Talk:Reformed Egyptian/Archive 1

message: LDS scholars are a group of mormon scholars - i don't find very hard to believe that they recognize Reformed Egyptian. I think some neutral evidence is needed here. -- Muriel Gottrop 14:37 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
reformed Egyptian (not Reformed Egyptian) is what the Book of Mormon calls what it was written in.  The Book of Mormon doesn't say there is such a language as Reformed Egyptian.  Mormons don't say there is such a language as Reformed Egyptian.  If you want to coin a better term for the Book of Mormon alleged source language, you are free to try.  But I think the term that has stuck is Reformed Egyptian, and its sole meaning is "the language of the Gold Plates that are alleged to have been the source for the Book of Mormon." Tom 05:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No such language as Reformed Egyptian

message: I am disputing the factual accuracy of saying there is no evidence for the existence of Reformed Egyptian.  But your concern needs to be addressed.  Please see talk page. Tom 05:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: but it is factually accurate. - Nauvoo 00:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: OK. - Nauvoo 00:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy of "no evidence" disputed

message: It unfortunately looks to me like somebody is trying to set up a straw man so he can argue against the Book of Mormon.  Let's please not go there.  If we must, let's say it in the first sentence.  "Book of Mormon students and critics agree that 'reformed Egyptian' is not a language outside of Book of Mormon studies.  It is solely the commonly used name, based on self-designation by the Book of Mormon, for the way the Book of Mormon claims to have uniquely altered some form of Egyptian for special use as a writing system.  "  Tom 06:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this language, I think it's very NPOV. At best, Nauvoo could add his line to the reformed Egyptian studies section, and even then it should be revised to clarify no non-Mormons study it because "there's almost no acrheological...ect, ect". The line at the top should preclude the need for that line in the opening block. CHL 00:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I reject your accusation of having set up a straw man. The statement that there is no Reformed Egyptian outside the Book of Mormon implies that there is Reformed Egyptian inside the Book of Mormon, and there's no "agreement" on that!. I think it's important to have a clear statement that there is nearly no non-Mormon scientific, archeological, or linguistic support for the existence of Reformed Egyptian. And "nearly" is a concession...it could just as well be "no". - Nauvoo 00:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It does imply that. CHL 01:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: But why do you think it is important to say that?  There is no evidence anywhere, nor any assertion anywhere that there ever was such a thing.  The man is straw. Tom 03:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformed Egyptian is not a language. Presumably the nearest known linguistic relative to this reformed Egyptian writing would be some type of Egyptian writing. But Reformed Egyptian is 'not' claimed to be a language. To quote the Book of Mormon, "the characters that are called among us the reformed [not Reformed] Egyptian." (emphasis added)  If the article is not clear on this point, it should be revised.  Tom 02:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "No evidence" langauge a straw man?

message: I removed this sentence because it seems trivial. "Non-Mormon scholars don't study reformed Egyptian because there is nearly no non-Mormon scientific, archeological, or linguistic support for the existence of it."  If there is real substance that needs to be added, we need to find a way to do it.  But the sentence I removed has the following problems:
# The only scholars who study the Book of Mormon writing are those interested in the Book of Mormon.  All the rest of the world (not "Non-Mormon scholars") doesn't study the Book of Mormon writing.  There is no such language outside of Book of Mormon Studies because it is by definition "the writing system of the Book of Mormon".
# The first reason only Book of Mormon researchers (not "Mormons", though mostly Mormons) study Book of Mormon writing system is only they are interested.
# Those who "don't study Reformed Egyptian" probably don't have a very qualified judgement on whether there is evidence for it.
Again, if there is a real problem with this article that needs to be addressed, let's do it in a quality way.  I'll keep giving more possible openings below:
# In Book of Mormon studies, 'Reformed Egyptian' is the common name for the alleged writing system used by the Book of Mormon prophets descended from Lehi.  The Book of Mormon itself doesn't refer to Reformed Egyptian as a language, only saying that it is written using "the characters that are called among us the reformed Egyptian," and no so-named language is known elsewhere.  Ancient Egyptian demotic script is believe by Book of Mormon researchers to be the closest known language to reformed Egyptian.
I think that in Wikipedia NPOV fashion, saying "In nixit, foo is bar," is the polite way to say "Of course the rest of the sane world knows better."  We don't go around in the many specialized articles on biology saying, "Of course, in reality, man is a child of God, and the earth was made for eternal purposes."  Tom 03:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I share this concern. However, forcing one to read through the entire article before concluding, "yep, there's no non-Mormon evidence of it" is untenable. Reformed Egyptian studies are uniquely Mormon; this is a very important characteristic. The way your opening paragraph seemed to "concede" that non-Mormon researchers agree that there's no such language only serves to imply they do agree with the subsequent interpretation (namely, that it's a BoM writing system). As we have no disagreements about who does and does not believe in reformed Egyptian, what's the disservice of stating it? CHL 06:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't care about whether reformed Egyptian is faith-based and unfalsifiable or not: I care that the article gives an accurate treatment of it. Whether it's a "good theory" or not, it must be said that it's a strictly Mormon one. Without this notice, speaking of textual evidence in the article fails to disclose the scholarship's framework--its POV--thus biasing the article. CHL 06:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nearly no evidence" claim unfair, trivial

message: Blair Bryant is not LDS.   Sorry. Tom 03:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask about that. Thanks. CHL 05:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Blair Bryant

message: I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that my stylistic changes from the Book of Mormon to The Book of Mormon were lost inadvertently, and I put them back.  I don't even know for a fact that I am following appropriate style.  It is my gut understanding that the name of the book is The Book of Mormon.  What usage are we trying to stick to.  Where's Visorstuff when you need him? Tom - Talk 16:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a discussion on this topic on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Mormonism) page. COGDEN 17:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
I've made some additional edits, primarily reducing the amount of "special pleadng" the article includes. Changing the name of the page doesn't, to my mind, solve the problem, - the assertion that such a thing as reformed Egyptian existed is a religious claim about the real world, and as such is subject to proof or disproof -- and will only make it more difficult to find/link to. - Nauvoo 05:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is no reason to change the name of the page. Whatever an NPOV description of the subject may look like, I know of no other subject that is called "Reformed Egyptian", so disambiguating with "Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism)" is unnecessary. --Michael Snow 18:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" Book of Mormon