LDS LDS---YIKES!

[BigDaddy4]

He did indeed state that Joseph Smith was a genius and therefore qualifies as an answer to the statement that BigDaddy4 made.

Um, no it doesn't. My comment was in relation to your statement bolded below that:

People who once proclaimed Joseph Smith to ignorant and stupid are now saying that he was a genius, because of the Book of Mormon. The more the Book of Mormon has been studied the more complex it has been deemed.

While you may have found some random sources on the internet, you have failed to produce evidence that these same sources once proclaimed Joseph Smith to ignorant and stupid. So, yay for you for being able to use the internet.

 

[dzheremi]

The original statement by BigDaddy4 was "Please, show who these "people" are who think JS is a genius. Outside of mormonism, they likely don't exist." However Bruce Charlton does exist and he is not a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. About him:

"Charlton graduated with honours from the Newcastle Medical School in Newcastle upon Tyne, took a doctorate at the Medical Research Council Neuroendocrinology group, and did postgraduate training in psychiatry and public health. He has held university lectureshipsin physiology, anatomy, epidemiology, and psychology; and holds a master's degree in English Literature from Durham University in North East England.[3]

From 2003 to 2010, Charlton was the solo-editor of the journal Medical Hypotheses, published by Elsevier.[4] After HIV/AIDS denier Peter Duesberg published a paper in Medical Hypothesis arguing that “there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS", the journal came under fire for its lack of peer review. The paper was withdrawn from the journal citing concerns over the paper's quality and “that [it] could potentially be damaging to global public health.” Elsevier consequently revamped the journal to introduce peer review, firing Charlton from his position as editor, due to his resistance of these changes.[5]

At October 2012, a worldwide campaign including 198 researchers published a critical paper defending Charlton and the idea of editorial review.[6]

From: Bruce Charlton - Wikipedia

It is obvious that he is no blockhead or loon. He did indeed state that Joseph Smith was a genius and therefore qualifies as an answer to the statement that BigDaddy4 made.

Oooo, ahhhh...I'm so impressed by this guy's religious opinion because he has degrees in medicine.

Not to be arrogant, but I graduated with honors from the University of New Mexico in 2015 with a master's degree in linguistics, so by your reasoning, maybe you should listen to me and leave Mormonism. After all, I have an advanced degree in something that is in no way related to evaluating Mormonism (outside of its bogus claims concerning linguistics/"Reformed Egyptian"), so I'm basically as qualified as this loony guy to pass judgment on Joseph Smith. And I say he was a fraud and a huckster.

So when can I expect you at liturgy, now that I have passed my oh-so-academically-informed opinion on your religion's founder?

...What's that? Things don't work that way? Oh, okay. I thought so.

 

[Peter1000]

Oooo, ahhhh...I'm so impressed by this guy's religious opinion because he has degrees in medicine.

Not to be arrogant, but I graduated with honors from the University of New Mexico in 2015 with a master's degree in linguistics, so by your reasoning, maybe you should listen to me and leave Mormonism. After all, I have an advanced degree in something that is in no way related to evaluating Mormonism (outside of its bogus claims concerning linguistics/"Reformed Egyptian"), so I'm basically as qualified as this loony guy to pass judgment on Joseph Smith. And I say he was a fraud and a huckster.

So when can I expect you at liturgy, now that I have passed my oh-so-academically-informed opinion on your religion's founder?

...What's that? Things don't work that way? Oh, okay. I thought so.

Well, whether or not you are impressed at Charlton's credentials is not the point. 'He is the way'
was presenting to Bigdadddy the name of a highly accredited non-Mormon individual that is educationally above the normal human being, and he declared JS was a genius.

Again, that you are a genius is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[He is the way]

Um, no it doesn't. My comment was in relation to your statement bolded below that:

While you may have found some random sources on the internet, you have failed to produce evidence that these same sources once proclaimed Joseph Smith to ignorant and stupid. So, yay for you for being able to use the internet.

Fawn Brodie declared him a genius even if it was a genius of improvisation.

Brodie's depiction of Joseph Smith in 1945 as a fraudulent "genius of improvisation"

From: Fawn M. Brodie - Wikipedia

I am sure there are more sources but not so easy to find where they considered Joseph Smith to be ignorant or stupid. Perhaps Bruce Charlton viewed him that way at first. I know there were many people who did. My great great grandfather viewed him that way at first, but later joined The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. I believe that most of the people who have read the Book of Mormon realize that Joseph Smith could not have made it up.

 

[Ironhold]

Well, whether or not you are impressed at Charlton's credentials is not the point. 'He is the way'
was presenting to Bigdadddy the name of a highly accredited non-Mormon individual that is educationally above the normal human being, and he declared JS was a genius.

Again, that you are a genius is irrelevant to the discussion.

Either that, or it's a case of "nobody who isn't Mormon defends their faith, therefore anyone who doesn't claim to be one but still defends it must therefore be one in disguise".

 

[BigDaddy4]

Fawn Brodie declared him a genius even if it was a genius of improvisation.

Brodie's depiction of Joseph Smith in 1945 as a fraudulent "genius of improvisation"

From: Fawn M. Brodie - Wikipedia

I am sure there are more sources but not so easy to find where they considered Joseph Smith to be ignorant or stupid. Perhaps Bruce Charlton viewed him that way at first. I know there were many people who did. My great great grandfather viewed him that way at first, but later joined The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. I believe that most of the people who have read the Book of Mormon realize that Joseph Smith could not have made it up.

Then we can just dismiss your comment since you cannot back it up. Those who think JS are a genius are misguided. Albert Einstein was a genius. JS is not. It doesn't take a genius to plagiarize the Bible and make up a story, "translated" from a language that never existed, and that has no evidence to support the events and people depicted in said story.

I would be more apt to believe Klingons and Romulans exist than Nephites and Jaredites.

 

[mmksparbud]

You said: "A person who considers themselves in any sense a Mormon is not going to count against that supposition." No he does not consider himself in any sense a Mormon. He is definitely not a Mormon apologist whether you consider him to be one or not. Therefore I did indeed find someone other that a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints who considers Joseph Smith a genius.

A genius? Hmmm---my father was one. He taught himself how to do abortions---by reading a book and did many of them, he taught my oldest brother to help him with them (from which he has never been fully able to get over, he is 78 now), he taught himself how to make counterfeit money, and showed us how to make counterfeit coins, he molested me from the age of 8 on, he killed at least 2 people, hacked one to death with a machete and whip (he was from Honduras, though born an American citizen) the other he beat to death with a hammer. He represented himself, and won, several court cases. He made a lot of money charging people exorbitant interest rates for loans, taught himself the plumbing business and actually designed and made plumbing snakes. He also knew the bible backwards and forwards and I have seen him take the JW's own bible's and show them from their own bible that they were wrong---our home was off limits to all JW's and Mormons until his death. He did not use profanity and was a poet--in Spanish. Lovely man, wasn't he? Mental ability, when applied against the word of God, means nothing.
JS was not stupid---not highly educated, for sure---but definitely not stupid.

 

[He is the way]

Then we can just dismiss your comment since you cannot back it up. Those who think JS are a genius are misguided. Albert Einstein was a genius. JS is not. It doesn't take a genius to plagiarize the Bible and make up a story, "translated" from a language that never existed, and that has no evidence to support the events and people depicted in said story.

I would be more apt to believe Klingons and Romulans exist than Nephites and Jaredites.

The Jaredites do not exist, but they did. Joseph Smith must have had a photographic memory in order to add verses of the Bible while dictating the Book of Mormon as he had no written material with him while he dictated it. You assume that reformed Egyptian did not exist because that is your opinion, but I disagree. I actually agree that Joseph Smith was not a genius, but he was a prophet of God and as such he did a marvelous work.

 

[He is the way]

A genius? Hmmm---my father was one. He taught himself how to do abortions---by reading a book and did many of them, he taught my oldest brother to help him with them (from which he has never been fully able to get over, he is 78 now), he taught himself how to make counterfeit money, and showed us how to make counterfeit coins, he molested me from the age of 8 on, he killed at least 2 people, hacked one to death with a machete and whip (he was from Honduras, though born an American citizen) the other he beat to death with a hammer. He represented himself, and won, several court cases. He made a lot of money charging people exorbitant interest rates for loans, taught himself the plumbing business and actually designed and made plumbing snakes. He also knew the bible backwards and forwards and I have seen him take the JW's own bible's and show them from their own bible that they were wrong---our home was off limits to all JW's and Mormons until his death. He did not use profanity and was a poet--in Spanish. Lovely man, wasn't he? Mental ability, when applied against the word of God, means nothing.
JS was not stupid---not highly educated, for sure---but definitely not stupid.

I am sorry that you had to go through that. My parents were good to their children. However my daughter-in-law was not so lucky. She was molested by her father as well. She was on drugs and had a hard life, but she has turned her life around and earned a masters degree. She now helps teens and young adults to overcome addictions and depression.

 

[dzheremi]

Either that, or it's a case of "nobody who isn't Mormon defends their faith, therefore anyone who doesn't claim to be one but still defends it must therefore be one in disguise".

That's not what I said and you know it. Quit being dishonest. This sort thing is very close to goading.

"He defends Mormonism, while he claims out of the other side of his mouth that Eastern Orthodoxy is true, which is an untenable position and shows his interest to be more in defending Mormonism than actually living out the faith he claims to most closely align with" is not anything like what you've claimed here. Knock it off.

 

[Peter1000]

Oooo, ahhhh...I'm so impressed by this guy's religious opinion because he has degrees in medicine.

Not to be arrogant, but I graduated with honors from the University of New Mexico in 2015 with a master's degree in linguistics, so by your reasoning, maybe you should listen to me and leave Mormonism. After all, I have an advanced degree in something that is in no way related to evaluating Mormonism (outside of its bogus claims concerning linguistics/"Reformed Egyptian"), so I'm basically as qualified as this loony guy to pass judgment on Joseph Smith. And I say he was a fraud and a huckster.

So when can I expect you at liturgy, now that I have passed my oh-so-academically-informed opinion on your religion's founder?

...What's that? Things don't work that way? Oh, okay. I thought so.

I am a little disappointed in your linguistic skills if you cannot find anything in the BOM that tends toward Judeo/Egyptian literary marks.

Nephi said he wrote his record “in the language of [his] father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). This being the case, it is reasonable to expect that his writings should bear the marks of an ancient Judeo-Egyptian literary culture.

That is an interesting question of itself: Why would JS, a nobody, know nothing, complicate the story, by throwing in an Egyptian twist? Nephi was educated in the learning of the Jews, but he knew the language of the Egyptians. And when Nephi started to write his record he wrote it in a short-hand Egyptian? Why throw in the Egyptian trap for your critics?

There must be something in the BOM that catches your eye as an expert in linguistics.
For instance: Did 19th century writers use the concept of "colophons" in their writing culture, or is this more of an ancient type of writing nuance used in many countries, and also Egypt?

Give me your unbiased expert opinion on what I just said. Thank you.

 

[Peter1000]

Then we can just dismiss your comment since you cannot back it up. Those who think JS are a genius are misguided. Albert Einstein was a genius. JS is not. It doesn't take a genius to plagiarize the Bible and make up a story, "translated" from a language that never existed, and that has no evidence to support the events and people depicted in said story.

I would be more apt to believe Klingons and Romulans exist than Nephites and Jaredites.

Which comment are you dismissing because of no backup?

 

[Ironhold]

That's not what I said and you know it. Quit being dishonest. This sort thing is very close to goading.

"He defends Mormonism, while he claims out of the other side of his mouth that Eastern Orthodoxy is true, which is an untenable position and shows his interest to be more in defending Mormonism than actually living out the faith he claims to most closely align with" is not anything like what you've claimed here. Knock it off.

How is that any different from what I said?

Honest question.

 

[dzheremi]

You assume that reformed Egyptian did not exist because that is your opinion, but I disagree.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do have an advanced degree in a field that makes me qualified to judge what Joseph produced as "Reformed Egyptian", and I find it to be nonsense. There is absolutely zero evidence that Reformed Egyptian ever actually existed, and for the time period that the BOM supposedly covers, we know exactly what forms of Egyptian were being used where. "Reformed Egyptian" is not among them. This is not a matter of opinion at all, and even if it were, mine is informed by actual research in the field (I did my MA thesis on Coptic, the only form of Egyptian that is still used today), not by an 19th century religious text that is claimed to be miraculous. Linguistics is a science, not a religion, so as a science it is constrained by the need for evidence to support its theories and conclusions. Again, there is no evidence that Reformed Egyptian existed, so scientifically-speaking, it is a non-entity. Unless such evidence somehow arises (which will naturally need to be vetted by disinterested/not religiously-motivated actual linguists, not LDS shills like those who teach at BYU and other Mormon-run institutions), this will remain the state of things.

This is Egyptian:

(The Ebers Papyrus, c. 1550 BC, detailing the treatment of asthma)

And so is this:

(Ostracon with Demotic inscription from the Ptolemaic period, c. 305-30 BC, containing a prayer to Amun to heal a man's blindness)

And so is this:

(Coptic Gospel according to St. Luke, 5:5-9, 8th century AD)

This is demonstrably not Egyptian:

(Anthon Transcript/"Caractors" Document, 1828)

This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Joseph Smith's creations are obvious to anyone with even a modicum of contact with the Egyptian language. I'm being completely serious right now (i.e., this is not me being "anti-Mormon", but telling what my academic training obliges me to tell) when I say that there is absolutely zero linguistic basis for considering this any kind of Egyptian whatsoever. It's simply fabricated. It does not reflect any stage, type, or dialect of the Egyptian language in any way (it is questionable whether or not it reflects any known language). Joseph clearly knew no Egyptian, and this sort of writing (or the supposed Egyptian grammar that was attempted by a circle of his followers sometime later) does nothing to substantiate the idea that he did, which is a religious belief of the Mormons, not a scientifically valid observation or hypothesis (as it cannot be falsified, since it's not actually based on evidence, but on religious conviction). Period. End of story.

 

[dzheremi]

How is that any different from what I said?

Honest question.

I never said he was secretly one of them; I said he produces apologetics for Mormonism that show best where his true sympathies lie, which run counter to his stated belief in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

I don't know why this is so difficult to appropriately grasp. We actually see this all the time on this forum, like whenever a claimed "atheist" shows up to defend Islam (which I've seen several times), being careful to preface their apologetics with "I'm not a Muslim, but..." Okay, fine, you are not a Muslim, but you are defending their religion no differently than one who is a Muslim would. You are drawing from the same dirty pool. It is the same with this guy. Okay, he is not a Mormon, but he is fashioning and/or repeating common Mormon apologetics, such as his appeal to authority ("This guy says Joseph Smith was a religious genius!"), his contention that Joseph Smith was a martyr for his faith, and so forth.

It doesn't make him "secretly one of them", but obviously he doesn't have to be very secret about it either way if he's going to expend all of this energy defending a faith that isn't even his, all the while claiming to believe in a different faith (Eastern Orthodoxy) which openly states that Mormons do not worship God. It's an untenable position and the sign of a weak mind that cannot commit to anything in particular, which make his apologetics seem like they're coming from someone who is not trustworthy, as they are not even sure of their own religious convictions.

Think about it: if I suddenly spent an inordinate amount of time here defending, I don't know, Hindus and the practices of Hinduism, and made a blog called "The Theoretical Hindu", all the while claiming to (still) be a member of the Oriental Orthodox tradition, would you not wonder what was going on? Why someone from an entirely different faith was so concerned with bolstering a religion that is antithetical to his own beliefs? I would. That's not normal. It wouldn't mean that I was a "secret Hindu", but it would probably make people second guess my defenses of Hinduism and/or my claimed allegiance to/belief in Oriental Orthodoxy, since you cannot be both a Hindu and an Orthodox Christian, since even 'theoretically' their beliefs and practices do not align. You need to pick one or the other, or else no one will take you seriously.

 

[mmksparbud]

Everywhere we go, we see the use of other languages being incorporated into everyday use of the dominant language. English is a prime example---we are a melting pot of people and the language uses French, German, Spanish and others mixed in. But the main language is still kept the main one. This reformed Egyptian stuff is not Egyptian with some Hebrew thrown in, or Hebrew with Egyptian thrown in.
When I came to America I had to not only learn English, but Mexican. I spoke Spanish and had never learned slang Spanish. Mexicans us mostly slang Spanish. But it was still Spanish, just some words wore hard to decipher. Mexicans speak English with Spanish slang words thrown in. It was, at times, confusing, but if I took it slow and thought about what they were saying I could usually figure things out. This
reformed Egyptian simply does not follow the pattern of any 2 languages being spoken together anywhere in the world. It is more like the childish gibberish that children invent for themselves to keep everyone else out. Twins have been known to do this---their own private language---between 2 children. Not a whole population. If you go to Mexico, the main language is Spanish, which was not the original language of the people, but their conquerors, the Spaniards. Their Indian dialects, however, are still spoken is some areas. There is no such thing as reformed Spanish, or reformed Hidalgo, or Nahuatl.
It is Spanish with some indigenous Indian words thrown in. Reformed Egyptian did not exist except in the mind of JS.

 

[Peter1000]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do have an advanced degree in a field that makes me qualified to judge what Joseph produced as "Reformed Egyptian", and I find it to be nonsense. There is absolutely zero evidence that Reformed Egyptian ever actually existed, and for the time period that the BOM supposedly covers, we know exactly what forms of Egyptian were being used where. "Reformed Egyptian" is not among them. This is not a matter of opinion at all, and even if it were, mine is informed by actual research in the field (I did my MA thesis on Coptic, the only form of Egyptian that is still used today), not by an 19th century religious text that is claimed to be miraculous. Linguistics is a science, not a religion, so as a science it is constrained by the need for evidence to support its theories and conclusions. Again, there is no evidence that Reformed Egyptian existed, so scientifically-speaking, it is a non-entity. Unless such evidence somehow arises (which will naturally need to be vetted by disinterested/not religiously-motivated actual linguists, not LDS shills like those who teach at BYU and other Mormon-run institutions), this will remain the state of things.

This is Egyptian:

(The Ebers Papyrus, c. 1550 BC, detailing the treatment of asthma)

And so is this:

(Ostracon with Demotic inscription from the Ptolemaic period, c. 305-30 BC, containing a prayer to Amun to heal a man's blindness)

And so is this:

(Coptic Gospel according to St. Luke, 5:5-9, 8th century AD)

This is demonstrably not Egyptian:

(Anthon Transcript/"Caractors" Document, 1828)

This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Joseph Smith's creations are obvious to anyone with even a modicum of contact with the Egyptian language. I'm being completely serious right now (i.e., this is not me being "anti-Mormon", but telling what my academic training obliges me to tell) when I say that there is absolutely zero linguistic basis for considering this any kind of Egyptian whatsoever. It's simply fabricated. It does not reflect any stage, type, or dialect of the Egyptian language in any way (it is questionable whether or not it reflects any known language). Joseph clearly knew no Egyptian, and this sort of writing (or the supposed Egyptian grammar that was attempted by a circle of his followers sometime later) does nothing to substantiate the idea that he did, which is a religious belief of the Mormons, not a scientifically valid observation or hypothesis (as it cannot be falsified, since it's not actually based on evidence, but on religious conviction). Period. End of story.

Your examples of Egyptian is fine, but JS never said the plates were written in Egyptian. So all your expertise in Egyptian is to no avail, because we are not reading Egyptian.

We are reading a Reformed Egyptian (a short hand Egyptian) reformed over a thousand years of time in a completely foreign country, far far away from Egypt.

So if you were to say that JS's example is not Egyptian in the least, I would agree with you, but not that he made it up, but because over a thousand years and in a short hand version, I would not expect it to look like Egyptian any more.

So to be an unbiased linguist, commenting on the BOM, I would expect that you would tell your readers what I just told you, but you didn't. You just stayed with 6th century bc Egyptian. What Moroni wrote was in 4th century ad Reformed Egyptian, which he says, nobody would recognize. So he was right, since you do not recognize it and your an expert.

FYI - we have no belief that JS knew Egyptian. He could barely speak and write English. But what he was able to do, with the gift and power of God was to translate this Reformed Egyptian from gold plates, into a 531 page book that covers approximately 1,000 years, starting in Jerusalem in 600bc and ending in Mexico City in 400ad. Oh, he did it in 2 months.

As a linguistic expert you can certainly tell if JS had written the whole book or whether many persons wrote the entire BOM. You see JS said that many prophets had written their epistles to the people in the Americas, just like Peter and Paul and John wrote theirs to the people around Jerusalem. Then Moroni abridged a large record into a smaller record and then combined all the writings of these prophets onto the gold plates, and from the gold plates, JS translated this into the BOM. So you should be able to tell me that the linguistic style of each prophet should be present to prove that JS did not write the entire BOM. Right? Let me know what you think.

 

[Peter1000]

I never said he was secretly one of them; I said he produces apologetics for Mormonism that show best where his true sympathies lie, which run counter to his stated belief in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

I don't know why this is so difficult to appropriately grasp. We actually see this all the time on this forum, like whenever a claimed "atheist" shows up to defend Islam (which I've seen several times), being careful to preface their apologetics with "I'm not a Muslim, but..." Okay, fine, you are not a Muslim, but you are defending their religion no differently than one who is a Muslim would. You are drawing from the same dirty pool. It is the same with this guy. Okay, he is not a Mormon, but he is fashioning and/or repeating common Mormon apologetics, such as his appeal to authority ("This guy says Joseph Smith was a religious genius!"), his contention that Joseph Smith was a martyr for his faith, and so forth.

It doesn't make him "secretly one of them", but obviously he doesn't have to be very secret about it either way if he's going to expend all of this energy defending a faith that isn't even his, all the while claiming to believe in a different faith (Eastern Orthodoxy) which openly states that Mormons do not worship God. It's an untenable position and the sign of a weak mind that cannot commit to anything in particular, which make his apologetics seem like they're coming from someone who is not trustworthy, as they are not even sure of their own religious convictions.

Think about it: if I suddenly spent an inordinate amount of time here defending, I don't know, Hindus and the practices of Hinduism, and made a blog called "The Theoretical Hindu", all the while claiming to (still) be a member of the Oriental Orthodox tradition, would you not wonder what was going on? Why someone from an entirely different faith was so concerned with bolstering a religion that is antithetical to his own beliefs? I would. That's not normal. It wouldn't mean that I was a "secret Hindu", but it would probably make people second guess my defenses of Hinduism and/or my claimed allegiance to/belief in Oriental Orthodoxy, since you cannot be both a Hindu and an Orthodox Christian, since even 'theoretically' their beliefs and practices do not align. You need to pick one or the other, or else no one will take you seriously.

There is a difference in a professional opinion, and a religious opinion. You cannot separate the two. For instance, you told me that you would not be willing to help me find out if the fathers taught that God creates by using unformed matter. Since your religious belief is that God created out of nothing, you were not obliged to help puff up Mormonism by doing that research with me. IOW, if you found out that the fathers really did teach that God created from unformed matter, you would bury that 8' deep and not ever say it again.

This man is not like you. He is able to give an unbiased professional opinion about JS without letting his religion get in the way, at least on the subject of 'is JS a genius'.

You see, even if you figure that JS was a genius, you would not say it outloud because you are an OO and opposed to JS with an angry bias.

He is not secretly one of us, he is just a truthful person on this subject. Apparently the truth only works if it defends your religion.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Which comment are you dismissing because of no backup?

See post #381

 

[Peter1000]

Everywhere we go, we see the use of other languages being incorporated into everyday use of the dominant language. English is a prime example---we are a melting pot of people and the language uses French, German, Spanish and others mixed in. But the main language is still kept the main one. This reformed Egyptian stuff is not Egyptian with some Hebrew thrown in, or Hebrew with Egyptian thrown in.
When I came to America I had to not only learn English, but Mexican. I spoke Spanish and had never learned slang Spanish. Mexicans us mostly slang Spanish. But it was still Spanish, just some words wore hard to decipher. Mexicans speak English with Spanish slang words thrown in. It was, at times, confusing, but if I took it slow and thought about what they were saying I could usually figure things out. This
reformed Egyptian simply does not follow the pattern of any 2 languages being spoken together anywhere in the world. It is more like the childish gibberish that children invent for themselves to keep everyone else out. Twins have been known to do this---their own private language---between 2 children. Not a whole population. If you go to Mexico, the main language is Spanish, which was not the original language of the people, but their conquerors, the Spaniards. Their Indian dialects, however, are still spoken is some areas. There is no such thing as reformed Spanish, or reformed Hidalgo, or Nahuatl.
It is Spanish with some indigenous Indian words thrown in. Reformed Egyptian did not exist except in the mind of JS.

Thank you for this, but you or I know very little about Reformed Egyptian, certainly not enough to say, "it is more like the childish gibberish that children invent for themselves to keep everyone else out." What a silly, unknowable statement.