But honestly, wouldn't we expect the primary EA document to be the one that reflects the most uncertainty? How can you say Phelps's character was "copied" into EAJS when that clearly isn't the case? If anything, EAJS seems to reflect first-stage thinking, Phelps's second-stage thinking, and Cowdery's third-stage thinking.
Precisely. And this was discussed on this forum a couple of years ago. I remember Brent asking William Schryver to explain why Phelps' EA contained two columns of the same sequence of characters. After pretending to know, but refusing to answer, you finally answered the question and correctly pointed out that the characters in the right hand column were in Joseph Smith's handwriting - on Phelps' EA document. This clearly suggests that Phelps was relying on Smith, not vice-versa.
But as has been explained in numerous threads already, wade simply doesn't understand these documents enough nor does he pay much attention to what he has been told by the "critics." He is taking bits and pieces of anything Schryver says, accepts it as law, and repackages as if this is stuff he is coming up with on his own. The entire argument about Phelps being the first to use a table is nonsense (another Schryverism wade adopts uncritically). This says nothing about where the characters originated. Nothing.
But even though wade was present during these past exchanges, nothing seems to stick with him accept the contents of Schryver's posts. I remember about a year ago he presented this same Schryverism about the Phelps letter on the other forum and when I posted an image of the 1832 revelation provided by Joseph Smith, he had never seen it before and apparently knew nothing about it. But this had already been discussed in the thread linked above. A discussion in which wade participated, but it didn't stick with him because it was a critic who presented the information. This is why it is so frustrating trying to have a discussion about any of this stuff with wade or William. Whatever we say, it doesn't matter because it goes in one ear and then out the other. After enough time has passed and their refutation has blown over, they repeat the cycle again as if none of this had ever been dealt with before. Likewise, they continue to conceal information that undermines their intended usage of the document. For example, they tell you Phelps wrote a letter sharing a sample of the pure language, but they refuse to tell you that Phelps was living with Joseph Smith at the time and that he told his wife he would share with her things that had been revealed, indicating that what he was sharing came from the Prophet, not from Phelps' conventional education in languages.
Incidentally, I've just been informed by George Miller that he is working on a publication that will demonstrate quite conclusively that Phelps relied on Joseph Smith, and not vice-versa. His research in the area of masonry and the influence it played in Joseph Smith's usage of these symbols, is pure genius. For Schryver or Wade to insist it was the anti-Mason, W.W. Phelps, who believed Adam used a Masonic code, is nothing short of ridiculous. But I agree with Hamblin on one point: I hope they do publish on this. As Metcalfe said in the thread linked above, William's inane comments on this subject will come back to haunt him upon publication.
Edited by Xander, 26 November 2011 - 04:49 AM.