Schryver, Masonry, And Mha

[David T]

I admit I may have spoken too soon.

Apparently, one aspect of Schryver's presentation - specifically the appearance of Masonic Cypher usage in the KEP - was used as part of the foundation of a paper at this weekend's Mormon History Association conference. From reports I've heard, the presenter apparently went significantly beyond Schryver's hypothesis, and actually significantly departed from it. This was part of the Masonry session, and may indeed be playing a part as a puzzle piece in some game-changing new directions. Not necessarily where Schryver was heading, but significant nonetheless.

Anyone who was at these MHA sessions wish to comment? I believe Mike Reed presented a paper in that session, right?

Edited May 30, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

See? I'm willing to man up when shown to be possibly mistaken.

[juliann]

There never was a lot of random talk about this topic. There has obviously been a lot of hostility directed toward the messenger but the message can't be ignored by scholars and it won't be. Nor is it relevant that everyone agree with all of it. That is rarely the case with any theory.

Why is it notable that a new theory isn't going away?

[David T]

I do think many were waiting to critique and discuss the main parts of the material in publications until Will actually published the material - which he hasn't done yet, and I understand his plans to publish with the Maxwell Institute were recently...ended.

But, as I have said, there were intriguing elements pointed out, even if the conclusions from them didn't appear to be tight - and that is what many were waiting on the published paper for, to discuss those conclusions.

This specific presentation at MHA apparently bypasses his conclusion, and did an independent analysis launching off of not Schryver's final conclusion, but one of the pieces of the Puzzle that Schryver did point out and bring to light - the presence of Masonic Cypher characters in the KEP.

Instead of general discussions of the 2010 KEP presentation, I'm interested in hearing from those who have heard from the present new paper, and the further insights it provides.

[Calm]

From the program:

“Cipher in the Kirtland Snow: The Royal Arch Cipher and Joseph Smith’s Conception of Ancient Languages”

Clinton Bartholomew, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Can't find any references beside talk about the program itself, nothing specific about the paper yet.

[juliann]

Thanks for the explanation, Nackhadlow. I assume the presentations get published?

[Mike Reed]

Thanks for the explanation, Nackhadlow. I assume the presentations get published?

Yes. Clinton Bartholomew and I both plan to have our papers published... maybe Clair Barrus does too. Although the KEP is far from being a topic of my expertise, I believe Clinton's paper was rigorously researched and persuasively argued. Mike Homer's response was quite positive too. Kevin Barney also attended the session. I'd love to know what Kevin's assessment of our session is.

Here is my transcription of Clinton's abstract published by MHA:

"Joseph Smith grew up in a Masonic household with a father, brother, and several uncles who were Freemasons. Recently it has been suggested that two Mormon documents include characters from a masonic cipher known as a Royal Arch cipher. The first document is a letter written by W.W. Phelps to his wife that contains a revelation about the name of God in Adamic. The second Mormon document to contain putative Royal Arch characters is the Egyptian Alphabet. Evidence identifying the characters in these documents as Royal Arch cipher characters will be provided including an explanation of why Joseph Smith associated the specific characters with their selected meanings. This presentation will provide an in depth discussion of the Royal Arch cipher and its legendary history and the content of the Royal Arch degrees in which it was taught. Freemasons in Joseph's day thought that the Royal Arch cipher dated not only back into antiquity to the days of King Solomon, but that these symbols were part of the Adamic written language first invented by Enoch. After the flood the Egyptians were believed to have inherited this Egyptian script and that it was, in part, the basis for their hieroglyphic language. Finally, the presentation will provide the context of Joseph Smith's use of these putative Royal Arch characters and show the content of these prophetic productions was intimately linked with the Masonic legends and the Rituals of Royal Arch Masonry and Joseph Smith's search for the Masonic Universal Language.”

Edited May 31, 2011 by Mike Reed

[David T]

Mike: Thanks!

I understand there's some fascinating new developments going on concerning the Masonic link, and Joseph's understanding and application of it.

[Mike Reed]

Mike: Thanks!

I understand there's some fascinating new developments going on concerning the Masonic link, and Joseph's understanding and application of it.

Yes there is. Clinton Bartholomew and I have a series of articles that we intend to publish related to Freemasonry and Mormonism. The papers we presented last week at MHA will be our first two. My paper argued that, by placing the endowment in the narrative context of Adam's fall and redemption, Joseph Smith participated in a "Christianization" movement that emerged shortly after the Revolution and culminated in Joseph's day.

Clair's paper on the Sprout/Rod of Aaron was great too. Mike Homer is also working on a book.

[Palerider]

Mike: Thanks!

I understand there's some fascinating new developments going on concerning the Masonic link, and Joseph's understanding and application of it.

So Nack,

When these presentations are made and the published papers, etc. made public, how and where will one be able to access them? I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the workings of the MHA.

[Mike Reed]

So Nack,

When these presentations are made and the published papers, etc. made public, how and where will one be able to access them? I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the workings of the MHA.

The presentations were already given last weekend. MHA recorded them and said they will make them available online. I am afraid Clinton's paper, however, will be difficult (if not impossible) to follow as a mere audio recording--without his slides. Mine and Clair Barrus' papers, on the other hand, will be much easier to follow, since we didn't use slides. I talked to a Dialogue representative at MHA about the possibility of publishing our papers, and they seemed interested... so I am guessing that we will do it with them. If not, we will check with other publishers (ie. Journal of Mormon History, John Whitmer, Restoration Studies, Sunstone, Claremont's journal, etc.). Whichever journal these articles appear in, their volume will be available for purchase/subscription online.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Palerider]

The presentations were already given last weekend. MHA recorded them and said they will make them available online. I am afraid Clinton's paper, however, will be difficult (if not impossible) to follow as a mere audio recording--without his slides. Mine and Clair Barrus' papers, on the other hand, will be much easier to follow, since we didn't use slides. I talked to a Dialogue representative at MHA about the possibility of publishing our papers, and they seemed interested... so I am guessing that we will do it with them. If not, we will check with other publishers (ie. Journal of Mormon History, John Whitmer, Restoration Studies, Sunstone, Claremont's journal, etc.). Whichever journal these articles appear in, their volume will be available for purchase/subscription online.

Thanks Mike,

Looking forward to reading them and the rest to come.

[Fifth Columnist]

Clinton posts regularly on a couple of other boards and his theories about Joseph Smith's ties to Freemasonry are absolutely some of the most fascinating stuff I have read in a long time. For example, he explained how the whole idea of evil secret societies that rely on secret combinations in the BOM is a reflection of contemporary understandings of suprious freemasonry in the 1820s. He also explained how almost all of the temple ceremony, including the covenants, is derived from freemasonry. I look forward to reading everything he puts out. The freemasonry rabbit-hole goes really deep.

[cinepro]

This presentation will provide an in depth discussion of the Royal Arch cipher and its legendary history and the content of the Royal Arch degrees in which it was taught. Freemasons in Joseph's day thought that the Royal Arch cipher dated not only back into antiquity to the days of King Solomon, but that these symbols were part of the Adamic written language first invented by Enoch.

If that's the "legendary history", what's the "non-legendary history"?

[kolipoki09]

I do think many were waiting to critique and discuss the main parts of the material in publications until Will actually published the material - which he hasn't done yet, and I understand his plans to publish with the Maxwell Institute were recently...ended.

Indeed it did. But be forewarned, consiglieri was allegedly banned for bringing up the subject.

I would love to read a transcript from the MHA presentation. I think my wife and I would have enjoyed the trip down to St. George, but alas, it wasn't so. However, I'd love to get acquainted with any posters who plan on attending the birthday celebration for Richard Bushman June 18 in Springville. The FAIR conference is a week before my wife's due date for Kolipoki09 2.0.

[Log]

Indeed it did. But be forewarned, consiglieri was allegedly banned for bringing up the subject.

Really? He didn't get banned for being a continual bomb-thrower (posting controversial topics just to start fights)?

[mapman]

From the program:

“Cipher in the Kirtland Snow: The Royal Arch Cipher and Joseph Smith’s Conception of Ancient Languages”

Clinton Bartholomew, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Can't find any references beside talk about the program itself, nothing specific about the paper yet.

This post on Keepapitchinin summarizes the paper.

[George Miller]

This specific presentation at MHA apparently bypasses his conclusion, and did an independent analysis launching off of not Schryver's final conclusion, but one of the pieces of the Puzzle that Schryver did point out and bring to light - the presence of Masonic Cypher characters in the KEP.

Nackhadlow- Thanks for your expressed interest in the MHA presentation. I have been visiting relatives since the conference finished and my access to the internet has been extremely limited. First thing we should discuss is the provenance of the "pieces of the puzzle" which I used. It was Don Bradley who found the revised Sample of Pure Language (Sample) revelation in W. W. Phelp's letter to his wife entitled Specimen of some of the 'Pure Language' (Specimen). Knowing that Chris Smith was interested in the Egyptian Alphabet he passed a copy of the letter to him. Chris Smith was the first to publish on the dependence the Sample on the Specimen and the EA entries on the Specimen. Schryver made the observation that there were similarities in three of Specimen and EA glyphs and the Royal Arch cipher. (However, I have been informed by Don that Chris may have noticed this before Will) However, as many have noted, because of the relatively simple morphology of these characters, the observation was somewhat inconclusive.

My analysis of these characters confirms Will's conclusion that these were indeed related to the Royal Arch cipher. That is the extent to which my research dovetails with Will's work. Both Mike Reed and I hope to submit our papers for publication at the end of the month, so the data will hopefully soon be available to the general public. I will note here that the information I presented at MHA provides a substantially contradictory view to that expressed by Schryver in his FAIR conference presentation.

Edited June 3, 2011 by George Miller

[David T]

George - thanks. I look very much forward to reading both papers.

[Xander]

I had the privilege of reading Clinton's transcript and I have to say his treatment of this subject was quite excellent.

[George Miller]

I had the privilege of reading Clinton's transcript and I have to say his treatment of this subject was quite excellent.

I am glad you enjoyed my work. It was a pleasure to present at MHA and finally meeting Mike Reed in person was a pure pleasure. The paper is almost ready for submission and I add a lot of information that I was unable to present at MHA.

[Xander]

In the beginning of his paper Clinton mentions Will's "discovery," if we can call it that, but then explains from every angle why Will's conclusions are terribly wrong. For instance, if Joseph Smith thought Egyptian meant Egyptian, then almost nothing Will says can be true since he asserted - with no evidence other than his say-so - that Joseph Smith's references to "Egyptian" were actually references to a cipher, and not the Egyptian language at all. Clinton shoots that down quite easily by explaining why Freemasons in that day (including Joseph Smith) would see the connections between Egytian and Masonry, with respect to the original Adamic language.

[wenglund]

Regarding possible correlations between Masonic symbols and he "Specimen" as well as the Egyptian Alphabet, I hope W.W. Phelps gets more than a passing mention in the various aforementioned papers, particularly given his far more substantial background in Freemasonry than Joseph prior to 1835.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

He [Will Schryver] asserted - with no evidence other than his say-so - that Joseph Smith's references to "Egyptian" were actually references to a cipher, and not the Egyptian language at all.

I don't recall him asserting this. Could you provide a quote for verification?

Clinton shoots that down quite easily by explaining why Freemasons in that day (including Joseph Smith) would see the connections between Egytian and Masonry, with respect to the original Adamic language.

What connection did Freemasons (other than Joseph Smith or other LDs) draw between Egyptian and Adamic language?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Last August Schryver posted a video of his Powerpoint presentation. He argued that the Egyptian counting document wasn't really intended to be Egyptian, simply because none of the numbers were Egyptian. This of course assumes that Joseph Smith was infallible, and would never have mistaken Masonic symbols for Egyptian.

He also referred to the translated portions as the "substitute values" in order to get around the obvious translation to English. Clinton essentially removes the mystery here, explaining why a 19th century Mason familiar with Masonic works would assume a connection with Egyptian and Adamic languages. So when Joseph Smith uses Masonic symbols and calls them Egyptian, this would probably make perfect sense within a Masonic context, especially during a time when Egyptian numbers were unknown. No need for wild theories about a hidden cipher.