Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand?

[_Bond James Bond]

Why stop with Ancient Rome? According to Virgil's The Aeneid the Romans were simply refugees from the Trojan siege. Why couldn't the Nephites be as well?

[/que apologist to the ancient Latin section of the library for a copy of The Aeneid in its original Latin for word snips like "Ne" and "Nep" and "ite".]

[_just me]

That explains the chariots and metal swords.

[_Nightlion]

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.

Of course you have exhaustively compared all known variations of shorthand to see if ONLY the Latin uses dots, crosses, petards, and squiggles, thus nailing down as 99% probably that anyone using sixes and nines and hook ends MUST be imitating the Latin shorthand.

Just because I burst your bubble is no call for you saying I am insane. Rather brisk I'd say.

[_Buffalo]

Of course you have exhaustively compared all known variations of shorthand to see if ONLY the Latin uses dots, crosses, petards, and squiggles, thus nailing down as 99% probably that anyone using sixes and nines and hook ends MUST be imitating the Latin shorthand.

Just because I burst your bubble is no call for you saying I am insane. Rather brisk I'd say.

A 60% match to a relatively modern short-hand system is rather compelling, don't you think?

[_Nightlion]

Of course you have exhaustively compared all known variations of shorthand to see if ONLY the Latin uses dots, crosses, petards, and squiggles, thus nailing down as 99% probably that anyone using sixes and nines and hook ends MUST be imitating the Latin shorthand.

Just because I burst your bubble is no call for you saying I am insane. Rather brisk I'd say.

A 60% match to a relatively modern short-hand system is rather compelling, don't you think?

Not even slightly because all the matches are too common of marks. Now if one of the complex glyphs had shown up, just one, or better if more, then you got it. You got wishful thinking.
Jumping to conclusions because you need to sell a thought quickly like tabloid wastelands.

[_Bond James Bond]

That explains the chariots and metal swords.

The Book of Mormon as a "swords and sandals" epic would be interesting.

With a cast of thousands. . .

[_beefcalf]

A 60% match to a relatively modern short-hand system is rather compelling, don't you think?

Not even slightly because all the matches are too common of marks. Now if one of the complex glyphs had shown up, just one, or better if more, then you got it. You got wishful thinking.
Jumping to conclusions because you need to sell a thought quickly like tabloid wastelands.

Nightlion,

Did you even read the linked articles? Especially the one at olivercowdery.com? They are both very compelling.

I don't think the similarities are limited to non-complex glyphs.

Which Glyphs of the Anthon 'Caractors' document that you consider 'complex' were not accounted for in the linked article?

[_Nightlion]

Nightlion,

Did you even read the linked articles? Especially the one at olivercowdery.com? They are both very compelling.

I don't think the similarities are limited to non-complex glyphs.

Which Glyphs of the Anthon 'Caractors' document that you consider 'complex' were not accounted for in the linked article?

Okay, I read lots of the link. The examples of similar finds were quite forced, Indeed they had two which in no wise were identical. I venture, given the motivation to search, we can find better similarities at random. Plus the two more complex glyphs were NOT part of the Latin Shorthand. They were gotten up from where ever a frantic search found them.

I would feel better if the connection between Joseph's uncle Mack and the Detroit Manuscript was tight. Just saying so? Did I miss something?

You guys are still underestimating my intimate acquaintance with the Book of Mormon glyphs.
The shorthand of the Book of Mormon was on account of the greatness of their words. And they stumbled to place them agreeably. And,,,,,,,,and they inscribed only the 'heads' of their worlds. This is what they considered a short version of their great words. ONLY THE HEADS.

Of itself, this is a fascinating study to contemplate this linguistic invention of the Nephites. We all recognize people by their heads. We do not need to see the entire body to understand who it is. They did as much with their words, reducing them to the heads, which passed as fully recognizable. I suggest that the stumbling block to Moroni's lament was the connective words. The ones that lack a substantial 'head' as it were. Hence all the jot and tittles in the script.

And it would appear that these more incidental marks are what all the fuss is about. Which is tantamount to ignoring the substance of the whole.


Ether 12: 25
25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

Jacob 1:4
4 And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people.

Since therefore Jacob was already familiar with engraving only the heads upon plates I suspect Nephi himself of inventing the script for a shorthand of Reformed Egyptian.

A means of communicating with only a sign or symbol of the actual word or meaning, suggested in the idea of only conveying the 'head' of them is relative to a truly American tradition from North to South and East to West, namely, talking with your hands. This is where you only need to sign the head of the idea. Indeed we see in the Mayan Glyphs the grotesque 'heads' that also have the appearance of a hand sign. All of them look like jumbled up fingers on a hand twisted thus and so to convey the 'head' of a word of concept.

Possibly this fact is the greatest anthropologically intrinsic proof found in the Book of Mormon. A case that the Nephites invented a means that evolved into the common usage of sign language throughout all of the native peoples of the Americas. Put that in your pipes and smoke it.

[_beefcalf]

Possibly this fact is the greatest anthropologically intrinsic proof found in the Book of Mormon. A case that the Nephites invented a means that evolved into the common usage of sign language throughout all of the native peoples of the Americas. Put that in your pipes and smoke it.

Well, I'd hafta say somebody's been smoking something.

[_Chap]

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





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.

I have readthe Fair Wiki article on the Anthon transcript. It says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the linked Farms Review article by John Gee, 'Some Notes on the Anthon Transcript'. That says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entitled Anthon Transcript.. That says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the article 'New Light: "Anthon Transcript" Writing Found?' published in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 8, Issue - 1, Pages: 68-70, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1999.. It says a lot about attempts to find resemblances between the 'Caractors' and scripts found in the Americas - but says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the article 'The Anthon Transcripts and the Translation of the Book of Mormon: Studying It Out in the Mind of Joseph Smith. David E. Sloan, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 5, Issue - 2, Pages: 57-81, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1996'. That says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

So far as I can see, no-one seriously disputes that the 'Caractors' MS is a copy of writing that Joseph Smith claimed to come from the Nephite plates. And yet not only do we have a close resemblance between 60% of those characters and Tironian shorthand, but we even (in the excellent and detailed oliverycowdery.com article) have cogent reasons to come to the following conclusion:

And what a perfect cipher the Detroit Manuscript offered Joseph! None of the contemporary newspaper accounts even hints that "the learned" ever ascertained what this alphabet which bore the closest resemblance to ancient Phoenician might be. The "Saxon" accounted for the minimal Irish translated by Grace, but all that is ever claimed regarding the "strange abbreviations" is that they were Phoenician-like (but not Phoenician) and that their presence actually hindered the translation of the Gaelic in the book. That and the fact that Dr. Mitchill was struck by their similarity to "signs and symbols" in the margins of an old Latin Bible. Why wouldn't Joseph assume he could use them as his "reformed Egyptian" characters with impunity? After all, the best and the brightest had failed to identify them. Let Martin Harris shop around for an opinion; the worst that could be expected was a judgment that they were similar to ancient Phoenician -- good enough for the likes of the gullible Harris. But if the brightest of the lot, Mitchill, had taken the bait, as has been pointed out, Joseph would have been "the theme and wonder of the land."

The second of the three Gazette articles "unearthed" by Dale Broadhurst confirms my deductions about the contents of the Detroit Manuscript. I submit that this confirmation also lends further credence to other theories proposed above. And while, like the gold plates, it has disappeared, unlike the Book of Mormon plates, the old Irish book was once put on public display for anyone to view, not hidden in a box for a select few to "heft." The fact that its ever having existed cannot be brought into question makes the Detroit Manuscript's evidence weightier than Joseph's "gold."

Again, I would charge (now with bolstered conviction) that the myriad of connecting evidence demands the verdict that Detroit's "Ancient Manuscript" is the obvious and logical source of the story Joseph Smith, Jr. eventually refined regarding the Book of Mormon's "coming forth," and of the "signs and symbols" on the "Anthon transcript" purposefully misidentified as "reformed Egyptian."

Has there really been no attempt at an effective apologetic response to this? It certainly seems, prima facie, to be a massive hole beneath the waterline for the Book of Mormon - potentially a far more damaging event for Joseph Smith's credibility than the business of the Book of Abraham, which is goodness knows bad enough.