Question:
Joshua,
I would appreciate the name of just one secular encyclopediaa and page which provides supporting information that:
1. “Reformed Egyptian” was really an ancient language.
2. “Domesticated” horses existed in the America’s prior to Columbus.
3. That ancient languages can be translated by looking at a rock in a hat. See: (Ensign » 1993 » July A Treasured Testament By Elder Russell M. Nelson)
Answer:
Of course there isn’t any secular encyclopedia that provides supporting information, but here are some explanations of perhaps why:
1. Reformed Egyptian was a language perhaps known by no one else but the people of the Book of Mormon, which appears to have been a relatively small group of people limited to a specific geographic area most likely in Central America. If so, how would anybody know about their language unless there were an archaeological discovery? And since there are literally thousands and thousands of sites in Central America that have yet to be excavated, and major discoveries are being made all the time, is it completely implausible that there might yet, at some future date 10, 20, or 50 years in the future, be the discovery of the same language the plates were originally written in?
2. No, but again, there are important discoveries being made all the time so we don’t know what we haven’t discovered yet. People used to say there were never any horses at all, not they admit there were horses, but no domesticated horses. But there’s even the question of whether Joseph Smith really meant “horses” when he wrote “horses”. There’s some good stuff on this over at Jeff Linsay’s site under the post “Plants and Animals in the Book of Mormon“.
3. Well, of course that’s just silly. There’s also no secular encyclopedia that explains how a man can die and then come back to life three days later, so if we’re in trouble on that point so is the rest of Christianity. Now, perhaps that’s not an issue for you, and if not, then the question I would ask is whether the scientific community can prove that such a thing is impossible. If they can’t prove that it is impossible, how can you claim it is? If you had put the question to the scientific community of 150 years ago as to whether it was possible to cook food without a flame, they could have racked their brains and they would have come back and have said it was impossible, and yet every one of us can purchase that technology for $50 at Wal-Mart.
Science doesn’t have all the answers. It doesn’t even have most of the answers. Chances are we know less than 1% of 1% of all there is to know about our own world, physics, etc., let alone the rest of the universe. To say something is impossible because modern science doesn’t know it is to assume we have all the answers, and such a viewpoint could only be held by someone who is virtually ignorant of the scientific world and how much there is yet to be discovered.
Actually, now that I think about it, we are getting pretty good with translation technology these days, so I’m not sure it is completely unbelievable that within a few decades we might be able to produce a device that would look like a clear rock or piece of glass, and which might be able to show us an English translation of any text placed on the other side of it. If we, as mere men, can create such a thing, I’m guessing it was probably even easier for God, and I bet it worked better too. Of course if you don’t believe in God, then that explanation doesn’t work, but if there is no God then none of the above questions really matter anyway.
1. “Reformed Egyption” was never given as the actual name of a language – it was what they called it as Mormon made clear, if someone bothers to read it: “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 manner of 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. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. ” (Mormon 9:32-34)
2. There is no evidence in the book of mormon that horses were ever ridden or used in battle. In fact, it can’t even be said that there is evidence that horses were universally known throughout the Americas, only in certain areas. Check out Robert R. Bennett’s article at http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
3. The Urim and Thummim were definitely around in old testament times. They were gemstones that were carried by the High Priest of Israel on the ephod / priestly garments. They were used by the High Priest to determine God’s will in some situations. No one knows exactly what they were or how they were used from what is written in the bible. There is not enough information, since they are only mentioned a few times. One of these mentions are in the description of the breastplate of judgment. Another, when Joshua succeeded Moses as leader over Israel, he was to receive answers from God by means of the Urim through Eleazar the High Priest. They are also mentioned when Moses gave his dying blessing upon Levi. It should increase our testimony of the validity of Joseph Smith as a prophet in that he revealed the true nature of the Urim and Thummim!
Joshua,
I appreciate your willingness to engage in civil dialog and thank you for affirming that nothing in secular academia concurs with the extraordinary claims of Mormonism as with the bible. What I find is the LDS belief is based almost entirely upon POSSIBILITY much like one might claim it is POSSIBLE that Coke Machines can be found on the Planet Mars. This opposed to the PROBABILITY of these things. Your answers beautifully illustrate this. Emphasis mine
1. Reformed Egyptian was a language **perhaps** known by no one else but the people of the Book of Mormon, which appears to have been a relatively small group of people limited to a specific geographic area most likely in Central America. If so, how would anybody know about their language unless there were an archaeological discovery? And since there are literally thousands and thousands of sites in Central America that have yet to be excavated, and major discoveries are being made all the time, is it completely implausible that there might yet, at some future date 10, 20, or 50 years in the future, be the discovery of the same language the plates were originally written in?
2. No, but again, there are important discoveries being made all the time so we don’t know what we haven’t discovered yet. People used to say there were never any horses at all, not they admit there were horses, but no domesticated horses. **But there’s even the question of whether Joseph Smith really meant “horses” when he wrote “horses”.** There’s some good stuff on this over at Jeff Linsay’s site under the post “Plants and Animals in the Book of Mormon“.
Another comment proposing POSSIBILITY
Actually, now that I think about it, we are getting pretty good with translation technology these days, so I’m not sure it is completely unbelievable that within a few decades we **might** be able to produce a device that would look like a clear rock or piece of glass, and which might be able to show us an English translation of any text placed on the other side of it. If we, as mere men, can create such a thing, I’m guessing it was probably even easier for God, and I bet it worked better too. Of course if you don’t believe in God, then that explanation doesn’t work, but if there is no God then none of the above questions really matter anyway.
Joshua, Jeff Lindsay’s website is a conjecture of POSSIBILITIES
Jeff Lindsay has the following disclaimer
Want to know more about “the Mormons”? Or, more properly, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? (It’s not “the Mormon Church” – that’s a misleading nickname.) Want to know what we really believe and do? Perhaps I can help. This page is the attempt of Jeff Lindsay, a Latter-day Saint in Wisconsin, to explain who we are and what we believe. I’m a student of LDS topics, a former bishop, returned missionary, father of four, BYU alumnus, and something of a geek – all the qualifications you could hope for, frankly, at least from me. Though I strive to be accurate and fair, this page – like anything mortals do – is subject to all sorts of errors, including typos and unintelligible writing. Sorry! For other information, be sure to visit LDS.org and Mormon.org – but even these Church-owned sites have mortal Webmasters and authors.
From the FARMS/Maxwell Institute website:
” The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Why the disclaimers? Because the spin does not hold up to scrutiny.
Joshua, Jeff Lindsay’s website is a conjecture of POSSIBILITIES. Lindsay as well as FARMS (Sorenson et al) provides no ‘peer review’ (no **independent** factual collaboration) the process by which knowledge is certified. Again Extra Ordinary Claims Demand Extra Ordinary Evidence, that is unless we want to place ourselves in a position to be bamboozled.
The apologists spin adhoc explanations like perhaps the horses were really Tapirs. Latter-day Saints must now picture the gallant Nephi Warrior riding a pig like animal into battle. Wouldn’t it be nice so see some supporting carbon dated fossilized horse remains by independent scientists?
And now Reformed Egyptian was really not Reformed Egyptian, what a hoot!
So Joshua since value looking through the lens of POSSIBITY as opposed to evidential reasoning, perhaps I could interest you in one heck of a bargain. I recently received an email from an attorney in Indonesia advising me I have been named in a will to receive 2 Million dollars. All I have to do is send this gentleman two thousand dollars in transaction fees which I unfortunately do not have at the moment. If you would be interested in making $50,000 by sending me the $2,000, upon receipt of the 2 Million dollars I’ll gladly send you the $50,000. What say? – Skeptic.