Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Dear prove
You caught me in the transition from CARM...
...It is not your sincerity in believing Mormonism that I question, but it is the discrepancy between what many LDS people believe in an uncritical manner, and what your leaders have said. That is a gap that should be looked into in order to discover the truth.
I will admit that I have a special reverence in my heart for Joseph Smith. I have studied his life enough to have a deep love for him. I don't think this reverence for Joseph is any different, however, than an Evangelical Christian's reverence for Paul or the apostle John, or the reverence the Jews and Christians both had and have for Abraham and Moses. Joseph never even came close to even hinting that anyone should reverence him at the same level as his Savior. He was always only His humble witness.
You will not find any songs in the hymnals in most Churchs that are written to sing praise to Paul of Abraham or Moses, I found this "gem" in the LDS hymnal that does show a certain praise to Joseph Smith--in fact it is all about PRAISE to Joseph Smith, the man.
Of course there is the phrase "Earth will atone for the blood of the man"--the twisted Mormon belief in Blood Atonement.
Comprehender,
You have stumbled upon the critical difference between Christianity amd mormonism.
In Mormonism, as you have discovered, there are many things which strain credulity, which is the thesis of my thread HERE. So let me ask you this question: Since you do not accept as true some of the things taught in Mormonism, might there be other things which are similarly not true? Pushing the envelop a little farther, and to go back to your things which you find hard to accept, does your unbelief of those things cause you to doubt some of the things about Joseph Smith?
it is true that none of the prophets were perfect in the Old Testament, but by the same token, can you find any examples of a prophet of the OT who was a polygamist? Can you find any of those prophets of the OT marrying a thirteen or fourteen-years old child (think about an 8th or 9th grade child)? What about any prophet who used a "seer stone? What about a prophet of the OT who caused a bank failure?
These are significant issues, and a matter of record, so they are true; unfortunately they are not discussed by many anywhere, but they are vital to a Mormon. All these go to the character of Smith, and the character of the god whom he is supposed to represent. Since God says in the Bible "Be ye holy, for I am holy" how can you reconcile the history of Smith with a just, righteous and holy God?
The prophets of the OT did not violate any laws of God, or the Ten Commandments. That can not be said of joseph smith. Please think about that, and get back.
OK, an approach to join the bandwagon. However, I do ask you provide the specifics about what you claim in these two areas:
1: "more and more" which means that the numbers are increasing. Can you demonstrate that?
1: "non-LDS scholars" Perhaps I am assuming too much, but my belief is that to earn that title, it is required to have an education above the undergraduate level. Therefore I also ask you to cite evidences of those with masters or PhDs or any doctorate-level conversions which are increasing, as you stated.
By Grace,
This is my answer to your request for evidence that non-LDS scholars support the idea that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document. I have mostly just copied and pasted quotes that say what I want to say. The credentials of the scholars cited here can easily by found by googling their names or going to Wikipedia. This first quote I use as my introduction to this topic from http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml#scholars.
“Most scholars, even when puzzled by evidence for the Book of Mormon, simply will not go on record supporting it, and with good reason. The Book of Mormon presents itself as a bizarre miracle - delivered to a farm boy by an angel, translated with the power of God. It's risky enough for scholars to go on record as believing in God (Forest Mims, for example, was denied a position at Scientific American that had been offered to him when it was learned that he believed God created the universe.) To go on record as supporting the Book of Mormon is much worse - not only for the peer pressure, for the obviously personal dilemma: if you believe it's true, then why aren't you a Mormon? Non-LDS scholars supporting the Book of Mormon directly are extremely rare (there are some!), but much less rare is non-LDS scholars proving things that strongly confirm the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, such as those who now say that many ancient peoples wrote on metal plates, or that Alma was a Jewish man's name, or that ancient peoples did come by oceanic voyages to the Americas (laughable in the nineteenth century), etc. Many laughable "errors" in the Book of Mormon have become confirmed as valid[not errors at all] in the past century.”
WF Albright is one of my favorite scholars! A professor of mine was a student of his at Johns Hopkins, and sometimes he would treat us to some of the stories he had about his interactions with Albright.Here’s my first example:
“In 1966, Grant Heward, an obscure critic of the restored Church wrote a series of inflammatory letters designed to elicit negative comments about the Book of Abraham from prominent Near Eastern scholars. In his response, William F. Albright of Johns Hopkins University expressed doubts that Joseph Smith could have learned Egyptian from any early nineteenth century sources. Explaining that he was a Protestant and hence did not believe in the Book of Mormon, Albright observed, “It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch [Paanchi] and Pahor(an) which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being ‘Reformed Egyptian.'”
Puzzled at the existence of such names in a book published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright suggested that the young Mormon leader was some kind of “religious genius” and defended the honesty of Joseph Smith and the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
First of all, your comparing Book of Mormon geography to Bible Geography seems to be relevant here, to the uninformed, but is a whole topic of discussion on its own. I will address it in a later post and show that it does not have the same relevance you assume it does. But to assume that everything in the Bible has been proven by archeology is not even close to reality. It is, in fact, an area of great controversy.In 1966 Harold B Lee stated this:"Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?" from Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,†address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172–173
Can you imagine any Christian authority saying that about Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Golgatha, or many of the cities mentioned in the Bible?
It is apparent that Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding of the matter, and not as an official declaration of Church policy. Two statements made available within the next three years clarified the Church's opinion on the matter. The first was the publication of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Although not an official statement of Church policy, two members of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elders Oaks and Maxwell, served as advisers during the production of the Encyclopedia. Thus, we have the following statement published in 1992:In 1990, the First Presidency stated"The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.
F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, in a letter dated October 16, 1990
In verse 51, the word "hill is hyperlinked to D&C 128:20, which saysAnd again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!"
Therefore while you remain technically correct, there is indeed a very strong linkage from OFFICIAL sources of the LDS church to name that hill of Smith, and the name cumorah.
More to the point, in the portion I quoted from HJS, the intention of the words, and the interaction with the messenger (Moroni) can not help anyone to believe that the hill is NOT Cumorah.
In 1966 Harold B Lee stated this:"Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?"
Can you imagine any Christian authority saying that about Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Golgatha, or many of the cities mentioned in the Bible?
By Grace,
I promised earlier to post an explanation of the dilema of comparing Biblical Archaeology with that of the Book of Mormon. Once you understand the reality of this subject, you will realize just how silly some of the criticisms of the Book of Mormon sound to someone with an informed perspective. To do this I am using excerpts from an article by Michael R. Ash. I know this seems long, but I promise it to be enlightening and worth the read.
This paragraph is based on a logical flaw called "begging the question". This logical flaw begins with a false statement, then asks a question based upon the false statement. In this case, there are two, which I have made blue. First is that the author assumes, contrary to any evidence that the Nephites existed, and second that there would be archeological evidence for a non-extant people.Critics sometimes deride the idea that Nephites were, for much of their written history, “Christians.” In the critics' view, there should be archaeological remains indicating a Christian presence in the ancient New World. But how, exactly, would an archaeologist distinguish a Christian's pot from that of a non-Christian? What would a Christian pot look like? One must also keep in mind that, according to the Book of Mormon, the New World “Christians” were a persecuted minority who were wiped out over fifteen hundred years ago. How much archaeological evidence would we really expect to have survived the intervening centuries? For the archaeologist, the strongest contextual clues come from writing or markings that are sometimes found on the physical evidence. As noted by Dr. William Hamblin, "the only way archaeologists can determine the names of political kingdoms, people, ethnography, and religion of an ancient people is through written records."
By Grace, in spite of these limitations, there are actually many archaeological evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon. I'll identify some of them when I address your challenge about the wheel and chariots. Thanks for your patience in reading all this.
By Grace, what I meant by quoting this author is that you should assume it as me saying these things, since I agree with what he is saying and the way he is saying it. Please try and just pay attention to the arguments and not so much where they originated.I can not discuss things with articles from another person. That is not being nasty, but realistic, OK?
There is no logical flaw and no begging the question here. My problem is that I assumed that you knew more about the Book of Mormon than you do. Sorry about that. Please notice that the author and I point out that the critics deride an IDEA about the Nephites that is presented in the Book of Mormon. The idea is that they are called in the Book of Mormon, Christians. There is no false statement here. The Book of Mormon does indeed make such a claim and critics take issue with that claim. The author is not assuming anything about Nephites actually existing here. Only that they exist as characters in the Book of Mormon. He is pointing out the fact that critics make the argument that if Mormons want to create any credibility for those characters in the Book of Mormon being real, they feel Mormons need to show a lot of archaeological evidence.This paragraph is based on a logical flaw called "begging the question". This logical flaw begins with a false statement, then asks a question based upon the false statement. In this case, there are two, which I have made blue. First is that the author assumes, contrary to any evidence that the Nephites existed, and second that there would be archeological evidence for a non-extant people.
Again, you are confirming here that this author is assuming correctly, that critics, like yourself, see no evidence of ancient New World Christianity. You are also forgetting that the Book of Mormon claims to be a 19th century English translation of an ancient text. Of course the ancient people of the Book of Mormon would not use the English word Christian. That is not the claim the Book of Mormon or any Latter-day Saint has ever made. Christian is simply the 19th century English word that the ancient word with the same meaning was translated into.Next error is that the word Christian is a New World term. It is not because the term "Christian" was first used at Antioch, according to the Bible, and this was used post Resurrection.
Here is the ENTIRE text of the letter. It demonstrates that Jeff Lindsay was not quite honest when he used the "religious genius" phrase from Albright's letter
.Dear Mr. Howard:<SNIP>
Thanks for sending me a copy of the publication of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. There does appear to be evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he undoubtedly spent a great deal of money and effort in trying to master Egyptian, but, as you know, when the Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered and it is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language as being "Reformed Egyptian." I read an extremely interesting account by Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, in chapter 12, in which she deals with Joseph Smith's tremendous efforts to learn languages. There were, however, as yet no Egyptian grammars or dictionaries in existence, so the best he could do was to follow books from the seventeenth and eighteenth centures (including some from the nineteenth) which treated the hieroglyphs very much as Horapollo did about the sixth century A.D.--as pure ideographs. Joseph Smith's translation does not, however, follow the pseudo-Neo-Platonism of Athanasius Kircher in the seventeenth century, but is a kind of quasi-biblical composition. In any case it has nothing whatever to do with the original Egyptian manuscript of a copy of the Book of the Dead.
The supposed digits have nothing whatever to do with the figures. You must remember that our digits go back to India through the Arabs and were not brought to Europe until less than a thousand years ago.
I do not for a moment believe that Joseph Smith was trying to mislead anyone; I accept the point of view of a Jewish friend of mine at the University of Utah, that he was a religious genius and that he was quite honest in believing that he really could decipher these ancient texts. But to insist that he did is really doing a disservice to the cause of a great church and its gifted founder.
Cordially,
(signature)
W. F. Albright
I have not offered a lot of specifics up to this point, because those specifics would fill a large book and there is not room here for that degree of thoroughness. If you want the specific references to non-LDS archeological and textual evidences you can go to this source page and follow the links it provides. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/AnachronismsAs to your opening statement I made green:... but much less rare is non-LDS scholars proving things that strongly confirm the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, such as those who now say that many ancient peoples wrote on metal plates, or that Alma was a Jewish man's name, or that ancient peoples did come by oceanic voyages to the Americas (laughable in the nineteenth century)What is striking to me here is the lack of specificity in this. "Many" is ambiguous, by definition. I did a Google search on "ancient metal plates writing", and without exception ALL of the resources cited are Mormon in origin.
By Grace,
I am having a hard time understanding your statement that Jeff was being less than honest in his use of the term "religious genius" after seeing the actual quote he was referring to thanks to your impressive resourcefulness. It turns out that "religious genius" is the exact term he used to describe the opinion of his Jewish friend, which he says he agrees with. Jeff is also proven accurate in saying that Albright defended Joseph Smith as someone not trying to mislead anyone. To me, your quote just makes my argument stronger.
I have not as of yet looked at the URL, but I am ALWAYS wary of the stuff that comes from FAIR/FARMS because it is not peer reviewed, which is a high academic standard for thoroughness and excellence.I have not offered a lot of specifics up to this point, because those specifics would fill a large book and there is not room here for that degree of thoroughness. If you want the specific references to non-LDS archeological and textual evidences you can go to this source page and follow the links it provides. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms
The charts illustrating the Book of Mormon items that have been and have yet to be discovered is particularly illuminating. In another post I will list a few specifics.
Hello again By Grace. I think you are completely missing the point and swallowing camels again on this one. You are distracted by attempting to discredit the messenger and missing the meaning of the message. If you read this carefully, you will find that the thing Albright is being critical of is the Egyptian alphabet produced by Joseph Smith, not the Book of Mormon. The evidence in the Book of Mormon is what made him the religious genius. He is simply pointing out that his amazing, unexplainable accuracy with the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, which was produced by religious or spiritual means, does not qualify him to be able to read real ancient Egyptian texts, which is what the Egyptian alphabet appears to be attempting to do. After all, the BofM claimed to be a reformed Egyptian text, of which there is nothing else to compare to. When he talks about Joseph trying to decipher THESE ancient texts, he is not referring to the Book of Mormon, but actual Egyptian manuscripts like the Book of the Dead.Fair enough. The difference is subtle, but significant in my opinion. Please compare what Lindsey wrote:
Puzzled at the existence of such names in a book published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright suggested that the young Mormon leader was some kind of “religious genius†and defended the honesty of Joseph Smith and the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.â€
With this, which Albright actually wrote:
I do not for a moment believe that Joseph Smith was trying to mislead anyone; I accept the point of view of a Jewish friend of mine at the University of Utah, that he was a religious genius and that he was quite honest in believing that he really could decipher these ancient texts. But to insist that he did is really doing a disservice to the cause of a great church and its gifted founder.
Is mormonism Christianity?
Dear ProveallthingsHello again By Grace. I think you are completely missing the point and swallowing camels again on this one. You are distracted by attempting to discredit the messenger and missing the meaning of the message.
How can you say that when the word "alphabet" is nevere mentioned in Albright's letter?.If you read this carefully, you will find that the thing Albright is being critical of is the Egyptian alphabet produced by Joseph Smith, not the Book of Mormon.
Again, you are reading into (interpolating) what Albright stated:The evidence in the Book of Mormon is what made him the religious genius.
He is simply pointing out that his amazing, unexplainable accuracy with the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, which was produced by religious or spiritual means, does not qualify him to be able to read real ancient Egyptian texts, which is what the Egyptian alphabet appears to be attempting to do. After all, the BofM claimed to be a reformed Egyptian text, of which there is nothing else to compare to. When he talks about Joseph trying to decipher THESE ancient texts, he is not referring to the Book of Mormon, but actual Egyptian manuscripts like the Book of the Dead.
One of the reasons he gives for Joseph not being qualified to translate Egyptian is that there simply was not enough knowledge available at his time in history to qualify anyone to do what he appeared to be attempting with his alphabet.
He is also cautioning in regard to Fawn Brodie in that her claims of Joseph doing a large amount of study of ancient languages...
Albright did NOT make ANY claim for the authenticity of Smith's "translation". From where do you get the basis to make an assertion like that? Again, please read what Albright wrote: Joseph Smith's translation does not, however, follow the pseudo-Neo-Platonism of Athanasius Kircher in the seventeenth century, but is a kind of quasi-biblical composition. Again, this is an academic put downmay cause one to think that anything of Joseph's work that appeared to be authentic may be because of his extensive study of ancient languages.
NEITHER of the words, "church" or gifted founder" are present in that letter, so I ask in all sincerity I ask why do you say that, PROVELLAHINGST?He is explaining that saying such is "doing a disservice to the cause of a great church and its gifted founder". He is emphasizing that Joseph's gifts were not in understanding ancient languages, but religious gifts, which gifts were manifested in the Book of Mormon. This is exactly what the church claims. The only criticism I see from Albright toward Joseph Smith is that Joseph should stay away from such academic pursuits and stick to the religious stuff, because in doing so he is only damaging his credibility. But even in this criticism he describes it as simply an honest mistake in judgement, rather than being delusional.
Notice that his final expression is emphasizing respect and credibility of the church and its founder. Why would he end on that note if he thought Joseph was delusional? He used only four ways to describe Joseph Smith. All were positive and completely oposite of what your opinion of Joseph is. They are, not believing for one moment that Joseph was trying to mislead anyone, religious genius, honest, and gifted. And that is all that Jeff Lindsey was trying to say.
How can you say that when the word "alphabet" is nevere mentioned in Albright's letter?.
This statement makes me wonder if you were just going off faulty memory and didn't even attempt to go back and reread the letter at all. Are we even talking about the same letter? I'm talking about the letter from Dr. Albright to a Mr. Howard that I pasted above. Just read the last line of the letter to see what I am referring to.NEITHER of the words, "church" or gifted founder" are present in that letter, so I ask in all sincerity I ask why do you say that, PROVELLAHINGST?
No kidding. Think about what you are saying. Do you really believe it is possible to receive revelation from God that does NOT agree with the revelation He has already revealed to one of His prophets?Your "revelation and authority" powers within the priesthood are still very limited--they have to agree with the Prophets.
If you want to see how silly this argument is, just consider how these quotes would sound if said by Peter or Paul or John. Don’t you believe that when the Bible speaks, the debate is over? Don’t you believe that when Peter, James and John presented a plan, it was God’s plan? I challenge you to find a believing Evangelical that would disagree with any of those quotes if you switched the LDS names with Biblical apostle’s or prophet’s names or just the Bible. Try it without telling them where the quotes came from and see what happens.Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy.... Lucifer ... wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking."...
When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy (Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354).
Have we not a right to make up our minds in relation to the things recorded in the word of God, and speak about them, whether the living oracles believe our views or not? We have not the right....
God placed Joseph Smith at the head of this Church; God has likewise placed Brigham Young at the head of this Church.... We are commanded to give heed to their words in all things, and receive their words as from the mouth of God, in all patience and faith (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 374-75
Then you were realizing with a rebellious heart and not an open one. I have frequently had revealed to me “the truths we are promised to be led to by the Spirit of Truth as promised in John 16:13â€. And of course they were always in harmony and often times confirmed what had been taught by the living prophets and the scriptures.One thing I realized in the Mormon Church is that the Holy Ghost only merely CONFIRMS Church teachings--never REVEALING the Truths we are Promised to be led to by the "Spirit of Truth" as Promised in John 16:13. Really such a vast difference between the True Holy Spirit and the Mormon "Holy Ghost".
As to your opening statement I made green:... but much less rare is non-LDS scholars proving things that strongly confirm the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, such as those who now say that many ancient peoples wrote on metal plates, or that Alma was a Jewish man's name, or that ancient peoples did come by oceanic voyages to the Americas (laughable in the nineteenth century)What is striking to me here is the lack of specificity in this. "Many" is ambiguous, by definition. I did a Google search on "ancient metal plates writing", and without exception ALL of the resources cited are Mormon in origin.
By Grace,
Your whole response seems to be based on a misunderstanding. You appear to have missed the first sentence of the letter. I have to admit, I was confused about this letter at first as well until I went back and read the beginning of the letter. We are all looking at it thinking it is about the Book of Mormon, but if you read the first line of the letter (which you were so good to find and provide in full) in context with the rest of it, we find that this is in response to a guy who was wanting the egyptian alphabet to be evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman. The only reason Albright would have in mentioning the Book of Mormon would be for evidence in defending Joseph Smith. I am copying below, the entire letter with my comments on each part in brackets. Hopefully this will help you understand where Jeff Lindsey and I are coming from and that there has been no desire to exaggerate, distort or lie here.
Smith's purpose is irrelevant; he published it as [ possibly Reformed] Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. Therefore the title stands, and there is only one way to determine the purpose of the book, and that is to read the preface. Otherwise, you provide speculation.Dear Mr. Howard:
Thanks for sending me a copy of the publication of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.
[Here he identifies the topic of and reason for the letter. This pertains to some fragments of the Egyptian papyri that were a part of the larger group of scrolls from which the Book of Abraham came. No one knows for sure what Joseph’s purpose was in creating this alphabet, but Albright is answering a Mormon critic, Mr. Howard, about what he thinks about the credibility of Joseph’s apparent attempt to create an English explanation of some of the Egyptian characters. This all happened several years after the Book of Mormon was published.]
Absolutely, this is NOT the case! The fact that Albright put 'Reformed Egyptian" in quotes is because the re is absolutely no such language. If you substitute the words, "Klingon" or Romulan" or "Ferengi" (yes, I am a Trekkie) then you will see the point that Albright was making.There does appear to be evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he undoubtedly spent a great deal of money and effort in trying to master Egyptian, [Here Albright is agreeing with Mr. Howard that Joseph had put effort into studying Egyptian.] but, as you know, when the Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered and it is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language as being "Reformed Egyptian." [Then he adds a “butâ€, indicating that he is now pointing out a fact that Mr. Howard may have overlooked or was not aware of in his criticism of Joseph, indicating that at least at the time of creating the Book of Mormon, there really wasn’t much available to learn Egyptian from. And because he had no access to the knowledge of Egyptian we have today, it is surprising that while claiming there was Egyptian influence in the origin of the Book of Mormon he was able to include some authentic Egyptian names. This appears to be what Albright is referring to when he agrees that Joseph must have been a religious genius.] I read an extremely interesting account by Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, in chapter 12, in which she deals with Joseph Smith's tremendous efforts to learn languages. There were, however, as yet no Egyptian grammars or dictionaries in existence, so the best he could do was to follow books from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (including some from the nineteenth) which treated the hieroglyphs very much as Horapollo did about the sixth century A.D.--as pure ideographs. Joseph Smith's translation does not, however, follow the pseudo-Neo-Platonism of Athanasius Kircher in the seventeenth century, but is a kind of quasi-biblical composition. In any case it has nothing whatever to do with the original Egyptian manuscript of a copy of the Book of the Dead.
This is a way of saying that Smith was delusional: He did not know Egyptian, as proved by his grammar, but he sincerely believed that he did write a preposterous grammar and alphabet.I do not for a moment believe that Joseph Smith was trying to mislead anyone; [Albright appears here to be countering the assumption of Mr. Howard in defense of Joseph’s motives.]
I accept the point of view of a Jewish friend of mine at the University of Utah, that he was a religious genius and that he was quite honest in believing that he really could decipher these ancient texts. [So because of what appears to be at least somewhat of an authentic accomplishment with the Book of Mormon, which Albright attributes to "religious genius", Joseph came to believe that he might be able to decipher the Egyptian characters of the papyri.] But to insist that he did is really doing a disservice to the cause of a great church and its gifted founder. [To say that Joseph was able to translate Egyptian in an academic way would tend to diminish what he accomplished through his religious gifts.]
This statement makes me wonder if you were just going off faulty memory and didn't even attempt to go back and reread the letter at all. Are we even talking about the same letter? I'm talking about the letter from Dr. Albright to a Mr. Howard that I pasted above. Just read the last line of the letter to see what I am referring to.