truth" and place mine as "false". This is the fundamentalism you now claim to reject. A method for finding truth (let's skip the definition or "truth" and suggest we likely agree) can and will be just as relative as what you find with that method. I've tried the LDS 6 Step Program to believing in the authenticity of the BoM. It didn't work for me. Just don't assume that because it worked for you that you have found the method for graining truth. That's fundamentalism.

[suem]

Your statement confuses me.

[Meta]

I really wish people would go back and read the whole thread before bringing something to the table which has been thoroughly discussed and calling someone naive.

But....let me take a couple of names here to examine.

Aha? This has been discussed at length. Too many names 1 letter off in the Bible to think this is a great stretch to come up with.

Ammon. Are you kidding me? I should stop here because it's obvious you've never read the...um......BIBLE?! Does anyone else here think using a Biblical name in the BoM is evidence that Joseph was a prophet? I'm frankly astonished that you would list this. Ammon? That's like saying "Joseph could not have known Jacob was a real name!!".

Aminadab. *sigh*. Another Biblical name is proof to you? I'M naive???

Etc.

Sorry dude...the rest has been discussed. You can see my remarks all through this thread. If you want to take the time and look up something I said that you want to challege - great. I'm more than happy to reply back to that.

You're a lost cause. A group of scholars might have been able to come up with a list of names (a large one with training in eyptology), but not one or two men. It's true that it takes more then proof for people to believe, and you've proven it.

[t2t2]

In addition the person said that the one person who had the most influence on this decision to leave the church was none other than juliann. So I have been watching juliann over the past couple of weeks, and by golly, I can see exactly what that person's point was.

I hate talking about someone in front of them so consider this both about AND to Juliann.

I have known Julianns all my life. I've known her in myself. There are great things to be said about someone who truly believes in that which has brought great joy into their life. Something they've tested through the years of their life and have come out of the refiners fire a brighter and sharper instrument.

I say that with all sincerity and it should be taken as a compliment. On the other hand, I was told long ago by a girlfriend "You are the smartest person I know AND the most arrogant because you know it.". It was an attraction and a turnoff all in one. I think people who are well read often come across as smarter than they are and unfortunately - as thinking they are smarter than they are. Again - I apply this to myself more than anyone else. Smarts these days are the unfortunate accumulation of that which another smart person has written. You accumulate enough of these smart points and you appear smart yourself. It's the way things are these days. Being able to whip snap facts and quotes out makes debate that much easier...all the while you've not had a single original thought leave your mouth.

The point to this is actually relative to all the recent posts and this thread itself. Joseph Smith was obviously brillient. Even taking names from the Bible, as I believe he did, he crafted a tale that 150 years later still retains the title of "possible". Believers elevate that title. But even critics, if they are honest, will take nothing away from the man in that regard. But we have to understand that belief is the driving force behind both sides. Even seeing no evidence, it was a lack of answers to prayer that drove me from the church. It's honesty that leads to arguments and bickering. If a member is honest they will admit that there really ain't all that much evidence for the BoM. If a critic is honest they will admit there are some things out there that are interesting and that it's not hard to see how a believer would see them as evidence. I suppose the point is that smarts when it comes to something so subjective as this will do little good. And arrogance in the face of ignorance will only further chase people to whatever side they are already leaning towards. If Juliann has chased some away from the church, you will all be happy to know that it's likely people like me have chased others right back in.

[t2t2]

You're a lost cause. A group of scholars might have been able to come up with a list of names (a large one with training in eyptology), but not one or two men. It's true that it takes more then proof for people to believe, and you've proven it.

Wait - deal with what I wrote. ARE you saying you think Biblical names in the BoM are evidences for the book?

[juliann]

In addition the person said that the one person who had the most influence on this decision to leave the church was none other than juliann. So I have been watching juliann over the past couple of weeks, and by golly, I can see exactly what that person's point was.

That is beyond scary that a complete stranger on a message board who is as awful as you say I am can determine the course of someone else's life.

I feel so...powerful. Hmmm....with my kind of influence and a good marketing scheme I could make a mint off of you guys.

[charity]

One person, or even a bunch of people, cannot drive someone from the Church. A person may say "Someone said this or did this and that is why I left the Church." But the real reason is a lack of testimony. Active membership requires too much for anyone to stay with it, unless they have a testimony. People may stay for a while after that is gone, and then it is just a matter of finding the excuse to leave.

And since we are all human, eventually an excuse will pop up that the person can feel justified in saying, "So and so drove me from the Church."

And honestly, yes, there is objective proof that the Book of Mormon could not have been written by even a university full of scholars in 1820. So you will have to come up with another reason not to believe it is what it says it is.

[Tchild2]

In addition the person said that the one person who had the most influence on this decision to leave the church was none other than juliann. So I have been watching juliann over the past couple of weeks, and by golly, I can see exactly what that person's point was.

DAAAAAA******NNNNNN! Why couldn't I have met and corresponded with Juliann before I went on a mission? I might have saved myself a lot of grief.

[juliann]

I think people who are well read often come across as smarter than they are and unfortunately - as thinking they are smarter than they are.

Ok, this is going to make you mad again. I do see people who think they are "well read" feeling real smart because they are only well read. The problem with having put in the time and the money to get the training in the subject I want to talk about is I do know a lot. And it offends some people. But it offends them because they don't have the graduate school experience which produces anything but arrogance. When you are doing it for real, you get graded, judged and critiqued. I got thrown into seminars that made you translate in front of the internationally recognized experts who would gather for the twice a month sessions for fun. I didn't go the easy way. I went into one of the top rated schools. You watch those around you that are brilliant (contrary to popular belief on these boards, the nature of the study religion requires it to succeed...which is why I will never go for a PhD) and want to slide under the table. But you come out knowing the rules and nothing gets decimated faster than a student who doesn't support his thesis with the prerequisites. That is just the way it is in the real world of the study of religion. I see no reason to expect any less on a message board.

Being able to whip snap facts and quotes out makes debate that much easier...all the while you've not had a single original thought leave your mouth.

I put up those quotes because they have to do with my field of study, T2. The body of what I have comes from papers...really long papers that were written by no one but me. I know how furious it makes posters because there is no response to it other than another expert's quote. And you don't have that available. But switching the topic to me is not going to change those quotes. And I use them precisely for that reason....it isn't about me at all. I've heard it all...on the AOL boards they would start making fun of my husband dying when I was a little too familar with the early church fathers. It used to bother me but now it just makes me shake my head...all it means is they can't fight back fair by using documentation and data so they descend into a back alley fist fight. All it does now is tells me now is that they have lost when there is really nothing to be won on message boards. Apparently they think that this is a game of life and death to me. It is just a verbal chess game to me...I find it intellectually challenging and I enjoy looking through my books to find support. So when you think you are playing a chess game and the other guy starts spitting and throwing rocks...well, they just look weak and incompetent to me. It seems to make them feel good though.

[thesometimesaint]

juliann:

That's why I went into Social Work. Lots known. Much much more unknown.

[juliann]

That's why I went into Social Work. Lots known. Much much more unknown.

That is the downside of becoming well versed in a subject....only then do you become aware of how much you don't know. And that is the problem we have with the critics....they don't know enough to even be aware of what needs to be known. I'm not sure I know of another career choice that has so many tagging along insisting anybody can do it. Do you often have untrained people insisting that they know as much about social work as you do? Or angry with you because of what you know about it?

[t2t2]

Ok, this is going to make you mad again. I do see people who think they are "well read" feeling real smart because they are only well read.

That was exactly what I said. Why would that make me mad?

The problem with having put in the time and the money to get the training in the subject I want to talk about is I do know a lot. And it offends some people. But it offends them because they don't have the graduate school experience which produces anything but arrogance.

Well..this then goes back to what I suggested leaves people sensing arrogance. 1 step forward, 2 steps back. I know a lot about music. A lot. I know a lot about art and design. A lot. But if I claim that my knowledge and education in these areas qualify me to tell you what music is good and what is bad, or what painting is good and what is bad...well, you might call me arrogant. Better analogy, should I think that my knowledge of music theory qualifies me to step into a songwriters forum and tell a songwriter that his change from A to C in that 2nd chorus violates a standard 145, blah, blah - I think they might tell me to go jump in a lake. Why? Because music is subjective. The problem on this board is that quite a bit of what is talked about is subjective as well. I don't really care if someone has a masters in Egyptian history...I don't think that adds much to a discussion that questions whether a word was made up or not. Even if he says that said name is indeed an Egyption word...if it's also in the Bible that bit of knowledge doesn't matter. The question and answer are subjective.

I put up those quotes because they have to do with my field of study, T2. The body of what I have comes from papers...really long papers that were written by no one but me.

This is not about quotes. This is about creative and progressive and additive thinking. I've known people who were full of so much knowledge I could barely discuss anything with them. Their brain was packed with facts. That didn't mean they had anything worthwhile to say about the nature of spirituality. They might be able to quote exact dates and sayings from Watergate...but that doesn't mean they have any real insite to ad to the subject. I'm all for education. That's why I read a good 1-3 hours a night. It's what you do with that learning that matters.

So when you think you are playing a chess game and the other guy starts spitting and throwing rocks...well, they just look weak and incompetent to me. It seems to make them feel good though.

If you're playing chess with someone and they start throwing rocks you're not playing with real chess players. This isn't chess, though. This is a religious board where most questions don't have an a+b=ab type question OR answer. In such situations, people who come through throwing their knowledge weight around can come across as...well...arrogant. And often it's that same sort that adds the least to these conversations. Since most of what is being discussed deals more with ideas and less with hard facts, those that rely on their collection of facts do so so because they have little new and creative to add. Just my opinion.

That said - I think you took my last post (and likely this one) in the wrong light. This was/is not directed at you. Part - sure. And you'll notice I directed it at myself as well. It is more a look at style and substance in general. Hopefully it will be seen as that.

[thesometimesaint]

Juliann:

All the time. Nearly always by people who don't have a clue. When I'm feeling particularly nasty I bring out my DSM. That usually removes all the arguments.

It's good for the bluff. DSM is just what we use to get paid for.

[juliann]

Well..this then goes back to what I suggested leaves people sensing arrogance. 1 step forward, 2 steps back. I know a lot about music. A lot. I know a lot about art and design. A lot. But if I claim that my knowledge and education in these areas qualify me to tell you what music is good and what is bad, or what painting is good and what is bad...well, you might call me arrogant.

I think this is a very defensive reaction. We all tell each other what we think is "good" and "bad" in almost every post overtly or covertly. That isn't the issue. What you are qualified to do is tell people what qualifies a series of notes as a fugue or how many notes it takes for a certain meter. You get the point...I am too clueless to even pull up good analogies. You should never, ever feel that you cannot say what you know about music just because someone else may think it "arrogant". That is a bizarre reaction and you know as well as I do that if some well known grad of Juilliard was posting here about music ... anyone who treated that person as the people who know about the study of religion are treated here...they would be cyberstoned off the board.

Because music is subjective.

There are rules behind "music". Music has a very clinical side to it along with the creative one.

Even if he says that said name is indeed an Egyption word...if it's also in the Bible that bit of knowledge doesn't matter.  The question and answer are subjective. 

Doesn't matter. There is a procedure in scholarship. There are things that must be addressed and a format/language for doing so. Just as in any other discipline. I make a living as a speech and language specialist. The treatment program I create is subjective. But it had darn well better be based on something besides my "opinion" and I had better have accepted methods, using the available tools of the trade, to support my conclusions. If someone waltzed in and announced that anyone can talk and they do it really well and I'm arrogant and unworthy...the client would throw them out faster than I would. The real question here...is why does everybody think they can announce what can be and can't be in ancient texts, languages, cultures and religions when they haven't had a lick of exposure to the tools used to study and analyze them? Isn't that the real arrogance?

If you're playing chess with someone and they start throwing rocks you're not playing with real chess players.

My point exactly.

This isn't chess, though.  This is a religious board where most questions don't have an a+b=ab type question OR answer. 

Wrong. There is an expansive body of knowledge in the study of religion. Again, there are methods for supporting any answer.

[t2t2]

That is a bizarre reaction and you know as well as I do that if some well known grad of Juilliard was posting here about music ... anyone who treated that person as the people who know about the study of religion are treated here...they would be cyberstoned off the board.

See...that's the core difference between us. I understand the limitations of my discipline. Not only what they are - but how said limitations affect any attempt at absolutes.

There are rules behind "music". Music has a very clinical side to it along with the creative one.

Once again you point out our stark differences. Anyone who approaches music from your vantage will end up with less than what they start with. You talk of arrogance and you talk of your own ignorance in this subject.....I dunno...it seems odd that you would attempt to argue with me, an admitted expert in the field (or parts, anyway).

The real question here...is why does everybody think they can announce what can be and can't be in ancient texts, languages, cultures and religions when they haven't had a lick of exposure to the tools used to study and analyze them? Isn't that the real arrogance?

See - I'm not the one who is saying what can and cannot be. I'm saying what seems irrelevent. I'm pointing out examples where there are many options to consider - not one answer that equals "proof". Again - I get the feeling you are not reading much of what is written here. If someone shows me the name Asa and says that since such is an Egyptian name and I reply that the name is merely 1 letter off a several Bible names - who is being arrogant? What can scholorship add to this discussion?

But let's dispense with the roundabout. Let's take real examples as they have appeared here. In a recent post someone listed (the first 3):

Asa. This is 1 letter of MANY names in the Bible.

Aminadab - a name found in the BoM, listed as evidence because it is also Egyptian, and also appears in it's exact form in the Bible.

Ammon - a name found in the BoM, listed as evidence because it is also Egyptian, and also appears in it's exact form in the Bible.

What bit of learning would make a difference in the question as to whether or not the 3 names above should be thought of as proof for the BoM's authenticity?

[Meta]

Wait - deal with what I wrote. ARE you saying you think Biblical names in the BoM are evidences for the book?

If it were JUST names from the bible I'd give it to you. But its not. It's far from it. But instead of addressing names that aren't in the bible-- you go after the ones that are.

Ammoni-hah

Cameni-hah

Cezoram

Giddonah

Gidgiddoni

Gidgiddonah

Giddianhi

Gimgim-no

etc, etc

"He just made them all up!"

If you'd go back over my link you'd see the evidences for those names not found in the bible.

[Matt Andrews]

I had better have accepted methods, using the available tools of the trade, to support my conclusions. If someone waltzed in and announced that anyone can talk and they do it really well and I'm arrogant and unworthy...the client would throw them out faster than I would. The real question here...is why does everybody think they can announce what can be and can't be in ancient texts, languages, cultures and religions when they haven't had a lick of exposure to the tools used to study and analyze them? Isn't that the real arrogance?

This is where I think the arrogance comes in. When the 'authority' uses authority as a trump card. "How dare you tell me what can and can't be? I have a degree!"

Suppose I had a PhD in economics, and was having a discussion about an economic subject with a non-economist. If my training helps me make a better argument, then that's fine. But if I try to use my training as an excuse for not being able to explain my position, that's just arrogance.

If I use my training to tell the other person "You're not starting the way we academics do", that's equally arrogant. If you think you have a better method for looking at something, explain why. You can't expect people to just take your methodology on faith. I don't think most graduate schools expect their students to take the accepted methodologies on faith either.

This board isn't purely for people with training in religious studies. It isn't purely for people with training in ancient languages, or psychology, or sociology, either. You can't just impose your disciplines methods by fiat. If they are useful, explain why. If others make an argument for why your suggested method is inappropriate or unneccessary, explain why you disagree. Saying 'That's the way MY people do it, and WE'RE experts' is a cop out.

If your training helps you in a discussion, great. If you have to mention your training in order to make your point, you're just being arrogant. Or lazy.

[juliann]

If your training helps you in a discussion, great. If you have to mention your training in order to make your point, you're just being arrogant. Or lazy.

And if you have to use someone's training against them to make your point you are hoping censorship will level the playing field for you.

Sorry....I am not ashamed of what I have learned and how I did it and I will not be silenced by those who want it their way. Deal with it. The discomfort is all yours.

[juliann]

Once again you point out our stark differences.  Anyone who approaches music from your vantage will end up with less than what they start with.  You talk of arrogance and you talk of your own ignorance in this subject.....I dunno...it seems odd that you would attempt to argue with me, an admitted expert in the field (or parts, anyway).

Oh, come on...I said I was clueless about music. But there is a discipline, history and culture behind it like any other artistic endeavor.

[t2t2]

But there is a discipline, history and culture behind it like any other artistic endeavor.

That's a big leap away from "rules". I can show you how to play a G on the guitar and 3 weeks later you can come back and show me how you figured out how to play it differently. Whatever. This is a stupid conversation. I tried, initially, to defend you against the blanket statement that you are arrogant. I suggested that sometimes people can seem that way when they are really just showing off a bit of what they have learned. I'm starting to think I defended the wrong person. No....I'm pretty sure of it.

My first reaction is...you have to be kidding to even ask what scholarship could add to a claim that relies on Egyptian. Wouldn't the obvious first step be something about the language?

If the question were whether the word is or is not Egyptian I would agree. Instead the question is whether the name being Egyptian, possibly, means what a Mormon says it does. Meaning - does that prove Joseph could not have come up with it on his own given the sources he had. THAT question is completely subjective. Come on - you know this. You're either posturing to protect your position or are unwilling or able to see through the forest here.

How in the world can you say with any assurance at all that something is not Egyptian if you don't know Egyptian?

For the umpteenth time I ask whether you read these posts here. I'm begining to think you never do.

When have I ever challenged that these names are not or could not be Egyptian? That's not the point. This is wearying.

------

Mat

If it were JUST names from the bible I'd give it to you. But its not. It's far from it. But instead of addressing names that aren't in the bible-- you go after the ones that are.

I wonder why you would expect me to answer you when you never really answer any of my direct questions or points.

I told you I simply started at the top of your list and was laughing too hard by the 3rd name to continue. I mean....honestly...you could have left off the Biblical names if you wanted to be taken seriously, eh? If my premise is that these names are pieces and rips from those in the Bible and you start posting names that are found exactly in the same form in the Bible as evidence I can't see myself offering much else to the discussion.

As for the rest - again - these have been tackled already in this thread. They are all hacks, IMO.

[Meta]

They are all hacks, IMO.

Hacks? Are you an egyptologist? Do you study it in any form?

Then your opinion is invalid.

[juliann]

If the question were whether the word is or is not Egyptian I would agree. Instead the question is whether the name being Egyptian, possibly, means what a Mormon says it does. Meaning - does that prove Joseph could not have come up with it on his own given the sources he had. THAT question is completely subjective. Come on - you know this. You're either posturing to protect your position or are unwilling or able to see through the forest here.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. These words are not "Egyptian". They are English. They may be a transliteration. They may not. Unless you know something about Egyptian...how do you know anything about those names at all? You have to rely on the experts...but they are discounted as "arrogant". Second, how did JS come to the words he used? Were they transliterations? Of what? What period do you demand be matched? Hieratic? Is that what doesn't fit for you? Or do you really think it is ok to just say "no way" and think that is an adequate response?

For the umpteenth time I ask whether you read these posts here.  I'm begining to think you never do.

Was this not your post?

Asa. This is 1 letter of MANY names in the Bible.

Aminadab - a name found in the BoM, listed as evidence because it is also Egyptian, and also appears in it's exact form in the Bible.

Ammon - a name found in the BoM, listed as evidence because it is also Egyptian, and also appears in it's exact form in the Bible.

What bit of learning would make a difference in the question as to whether or not the 3 names above should be thought of as proof for the BoM's authenticity?

When have I ever challenged that these names are not or could not be Egyptian? That's not the point.  This is wearying.

It is exactly the point. You can't skip the hard parts. The "bit of learning" is in establishing the connections. You had better know your Egyptian if you want to dispute those who dobecause that is what everything depends on..and you are trying to talk about things like "letters". How are you getting from "Egyptian" to English letters? How are you getting from Hebrew to English letters? How did JS get there or not get there? You want to just knock a few blocks off the top of the tower and call it done.

[t2t2]

Hacks? Are you an egyptologist? Do you study it in any form?

Then your opinion is invalid.

This is rediculous.

I could play you 6 notes from Paul's Yesterday. Then what if I played you Yesterday but changed 1 single note. Then I claim I wrote my new song all on my own and did not copy from Yesterday. Of course...you and I both know that I've heard the song. I even admit to loving the Beatles. What would you say?

Then let's suppose I wrote 20 other songs. Some of which are identical to Beatles tunes, some of which seem combinations (like I want to Hold Your Hand with Back in the USSR's chorus). Others might be a bit off...but still had the same ring and feel.

If you, as a casual listener tell me they all sound exactly like Beatles songs would I be wrong to cast aside your opinion simply because you don't have a masters in music theory? If I did I would be a fool. I can play most of the songs note for note and yet am not better qualified (if you take the time to really listen to them) to tell you whether or not they are hacks. For a real life example...listen to Oasis.

----

These words are not "Egyptian". They are English. They may be a transliteration. They may not. Unless you know something about Egyptian...how do you know anything about those names at all?

Are WE speaking in English? I'm starting to doubt it.

It doesn't matter!!

It doesn't matter whether they are Egyptian. It doesn't matter whether Asa is also an ancient Zulu name. It could very well mean "arrogance" in ancient Mongolian. It could also an acronym for the American Society of Anesthesiologists. It could mean "wing" in Portugues. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is 1 letter off a name from the Bible. Nothing. Nada. You and I can see that it is. A child could see that it is. I think the minimum IQ required to see this is somewhere just north of a monkey who's learned 4 signs and gets 3 of them wrong on occasion.

Was this not your post?

No....it was the monkeys. Why ask something like that and then make no point to follow?

It is exactly the point. You can't skip the hard parts...........

I'm beginning to think the hard part is the initial firing of synapses. There is no skipping of the hard part. In fact - for the purpose of this discussion I'm conceding the whole point that these names could be Egyptian. I'm giving you the whole grand finale. What I'm taking away has nothing to do with that, though. My opinion on the subject is that it would make sense that these names match up with other names. They come from the Bible. Joseph played Frankenname and mixed and matched his way to these names. Again - what bit of learning can you bring to the fray that can challenge that opinion?

If your rejoiner is nothing more than more of the same I might just give you the last word. Your need to be right is astonishing. My post is merely to showcase the alternatives that not only exist - but are imminently plausible. Yours, on the other hand, are absolutes that seem more concerned with showcasing your own self-proclaimed intelligence than considering the valid opinions at hand. Stick to your absolutes- which absolutes we both know a non-Mormon Egyptologist would have a field day with. I'll continue to explore the possibilities.

[suem]

One person, or even a bunch of people, cannot drive someone from the Church.  A person may say "Someone said this or did this and that is why I left the Church." But the real reason is a lack of testimony.  Active membership requires too much for anyone to stay with it, unless they have a testimony.  People may stay for a while after that is gone, and then it is just a matter of finding the excuse to leave.

And since we are all human, eventually an excuse will pop up that the person can feel justified in saying, "So and so drove me from the Church." 

And honestly, yes, there is objective proof that the Book of Mormon could not have been written by even a university full of scholars in 1820.  So you will have to come up with another reason not to believe it is what it says it is.

That is a very simplistic answer and makes me think that you feel you can know what is in the heart of another.

No one leaves the church because someone hurt their feelings. But when someone is questioning some really confusing ideas and asks legitimate questions to find the answers on this board, there are people who have some really great answers. There are people who encourage those struggling to pray and hold tight to the rod. And then there are those who tell that person that they are weak and obviously are not as smart as they are. HOW is that helpful? That's right, ITS NOT!

I was like juliann once too. Not a scholar in religious studies, but equally as arrogant and had no ability to truly listen to another person. Sure I would appear to be listening, but only so I could have my turn at speaking which would be used to completely destroy anything the other person may have said. There was one major difference however, I never gave a personal attack on the person, their words yes, but them as a human being, no. I would argue the facts with people about how the church was true and what evidence supported that. And then one day, I woke up and realized just how wrong I was. That was a humbling experience. And quite embarrassing to this day. Evidence indeed.

And there are still people to this day (15 years later) that try to tell me what was in my heart at the time. That I was lazy and did not have a testimony to begin with. Somehow this makes them feel better because it shows that they are strong and superior in their beliefs. Well, get over it. You have no way of knowing what is another's heart.

♥ Love is all there is, but unfortunately it is sorely lacking in this thread.

[Meta]

This is rediculous.

I could play you 6 notes from Paul's Yesterday. Then what if I played you Yesterday but changed 1 single note. Then I claim I wrote my new song all on my own and did not copy from Yesterday. Of course...you and I both know that I've heard the song. I even admit to loving the Beatles. What would you say?

Then let's suppose I wrote 20 other songs. Some of which are identical to Beatles tunes, some of which seem combinations (like I want to Hold Your Hand with Back in the USSR's chorus). Others might be a bit off...but still had the same ring and feel.

If you, as a casual listener tell me they all sound exactly like Beatles songs would I be wrong to cast aside your opinion simply because you don't have a masters in music theory? If I did I would be a fool. I can play most of the songs note for note and yet am not better qualified (if you take the time to really listen to them) to tell you whether or not they are hacks. For a real life example...listen to Oasis.

I think you summed up your entire post with your first line. That is rediculus. Because you've read egyptian names, you suddenly have a feel for ALL egyptian names...and then you try to use a parallel with you being able to play beatles songs?!

This is what I'm guessing you are eluding to. Must I remind you that the book of mormon was written in reformed hieroglyphics? So in a sense, I guess, you're metaphor makes sense in that the language was close to the original, but not exactly. If you read the website I gave you, you'll find instances where the names relate to egyptian names-- not exact names, but close.