Talk:Reformed Egyptian/Archive002

message: At that time the Egyptian heiroglyphics had only recently been deciphered. There was still a mystery at that time and so by stating it to be hieroglyphics it was a safe bet that any hoax would not likey be discovered. The Rosetta Stone is a stone with writing on it in two languages (Egyptian and Greek), using three scripts (hieroglyphic, demotic and Greek). Many people worked on deciphering hieroglyphs over several hundred years. After many years of studying the Rosetta Stone and other examples of ancient Egyptian writing, Jean-François Champollion deciphered hieroglyphs in 1822. The book of Mormon was published in 1830. However, the structure of the script was very difficult to work out. The Rosetta Stone is written in three scripts because when it was written, there were three scripts being used in Egypt. The first was hieroglyphic which was the script used for important or religious documents. The other two scripts which were based on the phoenecian alphabet(as was hebrew) were much more efficient only having 24 characters while hieroglyphics has hundreds. Why mormon, who abridged the original plates, chose a complex writing style with hundreds of characters over hebrew with only 24 makes no sense.
I appreciate your argument. Scholars have discussed the benefits of hieroglyphics over phonetic languages - (particularly in coveying double meaning, and their religious connotations). Your Understanding of the Rosetta Stone is overly simplistic and drawn out in a historical timeline. The deciperization process was relatively quick once it was actually begun. Second, there were dozens of languages used in Egypt at the time - heiratic and other coptic scripts - not just three scripts. Smith would have been familiar with the Rosetta deciperization if he was familiar with the island Comoros, or other things he was accused of lifting from other sources. If he had access to a library,  for plagerization, he had access to the best research on Rosetta developments. In fact, his family regularly purchased a newspaper, and therefore would have been familiar with the discover, and to choose "reformed" egyptian would have been "religious" suicide as he would have undoubtedly been aware that egyptian characters were then beign decipered. At best, he may have hoped that it would have exhanerated him as an expert in egyptian, thus proving him a prophet. When he got to the Book of Abraham, and looked at the characters, he did not have the "interpretations" of champillion, etc. so for him to undertake such a work as the "grammar" would have been even more problematic and was done in a silo - as the brethren could have been trying to show that Smith could come up with the same interpreations that were done in Europe (by "studying it out" revelation). Some things are quite divergent, others are not so far off.  You have over-simplified a complex issue and not considered all of the consequences of your statement, one of which I have begun to expand here. Good thought process, but missed major points. Think deeper with the obvious consequenses and of course, happy editing. Hope you do become a wikipedian and contribute your thoughts and knowledge. -Visorstuff 18:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Why Joseph Chose Egyptian Heiroglyphics"

message: Agree with comments repeated more than once below regarding terms like "alleged". Edits that use terms like "alleged" or "purported" appear syptomatic of a failure to distinguish between "objective" articles and "NPOV" articles. Words like "alleged" or "purported" should rarely if ever need to be used to convey a NPOV wikipedia article. Any "outside of Mormonism"/"just part of Mormonism" language needs to go too. —B|Talk 16:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solutions in general

message: * In Mormonism, it is believed that some pre-Columbian Americans used specially reformed Egyptian characters to write on gold plates in what became  The Book of Mormon (a sacred text of Mormonism). The Book of Mormon says these people were a line of prophets originating in 600 B.C. Jerusalem. (The term comes from Mormon chapter 9 verse 32. )
* It is debated whether there is enough evidence available to seriously study the alleged original Book of Mormon language -- only two purported examples of the reformed Egyptian characters have surfaced, and one is generally believe to be a forgery. Most archaeologists and linguists do not regard The Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document, and few have shown interest in studying its language.  Within Mormon studies, some individuals have undertaken detailed scientific research of the available sources and the results have varied from simple decipherable translation samples to statements that there is a lack of linguistic support for the writing system.  Most Mormons believe in the historicity of reformed Egyptian as a matter of faith in The Book of Mormon.
Tom - Talk 20:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution 4

message: I dislike alledged. The connotation is not helpful for either side of the argument for reasons i will not go into here. How about this:
* Latter Day Saints believe that some pre-Columbian Americans used a written language called reformed Egyptian to write on gold plates in what became The Book of Mormon (a sacred text of Mormonism). The Book of Mormon states these people were a line of prophets originating in 600 B.C. Jerusalem. (The term comes from Mormon chapter 9 verse 32. )
* There is little material available for those who study reformed Egyptian - only two purported examples of the reformed Egyptian characters have surfaced, and one is generally believe to be a forgery. Few linguists have shown interest in studying the available samples of the The Book of Mormon language, however, within Mormon studies, some individuals have undertaken detailed scientific research of the available sources and the results have varied from simple decipherable translation samples to statements that there is a lack of linguistic support for the writing system.  Most Mormons believe in the historicity of reformed Egyptian as a matter of faith.
-Visorstuff 20:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Visorstuff's first solution (Proposed solution 1)? I actually liked it better (apart from the ambiguity caused because reformed Egyptian is not a language). In particular, I like the line "the authenticity of reformed Egyptian cannot be established though conventional emperical methods," although I think the word "conventional" might be unneeded. Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to Nauvoo's suggestion above, this issue is in part an issue about the "ability to study" reformed egyptian. Everything is subject to scientific inquiry, IMO (I don't accept the false dichotomy that matters of faith and science are mutually exclusive), but there are objects of science which can only be studied in theory, but not practically.   However, such an object is not "unscientific" or "unempirical" just because it cannot be studied in practice; whether an object can only be studied in theory is more of a reflection of both the current state of science and discoveries made so far. For these reasons I don't like the line: "authenticity of reformed Egyptian cannot be established though conventional empirical methods". Reformed egyptian can be established though conventional empirical methods, but that inquiry is limited due to the current state of science and discoveries made so far. If a record with reformed egyptian was discovered in an ancient american ruin or if the golden plates were presented to scientists to study, obviously, very conventional empirical methods could be employed to study the records. —B|Talk 16:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on evidence, but I think this wording gets closer to the tone Nauvoo seems to want. Maybe the wording can be salvaged to "Because of the lack of primary samples, the authenticity of reformed Egyptian cannot currently be established..." I'd like to know if there's more to his objection than a narrow understanding of evidence. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it is important for an encyclopedia to distinguish between fictional languages (klingon, elvish, etc) and actual languages (French, Spanish, etc.), and would add that The Book of Mormon does not maintain that "reformed Egyptian" is fictional! The statement that it is an actual writing system would be verified by, for example, actual manuscripts written with it, and the absence of such manuscripts suggests that it was not an actual writing system. All I'm looking for is a clear, unequivocal statement of the facts. I'm not asking that the article say "there was no reformed Egyptian" I'm asking that is say there is no evidence not based on Mormon assertions that reformed Egyptian existed. One reason I don't enthusiastically endorse any of the 5 proposed solutions is they all emphasize the "availability" of the material - the crucial point is not that the material is "unavailable", it's that the material doesn't exist. - Nauvoo 01:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This "evidence" issue is in part a semantics issue.  Nauvoo, what you call "Mormon assertions" is evidence; direct eyewitness testimonies of people who have seen the Golden Plates and at least one extant sample of that language from which the BoM was translated is evidence.  Whether someone considers that evidence as credible, fraudulent or whatever is a separate issue. I reiterate: your suggestion that the article state "no evidence" is a POV in conflict with wiki policy. "Evidence", like "scientific", have broad meanings and wikipedians must be careful to state precisely without stating too much or too little. In this case, "no evidence", "unscientific" or some such goes too far, for example, because it excludes the possibility that the gold plates exist or that there is a other yet undiscovered records written in reformed egyptian. —B|Talk 15:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: No, Hawstom, it is not "just a Book of Mormon" thing. You have no idea whether reformed egyptian has been used in other contexts.  Just because its use in one context is recognized in some subset of society in the history of the universe does not mean it has not been used in other contexts. Your oversimplification is dead wrong, your centrism is misguided, and your comments put words (the wrong words) in Nauvoo's mouth. Nauvoo can speak for himself. —B|Talk 15:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't know what centrism means.  Anyway, I'll explain better what I meant here shortly.  Meanwhile, it would be kind of nice if we could assume good faith and remember [[civility] and Wikiquette when addressing each other. Tom - Talk 05:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution 5

message: * First para is fine above
* Joseph Smith purportedly translated the Book of Mormon from reformed Egyptian characters on gold plates between 1827 and 1829, then returned the gold plates to an angel.  Smith was said to have copied characters from the plates, but only two purported examples of the characters have surfaced, and one is generally believe to be a forgery. Few linguists have shown interest in studying the available samples of the The Book of Mormon language.  However, within Mormon studies, some individuals have undertaken detailed scientific research of the available sources and the results have varied from simple decipherable translation samples to statements that there is a lack of linguistic support for the writing system.  Most Mormons believe in the historicity of reformed Egyptian as a matter of faith.
Does this clarify what you were feeling was missing, Nauvoo? Tom - Talk 07:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this might be farther from what Nauvoo wants than even the 1st propsal by Visorstuff (which is still my favourite). Nauvoo said above that he doesn't like talk about "availability," and he seems to reject any wording that doesn't use the words "no evidence". Maybe it would be more productive if Nauvoo offers a counterproposal. Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution 6

message: * First para is fine above
* Joseph Smith said he (or Latter Day Saints believe their founder Joseph Smith) translated The Book of Mormon from reformed Egyptian characters on gold plates between 1827 and 1829, then returned the gold plates to an angel.  Smith gave supporter Martin Harris some characters he said he copied from the plates, which Harris showed for evaluation or validation in February 1828 to Professor Charles Anthon in New York.  These characters Smith said he copied are the only known example of Book of Mormon reformed Egyptian provided by Smith.  Two documents have surfaced purporting to contain the characters Smith provided; one, presented in the 1980s by convicted forger Mark Hofman, is generally believed to be a forgery.  Few linguists have shown interest in studying the available credible sample of the The Book of Mormon characters.  However, within Mormon studies, some individuals have undertaken detailed scientific research of the available characters, and the results have varied from simple decipherable translation samples to statements that there is a lack of linguistic support for the writing system.  Most Mormons believe in the historicity of reformed Egyptian as a matter of faith.
Okay, my only pause here was which is the latest version we are reviewing - please post it as version 8, and let's move forward. -Visorstuff 15:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nauvoo revised and overwrote 6 and renamed it porposal 7 which was odd because 7 already existed. I've added the original 6 (Tom's) back in from history, and have moved Nauvoo's proposal below. Cool Hand Luke 18:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution 7

message: Too many proposed solutions at once, I think, without delineating what they propose to solve. The points would seem to be:
*Does The Book of Mormon claim that it was written in reformed Egyptian?
*Is it possible to investigate the claim that such a writing system existed by seeking out physical evidence of inscriptions or manuscripts in reformed Egyptian?
*Have such investigations been made?
*Have they found evidence of any other such inscriptions or manuscripts?
*Other word forms and languages have been postulated by linguists in the absence of extant inscriptions on the basis of linguistic rules of language transmission and word change. Is the existence of reformed Egyptian inferrable in a similar manner?
:My answers would be yes, yes, yes, no, no.
:My answers would be no, no, yes, yes, ?.  These questions are open too wide to different readings.  Tom - Talk 19:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
::It's not possible to investigate, but those investigations have been made? - Nauvoo 05:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is better. I was much more hostile toward blanket denials of scientific and linguistic evidence. I think this statement is much more precise. I do still have reservations about it, but it's more acceptable. If both you and Tom could agree to a wording in this vein, I would be entirely supportive. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we to take lack of further input here as assent or loss of interest? - Nauvoo 05:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Very frustrating because I think it's the latter. I'd like to get this dispute behind the article, not have it pop up again after a month like last time. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whew *wipes brow*!  I just barely finished reading the WP:NPOV article again (!), which I promised I would do before returning to this article.  I am going to have to be careful about volunteering to read it in the near future.  It is still fresh and pertinent, but I haven't as much patience (*grins sheepishly*) after three or four reads.  I have not lost interest at all, and have thought about this article plenty.  And I agree it is important that we try to fix this before moving on. Anyway, I'm back. Tom - Talk 05:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution 8 (6 as revised by Nauvoo)

message: Do we all agree that the Book of Mormon itself could be interpreted to indicate that its style of Egyptian writing is unique to the plates the prophets wrote on--that their writing style is uniquely "a Book of Mormon thing"?
Agree
:I agree.  In fact, this is my point of view.  It would be very unlikely the Book of Mormon source language would ever be found anywhere but on the prophetic plates, even in America. Tom - Talk 19:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Disagree
:Nothing in The Book of Mormon states that its script was "unique": rather it is a script that is known to the Nephites, not unique to one manuscript. - Nauvoo 05:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The "unique" POV is merely Tom's speculation. —B|Talk 15:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Book of Mormon source language

message: Which dead sea scrolls were of metal? Grye 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Sea Scrolls 

message: What is the purpose of the section on metal books?  I think that it is actually more about the Golden Plates than the writing itself.  In this article, all that it does is suggest that Mormons have a tendency to be proven right despite scientific doubts.  I find that somewhat POV.  I think it is enough to say that some Mormons hope that evidence will be discovered; it doesn't need to say "Mormons 1 - Science 0".  I do however believe that it belongs in the Golden Plates article or perhaps an article about metal books more generally.  --JGGardiner 23:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon, most scholars considered the idea that ancient writing existed on metal plates, at all, preposterous, even though stories of gold, silver, copper and brass books existed in Masonic and Enoch legends. However, when more writing on metal plates was discovered, ranging from little-known works to well-known artifacts, such as the Copper Scroll which is a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection, to Sumerian and Cuniform texts on tin and brass pages, to gold Laminae funerary texts in Italy, the scholarly community had to admit it was wrong in that particular regard.
I agree with the point, I believe, however, the intent was from a earlier paragraph that said that R.E. was a writing method only for golden plates. The portion cut shows that religious books did exist on metal plates, and it duplicative to information at Archeaology and the Book of Mormon and Golden Plates. Perhaps there is another way to capture the intent? -Visorstuff 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metal Books

message: Wondering if anyone has done or read a study on Anthon's letter? I was a bit suprized at this description by Anthon of the document provided by Harris to him:
:This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics." 
A detailed look at his statement shows that he is confusing the charactors transcript with the hypocephalus. He met Michael chandler about the time this letter was published, and I would theorize that there is enough primary evidence from this and other statements he made (others more direct) that he seems to confuse the two documents. Interesting as Smith bought the mummies only a few months later. Small world, but his discription of the "crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways" and the "rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments" is definitly describing a hypocephalus - whether the BOA one or a differing one from another era. -Visorstuff 16:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charators document study

message: I have information that will entail various changes in this page. Would anyone like to help\comment on these? They involve Martin Harris taking two documents to Professor Anthon, not one. (I have a reference for this. Times and Seasons, vol 3. pp.772-773.) They also involve two other sources for reformed Egyptian. (I have sources for these as well. You can see them at: http://www.reformed-egyptian.com/Sources.htm)This would change "and a seven-line sample that may be the characters Joseph Smith and associates said were copied from the gold plates." to include these sources. This would also change "If the so-called Anthon transcript is the actual piece of paper that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon, it is safe to assume that the characters came from the text they were then translating (the 116 missing manuscript pages, which contained a record from the time of Lehi to the time of King Benjamin). Thus Ether should not be a logical source for the transcript's contents. [3]" because it would allow the possibility that the untranslated charactors could come from an\other part(s) of the Book of Mormon. I also like to talk about changing "It is unclear whether the Caractors document is the same as the one seen by Anthon. According to his account, the letters were definitely not "reformed Egyptian", and could in fact be identified as Greek, Hebrew, and Latin letters flipped around or turned on their sides.[1]" as it seems disingenuous. While it may be true that Professor Anthon said this. Writing it in the context of the article makes reformed Egyptian appear to be fake.
-rlittlec 16:59, 20 December 2006
:Hi rlittlec. Thanks for your note. Can you provide the Times and Seasons quote? I think we have to be somewhat careful with the changes as we are also dealing with Mark Hofmann forgeries when we deal with charactor documents. I think that Anthon's later comment (see my comments in the paragraph directly above) could be placed into context better, but should stay, as it gives a secondary viewpoint and balances the article from a completely LDS point of view (Mormons are often accused of censorship at Wikipedia for less than that). Other than those cautions, go for it. -Visorstuff 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Visorstuff, I added a heading called "A Second Anthon Transcript" along with an internal link to a new article I created by the same name with the quote in it. I'll try to add two other articles with the two other sources for reformed egyptian in the near future. Comments are welcome. -Rlittlec 11:32, 28 December 2006
Thanks for adding the quote - I actually think the new article is a likely AfD candidate - there is little context and at first glance there is not a "first anthon transcript" article. I personally appreciate the effort, but think it would be a better section within the current article. I'm pasting the text below in case of it becoming a speedy delete candidate:
Common belief suggests that there was only one document which Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon. However, a close examination of the statement of Martin Harris From "Times and Seasons", Volume III, Page 773 will illustrate that there were actually two transcripts which were shown to Prof. Anthon. Here is that quote:
"I went to the city of New York and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof to Professor Anthony, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments;-Professor Anthony stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldeac, Assyriac, and Arabac [Arabic] , and he said that they were true characters. He gave me a certificate certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct."
The first transcript was of characters which had been translated and was accompanied by a translation. This is probably the document which Professor John Geesuggests came from the 116 pages which were lost. The second transcript contained charactors which had not yet been translated.
*Some Notes on the Anthon Transcript by John Gee (Ph.D. in Egyptology, Yale University.  
*"Times and Seasons" quote
Categories: Book of Mormon studies | Religious language
Thanks for the initiative. I do think it needs more context - what the transcript is - IE when Smith wanted to share that he was translating the plates he gave Martin Harris....blah blah. needs the context. And then in historical context with the Hoffmann forgery - this was the specimin likely forged by Hoffmann, etc. Just my two cents. -Visorstuff 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Changes

message: I'm suspicious of the source because at EMD 5: 76, Whitmer is quoted as saying, "He did not use the plates in the translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light, and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment, on which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the top, and immediately below would appear the translation in English."--John Foxe 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, huh? That's why I put that the accounts vary. I provided the primary source as you requested. Remember, you were the one who first introduced the "David Whitmer Interviews" as a source, so you must have trusted the source then. What changed? It's not up to us to say which source is correct. Just because it disagrees with the source that supports your POV is not grounds for removal. If that were the case, I would be justified in removing the EMD quotes because I find them suspicious since they disagree with my sources. Unless you can show a NOR reason to mistrust the source, it should stay in. --FyzixFighter 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see what you're asking for, similar to how you've listed the EMD cites - I'll hunt down the full citation then. And yes, you were the one that included it first . --FyzixFighter 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, a cut-and-paste from another article with a little too much paste.--John Foxe 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, got the full citation in there. I suddenly realize that I need to go back and check if it is a direct quote from Whitmer or a paraphrase of his statement. Likewise we should check on that other Whitmer statement (the custodian angel) whether it's a quote or paraphrase. I think we should also replace Morse's comments with Emma's description as Morse makes no claim as to whether or not the plates were present whereas Emma places them on the table in a a linen tablecloth, and Emma's account preserves the peering into the hat process. This way all the main accounts (though I'm probably missing one at the moment) are accounted for: 1) plates covered on table, looking into hat 2) plates not present, looking into hat 3) plates present, U&T as spectacles looking at plates. We might also add in something about how Smith may have copied/claimed to have copied the engravings and used the copied characters during the dictation. Isaac Hale's comments seem to intimate that this may have been what happened (EMD 4:286), and I seem to remember reading a similar, more explicit description along these lines but I'll have to go back and check. --FyzixFighter 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, John, you removed the comment again, this time without saying why. Since I've provided the citation that you wanted, I'm at a loss to understand why you did this. --FyzixFighter 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking at the plates? 

message: The text of this note reads: 
:"Anthon's report of the transcript is that it 'consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but 'Egyptian Hieroglyphics.Charles Anthon to E. D. Howe, February 17, 1834, in EMD, 4: 380. If Anthon's memory is correct, this example could not have been the same as the "Caractors" document."
I'm very concerned about this statement/it's placement and its interpretation.  "this could not have been the same."  I think we're just scratching the surface with this issue, and we need to avoid original research, in the form of interpreting and making assumptions.  Of the top of my head, I know there are other interpretations to this situation.  One that I've heard from several sources is the idea that, because very little was known about Egyptian at the time (hadn't been cracked yet), Anthon might have been embarrassed afterwards for making statements beyond the scope of his knowledge, and wanted to avoid the ridicule of his academic peers for making such a statement as was allegedly written on the certificate.  Also, he didn't say that they were "Egyptian Hieroglyphics" according to the JS-H account any time, but rather that "... they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."  This doesn't seem to imply that they were hieroglyphs, but that he thought they were comparative to this language family (semitic and Egyptian).  Then it looks like he kind of oversteps the bounds of his expertise by claiming that "the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian."  His later statement, from a letter to E.D. Howe (some red flags should shoot up there) and compiled by good ole Vogel if I recall correctly, seems contrived to me, seems like he's trying to do "damage control" for something he didn't really say. This could be a useful part of the article, but it doesn't seem to support the point it is sourcing, and I'm not sure the source is completely credible. gdavies 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We really should put a synopsis of the two accounts of the Anthon visit side by side, or rather one after another. I do think John did I good job of paring the Anthon quote down to its essentials with regards to the reformed Egyptian. The same could be done with the LDS account. I have no objections to the content of the last sentence. It probably could be written to say simply that the "Caractors" document and Anthon description of the symbols do not match, thus not taking sides on whose account is true or if the "Caractors" document is authentic. --FyzixFighter 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's an interpretation, and not the only one.  A qualifier like "seems" or "might not be" etc. seems like  it might be in order (hehe). gdavies 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about the Anthon Trasncript 

message: I removed:
"While Latter Day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon originated from these plates, no scholar outside of the movement believes such a writing system existed as no instances of any type of Egyptian writing have ever been discovered in the archaeological record of the Western hemisphere. See this survey of archeology and Book of Mormon as well as a 1996 statement (since shortened but not retracted) regarding the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian Institution"
First, this conflates the existance of a "reformed Egyptian" (Hebrew in Egyptian writing, with some possible other linguistic modifications) with the New World archaeology issues. Certainly when taken as a whole, these issues are conflated. However, they are seperate concerns when taken academically. (Was Hebrew written in Egyptian and especially a modified Egytian? Is there evidence of of Egyptian or other Semitic writing or language in the New World?) There is ample evidence of Hebrew being written using Egyptian glyphs, but this removed sentance would imply otherwise. Also, there is some (often controversial) evidence of Semitic language in the New World, which this sentance would also imply does not exist. The sentance I replaced it with is less problematic, but still needs work to avoid such misconceptions. Thoughts? Vassyana 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I didn't know where to go with the sentence or else I would have edited myself.  Your edit, as you said, is still slightly problematic: "The existance and likelihood of a "reformed Egyptian" langugage or script is strongly contested." I don't think there is any serious contest regarding the existence of modified Egyptian, scripts... several of which I've named earlier.  Perhaps some sort of reference to the New world (though possibly just as problematic) or a general statement would be better.  Since this is an intro, and there isn't really room to discuss specific critical arguments, we could just state that "Critics of the LDS movement/the Book of Mormon/the Golden Plates/Joseph Smith Jr. (etc.) question the idea of "reformed Egyptian" in Mesoamerica for a variety of reasons."  I think this statement is easy to source, factual though NPOV, and provides for more in depth information later on and maintains the integrity of the point. gdavies 01:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually prefer Vassyana's sentence as it doesn't categorize who is on which side of the boundary yet. People are generally going to fall into several categories on this issue: LDS movement people who think RE is real, LDS movement people who don't (iirc, CoC believe the book is inspired but not necessarily historic), non-LDS who think it never exist, and non-LDS who have no opinion or don't care. There is one thing I would add: "...of a "reformed Egyptian" language or script as described in the Book of Mormon is strongly..." since most of the contestation is with regards to Book of Mormon RE.  --FyzixFighter 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is very necessary to categorize who is actually contesting this, as that distinction is inextricably connected with this argument.  This isn't an argument made by the Church of Christ, even if they don't see it as strictly historical (perhaps it isn't made in an effort to "refute" the Church of Christ), so it's okay to state that the idea is questioned by those critical of "x" (I'm not set on what "x" should be, perhaps "The Book of Mormon's claim that it was written in reformed Egyptian," unwieldy, I know, but that's the idea I'm trying to put across).  I like Vassyana's sentence as well, except that it's general to the point of being infactual: "The existance and likelihood of a "reformed Egyptian" langugage or script is strongly contested."  There actually is not scholarly debate on this point, it's certainly not "strongly contested."  The only people who criticize the existence of reformed Egyptian are those who misinterpret the Book of Mormon account (mistake "reformed," the adjective for "Reformed" the proper noun), context, history, implications, etc. and have no knowledge of Near Eastern languages (and several other groups).  Your proposed addition, "as described in the Book of Mormon" would provide useful context, but I think that would bring back the original problem that brought about Vassyanna's sentence in the first place, we're conflating two separate issues (reformed Egyptian and the historicity of the Book of Mormon). Of course, those who don't believe in the Book of Mormon aren't going to believe in just about anything "described in the Book of Mormon," and so the point is kind of blurred. What about putting "Those who dispute the historicity of the Book of Mormon" in place of Critics? Hopefully that's a good compromise? gdavies 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed last sentance from lede 

message: This was the first time I'd heard the theory that Lehi's group "brought" a form of Egyptian (such as demotic or hieratic) that was already "reformed," and so I began to supplement this with the far more common theory that the language evolved over the thousand years between when Nephi said he was taught "after the... language of the Egyptians" and when Mormon said he was writing in a "reformed Egyptian."  I found a citation for this theory, and then realized it was the same article cited to this sentence (which I edited a little before hiding): 
:"Other LDS scholars note that other languages evolved from Egyptian through the centuries and some have speculated that the term "reformed Egyptian" might refer to a form of Egyptian writing known as hieratic, a priestly shorthand for hieroglyphics thousands of years old by the first millennium B.C., or early demotic, a derivative of hieratic, perhaps used in northern Egypt fifty years before the time that the Book of Mormon prophet-patriarch Lehi is said to have left Jerusalem for the Americas.(ref)See William J. Hamblin, Egyptian(/ref) Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon states that no other people knew the language of Moroni's civilization, and demotic or hieratic were understood and used for centuries in Egypt."
This article absolutely does not suggest this theory (I skimmed it twice, it's a very short article)... perhaps it was misinterpreted for naming off a whole bunch of "reformed Egyptian" languages in an effort to demonstrate that this language evolution is commonplace.  This may very well be a theory held by some, but certainly not by Hamblin, we'll need another citation to include it... the theory doesn't make nearly as much sense as that suggested by the Book of Mormon account itself (evolved from regular Egyptian). gdavies 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed interpretation