Michael Ash's latest-claims Book of Mormon reformed Egyptian supported

[_mms]

Michael Ash's latest effort to approach serious problems with overly simplistic and not-quite-the-whole-story solutions is here: http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/mi ... /?id=11383

The Book of Mormon's "reformed Egyptian" fits neatly into what is currently known about ancient history and the modification of Egyptian texts. In the next installment we'll examine the translating aides utilized by the prophet.

Really? "[F]its neatly" into what we know about ancient history? Really?

Again, overstating the case diminishes credibility. Whether one is arguing for the Church's position or against, little is to be gained in the long run by over-simplification and disengenuous spinning of the arguments. Michael Ash must know quite well that it is an overstatement of significant proportion to claim what he has claimed here. There may be some short-term gratification that comes from his effort--just as there will be(is) from Elder Holland's over-simplified, illogical and ad hominem approach to the arguments against the Book of Mormon in his recent conference address--but in the end, when the arguments are examined, Mr. Ash will not be taken seriously,as there is nothing "neat" about how the Book of Mormon fits into what scholars have learned about ancient history.

///

[_zzyzx]

O'come on now. Don't be a wart on the butt of progress here. The guy is trying to make money and has a captive audience to sell his pseudo-science to. A group of believers hungry for anything that sounds plausible. "Reformed Egyptian" is much more believable than 'translated pig'latin' or even 'translated tapir-latin', isn't it? When you pick your pseudo-science it always helps to have esoteric stuff few really understand and throwing the 'gift and power of God' as well as mysterious folk no one can find is a real plus. Lamanites are much more believable than Leprecauns, aren't they? After all, 'the noble RedMan' sounds good... almost good enough to put on a tobacco label or some such, doesn't it?

Cut the guy some slack, it isn't as if he is pushing Amway.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

The Book of Mormon's "reformed Egyptian" fits neatly into what is currently known about ancient history and the modification of Egyptian texts.

Actually Ash is completely accurate when he states this. He is still misleading, though.

Writing is used to record information in each language and culture that has adapted it. Writing itself is a technology and is often modified to fit the application for which it is intended. Writing will look different and follow different conventions in different contexts. For example, a love letter is written with one sort of writing while a monument is inscribes with another. A tattoo will look dissimilar to a T-shirt.

The most common practical application of writing is in record keeping. Every writing system that has been used to record copious amounts of information have developed a shorthand or truncated style. Paleographically, the new form will often pass from informal scribbling into formal usage. In our own writing system cursive developed as an efficient way of writing Carolingian script and is now a formal style. There are cursive forms in every writing system.

Ash is misleading in implying that a truncated script "reformed Egyptian" is unique in any way. What would be astonishing is if Egyptian did NOT have this adaptation. It does, however, have several iterations the best known being Demotic. Ash also could have observed that using letters or symbols is consistent with what we know about ancient writing.

Rain is wet, too.

[_harmony]

--but in the end, when the arguments are examined...

With any luck, this will never happen. Examining arguments is not what TBM's do. Accepting whatever is given them is what TBMs do. No matter how foolish the argument or how dumb they look, they accept whatever is given them and never never never actually examine the argument. Were they to actually examine the argument, many more of them would be asking questions.

[_ttribe]

--but in the end, when the arguments are examined...

With any luck, this will never happen. Examining arguments is not what TBM's do. Accepting whatever is given them is what TBMs do. No matter how foolish the argument or how dumb they look, they accept whatever is given them and never never never actually examine the argument. Were they to actually examine the argument, many more of them would be asking questions.

Don't strain your back picking up that HUGE brush you are attempting to paint with.

[_Manfred]

Don't strain your back picking up that HUGE brush you are attempting to paint with.

AMEN!