Where are the Gold Plates?

[Katzpur]

(See previous post for reference to my source.)

Several modified or "reformed" Egyptian scripts are well known, including forms called Demotic and Hieratic. "Reformed Egyptian" is clearly an appropriate generic term for those writing systems. However, the "Reformed Egyptian" used by the Nephites is described as a language system unique to them (Mormon 9:32-34), having evolved with their culture over a 1,000-year period. It was apparently used for sacred writings, and should have been almost wholly lost with the destruction of Nephite civilization. How can we expect Egyptologists, with typically no training in Central American matters, to know whether such a language ever existed there? Daniel Paterson gives further analysis....

The practice of representing one language in a script commonly associated with another language is very common. Yiddish, for instance, which is basically a form of German, is routinely written in Hebrew characters. Swahili can be written in either Roman or Arabic scripts. Judeo-Arabic, as written for instance by Moses Maimonides, was medieval Hebrew written with Arabic letters. In fact, almost any textbook of colloquial Arabic or Chinese or Japanese aimed at Western learners will use the Latin alphabet to represent those languages. Language and script are essentially independent. Turkish, which used to be written in a modified Arabic script, has been written in Latin letters in the Republic of Turkey since the 1920s. However, in the areas of the old Soviet Union, it is now usually written in Cyrillic (Russian) characters. Likewise, perhaps the major difference between Hindi and Urdu may be the mere fact that the former uses a Devanagari writing system, while the latter uses a modified Arabo-Persian script. So this phenomenon of changing the script with which one writes a language is by no means unusual. But we need not speak only in theoretical terms.

We have, in fact, an ancient illustration that comes remarkably close to the Book of Mormon itself. Papyrus Amherst 63, a text from the second century B.C., seems to offer something very much like "reformed Egyptian." It is a papyrus scroll that contains Aramaic texts written in a demotic Egyptian script. (Aramaic is a language closely related to Hebrew. of the Old Testament book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, and it was the spoken language of Jesus and his apostles. Incidentally, however, a Christian form of the language, Syriac, came to use an alphabet related to Arabic--again illustrating the independence of script and tongue.) Interestingly, one of the items found on Papyrus Amherst 63 is a version of Psalm 20:2-6.

 

[Aasimar]

I posted this question previously and it was removed due to "Making claims without evidence." ... ... ... ...


So here is the question again, with evidence. Wasn't Joseph smith a con man with a history of "Money-Digging"

As evidence I site from the LDS Elder's Journal, Volume 1

Question 10. Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?
Answer. Yes, but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

Now I ask how having a con artist (Assuming you believe he was, if you don't please state why) as the founder of your religion doesn't sway your faith in it.

 

[silvermoon383]

"Money-digging" was a reputible job back in those days.

"Treasure hunting, or “money-digging” as it was then called, was a craze in the United States at this time....In New England and western New York, such activities were not frowned upon the way they came to be later. Years later, Joseph candidly acknowledged his participation in the venture but pointed out that it was insignificant."

Church History in the Fulness of Times

I also highly recommend reading the Money Digging section of this article: Mormonism 201: Chapter 17

I tried finding something to quote but there was just too much to choose from.

 

[Melissa G]

(See previous post for reference to my source.)

Several modified or "reformed" Egyptian scripts are well known, including forms called Demotic and Hieratic. "Reformed Egyptian" is clearly an appropriate generic term for those writing systems. However, the "Reformed Egyptian" used by the Nephites is described as a language system unique to them (Mormon 9:32-34), having evolved with their culture over a 1,000-year period. It was apparently used for sacred writings, and should have been almost wholly lost with the destruction of Nephite civilization. How can we expect Egyptologists, with typically no training in Central American matters, to know whether such a language ever existed there? Daniel Paterson gives further analysis....

The practice of representing one language in a script commonly associated with another language is very common. Yiddish, for instance, which is basically a form of German, is routinely written in Hebrew characters. Swahili can be written in either Roman or Arabic scripts. Judeo-Arabic, as written for instance by Moses Maimonides, was medieval Hebrew written with Arabic letters. In fact, almost any textbook of colloquial Arabic or Chinese or Japanese aimed at Western learners will use the Latin alphabet to represent those languages. Language and script are essentially independent. Turkish, which used to be written in a modified Arabic script, has been written in Latin letters in the Republic of Turkey since the 1920s. However, in the areas of the old Soviet Union, it is now usually written in Cyrillic (Russian) characters. Likewise, perhaps the major difference between Hindi and Urdu may be the mere fact that the former uses a Devanagari writing system, while the latter uses a modified Arabo-Persian script. So this phenomenon of changing the script with which one writes a language is by no means unusual. But we need not speak only in theoretical terms.

We have, in fact, an ancient illustration that comes remarkably close to the Book of Mormon itself. Papyrus Amherst 63, a text from the second century B.C., seems to offer something very much like "reformed Egyptian." It is a papyrus scroll that contains Aramaic texts written in a demotic Egyptian script. (Aramaic is a language closely related to Hebrew. of the Old Testament book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, and it was the spoken language of Jesus and his apostles. Incidentally, however, a Christian form of the language, Syriac, came to use an alphabet related to Arabic--again illustrating the independence of script and tongue.) Interestingly, one of the items found on Papyrus Amherst 63 is a version of Psalm 20:2-6.

Hieratic is simply a scribal shorthand, which was primarily used for letters, administration, and anything which required speedy writing. Monemental Heirogyphics in the late period being mainly confined to Temples, Tombs, and Royal and Religious Icon's. Demotic was a late development of Hieratic. Only a few scholars today, have a good command of Demotic. Coptic is derived from the Eyptian script.

Reformed is not a term applicable to scribal shorthand.

Melissa G

 

[nutshell]

Reformed is not a term applicable to scribal shorthand.

Melissa G

And yet that's exactly what it was.

 

[madhatter85]

Hieratic is simply a scribal shorthand, which was primarily used for letters, administration, and anything which required speedy writing. Monemental Heirogyphics in the late period being mainly confined to Temples, Tombs, and Royal and Religious Icon's. Demotic was a late development of Hieratic. Only a few scholars today, have a good command of Demotic. Coptic is derived from the Eyptian script.

Reformed is not a term applicable to scribal shorthand.

Melissa G

Here's a question, why do you even care so much about a book you "know to be false," when if it's false it shouldn't affect you. why put so much efort into terying to prove it's fraudluent? why take the time and stress to go to such lengths? Are you afraid of the Book? does it scare you so much that if you don't "prove it wrong" then it will haunt you? what it your real motive?

 

[KingM]

Here's a question, why do you even care so much about a book you "know to be false," when if it's false it shouldn't affect you. why put so much efort into terying to prove it's fraudluent? why take the time and stress to go to such lengths? Are you afraid of the Book? does it scare you so much that if you don't "prove it wrong" then it will haunt you? what it your real motive?

Because she's doing the bidding of her master, Satan. :fork:

Seriously, you don't know the answer to this? Religion and politics. Those are the two subjects that really get people riled up. There doesn't have to be any reason beyond that.

 

[Comprehend]

I posted this question previously and it was removed due to "Making claims without evidence." ... ... ... ...


So here is the question again, with evidence. Wasn't Joseph smith a con man with a history of "Money-Digging"

As evidence I site from the LDS Elder's Journal, Volume 1

Question 10. Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?
Answer. Yes, but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

Now I ask how having a con artist (Assuming you believe he was, if you don't please state why) as the founder of your religion doesn't sway your faith in it.

See: Tinkling Cymbols and Sounding Brass by Hugh Nibley.

 

[Melissa G]

Here's a question, why do you even care so much about a book you "know to be false," when if it's false it shouldn't affect you. why put so much efort into terying to prove it's fraudluent? why take the time and stress to go to such lengths? Are you afraid of the Book? does it scare you so much that if you don't "prove it wrong" then it will haunt you? what it your real motive?

I find it stimulating for the mind. It doesn't scare me at all, but it bothers me so many intelligent people are prepared to hold true to a blatant fabrication. This in the face of overwhelming evidence which proves the basic tenets of the LDS to be false.

Every one of the posts opposing rationalism simply reinforces this.

Melissa G

 

[madhatter85]

I'd like to see the overwhelming evidence that isn't so easily debunked.

 

[Melissa G]

I think you've slightly got it the wrong way around. Let's see your overwhelming evidence that the book is factual. I'll settle for hard evidence from academia.

 

[madhatter85]

Already stated, my personal spiritual witness, and seeing it change the lives of so many people for the better. That is my overwhelming evidence that the book is true.

Now answer my question

 

[KingM]

Now answer my question

I can't speak for Melissa, but again, why are you surprised that people on a board titled "religious debate" want to disagree with your beliefs? Seriously.

 

[Melissa G]

Already stated, my personal spiritual witness, and seeing it change the lives of so many people for the better. That is my overwhelming evidence that the book is true.

Now answer my question

Did you have one of any relevance ?

No, that is proof of the power of self-delusion, and suggestion when foisted on irrational minds seeking meaning in a meaningless universe.

Melissa G

 

[madhatter85]

Did you have one of any relevance ?

No, that is proof of the power of self-delusion, and suggestion when foisted on irrational minds seeking meaning in a meaningless universe.

Melissa G

If the universe is meaningless then that means all this argument is meaningless and everything including your own life is meaningless. are you EMO?

IT was a question of relevance, so answer it. you can't even debate properly. you make statements on subjects you know absolutely nothing about, never answer the questions and say slanderous things about other's beliefs.

But of course, you have your free-agency, you have the choice to choose evil or good, and be rewarded with that which you choose.

 

[Panda]

If the universe is meaningless then that means all this argument is meaningless and everything including your own life is meaningless. are you EMO?

I know this is out of context of the debate but I find this statement quite offensive. You are basing it on an un-true stereotype and forming a prejudice and discriminatory opinion with it.

 

[Melissa G]

Not at all. The universe is a product of Physics, which is interesting on it's own. I believe, as the proponents of the Books validity, the onus of proof is with you. Slanderous, are you for real ? if requests for evidence are slanderous, then indeed, the world is in a sorry state, and irrationality can have full reign.

Debate, lol, you haven't provided one iota of tangible evidence to support the plates existence.

Non veritas verba amanda my friend.

Melissa G

 

[madhatter85]

I know this is out of context of the debate but I find this statement quite offensive. You are basing it on an un-true stereotype and forming a prejudice and discriminatory opinion with it.

It was a question, and not a stereotype. not an opinion, it was a question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please stay on topic and debate the issue and not personal issues. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

 

[madhatter85]

Not at all. The universe is a product of Physics, which is interesting on it's own. I believe, as the proponents of the Books validity, the onus of proof is with you. Slanderous, are you for real ? if requests for evidence are slanderous, then indeed, the world is in a sorry state, and irrationality can have full reign.

Debate, lol, you haven't provided one iota of tangible evidence to support the plates existence.

Non veritas verba amanda my friend.

Melissa G

nor have you provided evidence, see the pattern?

There is evidence regarding things like pre-columbian chickens in central americas, Iron ore in the arabian penninsula (iron deposits are everywhere but actual iron ore is nowhere in that region except in one spot)

The fact that the Olemc's History directly paralell the civilization of the Jaredites? the fact that both histories landed in the central ameircan area in 2700 B.C., moved along the same paths, and both civiizations were uncivilized, had a hard time establishing thier civilization, and had thier final battle on the same patch of land at 600BC (Jaredites 600B.C, and according to Olmec Records 601 B.C.)

Or about the Aztec's Quetzalcoatl? how the history of Quetzalcoatl and his teachings are extremely similar tot hat of LDS theology and Christ appearing to the Nephites after his resurrection.

For the record Quetzalcoatl was Born of a virgin, Saved mankind's sins by spilling his own blood, was ressurected then appeared to the nations in a pillar of light. He is also one of the "bearded White gods"

The Mexicas turned him into a symbol of dying and resurrection and a patron of priests. When the Mexicas adopted the culture of the Toltecs, they made twin gods of Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl, opposite and equal; Quetzalcoatl was also called White Tezcatlipoca, to contrast him to the black Tezcatlipoca. Together, they created the world; Tezcatlipoca lost his foot in that process.

Other similarities between Aztec and Mayan Gods and Jesus Christ are:

Huracan (also Hurakan, from Mayan Jun Raqan "one legged") was a Mayan weather god of wind, storm, fire and one of the creator deities who participated in all three attempts at creating humanity. He also caused the Great Flood after the first humans angered the gods. He supposedly lived in the windy mists above the floodwaters and repeated "earth" until land came up from the seas.

The reason i bring this up is because as we know in the book of Mormon, the lamanites worshipped idols and such, then converted, then fell again into apostasy, seeing this patter one could assume sotries and doctrine and worship would become perverted.

In the Book of Mormon, when a few Nephites went to convert the Nephites. they saw a large tower with steps where one person at a time could go up to the top and worship at a time.

This sounds extremely close to the towers built by aztec and myan ancients to me.