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

[ParkerD]

Hi, Fidelis,
I suppose that you brought up the Book of Abraham as an example of Egyptian “translation”. I suppose you are aware that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are not represented to have been originally written in the same writing pictographs, so the “translation” of the Book of Abraham is an entirely different subject, though again the primary source of “translating” was divine guidance, and the conveying of scripture that God wanted humankind to know about, from the mind of one person (the inscriber such as Abraham or Mormon) to another (us).

Abraham lived much earlier than the Rosetta Stone time period. Abraham did visit Egypt. He could have learned Egyptian writing methods, and used them in any way he wanted.

 

[DonLeon]

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

Thank you for posting these. These are BIG RED FLAGS. I have checked with “EGYPTOLOGY ONLINE” with respect to the “shorthand reformed Egyptian”.
According to them there is no such thing. I also have an email out to Dr, Zahi Hawass,
who is THE foremost Egyptologist, about this “reformed Egyptian”. As soon as I receive an answer I will post it. Meanwhile, there are too many RED FLAGS for me to accept Mormonism as anything other than a false religion.

P.S. to my LDS brothers…if you want unbiased opinions of Christianity, read the writings of Josephus, Livy, Pliny the Younger, and other Jewish and pagan historians.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Fidelis]

… the “translation” of the Book of Abraham is an entirely different subject, though again the primary source of “translating” was divine guidance, and the conveying of scripture that God wanted humankind to know about, from the mind of one person (the inscriber such as Abraham or Mormon) to another (us).

Abraham lived much earlier than the Rosetta Stone time period. Abraham did visit Egypt. He could have learned Egyptian writing methods, and used them in any way he wanted.

Wow, Parker, I don’t know where to start with this except to say this answer completely attempts to skirt the main point about the “Book of Abraham” being a patently false interpretation of Egyptian pictographs – pictographs that according to scholarly consensus mean nothing close to what Joseph Smith alleged them to say. The dating of the Rosetta Stone has nothing to do with it, and God (through Moses) isn’t going to make them mean one thing for LDS religious purposes that is wildly at variance with their original Egyptian purpose. That would be like the Pope copying some pictographs from an Incan temple and translating it into the Fifth Gospel.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you for posting these. These are BIG RED FLAGS. I have checked with “EGYPTOLOGY ONLINE” with respect to the “shorthand reformed Egyptian”.
According to them there is no such thing. I also have an email out to Dr, Zahi Hawass,
who is THE foremost Egyptologist, about this “reformed Egyptian”. As soon as I receive an answer I will post it. Meanwhile, there are too many RED FLAGS for me to accept Mormonism as anything other than a false religion.

P.S. to my LDS brothers…if you want unbiased opinions of Christianity, read the writings of Josephus, Livy, Pliny the Younger, and other Jewish and pagan historians.

Shalom Aleichem

Don Leon,
I think perhaps we haven’t communicated. By “shorthand”, I meant that the pictographs could convey in a quicker method of writing, the words or thoughts of the writer, than using Hebrew which otherwise would have been used, according to Nephi. I didn’t mean that reformed Egyptian was “shorthand Egyptian.”

You could ask a question such as whether the Egyptian pictographs writing method could be modified over time by the people using it, or whether this was not possible. (i.e. could new symbols be thought of, and could existing symbols be modified in some way to convey a different shade or nuance of meaning?)

 

[DonLeon]

Don Leon,
I think perhaps we haven’t communicated. By “shorthand”, I meant that the pictographs could convey in a quicker method of writing, the words or thoughts of the writer, than using Hebrew which otherwise would have been used, according to Nephi. I didn’t mean that reformed Egyptian was “shorthand Egyptian.”

You could ask a question such as whether the Egyptian pictographs writing method could be modified over time by the people using it, or whether this was not possible. (i.e. could new symbols be thought of, and could existing symbols be modified in some way to convey a different shade or nuance of meaning?)

Egyptian pictographs occur in two forms: Hieretic and Demotic. The Demotic, which means popular, is the true so-called shorthand Egyptian which conveys a quick and easy way to write Egyptian instead of Hieroglyphics. If Joseph Smith wanted a quick and easy way to write from the plates, then why did he call them “reformed Egyptian”, or as you say, “a shorthand method” of writing? Smith made a definite statement when he said that
the gold plates ( he also called them gold, and not golden, as you say ) were
written in “reformed Egyptian”! I’m sorry, but your explanation does not hold water…

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The book of Mormon is written a bit like this;

(…this is suppose to be Jesus talking…)

Verily, verily, I say unto you,…e.c.t.

And so it came to pass that he…e.c.t.

It is written in like old English or some thing? To make it sound authentic…?

That’s Early Modern English - not Old English.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Early 1800’s backwoods Americans of English heritage were probably much more familiar with ELIZABETHAN English than were the English at that time. Especially since they had little contact with reading materials other than the KJV.

Old English is

The Miller’s Prologue

Heere folwen the wordes bitwene the Hoost and the Millere

Whan that the Knyght had thus his tale ytoold,In al the route ne was ther yong ne ooldThat he ne seyde it was a noble storie,And worthy for to [drawen to memorie](Librarius: middle-english glossary to memorie);5And namely the gentils everichon.Oure Hooste lough, and swoor, "So moot I gon,This gooth aright; unbokeled is the male,Lat se now who shal telle another tale,For trewely the game is wel bigonne.10Now telleth on, sir Monk, if that ye konneSomwhat to quite with the Knyghtes tale."The Millere that for dronken was al pale,So that unnethe upon his hors he sat,He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat,

librarius.com/cantales.htm

I bought two copies, both at used book stores. The first one, I got so disgusted at the tripe and blasphemy, I threw it away. The second one, the bookseller suggested that I make a bookcover out of the paper sack so people wouldn’t know what I was reading. I followed his advice, and I still have it.

However, I prefer this edition:
2think.org/hundredsheep/bom1830/bom_main.shtml

That’s not Old English - it’s (a dialect of) Middle English. (And should not verse be presented as verse ?)​

Old English is the language of

• the homilies of Aelfric - [archive.org/details/sermonescatholic02aelfuoft (Sermones catholici, or, Homilies of Aelfric : in original Anglo-Saxon, with an English version ... : Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)
• the Old English Orosius - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orosius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orosius)
• the Wanderer - [Anglo-Saxons.net : The Wanderer (Anglo-Saxons.net : The Wanderer)
• Widsith - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widsith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widsith)
• the Dream of the Rood - [http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/oecoursepack/rood/index.html (http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/oecoursepack/rood/index.html)
• Pearl - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_(poem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_(poem))
• the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - [Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle (Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle)
• & Beowulf (for example) - [http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/main.html (http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/main.html)

beginning in the eighth century, and surviving (barely) until the mid-twelfth. (William the Bastard and his Norman thugs made sure it stopped being what it had been, the language of England.)

Happy reading !

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Its the book of Mormon, just click on a book from it and see how ridiculously difficult it is to even make sense out of.

Not as difficult as the Bible (which is made up of even more writings). It’s pretty straightforward compared with that. FWIW, reading difficulty is not a fair test of religious value - because the difficulty experienced may be the result of factors which are unconnected with religion.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jerusha, the KJV is written in Early Modern English, Not Old English…and Chaucer didn’t use either one. Old English looks like this:

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

which translates to…

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes…

And so on.

Chaucer wrote in middle English–your example of the Miller’s Tale is a good one for that. For Early Modern English, Shakespeare and the KJV are the best examples. For the language that the early settlers of the USA would have been most familiar with, you need to go to the language of, oh…Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, Nathaniel Hathorne (no, that is NOT misspelled) Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift.

The Americans of the time would have been quite familiar with the rhetoric of the time–and of the KJV, which was the standard biblical text in English at the time.

Which was not written, nor translated into, Old English, Middle English or Early Modern English.

Diana, in full English professor snooty mode…

You got there before I did .​

What in the US is the name - for the purposes of Eng.Lit.Hist. - of the kind of English (Englishes ?) used between 1700 & 1800, more or less ? Is there a name for the literary language ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dr. Walter Martin…who got his doctorate from California Coast University (which bought out the California Western University on his degree) which is a diploma mill. It is neither regionally nor nationally accredited and never has been.

He was the father of the counter-cult movement…and if you want to know just how accurate he is in regard to Mormonism, just take a look at how he describes Catholicism.

Walter Martin has a great deal to answer for.

It’s possible to be right about religion A even if one is wrong about religion B. There is no logical necessity that, supposing him to be wrong about Catholicism, he must therefore be wrong about Mormonism. That doesn’t follow; though it is reason for caution. Much of the content of that link is opinion rather than description; most of it is nothing to bridle at - the complaint that the CC is adaptable & Protean & many-faced is not new: Boettner made the same point. From a certain POV, such remarks are entirely understandable, & if that is understood, they cease to be offensive. Besides, what he says about service & authority is true.​

I wasn’t aware the CC had a God-given right never to be unfavourably criticised. If it behaves unChristianly, then, for God’s sake, criticise away. Don’t show it the false kindness of praising its sins, but do it good by loving it too well to call them good. Those who show us what is wrong with with us are not our enemies, but our greatest friends. So there is little or nothing in what he says to find offensive.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What Mark Twain said about the Bible, God, and religion:
twainquotes.com/Bible.html
twainquotes.com/God.html
nogodzone.blogspot.com/2006/06/mark-twain-on-bible-and-religion.html
ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/twain01.htm

I thought this was hilarious :​

• What God lacks is convictions - stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something- not try to be everything

 

[Zundrah]

It’s possible to be right about religion A even if one is wrong about religion B. There is no logical necessity that, supposing him to be wrong about Catholicism, he must therefore be wrong about Mormonism. That doesn’t follow; though it is reason for caution. Much of the content of that link is opinion rather than description; most of it is nothing to bridle at - the complaint that the CC is adaptable & Protean & many-faced is not new: Boettner made the same point. From a certain POV, such remarks are entirely understandable, & if that is understood, they cease to be offensive. Besides, what he says about service & authority is true.​

I wasn’t aware the CC had a God-given right never to be unfavourably criticised. If it behaves unChristianly, then, for God’s sake, criticise away. Don’t show it the false kindness of praising its sins, but do it good by loving it too well to call them good. Those who show us what is wrong with with us are not our enemies, but our greatest friends. So there is little or nothing in what he says to find offensive.

Hi gottle of gear!

WHEN W LAST LOOKED AT THIS THREAD IT WAS ONLY ONE AND A HALF PAGES LONG, BUT NOW I WILL GO BACK TO THE MAIN POINT!

Do you have a book of mormon at all?

 

[Zundrah]

Hi, Geometer and also Zundrah,
I’ve read the Book of Mormon perhaps fifty times, and enjoyed each time through it. I don’t mind the grammar that is sometimes hard to follow. It reminds me that people have different ways of expressing themselves, using different syntax, plus some languages are more emotive than other languages. I am intrigued when I detect in the Book of Mormon that the writers are coveying their emotions in how they write, and that it comes across in the English translation. I can empathize with their feelings and the depth of those feelings and the urgency with which they wrote about how we would one day read “their words” (but in our language).

I love how the Book of Mormon can guide people in our day, such as my own children, to detect when the government or perhaps an occasional teacher in their schools seek to lead them in a direction that is away from keeping the commandments of God. I am grateful that it provides spiritual awareness of detecting good from evil, and emphasizes faith, hope, and charity just as the apostle Paul did. I am also grateful that it gives further insight into the purposes of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and of the law of restoration–that which we send out returns to us again, both in this life and in the next life. I think it’s a fascinating book, but it can certainly be confusing for people who pick it up for the first time. Mormon and Moroni put their whole life’s work into preparing and preserving the engravings that the book is translated from. I feel a deep sense of appreciation to them for the countless hours they spent in compiling and condensing the record to give us a book that has so many precious insights. It definitely has helped me be a better father and husband.

Hello to you Parker D,

Sorry but I’ve been unable to access the net lately! Any way, I have a book of mormon and I was reading it last night, I like these bits;

• MOSIAH - CHAPTER 3: 20 - 23
  I love this one - MOSIAH - CHAPTER 3: 10 - 15

3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 18

Helaman Chapter 9 : 1 - 3

3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 2

Moroni (The whole of chapter ten and eleven)!

Moroni Chapter 10 : 4 - 5

What do you think of those then Parker?
Do you have any parts to recommend?

 

[GodIsGracious]

So come on, what do you think of the book of Mormon being translated from gold plates that were in an unknown language that Joseph Smith didn’t even understand but claimed to be able to translate?

Fiction.

I’d just as well read Dianetics. And I’m not really interested in that.

 

[Zundrah]

Fiction.

I’d just as well read Dianetics. And I’m not really interested in that.

 

[DonLeon]

Gottle of Geer I wasn’t aware the CC had a God-given right never to be unfavourably criticised. If it behaves unChristianly, then, for God’s sake, criticise away. Don’t show it the false kindness of praising its sins, but do it good by loving it too well to call them good. Those who show us what is wrong with with us are not our enemies, but our greatest friends. So there is little or nothing in what he says to find offensive.

The Catholic Church is constantly criticized both from within and without. The Catholic Church welcomes all criticism. For without the criticism how would it know what to correct and/or explain to those who criticise? It is some of its adherents that vehemently object and complain that the Catholic Church is always being picked on.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

Hello to you Parker D,

Sorry but I’ve been unable to access the net lately! Any way, I have a book of mormon and I was reading it last night, I like these bits;

• MOSIAH - CHAPTER 3: 20 - 23
  I love this one - MOSIAH - CHAPTER 3: 10 - 15

3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 18

Helaman Chapter 9 : 1 - 3

3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 2

Moroni (The whole of chapter ten)!

Moroni Chapter 10 : 4 - 5

What do you think of those then Parker?
Do you have any parts to recommend?

Hi, Zundrah,
I love the entire book, but here are some chapters well worth reading especially:

Alma 32.
Mosiah 2, 3, 4, 5. (entire chapters)
Moroni 7.
Moroni 10.
1 Nephi 8,11.
3 Nephi 18
Helaman 5.
Alma 7.

I think you will enjoy those chapters. Have a good evening.

 

[Zundrah]

The Catholic Church is constantly criticized both from within and without. The Catholic Church welcomes all criticism. For without the criticism how would it know what to correct and/or explain to those who criticise? It is some of its adherents that vehemently object and complain that the Catholic Church is always being picked on.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Gottle of gear seems to be a fallen away catholic doesn’t he? Maybe you should help him DonLeon?

 

[Zundrah]

Hi, Zundrah,
I love the entire book, but here are some chapters well worth reading especially:

Alma 32.
Mosiah 2, 3, 4, 5. (entire chapters)
Moroni 7.
Moroni 10.
1 Nephi 8,11.
3 Nephi 18
Helaman 5.
Alma 7.

I think you will enjoy those chapters. Have a good evening.

Thank you at last! I thought you had given up on me! I will read these tonight and let you know how it goes!

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[Publisher]

Yes, I’ve read the Book of Mormon. I find most of it’s stories to be biblical stories “re-told” with similar but different characters.

I find it’s “pre-Christian” 19th century Cambelite theology to be out of place in time and thought for pre-Christian decendents of Hebrews.

I think it has many beautiful passages…but some of the “and it came to pass” and “beholds” do get a bit tedious.

I was given a nice leather bound copy for my birthday over a decade ago by an RLDS, now “Community of Christ” friend of mine.

Nice stories…but no basis in history…IMO.