The Book of Mormon... have you read it?

[dianaiad]

How nice of you to provide yet another diversionary tactic.

Instead of defending the Book of Mormon, you try to discredit Mark Twain.

Ad hominem argument.

You need to go look up the definition of ‘ad hominem.’

Quick lesson in logical fallacies: you began with an appeal to celebrity (Mark Twain was a fiction writer, speaker and humorist, not a theologian), which is a subfallacy of the ‘red herring’ sort. Z responds with the proper rebuttal; if Mark Twain’s opinion of the Book of Mormon is authoritative, then so are his opinions of everything else religious…and thus you must put equal trust in:

“Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven…The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.”

Or…“Letters from the Earth”

Or

“If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be–a Christian.”

Or

“Christianity will doubtless still survive in the earth ten centuries hence–stuffed and in a museum.”

Or this:

“There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is – in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree – it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime – the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt.”

Considering the above, I don’t think that having the Book of Mormon characterized as ‘chloroform in print’ is all that negative a comment. He’s much nastier to the bible.

For instance, he says of the Book of Mormon: "The Mormon Bible is rather stupid and tiresome to read. But there is nothing vicious in its teachings. Its code of morals is unobjectionable. It’s smooched from the New Testament and no credit given. "

Of the bible? Well, just go to Twainquotes.com and explore the glorious musings of the most literate and funny curmudgeon who ever lived. I’d send you straight to his qoutes on the bible the way Z did, but everybody deserves to wander around Twain’s mind for awhile before they find what they want and have to leave.

The point is, you goofed. I have one more site for you. I think it will help you greatly the next time you start throwing accusations of fallacious reasoning.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes I know about Dr. Martin and his attacks on Catholicism ( he was a Baptist, who are adamantly anti-everything). Those remarks have been refuted, but to date none of his remarks about Mormonism have been refuted satisfactorily (…and you can add many other so called “religions”). Until Mormonism can prove its truly from God, as is true
Christianity, I will still consider it a false religion.

One other point: Mormonism puts the Book of Mormon before the Bible, since the Bible has not been correctly translated. If this is so, then why hasn’t the LDS church translated it correctly for all to see and use? Also, the scriptures in the Bible are almost 2000 years old and just about everything in it has been proven by science ( which, more or less, proves it is not a fairy tale or stories from someones imagination). Can the LDS church do likewise with the Book of Mormon?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Walter Martin’s description of, and charges against, Mormonism have been refuted time after time after time.

Y’know, I don’t care what his opinion was about my beliefs. He’s welcome to them. I care that the Mormonism he describes is not the Mormonism Mormons recognize, or the Mormonism that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually teaches.

I don’t care that you think that Mormonism is a “false religion.” However, you don’t really know that, do you? After all, if you are going by what Martin tells you, then you have absolutely no idea what Mormonism really is.

Oh, I do find your signature more than a little ironic, sir.

 

[ParkerD]

Here is the continuation of responses about the website article about the Book of Mormon:

There are other problems with the Book of Mormon. For example, critics of Mormonism have shown convincing proof that the Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of simple plagiarisms of the King James Bible.

The only Bible that Joseph Smith relied on was the King James Version. This translation was based on a good but imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.

Scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the King James Version contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show up in the Book of Mormon.

It seems reasonable to assume that since Smith was a prophet of God and was translating the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, he would have known about the errors found in the King James Version and would have corrected them for when passages from the King James Version appeared in the Book of Mormon. But the errors went in.

AS FOR EXAMPLE?

No critics of Mormonism have shown “convincing proof,” other than of their own limited thinking and willingness to draw conclusions by unfounded conjecture.

To think that the Book of Mormon would not have quotations from Biblical writings, knowing full well that the Book of Mormon is based initially on the Brass Plates of Laban which contained writings of more prophets than even the known Biblical writings up to the point of 600 BC when Lehi’s family left Jerusalem, shows no understanding of the Bible itself. Prophets quote other prophets, often. Christ quoted prophets, often. That is the prophetic pattern.

One could wish these particular authors would show the specific sets of text they are referring to in the Isaiah passage differences. Then serious and interested readers could draw their own conclusions, rather than trust this fourth-hand source with their obvious bias. There is an article on the subject, but since it was an LDS source (could not find otherwise) I won’t bother anyone with the discussion points. It is a minor matter. A serious student of the Bible will love the writings of Isaiah and be fascinated by many differences in the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon compared with the Bible, as well as by extensive commentary on what the passages mean.

 

[ParkerD]

Conclusion of the discussion dealing with the Catholic website article:

For instance, the most pointed refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: “Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’”

Amulek knew the purpose and intent of the question. The “one God” of the Old Testament is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who is Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the Redeemer, the Creator, the Great I Am. Zeezrom was not in position to understand or be taught about God the Father, and it would have been futile and unnecessary for Amulek to try and do so under those circumstances.

We read that Jesus “shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).

If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.

Jerusalem was the known big city in the area, and the city the Nephites were intimately familiar with having left from there. The land of Jerusalem would encompass a wide area. Isaiah used references to cities often, meaning much larger areas and whole groups of people.

Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. “He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color.” He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.

The Jaredites had honey bees with them when they were in the Old World valley of Nimrod, but that is the last place the bees are mentioned and there is no description to indicate they were carried with them in the barges used to cross the ocean to the New World.

The authors who wrote this without noting this difference that is as plain as day, are the ones “stung” by their own lack of reading skill.

Tell the Mormon missionaries: "Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will.

Why not pray if God answers sincere prayers of the honest in heart? The authors don’t seem to trust sincere, heartfelt prayer as a source of inspiration and guidance from God. This is a clear case of saying in effect, “trust in the wisdom of men, not the hidden wisdom offered by God.” In today’s difficult and complex world, we still need the wisdom of God. We can pray for answers to our heartfelt questions and concerns.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why not pray if God answers sincere prayers of the honest in heart? The authors don’t seem to trust sincere, heartfelt prayer as a source of inspiration and guidance from God. This is a clear case of saying in effect, “trust in the wisdom of men, not the hidden wisdom offered by God.” In today’s difficult and complex world, we still need the wisdom of God. We can pray for answers to our heartfelt questions and concerns.

I recommend that one ask God to lead you to truth and to protect you from what is false. As there are many people and things with claims to truth, it should be a real concern to not be lead down a false path.

 

[Murdock]

Zundrah:

If you are reading the Book of Mormon, and having trouble understanding anything in it, or would like to understand it better, then, as you read the Book of Mormon, you might want to refer to or read along in the “Book of Mormon Student Manual: Religion 121 and 122”. The bulk of this manual is a chapter-by-chapter, and nearly verse-by-verse, discussion of the Book of Mormon. This manual also contains useful appendices regarding the record keepers whose works are compiled in the Book of Mormon, the manner of compilation of the Book of Mormon, the chronology of the Book of Mormon, and other topics.

This manual is published by the Institutes of Religion of the Church Educational System of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is as an aid to the study of the Book of Mormon and is used in religion courses taught to Latter-day Saint university-level students.

You can find the manual on line as a PDF file at institute.lds.org/courses (note that the URL web address does NOT begin with “www”). Note that it is a large file.

If there is something in the Book of Mormon which is not explained in the manual, and about which you are particularly interested to know more, or if there is something else in the Mormon faith about which you are particularly interested, try the website www.fairlds.org which is the website of the Foundation for Apologetics Information and Research (“FAIR”). This organization is not part of the Church. However, it defends Mormonism and it is staffed by Latter-day Saint volunteers who are very knowledgeable.

Near the bottom of the FAIR home page, you will see a box titled “Ask the Apologist” with two links. One link is to “FAIR wiki”, their very useful work-in-progress online encyclopedia of responses to criticisms of Mormonism. The other link is “visit our FAIR contact page.” If you follow that link, then you can use an e-mail form (check the box for “Questions for the FAIR apologists”) to ask a question about the Book of Mormon or something else about Mormonism. I suspect that almost all of their inquiries come from LDS, so let them know you are not LDS. As the FAIR apologists are volunteers who obviously spend a GREAT deal of time and effort in studying questions about Mormonism, so that they can give thoughtful and well-informed answers to anyone who asks, please give them the courtesy of just asking a straightforward question about what you would like to know.

–Murdock

 

[DonLeon]

Walter Martin’s description of, and charges against, Mormonism have been refuted time after time after time.

Y’know, I don’t care what his opinion was about my beliefs. He’s welcome to them. I care that the Mormonism he describes is not the Mormonism Mormons recognize, or the Mormonism that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually teaches.

I don’t care that you think that Mormonism is a “false religion.” However, you don’t really know that, do you? After all, if you are going by what Martin tells you, then you have absolutely no idea what Mormonism really is.

Oh, I do find your signature more than a little ironic, sir.

I have made my statement sir, and I stick by it. And yes, I do know Mormonism is a false religion. There are many points to prove that it is and I would rather believe Dr. Martin whether you like it or not. If Mormonism is your belief, then good luck to you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ricko]

Zundrah:

If you are reading the Book of Mormon, and having trouble understanding anything in it, or would like to understand it better, then, as you read the Book of Mormon, you might want to refer to or read along in the “Book of Mormon Student Manual: Religion 121 and 122”. The bulk of this manual is a chapter-by-chapter, and nearly verse-by-verse, discussion of the Book of Mormon. This manual also contains useful appendices regarding the record keepers whose works are compiled in the Book of Mormon, the manner of compilation of the Book of Mormon, the chronology of the Book of Mormon, and other topics.

This manual is published by the Institutes of Religion of the Church Educational System of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is as an aid to the study of the Book of Mormon and is used in religion courses taught to Latter-day Saint university-level students.

You can find the manual on line as a PDF file at Institutes of Religion (note that the URL web address does NOT begin with “www”). Note that it is a large file.

If there is something in the Book of Mormon which is not explained in the manual, and about which you are particularly interested to know more, or if there is something else in the Mormon faith about which you are particularly interested, try the website www.fairlds.org which is the website of the Foundation for Apologetics Information and Research (“FAIR”). This organization is not part of the Church. However, it defends Mormonism and it is staffed by Latter-day Saint volunteers who are very knowledgeable.

Near the bottom of the FAIR home page, you will see a box titled “Ask the Apologist” with two links. One link is to “FAIR wiki”, their very useful work-in-progress online encyclopedia of responses to criticisms of Mormonism. The other link is “visit our FAIR contact page.” If you follow that link, then you can use an e-mail form (check the box for “Questions for the FAIR apologists”) to ask a question about the Book of Mormon or something else about Mormonism. I suspect that almost all of their inquiries come from LDS, so let them know you are not LDS. As the FAIR apologists are volunteers who obviously spend a GREAT deal of time and effort in studying questions about Mormonism, so that they can give thoughtful and well-informed answers to anyone who asks, please give them the courtesy of just asking a straightforward question about what you would like to know.

–Murdock

Very interesting, thank you for the information and welcome to Catholic Forums.

Actually we understand the BOM very well. We understand it to be a work of fiction. It seems that only Mormons think it to be true. We will do our best to open your eyes if you will forget your testimony while you are here and keep an open mind to what is being presented. The other Mormons can’t seem to do that.

 

[why_me]

Very interesting, thank you for the information and welcome to Catholic Forums.

Actually we understand the BOM very well. We understand it to be a work of fiction. It seems that only Mormons think it to be true. We will do our best to open your eyes if you will forget your testimony while you are here and keep an open mind to what is being presented. The other Mormons can’t seem to do that.

Would you allow a baptist to open your eyes about the fallacy of the catholic religion? If the book of mormon is a work of fiction, can you please tell me how it came about? And how there are 11 witnesses to the book of mormon. And how none of these witnesses ever claimed it was all a fraud even after leaving the lds church. I am afraid that at least 12 people would need to be in on the fraud and all would have needed to keep their mouths shut about the fraud. It seems against human nature that this would happen. Put 12 conmen together and someone would screw up. But…none did. Maybe the book is just what JS claimed it to be.

 

[why_me]

I have made my statement sir, and I stick by it. And yes, I do know Mormonism is a false religion. There are many points to prove that it is and I would rather believe Dr. Martin whether you like it or not. If Mormonism is your belief, then good luck to you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Okay. I am glad that you know that mormonism is false. Can you please share the conclusive evidence that makes it a fraud. Have they found a manusript of the book of mormon with rough drafts written by Joseph Smith? Now of course, I understand that you search antimormon sites to reach your conclusions. I suppose that all seekers after truth should search anticatholic sites to read the truth about the catholic church. Would you recommend a catholic investigator to seach through anticatholic sites to read the truth about the catholic faith?

 

[why_me]

See the Smithsonian Letter on the Book of Mormon.
exmormon.org/apology.htm
mrm.org/smithsonian

Book of Mormon witnesses.
exmormon.org/file9.htm

2 Nephi chapter 5 , metallurgy
exmormon.org/2nephi5.htm

Questions on the Book of Mormon
lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml#BOM13

The attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copywright.
mrm.org/attempt-to-sell-copyright

Test your knowledge of the Book of Mormon.
mrm.org/knowledge-test

Praying about the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?
mrm.org/praying-about-bofm

Could you please post some anticatholic websites so I can read the truth about the catholic church?

 

[DonLeon]

Would you allow a baptist to open your eyes about the fallacy of the catholic religion? If the book of mormon is a work of fiction, can you please tell me how it came about? And how there are 11 witnesses to the book of mormon. And how none of these witnesses ever claimed it was all a fraud even after leaving the lds church. I am afraid that at least 12 people would need to be in on the fraud and all would have needed to keep their mouths shut about the fraud. It seems against human nature that this would happen. Put 12 conmen together and someone would screw up. But…none did. Maybe the book is just what JS claimed it to be.

This is interesting and news to me. In my study of the background and origination of Mormonism I had never heard of there being 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon? Please give me more info and references on this subject. Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Answersplease]

Could you please post some anticatholic websites so I can read the truth about the catholic church?

If the Book of Mormon is false, then the truth is always “anti” Book of Mormon.

You will never know the truth if you never hear what they have to say and decide for yourself if they have valid arguments.

 

[zerinus]

How nice of you to provide yet another diversionary tactic.

Instead of defending the Book of Mormon, you try to discredit Mark Twain.

Ad hominem argument.

When Mark Twain criticises your religion, you can take it as a complement, it is like the devil criticising your religion.

 

[Answersplease]

You need to go look up the definition of ‘ad hominem.’

Quick lesson in logical fallacies: you began with an appeal to celebrity (Mark Twain was a fiction writer, speaker and humorist, not a theologian), which is a subfallacy of the ‘red herring’ sort. Z responds with the proper rebuttal; if Mark Twain’s opinion of the Book of Mormon is authoritative, then so are his opinions of everything else religious…and thus you must put equal trust in:

“Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven…The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.”

Or…“Letters from the Earth”

Or

“If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be–a Christian.”

Or

“Christianity will doubtless still survive in the earth ten centuries hence–stuffed and in a museum.”

Or this:

“There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is – in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree – it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime – the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt.”

Considering the above, I don’t think that having the Book of Mormon characterized as ‘chloroform in print’ is all that negative a comment. He’s much nastier to the bible.

For instance, he says of the Book of Mormon: "The Mormon Bible is rather stupid and tiresome to read. But there is nothing vicious in its teachings. Its code of morals is unobjectionable. It’s smooched from the New Testament and no credit given. "

Of the bible? Well, just go to Twainquotes.com and explore the glorious musings of the most literate and funny curmudgeon who ever lived. I’d send you straight to his qoutes on the bible the way Z did, but everybody deserves to wander around Twain’s mind for awhile before they find what they want and have to leave.

The point is, you goofed. I have one more site for you. I think it will help you greatly the next time you start throwing accusations of fallacious reasoning.

I never said Mark Twain was a theologian and almost EVERYONE who reads him knows he is a humorist.
Your accusation of a Red Herring is FALSE because a red herring is a diversionary ploy and this thread is about the Book of Mormon so anything on the subject is fair to post.

You and your ally attack Mark Twain’s credibility and not Mark Twain’s arguments. THAT is a true diversion.

You want to include what Mark Twain says about “everything else religious” but AGAIN this thread is about the BOOK OF MORMON, this is another diversion away from the thread subject and away from Mark Twain’s arguments. You mention one of his arguments what about the others?
Yes, lets talk about the Bible INSTEAD of the thread subject or refuting ALL of Mark Twain’s arguments. (sarcasm)

I guess you did’nt goof like I did (sarcasm), but diversionary tactics away from the true subject are your specialty by looking at some of your past posts.

You in reality goofed about my posting a red herring, how is posting a quote about the Book of Mormon on a thread about the same subject a red herring?

I guess I should throw more high sounding words around like subfallacy and proper (diversionary) rebuttal, then I will be on the level of the high and super intellectual posters like, hmmm who could it be?

 

[Answersplease]

You will never know the truth unless you hear what they have to say and decide for yourself if their arguments are valid.

Book of Mormon Contradicts The Bible.
utlm.org/onlineresources/bibleandbomcontradictions.htm

DNA and the Book of Mormon Record.
mrm.org/dna

How Heavy Were Those Gold Plates?
mrm.org/weight-of-plates

Nephite Synagogues: Where Did They Originate?
mrm.org/nephite-synagogues

Stela 5 and Lehi’s vision of the tree of life.
mrm.org/tree-of-life

Are Ancient Coins Mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
mrm.org/coins

White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome?
mrm.org/white-and-delightsome

Did Mahonri Moriancumr Discover America?
mrm.org/mahonri-moriancumr

Gasping for Breath Without a Head - The Story of Coriantumr and Shiz.
mrm.org/coriantumr-and-shiz

 

[DonLeon]

Okay. I am glad that you know that mormonism is false. Can you please share the conclusive evidence that makes it a fraud. Have they found a manusript of the book of mormon with rough drafts written by Joseph Smith? Now of course, I understand that you search antimormon sites to reach your conclusions. I suppose that all seekers after truth should search anticatholic sites to read the truth about the catholic church. Would you recommend a catholic investigator to seach through anticatholic sites to read the truth about the catholic faith?

I do not search anti-Mormon books or sites alone. I have searched into the Mormon history written by Mormons and have read these with an open mind. I have found that the claims made are pretty difficult ( I’d truly say impossible) to accept. The claim made that Joseph Smith copied the book from “golden plates from heaven” in “reformed Egyptian” is especially difficult to accept. Let alone the “golden plates”, but the “reformed Egyptian”
is truly false. Linguistic scholars of every persuasion all state that there is “no such thing,
and never has been”, since there is absolutely no historical evidence of any sort to support
the claim. I myself have spoken to Copts (original Egyptians, not Arabs) who still speak
Egyptian and each one says they have never heard of “reformed Egyptian”. This bit alone is enough to raise a red flag.

Again, the claim that the Book of Mormon “is the most correct book ever written” has reulted in approximately 4000 errors, and the book has been revised many times. Another red flag.

I could go on and on, but to no avail. You sir do not have an open mind and, like I once was ( yes, I am a convert to Catholicism), refuse to accept all the evidence placed before you. I suggest that you truly study your Mormon history, and origins, without bias and see for your self all the evidence placed before you.

As for anti-Catholic books, they are too numerous to list. Any public library carries many of them. Each and every claim made by anti-Catholics in these books has been refuted and has been proven to be false. Many of the refutations were honestly made by Protestants in defense of Catholicism. I, myself, set out to prove Catholicism false and failed miserably. I learned the truth and became a Catholic. All I can do is pray and ask God to open your eyes so that you may do likewise. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

This is interesting and news to me. In my study of the background and origination of Mormonism I had never heard of there being 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon? Please give me more info and references on this subject. Thank you.

Shalom Aleichem

DonLeon,
This post and another one later are fairly incompatible, since the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon including three witnesses about Moroni and the “golden plates” (not pure gold, but with the “appearance of gold”) are one of the first things a serious student of the Book of Mormon is going to find when they start reading. Perhaps your research wasn’t as thorough as you may have thought.

As for “reformed Egyptian,” of course no modern scholar would have ever heard of that. It is a description of a writing method, not a label of a language. It could as easily have said “a short-hand pictorial (pictogram) writing method we adapted from Egyptian writing methods.” Since they did that adaptation after they were in the New World, no Old World scholar would know anything about it, nor have heard of the idea of “reformed Egyptian.”

 

[DonLeon]

DonLeon,
This post and another one later are fairly incompatible, since the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon including three witnesses about Moroni and the “golden plates” (not pure gold, but with the “appearance of gold”) are one of the first things a serious student of the Book of Mormon is going to find when they start reading. Perhaps your research wasn’t as thorough as you may have thought.

As for “reformed Egyptian,” of course no modern scholar would have ever heard of that. It is a description of a writing method, not a label of a language. It could as easily have said “a short-hand pictorial (pictogram) writing method we adapted from Egyptian writing methods.” Since they did that adaptation after they were in the New World, no Old World scholar would know anything about it, nor have heard of the idea of “reformed Egyptian.”

Thank you for your response and information. I will check into it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Fidelis]

As for “reformed Egyptian,” of course no modern scholar would have ever heard of that. It is a description of a writing method, not a label of a language. It could as easily have said “a short-hand pictorial (pictogram) writing method we adapted from Egyptian writing methods.” Since they did that adaptation after they were in the New World, no Old World scholar would know anything about it, nor have heard of the idea of “reformed Egyptian.”

Eight Scholars on Joseph Smith’s “Book of Abraham” Translation

In his 1912 publication of “Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator,” J.S. Spaulding solicited the views of eight scholars regarding Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham translation. Below are excerpts from their comments:

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England

“I have examined the illustrations given in the ‘Pearl of Great Price.’ In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham.”

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University

“Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”

James, H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago

“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”

Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assist. Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art

“The plates contained in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are rather comical and a very poor imitation of Egyptian originals.”

Dr. John Peters, Univ. of Pennsylvania

“…the explanatory notes to his facsimiles cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination.”

Rev. Prof. C.A.B. Mercer, Ph.D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collection, Egyptian Reproductions.

“The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the ‘Book of Abraham,’ and ‘translated’ or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ ***are parts of the well known ‘Book of the Dead.’ ***Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book.”

Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin

“A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the ‘Book of Abraham’ is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”

Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich

Source: mrm.org/book-of-abraham