Well done Dan. I like the way you circled the matches with red. In fact I love the way you did the whole thing. It seems logical especially with the magic thrown into the mix. My favorite part was "you have been watching...." That was a clever touch. Thank you for doing this. I crave logical answers.
Your work is amazing. A big problem with the whole thing is that it is titled, "Caractors", implying it is the alphabetic or other system of so-called Reformed Egyptian, and not actual words or phrases. I have done a bit of work with old alphabets and systems and ended up having to go way back to Paleo-Hebrew to better understand my project. A very few of the "caractors" resemble this old alphabet but as you point out JS had access to magical symbols. Kabala, perhaps? I did some quick online research before watching this video to see what Mormon apologists have to say. The claim made at some point that this writing system was easier to engrave on gold plates seems laughable. The very old alphabets tended to be angular and not to contain flourishes since they were devised to be chiseled into stone or engraved on other material. The Flourishes in JS's "Caractors" absolutely do not fit in an ancient system.
@@RoyalKnightVIII Klingon is actually a real language with it's own vocabulary, grammar and syntax. Joe the con wasn't educated enough to do anything but scribble out a few doodles.
I think that the D symbol looks like a modern computer mouse. "And it came to pass that the Lord did give unto my father an object of curious workmanship constructed from smooth polymer, yea and ye could place thine fingers upon the tops and depress them. And my father called it a mouse."
I think it is interesting that these symbols in the above video resemble quite a few items. Numbers, letters and doodles come to mind. Of course, a computer mouse is NOT likely for obvious reasons. By the same token, they didn't resemble Egyptian either, unless Smith got ahold of a book on the language and copied that part, too !!
I believe that if someone asked me 'off the cuff 'to fill one A4 page with writing that might perhaps pass as an ancient and unknown written language, (just for a bit of fun), l would come up with a page that looked very similar to this. The authenticity of the Mormon faith is ultimately based on these mysterious written symbols. For what it's worth I look at it this way. Even if those witnesses actually saw and handled and closely examined metallic plates, They could have no possible way of knowing if they were authentic ancient writings, also they would have absolutely no idea the meaning of anything on the plates. They would not be able to tell if the plates were fake or real, or how old they were, or if Joseph Smith had actually found them, or where, or even when he found them. Their testimony was ultimately that they believed what Joseph Smith said about them, they believed Joseph Smith's testimony, no more, no less. To this day that is Mormonism's foundation and driving force, they believe and 'know' that Joseph Smith's testimony, writings, and teachings are ,'true'. Right there lies the great and irreconcilable difference between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity. Thank you for another great video Dan!. Kind regards to all, especially Mormon folk.
One time christ cursed a tree because it wasn't bearing fruit but he didn't know it wasn't the right season for it to bear fruit. Seems like some divine intelligence. mormons and christians are no different.
@@areafifty The Christians do have one advantage over the Mormons. The fairy stories they made up are situated in real places and real civilizations. The Mormon myth is about a people that never actually existed
@@areafifty , god made everything so I guess he knew about seasons, that’s part of understanding the meaning of this verse. Divine intelligence is never wrong because he is God. Christians follow Christ who is divine. Mormonism was made up by Joseph Smith. That’s what’s being shown here.
Thank you for taking your time to do this and do it well. I cannot believe that my entire family, parents, grandparents, and great grandparents have been duped by this man and his "prophets". It is disheartening.
Thank you for your meticulous attention to detail in all your work. You would think this reformed Egyptian would have been discovered by now, but apparently it is completely unique to Lehi and his descendants. Where as deformed english is the best bet.
It wasn't that it needed to be reformed. Changes in language happen naturally over time, especially when separated from where its use is common. Hieratic is an example of reformed Egyptian elsewhere in the old world, used by Hebrews. Hebrews sometimes used Egyptian to write because it was much easier to write in a condensed form using Egyptian versus Hebrew. So for engraving on plates, where space is limited, it makes perfect sense.
What's your evidence that Hebrews used Egyptian to write because it was more condensed versus the Hebrew language? Which scholar in ancient Egyptian languages and Hebrew made that claim?@@juliopenaloza5655
Anyone else ever notice that for Mormons who are supposed to be the one true Christian church of God, there are a lot of hateful comments. Lots of the seem to HAVE TO USE CAPS LOCK the whole time as to get their opinions across. Yes I know we're all humans and I believe in original sin, and that we are all sinners except for Jesus, that's why we need repentance. But for the church that is supposed to above all other Christianities They sure seem to have their fair share of rude close minded statements. I found that video, as with the others I have watched very well done, looking forward to part 2.
+Reverend Wilhelm One person sticks out in my mind as using almost always *henochparks* He spends his every waking hours on Mormon videos shouting in all caps. Example "YOUR A LIAR". (his spelling of you're).
+Reverend Wilhelm "Original sin" is b.s. invented by churches to control people, and get their money and obedience through fear of the afterlife. The concept of a tiny baby or a small child 2 yrs old guilty of sin is an absurdity. A lot of this crap is like the Garden of Eden--a fantasy created before Judaism to put women in a place where they must be guilty, responsible for some evil (since they possessed no societal power or rule, they could never be to blame for the poor decisions men made) so that men could point to them and say, "it's all your fault anyway"---which is exactly what they did so much in the first 1000+ yrs of the Catholic Church and after than, the Protestants like John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, to Pat Robertson and his ilk today. Trom Tertullian, St. Clement, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, to today's men who repeat the things that early church leaders wrote, women were "a temple built over a sewer," and likened to snakes, always defective and trying to do something underhanded, not to be trusted, needing the firm control and discipline of a father, then a husband, "as the church needs the leadership of Christ." Original sin is a hoax, to put mankind, esp females, in the role of supplicant, on their knees, begging forgiveness.
People in Mormonism and Scientology think anyone who criticizes their cults is evil and so fair game for attacks, and that justification to harm others is music to the ears of sociopaths.
>>"First, I'd like to point out that ALL religions fall in the category of "cults" including YOUR OWN CHURCH DENOMINATION." mxborg23, 1.Attempting to switch from a very narrow definition of the word “cult” to the broadest definition is deceptive because you know that people like myself who refer to Mormonism and Scientology as _cults_ are using the far more narrow definition. Mormonism and Scientology are cults as succinctly defined by Dr. Walter Martin in _The Kingdom of The Cults_ : “A religious group who adheres to major doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity. It deviates from the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.”
>>”Thirdly, since the above link confirms that anti Mormonism has always been the AGRESSOR, how can you anti Mormons play the "victim" by accusing the "Mormons" of being the "attackers"?” 3. See response #2 above.
In reviewing the comments on this video, I am vindicated in my hypothesis of stereotypical reactions of TBM's when presented with well presented evidence. Instead of presenting another view of the information, or presenting contrary evidence, they resort to name-calling, ridicule, and indignation. I have noticed this very clear pattern in all such videos. LDS members are all about love and acceptance....as long as you see things from their perspective.
Maybe I can lend my expertise as a code breaker to begin a translation of this elusive ancient language that I believe is an authentic example of reformed Egyptian. It's only a start, but I'm pretty sure that ''ℋ'' = ''And it came to pass''.
Love your seeking the truth. It's unfortunate that so much time must be spent to uncover the deceit of others, but it's so important that it be done. By a serious person, the "Caracters" document would have been created with the utmost care and precision of the original "plates" if it wasn't really just created by someone who actually knew he was creating a farce.
Even though this was produced many years ago, it is still very solid review of what is most likely the truth. The short answer, NO, these 'doodles' look nothing like what any real language would look like, even if "reformed". Sadly, many staunch Mormons to this day would rather stick their heads in the sand and not believe or want to seek the truth of the real Mormon origins. There is so much hidden things that church leaders told us for so very long were not true, only to find out that many if not most of the issues people had, WERE true! From seeing pictures / paintings portraying Joseph Smith sitting at a table with the actual golden plates before him, and a draped cloth separating him from the scribe, to seeing the real version of Joseph using his seer stone in a hat and seeing magical white light of letters and word show up that wouldn't go away until the scribe recited it back exactly at it was given... you wonder why there was ever a need for the Mormon church to make so many changes to the original first edition Book of Mormon. We find many similar evolving changes and corrections in their original 'Book of Commandments' which was later renamed to Doctrine and Covenants. What is interesting to note, the original Book of Mormon used the verbiage "White and delightsome" to describe the Nephites, which were the 'chosen' people who were, of course, WHITE, because they were favored by God, while those evil Lamanites had black skin and were of the cursed race, which of course, we never find anything anywhere in the Old or New Testament or any ancient Hebrew or Aramaic scripts regarding God ever saying anything about a different skin tone or another race, since we all come from the 'Human' race, from Adam, made in the Image of God.
Very well put. Logical, cogent and very well done! If you are considering joining the LDS Church, or have questions this series ahould clear it up, ...fast!
"Now. Is this ANY way for a REAL language to behave?" I love that! Repeated over and over, to make the point that REDUCED EGYPTIAN (sic, hah) is not any kind of a real language. Bravo, Dan!
Dan, have you looked at the book "New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences" Ebenezer Sibly from around 1790? many of Smith's "symbols" are very similar to those in that book. His family were big necromancer/treasure hunters.
So handsome for a scholar. So refreshing to know there are others like you who have dedicated their precious time and resources to unveiling the real truth.
So did the church have a paper document with THESE markings on it before Mark Hoffmann's forged "Anson Letter" or was that where these 'caracters' first appear?
The RLDS (now Community of Christ) procured the characters document from the Whitmer family, along with the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon in the late nineteenth century.
It took Sequoya 12 years with the help of a Christian minister to create the Cherokee syllabary. It was based on the Cherokee spoken language Tsalagi Gawonihisdi. Smith said that he "translated" some writing called "Reformed Egyptian", which at no point ever existed in history and the spoken language of the Khem was Demotic.
The handwritten symbols remind me of the symbols/handwriting in the back of the book; The Andreasson Legacy, by Raymond E. Fowler. It’s a book on the ‘alien’ abduction encounters of the Andreasson family. (I believe aliens are demons). The symbols also remind me of sigils......which are signs used in witchcraft. Interesting.
i create mythical manuscripts for fun and i would agree with you on the origin of this manuscript there clearly is no real set words and the repetition is very clear. it looks like what i would do to figure out what look i want the pretend alphabet will look like before hand. also i see a heavy influence with the the angelic alphabet of John Dee mixed with a few random symbols.
Since no credible Egyptologist has confirmed these characters,...it seems like grasping at straws,....this is mere doodling, made up script. Since the BOM already has so many other things against its ancient historical claims,...these 'characters' can do little to save the BOM.
Invented ????? NO He had hidden knowledge of a few Egyptian writings But the reason he had it is because he is a TRUE DESCENDANT of what the Egyptians worshipped as the sun god RA RA is aka CAIN !!!!!!! Smith comes from the word black smith The first blacksmith was TUBAL CAIN Tubal Cain is what the Egyptians called - Osirus Osirus means "the black one" - because he was lord of the UNDERWORLD MORMONS ARE DESCENDANTS OF CAIN !!!!!! THE ANTI CHRIST THE SON OF PERDITION Idk how ppl don't know this Smh
In the July/August 2018 edition of "Biblical Archaeology Review" on page 33, is an article "Egyptian Papyrus Sheds New Light on Jewish History." The author is Karel van der Toorn. The article is about a papyrus roll discovered in the late 19th century at Luxor (ancient Thebes). It took more than 120 years to decipher the text. It was discovered that Egyptian Demotic script had been used to write Aramaic text! The translation turned out to be three Israelite psalms written about 400BC. This is an example of "Reformed Egyptian" used by Israelites and discovered by non-Mormons!!
@Kenzie K - Moroni defined "Reformed Egyptian" as using Egyptian characters to write Hebrew text. Book of Mormon critics have claimed that: "there is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian," "it has never existed and never will" "Israelites would never use the language of their slave masters," etc., etc. The BAR article shows that Israelites did write their text using Egyptian characters. It took the collaboration of a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists to discover that the Demotic script of the papyrus had actually been used to write an Aramaic text. No degree necessary. Just the ability to read.
@Kenzie K-- You are absolutely right. There is no "spoken language" called "reformed Egyptian." But then Moroni described a writing system, not a speaking system. He said that they used Egyptian script as a form of shorthand because Hebrew script took up too much space. Mormon 9:32-33 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 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. You are also right that the BAR article does not say anything about reformed Egyptian or the Book of Mormon. The BAR article is about a book written by Karel van der Toorn about the translation of Papyrus Amherst 63. (The book is available on eBay for only $216.39, with free shipping.) It shouldn't be a surprise that neither Egyptians nor Jews have a script called "reformed Egyptian," as it is a Nephite term and found only in the Book of Mormon. Nor will it be found in the Americas, because it wasn't shared outside the Nephite community. Why do I need to read Egyptian, Greek, or Hebrew? I'm not translating anything. P Amherst 63 has been translated by a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists. Their description of P Amherst 63 matches the description of "reformed Egyptian" given by Moroni, which is: Israelites using Egyptian characters to write Israelite text. Whether you accept that definition or not is not my concern. I get the feeling that no amount of evidence or proof will satisfy you. Do you read Egyptian, Greek, or Hebrew? What makes you an authority on what is "reformed Egyptian" and what isn't? The really big question is: How or why would Joseph Smith even think that Israelites would use Egyptian characters to write Israelite text?
@@Kenzie K- The BAR article is about Papyrus Amherst 63. It shows that Israelites used Egyptian characters to write Israelite text. I am only seeing 4 lines of our replies. Are we being censored?
@@Kenzie K -- Since you have read the BAR article, you should recognize the following excerpts from it. pg33 "The scribes used Demotic--a cursive Egyptian script--to write down a collection of traditional Aramaic texts. The handwriting dates the manuscript to the fourth century B.C.E." pg34 "Its script was clear enough, but the experts could not make heads or tails of its meaning. It took the collaboration of a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists to discover that the Demotic script of the papyrus had actually been used to write Aramaic!" pg34 "The unusual combination of the Demotic script with the Aramaic language is one of the reasons why P. Amherst 63 had long been inaccessible in a reliable scholarly edition. In fact, the decipherment of the text has taken more than 120 years. So how did three Israelite texts end up in an Aramaic compilation written in a script derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs?" pg68 "In the most plausible scenario, the Aramaic-speaking diaspora communities had brought the compilation with them at the time they migrated to southern Egypt, and their descendants, more than two centuries later, decided to produce a new copy of it. But why did they choose Demotic rather than the more obvious Aramaic writing system? Did the Egyptianized Arameans think Demotic had more prestige than Aramaic? Or had the Aramaic script become illegible to them? We might never know." Kenzie, you can yell, scream, pound your fists on the wall, stomp your feet, or hold your breath until you turn blue, but van der Toorn clearly says that Demotic script was used to write Aramaic text. If you disagree with van der Toorn, take it up with him. He is an accomplished scholar, and I accept his assessment of P. Amherst 63. If I were to translate the Bible from Greek to English, but if I used Greek script or characters to write in English text or grammar, then yes, I would call it "reformed Greek."
@Kenzie K -- I responded to one of your questions already. But I'm willing to repeat my answer. Repetition is good if it will help you understand. On 14 Nov I said, "You are also right that the BAR article does not say anything about reformed Egyptian or the Book of Mormon.... It shouldn't be a surprise that neither Egyptians nor Jews have a script called reformed Egyptian, as it is a Nephite term and found only in the Book of Mormon." Hieroglyphs, Hieratic, and Demotic are ancient Egyptian scripts. Hieratic developed as a cursive form of hieroglyphic about 3200-3000 B.C.E. Around 660 B.C.E., the even more-cursive Demotic script replaced Hieratic and was used for general writing. Hieratic continued to be used for religious texts and literature. Nowhere in the article does it say, "Aramaic was combined with Demotic script." There were no Aramaic words or characters anywhere in P. Amherst 63. It was all written using Demotic script, but the text or grammar was all Aramaic. It was not something "That is done with Spanish at the border all the time." Had there been one Aramaic word anywhere in the roll, the experts would have realized what they had and it wouldn't have taken 120 years to translate it. The fact still remains that Israelites used Egyptian script to write Israelite text.
Yeah . An 18 year old with very little education "created" an entire language. And he did so to create a book of over 500 pages in 80 days without contradiction, including multiple authorship distinctions, literary tools and deep doctrinal nuances. Your stretching. And most of all, like you say in the video, you are ASSUMING a lot!
@@danvogel6802 As you admitted. You are making "A lot of assumptions". Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith had any access or knowledge of the same facts that you do? Or indication that he would have the technical know how to coherently formulate actual language and characters. Do you have any evidence that he did all that and wrote the Book of Mormon in 80 days on his own, without actual source material?
@@markhunsaker7521 I didn’t say I’m making “a lot of assumptions.” I said I was assuming that JS invented the characters because the ancient hypothesis hasn’t been proven. I don’t need to show JS had access to the same information that I do because I showed how the characters could be invented without anything but imagination. The characters are not “actual language.” JS had six years to think about the book, but that is not relevant to the characters.
growing up animist belief, i believe he met spirits just like Muhammad did as well for the Islam faith they too say theirs is the true word of god. Will it be the same spirit as the holy bible? who knows no one was there to see. all we can do is compare his writings and teachings to that of the holy bible and if it doesn't match then its a different spirit lol its really that simple
Joe smith was a very interesting fellow. I think one might like him if they had spent time with him. Maybe not much of a prophet but a real ambitious and fCinating historical figure.
I apologize for ending the video early. But those first characters can even be derived from A in handwritten styles of the time. It makes sense he had multiple A's; English has multiple sounds under the A grapheme. Phonetic alphabets were experimented with at the time, from the Mormon's own Deseret to Ben Franklin's phonetic alphabet. That part, honestly, is fine. Writing actually is decomposable down to basic strokes and orientations, and writing isn't really language. Look at the Armenian alphabet: if you didn't know better, you'd think the script was nothing but hununurnnuumuumut. Ancient Arabic interestingly was written without any diacritics including the important dots considered an essential part of the letters today. So all of n b y t th looked identical and very similar to d z dh r and so on. H, j, and kh would form similar sisters, q, f, and w would each look like a 9, and so on. But that was just how Arabic was written for hundreds of years until there started being misreadings of the Qur'an that freaked people out enough to invent ways around it. What shows relationships is the genetic relationship - alphabet order is actually arbitrary, so how the names of letters are preserved and their relative orders say a lot. Then it's about how those characters relate to earlier characters - there are clear structural parallels in the arbitrary forms of Latin letters and Greek letters, or Cyrillic letters and Greek letters, or Armenian letters and Greek letters. There are clear structural parallels between Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, likewise. And it's from the arbitrariness that genetic relationships can be established, or disproven. And the Egyptian hieroglyphs were relatively standardized and we understand them well. There were signs that stood for single sounds and these were frequent, signs for two and three sounds at a time, and determiners that slightly hinted at the meanings of the words used in question, like radicals in the Chinese script. If Egyptian was reformed, we have ideas what that should look like; n should be shaped like -, t should be little more than an apostrophe, r should look like o to a degree. Maybe not every generalization would hold true but many would. Or what actually happened: When the Copts switched to writing the Egyptian language in Greek letters, they borrowed a few letters from cursive Egyptian for sounds Egyptian had that Greek didn't; an esh that looks like W and Y together, an f that looks like a 4, a J sound that looks like a Greek delta with ears, and so on. There's no structural correspondences. But ciphers get invented; that's fine really. What would matter really is a corpus to compare against known languages - oh and would you look at that, the book of abraham is a passage of the book of the dead written clear as day to anyone who's studied Egyptian.
Invented? More like plagiarized...outright lifted...stole...culturally appropriated --That's what you really meant right? "Companions: Lord father notice my whispers great greatest chiefly father, my spirit and prayers. We truly do so because a powerful king The Creator is. Those who today honour the One who, that those on the ground will raise especially sacred. These companions the Lord will raise from underground. As we those things we ask for (to be made correct inside?) These saintly companions, these rescue/save Lord. These things we ask for...make correct, sin even. Lift all the tree branches of the Jews from that moment make (them) sacred. The One greatest thou truly are. We, on the ground, truly beg forgiveness for what must man make sacred sitting alone..." I'm getting old, so more and more I struggle with the "all the tree branches" part of this because as I get to know who the LDS are, those kjialasutmo'kuomk teluisit sesus aqq ki's santawit, and how arrogant, how entitled, mu muiwalal, they truly have become, His plan seems so distant, so unattainable, how will we ever come together, gather these lost tribes into one people, one race, for peace? so I say, let them be, let them pursue their follies, their prostrations. Let them be judged by what they collectively have done, and what kind of church they made out of the small fragments left of us. I finally read their "Book of Mormon" last week. Spoiler alert: no First Book of Alma. From the Book I have marked a few favourite passages, one being: Mormon 8:32 "Yes, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins". --Veronica
Interesting theory. I have an old book titled: "About The Book of Mormon by Ariel L Crowley" with several pages containing almost 100 photographs of individual characters taken from the Anthon transcript, and next to each them a photograph of extremely similar looking characters taken from recognized Egyptian works. Most experts will state modern English letters are derived from older characters. I glanced through a book written by someone who tried to translate this transcript. It was pretty compelling that this was taken from the book of Ether. If faith is the "first principle" then I suppose there will always be stuff supporting whatever you want to believe. "O what a powerful reasoner self-interest is!" says Tertullian
header I believe these letters to be fake letters question: is this document Joseph Smiths undoubtedly? When did he create it before or after he wrote The book of Mormon and who did he give it to?
Except many of the characters of the Anthon transcript match characters on two mesoamerican cylinder seals. Dan Vogel thinks he's being clinical and objective but admits his bias right away: I'm going to start from the assumption its false, and then do everything I can to make it look like it is. Just because a person can sound clinical and unbiased, doesn't mean there's any truth in what they are saying. Especially while leaving out discussion of supporting evidences, as mentioned above.
The point is that the characters match almost anything you want. No one is unbiased. The fact that I used to be a believer shows I can rise above personal bias. What about you? If you were more objective you would have seen that your evidence is meaningless. The way you insinuate that my presentation is nothing but the result of bias (without discussing the video itself) is ad hominem.
@@danvogel6802 I simply pointed out that you pointed out your own bias, and no, the characters don't match almost anything you want. A surprising number of the characters are striking matches for the characters on ancient mesoamerican cylinder seals. If you can't refute this any other way than by saying "you can make them match anything", which isn't addressing the evidence itself, then you are rejecting new evidence in order to maintain your view, and as we know, thats called confirmation bias.
@@juliopenaloza5655 If you are talking about this old article www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF --- you have to be joking. The confirmation bias is yours. No one takes this article seriously. Jones was not a linguist and merely compared random shapes and therefore has no more legitimacy than comparisons to other languages such as English.
@@danvogel6802 I'm unable to open the link for some reason to see if it matches what I've looked at, however I've learned that in research, just because someone says something is supposedly "not taken seriously", that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Rather that persons bias is likely keeping them from taking it seriously, so you should check the confirmation bias within yourself. Though I'm not sure what article you have there, I've seen the characters side by side next to the cylinder seal characters, and many are exact matches. Having seen the characters side by side for myself and knowing the direct matches, no amount of fog or clouds you can attempt to cast over the situation to create doubt, would be sufficient to remove the existence of these matches. If you were honest in your presentation here, you would have examined the perspective that it could be true as well, and not only from the position that what you are researching is false. That itself is a red flag that perhaps its you and your efforts here that should not be taken seriously.
@@juliopenaloza5655 I had o trouble opening the link. When I said no one takes comparison with the cylinder seals seriously, I meant both believing and non-believing scholars. It is uncertain that the designs on the seals even represent a language. As I showed in the video, comparison of the BofM characters with any language can produce random results, especially with simple forms. There's no dishonesty on my part because the seals you reference are no longer used by apologists as far as I know.
No he's making observations that these characters obviously show Joseph Smith just made it up. There's not ever originality in it. No real language would look like this it's no t guessi
This guy hasn't got a clue about what he's talking about. It's not worth proving him wrong because even if an angel from God appeared to him and told him he's wrong he wouldn't believe it.
I believe this comment indicates a misunderstanding of the video’s main hypothesis as to “the method [Joseph] used to invent the language [i.e., characters].” The main hypothesis is this: “Rather than referencing any ancient language or alphabet while producing these characters, Joseph Smith probably used a method like the following: 1. Choose a familiar character (whether a character from the English alphabet, a number between 1 and 9, or a magic symbol) and distort it slightly. 2. Inscribe the distorted character and move on to the next. 3. Choose a familiar character (whether from the set of characters described above, _or a character previously inscribed on this document_) and distort it (or, if it is already found on this document, optionally keep it as-is). 4. Inscribe the (possibly distorted) character and move on to the next. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until the desired number of characters is reached.” At least, that was my understanding of @danvogel6802’s hypothesis… would love to hear other’s comments if there’s anything I missed or misunderstood.
Since NONE other known's the language of the Book of Mormon, HOW do YOU KNOW it is false, dan? (Book of Mormon | Mormon 9:32+34) 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. 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. (Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:4 - 5) And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost....And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Dan your sad....but read the book of mormon as directed by Moroni, with real intent and YOU WILL know whether it is of God or not..just as millions have done and shall do into the future, for themselves to know,without doubt nor asking others to know.
Whats sad is if these people really did exist , how reading and writing was so thoroughly absent in their culture , that we cannot find even 1 scrap of their writing anywhere in the world. What kind of people would the ones keeping the records have to be , that they would not share the knowledge of reading and writing? Wow ... just think about that ... It must of been a culture of sheeple zombies beyond anything we could fathom today ...no wonder all trace of them was wiped from the face of the earth.
mormons son Trusting the Heart and gaining a testimony. Moroni 10:4 And when ye receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere HEART, with real intent,having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith jr., The Book of Mormon. Jeremiah 17:9 The HEART is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Proverbs 28:26 He that trusteth in his own HEART is a FOOL; but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. The Old Testament By Jesus Christ through real prophets.
Wyoming Horseman Jeremiah 17:9 and Proverbs 28:26 is really if you put your trust in the flesh more than God, dont need to be a scholar to know the meaning of these passages, do you? Besides have you forgotten the 2 men on their way on the Emmaus road ? (New Testament | Luke 24:31 - 32) And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? YOU see if you trust your own knowledge and wisdom, those old testament passages apply, but NOT if you use the Spirit to guide you as Christ said in John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.....AND how does the conforter teach, you?...is by voice [ speaking ] or feelings [ impressions ] or enlightenment [ inspiration ]....these are the gifts of the spirit....SO HOW DOES THE spirit teach you? Christ spoke of the heart at most times, you [christians] NOW DENY what Christ taught as truth, to suit your own understanding?...wow dude, you must be feeling in the dark?
mormons son I enjoyed your scriptural references to recognizing Christ and his truth. The references to using wisdom for discernment are for recognising a false prophet and false teachings and aptly apply to JS, the Book of Mormon and LDS Inc. The ongoing evolution of Gods own nature in Mormon culture is a good example. _____ --The Doctrine of God (as Originally Offered in Official Mormon Teaching) Was That of a God Who Was a Single Personage of Spirit but Who Was Physically Manifested as Jesus with a Body "The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, revealed himself in Jesus Christ (see Abinadi’s sermon to King Noah in Mos. 13-14). "Two years later, the first issue of the Mormon Evening and Morning Star published a similar description of God in the “Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ,” the church’s first statement of faith and practice which, with some additions, became Doctrine and Covenants 20. The “Articles,” according to correspondence in the Star, was used with the Book of Mormon in proselytizing and indicated that “there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth and all things which are in them.” "The Messenger and Advocate, successor to the Star, published lectures 5 and 6 of the “Lectures on Faith” of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835), defining the “Father” as “the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life.” In a letter published in the Messenger and Advocate, Warren A. Cowdery argued that “we have proven to the satisfaction of every intelligent being, that there is a great first cause, prime mover, self-existent, independent and all wise being whom we call God . . . immutable in his purposes and unchangable in his nature.” " . . . [T]here is little evidence that early church doctrine specifically differentiated between Christ and God. Indeed, this distinction was probably considered unnecessary since the early discussion also seems to have supported trinitarian doctrine. "Joseph Smith’s 1832 account of his first vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. "The Book of Mormon declared that Mary “is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,” which was changed in 1837 to “mother of the Son of God.” Abinadi’s sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mos. 15:1-4) _____. --Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine Had No Three-Part Godhead "The “Lectures on Faith” differentiated between the Father and Son more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants, which included the lectures, the Messenger and Advocate commented that it trusted the volume would give “the churches abroad … a perfect understanding of the doctrine believed by this society.” The lectures declared that “there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things-by whom all things were created and made.” They are “the Father being a personage of spirit” and “the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image.” The “Articles and Covenants” called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost “one God” rather than “Godhead,” a term Mormons use today to separate themselves from trinitarians." _____ --In Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine, the Holy Ghost Was Not a Separate Member of the Godhead but, Rather, Represented the Mind of God "The doctrine of the Holy Ghost in these early sources is even more striking compared to our point of view today. The “Lectures on Faith” defined the Holy Ghost as the mind of the Father and the Son, a member of the Godhead but not a personage, who binds the Father and Son together (D&C, 1835 ed., 53-54). This view of the Holy Ghost likely reinforced trinitarian doctrine by explaining how personal beings like the Father and Son become one god through the noncorporeal presence of a shared mind." _____ --Significant Changes Were Made by Joseph Smith to Early Mormon Doctrines on the Nature of God--Which Included Giving God a Physical Body, Physically Separating God from Christ, Introducing the Doctrine of Plurality of Gods and Establishing the Doctrine of Eternal Progression from Humanhood to Godhood " . . . [B]etween 1842 and 1844, Joseph Smith spoke on and published radical Christian doctrines such as the plurality of gods, the tangibility of God’s body, the distinct separation of God and Christ, the potential of man to become and function as a god, . . . and the materiality of everything, including spirit. These ideas were perhaps most clearly stated in the King Follett discourse of April 1844. "It seems clear that certain ideas which developed between 1832 and 1844 were internalized after 1835 and accepted by the Latter-day Saints. This was particularly true of the material anthropomorphism of God and Jesus Christ, advanced perfectionism as elaborated in the doctrine of eternal progression, and the potential godhood of humanity." _____ --Following the Death of Joseph Smith, More Changes Were Made in Official Mormon Church Doctrines on God, with Adam Taking Over as God "Between 1845 and 1890, . . . certain doctrines were proposed which were later rejected or modified. ". . . Brigham Young preached that Adam was not only the first man but also the god of this world. Acceptance of the King Follett doctrine would have granted the possibility of Adam being a god, but the idea that he was the god of this world conflicted with the later Jehovah-Christ doctrine. . . . "The newer and older doctrines . . . coexisted, and all competed with novel positions spelled out by various church leaders. "The “Lectures on Faith” continued to appear as part of the Doctrine and Covenants in a section entitled “Doctrine and Covenants”-distinguished from the “Covenants and Commandments,” which constitute the current LDS Doctrine and Covenants. "The Pearl of Great Price containing the “Book of Abraham” was published in England in 1851 as a missionary tract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880.
Wyoming Horseman Yeah read your post, and I do not disagree with any of it Point 1] and onwards as follows 1] False Prophet?...ohh okay...as usual I keep asking where was he a false prophet and what false prophecy did he make and will refute it even by our scriptures...silence from accusers when challenged, care to try? And care to admit fault when presented with it? YOU misunderstand about Gods continuing evolution...once your perfected your perfected, there is NO more to learn, but this is NOT what the church has been saying, what it has been saying, is the "kingdoms" God creates [continues] is an expanding one forever 2] Doesnt the "bible" teach this in Genesis and Isaiah 9 and John 1 ? (Mosiah. 15:1-4) 3] Two years later, the first issue of the Mormon Evening and Morning Star....... Well IF YOU can define his years, then I have no problems with that statement 4] The Messenger and Advocate, successor to the Star,Jesus claimjed to be equal to God, since and considering he thanked and testified of the Father to all? 5] [T]here is little evidence that early church doctrine specifically differentiated between Christ and God....Ahhh yes we have >> (Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:17) It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!...... Clearly defines WHO is God and WHO is the Son........Joseph revealed what he needed to when commanded too. 6] The Book of Mormon declared that Mary “is the mother of God....HOW could mary be the mother of God, when she was the Daughter of God?...Christ existed before mary as God found in Genesis 1 7] The “Lectures on Faith” dont disagree with that...so? 8-9] In Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine...I find that hard to believe considering when Nephi saw and spoke to the holy spirit or ghost and knew him to be a man?....Besides we know God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, wher the Holy Ghost does not, so this is telling you, the Father cannot dwell within us, but the Spirit, who is also God, can. 10] Significant Changes Were Made by Joseph Smith...called revelation have a look at the dates and you can see, its a continuing process. 11] Between 1842 and 1844,nothing the bible has and is not teaching, but christianity is not. 12] It seems clear that certain ideas which developed between 1832 and 1844...I cite 10] 13] And the rest can be define by 10].....I also will add, revelation from certain leaders, whilst true or what seemed true at the-those- times are not or I will repharse it as errors later on....nothing drastic or earth shattering...Peter and Paul were logger heads at each other over correction and doctrines example here >> Brigham Young preached that Adam was not only the first man but also the god of this world Genesis 1-2 God mad Adam "Lord" over the whole earth...Adam named ever living creature, including his wife..Adam is the ancient of days and Michael the Arch angel...There is NO one greater than Adam after Christ...read it in Daniel (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 27:11) And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days; "The Pearl of Great Price containing the “Book of Abraham” was published in England in 1851 as a missionary tract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880.....yes it was.....even the "bible" wasnt accepted as authoritive, till hundreds of years later, which a foreign power made it so.......but what I am saying, is it was accepted from the lips of them while they were alive and in their presence, but maybe NOT documented [ as we have it now] till much later on....no problems with this....The bible was written years after the fact from the recollections and memory of them of those times, no problems with that either, do you have any? last bit.....what is or maybe written or spoken of now is accepted [ generally ] by the members, but maybe later in future hence, discussed or disputed as what is right or wrong, but in these times, it is accepted, even if some disagree with it....just as in olden times.
Reformed Egyptian was not "invented" at all by Joseph Smith. There's a small indigenous tribe in Canada with writing resembling, or nearly the same as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. An ancient tomb in Central America was found showing obviously Egyptian artifacts and obviously Egyptian style HEBREW writing. GOLD PLATES were also found. Imagine that. All this has been backed up by non lds or non "mormon" people. Still not strong enough evidence for atheists or people that need more than an angel to appear to them for proof of the book of mormon. You read it really wanting to know if it's true if you want ultimate truth about its validity.
Who told you that the elders at your fake church? The very people that you would believe knowing you would ask no questions. Why don’t you provide a source?? 🙄
I simple bumped into this video and watched it as I’m interested in linguistics. This is such a ridiculous claim to a language it is pathetic. Klingon and Tolkien’s languages are examples of man made languages that have solid linguistic characteristics etc. but this is ridiculous. Egyptian Hebrew? Any one who is conversant with Hebrew and biblical sources would tell you how ridiculous this claims are. Now there are religions which which I may fundamentally disagree but I can appreciate depth of thought, history and philosophy. As a Muslim I don’t accept Christianity at all, even though I see closeness in Judaism, and yet I can appreciate both as rich and profound traditions full of scholarship, but Mormonism I see as a joke
Steak for thought. You do realize that the alphabet characters of Latin / Germanic even Greek /Russian languages are Reformed Egyptian / Assyrian ? (Too). So it should not be odd to you that a language foreign to you has characters that seem familiar to you. I could do the same argument about repeated characters similar and different with any grade-school primer. See Dick. See Dick run. Run Dick run. 2 (S) 4 (e) 3 (D) ... etc. 10 distinct letters. One for each finger (including thumbs). I ask you what kind of language does that? (It
Dan, take it or leave it. That's why the challenge in the Book of Mormon is to ask God with the real intent.. May be you have read this, I challenge you to read it again and DO IT ! *Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.*
The book of Moron is a long boring drag that was written and (many parts) plagiarized by a bored country bumpkin from New York. The only challenge the book itself presents is to stay awake long enough through 1st Nephi. I took the challenge and failed.
Quitting the Mormon Church (Unabridged) I have been thinking of quitting the Mormon Church. Yes, if I can, I am going to get even with that church. As soon as I can find another church that teaches about the Gathering of the House of Israel; the return of the Ten Tribes and their mission; the return of the Jews to Palestine and why, and how they are going to build the temple; the building of temples and what to do with them; the mission of Elias, the prophet, as predicted by Malachi; the method for the salvation of the people that died at the time of Noah in the flood; the origin of the American Indian; the complete explanation of why Jesus of Nazareth had to have a mortal mother but not a mortal father; the explanation of the three degrees of glory (three heavens) as mentioned by Paul; the complete explanation of why Elias and Moses did not die but had to be translated (since they both lived before the resurrection was introduced by Christ); the restoration of the gospel by modern revelation as promised by Peter and Paul and Jesus himself; the belief in eternal marriage and the family, and the knowledge and the place to seal for eternity; that teaches abstinence from all harmful drugs and foods; and that sells the best fire insurance policy on earth, for the last days, for only a tenth of my income. Yes sir, as soon as I can find another church that teaches all that, or even half as much, I will say good-bye to this Mormon Church. The church that I am looking for must also be able to motivate 90,000+ youth, and adults, for the first, second or third time, to leave their homes for two years at their own expense and go to far-away places to teach and preach without salary. It must be able to call, on a frosty day, some 5 or 6 thousand professors, students, lawyers, doctors, judges, policemen, businessmen, housewives and children to go and pick apples at 6 am. It must be able to call meetings and get the attention for two hours of more than 300,000 men. Yes, it must also teach and show why salvation is assured for children who die before eight years of age. Mr. Editor, could you help me find a church that teaches all that and more than hundreds of other doctrines and principles, which I have no room to mention here, and which brings solace and comfort to the soul; peace, hope, and salvation to mankind, and above all, that answers the key questions that all the great philosophers have asked; questions and answers that explain the meaning of life, the purpose of death, suffering and pain; the absolute need for a Redeemer and the marvelous plan conceived by our Father and executed by Jesus Christ the Savior? Yes, as soon as I find another church that teaches that, and also that has the organization and the powers to make that teaching effective, I am going to quit the Mormon Church. For I should not tolerate that “they” should change a few words in the Book of Mormon - even if those changes simply improve the grammar and the syntax of the verses - for, after all, don’t you think the Divine Church should employ angels as bookmakers, and clerks, to do all the chores on earth? Don’t you think, Mr. Editor that the Divine Church should also have prophets that don’t get sick and don’t get old and die, and certainly, that don’t make a goof here and there. No, sir! A Divine Church should be so divine that only perfect people should belong to it, and only perfect people should run it. As a matter of fact, the Church should be so perfect that it should not even be here on earth! So, I repeat, if any one of the kind readers of this imperfect letter knows about another church that teaches and does as much for mankind as the Mormon Church, please let me know. And please do it soon, because my turn to go to the cannery is coming up. Also, “they” want my last son (the fifth one) to go away for two years and again, I have to pay for all that. And I also know that they expect me to go to the farm to prune trees, and I have heard that our ward is going to be divided again, and it is our side that must build the new chapel. And also, someone the other day had the gall of suggesting that my wife and I get ready to go on a second mission, and when you come back, they said, you can volunteer as a temple worker. Boy, these Mormons don’t leave you alone for a minute. And what do I get for all that, I asked? “Well,” they said, “for one, you can look forward to a funeral service at no charge!”… Do you think you can help me to find another church? Thomas D. Clark
Cults like mormonism are going to brainwash and trick people. What do you expect from a guy whos claim to fame was tricking people into treasure hunting. You are clueless ice read the whole book and its an utter fairytale. At least the bible is a better fairytale
Hahaha Dan is no historian. The Proto Caanaite/Hebrew alphabet which later transformed several times and even is the mother alphabet of English was created in Egypt by reforming Egyptian Characters. i.e. "Reformed Egyptian" No one knew this until the father of Biblical archeology Dr. William Albright made the discovery in 1945. It was later confirmed in the 1990s by Egyptologist Dr. John Darnell at Wadi El Hol Egypt. Note the symbols Dan Vogel uses were not written by Joseph Smith.....Best study up folks!
What is the very simple message of the Bible within its covers? In the beginning we were made in the image and likeness of at least two creators. We are to become like the Son(God) whom is in the same image and likeness of His Father(God). We are to worship, pray and give all glory to our and HIS Father(God) When we are resurrected we are more like them when we become man no more. We become Gods too. We become part of the family of GOD everlasting to everlasting. AMEN!
This "caracter" document has been translated successfully by Jerry D. Grover, Jr. You can download his PDF books for free. The characters were not invented by Joseph Smith but are a mixture of Mayan, Egyptian and other near eastern languages. Be brave enough to investigate for yourself.
+Scott M That makes no sense. But I see why Mormons aren't too skilled in logic--they are extremely anti-education, for good reason. Study their religion instead of sciences, philosophy, mathematics, history....otherwise they'd educate their followers into recognizing one of the biggest hoaxes ever.
+cyninbend Another drive by without facts to any matter. Philosophy is what got the so called Christain world into trouble to begn with. See Plato. What Church do you profess?
@@scottwins2 You are a Luciferian (whether you think so or not) and will one day stand naked and quivering in your masonic pagan temple garments before the great white throne of judgment to answer for the lies you spread in your demonic defense of your fraudulent mormonism: www.linkedin.com/pulse/sure-sign-nail-satan-mormon-people-ed-decker Enjoy what time you have left before you step into your future eternity described by this NDE video "Mormon Kay Lynn Trimble Goes To Hell": ua-cam.com/video/MtfTG5lcpNk/v-deo.html You need to learn who the masonic god of the mormon temple is and correct your course so you don't lose your soul. The temple endowment is copied from the masonic secret society. Why are satanic inverted pentagrams all over the Nauvoo Temple? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry creationliberty.com/articles/religionmason.php ua-cam.com/video/hm2FIwHtOKk/v-deo.html
I respect seekers of knowledge I believe on some level that's what you're doing, But your bias views r getting in the way of that. Research Enochan and you will find the backward three isn't made up And many of the other characters aren't either
Learning whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is a simple three step process. 1. Get a Book of Mormon (the church will send you one for free). 2. Read it from cover to cover. 3. Pray sincerely and with real intent, asking God if it is indeed true. Millions of people are members of the LDS church today because they did just that.
***** A million times? LOL ... Prayer won't tell you that the Book of Mormon is false. Sincere prayer (which I doubt yours was) will tell you that it's true. No answer to a prayer is not an answer that it's false.
Robert Allison Depends on what he is praying for. If he prays asking if the Book of Mormon is false, he's not going to get an answer. He certainly will get one, however, if he prays to know if the Book of Mormon is true. It's that simple.
you are very busy destroying the credibility of Joseph Smith why dont you put as much effort towards your spirituality and pleasing God searching for his will instead of fame online and cash...p.s.I know Joseph Smith is a prophet and the book of mormon is true I Know it true special sacred revelations I received and I know it as much I know Im alive. In his sacred name Jesus-Christ amen
It's called confirmation bias and self hypnosis. You want to believe so you experience a spiritual confirmation that it's true. You need to develop some CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. These days I am into health and exercise. There are days after I have been especially good that I AM CERTAIN that I have lost weight, I look in the mirror and can see that I am thinner, I feel lighter, until the reality of the scale tells me otherwise. Human feelings are not facts.
See what's coming for you to argue with regarding Abraham. Get a head start and get ready for the enema you all are in store for. You better get to Costco to stalk up. The rush starts soon for toilet paper and tissue. NEW VIDEO.......Lost Book of Abraham: Killer LDS Defense ...... Must see....... many long faces to come!! God bless
No evidence for a Lost Book of Abraham. if you like lost books, try Sirach. It's real and it is packed full of insight. Seeking Wisdom brings happiness 20 Happy are those who meditate on Wisdom and who reason intelligently. 21 Those who consider her ways in their hearts will also reflect on her secrets. 22 Pursue her like a hunter, and lie in wait by her paths. 23 Those who peer into her windows will also listen at her doorways. 24 Those who lodge near her house will also fasten a tent peg in her walls. 25 They will pitch their tent close at hand and will find accommodation in a lodging place full of good things. 26 They will put their children under her shelter, and will encamp under her branches. 27 She will shelter them from the heat, and they will dwell in her glory.
Wait, are you really defending the Book of Abraham? The same book that the LDS church is distancing itself from by saying the the "translation" of the papyrus was really just a source of inspiration?
Vogel is just guessing. Fortunately for LDS, most of us have a more sure witness to the truth. Guess work is okay if you don't know what you're doing, though, as in Dan Vogel's case
In the July/August 2018 edition of "Biblical Archaeology Review" on page 33, is an article "Egyptian Papyrus Sheds New Light on Jewish History." The author is Karel van der Toorn. The article is about a papyrus roll discovered in the late 19th century at Luxor (ancient Thebes). It took more than 120 years to decipher the text. It was discovered that Egyptian Demotic script had been used to write Aramaic text! The translation turned out to be three Israelite psalms written about 400BC. This is an example of "Reformed Egyptian" used by Israelites and discovered by non-Mormons!!
But I'd challange you to first read the entirety of the material you're Citing. Whst the discovery if you can call it such was a sort of Rosetta stone known as an abcdery. These documents are typically a grammar book of the sorts. Now after a very very careful study, and a sniff of your soiled unwashed magic mormon underwear, tell me which of these repetitive strings of nonsense look like Egyptian.
No it's not. It's Aramaic written with phonetically equivalent Egyptian characters much in the same way Ugaritic is written in a cuneiform script that hails from an Akkadian cuneiform precedent. Ugaritic is in no way "reformed-Akkadian". Perhaps the better phrase for the Aramaic-Demotic example cited above should be "re-purposed Egyptian". The very fact that the Aramaic-Demotic text was indeed translated without resorting to such things as "peep-stones" in a hat, further distances your hypothesis from reality.
Well done Dan. I like the way you circled the matches with red. In fact I love the way you did the whole thing. It seems logical especially with the magic thrown into the mix.
My favorite part was "you have been watching...." That was a clever touch. Thank you for doing this. I crave logical answers.
Your work is amazing. A big problem with the whole thing is that it is titled, "Caractors", implying it is the alphabetic or other system of so-called Reformed Egyptian, and not actual words or phrases. I have done a bit of work with old alphabets and systems and ended up having to go way back to Paleo-Hebrew to better understand my project. A very few of the "caractors" resemble this old alphabet but as you point out JS had access to magical symbols. Kabala, perhaps? I did some quick online research before watching this video to see what Mormon apologists have to say. The claim made at some point that this writing system was easier to engrave on gold plates seems laughable. The very old alphabets tended to be angular and not to contain flourishes since they were devised to be chiseled into stone or engraved on other material. The Flourishes in JS's "Caractors" absolutely do not fit in an ancient system.
That is a fact. There would not curves in an ancient writing system.
This is by far the best treatment of the Caractors document I've ever seen.
Does BYU offer foreign language courses in Reformed Egyptian?
Hahaha yeah I'd like to see that.
You can take it alongside Klingon ;)
You are an Ass hat!
😂
@@RoyalKnightVIII Klingon is actually a real language with it's own vocabulary, grammar and syntax. Joe the con wasn't educated enough to do anything but scribble out a few doodles.
I think that the D symbol looks like a modern computer mouse. "And it came to pass that the Lord did give unto my father an object of curious workmanship constructed from smooth polymer, yea and ye could place thine fingers upon the tops and depress them. And my father called it a mouse."
I think it is interesting that these symbols in the above video resemble quite a few items. Numbers, letters and doodles come to mind. Of course, a computer mouse is NOT likely for obvious reasons. By the same token, they didn't resemble Egyptian either, unless Smith got ahold of a book on the language and copied that part, too !!
I'm simply pointing out what it looks like to me to be factitious.
The very end of the video clinches your argument that the "reformed Egyptian caracters" were simply deformed English. Great job!
Yes, good description. Instead of "Reformed Egyptian" it was "Deformed English."
Great video, Dan. Loved the use of the characters in the closing title of the video.
I believe that if someone asked me 'off the cuff 'to fill one A4 page with writing that might perhaps pass as an ancient and unknown written language, (just for a bit of fun), l would come up with a page that looked very similar to this.
The authenticity of the Mormon faith is ultimately based on these mysterious written symbols.
For what it's worth I look at it this way.
Even if those witnesses actually saw and handled and closely examined metallic plates,
They could have no possible way of knowing if they were authentic ancient writings, also they would have absolutely no idea the meaning of anything on the plates.
They would not be able to tell if the plates were fake or real, or how old they were, or if Joseph Smith had actually found them, or where, or even when he found them.
Their testimony was ultimately that they believed what Joseph Smith said about them, they believed Joseph Smith's testimony, no more, no less.
To this day that is Mormonism's foundation and driving force, they believe and 'know' that Joseph Smith's testimony, writings, and teachings are ,'true'.
Right there lies the great and irreconcilable difference between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity.
Thank you for another great video Dan!.
Kind regards to all, especially Mormon folk.
Very well done, Dan Vogel.
Though it may sound like trolling, you really DO have to be a fool to think this language was legitimate.
One time christ cursed a tree because it wasn't bearing fruit but he didn't know it wasn't the right season for it to bear fruit. Seems like some divine intelligence. mormons and christians are no different.
@@areafifty The Christians do have one advantage over the Mormons. The fairy stories they made up are situated in real places and real civilizations. The Mormon myth is about a people that never actually existed
@@areafifty , god made everything so I guess he knew about seasons, that’s part of understanding the meaning of this verse. Divine intelligence is never wrong because he is God. Christians follow Christ who is divine. Mormonism was made up by Joseph Smith. That’s what’s being shown here.
@@Cate7451 So are you saying that JC cursed a fig tree for not producing fruit out of season, even though he knew it wasn't the right season?
Is there a "Caractors" font?
It'd be a fun thing to have!
Thank you for taking your time to do this and do it well. I cannot believe that my entire family, parents, grandparents, and great grandparents have been duped by this man and his "prophets". It is disheartening.
The Church is true though.
brilliant ending!!! edit: brilliant analysis too!
Thank you for your meticulous attention to detail in all your work. You would think this reformed Egyptian would have been discovered by now, but apparently it is completely unique to Lehi and his descendants. Where as deformed english is the best bet.
Are you familiar with Jerry Grover?
I am not. But I looked up his name after you mentioned him. Book of Mormon Central?
I like the ending note the best! Great work as always.
OH my heavens! TWO THUMBS UP FOR BROTHER DAN!!! 1 Cor 15:1-4 is the Gospel, and the Mormon church did NOT restore it.
You must not know the bible very well.
Why would the Egyptian language need to be reformed, has there been any other language that has been reformed?
Especially since the Egyptians didn't use letters
And why would the Hebrews write in reformed Egyptian rather than in Hebrew?
You're exactly right. To refer a language--Egyptian or otherwise---as "reformed" is nothing but one of Joseph Smith's eccentricities.
It wasn't that it needed to be reformed. Changes in language happen naturally over time, especially when separated from where its use is common.
Hieratic is an example of reformed Egyptian elsewhere in the old world, used by Hebrews. Hebrews sometimes used Egyptian to write because it was much easier to write in a condensed form using Egyptian versus Hebrew. So for engraving on plates, where space is limited, it makes perfect sense.
What's your evidence that Hebrews used Egyptian to write because it was more condensed versus the Hebrew language?
Which scholar in ancient Egyptian languages and Hebrew made that claim?@@juliopenaloza5655
Anyone else ever notice that for Mormons who are supposed to be the one true Christian church of God, there are a lot of hateful comments. Lots of the seem to HAVE TO USE CAPS LOCK the whole time as to get their opinions across. Yes I know we're all humans and I believe in original sin, and that we are all sinners except for Jesus, that's why we need repentance. But for the church that is supposed to above all other Christianities They sure seem to have their fair share of rude close minded statements. I found that video, as with the others I have watched very well done, looking forward to part 2.
+Reverend Wilhelm One person sticks out in my mind as using almost always *henochparks* He spends his every waking hours on Mormon videos shouting in all caps. Example "YOUR A LIAR". (his spelling of you're).
+Reverend Wilhelm "Original sin" is b.s. invented by churches to control people, and get their money and obedience through fear of the afterlife. The concept of a tiny baby or a small child 2 yrs old guilty of sin is an absurdity. A lot of this crap is like the Garden of Eden--a fantasy created before Judaism to put women in a place where they must be guilty, responsible for some evil (since they possessed no societal power or rule, they could never be to blame for the poor decisions men made) so that men could point to them and say, "it's all your fault anyway"---which is exactly what they did so much in the first 1000+ yrs of the Catholic Church and after than, the Protestants like John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, to Pat Robertson and his ilk today.
Trom Tertullian, St. Clement, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, to today's men who repeat the things that early church leaders wrote, women were "a temple built over a sewer," and likened to snakes, always defective and trying to do something underhanded, not to be trusted, needing the firm control and discipline of a father, then a husband, "as the church needs the leadership of Christ." Original sin is a hoax, to put mankind, esp females, in the role of supplicant, on their knees, begging forgiveness.
People in Mormonism and Scientology think anyone who criticizes their cults is evil and so fair game for attacks, and that justification to harm others is music to the ears of sociopaths.
>>"First, I'd like to point out that ALL religions fall in the category of "cults" including YOUR OWN CHURCH DENOMINATION."
mxborg23,
1.Attempting to switch from a very narrow definition of the word “cult” to the broadest definition is deceptive because you know that people like myself who refer to Mormonism and Scientology as _cults_ are using the far more narrow definition. Mormonism and Scientology are cults as succinctly defined by Dr. Walter Martin in _The Kingdom of The Cults_ :
“A religious group who adheres to major doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity. It deviates from the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.”
>>”Thirdly, since the above link confirms that anti Mormonism has always been the AGRESSOR, how can you anti Mormons play the "victim" by accusing the "Mormons" of being the "attackers"?”
3. See response #2 above.
In reviewing the comments on this video, I am vindicated in my hypothesis of stereotypical reactions of TBM's when presented with well presented evidence. Instead of presenting another view of the information, or presenting contrary evidence, they resort to name-calling, ridicule, and indignation. I have noticed this very clear pattern in all such videos.
LDS members are all about love and acceptance....as long as you see things from their perspective.
The close of this video was an awesome dig said with sincerity: "personal and fanciful characters or doodles". Love it.
Maybe I can lend my expertise as a code breaker to begin a translation of this elusive ancient language that I believe is an authentic example of reformed Egyptian. It's only a start, but I'm pretty sure that ''ℋ'' = ''And it came to pass''.
Well that's absolutely devastating. Solid work.
The ending was great -- glad I watched till the very end!
Love your seeking the truth. It's unfortunate that so much time must be spent to uncover the deceit of others, but it's so important that it be done. By a serious person, the "Caracters" document would have been created with the utmost care and precision of the original "plates" if it wasn't really just created by someone who actually knew he was creating a farce.
@gordon. 1000 likes
Even though this was produced many years ago, it is still very solid review of what is most likely the truth. The short answer, NO, these 'doodles' look nothing like what any real language would look like, even if "reformed".
Sadly, many staunch Mormons to this day would rather stick their heads in the sand and not believe or want to seek the truth of the real Mormon origins. There is so much hidden things that church leaders told us for so very long were not true, only to find out that many if not most of the issues people had, WERE true!
From seeing pictures / paintings portraying Joseph Smith sitting at a table with the actual golden plates before him, and a draped cloth separating him from the scribe, to seeing the real version of Joseph using his seer stone in a hat and seeing magical white light of letters and word show up that wouldn't go away until the scribe recited it back exactly at it was given... you wonder why there was ever a need for the Mormon church to make so many changes to the original first edition Book of Mormon.
We find many similar evolving changes and corrections in their original 'Book of Commandments' which was later renamed to Doctrine and Covenants.
What is interesting to note, the original Book of Mormon used the verbiage "White and delightsome" to describe the Nephites, which were the 'chosen' people who were, of course, WHITE, because they were favored by God, while those evil Lamanites had black skin and were of the cursed race, which of course, we never find anything anywhere in the Old or New Testament or any ancient Hebrew or Aramaic scripts regarding God ever saying anything about a different skin tone or another race, since we all come from the 'Human' race, from Adam, made in the Image of God.
Isn't that slip of paper supposedly not the original, the original being arranged in vertical columns with an Aztec calendar at the end?
Very well put. Logical, cogent and very well done! If you are considering joining the LDS Church, or have questions this series ahould clear it up, ...fast!
+Don Strevel Very well said ! This info only scratches the surface in regards to the myth of Smith...
"Now. Is this ANY way for a REAL language to behave?"
I love that! Repeated over and over, to make the point that REDUCED EGYPTIAN (sic, hah) is not any kind of a real language.
Bravo, Dan!
"This is a strange way for a language to behave... it points to.... contrivance!"
Dan, have you looked at the book "New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences" Ebenezer Sibly from around 1790? many of Smith's "symbols" are very similar to those in that book. His family were big necromancer/treasure hunters.
I discuss Sibly in my video on the magic parchments.
So handsome for a scholar. So refreshing to know there are others like you who have dedicated their precious time and resources to unveiling the real truth.
So did the church have a paper document with THESE markings on it before Mark Hoffmann's forged "Anson Letter" or was that where these 'caracters' first appear?
The RLDS (now Community of Christ) procured the characters document from the Whitmer family, along with the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon in the late nineteenth century.
It took Sequoya 12 years with the help of a Christian minister to create the Cherokee syllabary. It was based on the Cherokee spoken language Tsalagi Gawonihisdi.
Smith said that he "translated" some writing called "Reformed Egyptian", which at no point ever existed in history and the spoken language of the Khem was Demotic.
Can you imagine scraping all that onto metal plates while literally on the run for your life? That doesn't look very "abbreviated" to me.
This video is an excellent presentation of where the characters came from.
The handwritten symbols remind me of the symbols/handwriting in the back of the book; The Andreasson Legacy, by Raymond E. Fowler. It’s a book on the ‘alien’ abduction encounters of the Andreasson family. (I believe aliens are demons).
The symbols also remind me of sigils......which are signs used in witchcraft. Interesting.
i create mythical manuscripts for fun and i would agree with you on the origin of this manuscript there clearly is no real set words and the repetition is very clear. it looks like what i would do to figure out what look i want the pretend alphabet will look like before hand. also i see a heavy influence with the the angelic alphabet of John Dee mixed with a few random symbols.
I used to use John Dee eldar futharch and a substitution cypher to pass notes in high school
Bravo !! I came to the same conclusions and the inspiration from occult characters :)
Looking at Heiratic Egyptian, an 'h' like figure is very visible with a number of variations.
looks like fancy english letters if i was drunk lol, also looks like what my doctor writes on my prescription haha
Awesome analysis.
Joseph's Myth!
Joseph Smyth haha
Since no credible Egyptologist has confirmed these characters,...it seems like grasping at straws,....this is mere doodling, made up script. Since the BOM already has so many other things against its ancient historical claims,...these 'characters' can do little to save the BOM.
Well done! Showing even more of the childish lies of Joseph Smith, easily accepted by the LDS cult followers.
Invented ?????
NO
He had hidden knowledge of a few Egyptian writings
But the reason he had it is because he is a TRUE DESCENDANT of what the Egyptians worshipped as the sun god RA
RA is aka CAIN !!!!!!!
Smith comes from the word black smith
The first blacksmith was TUBAL CAIN
Tubal Cain is what the Egyptians called - Osirus
Osirus means "the black one" - because he was lord of the UNDERWORLD
MORMONS ARE DESCENDANTS OF CAIN !!!!!!
THE ANTI CHRIST
THE SON OF PERDITION
Idk how ppl don't know this
Smh
Joseph "Doodle" Smith, eh?
Joseph Smith's doodle I don't know about that he knew Magic
Bruh no Egyptian language much less Reformed Egyptian has been found. This is purely JS invention.
You don't convince me, even in letter it may sound seems to another letter, like P to R, A to H like W to V S and Z
Naaah.... you have to read it using a hat.
In the July/August 2018 edition of "Biblical Archaeology Review" on page 33, is an article "Egyptian Papyrus Sheds New Light on Jewish History." The author is Karel van der Toorn. The article is about a papyrus roll discovered in the late 19th century at Luxor (ancient Thebes). It took more than 120 years to decipher the text. It was discovered that Egyptian Demotic script had been used to write Aramaic text! The translation turned out to be three Israelite psalms written about 400BC.
This is an example of "Reformed Egyptian" used by Israelites and discovered by non-Mormons!!
@Kenzie K - Moroni defined "Reformed Egyptian" as using Egyptian characters to write Hebrew text. Book of Mormon critics have claimed that: "there is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian," "it has never existed and never will" "Israelites would never use the language of their slave masters," etc., etc.
The BAR article shows that Israelites did write their text using Egyptian characters. It took the collaboration of a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists to discover that the Demotic script of the papyrus had actually been used to write an Aramaic text.
No degree necessary. Just the ability to read.
@Kenzie K-- You are absolutely right. There is no "spoken language" called "reformed Egyptian." But then Moroni described a writing system, not a speaking system. He said that they used Egyptian script as a form of shorthand because Hebrew script took up too much space.
Mormon 9:32-33 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 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.
You are also right that the BAR article does not say anything about reformed Egyptian or the Book of Mormon. The BAR article is about a book written by Karel van der Toorn about the translation of Papyrus Amherst 63. (The book is available on eBay for only $216.39, with free shipping.) It shouldn't be a surprise that neither Egyptians nor Jews have a script called "reformed Egyptian," as it is a Nephite term and found only in the Book of Mormon. Nor will it be found in the Americas, because it wasn't shared outside the Nephite community.
Why do I need to read Egyptian, Greek, or Hebrew? I'm not translating anything. P Amherst 63 has been translated by a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists. Their description of P Amherst 63 matches the description of "reformed Egyptian" given by Moroni, which is: Israelites using Egyptian characters to write Israelite text. Whether you accept that definition or not is not my concern. I get the feeling that no amount of evidence or proof will satisfy you.
Do you read Egyptian, Greek, or Hebrew? What makes you an authority on what is "reformed Egyptian" and what isn't?
The really big question is: How or why would Joseph Smith even think that Israelites would use Egyptian characters to write Israelite text?
@@Kenzie K- The BAR article is about Papyrus Amherst 63. It shows that Israelites used Egyptian characters to write Israelite text.
I am only seeing 4 lines of our replies. Are we being censored?
@@Kenzie K -- Since you have read the BAR article, you should recognize the following excerpts from it.
pg33 "The scribes used Demotic--a cursive Egyptian script--to write down a collection of traditional Aramaic texts. The handwriting dates the manuscript to the fourth century B.C.E."
pg34 "Its script was clear enough, but the experts could not make heads or tails of its meaning. It took the collaboration of a Semitic language specialist and two Egyptologists to discover that the Demotic script of the papyrus had actually been used to write Aramaic!"
pg34 "The unusual combination of the Demotic script with the Aramaic language is one of the reasons why P. Amherst 63 had long been inaccessible in a reliable scholarly edition. In fact, the decipherment of the text has taken more than 120 years. So how did three Israelite texts end up in an Aramaic compilation written in a script derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs?"
pg68 "In the most plausible scenario, the Aramaic-speaking diaspora communities had brought the compilation with them at the time they migrated to southern Egypt, and their descendants, more than two centuries later, decided to produce a new copy of it. But why did they choose Demotic rather than the more obvious Aramaic writing system? Did the Egyptianized Arameans think Demotic had more prestige than Aramaic? Or had the Aramaic script become illegible to them? We might never know."
Kenzie, you can yell, scream, pound your fists on the wall, stomp your feet, or hold your breath until you turn blue, but van der Toorn clearly says that Demotic script was used to write Aramaic text. If you disagree with van der Toorn, take it up with him. He is an accomplished scholar, and I accept his assessment of P. Amherst 63.
If I were to translate the Bible from Greek to English, but if I used Greek script or characters to write in English text or grammar, then yes, I would call it "reformed Greek."
@Kenzie K -- I responded to one of your questions already. But I'm willing to repeat my answer. Repetition is good if it will help you understand. On 14 Nov I said, "You are also right that the BAR article does not say anything about reformed Egyptian or the Book of Mormon.... It shouldn't be a surprise that neither Egyptians nor Jews have a script called reformed Egyptian, as it is a Nephite term and found only in the Book of Mormon."
Hieroglyphs, Hieratic, and Demotic are ancient Egyptian scripts. Hieratic developed as a cursive form of hieroglyphic about 3200-3000 B.C.E. Around 660 B.C.E., the even more-cursive Demotic script replaced Hieratic and was used for general writing. Hieratic continued to be used for religious texts and literature.
Nowhere in the article does it say, "Aramaic was combined with Demotic script." There were no Aramaic words or characters anywhere in P. Amherst 63. It was all written using Demotic script, but the text or grammar was all Aramaic. It was not something "That is done with Spanish at the border all the time." Had there been one Aramaic word anywhere in the roll, the experts would have realized what they had and it wouldn't have taken 120 years to translate it.
The fact still remains that Israelites used Egyptian script to write Israelite text.
Yeah . An 18 year old with very little education "created" an entire language. And he did so to create a book of over 500 pages in 80 days without contradiction, including multiple authorship distinctions, literary tools and deep doctrinal nuances.
Your stretching. And most of all, like you say in the video, you are ASSUMING a lot!
This video is only about the characters. What do you have to say about that?
@@danvogel6802 As you admitted. You are making "A lot of assumptions". Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith had any access or knowledge of the same facts that you do? Or indication that he would have the technical know how to coherently formulate actual language and characters.
Do you have any evidence that he did all that and wrote the Book of Mormon in 80 days on his own, without actual source material?
@@markhunsaker7521 I didn’t say I’m making “a lot of assumptions.” I said I was assuming that JS invented the characters because the ancient hypothesis hasn’t been proven. I don’t need to show JS had access to the same information that I do because I showed how the characters could be invented without anything but imagination. The characters are not “actual language.” JS had six years to think about the book, but that is not relevant to the characters.
growing up animist belief, i believe he met spirits just like Muhammad did as well for the Islam faith they too say theirs is the true word of god. Will it be the same spirit as the holy bible? who knows no one was there to see. all we can do is compare his writings and teachings to that of the holy bible and if it doesn't match then its a different spirit lol its really that simple
Well delineated. What likely happened coaxed out.
Sounds like “lying wonders” in II Thess. 2:9
Joe smith was a very interesting fellow. I think one might like him if they had spent time with him. Maybe not much of a prophet but a real ambitious and fCinating historical figure.
dude, Mormonism its like an obvious scam.
No doubt. Smith was a total con artist...
I apologize for ending the video early. But those first characters can even be derived from A in handwritten styles of the time. It makes sense he had multiple A's; English has multiple sounds under the A grapheme. Phonetic alphabets were experimented with at the time, from the Mormon's own Deseret to Ben Franklin's phonetic alphabet. That part, honestly, is fine. Writing actually is decomposable down to basic strokes and orientations, and writing isn't really language. Look at the Armenian alphabet: if you didn't know better, you'd think the script was nothing but hununurnnuumuumut. Ancient Arabic interestingly was written without any diacritics including the important dots considered an essential part of the letters today. So all of n b y t th looked identical and very similar to d z dh r and so on. H, j, and kh would form similar sisters, q, f, and w would each look like a 9, and so on. But that was just how Arabic was written for hundreds of years until there started being misreadings of the Qur'an that freaked people out enough to invent ways around it.
What shows relationships is the genetic relationship - alphabet order is actually arbitrary, so how the names of letters are preserved and their relative orders say a lot. Then it's about how those characters relate to earlier characters - there are clear structural parallels in the arbitrary forms of Latin letters and Greek letters, or Cyrillic letters and Greek letters, or Armenian letters and Greek letters. There are clear structural parallels between Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, likewise. And it's from the arbitrariness that genetic relationships can be established, or disproven.
And the Egyptian hieroglyphs were relatively standardized and we understand them well. There were signs that stood for single sounds and these were frequent, signs for two and three sounds at a time, and determiners that slightly hinted at the meanings of the words used in question, like radicals in the Chinese script. If Egyptian was reformed, we have ideas what that should look like; n should be shaped like -, t should be little more than an apostrophe, r should look like o to a degree. Maybe not every generalization would hold true but many would. Or what actually happened: When the Copts switched to writing the Egyptian language in Greek letters, they borrowed a few letters from cursive Egyptian for sounds Egyptian had that Greek didn't; an esh that looks like W and Y together, an f that looks like a 4, a J sound that looks like a Greek delta with ears, and so on. There's no structural correspondences. But ciphers get invented; that's fine really. What would matter really is a corpus to compare against known languages - oh and would you look at that, the book of abraham is a passage of the book of the dead written clear as day to anyone who's studied Egyptian.
Joseph Smith was a spiritual lyrical individual
WOW!...MOM!
Invented? More like plagiarized...outright lifted...stole...culturally appropriated --That's what you really meant right? "Companions: Lord father notice my whispers great greatest chiefly father, my spirit and prayers. We truly do so because a powerful king The Creator is. Those who today honour the One who, that those on the ground will raise especially sacred. These companions the Lord will raise from underground. As we those things we ask for (to be made correct inside?) These saintly companions, these rescue/save Lord. These things we ask for...make correct, sin even. Lift all the tree branches of the Jews from that moment make (them) sacred. The One greatest thou truly are. We, on the ground, truly beg forgiveness for what must man make sacred sitting alone..." I'm getting old, so more and more I struggle with the "all the tree branches" part of this because as I get to know who the LDS are, those kjialasutmo'kuomk teluisit sesus aqq ki's santawit, and how arrogant, how entitled, mu muiwalal, they truly have become, His plan seems so distant, so unattainable, how will we ever come together, gather these lost tribes into one people, one race, for peace? so I say, let them be, let them pursue their follies, their prostrations. Let them be judged by what they collectively have done, and what kind of church they made out of the small fragments left of us. I finally read their "Book of Mormon" last week. Spoiler alert: no First Book of Alma. From the Book I have marked a few favourite passages, one being: Mormon 8:32 "Yes, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say:
Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins". --Veronica
Great phantasy
Interesting theory.
I have an old book titled: "About The Book of Mormon by Ariel L Crowley" with several pages containing almost 100 photographs of individual characters taken from the Anthon transcript, and next to each them a photograph of extremely similar looking characters taken from recognized Egyptian works. Most experts will state modern English letters are derived from older characters.
I glanced through a book written by someone who tried to translate this transcript. It was pretty compelling that this was taken from the book of Ether.
If faith is the "first principle" then I suppose there will always be stuff supporting whatever you want to believe. "O what a powerful reasoner self-interest is!" says Tertullian
6.26.23. F.O.R.E.N.S.I.C. Just so happens this language, unknown to any other peoples, has 26-karaktor alphabet. FORMIDABLE! t.y.
header I believe these letters to be fake letters
question: is this document Joseph Smiths undoubtedly? When did he create it before or after he wrote The book of Mormon and who did he give it to?
Joseph Warr See the first two videos titled: “Joseph Smith Makes a Sample of Characters. and "Book of Mormon Characters Examined"
there are several Egyptian writing styles altered from hieroglyphics. These are not reformed?
Except many of the characters of the Anthon transcript match characters on two mesoamerican cylinder seals.
Dan Vogel thinks he's being clinical and objective but admits his bias right away: I'm going to start from the assumption its false, and then do everything I can to make it look like it is.
Just because a person can sound clinical and unbiased, doesn't mean there's any truth in what they are saying. Especially while leaving out discussion of supporting evidences, as mentioned above.
The point is that the characters match almost anything you want. No one is unbiased. The fact that I used to be a believer shows I can rise above personal bias. What about you? If you were more objective you would have seen that your evidence is meaningless. The way you insinuate that my presentation is nothing but the result of bias (without discussing the video itself) is ad hominem.
@@danvogel6802 I simply pointed out that you pointed out your own bias, and no, the characters don't match almost anything you want. A surprising number of the characters are striking matches for the characters on ancient mesoamerican cylinder seals. If you can't refute this any other way than by saying "you can make them match anything", which isn't addressing the evidence itself, then you are rejecting new evidence in order to maintain your view, and as we know, thats called confirmation bias.
@@juliopenaloza5655 If you are talking about this old article www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF --- you have to be joking. The confirmation bias is yours. No one takes this article seriously. Jones was not a linguist and merely compared random shapes and therefore has no more legitimacy than comparisons to other languages such as English.
@@danvogel6802 I'm unable to open the link for some reason to see if it matches what I've looked at, however I've learned that in research, just because someone says something is supposedly "not taken seriously", that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Rather that persons bias is likely keeping them from taking it seriously, so you should check the confirmation bias within yourself.
Though I'm not sure what article you have there, I've seen the characters side by side next to the cylinder seal characters, and many are exact matches. Having seen the characters side by side for myself and knowing the direct matches, no amount of fog or clouds you can attempt to cast over the situation to create doubt, would be sufficient to remove the existence of these matches.
If you were honest in your presentation here, you would have examined the perspective that it could be true as well, and not only from the position that what you are researching is false. That itself is a red flag that perhaps its you and your efforts here that should not be taken seriously.
@@juliopenaloza5655 I had o trouble opening the link. When I said no one takes comparison with the cylinder seals seriously, I meant both believing and non-believing scholars. It is uncertain that the designs on the seals even represent a language. As I showed in the video, comparison of the BofM characters with any language can produce random results, especially with simple forms. There's no dishonesty on my part because the seals you reference are no longer used by apologists as far as I know.
you are only guessing....
No he's making observations that these characters obviously show Joseph Smith just made it up. There's not ever originality in it. No real language would look like this it's no t guessi
as someone who only knows english it sure looks like the english alphabet as if im drunk :P
This guy hasn't got a clue about what he's talking about. It's not worth proving him wrong because even if an angel from God appeared to him and told him he's wrong he wouldn't believe it.
Why would an angel tell me I'm wrong?
Very Compelling
Hahaha these were not done by Joseph Smith...this is hogus
There was No Explanation given as to the method he used to invent the language, just what the characters look like !!!
I believe this comment indicates a misunderstanding of the video’s main hypothesis as to “the method [Joseph] used to invent the language [i.e., characters].”
The main hypothesis is this:
“Rather than referencing any ancient language or alphabet while producing these characters, Joseph Smith probably used a method like the following:
1. Choose a familiar character (whether a character from the English alphabet, a number between 1 and 9, or a magic symbol) and distort it slightly.
2. Inscribe the distorted character and move on to the next.
3. Choose a familiar character (whether from the set of characters described above, _or a character previously inscribed on this document_) and distort it (or, if it is already found on this document, optionally keep it as-is).
4. Inscribe the (possibly distorted) character and move on to the next.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until the desired number of characters is reached.”
At least, that was my understanding of @danvogel6802’s hypothesis… would love to hear other’s comments if there’s anything I missed or misunderstood.
Francis Barrett & his book The Mangus,
Joseph Smith's hero Enough Said!!!!!!!
Since NONE other known's the language of the Book of Mormon, HOW do YOU KNOW it is false, dan?
(Book of Mormon | Mormon 9:32+34)
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.
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.
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:4 - 5)
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost....And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Dan your sad....but read the book of mormon as directed by Moroni, with real intent and YOU WILL know whether it is of God or not..just as millions have done and shall do into the future, for themselves to know,without doubt nor asking others to know.
Whats sad is if these people really did exist , how reading and writing was so thoroughly absent in their culture , that we cannot find even 1 scrap of their writing anywhere in the world.
What kind of people would the ones keeping the records have to be , that they would not share the knowledge of reading and writing?
Wow ... just think about that ... It must of been a culture of sheeple zombies beyond anything we could fathom today ...no wonder all trace of them was wiped from the face of the earth.
mormons son Trusting the Heart and gaining a testimony.
Moroni 10:4
And when ye receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere HEART, with real intent,having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Joseph Smith jr., The Book of Mormon.
Jeremiah 17:9
The HEART is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;
who can know it?
Proverbs 28:26
He that trusteth in his own HEART is a FOOL; but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
The Old Testament
By Jesus Christ through real prophets.
Wyoming Horseman Jeremiah 17:9 and Proverbs 28:26 is really if you put your trust in the flesh more than God, dont need to be a scholar to know the meaning of these passages, do you?
Besides have you forgotten the 2 men on their way on the Emmaus road ?
(New Testament | Luke 24:31 - 32)
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
YOU see if you trust your own knowledge and wisdom, those old testament passages apply, but NOT if you use the Spirit to guide you as Christ said in John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.....AND how does the conforter teach, you?...is by voice [ speaking ] or feelings [ impressions ] or enlightenment
[ inspiration ]....these are the gifts of the spirit....SO HOW DOES THE spirit teach you?
Christ spoke of the heart at most times, you [christians] NOW DENY what Christ taught as truth, to suit your own understanding?...wow dude, you must be feeling in the dark?
mormons son
I enjoyed your scriptural references to recognizing Christ and his truth. The references to using wisdom for discernment are for recognising a false prophet and false teachings and aptly apply to JS, the Book of Mormon and LDS Inc.
The ongoing evolution of Gods own nature in Mormon culture is a good example.
_____
--The Doctrine of God (as Originally Offered in Official Mormon Teaching) Was That of a God Who Was a Single Personage of Spirit but Who Was Physically Manifested as Jesus with a Body
"The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, revealed himself in Jesus Christ (see Abinadi’s sermon to King Noah in Mos. 13-14).
"Two years later, the first issue of the Mormon Evening and Morning Star published a similar description of God in the “Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ,” the church’s first statement of faith and practice which, with some additions, became Doctrine and Covenants 20. The “Articles,” according to correspondence in the Star, was used with the Book of Mormon in proselytizing and indicated that “there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth and all things which are in them.”
"The Messenger and Advocate, successor to the Star, published lectures 5 and 6 of the “Lectures on Faith” of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835), defining the “Father” as “the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life.” In a letter published in the Messenger and Advocate, Warren A. Cowdery argued that “we have proven to the satisfaction of every intelligent being, that there is a great first cause, prime mover, self-existent, independent and all wise being whom we call God . . . immutable in his purposes and unchangable in his nature.”
" . . . [T]here is little evidence that early church doctrine specifically differentiated between Christ and God. Indeed, this distinction was probably considered unnecessary since the early discussion also seems to have supported trinitarian doctrine.
"Joseph Smith’s 1832 account of his first vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version.
"The Book of Mormon declared that Mary “is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,” which was changed in 1837 to “mother of the Son of God.” Abinadi’s sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mos. 15:1-4)
_____.
--Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine Had No Three-Part Godhead
"The “Lectures on Faith” differentiated between the Father and Son more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants, which included the lectures, the Messenger and Advocate commented that it trusted the volume would give “the churches abroad … a perfect understanding of the doctrine believed by this society.” The lectures declared that “there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things-by whom all things were created and made.” They are “the Father being a personage of spirit” and “the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image.” The “Articles and Covenants” called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost “one God” rather than “Godhead,” a term Mormons use today to separate themselves from trinitarians."
_____
--In Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine, the Holy Ghost Was Not a Separate Member of the Godhead but, Rather, Represented the Mind of God
"The doctrine of the Holy Ghost in these early sources is even more striking compared to our point of view today. The “Lectures on Faith” defined the Holy Ghost as the mind of the Father and the Son, a member of the Godhead but not a personage, who binds the Father and Son together (D&C, 1835 ed., 53-54). This view of the Holy Ghost likely reinforced trinitarian doctrine by explaining how personal beings like the Father and Son become one god through the noncorporeal presence of a shared mind."
_____
--Significant Changes Were Made by Joseph Smith to Early Mormon Doctrines on the Nature of God--Which Included Giving God a Physical Body, Physically Separating God from Christ, Introducing the Doctrine of Plurality of Gods and Establishing the Doctrine of Eternal Progression from Humanhood to Godhood
" . . . [B]etween 1842 and 1844, Joseph Smith spoke on and published radical Christian doctrines such as the plurality of gods, the tangibility of God’s body, the distinct separation of God and Christ, the potential of man to become and function as a god, . . . and the materiality of everything, including spirit. These ideas were perhaps most clearly stated in the King Follett discourse of April 1844.
"It seems clear that certain ideas which developed between 1832 and 1844 were internalized after 1835 and accepted by the Latter-day Saints. This was particularly true of the material anthropomorphism of God and Jesus Christ, advanced perfectionism as elaborated in the doctrine of eternal progression, and the potential godhood of humanity."
_____
--Following the Death of Joseph Smith, More Changes Were Made in Official Mormon Church Doctrines on God, with Adam Taking Over as God
"Between 1845 and 1890, . . . certain doctrines were proposed which were later rejected or modified.
". . . Brigham Young preached that Adam was not only the first man but also the god of this world. Acceptance of the King Follett doctrine would have granted the possibility of Adam being a god, but the idea that he was the god of this world conflicted with the later Jehovah-Christ doctrine. . . .
"The newer and older doctrines . . . coexisted, and all competed with novel positions spelled out by various church leaders.
"The “Lectures on Faith” continued to appear as part of the Doctrine and Covenants in a section entitled “Doctrine and Covenants”-distinguished from the “Covenants and Commandments,” which constitute the current LDS Doctrine and Covenants.
"The Pearl of Great Price containing the “Book of Abraham” was published in England in 1851 as a missionary tract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880.
Wyoming Horseman Yeah read your post, and I do not disagree with any of it
Point 1] and onwards as follows
1] False Prophet?...ohh okay...as usual I keep asking where was he a false prophet and what false prophecy did he make and will refute it even by our scriptures...silence from accusers when challenged, care to try? And care to admit fault when presented with it?
YOU misunderstand about Gods continuing evolution...once your perfected your perfected, there is NO more to learn, but this is NOT what the church has been saying, what it has been saying, is the "kingdoms" God creates [continues] is an expanding one forever
2] Doesnt the "bible" teach this in Genesis and Isaiah 9 and John 1 ? (Mosiah. 15:1-4)
3] Two years later, the first issue of the Mormon Evening and Morning Star.......
Well IF YOU can define his years, then I have no problems with that statement
4] The Messenger and Advocate, successor to the Star,Jesus claimjed to be equal to God, since and considering he thanked and testified of the Father to all?
5] [T]here is little evidence that early church doctrine specifically differentiated between Christ and God....Ahhh yes we have >>
(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:17)
It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!......
Clearly defines WHO is God and WHO is the Son........Joseph revealed what he needed to when commanded too.
6] The Book of Mormon declared that Mary “is the mother of God....HOW could mary be the mother of God, when she was the Daughter of God?...Christ existed before mary as God found in Genesis 1
7] The “Lectures on Faith” dont disagree with that...so?
8-9] In Early Official Mormon Church Doctrine...I find that hard to believe considering when Nephi saw and spoke to the holy spirit or ghost and knew him to be a man?....Besides we know God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, wher the Holy Ghost does not, so this is telling you, the Father cannot dwell within us, but the Spirit, who is also God, can.
10] Significant Changes Were Made by Joseph Smith...called revelation have a look at the dates and you can see, its a continuing process.
11] Between 1842 and 1844,nothing the bible has and is not teaching, but christianity is not.
12] It seems clear that certain ideas which developed between 1832 and 1844...I cite 10]
13] And the rest can be define by 10].....I also will add, revelation from certain leaders, whilst true or what seemed true at the-those- times are not or I will repharse it as errors later on....nothing drastic or earth shattering...Peter and Paul were logger heads at each other over correction and doctrines
example here >> Brigham Young preached that Adam was not only the first man but also the god of this world
Genesis 1-2 God mad Adam "Lord" over the whole earth...Adam named ever living creature, including his wife..Adam is the ancient of days and Michael the Arch angel...There is NO one greater than Adam after Christ...read it in Daniel
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 27:11)
And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
"The Pearl of Great Price containing the “Book of Abraham” was published in England in 1851 as a missionary tract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880.....yes it was.....even the "bible" wasnt accepted as authoritive, till hundreds of years later, which a foreign power made it so.......but what I am saying, is it was accepted from the lips of them while they were alive and in their presence, but maybe NOT documented [ as we have it now] till much later on....no problems with this....The bible was written years after the fact from the recollections and memory of them of those times, no problems with that either, do you have any?
last bit.....what is or maybe written or spoken of now is accepted [ generally ] by the members, but maybe later in future hence, discussed or disputed as what is right or wrong, but in these times, it is accepted, even if some disagree with it....just as in olden times.
Reformed Egyptian was not "invented" at all by Joseph Smith. There's a small indigenous tribe in Canada with writing resembling, or nearly the same as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. An ancient tomb in Central America was found showing obviously Egyptian artifacts and obviously Egyptian style HEBREW writing. GOLD PLATES were also found. Imagine that. All this has been backed up by non lds or non "mormon" people. Still not strong enough evidence for atheists or people that need more than an angel to appear to them for proof of the book of mormon. You read it really wanting to know if it's true if you want ultimate truth about its validity.
Who told you that the elders at your fake church? The very people that you would believe knowing you would ask no questions. Why don’t you provide a source?? 🙄
I simple bumped into this video and watched it as I’m interested in linguistics. This is such a ridiculous claim to a language it is pathetic. Klingon and Tolkien’s languages are examples of man made languages that have solid linguistic characteristics etc. but this is ridiculous.
Egyptian Hebrew? Any one who is conversant with Hebrew and biblical sources would tell you how ridiculous this claims are.
Now there are religions which which I may fundamentally disagree but I can appreciate depth of thought, history and philosophy. As a Muslim I don’t accept Christianity at all, even though I see closeness in Judaism, and yet I can appreciate both as rich and profound traditions full of scholarship, but Mormonism I see as a joke
What will it be like when you are shown to be the author of deception? Glad I don't have to find out-
Steak for thought. You do realize that the alphabet characters of Latin / Germanic even Greek /Russian languages are Reformed Egyptian / Assyrian ? (Too). So it should not be odd to you that a language foreign to you has characters that seem familiar to you.
I could do the same argument about repeated characters similar and different with any grade-school primer. See Dick. See
Dick run. Run Dick run. 2 (S) 4 (e) 3 (D) ... etc. 10 distinct letters. One for each finger (including thumbs). I ask you what kind of language does that? (It
Dan, take it or leave it.
That's why the challenge in the Book of Mormon is to ask God with the real intent..
May be you have read this, I challenge you to read it again and DO IT !
*Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.*
Even the apostles said to take or leave the accounts of jesus time on earth no prayer necessary they also say to scrutinize and evaluate their claims
The book of Moron is a long boring drag that was written and (many parts) plagiarized by a bored country bumpkin from New York. The only challenge the book itself presents is to stay awake long enough through 1st Nephi. I took the challenge and failed.
Quitting the Mormon Church (Unabridged)
I have been thinking of quitting the Mormon Church. Yes, if I can, I am going to get even with that church. As soon as I can find another church that teaches about the Gathering of the House of Israel; the return of the Ten Tribes and their mission; the return of the Jews to Palestine and why, and how they are going to build the temple; the building of temples and what to do with them; the mission of Elias, the prophet, as predicted by Malachi; the method for the salvation of the people that died at the time of Noah in the flood; the origin of the American Indian; the complete explanation of why Jesus of Nazareth had to have a mortal mother but not a mortal father; the explanation of the three degrees of glory (three heavens) as mentioned by Paul; the complete explanation of why Elias and Moses did not die but had to be translated (since they both lived before the resurrection was introduced by Christ); the restoration of the gospel by modern revelation as promised by Peter and Paul and Jesus himself; the belief in eternal marriage and the family, and the knowledge and the place to seal for eternity; that teaches abstinence from all harmful drugs and foods; and that sells the best fire insurance policy on earth, for the last days, for only a tenth of my income.
Yes sir, as soon as I can find another church that teaches all that, or even half as much, I will say good-bye to this Mormon Church. The church that I am looking for must also be able to motivate 90,000+ youth, and adults, for the first, second or third time, to leave their homes for two years at their own expense and go to far-away places to teach and preach without salary. It must be able to call, on a frosty day, some 5 or 6 thousand professors, students, lawyers, doctors, judges, policemen, businessmen, housewives and children to go and pick apples at 6 am. It must be able to call meetings and get the attention for two hours of more than 300,000 men. Yes, it must also teach and show why salvation is assured for children who die before eight years of age.
Mr. Editor, could you help me find a church that teaches all that and more than hundreds of other doctrines and principles, which I have no room to mention here, and which brings solace and comfort to the soul; peace, hope, and salvation to mankind, and above all, that answers the key questions that all the great philosophers have asked; questions and answers that explain the meaning of life, the purpose of death, suffering and pain; the absolute need for a Redeemer and the marvelous plan conceived by our Father and executed by Jesus Christ the Savior? Yes, as soon as I find another church that teaches that, and also that has the organization and the powers to make that teaching effective, I am going to quit the Mormon Church.
For I should not tolerate that “they” should change a few words in the Book of Mormon - even if those changes simply improve the grammar and the syntax of the verses - for, after all, don’t you think the Divine Church should employ angels as bookmakers, and clerks, to do all the chores on earth? Don’t you think, Mr. Editor that the Divine Church should also have prophets that don’t get sick and don’t get old and die, and certainly, that don’t make a goof here and there. No, sir! A Divine Church should be so divine that only perfect people should belong to it, and only perfect people should run it.
As a matter of fact, the Church should be so perfect that it should not even be here on earth!
So, I repeat, if any one of the kind readers of this imperfect letter knows about another church that teaches and does as much for mankind as the Mormon Church, please let me know. And please do it soon, because my turn to go to the cannery is coming up. Also, “they” want my last son (the fifth one) to go away for two years and again, I have to pay for all that. And I also know that they expect me to go to the farm to prune trees, and I have heard that our ward is going to be divided again, and it is our side that must build the new chapel. And also, someone the other day had the gall of suggesting that my wife and I get ready to go on a second mission, and when you come back, they said, you can volunteer as a temple worker. Boy, these Mormons don’t leave you alone for a minute. And what do I get for all that, I asked? “Well,” they said, “for one, you can look forward to a funeral service at no charge!”… Do you think you can help me to find another church?
Thomas D. Clark
Dan Vogel at his best" "I will discuss what I think is the probable method" Supposition, helps Dan paint a history he wants it to be.
Awww.. did he shake your faith?
Haters gonna hate , get a life.
Trump, included....
Cults like mormonism are going to brainwash and trick people. What do you expect from a guy whos claim to fame was tricking people into treasure hunting. You are clueless ice read the whole book and its an utter fairytale. At least the bible is a better fairytale
Hahaha Dan is no historian. The Proto Caanaite/Hebrew alphabet which later transformed several times and even is the mother alphabet of English was created in Egypt by reforming Egyptian Characters. i.e. "Reformed Egyptian" No one knew this until the father of Biblical archeology Dr. William Albright made the discovery in 1945. It was later confirmed in the 1990s by Egyptologist Dr. John Darnell at Wadi El Hol Egypt. Note the symbols Dan Vogel uses were not written by Joseph Smith.....Best study up folks!
What is the very simple message of the Bible within its covers?
In the beginning we were made in the image and likeness of at least two creators. We are to become like the Son(God) whom is in the same image and likeness of His Father(God). We are to worship, pray and give all glory to our and HIS Father(God)
When we are resurrected we are more like them when we become man no more. We become Gods too. We become part of the family of GOD everlasting to everlasting. AMEN!
Total lies
This "caracter" document has been translated successfully by Jerry D. Grover, Jr. You can download his PDF books for free. The characters were not invented by Joseph Smith but are a mixture of Mayan, Egyptian and other near eastern languages. Be brave enough to investigate for yourself.
Your view is fantasy Dan. You assume a brick that has been found and dug up was a library. since libraries are made of bricks.
+Scott M That makes no sense. But I see why Mormons aren't too skilled in logic--they are extremely anti-education, for good reason. Study their religion instead of sciences, philosophy, mathematics, history....otherwise they'd educate their followers into recognizing one of the biggest hoaxes ever.
+cyninbend Another drive by without facts to any matter. Philosophy is what got the so called Christain world into trouble to begn with. See Plato. What Church do you profess?
@@scottwins2 You are a Luciferian (whether you think so or not) and will one day stand naked and quivering in your masonic pagan temple garments before the great white throne of judgment to answer for the lies you spread in your demonic defense of your fraudulent mormonism: www.linkedin.com/pulse/sure-sign-nail-satan-mormon-people-ed-decker
Enjoy what time you have left before you step into your future eternity described by this NDE video "Mormon Kay Lynn Trimble Goes To Hell": ua-cam.com/video/MtfTG5lcpNk/v-deo.html
You need to learn who the masonic god of the mormon temple is and correct your course so you don't lose your soul. The temple endowment is copied from the masonic secret society. Why are satanic inverted pentagrams all over the Nauvoo Temple?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry
creationliberty.com/articles/religionmason.php
ua-cam.com/video/hm2FIwHtOKk/v-deo.html
I respect seekers of knowledge I believe on some level that's what you're doing,
But your bias views r getting in the way of that. Research Enochan and you will find the backward three isn't made up
And many of the other characters aren't either
Learning whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is a simple three step process.
1. Get a Book of Mormon (the church will send you one for free).
2. Read it from cover to cover.
3. Pray sincerely and with real intent, asking God if it is indeed true.
Millions of people are members of the LDS church today because they did just that.
*"I prayed like a million times"*
I seriously doubt that.
No doubt. What a con-artist Smith wound up being...
***** A million times? LOL ... Prayer won't tell you that the Book of Mormon is false. Sincere prayer (which I doubt yours was) will tell you that it's true. No answer to a prayer is not an answer that it's false.
You are a SILLY man. You want to claim that HIS prayer won't be valid. Only yours WILL be. Smuck.
Robert Allison Depends on what he is praying for. If he prays asking if the Book of Mormon is false, he's not going to get an answer. He certainly will get one, however, if he prays to know if the Book of Mormon is true. It's that simple.
you are very busy destroying the credibility of Joseph Smith why dont you put as much effort towards your spirituality and pleasing God searching for his will instead of fame online and cash...p.s.I know Joseph Smith is a prophet and the book of mormon is true I Know it true special sacred revelations I received and I know it as much I know Im alive. In his sacred name Jesus-Christ amen
🤣🤣🤣
It's called confirmation bias and self hypnosis. You want to believe so you experience a spiritual confirmation that it's true. You need to develop some CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. These days I am into health and exercise. There are days after I have been especially good that I AM CERTAIN that I have lost weight, I look in the mirror and can see that I am thinner, I feel lighter, until the reality of the scale tells me otherwise. Human feelings are not facts.
See what's coming for you to argue with regarding Abraham. Get a head start and get ready for the enema you all are in store for.
You better get to Costco to stalk up. The rush starts soon for toilet paper and tissue.
NEW VIDEO.......Lost Book of Abraham: Killer LDS Defense ...... Must see....... many long faces to come!!
God bless
No evidence for a Lost Book of Abraham. if you like lost books, try Sirach. It's real and it is packed full of insight. Seeking Wisdom brings happiness
20 Happy are those who meditate on Wisdom and who reason intelligently. 21 Those who consider her ways in their hearts will also reflect on her secrets. 22 Pursue her like a hunter, and lie in wait by her paths. 23 Those who peer into her windows will also listen at her doorways. 24 Those who lodge near her house will also fasten a tent peg in her walls. 25 They will pitch their tent close at hand and will find accommodation in a lodging place full of good things. 26 They will put their children under her shelter, and will encamp under her branches. 27 She will shelter them from the heat, and they will dwell in her glory.
Wait, are you really defending the Book of Abraham? The same book that the LDS church is distancing itself from by saying the the "translation" of the papyrus was really just a source of inspiration?
Vogel is just guessing. Fortunately for LDS, most of us have a more sure witness to the truth. Guess work is okay if you don't know what you're doing, though, as in Dan Vogel's case
Blah, blah, blah.
In the July/August 2018 edition of "Biblical Archaeology Review" on page 33, is an article "Egyptian Papyrus Sheds New Light on Jewish History." The author is Karel van der Toorn. The article is about a papyrus roll discovered in the late 19th century at Luxor (ancient Thebes). It took more than 120 years to decipher the text. It was discovered that Egyptian Demotic script had been used to write Aramaic text! The translation turned out to be three Israelite psalms written about 400BC.
This is an example of "Reformed Egyptian" used by Israelites and discovered by non-Mormons!!
But I'd challange you to first read the entirety of the material you're Citing. Whst the discovery if you can call it such was a sort of Rosetta stone known as an abcdery. These documents are typically a grammar book of the sorts. Now after a very very careful study, and a sniff of your soiled unwashed magic mormon underwear, tell me which of these repetitive strings of nonsense look like Egyptian.
No it's not. It's Aramaic written with phonetically equivalent Egyptian characters much in the same way Ugaritic is written in a cuneiform script that hails from an Akkadian cuneiform precedent. Ugaritic is in no way "reformed-Akkadian". Perhaps the better phrase for the Aramaic-Demotic example cited above should be "re-purposed Egyptian". The very fact that the Aramaic-Demotic text was indeed translated without resorting to such things as "peep-stones" in a hat, further distances your hypothesis from reality.
No it's not