There are a number of reformed Egyptian languages. It is a mistake to think that references to the plates being done in Reformed Egyptian means that this is actually what the language would have been called, rather than a description. For instance, what we use today is a reformed version of English. Compare it to true English -- that of 900 years ago -- and you would hardly believe that they are even related, either in the written characters or the words. Even today, with intensive communication between English-speaking cultures around the world, there are such conflicts as jail/gaol or corn/maize, not to mention hundreds of divergent spellings (color/colour, fiber/fibre, aluminum/aluminium) -- and these are in common use today. We recognize many of these differences and call all of them "modern English," though there is no language actually named Modern English. It's a description, not a designation. Even in the United States over a mere 200 years symbology has changed. The originals of the Declaration of Independence refer proclaim the inalienable rights to be "life, liberty, and the purfuit of happinefs." When you consider the changes in English over 900 years, it is to be expected that there would be changes in the written language used by Lehi's descendants over 900 years between Nephi and Mormon, but there would still be similarities, thus the Egpytian symbols would be somewhat recognizable -- a "reformed Egyptian."

How convenient that the so-called Reformed Egyptian language allegedly spoken by the fictional Nephites was not spoken by any other people. With their demise the language was no longer spoken. As a result, it would seem that all linguistic challenges to the etymology of the word Mormon are successfully stifled. How could one challenge Joseph Smith's rendering of the word Mormon? According to him, Mormon is a hybrid word consisting of two words. The first part of the word is a contraction of the English word, "more"; the second part of the word is allegedly taken from the Reformed Egyptian, -mon, "good."(2) Joseph Smith claims -mon is from a language no longer spoken and which was so altered by those who did at one time speak it that it resembled no other language. In this way, Joseph Smith hoped to achieve his purpose: "the subject is put to silence." If his explanation of the etymology of the word Mormon is any indication of the existence of Reformed Egyptian, than it can safely be assumed that it has always been an non-existent language. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/mormons.html

I am reading "Reformed Egyptian:"In the Language of My Father" Wow... "William Hamblin, in a FARMSpaper titled, ReformedEgyptian,(1)says that "there are numerous examples of modified (or reformed) Egyptian charactersbeing used to write non-Egyptian languages." He discusses five examples." OK, so were are they, it is easy to make these statements so lets back them up. "the hieroglyphs live on, though in transmute [or could we not say reformed?] form, within our own alphabet." Yes we could, or we could just say what the author wrote. It is not uncommon for the LDS faith to make tremendus leaps. To fill in the blanks when they are needed. When you fill in the blanks, you are assuming. You are altering and changing the context and content of the document or conversation. "Nephi said, "I make a record in the language of my father,..." I am curious, what was the language of his father, a Hebrew man living in a Hebrew land. Hum this is kinda tuff. What language am I communicating in, reformed Roman, reformed Latin, reformed German. No I think it is English, if I really stretch it I could call it reformed English I suppose. Without any lead up or proof (sounds like Mormonism again) The writer of this makes another fun leap. He all of asudden decided that Lehi was wealthy and educated. He than makes a connection between the Egyptians, who looked down on the Jews as mere slaves and fodder for fun, with the following... "It's now known that the cultural relationship between Israel and Egypt was very close. Egyptian was the language of culture and learning. Thus it is postulated that Lehi, obviously a wealthy and educated man, would be fluent in Egyptian." What a fond relationship these slaves had with the tormenting torturing Egyptians. SHALL WE PLAY A GAME? "Yes," Now the writer aferms his own assumptions of Lehi as truth. Pretty tricky here. "Yes Lehi was educated and may have been a trader and a traveler, but this doesn't answer all the questions we might have about his association with Egyptian." Lets have another example of this.... shall we... "I am directly related to Shania Twain and Donald Rumsfeld" "Yes, now being Shania and Donald’s relations..." You see my point. Let’s go on with this very intriguing document of absolute truth and authority. “except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time (Mosiah 1:4).” Could he not also have taught his children’s children in his own language of Hebrew. We will ask this again in a bit, lets read on kiddies. “A wealthy man, a community leader, a prophet: wouldn't Lehi already have his own copy of Scripture scrolls?” Another huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge leap. Now not only is Lehi educated, he is wealthy, a community leader and a prophet. Wow, I need to clean my peep stones, I mean glasses. This cat can read a lot into a few simple words. It is almost magical. “How does the Brass Plates Egyptian compare to the Book of Mormon reformed Egyptian? At least by Moroni's time they must have been different. Moroni said that they called it "reformed" because they had altered the characters. Was this written language of Moroni the same as the written language of Lehi and Nephi? A thousand years had passed and Moroni says that they had altered both the Egyptian and the Hebrew. Great changes take place in language in just hundreds of years. It would seem probable that Nephi and Moroni wrote in very different languages, even different characters. Perhaps, Nephi's record was not in a reformed Egyptian at all. It would seem logical that it would be in the language of Scripture that Nephi found on the Brass Plates.” This is a lot of work just to document something. Why would they feel it necessary that they should write in an hybrid language. Taking parts of Hebrew and morhping it with Egyptian. Remember the whole slave/master thing they had goin’ on. Why would a nation or even a sect of a nation want to write there most precious documents in a language not of there own. Let alone one that was aligned with another nation that hated them and looked upon them as animals and tools to build and slave for them? Like almost all of Mormonism, there is an awful lot of skepticism. Now lets look at it from another angle… Why would they go through so much trouble and work to create a new language? What were they hiding? Like a lot of Mormonism, they are hiding things. All Christian churches are completely open to the public for inspection, just looking around or whatever. Not the Mormon church!!! “At the same time, it seems obvious that Moroni was not writing in a comfortable and familiar script. He is constantly concerned about "imperfections" in this written record (Mormon 8:17; 9:31, 33; Ether 12:23-25).” Again, why not write in your own native tongue, as you are writing to your own peoples. Nah, it’s better to go through all the hassle of writing in a new created merged language that they can spend innumerous efforts teaching all how to read and write all over again. This is a much better plan of writing your Holey Scriptures in a half breed language shared with a nation that tormented, tortured, brutally murdered, used as fun and entertainment and generally didn’t like you much. Lets trash English and redo all our documents in spanglish. Or reformed English. I read the rest of the document, but seriously, it is to funny. It sheds no light on anything. It is very similar to the Book of Moron. A fairytale.

You'r right this was plagorized from http://www.exmormon.org/mormon #28 I hope my info will help to clarify some of the questions. I do think that all of us will have a bit more information afterwards to come to a supported opinion. Most of the bottom info are a condensed "briefing" of my own research etc. which I put together years ago. So I'm taking much of it from my old notes and roam around in my memory. My main goal is to write "understandable", for those who haven't "dug" into this question, but would like to have an "overview". Naturally this can only be my overview. I'm also aware of the danger of being misunderstood in doing this, but then one is always in that danger the moment one communicates. I guess one of the reasons some people don't like communicating. But we must remember: It's impossible not to communicate. Our (Robert's) basic question was, in which "language" was the BoM originally written? It is often stated, from whomever: Reformed Egyptian. One (!) of the few (!) sources would be: Mormon 9:32-34: 32 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. 33 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. 34 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. In my "quick-shot" first mail, answering Richard, I said: "Couldn't have said it better ... I fully agree..." having the below in mind: "The way I read the BoM passages regarding the language in which Nephi et al. wrote, (and reading it most sympathetically to the Mormon point of view), it seems to me that Nephi (as well as the other scribes on the plates) is saying that he is writing Hebrew, but using Egyptian characters." I overlooked, "misunderstood" one little bit: "...writing Hebrew, but using Egyptian characters." But I guess what you are actually saying, Richard, is: "writing corrupted Hebrew, but using corrupted E. characters."? Could that be? According to my knowledge, it was James Talmage who first published the point of view, that the above "reformed Egyptian" is not simply Hebrew written with Egyptian characters, and he makes a distinction between the "reformed Egyptian" described by Mormon and the "record language" from 1.Nephi 1:3 (James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith; SLC, 1949, actually first published 1913]), p. 291-92) It was Hugh Nibley, who else, who made this topic more "public and popular" in LDS circles. His Lehi in the Desert, Hugh Nibley, 1952 (!), p. 13 (actually first published in article form in "The Improvement Era", see foreword): "It (the Book of Mormon, my addit.) makes it perfectly clear, however, that Egyptian was for Lehi a second language, "for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians, therfor he could read the engravings, and teach them to his children." (Mos. 1:4) ... Mormon tells us (Mor. 9:32 - 23 (sic!) that the language of Lehi's descendants was not Hebrew or Egyptian but a mixture of both, both being corrupted in the process, so that "none other people knoweth our language," which would certainly not have been the case had they spoken only Hebrew." Further (p. 14): "When Nephi says, "after this manner was the language of my father in praising of his God," (1.Ne. 1:15) he is not telling us what language his father spoke, but giving notice that he is quoting or paraphrasing an actual speech of his father. Likewise when he says, "I make a record in the language of my father (Ibid., 1:2) he says that he is going to quote or paraphrase a record actually written by his father. (Ibid., 1:6) He explains that his father wrote the record in Egyptian though it dealt with Jewish matters, but he never affirms that Egyptian was his father's native tongue. The clause in 1. Nephi 1:2 which begins, "which consists of ... " does not refer back to "language" or "father," of course, but to "record." I go along with that. Nibley again (p. 15): "Some have maintained that the Book of Mormon was written in Hebrew but with Egyptian characters. But Mormon (9:32 - 34) observes that the Nephites have altered their writing of Egyptian to conform to their way of speaking it, and that "the Hebrew hath been altered by us also," with the result that "none other people knoweth our language." Their language was neither Egyptian nor Hebrew. Mormon appreciates the accuracy and clarity of old Hebrew, which is no longer spoken by his people (9:33), and writes reluctantly "in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian," simply because that takes up less space than Hebrew because in Lehi's day demotic was actually a shorthand, extremely cramped and abbreviated; and it was a shorthand for the very reason that it was thoroughly idiomatic, that is, peculiarly adapted to the sounds and thought processes of one language and one language only. It could be used very economically for writing Egyptian, but not for any other language." Now comes the "proof", which I go along with too (p. 15f.): "This amounts to a declaration that the Nephites denied themselves the use of their holy and superbly practical script, oh which Torczyner writes: "The script of Lachish makes us realise for the first time the Phoenician-Hebrew alphabet ... is ... a script invented, and used particularly, for writing in ink upon papyrus, hide (parchment) and potsherds. We now realise that the ancient Jews could write quickly and boldly, in an artistic flowing hand, with the loving penmanship of those who enjoy writing."32 (Footnote 32; H. Torczyner, The Lachish Letters, p.15, my add.!) But read how Nibley takes off now! IMHO he actually gives the "killer-argument" himself, of which, we must always remind ourselves, there is no proof!: "And the Nephites got rid of this to learn in it's place the most awkward, difficult, and impractical system of writing ever devised by man! Why all this trouble? Simply to save space. What space? Space on valuable plates... It was only later when historians became cramped for space that they saw the advantage of continuing to write in Egyptian. And the Egyptian characters can only have been preserved for their use because the language was also preserved; for people who were not crowded for space would not have continued to write Hebrew in the difficult Egyptian characters for hundreds of years, when all the time they might just as well have been writing in the twenty-two simple and practical characters of the Hebrew alphabet." Now this is just the point. What LDS love doing is putting up "straw men", which are then "set alight" and since this results into ashes the "critical" argument was worth, well, not more than ashes. Plus: Most of the time one gets "stuffed" with information, page after page, which usually impresses and overwhelms the "novice" and creates an impression and feeling (!): Since I'm getting exhausted (in my brain) and since I don't really understand all of this, it must be true! Or false! Depending on your frame of mind etc. To observe this is often very impressive indeed. Example: In a FARMS article, William Hamblin starts out (see FARMS On-line Manuscripts) with: "Critics of the Book of Mormon maintain that there is no language known as "reformed Egyptian." What is "reformed Egyptian"? Critics who raise the objection seem to be operating under the false impression that reformed Egyptian is used in the Book of Mormon as a proper name." But this isn't the question! If someone would state, since "I have never heard of a town called Calgary, this proves their is no such town", it would only prove his amount general education and /or ability to make reasonable deductions. The point is not (!): Since we don't know of any language called (!) "reformed Egyptian" in these days, there couldn't have been any such in ancient days. That's why the following statement (from above) is a true, but doesn't explain the true issue: "The fact that modern linguists and philologists don't know of a script known as reformed Egyptian is irrelevant, since Mormon tells us that the script was called reformed Egyptian "by us." I wouldn't know any linguist or philologist that would make such a stupid statement, and still be worth calling himself as such. The point is: Considering the said above, their is a copy of writing (the characters given to Martin Harris, which he showed Charles Anthon ("Anthon Transcript") for validation, and in doing so even proves BoM prophesy) of the BoM, which have contents of Hebrew and Egyptian, however reformed or corrupted they may be. If they wouldn't have even the slightest remnants of both, what sense would it make to called them reformed Egyptian??? And if you read the LDS materials closely, as already said above, you'll have lots of info, but they never get down to the real issue: Let's compare the Harris characters with Hebrew, Egyptian (Hieratic, Demotic whatever), Semitic languages in general). Just this question is brushed aside in this manner (for example): Now for the info "over-kill" method: "...there are numerous examples of modified (or reformed) Egyptian characters being used to write non-Egyptian languages, none of which were known in Joseph Smith's day." (Hamblin again). He then mentions Egyptian hieratic and demotic examples, Byblos Syllabic texts, Cretan hieroglyphics, Meroitic and Proto-Sinaitic material. His best proof is then a "Psalm 20 in demotic Egyptian. Scholars have also recently deciphered an Aramaic version of Psalm 20:2-6 that was written in demotic Egyptian characters ... This is precisely what the Book of Mormon claims existed: a version of the Hebrew scriptures in the Hebrew language, but written using Egyptian characters." Sounds great, nearly overwhelming. But: IMHO it scores with the "critics", because this material can be translated and read!!! It would have been "proof" would it be unreadable up this day! That's not the case! Nibley himself states, quoting Mormon 9:32: "...characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, ..." something not recognizable to any Egyptologist today, altered beyond recognition..." (The Lachish Letters, in: The Prophetic Book of Mormon, SLC, 1989 p. 386) The "standard-work" for learning ancient Egyptian (at least at German and English Universities) is Sir Alan Gardiner's "Egyptian Grammar", Oxford, 1979, 3rd edt. Gardiner states: "No less salient a characteristic of the language is its concision; the phrases and sentences are brief and to the point." P.4 He is here talking about Middle Egyptian. Egyptians used three different kinds of writing. Hieroglyphic writing is only one kind of script, which is further subdivided into Old, Middle and Late Egyptian. "Out of hieroglyphic sprang a more cursive writing known to us a hieratic, and out of hieratic again there emerged, towards 700 B.C., a very rapid script formerly sometimes called enchorial but now always known as demotic" (Gardiner, p. 9) remembering Lehi is supposed to have left Jerusalem about 600 B.C.. Demotic actually stems from Greek demotikos "popular". In his "Since Cumorah", SLC, 1967, Nibley mentions this topic only very shortly. He there gives two small examples of hieroglyphic and demotic writing, which IMO are rather misleading. The casual reader will see his example as proof how space can be saved in using demotic characters instead of hieroglyphics. I actuallly wanted to copy a plate from Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar here but have trouble getting it condensed (!) after scanning it. I turns out as 2.8 MB picture! Not sure how to work it out. On the plate one can compare how "space-saving" the "corrupt" demotic may be, remembering that "reformed Egyptian" must have been even more condensed even than demotic! The plate pictured by Gardiner gives you one the opportunity to compare all three Egyptian writing styes including (!) their inscriptions. One observes that the writing does get condensed more and more as one "works" oneself down from Hieroglyphics, through Hieratic to Demotic. Demotic would look "similar" to some sort of shorthand. But it isn't (!) as compact as one might expect. Having that in mind, one would expect any sort of "reformed Egyptian" to be even more condensed than Demotic. Looking like a shorthand shorthand! But the moment one compares Demotic with the Harris-Anthon "Caractors" (so spelled on the slip of paper presented to professor Anthon ) the latter are not (!) more condensed. One can observe the "Caractors in William E. Berrett 's "The Truth Restored". I only have a German edition, it would be found there on p. 32, 5. Chapter. Again what can be seen? IMHO the "caractors" are definitely not (!!!) shorter. You don't need any kind of ability to translate or whatever. Only eyes to see and a brain to compare! This is were Richard's statement really comes on to the stage: "Where the explanation falls on its face, however, is the reason given for using Egyptian characters rather than Hebrew: to save space." Richard also states correctly then when writing: "Even a cursory knowledge of the systems of Egyptian writing current in the sixth century B.C. demonstrates that these systems were not particularly space-saving, and that the characters had such detail that they would not lend themselves easily to small writing." Randy said: " AFAIK, the few characters from JS' "Anthon transcript" have never been found to have any meaning or translatability. Since that transcript is the only known authentic example that JS claimed to be the BOM's "Reformed Egyptian"---and it can't be matched with any known language or translated into anything intelligible---then it means that JS, the producer of the transcript, is a fraud until someone can show why he isn't." I'm not and never was an expert on ancient Egyptian, forget Demotic! But I was well trained in Middle Egyptian and in doing scientific research. I had the great luck of being educated with two (!) others students at the Egyptological Seminar, Göttingen, Germany. I compared in between my studies, summing up to months in amount, the Harris-Anthon "caractors" with ancient Demotic and similar documents, which would be copies or prints. I futher had the great chance to visit the Egyptological Seminar at Kopenhagen, Denmark with fellow students and professors. Because of my special interest in original Demotic documents (for obvious reasons! :-)) I was the only student, with my professor (Westendorf) allowed to view and handle Demotic documents the Danish had in a large safe. The rest of the team were out on a drink btw! I again compared my caractors, Westendorf and the Danish professor, of whom I can't remember the name anymore, watching on. They became curious and so I explained. None had ever heard of Joseph Smith etc. We compared together. My eyes could see the hard facts. Not one shred of similarity, the other two agreed. After the safe was closed, Field felt like having his first drink in his life! After that I decided to visit the little mermaid at Kopenhagen harbour. Found out that she was far smaller and not as "attactive" as always talked about. Stumped again! But still then LDS will try to cop out and say all this can't be understood, only by revelation. Granted! Then one day, when the prophet of God get's the "sealed part" of the gold plates to "translate", maybe then we will see better copies of the "caractors". But even then we will probably be told, they don't compare with any known language, so hard luck. To follow up on Richard's words: Were the reformed Egyptian issue "falls on it's arse" (sorry) is on a related topic: Not too long ago "luck" struck! Along came, to be bomber and killer of three people, Mark W. Hofmann and "left the transcript in custody of the Church Historical Department for preservation and for further studies to determine its authenticity." (Ensign, June 1980, p. 74). Hofmann had "found" Joseph Smith's Family Bible and bingo(!), right in the middle of the Bible a copy of a transcript of Bom gold plate characters. The Ensign shows the document. It was also printed in full colour on the inside covers of the July 1980 Ensign. Here one can also find a full blown article on the finding. On 22 April 1980 Hofmann showed the characters to the First Presidency (Kimball, Tanner, Romney) plus Hinkley and Packer! See the picture in the June 1980 Ensign, p. 74! Making a long story short, even though Kimball used a modern-day "Urim and Thummim", looking-glass, actually a magnifying glass, none of the "Lord's chosen" translated one bit of the document, even worse, never detected a fraud and big hoax. Even later, after Hofmann had bombed and killed people, church officials were dishing out money to buy Hofmann's fairy-tale materials. Well granted, Kimball didn't have the "gift of translation" for the given opportunity, for whatever reason, what about the gift of discernment e. a. the Holy Ghost. The Church had a brilliant chance and failed like a pre-schooler! It does not "fit"! I remember having a feeling of suspicion all the time, because all of Hofmann's findings would fail on an important issue when dealing with documents: sources. They were never really presented! Even more when the "Salamander Letter" appeared on the scene. I compared for myself and on a bases of style, nothing else I could go by, I thought it was a forgery. By coincidence I visited Utah right after Hofmann had blown himself up and found out that Tanner's had published a small article that they felt the Salamander Letter was a forgery! Everybody else, but not them!!! The Salamander letter was "damaging" enough, so they should be dancing in circles. They didn't! So here I was, trying to figure out, as the full story came to day-light later, how could me small light and even Jerald Tanners "believe, think, feel" this was all a big joke", not for the people killed mind you, and the "Brethren" never having a clue what was going on! So I can go along with Richard stating again: "Rather it seems more likely, as has been suggested already, that Smith did not want to present Hebrew characters, because there were lots of people who might know Hebrew. Nobody could read Egyptian yet. And if he labeled it "Reformed" he was even safer. And for extra insurance, claim that the Hebrew was also modified. And, to top it all off, claim that any mistakes are due to the language difficulty." Hope all this helps. Cheers, James

Lots of evidence: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Reformed_Egyptian

Not in the sense it's used in Mormonism no. That's a fabrication.

Nope. It seems to have only been found in the Mormom texts.

Yes, if you believe Hugh Nibley. However, we just haven't found any evidence yet - according to Dr. Nibley. Rather all the evidence thus far indicates that "Reformed Egyptian" was really Ancient Irish. http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=77439&catid=520 It sure seems odd that "Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator" Joseph Smith didn't realize that - let alone Moroni!

No, Travis, only within the Mormon cult. If you set aside the known facts that Joseph was a lier and deciever...

No... there never was, nor will be. It was created to perpetuate the doctrine of one man, followed blindly by countless others.

The so-called Book of Abraham translation has been proven a fake. It is funerary text, nothing more. However, the LDS will still claim that it is a revelation and true word from 'god', no matter what scholars claim. Not from my God.

No! Like all of Mormonism's doctrine. There is absolutely no proof to support it, yet multitudes of proof to disprove it. That is how cults work. They control the member with guilt, fear and intimidation. Telling them that they are the problem not the belief system. That if they venture out they will loose everything that means anything to them. This is a slow, yet perfectly designed process. One that is used by most cults.