I read the FAIR article that concludes that Lehi was probably a successful businessman in Egyptian-dominated Palestine and may have written documents in Egyptian, so...presto...Reformed Egyptian! If the wars that gone on previously had gone a different way, would Joseph Smith said the plates were written in "Reformed Assyrian" or "Reformed Babylonian"?

However, imagine other religious people, under the thumb of a foreign power, writing IMPORTANT family and religious history in the language of their overlords. I'm sure it was done, but rarely.

In any case, the biggest howler (see Richard Packham's site http://packham.n4m.org/brassplates.htm) is Laban's brass plates--written in a form of Egyptian--presumably because that's what Joseph (the amazing technicolor dreamcoat guy) would have learned while in Egypt!?


I mean, "while in Rome", but your important RELIGIOUS WRITINGS?

sHEESH...

More brouhaha and spin.

My German Jewish ancestors who were book printers and publishers of the Talmud and Hebrew prayer books in the 1400's and 1500's wrote their scriptures and texts in both Hebrew and German.

Why Hebrew? It was still good script, for being ancient, that has stayed the test of time.

Had the Jews passed any time in Egypt they would still have written in their own language, not that of their captors. Reformed Egyptian is another folkloric construct of the imaginings of Joey Smith and Company, not an actual language. Never was.

"Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered." ~ Wikipedia

Yes. Let's just say that the Russians or Chinese took over the USA; I might learn to write their language for business, etc.,, but why wouldn't I write my important and deep things in...american english!

It's a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If not for actual Egyptian scholars we'd have been none the wiser, and Joseph would've kept perpetrating his fanciful storytelling.

Ancient Hebraic writings are still decodable today, when unearthed by archaeologists. "Hebrew is a member of the Canaanite group of Semitic languages. It was the language of the early Jews, but from 586 BC it started to be replaced by Aramaic. By 200 AD use of Hebrew as an everyday language had largely ceased, but it continued to be used for literary and religious functions, as well as a lingua franca among Jews from different countries."

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hebrew.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish

http://yiddish.haifa.ac.il/texts/yehoyesh/tanList.htm


There, I have shown that Reformed Egyptian might have existed, and so I am off to buy a white shirt. I still have all my ties from my mission. Yep, mormonism is true and tomorrow I partake of the sacrament...

this reminded me (Off topic sorta)

Growing up we had a dog we had to name Egypt

he left pyramid's in every room in the house

My children and I had a dog named Baja, because she reminded us of an Egyptian dog. That would be for other reasons than your Egypt is remembered for ....

;-)

Most English speakers are not familiar with the German language Western novels of Karl May:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May

There are many people who live in the world of Winnetou and Old Shatterhand but they aren't real and neither are the characters in the "Book of Mormon."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_German_popular_culture



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2016 08:44AM by anybody.

Dear readers here is something for your consideration.

I myself and my children are fluent in two languages.

First my native English.

Second Portuguese.

Why Portuguese? I married a lady from Brazil who I met through business contacts. She insisted we speak Portuguese at homem

My neighbor married a German diplomat and his family speaks German in the home.

I can put forward dozens of examples.

Therefore I propose the Lehi's family was the same. (If the existed) and therefore Sariah must have been Egyptian.

This is one reason, as a Baptist, that sometimes I HATE the Ex-Mormons. They are SO FILLED WITH HATE They could literally be part of a hate group.

Why do I have a problem, because they exude ignorance and call it knowledge.

In this instance, I don't know about reformed Egyptian, but if someone asked me about something called reformed Egyptian, my first thought would be more toward something that people actually considered a Reformation of the Egyptian writing forms during several stages of the Egyptian forms of communication.

Of course, by saying reformed, it doesn't mean a different language, or a mixture of Hebrew and Egyptian. It simply is a new method or way of writing drawn out from the original. It is NOT normally called "reformed" Egyptian, but could easily fall under that name from someone trying to describe what exactly it was. It occurred much as any language reform typically does (for example, most of you are utilizing reformed English in our time, in that practical rules dictating the writing and usage of language have created a systematic change of our language).

The traditional Ancient Egyptian writing which people are familiar with, or hieroglyphs, typically could be time consuming, and very impractical in many daily uses.

Instead, Egyptians used a version of shorthand, called Hieratic. This was far more practical in their daily usage of their language.

At this time, I was under the impression Israel was using HEBREW however.

Still, if one goes further back, Hieratic was utilized as early as 3200 BC. A newer form started being used near the middle of the 7th century BC, from the area of the Northern Niles/Egypt called Demotic. In addition, Greek was also used in many instances (if I remember).

Traditional Hieratic was then normally only utilized in regards to religious texts. This practice of using it with religious texts continued all the way up until as late as the 4th century AD.

This doesn't mean that Jews utilized it, but there were other ways of writing the Egyptian texts rather than the more extensive Hieroglyphics people are accustomed to seeing in relation to Ancient Egypt.

Why can't people simply use logic and research instead of trying to use their hate to destroy things that aren't even Mormon or LDS?

We don't use the term "reformed" Egyptian normally for the same reason we don't discuss any language as a "reformed" language. In reality, you would be speaking Reformed English as the rules and standards have been systematically adjusted on purpose in our day. WE simply call it English, but it is DIFFERENT in rules and usage than the English of several hundred years ago. To try to say that there was no language reform or reformed type of language however, as your anti-stance...really screws over a LOT more than simply your Mormon Friends (or not friends) though.

Of course, Southern Baptists (or many of them) have a lot of information from you guys about Mormons, but sometimes I wonder about the accuracy of your information when you post things like this. It seems you are more interested in misleading than informing at times.

At other times, I get the feeling that I'm the one hated at this board, that this is more an Anti-Christian board than a Anti-Mormon or Recovery from Mormonism board.

Even if you are Atheists, however, it would be FAR more interesting and educating if you took a scholarly view rather than simply jumping to conclusions because you think your religious book says one thing and you have to leap to prove that it is exactly the opposite in history.

I probably would think that if Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Mormon, and said that the Brass Plates were written in Reformed Egyptian, or Egyptian at all, he was probably basing it upon the Egyptian Captivity where the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. At that time, I don't know if they spoke Egyptian or not (and atheists would question whether that even occurred)...but more likely than not, at least some of them were fluent in Egyptian.

Later on, I had the impression the language was normally Hebrew or Greek in some instances, and not Egyptian. However, that does not mean language was not having advances and reforms back in Egypt itself. To postulate such a thing is rather ridiculous.

Joseph produced what he claimed was a copy of several lines of characters from the plates. It is commonly called the Anthon Script.

There was a time I used your argument. But after a careful study of the script,I can assure you the script is neither Demotic nor Hieratic.

It bears no semblance to any script used anywhere in the world at the time it was supposedly written.

It's curious why as a Baptist and a never Mo you would find it hateful among a group of ex-Mormons to discuss the complete work of fiction that was the Book of Mormon, produced by none other than the plagiarizing efforts and imagination of Joseph Smith.

There were no "Reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics, because they didn't exist period. It was a fiction, like the story of Moroni.

"Moroni said, "We have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters that are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech" (Mormon 9:32).

"Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered." (Wikipedia)

Sure this place, exMormons in Recovery has more than its share of atheists, and granted some do act as though they are hateful. Not everyone here is however an atheist, or spiteful. If you'd lived your whole life being duped by a cult that stole your childhood, a good part of your adulthood, and at some point bought into the myth whether because you were born into it or bought it wholesale as a convert, once the bubble is burst in Mormonism it leaves many questioning God and religion in general. Many ex-Mormons go through different stages of grief after losing the center of their religious life, which includes the anger phase. Most here are not hateful, but angry at having been lied to and duped.

I'm still a believer, and in a minority here. We're welcome too at RfM, but we aren't the only ones - and as the site owner and admins have shared, this is the one virtual corner where atheist ex-Mos find their online space to kvetch, so it does require a thicker skin here whether you're a Christian, Jew, or anything else.

Getting back to what's scholarly though, please do yourself a favor and not confuse scholarship with Moroni's Reformed Egyptian. Why? Because it never existed in the first place! It's made up as Moroni is. That is known, and is what is scholarly, is this bit of knowledge about the "Reformed Egyptian" you are questioning. It's a spoof, in other words, there was no scholarship when Joseph Smith concocted 'Reformed Egyptian' because it never existed except in the furtive imagination of a pious con artist!

Betty G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one reason, as a Baptist, that sometimes I
> HATE the Ex-Mormons. They are SO FILLED WITH HATE
> They could literally be part of a hate group.

Seriously, you didn't even notice the hypocrisy of that statement? Really?

You HATE Ex-Mormons because they're filled with HATE??

Oh, and incidentally, it's not HATE to point out where the outrageous claims of Joseph Smith and his followers not only have no supporting evidence of any kind, but are expressly contradicted by all the evidence we DO have. That's just being honest. It's not HATE.
If you're going to HATE us for being honest, then I'd suggest you are the one that has a problem, not us.

Betty, why are you here? You used classic Mormon apologetics which has been thoroughly debunked. I currently doubt your sincerity in wanting to help those who are working their way out of a cult.

Betty G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> the Egyptian Captivity where the Israelites were
> slaves in Egypt. At that time, I don't know if
> they spoke Egyptian or not (and atheists would
> question whether that even occurred)

Not just atheists, but even Hebrew archaeologists. The fact is
that there has been found zero archaeological evidence of
either the "Egyptian Captivity" or the Exodus. The number
given in "Exodus" of 600,000 MEN among the Israelite children
is clearly untrue.* That would have made Hebrews the majority
population in Egypt!

Exodus was written down some time around the year 500, B.C.E.
It is clear that it was around this time because of Babylonian
loan-words in the text which shows it was written AFTER the
Babylonian Captivity. So we have a text written down many
centuries after the supposed events; and 200 years of intense
archaeology has failed to turn up any evidence of it
whatsoever. One need not be an atheist to "question whether
that even occurred."

The account in Exodus MAY have had its genesis (no pun
intended) in a small colony of Hebrews in the delta region of
lower Egypt. The water table is high there and things are moist
and are not preserved. But the account in Exodus is at best an
exaggeration of an original story or, at worst, a totally
fictitious account.



*Baura's rule of ancient history: "the easiest things to
exaggerate are numbers."

"The region was among the earliest in the world to see human habitation, agricultural communities and civilization. During the Bronze Age, independent Canaanite city-states were established, and were influenced by the surrounding civilizations of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Minoan Crete, and Syria. During 1550–1400 BCE, the Canaanite cities became vassals to the Egyptian New Kingdom who held power until the 1178 BCE Battle of Djahy (Canaan) during the wider Bronze Age collapse. Modern archaeologists dispute parts of the Biblical tradition, the latest thinking being that the Israelites emerged from a dramatic social transformation that took place in the people of the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE, with no signs of violent invasion or even of peaceful infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group from elsewhere. The Philistines, part of Sea Peoples of Southern Europe, arrived and mingled with the local population, and according to Biblical tradition, the United Kingdom of Israel was established in 1020 BCE and split within a century to form the northern Kingdom of Israel, and the southern Kingdom of Judah. The region became part of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from c. 740 BCE, which was itself replaced by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in c. 627 BCE. A war with Egypt culminated in 586 BCE when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II and the local leaders were deported to Babylonia, only to be allowed to return under the Achaemenid Empire."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine )

So Egypt's influence ended around 1178 BCE, and during the time just before supposed "Lehi," Palestine was under the control of first the Assyrian and then Babylonian empires.

Which means if anything, "Lehi" would have done business in Assyrian or Babylonian. Not any kind of "Egyptian."

Of course, the initial speculation that "...Lehi was probably a successful businessman in Egyptian-dominated Palestine and may have written documents in Egyptian..." has no basis in fact, not even in the fictional BoM. It's an excuse invented to try and justify Smiths made-up language, one that's contradicted by actual history (which Smith didn't know).

In 1798 Napoleon invaded Egypt in an attempt to cut off
Britain's supply line with the East. He brought with him a
large team of "savants"--scholars to study the monuments, etc.
of Egypt. This is the birth of modern Egyptology.

The result was that Europe was inundated with information about
ancient Egypt and went through a phase that has been termed
"Egyptomania." Of course this Egyptomania spread to the
Americas which were culturally and economically attached to
Europe.

THIS is the reason that the plates were in "reformed
Egyptian." Ancient Egypt was the happenin' thing in the
1820s. This fact was further demonstrated later when Chandler
came by with his traveling mummy show which led to Joseph Smith
"discovering" the writings of Abraham and Joseph.

Interestingly the plates state that the reason they used
Egyptian . . . excuse me, REFORMED Egyptian, was that their
plates didn't have enough room to write it in Hebrew. Hebrew,
by the way, was no less a compact writing system than Egyptian
Demotic. However, from the translation manuscripts of the BOA
and from Joseph Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" we find
that Joseph Smith THOUGHT that Egyptian was a VERY compact
language. He translates one word (or less) of Egyptian into a
sentence of English.

So the claim of "reformed Egyptian" fits (1) the Egyptomania of
the day, and (2) Joseph Smith's mistaken idea that Egyptian was
an extremely compact writing system.

What do Hieratic have to do with Mormonism...nothing.

What do Hieratic have to do with reformed Egyptian...a LOT.

The Mormons hijacked the term, and in your haste to disprove it, you screw up the actual science behind it.

A prime example is the above quoted Wikipedia article, which has EVERYTHING to do with Mormonism, AND NOTHING to do with the actual research, science, or study of the reformation of Ancient Egyptian through the millennia. It's been hijacked by those so against Mormonism they'll ignore what language reformation actually means (it's a process, not an actual language, if that means anything)

That's what upsets me. What is WORSE though, even worse than Mormons utilizing terms for other items, is those who claim to be utilizing knowledge and logic that led them away, but in truth it is so obviously just pure hatred that they'll try to discredit science, history, archaeology and anything else they can in their hate of Mormonism.

Another prime example in this hatred trying to screw up science is the DNA studies. A while ago scientists drew upon the idea of a possibility of the ten tribes being taken captive. If that happened, they theorized that these people would be located somewhere in Asia. They did DNA testing and actually found a connection between one of the haplo groups of some people in Asia and those of Jewish descent.

However, those same people also shared a similar grouping with Native Americans.

Here come the Mormons and they do their own DNA testing. It looked at different evidence which basically didn't back up their hypothesis.

There is a DIFFERENCE between the two studies however.

What happened, is that anti-Mormons in their eagerness to utilize the evidence from the Mormon study, have all too overwhelmingly tried to ALSO discredit the separate and totally different study which connected DNA evidence between those of Jewish descent and some Asian groups.

Is that annoying...absolutely.

I came here to find out more about the Mormons and to find out the other side of the message. I think that in order to find the real story one needs to hear both sides of that story, both the pro and the con.

People expressed that they utilize facts and history, but in many cases, what I hear is the same stuff that annoys me. It's not people using actual science and actual history, but a distorted viewpoint brought on by Mormon backgrounds, or things that have no real basis in fact.

I don't know much about the Mormon history, but when people start trying to throw around a limited view on certain subjects and use that to try to throw dirt on something unrelated to the Mormons but which use similar terminology and ideas...that really makes me wonder how much of the rest is simply just hate based and how much is actual fact.

It's a lot easier for me to read what people write here than trying to dig around on the internet for alternate views...but some of the comments make it hard to trust what I actually read from some posters in regards to whether facts are being posted here, or simply just hate based talk.

THAT's what I hate...not people specifically, but the hate speech being passed around as fact which makes it extremely hard for someone like me to be able to tell what is REALLY the facts in Mormon history, and what is simply being tossed around because people are using their hate based emotions more than facts in why they separated from the LDS church.

Betty G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THAT's what I hate...not people specifically, but
> the hate speech being passed around as fact which
> makes it extremely hard for someone like me to be
> able to tell what is REALLY the facts in Mormon
> history, and what is simply being tossed around
> because people are using their hate based emotions
> more than facts in why they separated from the LDS
> church.

Once again, you're demonstrating an awful amount of hypocrisy -- saying you hate because other people hate. I would think you'd recognize that.

You've made an awful lot of very false assumptions in the rant above as well. About facts and evidence, and what is or isn't each.

Look, this is simple: there is no "reformed Egyptian." Hieratic isn't "Reformed Egyptian." And the characters Smith copied down as coming from the BoM have *nothing* to do with any kind of Egyptian. Including Hieratic.

What is "really" the facts in mormon history can be shown by evidence. Not by "belief," not by claimed supernatural events, and not by what you mistakenly call hate. Before hating people for their supposed bias, I suggest you check your own. Most of us care about facts, whether they would support the mormons or not. It's just that they don't. Ever.

Oh, and by the way, there were probably never any "ten tribes." The bible myths are older than the BoM made-up stories, but no more real.

"A while ago scientists drew upon the idea of a possibility of the ten tribes being taken captive. If that happened, they theorized that these people would be located somewhere in Asia. They did DNA testing and actually found a connection between one of the haplo groups of some people in Asia and those of Jewish descent. However, those same people also shared a similar grouping with Native Americans."

"What happened, is that anti-Mormons in their eagerness to utilize the evidence from the Mormon study, have all too overwhelmingly tried to ALSO discredit the separate and totally different study which connected DNA evidence between those of Jewish descent and some Asian groups."


Which scientists and which study, please? Unverified claims don't work here.

DNA analysis is discussed a lot around here. Here's one:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1731404

FYI, all reputable DNA studies show these linkages around 20,000 to 25,000 years ago. You've already described yourself as a Bible literalist and inerrantist, therefore you are bound to the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

How do you reconcile your support of these studies (and attacks upon us) when they provide evidence against your own beliefs?

Finally, you throw around the phrase "anti-Mormon" around pretty freely for a Southern Baptist. Makes you sound rather Mormon after all.

If there's anything I know about Southern Baptists is they are more "anti-Mormon" than the most ardent ex-Mormons going! They will call out Mormons in a heartbeat as to their false teachings and indoctrination.

Mormons have misconstrued the bible essentially by mistranslating it and replacing it with their own scriptures. Baptists are not hesitant to sound their trumpet over this.

They view Mormonism as heresy, frankly, and aren't afraid to make it known.

Agreed, and that was my point. Look at the way she uses the phrase in the second quote of my previous comment. She criticizes "anti-Mormons" for attempting to discredit some unknown "study" linking Asian and Jewish groups that would presumably give some credence to Mormon claims.

Another quote of hers, which I didn't use above, is

"…even worse than Mormons utilizing terms for other items, is those who claim to be utilizing knowledge and logic that led them away [meaning ex- or anti-Mormons], but in truth it is so obviously just pure hatred that they'll try to discredit science, history, archaeology and anything else they can in their hate of Mormonism."

Anti-Mormons are worse than Mormons? Would a Southern Baptist, who you correctly pointed out as among the most fervent anti-Mormon groups, write something so critical of others who despise the cult? I doubt it.

In addition, Southern Baptists are hardly known for their warm embrace of science, history and archaeology.

Betty claims to be a Baptist, but writes like a Mormon. TBM apologists have been known to fake being atheists or otherwise non-Mo in order to troll the site.

Yeah, you may be right. She isn't preachy, but shares from a different perspective - although she doesn't sound like a Baptist because of her efforts to humanize Mormonism while dehumanizing ex-Mormons.

If she's reading this, maybe she'll gain a different perspective than what she already has. We're seeking to understand her too lol.

As for what makes a Baptist tick? God only knows. One of my great great grandmothers disowned her ONLY son after he joined the Mormon church for leaving her faith. Now that sounds like a diehard Baptist to me. It wouldn't be in her creed to be a mopologist for the morg. Not in a million years.

I forgive my great grandpa for becoming a Mormon. If he hadn't married my great grandma my grandma wouldn't have been born, and neither would my pappy, and neither would I.

I love my ancestors. All of them except the crazies and socios.

I just put a tombstone on my great grandpa's grave this summer because none of my Mormon relatives even though they live a whole lot closer than me, ever bothered to do so. He's been gone 127 years, a Civil War veteran, with his baby girl buried by his side. I understand his wife was poor and destitute after he died because a greedy eyed lawyer swindled her out of her prime lake real estate (she was only 23 and a pioneer Mormon lady.) It left her destitute.

Great grandpa's mom was a very wealthy widow when he died at 54. But had disinherited him for joining the Mormon church. Or maybe he'd have had a better burial.

Regardless, he has a fine tombstone now that honors his memory and his legacy, and his baby girl's. I'm really happy about that!

:)

I always try to find the other side of the coin. I don't think you can get the complete picture from one person or the other.

I think the problem I find here are that there are some Mormons who have left their church, but they are SO MORMON THEY cannot differentiate between their own hatred and their Mormon definitions, and that of the rest of the world.

As I've read things here, some of their comments have driven me crazy. In that light, I suppose you could say some Baptists are more pre disposed to not agree with Mormons, especially Anti-Mormons that still use their Mormon ideologies and theologies in their definitions rather than what the rest of the world uses (a prime example, reformed Egyptian, which I gather is some sort of Mormon usage for a language in Mormon Talk, but in the REST of the World, reformed language of any sort is more of a process than a set language. Discrediting the process which is proven to have occurred in many languages, included American English which differs from English elsewhere and even Old English...is rather infuriating to me).

In that light, as many of the comments I've read here are actually pretty anti-Christian, with a LOT of Mormon traditions tossed in rather than anything that is actually separating oneself from the LDS religions and becoming more a part of what the rest of the world (or at least the US) understands or believes.

Someone asked above about whether I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. Personally, I think that can be a weird topic. I know that many believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, and from the creation, I also believe that.

However, to say that Baptists are blind to the ideas of dating and other scientific endeavors is a rather stupid accusation to make. We actually have scholars that look at the Bible and analyze it. Unlike Mormons we are not simply restricted to ONE bible. I prefer the KJV, but I know many that use the NIV or the NKJV. I also sometimes refer to the Holman Bible or HCSB which I think is very useful at understanding different passages.

In the creation of the world, we understand it to be days. I feel it was days, but there are those who also say the actual translation would be more like time periods, but that they aren't defined periods.

Just because one is Baptist does not mean one excludes or is ignorant of science. There are MANY major scientific discoveries made by those who are Baptist, and Baptists have been a major religious article of the American Mindset including many scientists.

Baptists, unlike Mormons, are NOT confined to a single dedicated spectrum of belief. We have certain beliefs most of us share (Look up the SBC), but unlike Mormons we don't have a centralized authority, nor do we have a centralized church. Churches are mostly individual where we come together as those of the early church. Just as it had many different churches, each with their own members, so do we. We are all followers of Christ, and seek to have others follow him.

Because of this, you have those that are ultra-conservative (and I would probably fall into that category) to those that are ultra-liberal (though some who have felt LGBQTI was a right and have become more aggressive have left the SBC, they still would qualify under the American idea of being Baptist).

I have to admit, I've never actually gone to anti-Baptists websites. I didn't know websites devoted specifically to being anti-Baptist existed (anti-Christian, yes...anti-Baptist...I wasn't aware of that...maybe I live in my own little bubble). Considering the wide range of allowable beliefs in what can be defined Baptist, unless one actually became anti-Christian, I'm not sure why one would feel the need to be Anti-Baptist.

The oddest thing on this board that I've noted thus far, at least as someone investigating Mormonism, is that people on this board seem to follow LDS articles and things written by the LDS church FAR more than any group I've ever seen (and that includes the missionaries and other Mormons I've met).

You guys listen far more to your LDS leaders than the LDS do!

At least that's what it seems like. I find it very bizarre as I'd think those wanting out of the LDS church would do the exact opposite.

I'm not really here to discuss my religious ideas, more to see the other side of the equation. I studied History, and if anything, you learn that you never get the full story or information from one source. You need multiple sources to make informed decisions and to actually have a better picture. I've recently moved from out of the South to an area full of Mormons, off the internet where I'm at I get a very one sided picture.

However, some of you may consider me (ultra conservative Southern Baptist) a nut in your own right, as most anti-Christians would consider Baptists far worse than Mormons in many instances (probably because Baptist fall under that actual category of Christian which they are against), and for those who are Anti-Christian on this board...yes...I am pretty strong in my beliefs.

In that light, if I wrote more it probably won't do anything to further promote the conversation (because I'd start giving you the Baptist message of conversion and grace). I exploded at the first post which seemed to be (to me) just a little far on the Mormon terminology and the blatant acceptance that what Mormons define as something, is what the rest of the world accepts that definition as (which...surprise...surprise...it does NOT).

I shouldn't have gone off like that. Sorry. When I come, I'll try to use this as a place to see a different point of view, but refrain from expressing things that don't correlate with the Mormony point of view as much (which is a little harder than you might think for someone who is not exactly from the same background as many of you).

Betty G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the problem I find here are that there are
> some Mormons who have left their church, but they
> are SO MORMON THEY cannot differentiate between
> their own hatred and their Mormon definitions, and
> that of the rest of the world.
>
> As I've read things here, some of their comments
> have driven me crazy. In that light, I suppose
> you could say some Baptists are more pre disposed
> to not agree with Mormons, especially Anti-Mormons
> that still use their Mormon ideologies and
> theologies in their definitions rather than what
> the rest of the world uses (a prime example,
> reformed Egyptian, which I gather is some sort of
> Mormon usage for a language in Mormon Talk, but in
> the REST of the World, reformed language of any
> sort is more of a process than a set language.
> Discrediting the process which is proven to have
> occurred in many languages, included American
> English which differs from English elsewhere and
> even Old English...is rather infuriating to me).

Betty, your lack of knowledge is the problem here.
"Reformed Egyptian" isn't a generic term that's used to describe how languages evolve. It's a specific term in the Book of Mormon, and used by Joseph Smith (who supposedly saw the writing on the plates), used to describe a specific language used by a specific claimed people.

There is no such language. The characters Smith supposedly copied from the plates *cannot* be any kind of generic-term "reformed" Egyptian. They are mostly gibberish, with some being copied from parts of our alphabet, some from symbols in the occultism/folk magic of Smith's day, and some entirely made up.
None of that has anything to do with any "hatred" -- they're simply facts backed up by ample evidence.


> In that light, as many of the comments I've read
> here are actually pretty anti-Christian, with a
> LOT of Mormon traditions tossed in rather than
> anything that is actually separating oneself from
> the LDS religions and becoming more a part of what
> the rest of the world (or at least the US)
> understands or believes.

Do you feel christianity is un-criticizable? Or that "the US" is all christian, or all one belief?

Yes, many comments here are critical of ALL religions. Including mormonism, and baptists, and all the others. There are good reasons to criticize them. You don't have to agree with the comments, but to dismiss them just because they're critical of christians isn't rational or reasonable, and it's rather biased on your part.

> Someone asked above about whether I believe that
> the Earth is 6000 years old. Personally, I think
> that can be a weird topic. I know that many
> believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, and from
> the creation, I also believe that.

You are, of course, free to believe that if you want to.
However, the earth is not 6,000 years old. It's 4.55 billion years old. That's not a "belief," it's not a guess, it's not a wish. It's a fact established by literally millions of pieces of independent and verifiable pieces of evidence. That your belief is different, that's your issue. It's still a fact.

> However, to say that Baptists are blind to the
> ideas of dating and other scientific endeavors is
> a rather stupid accusation to make. We actually
> have scholars that look at the Bible and analyze
> it. Unlike Mormons we are not simply restricted
> to ONE bible. I prefer the KJV, but I know many
> that use the NIV or the NKJV. I also sometimes
> refer to the Holman Bible or HCSB which I think is
> very useful at understanding different passages.

The bible is not a reliable source of historical fact or knowledge. Trying to figure out what the bible says may be of theological importance to your beliefs, but it's irrelevant when it comes to establishing facts through evidence. I should also point out that the majority of the world's christians, who believe in the bible, accept the fact that the bible is not a reliable source of historical fact. They call the bible stories "metaphors" or stories meant to illustrate a moral idea to get around the lack of historical accuracy...

> The oddest thing on this board that I've noted
> thus far, at least as someone investigating
> Mormonism, is that people on this board seem to
> follow LDS articles and things written by the LDS
> church FAR more than any group I've ever seen (and
> that includes the missionaries and other Mormons
> I've met).
>
> You guys listen far more to your LDS leaders than
> the LDS do!

Pointing out the dishonesty of the statements made by LDS leaders is part of the reason this site exists. Where would you expect people to get the statements of LDS leaders to fact-check, hmm?

And it probably is fair to say that LDS statements are followed here more closely than by many LDS church members. That's largely because many LDS church members don't know much of anything about their own church, and they don't want to. They prefer to remain ignorant, that way they don't have to face up to the problem of their church's statements being shown false, and they can avoid any conflict.

> At least that's what it seems like. I find it
> very bizarre as I'd think those wanting out of the
> LDS church would do the exact opposite.

I don't "want out," I am out. However, the church still has its culty hooks in people I care about. That's why I still follow the church's actions, trying to help them get out.

> ..if anything, you learn that
> you never get the full story or information from
> one source. You need multiple sources to make
> informed decisions and to actually have a better
> picture.

That's usually true. So don't take the church's "official" versions of stories/history as the "full story." They're not. There are hundreds of other sources, including many who are still mormons, who show very good evidence that contradicts the church's "official" statements.

Finally, please don't confuse people who care about facts and being honest with being "anti" anything. I'm not "anti-mormon." I'm pro facts and honesty. When the mormon church is shown to be dishonest in their statements, I feel it important to show evidence that they're being dishonest. When any other church does the same, it's the same way.

There is absolutely no hard evidence linking the Native American Indians to Jewish ancestry pre-Columbia.

What is known is that they are descended from Mongolians by their mitochondrial DNA.

There are ancient strains of some Jewish wanderers who took up residence in China, and eventually some intermarried among the local population. But their DNA has not been found in the tribes of native American Indians.

That is established science.

It's the Mormon religion that has perpetrated this myth of the ancient American Indians being born of Jewish blood. That is why there's any controversy at all. It gets back to the FALSE TEACHINGS OF A VERY FALSE PROPHET AND WITNESS KNOWN AS JOSEPH SMITH. HE CAME AS A RAVENOUS WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING TO DECEIVE THE VERY ELECT, AND THAT HAS BEEN THE SUCCESS OF MORMONISM - IT WAS FOUNDED ON HIS LIES AND DECEPTION.

If you aren't angry at being duped, then you were never a Mormon to begin with. It's all a concocted, fabricated folktale invented by a charlatan who was busily having sex with under age women not his wife, and plundering their worldly wealth to line his own pockets.

And other men's wives. Basically deceiving anyone in his circumference of power that he was able to, and the gig worked until it didn't when he was killed by an angry mob demanding vigilante justice of the Old West kind. His power had gone to his head, literally. Not a prophet milady. But a very sad, twisted FALSE prophet who led many astray by his tall tales and story telling. (Note to add: Nor was he an Abe Lincoln. Joseph Smith lived and died by the lies he told.)

Now ask yourself: Is it hateful to point out the obvious deception when a con artist has fleeced your loved ones for generations, and destroyed families in the process?

That isn't hate, that is done out of love.

Betty G, we're here at RfM because of one guy: Joseph Smith. He managed to hoodwink enough enough people into believing a totally made up religious sect over which he was positioning himself to become some kind of king. Lots of kooks have started religions because...well, why not?

Perhaps "hate" seems to bubble up to the surface from some posters here--you can go to ex-Scientologist, ex-JW, ex-Catholic, ex-Mulim, and I'm sure ex-Baptist sites that have as much or more vitriol aimed at them.

Have there been any other examples of "reformed Egyptian" found anywhere? For a written language to function as a means of communication, a critical mass of people have to share it. Otherwise, the writing has to be considered a code that is only used among a limited number of people who have the key. Smith would have been better off had he said the text was in code. But in trying to validate his scheme and appeal to then popular interest in Egypt, he described the script as one in wide-spread use in ancient Israel. This is why the plotters' mark hoped that Anthony would be able to translate the text.

There is strong supporting evidence for the common and broad use of written Hebrew in the Israel of 600 BC, and reflects a high-level of literacy.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/

The Book of Mormon is a fraud, plain and simple. Those who use their powers of persuasion to defend it are hucksters, no matter how many initials follow their names.

Which reformed Egyption are you talking about. The Mormon definition everyone but me is talking about in this thread, or the REAL reformed Egyptian.

Language Reform is actually a process. In many instances it is a deliberate reform of a language. In which case, the direct instances would deal with Hieratic (as I posted above) or the changes to using Demotic, which actually fits everything in regards to a reformed language. However, when talking about Reformed Egyptian, or reformed anything, it's not actually a language so much as a process. Hence a reformation of that language.

If one is trying to use this Mormon/LDS definition (which you guys hijacked, which I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, to many accusations against me), no one even knows what you guys are talking about except for Mormons. They've even hijacked nice little sites and filled it with weird junk on this (as someone nicely pointed out with the Wikipedia page).

However, if using the world's understanding of what a reformation or reformed language is, yes, there are examples, and not just Egyptian. Several languages (inclusive of English) have had a reformed language or a reformation of that language.

However, and I pointed this out as well, that process which I'm talking about has nothing to do with the LDS church or LDS scripture.

There are LDS scholars that probably work on this sort of stuff, but I don't actually know what they say about it or what they use to back up the idea of a "reformed" Egyptian. The biggest question, if LDS wish to identify a language specifically as reformed Egyptian, is which point of the reformed Egyptian are they talking about.

I don't really know the LDS explanations on what reformed Egyptian is, though it seems many on this thread seem to have some idea and are talking about that rather than what my understanding of a reformed Egyptian would be like.

Maybe I should look up the LDS explanations, but really have no idea where to start on that. The Wikipedia article someone utilized seems to explain something, but I am not aware of anything in history specifically that points out anything called a specific Reformed Egyptian Language. However, there has been reformed Egyptian as a process.

It's like talking about the reformation of Christianity (also known in history simply as the reformation at times). You could say something like a reformed Christian, but most would have NO IDEA what you mean by that.

On the otherhand, you talk about the processes that happened during the reformation, they may understand you better. For example, you may discuss indulgences and how that was one of the key points in starting the thought processes that ignited the reformation.

Or you could discuss the Anabaptists and how they were connected to various portions of the reformation.

But talking about a reformed church as a singular and simple vehicle is going to get weird looks.

Someone suggested that my discussion of Hieratic above was what something Mormon scholars referred to (again, this is based on some crazy accusations people were leveling against me above) as Reformed Egyptian...which is an interesting thought. There could be multiple problems with that idea. It could be that some Mormon scholars refer to Demotic as a specific Reformed Egyptian.

The thing to keep in mind though, is when you take this stance, rather than seeing the process of language being changed and rules evolving, you are instead trying to define a specific moment in time to identify an entire language. If Mormons have something in that light, it's probably not identified as such by the rest of the world. It may be that it is called something completely different by scholars than the Mormon terms. What that is, however, I have NO IDEA.

I thought it best to break this into two parts, one answering the question, the other hypothesizing the world situation at the time.

At the time, there were two world Powers, with Assyria falling into disrepair. There was Babylon and there was Egypt. Israel was caught in between them.

Much of the story of Josiah, from that time, is found in the Bible rather than any historical or archaeological evidence.

Josiah chose to side with Babylon against Egypt. Egypt came on him at Megiddo and I believe he was defeated at that time. The Egyptian ruler than replaced him with his brother and placed a levy on the nation.

I don't think this necessarily changed the language they were using (I was under the impression they were still using Hebrew at the time, and later during the time of Macabees several hundred years later, Greek at some points, but still also Hebrew).

It could be (this is really guessing on my part in regards to what people have stated above) that some Mormons think that Hieratic or Demotic was used in regards to a more shortened form of the language for the Book of Mormon, in order to save space, which would mean that Lehi or Nephi or whoever was writing would have to have some sort of pretty in depth knowledge with the Egyptians, possibly through trade or something).

Just like Josiah is mostly known to Christians from the Bible, however, I don't think ANY mention of anything like this is found outside the Book of Mormon or anything to do with Mormonism. In that light, whether or not Mormons believe it or not, their particular take on reformed Egyptian is most likely (at least I have not heard of it, but I haven't gone looking specifically for this type of stuff) only a Mormon theology idea and not really found beyond Mormondom.

Every time I read about a scholarly analysis of Lehi and his life in Jerusalem or any other analysis of BOM topics, I think:
WHAT A COLLOSAL WASTE OF TIME!!!!

Think of all of the human productivity that has been thrown away trying to figure out the BOM civilization.

Think of all of the time and dollars wasted by TSCC doing temple work for the dead: the time, the buildings, the whatever.

I wonder what could have been accomplished as our society if we just focused on reality.