Talk:Reformed Egyptian/Archive 1

No such language as Reformed Egyptian
LDS scholars are a group of mormon scholars - i don't find very hard to believe that they recognize Reformed Egyptian. I think some neutral evidence is needed here. -- Muriel Gottrop 14:37 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

reformed Egyptian (not Reformed Egyptian) is what the Book of Mormon calls what it was written in. The Book of Mormon doesn't say there is such a language as Reformed Egyptian. Mormons don't say there is such a language as Reformed Egyptian. If you want to coin a better term for the Book of Mormon alleged source language, you are free to try. But I think the term that has stuck is Reformed Egyptian, and its sole meaning is "the language of the Gold Plates that are alleged to have been the source for the Book of Mormon." Tom 05:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The sole evidences (and they are indeed evidences) for whatever we call this writing system allegedly derived from Egyptian, are the Book of Mormon English text and the Caractors (Anthon) sample. There never was puroported by any party at any time to be any other evidence. Is the article not clear on this point? Tom 05:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon claims to have been written by prophet scribes who, originating circa 600 B.C. in the Middle East, took the lingua franca of their origination, Egyptian, and altered it according to their needs for use as their script as they engraved on metal plates. The name coined in the Book of Mormon by these scribes is reformed Egyptian, and Mormons have taken to saying that the Book of Mormon is written in Reformed Egyptian. But outside of its existence in the Book of Mormon, either fictitiously or historically, Reformed Egyptian is not a language. Presumably the nearest known linguistic relative to this reformed Egyptian writing would be some type of Egyptian writing. But Reformed Egyptian is 'not' claimed to be a language. Does that help at all? Tom 06:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of "no evidence" disputed
I am disputing the factual accuracy of saying there is no evidence for the existence of Reformed Egyptian. But your concern needs to be addressed. Please see talk page. Tom 05:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * but it is factually accurate. - Nauvoo 00:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to discuss your concerns about the Reformed Egyptian article if you are not satisfied with my rework of your edit. Tom 19:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. - Nauvoo 00:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"No evidence" langauge a straw man?
It unfortunately looks to me like somebody is trying to set up a straw man so he can argue against the Book of Mormon. Let's please not go there. If we must, let's say it in the first sentence. "Book of Mormon students and critics agree that 'reformed Egyptian' is not a language outside of Book of Mormon studies. It is solely the commonly used name, based on self-designation by the Book of Mormon, for the way the Book of Mormon claims to have uniquely altered some form of Egyptian for special use as a writing system.  "  Tom 06:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I like this language, I think it's very NPOV. At best, Nauvoo could add his line to the reformed Egyptian studies section, and even then it should be revised to clarify no non-Mormons study it because "there's almost no acrheological...ect, ect". The line at the top should preclude the need for that line in the opening block. CHL 00:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I reject your accusation of having set up a straw man. The statement that there is no Reformed Egyptian outside the Book of Mormon implies that there is Reformed Egyptian inside the Book of Mormon, and there's no "agreement" on that!. I think it's important to have a clear statement that there is nearly no non-Mormon scientific, archeological, or linguistic support for the existence of Reformed Egyptian. And "nearly" is a concession...it could just as well be "no". - Nauvoo 00:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right. It does imply that. CHL 01:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * But why do you think it is important to say that? There is no evidence anywhere, nor any assertion anywhere that there ever was such a thing.  The man is straw. Tom 03:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Reformed Egyptian is not a language. Presumably the nearest known linguistic relative to this reformed Egyptian writing would be some type of Egyptian writing. But Reformed Egyptian is 'not' claimed to be a language. To quote the Book of Mormon, "the characters that are called among us the reformed [not Reformed] Egyptian." (emphasis added) If the article is not clear on this point, it should be revised.  Tom 02:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Nearly no evidence" claim unfair, trivial
I removed this sentence because it seems trivial. "Non-Mormon scholars don't study reformed Egyptian because there is nearly no non-Mormon scientific, archeological, or linguistic support for the existence of it." If there is real substance that needs to be added, we need to find a way to do it. But the sentence I removed has the following problems: Again, if there is a real problem with this article that needs to be addressed, let's do it in a quality way. I'll keep giving more possible openings below:
 * 1) The only scholars who study the Book of Mormon writing are those interested in the Book of Mormon.  All the rest of the world (not "Non-Mormon scholars") doesn't study the Book of Mormon writing.  There is no such language outside of Book of Mormon Studies because it is by definition "the writing system of the Book of Mormon".
 * 2) The first reason only Book of Mormon researchers (not "Mormons", though mostly Mormons) study Book of Mormon writing system is only they are interested.
 * 3) Those who "don't study Reformed Egyptian" probably don't have a very qualified judgement on whether there is evidence for it.
 * 1) In Book of Mormon studies, 'Reformed Egyptian' is the common name for the alleged writing system used by the Book of Mormon prophets descended from Lehi.  The Book of Mormon itself doesn't refer to Reformed Egyptian as a language, only saying that it is written using "the characters that are called among us the reformed Egyptian," and no so-named language is known elsewhere.  Ancient Egyptian demotic script is believe by Book of Mormon researchers to be the closest known language to reformed Egyptian.

I think that in Wikipedia NPOV fashion, saying "In nixit, foo is bar," is the polite way to say "Of course the rest of the sane world knows better." We don't go around in the many specialized articles on biology saying, "Of course, in reality, man is a child of God, and the earth was made for eternal purposes." Tom 03:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I share this concern. However, forcing one to read through the entire article before concluding, "yep, there's no non-Mormon evidence of it" is untenable. Reformed Egyptian studies are uniquely Mormon; this is a very important characteristic. The way your opening paragraph seemed to "concede" that non-Mormon researchers agree that there's no such language only serves to imply they do agree with the subsequent interpretation (namely, that it's a BoM writing system). As we have no disagreements about who does and does not believe in reformed Egyptian, what's the disservice of stating it? CHL 06:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is the straw man that I am perceiving: "The Book of Mormon was written in the language of Reformed Egyptian, and if you will just go to the local university and study Reformed Egyptian, you should be able to translate (or falsify) the Reformed Egyptian sample Joseph Smith provided." If critics want a good place to start for falsifiability, they need to go to demotic script, the writing that had just gained full acceptance in 600 B.C. when Lehi left Jerusalem. Tom 03:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't care about whether reformed Egyptian is faith-based and unfalsifiable or not: I care that the article gives an accurate treatment of it. Whether it's a "good theory" or not, it must be said that it's a strictly Mormon one. Without this notice, speaking of textual evidence in the article fails to disclose the scholarship's framework--its POV--thus biasing the article. CHL 06:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify it's a "Mormon Thing"
Please forgive my dense-headedness. I am still having a hard time putting my finger on your key concern. There is something core to this that I have a feeling neither you nor I is getting at yet, and I think we need to scratch down to it. Tell me if you agree with the following statements: Hopefully these points can help us agree and come to a better understanding. Tom 16:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It is chiefly important to you that the article state early that "Studies of reformed Egyptian are uniquely Mormon".
 * The term Reformed Egyptian is a source of friction. Both Book of Mormons critics and apologists are quick to point out that there is no such language.
 * Reformed Egyptian, however poor a term, is the accepted term of reference for the alleged Golden Plates characters.
 * The Book of Mormon claims to have been written in a deriviation of Egyptian that it calls "the reformed Egyptian"
 * It is important to me (for some reason) to be faithful to the BofM text in saying "reformed Egyptian", but you keep changing it (for some reason) to "Reformed Egyptian".
 * The writing system, its name, and its existence are only of interest within the context of Book of Mormon studies.


 * I'm very sorry about those changes. I know it's "reformed Egyptian". If you look at the edit history, I actually removed a half dozen references of "Reformed Egyptian" from the article body for consistancy. Capitalizing makes it seem more like a language, so I understand your preference and agree. I've been rewriting (and grammatically capitalizing) the first sentence because until now I thought they've been clumsy. It seemed like clarity was sacrificed in an attempt to put "reformed Egyptian" somewhere other than the beginning (presumably to avoid capitalization). Your new revision is a slight improvement. I believe that articles should state clearly in one sentence what they're about--enough to understand the context and focus of the article. I think it could be better, but it's not bad enough I'll knee-jerk edit it.
 * Your language, "...no researchers outside Mormonism and few within Mormonism have been moved to undertake any study of the alleged system." is good, but not harshly judgemental against Book of Mormon studies. Thank you. CHL
 * Thank you to you too. Now that we are coming closer to a solution, no reason not to tweak and improve if you see fit.  I guess we are pretty much eye to eye on "reformed Egyptian" and the difficulties of the early intro.  I would be pleased if you found a way to get the "no non-Mormon" into the first paragraph, and to make it so the first paragraph isn't just one sentence.  Having two or three one sentence paras at the top always rubs me wrong.  Pleasure working with agreeable people like you. Tom 17:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blair Bryant
Blair Bryant is not LDS. Sorry. Tom 03:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask about that. Thanks. CHL 05:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The" Book of Mormon
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that my stylistic changes from the Book of Mormon to The Book of Mormon were lost inadvertently, and I put them back. I don't even know for a fact that I am following appropriate style. It is my gut understanding that the name of the book is The Book of Mormon. What usage are we trying to stick to. Where's Visorstuff when you need him? Tom - Talk 16:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion on this topic on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Mormonism) page. CO GDEN  17:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I've made some additional edits, primarily reducing the amount of "special pleadng" the article includes. Changing the name of the page doesn't, to my mind, solve the problem, - the assertion that such a thing as reformed Egyptian existed is a religious claim about the real world, and as such is subject to proof or disproof -- and will only make it more difficult to find/link to. - Nauvoo 05:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no reason to change the name of the page. Whatever an NPOV description of the subject may look like, I know of no other subject that is called "Reformed Egyptian", so disambiguating with "Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism)" is unnecessary. --Michael Snow 18:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)