Is this true, the name Nauvoo?

[_ZelphtheGreat]

"We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon; which means, literally, more good." Joseph Smith Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, Illinois, vol. 4 (1843), p. 194

So Joseph was correct in what he said above?

Is his Alphabet and Grammar of Egyptian correct? If so, who uses it or has used it in translating Egyptian writings?

Won't even get into the Kinderhook plates.

[_Fence Sitter]

Not so much complaints as questions.

What documents exist today that are known to be the source material or copies of the source material from which Joseph Smith translated or attempted translations? It might be easier if we at least started from a common point(s).

Bump for Robert.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I think the name Shady Rest was coined from the ancient Provonian, meaning "a place without berserk moderation". As trailer courts and discussion boards go, that was a prophetic naming.

Lol. That's sacreligious.

Pffft!

I am the prophet of which the winged one speaks of.

Many, many new moons ago, t'was I who pronounced the name Shady Acres Trailer Court®.

He speaks with forked beak as I never dwelled within the township of Provo.

[_Robert F Smith]

Not so much complaints as questions.

What documents exist today that are known to be the source material or copies of the source material from which Joseph Smith translated or attempted translations? It might be easier if we at least started from a common point(s).

Excellent questions. Sorry I didn't get back here quickly.
Perhaps you have in mind the Books of Mormon and Abraham. For the former we have only the so-called "Anthon Transcript," and for the latter we have three facsimiles and associated papyri.
I tested the Book of Abraham back in 1975 by preparing a formal study on facsimile 2 and sending it out to the anti-Mormons. The silence was deafening. I have more recently placed online a very short look at the Book of Abraham -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham.

However, even in the absence of original plates or papyri, one can do an internal analysis of any text to determine whether it has authenticity. Historians and text critics use those means all the time to make such judgments.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Not so much complaints as questions.

What documents exist today that are known to be the source material or copies of the source material from which Joseph Smith translated or attempted translations? It might be easier if we at least started from a common point(s).

Excellent questions. Sorry I didn't get back here quickly.
Perhaps you have in mind the Books of Mormon and Abraham. For the former we have only the so-called "Anthon Transcript," and for the latter we have three facsimiles and associated papyri.
I tested the Book of Abraham back in 1975 by preparing a formal study on facsimile 2 and sending it out to the anti-Mormons. The silence was deafening. I have more recently placed online a very short look at the Book of Abraham -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham.

However, even in the absence of original plates or papyri, one can do an internal analysis of any text to determine whether it has authenticity. Historians and text critics use those means all the time to make such judgments.

The LDS church has the facsimilies as well as Josephs Egyptian Grammar book. From what I read there are no Egyptologists that agree with what he 'translated'. His 'translations' are Cold Fusion in a religion.

[_Fence Sitter]

Excellent questions. Sorry I didn't get back here quickly.
Perhaps you have in mind the Books of Mormon and Abraham. For the former we have only the so-called "Anthon Transcript," and for the latter we have three facsimiles and associated papyri.
I tested the Book of Abraham back in 1975 by preparing a formal study on facsimile 2 and sending it out to the anti-Mormons. The silence was deafening. I have more recently placed online a very short look at the Book of Abraham -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham.

However, even in the absence of original plates or papyri, one can do an internal analysis of any text to determine whether it has authenticity. Historians and text critics use those means all the time to make such judgments.

Thanks Robert.

What I have in mind are those circumstances where it actually possible to verify how well he translated text or characters from another language into English.

Besides Facsimile#2 what is your opinion of how well Joseph Smith translated other documents such as the other two facsimiles, those portions of the KEP where we find both Egyptian characters and their English translations alongside each other, the Kinderhook plates, and the Greek Psalter shown to him by Henry Caswell? It seems clear from these other examples that he did not fare well in identifying and translating a variety of different languages.

[_Robert F Smith]

Not so much complaints as questions.

What documents exist today that are known to be the source material or copies of the source material from which Joseph Smith translated or attempted translations? It might be easier if we at least started from a common point(s).

Excellent questions. Sorry I didn't get back here quickly.
Perhaps you have in mind the Books of Mormon and Abraham. For the former we have only the so-called "Anthon Transcript," and for the latter we have three facsimiles and associated papyri.
I tested the Book of Abraham back in 1975 by preparing a formal study on facsimile 2 and sending it out to the anti-Mormons. The silence was deafening. I have more recently placed online a very short look at the Book of Abraham -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham.

However, even in the absence of original plates or papyri, one can do an internal analysis of any text to determine whether it has authenticity. Historians and text critics use those means all the time to make such judgments.

The LDS church has the facsimilies as well as Josephs Egyptian Grammar book. [b]From what I read there are no Egyptologists that agree with what he 'translated'.] His 'translations' are Cold Fusion in a religion.

Hi Zelph,
Your statement that "there are no Egyptologists that agree with what" Joseph Smith rendered for the facsimiles is false. You need to read more widely before passing judgment. As Mormon Egyptologist Val Sederholm (PhD UCLA) said on his blog, April 7, 2012, "I note of late a faddish scepticism over the Book of Abraham. I meet such intellectual posing, such prompt dismissal with wonder." There are several other qualified Egyptologists in Utah, and none of them shares the anti-Mormon view. Indeed they back up their claim of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham with detailed, specific publication and discussion.

[_Robert F Smith]

Excellent questions. Sorry I didn't get back here quickly.
Perhaps you have in mind the Books of Mormon and Abraham. For the former we have only the so-called "Anthon Transcript," and for the latter we have three facsimiles and associated papyri.
I tested the Book of Abraham back in 1975 by preparing a formal study on facsimile 2 and sending it out to the anti-Mormons. The silence was deafening. I have more recently placed online a very short look at the Book of Abraham -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham.

However, even in the absence of original plates or papyri, one can do an internal analysis of any text to determine whether it has authenticity. Historians and text critics use those means all the time to make such judgments.

Thanks Robert.

What I have in mind are those circumstances where it actually possible to verify how well he translated text or characters from another language into English.

Besides Facsimile#2 what is your opinion of how well Joseph Smith translated other documents such as the other two facsimiles, those portions of the KEP where we find both Egyptian characters and their English translations alongside each other, the Kinderhook plates, and the Greek Psalter shown to him by Henry Caswell? It seems clear from these other examples that he did not fare well in identifying and translating a variety of different languages.

The Caswall Psalter and Kinderhook Plates have long since been shown to be bogus issues. For example, Joseph had studied Greek long before Caswall showed up. Why should we believe the word of an anti-Mormon wthout corroboration? Especially one who (like Prof. Anthon) changed his story? In court they call it "hearsay," and it is inadmissable. See http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The_Greek_Psalter_Translation.
Same for the Kinderhook forgeries. joseph tried translating using the GAEL and couldn't get past the first character. He was as ignorant of secular means of translating as any other ordinary layman.
The official scriptural canon of the LDS Church, on the other hand, is fair game, and several Mormon scholars have taken a very close, detailed look. Hugh Nibley is one example of a detailed examination of the Book of Abraham. Another is Val Sederholm, who has been discussing the Book of Abraham for several years now (including Ritner's recent book) on his blog at [url]valsedereholm.blogspot.com[/url]. Val obtained his PhD under the great Prof. Antonio Loprieno. Val cites his sources and carries on a free-ranging discussion of all issues.
You might want to start with the Nibley & Sederholm examination of the Book of Abraham. At the end of the day, you will find that Joseph was on target quite often. How is that possible?

[Guest]

The Caswall Psalter and Kinderhook Plates have long since been shown to be bogus issues.

I don't think they are bogus issues. I think they are issues whose events are debated by both sides. Clearly both incidents happened, the question is exactly what happened.

For example, Joseph had studied Greek long before Caswall showed up. Why should we believe the word of an anti-Mormon wthout corroboration? Especially one who (like Prof. Anthon) changed his story? In court they call it "hearsay," and it is inadmissable.

Do we have contemporary accounts that contradict what Caswall said?
Why should we take the word of anyone (anti, pro or neutral) without corroboration?
When there are multiple accounts by an individual of the same event they often contradict each other. One does not throw out the first vision merely because there are a variety of different accounts.

I would agree that Caswell likely slanted the story to make Joseph Smith look as bad as possible. What makes his story credible to me is its similarity to several other events in which Joseph Smith was known to make lengthy spontaneous pronouncements of this type about places, plates, documents or graves which he encountered.

Same for the Kinderhook forgeries. joseph tried translating using the GAEL and couldn't get past the first character. He was as ignorant of secular means of translating as any other ordinary layman.

In the KEP Joseph Smith had already produced lengthy translations from just single characters. Whether his Kinderhook plates descriptions came from one character or from a cursory review does not matter. In the end he "translated" something from a set of plates which were forgeries. For over a hundred years the entire Church believed these plates to be authentic and accepted his translation.

The official scriptural canon of the LDS Church, on the other hand, is fair game, and several Mormon scholars have taken a very close, detailed look. Hugh Nibley is one example of a detailed examination of the Book of Abraham. Another is Val Sederholm, who has been discussing the Book of Abraham for several years now (including Ritner's recent book) on his blog at [url]valsedereholm.blogspot.com[/url]. Val obtained his PhD under the great Prof. Antonio Loprieno. Val cites his sources and carries on a free-ranging discussion of all issues.
You might want to start with the Nibley & Sederholm examination of the Book of Abraham.

Thank you for the blog reference, I look forward to reading it. I also want to spend more time examining your Fac#2 paper and perhaps will have some comments about that later.

At the end of the day, you will find that Joseph was on target quite often. How is that possible?

I think there are very plausible explanations on how that was possible. Chandler had been exhibiting the papyri for some time before he showed up in Kirtland and was quite interested in selling them. It would be in his interest to tell Joseph Smith as much as possible about the documents, information he would have picked up already from previous scholastic examinations, and then praise Joseph Smith for any interpretation he might make of those documents. Information Joseph Smith would later incorporate into his facsimiles descriptions.

Perhaps there are times Joseph Smith is on target but one has to wonder if the facsimiles are indicative of the accuracy of his translations, how accurate are his other translations, like the Book of Mormon? Does he just occasionally get it right there also?


I still would like to hear more from you regarding the KEP as well as the lengthy descriptions we have regarding the Book of Joseph, which could have only come from Joseph Smith. In both of those areas I think there is extensive material that show Joseph Smith did not know what he was translating.

Thanks Robert I am enjoying our discussion and the appreciate the time you take to respond.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

From what is being said I could give copies of the papyrus to an Egyptologist and his translation would be close to what Joseph Smith said it was?