Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Melissa G]

Well, that's Anthon dismissed then. What would interest me, is if the fascimile was shown to an Expert on the Egyptian Language, actually I know one personally. I'll get their opinion, and post it in new thread later. I'm not expecting anything that will help your already flimsy case.

Posted by Soyleche: " There's no reason to believe that "Reformed Egyptian" existed anywhere outside of the Nephite record keeping system - and most of those records were hidden or destroyed - so the lack of another "Reformed Egyptian" system means nothing."

I'm afraid it does mean something, it means there is a total lack of other examples to back up your premis. You see, outside the BOM, there is no record of Nephites either.

You don't invent a writing system for a one off text.

melissa g

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm afraid it does mean something, it means there is a total lack of other examples to back up your premis. You see, outside the BOM, there is no record of Nephites either.

That assumes that the premis needs to be backed up by other examples. It may make the premis stronger if it has them, but the lack of other examples does not invalidate the premis.

 

[Smoke]

You can check the records though: Martin never changed his story- that Anthon certified the translated section. Anthon did change his story.

Yes, he did. In 1834 he said:

He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him.
​

In 1841, he said:

... he requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual "behind the curtain" see that his trick was discovered.
​

However, he never changed his story about what he thought of the characters Harris showed him.

Anthon also admits to changing his mind about the characters, but not in a way that's very flattering to Mormonism:

On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money ...
​

 

[SoyLeche]

Yes, he did. In 1834 he said:

He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him.​

In 1841, he said:

... he requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual "behind the curtain" see that his trick was discovered.​

However, he never changed his story about what he thought of the characters Harris showed him.

Anthon also admits to changing his mind about the characters, but not in a way that's very flattering to Mormonism:

On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money ...​

He apparently didn't do a very good job, as this trip is what convinced Harris to mortgage his farm to give Joseph some funds for his work (maybe the mortgaging came later, but he still was more gung-ho after visiting New York than he was before).

 

[silvermoon383]

I would also like to enter this into the record:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=787&cat=500&ppuser=5457

Taken from The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ On Trial

 

[Autodidact]

That was one of the lamest proofs that I've ever heard. Guess I can keep saying that he translated it.

(If he did translate that way, then it is possible to translate that way. Begging the question and all that jazz. --- And get the story right at least - nobody ever said that he put two rocks into a hat. The seer stone <> the Urim and Thummim)

What it was only one rock? Well that makes a huge significant difference. In that case, it's completely possible, because one rock in a hat is much more effective than two.

But it's not, ergo he didn't.

By your argument, you would have to establish that this translation happened, in order to establish that it is possible. (Since we already know from ample experience that this is impossible, I've already done that.) So, go for it: show that there is such a thing as reformed Egyptian, and that the BoM is convincingly translated from it. Demonstrate that there ever was an angel named Moroni or a Mr. Mormon. Show us the huge piles of archeological artifacts that these millions of people left behind. Show me their cities. Heck, show me a single archeologist, not a Mormon apologist, who thinks there is any archeological evidence anywhere in the New World that supports the BoM in any way whatsoever. Show me where the hill Cumorah is.

Basically, what you're talking about is magic. You're assuming that a person was able to do magic. And to persuade any logical person of that, you'd need some powerful evidence, not a chiasmus. Something like: it actually was in Egyptian. Or a prediction that came true. Or being confirmed by archaeological evidence. Or not reading like an obvious transparent attempt to sound Biblish by repeating the words, "And it came to pass..." every so often.

Another thing I don't get: if Smith was using magic, why couldn't he get it all right? I mean, every time there's a problem, like say no horses in America, they say, well, Smith just translated it wrong. Convenient that. "He said, 'horses', but he really meant, er, llamas. That's it, llamas." How do they know he translated the rest of it right? Maybe it's really about a couple of dozen Tibetans who traveled by elephant to the coast of Africa, where they contracted allergies and returned to their native mountains? Cuz when he said, "Israelites," he really meant "Tibetans" and so forth.

 

[Autodidact]

That was one of the lamest proofs that I've ever heard. Guess I can keep saying that he translated it.

Like I said, if you don't care about evidence and accuracy, you can say anything you want. Just don't expect anyone else to go along for the ride.

 

[Autodidact]

Yet Charles Anthon certified them to be authentic and that the translation was correct.

Ahem.

Professor Charles Anthon directly contradicts this representation of events in a letter he wrote, as quoted from Mormonism Unvailed by E. D. Howe:
"'The whole story about my pronouncing the Mormon inscription to be reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, apparently simple-hearted farmer called on me with a note from Dr. Mitchell, of our city, now dead, requesting me to decipher, if possible, the paper which the farmer would hand me. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick—perhaps a hoax.... I have frequently conversed with friends on the subject since the Mormon excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but Egyptian hieroglyphics."

 

[Autodidact]

Most people learn, after they notice that thier arguments are not being taken serisously, to look at their argument and figure out if the problem is with the argument or with the audience. In this case, it's with the argument.

You keep trying to tell us that it means something when something hasn't been found that we have no reason to believe should have been found, regardless of the veracity of Joseph Smith's account.

There's no reason to believe that "Reformed Egyptian" existed anywhere outside of the Nephite record keeping system - and most of those records were hidden or destroyed - so the lack of another "Reformed Egyptian" system means nothing.

Also, you should get the story right too. The transcript that Harris took to Anthon merely contained some of the charactors and their translation. He didn't translate a chapter and send it - just a mix-mash of charactors. There is no reason to expect any "rhythm" in them.

That's handy. The angel took the plates back. The purported language has disappeared. And, when all else fails, he translated it wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

That assumes that the premis needs to be backed up by other examples. It may make the premis stronger if it has them, but the lack of other examples does not invalidate the premis.

Sure makes it easier to fake, though, if there's nothing on earth you can compare it to.

 

[Autodidact]

LDS people, here's the thing about Joseph Smith from a gentile point of view. (I love being a Jewish gentile.) It's not just that the whole story is preposterous. It's not just that Smith had been convicted of being an imposter, or worked as a treasure hunter. It's not merely that the "plates" got returned to the angel, so no one can see them. It's not just that they were purported to have been written in an unknown language, resembling no existing language anywhere in the world, but that Smith called Egyptian anyway. It's not only that the archeological evidence directly contradicts everything in the book. It's not even that Smith commonly got religious visions convenient to him, such as that his sweetheart should marry him, or that he needed to take another wife...and another. Not merely that the Book of Abraham turned out to be an actual Egyptian funeral papyrus. Or that Smith allowed himself to be fooled by the Kinderhook plates. Or that President Kimball and the apostles allowed themselves to be swindled by a forger who persuaded them to buy and hide documents that, according to their religious faith, could not possibly exist. It's not only that New World plants and animals bear no resemblance to those described in the BoM. Not only the lack of metallurgy as described there. It's not only that DNA evidence conclusively shows that the BoM is entirely wrong about the origin of New World peoples.

It's all of it together. In science, we call this consilience. When all the evidence points the same direction, we consider that thesis to be strongly supported. And all the evidence about the BoM points the same direction: bogus.

 

[silvermoon383]

Funny how people make such sweeping conclusions that the BoM is false despite all contrary evidence entered into the arena.

 

[sojourner]

The real problem is that, with other sacred writings, there is a consistency of both 1)similarity to other extant writings in terms of language, literary form, and culture, and 2) some form of the writing, whether original or later redaction, being available over the course of the entire life of the writing. The BOM displays neither. It was written by a people advanced enough to have a written language, yet no archaeological evidence of that language exists. (Even the Mayans left writings...and the lost colony of Virginia left "cro" scrateched onto a post.) It was written during a time when most cultures from which this one sprang were oral, not print. It completely disappeared for almost 4000 years, and has disappeared again.

I (and others) would be a lot happier if at least fragments of archeological evidence remained after less than 200 years. God does not seem to have cared whether the Nag Hammadi Library or the Dead Sea scrolls were extant. Why should God care about plates found in the 19th century?

 

[DeepShadow]

And, when all else fails, he translated it wrong.

That's not what he said.

 

[DeepShadow]

Funny how people make such sweeping conclusions that the BoM is false despite all contrary evidence entered into the arena.

Yeah, my King Benjamin evidence was recent, from a non-Mormon source, but people insist on ignoring it from the start. Why is it that in any other debate, people attack the strongest point, but on this issue it's acceptable to attack a handful of weak points, ignore the strongest, and declare the issue done?

What are the chances of getting all twenty points of a proper Hebrew farewell address in the proper order? Let's crunch some numbers: if we assume that all twenty points are present in any speech (a huge assumption, but we gotta start somewhere) then the chance of getting it is one in 2.43*10^18. Adding a zero position to allow for one missing element makes it even harder to get randomly: 5.11*10^19. So how did this 19th Century Farm Boy write a speech that is more indicative of Hebrew farewells than any ancient Hebrew writer known?

I guess million-to-one chances can happen nine times out of ten, as long as there's no archeological evidence to back it up.

I'm reminded of one of the great anthropologists of the 19th century, who refused to believe the Clovis hypothesis because all they had were spearpoints, but no bones.

 

[DeepShadow]

What do you mean by a large ethnographic gap? Because in fact what we know is that the people described in the BoM bear no resemblance to any New World peoples. They're no more like American Indians than they are like Maori people.

Only if you insist on saying that the chariots and horses and barley etc. were not transposed ideographs. Strangely, linguists can cite transposed ideographs for all kinds of languages--corn vs. maize, buffalo vs. bison, Indians vs. Native Americans--but people refuse to allow this for a language that was actually ideographic in nature!

Once you allow transposition of ideographs, the BoM scenarios can be found all over North and South America. The obvious errors disappear, and we find ourselves begging the original question...again.

Please let me know when I have answered your question sufficiently to take the Kurtz data seriously.

 

[Autodidact]

Funny how people make such sweeping conclusions that the BoM is false despite all contrary evidence entered into the arena.

O.K., that completely disregards my entire post, which is nothing but a mere list of evidence to the contrary, but if you can ignore all the actual evidence while inventing non-existent evidence, your faith must be strong.

 

[DeepShadow]

AD, I'm suprised at you. Up until now, you've been quite fair IMHO. Suddenly you start getting not only sloppy, but perhaps even disingenuous. What started out as a great general appeal to be understood suddenly becomes an umbrella for a half-dozen weak arguments that can't stand up on their own.

Not merely that the Book of Abraham turned out to be an actual Egyptian funeral papyrus.

Bait and switch.

Or that Smith allowed himself to be fooled by the Kinderhook plates.

Only according to Kinderhook. Suddenly you're allowed to use secret witnesses, when we can't?

Or that President Kimball and the apostles allowed themselves to be swindled by a forger who persuaded them to buy and hide documents that, according to their religious faith, could not possibly exist.

Neither Kimball nor any Apostles were involved in that transaction. Cite evidence to the contrary, please.

It's not only that New World plants and animals bear no resemblance to those described in the BoM.

Where is a descriptions of the plants and animals in the Book of Mormon? Hint: there aren't any! They are named, not described. Further evidence that they merely transposed old ideographs onto the new species.

Not only the lack of metallurgy as described there.

Again, where is the metallurgy described? You seem to have a lot clearer vision of what BoM peoples were like than what the Book provides. They mention head-plates and breast-plates, but it never says they were made of metal. Nice straw man.

It's not only that DNA evidence conclusively shows that the BoM is entirely wrong about the origin of New World peoples.

DNA evidence refutes the idea that the BoM peoples were entirely alone, and/or entirely Hebrew. Since over 20 points between the Jaredite/Mulekite branch and Asians have been discovered, this is yet another straw man fallacy.

In science, we call this consilience.

Funny; I have a science background, but we have a very different name for it: confirmation bias. You are not debating the Book of Mormon, but rather a cardboard cutout. When you want to start debating the actual book, let me know.

When all the evidence points the same direction, we consider that thesis to be strongly supported. And all the evidence about the BoM points the same direction: bogus.

Even the proper names, the chiasmus, and the Kurtz article? I.e. the paleolinguistics that I've been arguing since I got here?

 

[Autodidact]

Only if you insist on saying that the chariots and horses and barley etc. were not transposed ideographs. Strangely, linguists can cite transposed ideographs for all kinds of languages--corn vs. maize, buffalo vs. bison, Indians vs. Native Americans--but people refuse to allow this for a language that was actually ideographic in nature!

Once you allow transposition of ideographs, the BoM scenarios can be found all over North and South America. The obvious errors disappear, and we find ourselves begging the original question...again.

Please let me know when I have answered your question sufficiently to take the Kurtz data seriously.

What is a transposed ideograph? How does it save the BoM?
As I said earlier, the whole thing can be one big transposed ideograph, whatever that may be, and the BoM may actually be the chronicle of 39 Lithuanians who washed up on the coast of Easter Island, where they played badminton against an earlier group of Croations and defeated them. After all--how would you know which ideographs he transposed, and which he didnt?

Could you link to the post? Truth to tell I paid no attention to those posts the first time around. Link again and I'll try to respond, thanks.
Did you notice how, like all apologists, you're assuming what you're trying to prove--that there is any such language?

 

[DeepShadow]

Did you notice how, like all apologists, you're assuming what you're trying to prove--that there is any such language?

Funny, did you notice how you're doing the same thing, in reverse?

Proving the negative--that there is no such language--is impossible. That's why Albright tells us that when it comes to verifying the truthfulness of a document, we must begin by assuming it is genuine. In essence, the "fraud" standpoint is the positive statement, and we're trying to fail to prove the negative in order to take the positive position. (Wm F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel)