Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Melissa G]

Your not wrong on that

 

[Bishka]

This thread has become a waste of time.

And who are you blaming that on?

 

[Melissa G]

The LDS of course, one doesn't expect them to abandon the cherished faith , even in the face of the overwhelming lack of supporting evidence for the BOM story. After all, they may lose all purpose in life . Therfore, it's a waste of time.

~M

 

[tomspug]

Pearl of Great Price (current edition)

"I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the aUrim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following. 63 Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:

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.”

And now, a rather course letter by Charles Anthon himself, the only scientist Joseph Smith claims to have seen and acknowledged the plates as authoritative.

New York, Feb. 17, 1834Dear Sir –
I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A "gold book," consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of "gold spectacles"! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered "by the gift of God." Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money towards the publication of the "golden book," the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. 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, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. 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. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the "curse of God" upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He then left me.
I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.
Yours respectfully, CHAS. ANTHON.

 

[Bishka]

The LDS of course, one doesn't expect them to abandon the cherished faith , even in the face of the overwhelming lack of supporting evidence for the BOM story. After all, they may lose all purpose in life . Therfore, it's a waste of time.

~M

I'd hardly lose all purpose in my life if actual evidence pointed towards my faith not being true. you seem to think we are all of less intelligence then yourself and would totally lose our purpose in life. I doubt a single LDS person here would. It's funny though, you keep bumping "dead" threads. Why is that? You have nothing better to do?

 

[DeepShadow]

The LDS of course, one doesn't expect them to abandon the cherished faith , even in the face of the overwhelming lack of supporting evidence for the BOM story. After all, they may lose all purpose in life . Therfore, it's a waste of time.

Funny, I've provided peer-reviewed, non-Mormon sources for my claims. You have done neither. Couldn't the reverse of your statement also be possible? Couldn't the most vociferous critics of the church be afraid that if the BoM were supported by evidence, they'd have to join?

Fortunately, I know better. All the evidence in the world can't prove that Joseph was not a fraud. But your ad hominims and unsupported declarations of "winning" do make me wonder, Melissa, why you are so desperate to declare it false and sweep it under the rug.

 

[Sola'lor]

Holy Smokes! One hundred three pages!

 

[tomspug]

All the evidence in the world can't prove that Joseph was not a fraud.

Apparently, you don't think the evidence of a scientist is worth mentioning. See my above post.

 

[DeepShadow]

...are you expecting me to prove that Joseph was not a fraud? I'm not interested in proving a negative, thanks. What are you expecting me to say? Anthon wrote that letter to one friend, and wrote a contrary one to another friend (Anthon letter, "And Some Cried Fraud") saying the tranlation was accurate, and then another saying it was a fraud. Anthon's credibility is...dubious, to say the least.

Since you REALLY want me to talk to you about Anthon, let's have at it, though: If Anthon's letter above states the truth, then how did Martin Harris correctly use the term "egyptian shorthand" when describing reformed Egyptian? This term in reference to the recently-discovered demotic was mentioned in an archeological journal that Anthon had just received. Why would Harris use this term if Anthon had not mentioned it in their conversation?

Moreover, if Harris was told that he was being decieved, why did he go from skeptic (before meeing Anthon) to morgaging his farm to pay for the Book of Mormon (after meeting Anthon)? Something in that encounter made him a believer. What do you think it was?

 

[DeepShadow]

Apparently, you don't think the evidence of a scientist is worth mentioning. See my above post.

This still makes me laugh. I've cited plenty of non-Mormon, peer-reviewed scientists in this thread, and you cite a personal letter, which isn't the same as evidence.

What do you think about the SCIENTIFIC evidence I've offered in this thread, tomspug?

 

[Melissa G]

Strange, not one bona fide Egyptologist supports ' Reformed Egyptian. And another thing, why on Earth would these Nephites write not write in Demotic if they understood it ? why Reform it ? Not only are there no records of Nephites, there are no records of your so-called Reformed Egyptian.

Melissa G

 

[Popeyesays]

Melissa,


While I agree that there is no historical record of Reformed Egyptian as a language, I see no difficulty in accepting that a written language isolated from the continent of Africa would not change and reform after the centuries were passing. It's only logical.

That does not mean that there should not be some archaeological evidence of this implanted civilization SOMEWHERE. But the formation of a heavily modified alphabet and grammar is inevitable when a language and script are isolated from their original roots. Heck, even languages NOT isolated (both spoken and written) "reform" over the centuries.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Bishka]

Strange, not one bona fide Egyptologist supports ' Reformed Egyptian. And another thing, why on Earth would these Nephites write not write in Demotic if they understood it ? why Reform it ? Not only are there no records of Nephites, there are no records of your so-called Reformed Egyptian.

Melissa G

Reformed Egyptian - References at least 15 separate articles

Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters

If you are so keen in ignoring what we have provided how about you provide your own "bona fide" Egyptologist and we'll have a go at it.

 

[Melissa G]

Yes, technically. All languages progress.

But in this case, another point would be, why could they not develop their own shorthand, based on their own langauge. Why use Egyptian ? and besides Demotic is a very late development in Egypt, much later than 600 bce. The laughable example I've seen touted as a fascimile of a part of the text of the fictious plates. bears no resemblence to Hieratic, the scribal shorthand of AE in that period.

Melissa

 

[Melissa G]

Reformed Egyptian - References at least 15 separate articles

Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters

If you are so keen in ignoring what we have provided how about you provide your own "bona fide" Egyptologist and we'll have a go at it.

Good idea, in fact leave it with me, I think this could have a theard of it's soon.

 

[Bishka]

Good idea, in fact leave it with me, I think this could have a theard of it's soon.

Come again?

 

[Popeyesays]

Yes, technically. All languages progress.

But in this case, another point would be, why could they not develop their own shorthand, based on their own langauge. Why use Egyptian ? and besides Demotic is a very late development in Egypt, much later than 600 bce. The laughable example I've seen touted as a fascimile of a part of the text of the fictious plates. bears no resemblence to Hieratic, the scribal shorthand of AE in that period.

Melissa

Why use such distorting language in an argument. It's not the sign of scholarly behavior, or true argumentation. You are loading your language to persuade others not on the facts of the matter but by rhetorical ledgerdemain. In the end such language demeans an opponent, but really only casts bad light on those who engage in such propaganda speech.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Melissa G]

Something else for you..."
The Smithsonian Institute in a letter to the Mormon Church states, "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian Archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book."{15}
The National Geographic Society writes, "With regard to the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon, neither representatives of the National Geographic Society nor archaeologists connected with any other institution of equal prestige have ever used the Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Middle America or elsewhere."{16}

You of course, accept the authority of the Smithsonian in these matters ?

Melissa

 

[Bishka]

Something else for you..."
The Smithsonian Institute in a letter to the Mormon Church states, "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian Archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book."{15}
The National Geographic Society writes, "With regard to the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon, neither representatives of the National Geographic Society nor archaeologists connected with any other institution of equal prestige have ever used the Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Middle America or elsewhere."{16}

You of course, accept the authority of the Smithsonian in these matters ?

Melissa

Are you really going to throw the Smithsonian card at us?

The Smithsonian Institution's 1996
"Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon"

(This site is very comprehensive on addressing the letter and the Smithsonian "issue".)

Quoted from this page:

For many years, critics of the Book of Mormon have made much a statement issued by the Smithsonian Institution's Anthropology Department replying to those who ask about evidences for the Book of Mormon. Several versions of this have been issued, all much the same, with the most recent version I know of dating from 1996. Unfortunately, a number of the points made in the Statement have long been refuted and clearly lack validity, yet the Smithsonian appears to have been slow to correct the Statement to reflect a more scholarly approach. I am not saying that they need to say a single word in favor of the Book of Mormon, but they should avoid sloppy, dogmatic statements that are disputed by many reputable scholars, and should acknowledge that they lack expertise to scientifically evaluate many aspects of the Book of Mormon.

[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-2]Visitor Information and Associates' Reception Center
Public Inquiry Mail and Telephone Information Services [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Jeff Lindsey [sic] February 15, 2001
20 Diane Lane
Appleton, WI 54915 [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your inquiry of February 7 concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Book of Mormon us a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] PIMS/ANT01/4-1-98 [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-2]S1 Building Room 153 Washington DC 20560-0010 202.357.2700 Telephone 202.357.1729 TTY [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]

A New Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution "Statement regarding the Book of Mormon"

From this page:

n March of 1998 the Director of Communications at the Smithsonian began using the following brief response to queries about the Book of Mormon:

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Office of Communications. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.
​

 

[Popeyesays]

The first reply to the Smithsonian brings up the possibilities that the Chilean and Olmec civilizations may have had some contact or even initiation by Asians who found their way to the Americas from ASIA. The BoM claim is that those settlers came from Palestine to the EAST coast of the Americas.

All the pottery evidence and such mentioned in the reply occurs on the WEST coasts of the Americas.

That makes the response irrelevant and no support whatsoever to the claims made for Hebrew settlement postulated in the Book of Mormon.

As a response to the Smithsonian claims it's a bad and imscholarly response.

Regards,

Scott