The Anthon transcript has been compared to a number of known languages. I don’t find the Irish comparison any more compelling than the other proposals. Also, it’s not entirely true to say that Egyptologists can find no correlation to the Anthon characters. Ariel L. Crowley did a 4-part series in the 1942-1944 Improvement Era in which he demonstrated the similarity of the Anthon characters to Demotic (which certainly qualifies as “Reformed Egyptian”). He presented these findings to a non-Mormon Egyptologist, who agreed with his findings but thought there was a greater similarity to the less cursive Meroitic script. The Anthon characters don’t form intelligible sentences when interpreted as Demotic or Meroitic, but the fact that a comparison can be made suggests that the transcript cannot be as easily dismissed as one might expect.

Peace,

-Chris

Christian Researcher, Richard B. Stout, has done extensive research correlating the alleged “Reformed Egyptian” characters on the plates that the Book of Mormon were “translated” from to Ancient Irish. The following questions and supporting evidence summarize and build his case:

Q: According to Mormon History were the Anthon Transcript characters copied from the alleged Golden Plates?
A: Yes. We have documented evidence from Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Joseph Smith that they were.

Q: Can a correlation between the Anthon Transcript characters and Egyptian Hieroglyphs be established?
A: No. Anthon was NOT a qualified “expert” and modern Egyptologists can find NO correlation.

Q: Can a correlation between the Anthon Transcript characters and the Detroit Manuscript characters be established?
A: Yes. There are character for character matches.

Q: Since it has been established that the Detroit Manuscript characters are ancient Irish (thus resulting in near-complete translation of the document) what are the Anthon Transcript characters?
A: Ancient Irish.

Thus the following question/challenge/problem remains for Mormon Scholars:
If you accept Martin Harris’s assertion that the characters on the Anthon Transcript were copied from the Golden Plates, then how you explain why the Golden Plates were written in Ancient Irish rather than ‘Reformed Egyptian’ as Joseph Smith claimed?”‘

source = http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=77439&catid=520

For perspective, I’m an active, if not more liberal, LDS member, and I comprehend the messiness of the Book of Abraham’s origins. I remain, at the moment, unconvinced by most the apologetic attempts to clean these major problems up. I guess I’m somehow able to dismiss that cognitive dissonance because I believe in the doctrines contained within the scripture. Mired in fog/apparent fraud/weirdness though its origins may be, I feel the divinity of the religious principles.

Most of the panelists know me reasonably well from the message boards, and don’t really believe that I’m an anti-Mormon out to destroy the Church. I’m pretty sure they’re just making an effort to make sure that a faithful/orthodox Mormon perspective is represented and that the hard questions get asked. I thought their questions about my motives were kind of funny, actually, because I know they were asked in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way.

I do appreciate you chiming in in my defense, however. You’re right; it can be frustrating to have people automatically question my motives. On the other hand, I recognize that the information I present can be threatening, and so I try not to let the instinctively defensive reactions bother me. The nice thing about being asked such questions is that once an accusation is on the table and I have the opportunity to respond to it, we can usually get past it and move forward with the conversation in a constructive way.

Those who are interesting in my answer to Ray’s inquiry, by the way, may view it here.

Over all it was very engaging and interesting. Good Job!

I think the intent of the quest was to pose the most common objections given to such work. Often, the panel will voice the usual counter arguments to allow the guest to respond. I appreciate your zeal though.

Frankly, that spoiled the interview for me. The guest deserves a formal apology.

If Mormonism is going to have any credibility whatsoever it must be capable and willing to withstand and undergo academic scrutiny. The accusation behind that question reveals that Mormons question the motive of any scrutiny – even when they shouldn’t. That’s disgraceful behavior.

Thank you for that information! I had the pict on a hard drive that crashed, but I know the original still exists on this couple’s PC. I’ll get it and send it.

Thanks!
Ray

Ray,

I assume the tomb you’re referring to is Tomb 33. Ross T. Christensen was the first to identify this as the tomb from which the JS mummies came. He made the identification based on some details in Oliver Cowdery’s account of Chandler’s account of Lebolo’s report of the tomb. In Jay Todd’s book The Saga of the Book of Abraham pages 64-69, you can read Dr. Lynn Hilton’s account of a visit to this Tomb, which is when the Egyptian tour guides first got wind of Mormon interest in it. Hilton consulted with one of the top government archaeologists, who said, “If we knew why you want to see Tomb 33, we might exploit the idea and get other tourists to come.” Hilton explained that he thought the tomb might be where the BoA papyrus was found. The archaeologist had never heard of the BoA before, and took a copy home to read. The next day he came back to Hilton and told him the BoA was “the grossest kind of nonsense.” Nonsense, maybe… but it sounds from your comment like that hasn’t stopped them from exploiting it to attract Mormon tourists!

Tomb 33, however, is not where the JS mummies really came from. As H. Donl Peterson wrote in The Story of the Book of Abraham (pages 54-63), Tomb 33 had already been excavated in the early 18th century and so did not need to be excavated by Lebolo. Peterson points to Tomb 32 as a more likely source, though it’s really not possible to know for sure. We simply don’t have enough information to make the determination.

The “temple rituals” that appear on Egyptian papyri are of course Egyptian temple rituals, not Mormon ones.

I’m not an Egyptologist, so I can’t guarantee I can identify your aproned figure. My expertise is more in the BoA’s 19th-century history. I get most of my Egyptological information about the papyri second-hand, from Egyptologists who have written on the subject. But I’d be interested in seeing your picture anyway. chris carroll smith at g mail is where you can send it, without the spaces of course.

That’s the best Freudian slip I’ve seen in a long time. How much LSD does it take for one to come to believe that Egyptian hieroglyphs depict the Mormon temple ceremony?

And Chris, we call Jan Shipps a Mormon scholar, and she’s also a never-mo. Only Mormons interpret that phrase to mean a scholar who is Mormon.

I would love to get more detail on this… Thank you for the information! It was an excellent podcast!

While the church and it’s pack of mo’pologists froth at the mouth when bragging about how Smith produced the 500+ pages of the Book of Mormon in a few months, these dogs quickly whimper with their tail between their legs when questioned why it took Smith over seven years to produce the few pages of the Book of Abraham..

Perhaps the seer stone was out of calibration or perhaps, Sidney wanted nothing to do with Smith pretending to translate a piece of authentic “non reformed” Egyptian text?

You’ll want to check out Samuel Brown’s essay “Joseph Smith in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden” in Church History 78, no. 1 (Mar 2009). Pages 42-47 discuss 19th century America’s understanding of hieroglyphics as mystical pictographs.

slvjm,

Wilford Woodruff mentioned Smith’s use of the Urim and Thummim in connection with the second stage of translation in 1842, but we have no evidence that Smith used a stone in the first stage of translation in 1835. For at least the first three verses, I’d wager that he did not. Watch for my paper in the JWHA Journal this Fall, which argues that in these verses Smith used the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to match up symbols on the papyrus with the English meanings he had assigned them. This doesn’t seem like a process that would lend itself to use of a seer stone.

John,

I think to call me a “Mormon scholar” in the abstract for this interview might be misleading. I’m a never-Mo. Thanks for all your hard work on this!

-Chris