Talk:Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon

I have just begun transferring data from Dr. Nibley's book to this article. Please be patient and wait until I have finished. Or else, feel free to be very impatient, get your own copy of the book, and transfer all the information. Das Baz 16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrific work. More needs to be done. Looks like I'll try to find the book while I'm in Salt Lake on vacation. Piewalker 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll easily find it at Deseret Book. Das Baz 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hoping this book answers other questions (or answers) that I've learned about Lehi over the years...like how significant is 1 Nephi 2:15: "And he dwelt in a tent"? Supposedly this passage holds tremendous bedoin meaning because, purpotedly, it meant that the camp was happy, among other things. En route to Fashion Place Mall...err, wait, there's not a D Book there...umm, Jordan Landing. Piewalker 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ammon (also Amon, Amun, Amen) is the most common name in ancient Egypt. It is the name of "the great universal God of the Empire." (It means "concealed", "secret.")"...perhaps a link to Ahman? Son-Ahman? Sons-Ahman? That is, if it's phonetic. Piewalker 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dr. Nibley talks about the significance of "And my father dwelt in a tent." There is much in Lehi in the Desert that needs to be put in Wikipedia. Yes, no doubt there is a connection between Ammon and Ahman. Ammon in Hebrew means "True, Faithful." Secret and hidden to the Egyptians, True and Faithful to the Israelites. Das Baz 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

I would like to see the article include an explanation of what Dr. Nibley's aim was in comparing these names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tritium6 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete this Article?

This article makes me queazy for a few reasons.
1) It is content copied straight out of a single book without regard to the scholarly context that an encycopedia should pay attention to.
2) If there is actually a scholarly literature on this subject, more sources should be cited, especially ones that reject Book of Mormon historicity. I strongly suspect that many people believe that there are no Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, and that Nibley's derivations are invalid. At present a user reading this article would take this as a matter-of-fact analysis of names in a historical text when in fact Nibley's work is fundamentally apologetic, trying to find similarities between the book of mormon and the ancient near east.
3) And even if this article is expanded, it should probably be a subpage of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon complete with a background section that makes that clear.
4) Alternatively, this article could be about the book itself, not the subject. --Katapul 20:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Not true. These items are from more than one book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC) The comment is not "unsigned." Erudil is also my signature.Erudil 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Three major books are quoted as sources for these names.[reply]

2) People who believe "there are no Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon" are in the same class as people who believe the earth is flat. The names are there. 3) The article is too long to make it a subpage of another article. 4) If the article had a different subject, it would be a different article. Erudil 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks posting your thoughts. I still disagree, and feel this article cannot stand as is. However, I think adding context to the article will eliminate most of my concerns, and any argument concerning the article's final status can be left for later. I'll be adding information to the article when I have time. Information that makes clear the article's main table are the proposed derivations of a single scholar, and that others disagree that any such derivations are valid. Also, on the pro-historicity side I'm going to try and find some more apologetic material so it isn't just Nibley's work alone. Also, please refrain from changing the title of the section of the talk page I created, it might be confusing to others who might be interested in this discussion since it gives the impression the matter is decided.
  Katapul 04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article should not be deleted because there's no compelling evidence to do so. The material is valid, and it's clearly applied to The Book of Mormon. Nibley's work was seminal in ancient scripture. However, I agree with various points from both sides of this really interesting argument between both Katapul and Erudil. I hope I can defuse or even ignite an even more constructive approach that won't result but instead advance, the value and utility of this article. However, I've always advocated for the preservation of any kernels of truth or purported truth until they're proven otherwise. Allow me to explain:

Support for Katapul:

1. If content is copied directly from Nibley's book "Lehi in the Desert," I agree that there must be some sort of synthesis that can interpret the content with genuine originality instead of mere incantations from Nibley's work. Nibley was an apologetic, yes, but he was also an astute scholar. I would be very interested in posting a section within this article that can muster the rebuttle to the claims to the origin of nomenclature. I think that would highly enrich this article and acheive the balance you've appropriately called for. But I think the burden on all of us is to actually find those rebuttals. I'm at a loss as to where they might be, and as a result I think Nibley's work stands alone.
2. "I strongly suspect that many people believe that there are no Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, and that Nibley's derivations are invalid." I agree with you that there are probably individuals who strongly suspect that there are no Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon. As for their validity, I invite individual scholars to bring them forward, well, now. Let's allow them to present the evidence of why they believe Nibley was wrong. Academically speaking, if there is a question to the validity of a scholar's work, there must be a formal rebuttal in the literature. Please refer us to that material so we can all make a more informed decision on how to evolve the content.
3. The Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article may be an appropriate fit. An appealing idea.

Support for Erudil

1. I think he's right about the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article already nearing maximum information saturation. Adding this article would overwhelm the entire piece. I wish we could do it, but it doesn't seem to be feasible given the recommended article lengths. In the meantime, simple hyperlinks between articles as cross-references may be appropriate.
2. The world is indeed not flat, and there are certainly Egyptian names, their Greek or Latin counterparts, and even Hebrew roots throughout the Book of Mormon. He's right, they're there. I hesitate greatly to delete an article that has genuine merit that hasn't been refuted by anyone I know of.
3. Erudil is a Mormon scholar. Katapul is an Atheist. The Athiest wants to delete the article for no good reason, although he has good ideas on how to shape it into a more robust work. The Mormon wants to keep it because he feels a deletion would be very much a form of censorship and a slap in the face.

Gentlemen, there's simply a lack of scholarship out there on the subject, and one of the few scholars was Nibley. Keep the article. Evolve it. Be civil to one another, and perhaps we can bring in more perspective for people who know more than us. Piewalker 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what you say Piewalker. I've also come around and think the article should stay, it just needs to have plenty of content added. Erudil, I too encourage you not to give into prejudice and ignorance. If the implication was that I am supporting either, you are mistaken. Please assume good faith. Also, with all due respect Erudil, I think you misunderstand my position, and I think you are confusing the presence of Egyptian names with the presence of names for which Egyptian derivations can be proposed. Let me give an example. Take the name "Sam" from the Book of Mormon, and let's pretend that "s-'-m" is the most common Egyptian name there is. Does that mean there are Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon? No, it could just be a coincidence, and there are probably many languages with the name "s-'-m". A derivation involves a historical connection, and the Book of Mormon may or may not have an Egyptian connection. What I am saying is even more valid in cases where the mapping between the Book of Mormon consonants and their Egyptian counterparts is less clear. That is my problem with the statement of "fact" that there are Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, it either assumes a historical connection, or gives that impression to the unsuspecting reader.
On the subjects of citations, all the article's information really does come from Nibley. The other sources are Egyptian reference books that you no doubt are citing in the same ways Nibley does (sorry if I'm wrong here, I don't have easy access to Lehi in the Desert). No one doubts that the Egyptian names in the reference volumes are in fact Egyptian names, many people doubt they are connected to the Book of Mormon names. So what I'm saying is that so far we only have author arguing for connections, where we should have others (FARMS scholars, Ensign writers, whoever else can be found), and opponents (people published by Signature Books and the like). And Piewalker, I've shown no lack of civility and assure you that I'm not an atheist on a vendetta against a religion article as you have suggested, nor am I trying to censor anyone. Mormon history is one of my passions and I have the utmost respect for those on the pro-religion pro-historicity side. My main concern here was only that apologetic material here was being confused with (or might be confused by the reader) with fact, instead of being clearly identified. No surprise this article was enthusiastically linked from here: http://www.sustaind.org/story/Egyptian-names-in-Book-Mormon/.
Katapul 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and now I see you've also called me a "silly anti-mormon" elsewhere. I'm deeply sorry you find a flat-earth anti-mormon conspiracy to deny truth, but perhaps you're lashing out at something you were eager to misunderstand.
Katapul 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No giving in to ignorance and prejudice

The names come from three major scholarly works on Egyptian nomenclature. You will not find any serious scholar denying the authenticity of these names. Erudil 17:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I apologize if I overreacted. Anyway, I am perfectly certain that you will not find any serious scholar refuting Dr. Nibley (or the sources he cites) on this point in the scholarly literature. And I am fairly certain you will not find even a refutation in the anti-Mormon literature, because when bigots find inconvenient facts, their usual reaction is to pretend they do not exist. Erudil 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) Not unsigned. Erudil is also my signature. 64.107.0.121 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Erudil 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

Please vote against the merge proposal, which is unnecessary and hostile. Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Das - why are you calling the merge "hostile"? It is not hostile in any manner. The merge is based on sound wikipedia guidance and will do a great deal of good for people who are interested in the topic, making it more accessible on the more heavily read article Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Aren't you overreacting a little bit? Besides - discussion of this topic should occur on the other page where it was designated to occur. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]