How Joseph Smith Invented Reformed Egyptian - Dan Vogel 

Yes, good description. Instead of "Reformed Egyptian" it was "Deformed English."

Hahaha yeah I'd like to see that.

You can take it alongside Klingon ;)

You are an Ass hat!

😂

@@RoyalKnightVIII Klingon is actually a real language with it's own vocabulary, grammar and syntax. Joe the con wasn't educated enough to do anything but scribble out a few doodles.

That is a fact. There would not curves in an ancient writing system.

I think it is interesting that these symbols in the above video resemble quite a few items. Numbers, letters and doodles come to mind. Of course, a computer mouse is NOT likely for obvious reasons. By the same token, they didn't resemble Egyptian either, unless Smith got ahold of a book on the language and copied that part, too !!

I'm simply pointing out what it looks like to me to be factitious.

One time christ cursed a tree because it wasn't bearing fruit but he didn't know it wasn't the right season for it to bear fruit. Seems like some divine intelligence. mormons and christians are no different.

@@areafifty The Christians do have one advantage over the Mormons. The fairy stories they made up are situated in real places and real civilizations. The Mormon myth is about a people that never actually existed

@@areafifty , god made everything so I guess he knew about seasons, that’s part of understanding the meaning of this verse. Divine intelligence is never wrong because he is God. Christians follow Christ who is divine. Mormonism was made up by Joseph Smith. That’s what’s being shown here.

@@Cate7451 So are you saying that JC cursed a fig tree for not producing fruit out of season, even though he knew it wasn't the right season?

+Reverend Wilhelm One person sticks out in my mind as using almost always *henochparks* He spends his every waking hours on Mormon videos shouting in all caps. Example "YOUR A LIAR". (his spelling of you're).

+Reverend Wilhelm "Original sin" is b.s. invented by churches to control people, and get their money and obedience through fear of the afterlife. The concept of a tiny baby or a small child 2 yrs old guilty of sin is an absurdity. A lot of this crap is like the Garden of Eden--a fantasy created before Judaism to put women in a place where they must be guilty, responsible for some evil (since they possessed no societal power or rule, they could never be to blame for the poor decisions men made) so that men could point to them and say, "it's all your fault anyway"---which is exactly what they did so much in the first 1000+ yrs of the Catholic Church and after than, the Protestants like John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, to Pat Robertson and his ilk today. Trom Tertullian, St. Clement, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, to today's men who repeat the things that early church leaders wrote, women were "a temple built over a sewer," and likened to snakes, always defective and trying to do something underhanded, not to be trusted, needing the firm control and discipline of a father, then a husband, "as the church needs the leadership of Christ." Original sin is a hoax, to put mankind, esp females, in the role of supplicant, on their knees, begging forgiveness.

People in Mormonism and Scientology think anyone who criticizes their cults is evil and so fair game for attacks, and that justification to harm others is music to the ears of sociopaths.

>>"First, I'd like to point out that ALL religions fall in the category of "cults" including YOUR OWN CHURCH DENOMINATION." mxborg23, 1.Attempting to switch from a very narrow definition of the word “cult” to the broadest definition is deceptive because you know that people like myself who refer to Mormonism and Scientology as _cults_ are using the far more narrow definition. Mormonism and Scientology are cults as succinctly defined by Dr. Walter Martin in _The Kingdom of The Cults_ : “A religious group who adheres to major doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity. It deviates from the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.”

>>”Thirdly, since the above link confirms that anti Mormonism has always been the AGRESSOR, how can you anti Mormons play the "victim" by accusing the "Mormons" of being the "attackers"?” 3. See response #2 above.

Are you familiar with Jerry Grover?

I am not. But I looked up his name after you mentioned him. Book of Mormon Central?

You must not know the bible very well.

Especially since the Egyptians didn't use letters

And why would the Hebrews write in reformed Egyptian rather than in Hebrew?

You're exactly right. To refer a language--Egyptian or otherwise---as "reformed" is nothing but one of Joseph Smith's eccentricities.

It wasn't that it needed to be reformed. Changes in language happen naturally over time, especially when separated from where its use is common. Hieratic is an example of reformed Egyptian elsewhere in the old world, used by Hebrews. Hebrews sometimes used Egyptian to write because it was much easier to write in a condensed form using Egyptian versus Hebrew. So for engraving on plates, where space is limited, it makes perfect sense.

What's your evidence that Hebrews used Egyptian to write because it was more condensed versus the Hebrew language? Which scholar in ancient Egyptian languages and Hebrew made that claim?@@juliopenaloza5655

The Church is true though.

@gordon. 1000 likes

"This is a strange way for a language to behave... it points to.... contrivance!"

+Don Strevel Very well said ! This info only scratches the surface in regards to the myth of Smith...

The RLDS (now Community of Christ) procured the characters document from the Whitmer family, along with the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon in the late nineteenth century.

I used to use John Dee eldar futharch and a substitution cypher to pass notes in high school

I discuss Sibly in my video on the magic parchments.

@Kenzie K - Moroni defined "Reformed Egyptian" as using Egyptian characters to write Hebrew text. Book of Mormon critics have claimed that: "there is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian," "it has never existed and never will" "Israelites would never use the language of their slave masters," etc., etc. The BAR article shows that Israelites did write their text using Egyptian characters. It took the collaboration of a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists to discover that the Demotic script of the papyrus had actually been used to write an Aramaic text. No degree necessary. Just the ability to read.

@Kenzie K-- You are absolutely right. There is no "spoken language" called "reformed Egyptian." But then Moroni described a writing system, not a speaking system. He said that they used Egyptian script as a form of shorthand because Hebrew script took up too much space. Mormon 9:32-33 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. You are also right that the BAR article does not say anything about reformed Egyptian or the Book of Mormon. The BAR article is about a book written by Karel van der Toorn about the translation of Papyrus Amherst 63. (The book is available on eBay for only $216.39, with free shipping.) It shouldn't be a surprise that neither Egyptians nor Jews have a script called "reformed Egyptian," as it is a Nephite term and found only in the Book of Mormon. Nor will it be found in the Americas, because it wasn't shared outside the Nephite community. Why do I need to read Egyptian, Greek, or Hebrew? I'm not translating anything. P Amherst 63 has been translated by a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists. Their description of P Amherst 63 matches the description of "reformed Egyptian" given by Moroni, which is: Israelites using Egyptian characters to write Israelite text. Whether you accept that definition or not is not my concern. I get the feeling that no amount of evidence or proof will satisfy you. Do you read Egyptian, Greek, or Hebrew? What makes you an authority on what is "reformed Egyptian" and what isn't? The really big question is: How or why would Joseph Smith even think that Israelites would use Egyptian characters to write Israelite text?

@@Kenzie K- The BAR article is about Papyrus Amherst 63. It shows that Israelites used Egyptian characters to write Israelite text. I am only seeing 4 lines of our replies. Are we being censored?

@@Kenzie K -- Since you have read the BAR article, you should recognize the following excerpts from it. pg33 "The scribes used Demotic--a cursive Egyptian script--to write down a collection of traditional Aramaic texts. The handwriting dates the manuscript to the fourth century B.C.E." pg34 "Its script was clear enough, but the experts could not make heads or tails of its meaning. It took the collaboration of a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists to discover that the Demotic script of the papyrus had actually been used to write Aramaic!" pg34 "The unusual combination of the Demotic script with the Aramaic language is one of the reasons why P. Amherst 63 had long been inaccessible in a reliable scholarly edition. In fact, the decipherment of the text has taken more than 120 years. So how did three Israelite texts end up in an Aramaic compilation written in a script derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs?" pg68 "In the most plausible scenario, the Aramaic-speaking diaspora communities had brought the compilation with them at the time they migrated to southern Egypt, and their descendants, more than two centuries later, decided to produce a new copy of it. But why did they choose Demotic rather than the more obvious Aramaic writing system? Did the Egyptianized Arameans think Demotic had more prestige than Aramaic? Or had the Aramaic script become illegible to them? We might never know." Kenzie, you can yell, scream, pound your fists on the wall, stomp your feet, or hold your breath until you turn blue, but van der Toorn clearly says that Demotic script was used to write Aramaic text. If you disagree with van der Toorn, take it up with him. He is an accomplished scholar, and I accept his assessment of P. Amherst 63. If I were to translate the Bible from Greek to English, but if I used Greek script or characters to write in English text or grammar, then yes, I would call it "reformed Greek."

@Kenzie K -- I responded to one of your questions already. But I'm willing to repeat my answer. Repetition is good if it will help you understand. On 14 Nov I said, "You are also right that the BAR article does not say anything about reformed Egyptian or the Book of Mormon.... It shouldn't be a surprise that neither Egyptians nor Jews have a script called reformed Egyptian, as it is a Nephite term and found only in the Book of Mormon." Hieroglyphs, Hieratic, and Demotic are ancient Egyptian scripts. Hieratic developed as a cursive form of hieroglyphic about 3200-3000 B.C.E. Around 660 B.C.E., the even more-cursive Demotic script replaced Hieratic and was used for general writing. Hieratic continued to be used for religious texts and literature. Nowhere in the article does it say, "Aramaic was combined with Demotic script." There were no Aramaic words or characters anywhere in P. Amherst 63. It was all written using Demotic script, but the text or grammar was all Aramaic. It was not something "That is done with Spanish at the border all the time." Had there been one Aramaic word anywhere in the roll, the experts would have realized what they had and it wouldn't have taken 120 years to translate it. The fact still remains that Israelites used Egyptian script to write Israelite text.

Joseph Smith's doodle I don't know about that he knew Magic

Joseph Smyth haha

Joseph Warr See the first two videos titled: “Joseph Smith Makes a Sample of Characters. and "Book of Mormon Characters Examined"

The point is that the characters match almost anything you want. No one is unbiased. The fact that I used to be a believer shows I can rise above personal bias. What about you? If you were more objective you would have seen that your evidence is meaningless. The way you insinuate that my presentation is nothing but the result of bias (without discussing the video itself) is ad hominem.

@@danvogel6802 I simply pointed out that you pointed out your own bias, and no, the characters don't match almost anything you want. A surprising number of the characters are striking matches for the characters on ancient mesoamerican cylinder seals. If you can't refute this any other way than by saying "you can make them match anything", which isn't addressing the evidence itself, then you are rejecting new evidence in order to maintain your view, and as we know, thats called confirmation bias.

@@juliopenaloza5655 If you are talking about this old article www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF --- you have to be joking. The confirmation bias is yours. No one takes this article seriously. Jones was not a linguist and merely compared random shapes and therefore has no more legitimacy than comparisons to other languages such as English.

@@danvogel6802 I'm unable to open the link for some reason to see if it matches what I've looked at, however I've learned that in research, just because someone says something is supposedly "not taken seriously", that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Rather that persons bias is likely keeping them from taking it seriously, so you should check the confirmation bias within yourself. Though I'm not sure what article you have there, I've seen the characters side by side next to the cylinder seal characters, and many are exact matches. Having seen the characters side by side for myself and knowing the direct matches, no amount of fog or clouds you can attempt to cast over the situation to create doubt, would be sufficient to remove the existence of these matches. If you were honest in your presentation here, you would have examined the perspective that it could be true as well, and not only from the position that what you are researching is false. That itself is a red flag that perhaps its you and your efforts here that should not be taken seriously.

@@juliopenaloza5655 I had o trouble opening the link. When I said no one takes comparison with the cylinder seals seriously, I meant both believing and non-believing scholars. It is uncertain that the designs on the seals even represent a language. As I showed in the video, comparison of the BofM characters with any language can produce random results, especially with simple forms. There's no dishonesty on my part because the seals you reference are no longer used by apologists as far as I know.

Who told you that the elders at your fake church? The very people that you would believe knowing you would ask no questions. Why don’t you provide a source?? 🙄

I simple bumped into this video and watched it as I’m interested in linguistics. This is such a ridiculous claim to a language it is pathetic. Klingon and Tolkien’s languages are examples of man made languages that have solid linguistic characteristics etc. but this is ridiculous. Egyptian Hebrew? Any one who is conversant with Hebrew and biblical sources would tell you how ridiculous this claims are. Now there are religions which which I may fundamentally disagree but I can appreciate depth of thought, history and philosophy. As a Muslim I don’t accept Christianity at all, even though I see closeness in Judaism, and yet I can appreciate both as rich and profound traditions full of scholarship, but Mormonism I see as a joke

Even the apostles said to take or leave the accounts of jesus time on earth no prayer necessary they also say to scrutinize and evaluate their claims

The book of Moron is a long boring drag that was written and (many parts) plagiarized by a bored country bumpkin from New York. The only challenge the book itself presents is to stay awake long enough through 1st Nephi. I took the challenge and failed.

This video is only about the characters. What do you have to say about that?

@@danvogel6802 As you admitted. You are making "A lot of assumptions". Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith had any access or knowledge of the same facts that you do? Or indication that he would have the technical know how to coherently formulate actual language and characters. Do you have any evidence that he did all that and wrote the Book of Mormon in 80 days on his own, without actual source material?

@@markhunsaker7521 I didn’t say I’m making “a lot of assumptions.” I said I was assuming that JS invented the characters because the ancient hypothesis hasn’t been proven. I don’t need to show JS had access to the same information that I do because I showed how the characters could be invented without anything but imagination. The characters are not “actual language.” JS had six years to think about the book, but that is not relevant to the characters.

Awww.. did he shake your faith?

No doubt. Smith was a total con artist...

Whats sad is if these people really did exist , how reading and writing was so thoroughly absent in their culture , that we cannot find even 1 scrap of their writing anywhere in the world. What kind of people would the ones keeping the records have to be , that they would not share the knowledge of reading and writing? Wow ... just think about that ... It must of been a culture of sheeple zombies beyond anything we could fathom today ...no wonder all trace of them was wiped from the face of the earth.

mormons son Trusting the Heart and gaining a testimony. Moroni 10:4 And when ye receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere HEART, with real intent,having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith jr., The Book of Mormon. Jeremiah 17:9 The HEART is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Proverbs 28:26 He that trusteth in his own HEART is a FOOL; but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. The Old Testament By Jesus Christ through real prophets.

Wyoming Horseman Jeremiah 17:9 and Proverbs 28:26 is really if you put your trust in the flesh more than God, dont need to be a scholar to know the meaning of these passages, do you? Besides have you forgotten the 2 men on their way on the Emmaus road ? (New Testament | Luke 24:31 - 32) And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? YOU see if you trust your own knowledge and wisdom, those old testament passages apply, but NOT if you use the Spirit to guide you as Christ said in John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.....AND how does the conforter teach, you?...is by voice [ speaking ] or feelings [ impressions ] or enlightenment [ inspiration ]....these are the gifts of the spirit....SO HOW DOES THE spirit teach you? Christ spoke of the heart at most times, you [christians] NOW DENY what Christ taught as truth, to suit your own understanding?...wow dude, you must be feeling in the dark?

mormons son I enjoyed your scriptural references to recognizing Christ and his truth. The references to using wisdom for discernment are for recognising a false prophet and false teachings and aptly apply to JS, the Book of Mormon and LDS Inc. The ongoing evolution of Gods own nature in Mormon culture is a good example. _____ --The Doctrine of God (as Originally Offered in Official Mormon Teaching) Was That of a God Who Was a Single Personage of Spirit but Who Was Physically Manifested as Jesus with a Body "The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, revealed himself in Jesus Christ (see Abinadi’s sermon to King Noah in Mos. 13-14). "Two years later, the first issue of the Mormon Evening and Morning Star published a similar description of God in the “Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ,” the church’s first statement of faith and practice which, with some additions, became Doctrine and Covenants 20. The “Articles,” according to correspondence in the Star, was used with the Book of Mormon in proselytizing and indicated that “there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth and all things which are in them.” "The Messenger and Advocate, successor to the Star, published lectures 5 and 6 of the “Lectures on Faith” of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835), defining the “Father” as “the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life.” In a letter published in the Messenger and Advocate, Warren A. Cowdery argued that “we have proven to the satisfaction of every intelligent being, that there is a great first cause, prime mover, self-existent, independent and all wise being whom we call God . . . immutable in his purposes and unchangable in his nature.” " . . . [T]here is little evidence that early church doctrine specifically differentiated between Christ and God. Indeed, this distinction was probably considered unnecessary since the early discussion also seems to have supported trinitarian doctrine. "Joseph Smith’s 1832 account of his first vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. "The Book of Mormon declared that Mary “is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,” which was changed in 1837 to “mother of the Son of God.” Abinadi’s sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mos. 15:1-4) _____. --Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine Had No Three-Part Godhead "The “Lectures on Faith” differentiated between the Father and Son more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants, which included the lectures, the Messenger and Advocate commented that it trusted the volume would give “the churches abroad … a perfect understanding of the doctrine believed by this society.” The lectures declared that “there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things-by whom all things were created and made.” They are “the Father being a personage of spirit” and “the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image.” The “Articles and Covenants” called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost “one God” rather than “Godhead,” a term Mormons use today to separate themselves from trinitarians." _____ --In Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine, the Holy Ghost Was Not a Separate Member of the Godhead but, Rather, Represented the Mind of God "The doctrine of the Holy Ghost in these early sources is even more striking compared to our point of view today. The “Lectures on Faith” defined the Holy Ghost as the mind of the Father and the Son, a member of the Godhead but not a personage, who binds the Father and Son together (D&C, 1835 ed., 53-54). This view of the Holy Ghost likely reinforced trinitarian doctrine by explaining how personal beings like the Father and Son become one god through the noncorporeal presence of a shared mind." _____ --Significant Changes Were Made by Joseph Smith to Early Mormon Doctrines on the Nature of God--Which Included Giving God a Physical Body, Physically Separating God from Christ, Introducing the Doctrine of Plurality of Gods and Establishing the Doctrine of Eternal Progression from Humanhood to Godhood " . . . [B]etween 1842 and 1844, Joseph Smith spoke on and published radical Christian doctrines such as the plurality of gods, the tangibility of God’s body, the distinct separation of God and Christ, the potential of man to become and function as a god, . . . and the materiality of everything, including spirit. These ideas were perhaps most clearly stated in the King Follett discourse of April 1844. "It seems clear that certain ideas which developed between 1832 and 1844 were internalized after 1835 and accepted by the Latter-day Saints. This was particularly true of the material anthropomorphism of God and Jesus Christ, advanced perfectionism as elaborated in the doctrine of eternal progression, and the potential godhood of humanity." _____ --Following the Death of Joseph Smith, More Changes Were Made in Official Mormon Church Doctrines on God, with Adam Taking Over as God "Between 1845 and 1890, . . . certain doctrines were proposed which were later rejected or modified. ". . . Brigham Young preached that Adam was not only the first man but also the god of this world. Acceptance of the King Follett doctrine would have granted the possibility of Adam being a god, but the idea that he was the god of this world conflicted with the later Jehovah-Christ doctrine. . . . "The newer and older doctrines . . . coexisted, and all competed with novel positions spelled out by various church leaders. "The “Lectures on Faith” continued to appear as part of the Doctrine and Covenants in a section entitled “Doctrine and Covenants”-distinguished from the “Covenants and Commandments,” which constitute the current LDS Doctrine and Covenants. "The Pearl of Great Price containing the “Book of Abraham” was published in England in 1851 as a missionary tract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880.

Wyoming Horseman Yeah read your post, and I do not disagree with any of it Point 1] and onwards as follows 1] False Prophet?...ohh okay...as usual I keep asking where was he a false prophet and what false prophecy did he make and will refute it even by our scriptures...silence from accusers when challenged, care to try? And care to admit fault when presented with it? YOU misunderstand about Gods continuing evolution...once your perfected your perfected, there is NO more to learn, but this is NOT what the church has been saying, what it has been saying, is the "kingdoms" God creates [continues] is an expanding one forever 2] Doesnt the "bible" teach this in Genesis and Isaiah 9 and John 1 ? (Mosiah. 15:1-4) 3] Two years later, the first issue of the Mormon Evening and Morning Star....... Well IF YOU can define his years, then I have no problems with that statement 4] The Messenger and Advocate, successor to the Star,Jesus claimjed to be equal to God, since and considering he thanked and testified of the Father to all? 5] [T]here is little evidence that early church doctrine specifically differentiated between Christ and God....Ahhh yes we have >> (Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:17) It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!...... Clearly defines WHO is God and WHO is the Son........Joseph revealed what he needed to when commanded too. 6] The Book of Mormon declared that Mary “is the mother of God....HOW could mary be the mother of God, when she was the Daughter of God?...Christ existed before mary as God found in Genesis 1 7] The “Lectures on Faith” dont disagree with that...so? 8-9] In Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine...I find that hard to believe considering when Nephi saw and spoke to the holy spirit or ghost and knew him to be a man?....Besides we know God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, wher the Holy Ghost does not, so this is telling you, the Father cannot dwell within us, but the Spirit, who is also God, can. 10] Significant Changes Were Made by Joseph Smith...called revelation have a look at the dates and you can see, its a continuing process. 11] Between 1842 and 1844,nothing the bible has and is not teaching, but christianity is not. 12] It seems clear that certain ideas which developed between 1832 and 1844...I cite 10] 13] And the rest can be define by 10].....I also will add, revelation from certain leaders, whilst true or what seemed true at the-those- times are not or I will repharse it as errors later on....nothing drastic or earth shattering...Peter and Paul were logger heads at each other over correction and doctrines example here >> Brigham Young preached that Adam was not only the first man but also the god of this world Genesis 1-2 God mad Adam "Lord" over the whole earth...Adam named ever living creature, including his wife..Adam is the ancient of days and Michael the Arch angel...There is NO one greater than Adam after Christ...read it in Daniel (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 27:11) And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days; "The Pearl of Great Price containing the “Book of Abraham” was published in England in 1851 as a missionary tract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880.....yes it was.....even the "bible" wasnt accepted as authoritive, till hundreds of years later, which a foreign power made it so.......but what I am saying, is it was accepted from the lips of them while they were alive and in their presence, but maybe NOT documented [ as we have it now] till much later on....no problems with this....The bible was written years after the fact from the recollections and memory of them of those times, no problems with that either, do you have any? last bit.....what is or maybe written or spoken of now is accepted [ generally ] by the members, but maybe later in future hence, discussed or disputed as what is right or wrong, but in these times, it is accepted, even if some disagree with it....just as in olden times.

No he's making observations that these characters obviously show Joseph Smith just made it up. There's not ever originality in it. No real language would look like this it's no t guessi

Why would an angel tell me I'm wrong?

Trump, included....

Cults like mormonism are going to brainwash and trick people. What do you expect from a guy whos claim to fame was tricking people into treasure hunting. You are clueless ice read the whole book and its an utter fairytale. At least the bible is a better fairytale

+Scott M That makes no sense. But I see why Mormons aren't too skilled in logic--they are extremely anti-education, for good reason. Study their religion instead of sciences, philosophy, mathematics, history....otherwise they'd educate their followers into recognizing one of the biggest hoaxes ever.

+cyninbend Another drive by without facts to any matter. Philosophy is what got the so called Christain world into trouble to begn with. See Plato. What Church do you profess?

@@scottwins2 You are a Luciferian (whether you think so or not) and will one day stand naked and quivering in your masonic pagan temple garments before the great white throne of judgment to answer for the lies you spread in your demonic defense of your fraudulent mormonism: www.linkedin.com/pulse/sure-sign-nail-satan-mormon-people-ed-decker Enjoy what time you have left before you step into your future eternity described by this NDE video "Mormon Kay Lynn Trimble Goes To Hell": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MtfTG5lcpNk.html You need to learn who the masonic god of the mormon temple is and correct your course so you don't lose your soul. The temple endowment is copied from the masonic secret society. Why are satanic inverted pentagrams all over the Nauvoo Temple? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry creationliberty.com/articles/religionmason.php ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hm2FIwHtOKk.html

Blah, blah, blah.

🤣🤣🤣

It's called confirmation bias and self hypnosis. You want to believe so you experience a spiritual confirmation that it's true. You need to develop some CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. These days I am into health and exercise. There are days after I have been especially good that I AM CERTAIN that I have lost weight, I look in the mirror and can see that I am thinner, I feel lighter, until the reality of the scale tells me otherwise. Human feelings are not facts.

No evidence for a Lost Book of Abraham. if you like lost books, try Sirach. It's real and it is packed full of insight. Seeking Wisdom brings happiness 20 Happy are those who meditate on Wisdom and who reason intelligently. 21 Those who consider her ways in their hearts will also reflect on her secrets. 22 Pursue her like a hunter, and lie in wait by her paths. 23 Those who peer into her windows will also listen at her doorways. 24 Those who lodge near her house will also fasten a tent peg in her walls. 25 They will pitch their tent close at hand and will find accommodation in a lodging place full of good things. 26 They will put their children under her shelter, and will encamp under her branches. 27 She will shelter them from the heat, and they will dwell in her glory.

Wait, are you really defending the Book of Abraham? The same book that the LDS church is distancing itself from by saying the the "translation" of the papyrus was really just a source of inspiration?

*"I prayed like a million times"* I seriously doubt that.

No doubt. What a con-artist Smith wound up being...

***** A million times? LOL ... Prayer won't tell you that the Book of Mormon is false. Sincere prayer (which I doubt yours was) will tell you that it's true. No answer to a prayer is not an answer that it's false.

You are a SILLY man. You want to claim that HIS prayer won't be valid. Only yours WILL be. Smuck.

Robert Allison Depends on what he is praying for. If he prays asking if the Book of Mormon is false, he's not going to get an answer. He certainly will get one, however, if he prays to know if the Book of Mormon is true. It's that simple.

But I'd challange you to first read the entirety of the material you're Citing. Whst the discovery if you can call it such was a sort of Rosetta stone known as an abcdery. These documents are typically a grammar book of the sorts. Now after a very very careful study, and a sniff of your soiled unwashed magic mormon underwear, tell me which of these repetitive strings of nonsense look like Egyptian.

No it's not. It's Aramaic written with phonetically equivalent Egyptian characters much in the same way Ugaritic is written in a cuneiform script that hails from an Akkadian cuneiform precedent. Ugaritic is in no way "reformed-Akkadian". Perhaps the better phrase for the Aramaic-Demotic example cited above should be "re-purposed Egyptian". The very fact that the Aramaic-Demotic text was indeed translated without resorting to such things as "peep-stones" in a hat, further distances your hypothesis from reality.

No it's not