Ep179: How to Test a Truth Claim: Analyzing the Anthon Caractors Document
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- On this episode of Mormonish Podcast, Rebecca and Landon are joined by linguist and creator of the Romulan language in the Star Trek Universe, Trent Pehrson.
Trent uses his expertise in linguistics to dissect the Anthon Transcript and evaluate the truth claim that this documents contains characters transcribed by Joseph Smith directly from the gold plates.
His method for systematically determining if a truth claim is accurate can be used to assess many different areas of Mormonism.
In this episode Trent also turns his attention to a book by Jerry Grover called, "Translation of the “Caractors” Document" to see if it meets his truth claim criteria.
We're sure you'll find this episode as fascinating as we did! And yes, we do discuss Star Trek a bit! ;)
***How to DONATE to Mormonish Podcast:
If you would like to help financially support our podcast, you can DONATE to support Mormonish Podcast here: Mormonish Podcast is a 501(c) (3)
donorbox.org/m...
***WE HAVE MERCH! *** If you’d like to purchase Mormonish Merch, you can visit our Merch store here: www.etsy.com/s...
We appreciate our Mormonish viewers and listeners so much!
Don't forget to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to Mormonish Podcast!
Contact Mormonish Podcast: mormonishpodcast@gmail.com
I loved Trent’s comments about faith. Couldn’t agree more as that’s exactly what I experienced as well. It’s the reason my deconstruction involved going back to studying epistemology and critical thinking.
Great episode!
Great way to summarize the difficulty in seeing the truth or even wanting to see the truth because it shakes your whole world.
I loved everything about this presentation. So glad for people like Trent. So rational, smart and well expressed! The faith chart was right on.
Trent’s final remarks at 1:54:00 are worth a listen! The avalanche metaphor is spot on. Excellent video
Wow! What a great interview, I will really be looking forward to hearing more from Trent!
Thanks. Excellent.
Daaaamn! You guys killed this one!! Excellent.
The writing on the gold plates supposedly was in the form of engravings (deep enough and durable enough to withstand being in a stack of plates for more than a thousand years). The best way to get a sample of the writing would have been for Joseph Smith to either do a rubbing (charcoal or otherwise) for several plates or ink up several plates. The expense would have been relatively insignificant. Some paper. Some ink. Some charcoal. Martin Harris would have been able to pay for it and have money left over for some booze. The copies would be exact replicas of the actual engravings on the plates. Of course only Joseph Smith could do the actual rubbing or inking because, apparently, anyone else would be struck dead or zapped or something if they saw the plates directly. The fact that Joe never even attempted to do that or even talked about an attempt to do such an obvious thing is pretty clear evidence that there never were any plates with genuine engravings. Instead, we just have to trust some clumsy handwritten scribbles and believe that Joe was telling the truth about what they were....which is pretty much the way EVERYTHING ultimately goes in Mormonism. "Sure, sure, sure...there really was an angel who told me that you need to join my harem...er...become my sacred for-eternity wife. Trust me."
I really appreciate Trent’s two-point disclaimer. Thank you.
Thanks, my friends for such an informing presentation! You know I have read the Book of Mormon in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and half way in Italian. Sadly for me, the book was still poorly written. I would not recommend it to anyone for his or her reading pleasure. I have attended three community colleges, five Universities, including five graduate schools, and still the book often has left me confused. Did I mention that I know how tie my shoes, drink from a glass, write cursive, ride a bike and a horse, milk a cow and a goat, . swim on my back and side; so I have some academic and life experiences. To add to all that, I have lived in three counties, visited fifteen, and put foot down on four continents. You'd think I should have been a better reader.
Why would you expect to better understand the BoM by reading it in Romance languages? Shouldn’t you learn grammar from Semitic languages? And be studying culture? And be reading about ancient peoples?
@@devinhildebrandt2709 I do know a tiny bit about Latin and Greek suffixes and prefixes. The truth is that in the days I read the BoM in those romance languages, I was expected to read it frequently, but the book is so boring that I needed to have some diversion and something worth my time and energy for sitting there reading such a terrible story. I really do not believe the BoM is about an ancient culture. My present understanding is that there is no evidence any where, in the ground, on the ground or above the ground that supports the existence of a "Lehite" civilization. See my podcast with The Backyard Professor, episode 125, in which I compare Roman civilization to that of the so-call Lehite one. Take care, Devin, and thanks for responding, my friend.
Btw, I am a Trekkie, so props for the Romulan development. I personally prefer the language of the Binars.
This is a great episode. I understand and agree with the guest when he said the truth claims the church teaches harmed his autonomy deeply.
Excellent!!! Thanks Mormonish❤
Yes we have to start over
And it is difficult .
I feel fortunate that I didn’t lose my faith in God , I know the wasn’t true anymore so I had to dig deep and peel back all my layers of faith and start over .
I am slowly rebuilding my faith one day at a time .
I’m loving the lets get biblical books by Rabbi Tovia Singer he goes through alot of things
One of the main things is
That New Testament writers corrupted the Hebrew Scriptures by taking verses out of the Hebrew Bible and misappropriated them in the New Testament and it was very intentional .
So that been very eye opening .
Great podcast thanks for sharing ❤️❤️❤️
Rebbeca I want to get a
Mormonish mug at some point .
Have a wonderful day guys 😊
FWIW, calling the bar and dot glyph a Meso-American numbering doesn't work. They're upside down in Anthon. Dots (up to 4) are stacked on top of bars (5), in Mayan, and never the other way around. They are additive, 5+4, making number 9. A 4+5 , as they're organized in the Anthon glyph, silly as it sounds, simply doesn't make any number in Mayan, because you can't start with the smaller number on bottom.
You might want to read the book. You are correct, which I also point out in my book, that the bar-dot is not a Maya form of the bar-dot numbers. It is the Teotihuacan form and Isthmus form (perhaps Teotihuacan derived form). In that Mesoamerican system, one does find the dots below the bar. You can check the Teotihuacan and Isthmus examples shown from the standard academic literature in the book.
@@jerrygrover8992 I'm struggling to find a source for Teotihhuacan numbering that would indicate this upside down use. Can you share a citation source? If it checks out I would be interested in getting your book for a deeper look.
@@chucklearnslithics3751 No reason to buy my book, it is free to download in pdf format from my website. Not allowed to leave links in the comments here, so just do a search on my name and bmslr. Info and sources (Karl Taube & Caso) are on page 62.
There really are such things as Romulans - from Romulus.
It's pretty close to Detroit. Probably why the Federation wanted to be separated by the Neutral Zone.
It is translated from right to left.
I apologize for forgetting that.
If you would have read the book you would know that the bar dot number 9 is not the Maya form, it is the Isthmus and Teotihuacan form.
But that is not really relevant to the methodological points I made in the video.
This doesn't matter. The Meso-American number system is utilized the same by all the cultures. In fact the earliest writing discovered is Olmec, and it's a number that travels through the rest of Meso-American time till post European contact. Furthermore, the 9 glyph is upside down, as is the copy-paste snippet of the "picture". Bars (5) go on bottom. Dots always go on top. I'm not a credentialed Mayan epigrapher, very much an amateur, but I've done enough to recognize it's completely upside down.
I kept hearing DEMONIC not DEMOTIC 😊😅😂
Anderson Patricia Garcia Thomas Jones Richard
I didn't make any "assumptions" it is just translated for the most part from hieratic, there is a bit of demotic.
@@jerrygrover8992 for what reason would there be both forms on the one document?
@@reddish22 The demotic only appears to be used when the glyph form is shorter than hieratic. So it is consistent with the statement that reformed Egyptian is a compact script. This is all discussed at length in the book. You might want to take a look at it as it is free to download, and there are no ads you will be forced to look at.
@@jerrygrover8992 You didn't answer my question. What logical reason would there be two different forms of Egyptian in the Book of Mormon? I already pulled up your book but I honestly have trouble deciphering what it is you're trying to say in the text. And it's not because I'm unfamiliar with "academic" writing as you posited in a different comment, I promise you that.
I even watched your 2017 Book of Mormon conference presentation and I legitimately cannot discern your methodology to be able to verify what you're saying.
I certainly would like to see the actual analysis of the Egyptologist. Since my material has already been reviewed by Egyptologists, it would be interesting to see what she says exactly. Why did she choose to remain anonymous? That is a bit strange to say the least for someone in academia. Anyway, Rebecca, if you would like to send that to me send me an email through my website and I will provide you my direct email so you can forward it to me. I accept all input and it is only academically fair to provide me to the opportunity to respond to the comments from individual.
Do I understand correctly that you have zero formal education or expertise in the translation of languages? Why does it matter what her name is--can you not simply respond to her criticism as it's been read?
@@reddish22 You are incorrect. I have worked 30 years as a translator. I have fluency in multiple languages, and studied multiple languages overseas in formal translation programs including Chinese (I was actually on the Dating Game show there speaking Chinese LOL). As far as responding to critiques of the translation, it would be helpful to see what was actually asked and what her response was. It seems a bit strange as she is apparently talking about topics that are not discussed in my book. Seems like she must be responding to a set of questions or something. Also, it doesn't seem like she is very competent in hieratic Egyptian tbh. For example she doesn't seem very knowledgeable about Egyptian as she indicates that ancient Egyptian has no logographic elements. Ancient Egyptian is considered by all competent translators as partially logographic and partially phonetic. Phonetic words can also be shortened to one glyph in context (ie nfr) essentially rendering those words logographic. My translation does have multi glyph words from Egyptian and phonetic elements which are discussed in great detail. It does appear to be more logographic than standard papyrus media Egyptian, but that may be a result of the media that was used for the script. In Mesoamerica there do appear to be scripts that are postulated as logographic (Teotihuacan) so it would make sense that a script changing over 1000 years in Mesoamerica might become more logographic. Also she only read to page 26 (that's where the translation of glyphs starts and where she stopped reading) of a book of 400 plus pages. Pretty hard to review a book that you don't read I would think. You may not be familiar with academic writing, but one can't really cite anonymous verbal comments on a podcast as a source, so makes any formal academic published response impossible.
@@jerrygrover8992 Small question. How did you get expertise in geology sufficient to make a meaningful case for a volcanic event in 3 Nephi 8 AND have 30 years of experience as a translator? Seems like very different skillsets.
Jerry can you please send us the peer reviews from the Egyptologists that you reference. I will send you our professor friends critique of your book. No she was not responding to questions I sent her a copy of your book. She wants to remain anynomous because no serious Egyptollogists dives into arguments about a language that does not exist and is not acknowledge by any scholars. It took us a long time to convince her that anyone seriously believed it was real so we would love to see what Egyptologists have peer reviewed your book.
@@perryekimae I have a BS degree in Geological Engineering and am I licensed Professional Geologist (which requires a certain number of years of work experience). I worked doing precious metals exploration as a geologist in the western United States and have owned mining properties (and still own some). After settling down with my family, my work as a geologist was limited essentially to project work from time to time as well as exploration of properties I owned (sometimes with large mining companies such as Newmont in joint ventures) and geologic work tangential to my civil engineering work (I am also a Licensed Professional Structural Civil Engineer). I started professional translating in my early 20's and it has not generally been full-time all the time. I am in my early 60's so I could technically say I have been translating for 40 years, but the translation work has come and gone so I would say that I have 30 years experience plus or minus, I also had my own international business where I did internal translation for my own company. In any event, the translation here I have rendered does not really require much experience in translation to see what is going on if one takes the time to read the whole book, as I reference all of the academic source material directly. I think part of the reason Trent is having difficulty is it is apparent he hasn't read the whole book, and his specialty is Computational Linguistics which may or may not have anything to do with foreign languages, and it looks like he has worked in web development, not translation. I'm not sure if he is fluent in any other languages, his Linked-In doesn't mention it. Many linguists do not know multiple languages, and translation doesn't necessarily have much to do with linguistics. I know he has created some fake Star Trek languages (of which I am a fan btw) , but that is quite different than being an translator of real languages. In this case, it is also helpful to be versed in historical linguistics, which explains the expected shifts over time in script as well as numerical notation.
I also understand as an ex-Mormon he indicates that he did not have a good experience and can respect that. I'm not really an apologist, I don't defend every foible of the LDS Church. I am open to listening and understanding new truth from other faiths and those with no faith. I don't think the LDS Church has a license on all truth. I just like to do research on the Book of Mormon and other things in my free time, and just present my research for free for those that want to read it. If they don't like it or don't agree, I'm OK with that. I usually just ask that before critiquing my work that the person actually read all of the book and then be specific in their critique which gives me the ability to respond and explain if necessary. That's all.
I chose Palestinian hieratic where available, because that is the most likely form available in Palestine in 600 BC.
Guys, the Caractors Document is not the Anthon Transcript. Even the editors of Wikipedia recognize that.
On his time chart, lots of problems. I did not use Aramaic at all, not sure where he gets that. Aramaic was spoken as somewhat of an international common language (Hezekiah is indicated to have spoken it). I don't think he understands that the paleo-Hebrew script was used in the Levant, and hieratic Egyptian is used there as well (called Palestinian hieratic). Also his time frame for Biblical Hebrew is not correct, most generally accept that Biblical Hebrew in some form was utilized for 1000 BC to 400 CE. Judah did not have their own number system pre-exile but just used Egyptian hieratic except for some calendrical numbering. Also I didn't use Olmec script, I used a few comparisons to Epi-Olmec forms (Epi-Olmec are not Olmec, I'm guessing he isn't too familiar with Mesoamerican groups and history) where the Epi-Olmec runs from 300 BCE to roughly 250 CE. There is a chart in the book that shows the time period from Egyptian where each character form is found. They are all consistent with the time period in question and the earlier records that they had available to them. As far as Demotic, it started in the Egyptian delta area, but was used all over Egypt by the 5th Century BC. Judah was allied with Egypt and there is a lot of evidence of trade between the groups. In fact, that is why Jerusalem was destroyed, it was because of alliance with neighboring Egypt. Egypt sent an army to save Jerusalem, but were defeated by the Babylonians. As the Lehites looked to be merchants, especially with regards to the trading of metals, not unusual that they had a working knowledge of Demotic. Also I don't think he understands that scripts change through time with borrowing occurring also with script being lost or shortened at times. (English has lost the letters ash, edh, thorn, ethyl, wyn, and yogh for example). The reformed Egyptian script also follows Ziph's law of linguistics which is that generally script is simplified through time (that's why thinking that it should be 100 percent exactly the same as 600 BC Egyptian would actually be a violation of rules of historic linguistics. I really don't think the expert who supposedly reviewed this has any understanding of historical linguistics and the evolution of scripts. The number system also follows all the rules seen in the historic evolution of numeric systems. Anyway, that is why I wrote the book so that people could just read it instead of me spending my time commenting on videos. All of the answers to his questions are already in the book tbh.
That chart wasn't used exclusively for analysis of your work.
So the "expert" never even looked at the translation of the glyphs, so she stopped after page 25 of a 426 page book LOL.
@@jerrygrover8992 From her perspective, I can only imagine that the book coming to her looks like 426 pages of tin foil hat pseudoscholarship. She gave you up to 25 pages to demonstrate otherwise.
Not saying you're wrong or bad or anything for putting forward your case, but asking people to engage with 426 pages of material is not an insignificant ask in this, the only life we know we've got. For what it's worth, it may be revisiting those passages that triggered the expert's dismissal of your book so that future reviewers may take it more seriously. LOLing that critique does nothing to help you.
She knew you were making stuff up to justify your faith. You really think she owes you 400 more pages worth of her time?
Actually I paid perfect attention to the time frames. The document is primarily hieratic with some demotic. Would be helpful if he actually read the book. It is not a paper for one thing. Coe did not decipher the numerical system of the Maya, you don't know what you are talking about. That was figured out long before Coe. I'm sorry, this presentation is not well researched or thought out.
Again, I'd love to chat with you, in person, about linguistic methodology. I stated from the beginning of the show that I was discussing faith and its role in bias. I mentioned Coe because you cite him in your work as a methodological foundation. But you don't actually employ the same sound methodology that Coe and the other Mayan epigraphers employed. I get that my analysis wasn't on a dissertation level. I get that it is never fun to be criticized. But the methodologies you use are not standard or sound as a translation of an unknown text from an unknown language. They just arent.
Actually they are. You should have actually read the book before you critique it. I have no problem with academic critiques of any of my publications as long as they are prepared with citations and academic grade sources. What you presented doesn’t even meet minimum academic standards for a basic book review, let alone an analysis of methodology. Anyway, I’m done commenting here, this group suffers from the worst forms of confirmation bias. Ciao.
@@jerrygrover8992we know church members have no bias. For someone who has so much criticism why did you listen or watch and make so many comments? Trust me none of us are going to believe the bom anymore. We all grew up faithfully believing. If you believe it good for you. If you are such an expert why don’t you make a website proving the book is true (what is claims , history etc)
@@jerrygrover8992 If you want to paint yourself as an academic, why did you self-publish your book? Why wasn't it published in an academic journal? Also, if you've ever been in a testimony meeting where a parent has whispered what to say for a "testimony," this group is far from the worst example you've seen of confirmation bias. I would have admitted that as a believing member myself.
Too long of a show. Get to the point.
Lots of ex Mormons have trauma. I'm sure going into detail is therapeutic. Cut them some slack.
Then leave. I find the detail fascinating
Valid and I agree. This was my first time doing anything like this. I learned a lot. Thanks for the feedback.