Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Buffalo »

I was perusing Darth J's blog when I made the startling discovery:

Image

Image

From: http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2001RBSt.htm
Darth's blog: blog.php?u=7958&b=2798

These Latin shorthand notes matched nearly sixty percent of the transcript's occasionally repeated "Caractors."


This only gives more credence to Darth J's earlier theory that the Nephites landed in ancient Rome.

This has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the Nephites lived in the Americas, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

Most interesting. Does anyone know if this issue has been addressed by the Church or an apologist?
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_MCB
_Emeritus
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _MCB »

To my knowledge, they have done the only safe thing: ignore it. The very concept of Irish monastic shorthand was a seed for the book. And Mitchill's and the Mack association just strengthens the argument.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

MCB wrote:To my knowledge, they have done the only safe thing: ignore it. The very concept of Irish monastic shorthand was a seed for the book. And Mitchill's and the Mack association just strengthens the argument.


Thanks, MCB. I guess I am shocked that this huge, glaring problem has never been addressed by any apologist.

The odds that the similarities are just coincidental would be astronomically small.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Roger »

When Martin Harris took a copy of the characters to "the learned" he first visited Samuel Mitchill. The same Samuel Mitchell who had examined the Detroit Manuscript from which these characters come. In the case of the Detroit MS characters, they were authentic short hand characters but it took a while for the learned to figure that out.

I don't believe it was a coincidence that Harris went to Mitchill before seeing Charles Anthon. Smith knew that there was a good chance Mitchill would remember these characters from the Detroit Manuscript and pronounce them genuine. But Mitchill refused to take the bait and instead sent Harris to see Anthon.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Shulem »

The church is true.
The church is true.
The church is true.

You don't know the power of the hoooooooooooooly ghost!!!

http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/star_wars_dubstep

The darkside will make the church true. Fat Tommy Monson!

Paul O
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Nightlion »

Buffalo wrote:I was perusing Darth J's blog when I made the startling discovery:

Image

Image

From: http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2001RBSt.htm
Darth's blog: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/blo ... 958&b=2798

These Latin shorthand notes matched nearly sixty percent of the transcript's occasionally repeated "Caractors."


This only gives more credence to Darth J's earlier theory that the Nephites landed in ancient Rome.

This has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the Nephites lived in the Americas, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.


Not so soon Brute! What both scripts have in common is that they are shorthand. A dot? A crossed line? A squiggle? An arrow point? What's a prophet to do? None of the complex glyphs show up. None of the picture glyphs show up either. This is a red herring.

Alphabet systems can speak vastly different languages and still manage the use of identical.
marks. And another faux tableau fails to fit the frame made to contain it.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _moksha »

What if lllllllll 7AT was merely a Roman grocery reminder of how much milk to get for the weekend?

Boy would we have a lot of ED ~ TAt on our face.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Buffalo »

Roger wrote:When Martin Harris took a copy of the characters to "the learned" he first visited Samuel Mitchill. The same Samuel Mitchell who had examined the Detroit Manuscript from which these characters come. In the case of the Detroit MS characters, they were authentic short hand characters but it took a while for the learned to figure that out.

I don't believe it was a coincidence that Harris went to Mitchill before seeing Charles Anthon. Smith knew that there was a good chance Mitchill would remember these characters from the Detroit Manuscript and pronounce them genuine. But Mitchill refused to take the bait and instead sent Harris to see Anthon.


Yes, and the guy who discovered the Detroit Manuscript was a business partner to Stephen Mack, Joseph Smith's uncle and Oliver Cowdery's cousin.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

Post by _Buffalo »

Nightlion wrote:Not so soon Brute! What both scripts have in common is that they are shorthand. A dot? A crossed line? A squiggle? An arrow point? What's a prophet to do? None of the complex glyphs show up. None of the picture glyphs show up either. This is a red herring.

Alphabet systems can speak vastly different languages and still manage the use of identical.
marks. And another faux tableau fails to fit the frame made to contain it.


Yes, shorthand for Latin, a shorthand system developed thousands of years after the time of Nephi. I don't expect you to get it because you're mentally ill, but anyone thinking clearly can see what is going on here.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Post Reply