Schryver, Masonry, And Mha

[David T]

If I remember right from Antiquities of Freemasonry (1823) the belief presented was that The Fulness of Masonry (also called Lux, or Light) was split between the lines of Cain and Seth, with one line continuing teaching the spiritual side "Speculative Freemasonry", and another side continuing the practical scientific aspects "Operative Freemasonry" - and that Egypt is a key location for the continuation of Operative Masonry, and scattered and distorted remnants of Speculative. The book also suggests that the two - True Speculative and Operative - are brought together and "restored" when a true Temple to the true God is built. And that this is a key event that occurred with the construction of Solomon's Temple.

The same book discusses Adam receiving divinely given tokens and landmarks following the Fall as guides to keeping in line with divine Truth.

Edited June 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Xander]

Yes. Schryver failed to do his homework when it came to Masonry. Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe drew his attention to the similarities between the Phelps letter and the Egyptian Counting document, and he ran with it in the wrong direction.

[George Miller]

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.

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

I believe Xander is referring to this statement made by Will.

Thus, they see no contradiction entitling as “Egyptian Counting” a document that contains not a single element that is Egyptian; nor do they perceive any contradiction entitling the other documents “Egyptian Alphabet” and “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language,” notwithstanding the fact that most of the characters they “translate” are not Egyptian, nor are the source texts.

Don’t misunderstand, I have encountered no evidence to date that they believed they were actually restoring the language of Adam, although it is possible they believed that some of the characters they produced had come to them through inspiration.

Edited June 27, 2011 by George Miller

[George Miller]

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.

Sadly there was not time in the presentation to discuss that aspect of my research. Had the question arisen in the Q&A session I would have happily responded. As was discussed earlier with you, W.W. Phelps was an anti-Mason who was an editor of two anti-Masonic newspapers and ran for office on the anti-Masonic ticket. The anti-Masonic party line view of Freemasonry was that it was no older than the late 1600s; and as such he would likely never have assumed the Royal Arch Cipher was connected to the Adamic, Hebrew and Egyptian languages in antiquity. Additionally, the key to understanding what was being done with the Adamic and Egyptian cipher is found in a quasi-Masonic text that Phelps was unlikely to have access to but we know, with a very high degree of probability, that the Smith family was using before Phelps was a Mormon.

You also assert that Phelps had a much greater background in Freemasonry than Joseph. In asserting this I would remind you that Joseph Smith's family included three uncles, a father and a brother who were Freemasons. Despite what some have suggested, discussion of Masonic legendary history and philosophy with non-Masons was commonplace and definitely not verboten. If you don't believe me then please read a few Masonic newspapers from the time period.

Edited June 27, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

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.

I don't think you correctly understand what Will was arguing in his presentation. As I understand it, he was arguing against the proposition that the KEP were intended as the modus operandi for translating the BoA from the Egyptian papyri. Contrary to what you claimed earlier, he provided two sets of evidence in support of his counter argument. First, he proffered an analysis of key words in the Alphabets and Grammar, which strongly evince that the English explanations in those documents were dependent on pre-existing texts. In other words, translation of portions of the BoA pre-date the Alphabets and Grammar, and thus those documents were not the means by which the BoA text was derived, but rather the documents were dependent upon a pre-existing translation.

Second, most of the characters in the Alphabets/Grammar and the Counting document were not Egyptian and were not from the papyri, and thus could not be used as the means for translating the BoA from the papyri.

Will said regarding the Egyptian Counting Document: "As I pondered the ramifications of these facts, the conclusion became obvious to me: what we have here is a tool not intended to decipher Egyptian, but rather one intended to encipher the descriptive English text of the cardinal numbers!"

He did go on to ask: "So why is this document entitled “Egyptian Counting”? There is absolutely nothing 'Egyptian”' about it. Nothing at all. Why then did they call it 'Egyptian'?"

He answers this question thus: "Simply put, the evidence strongly suggests that these documents were never designed as a tool to translate the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith did that by revelation. Rather, the Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting documents appear to have been intended to render the English text of the Prophet’s revelations into some kind of cipher that these men apparently believed to be typical of language as practiced by 'the ancients."”

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Sadly there was not time in the presentation to discuss that aspect of my research. Had the question arisen in the Q&A session I would have happily responded. As was discussed earlier with you, W.W. Phelps was an anti-Mason who was an editor of two anti-Masonic newspapers and ran for office on the anti-Masonic ticket. The most common anti-Masonic view of Freemasonry was that it was no older than the late 1600s; and as such he would likely never have assumed the Royal Arch Cipher was connected to the Adamic, Hebrew and Egyptian languages in antiquity.

It is important to remember that prior to becoming involved in anti-Masonry, Phelps was for some time an active member of Freemasonry, and thus he would have had considerably greater exposure to the ins-and-outs of Freemasonry than what Joseph may have incidentally had via some of his family members.

Now, I don't know whether Phelps was numbered among those who denied the ancient origins of Masonry, but he certainly had a keen interest in the Adamic language--by my count, he published more on the subject than Joseph.

Additionally, the key to understanding what was being done with the Adamic and Egyptian cipher is found in a quasi-Masonic text that Phelps was unlikely to have access to but we know, with a very high degree of probability, that the Smith family was using before Phelps was a Mormon.

What reason do you have to suppose that Phelps was unlikely to have access to the un-named text?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

What connection would that be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

I don't think you correctly understand what Will was arguing in his presentation.

That's quite ironic.

As I understand it, he was arguing against the proposition that the KEP were intended as the modus operandi for translating the BoA from the Egyptian papyri.

Yes, of course that was his argument. This doesn't change the fact that he thought Joseph Smith called the counting document "Egyptian" for reasons other than the obvious; that he believed they were actually Egyptian. He explained this as an attempt at a cipher, with no evidence other than his say-so. Just like I said. When pressed on this matter he started backtracking, saying the cipher theory wasn't really a crucial part of his presentation and that we should all focus on his primary argument about the preexisting narrative.

Contrary to what you claimed earlier, he provided two sets of evidence in support of his counter argument.

That isn't contrary to what I claimed. You're not dealing with what I claimed but rather decided to change the argument onto something I haven't addressed here.

First, he proffered an analysis of key words in the Alphabets and Grammar, which strongly evince that the English explanations in those documents were dependent on pre-existing texts

This methodology was one of his own creation. His "substantial word study" as he called it. But this is beside the point. In order to argue that these documents didn't represent a "translation" from Egyptian to English, he had to resolve the problem of the Egyptian counting document which explicitly refers to these characters as being "Egyptian" and the explanation "English." Hence, with a wave of his magic wand, he makes the word "translation" refer to "cipher" and the English explanation "substitute value."

In other words, translation of portions of the BoA pre-date the Alphabets and Grammar, and thus those documents were not the means by which the BoA text was derived, but rather the documents were dependent upon a pre-existing translation.

Yes, I know what he tried to argue. But as I said, he had to invent his own silly method, and in the end all he did was show what most of us already knew - that much of the Book of Abraham was a knock off of the Book of Genesis. But for Will, the preexistent narrative had to come in the form of some mysterious original translation manuscript.

Second, most of the characters in the Alphabets/Grammar and the Counting document were not Egyptian and were not from the papyri, and thus could not be used as the means for translating the BoA from the papyri.

This is a ridiculous argument to make. Of course they weren't Egyptian, but that is beside the point that Joseph Smith believed they were. Nobody said this document was used to translate the Book of Abraham.

Will said regarding the Egyptian Counting Document: "As I pondered the ramifications of these facts, the conclusion became obvious to me: what we have here is a tool not intended to decipher Egyptian, but rather one intended to encipher the descriptive English text of the cardinal numbers!"

Yes, a ridiculous argument without a shred of evidence. His "facts" were basically assumptions derived from a self-serving methodology of his own making.

He did go on to ask: "So why is this document entitled “Egyptian Counting”? There is absolutely nothing 'Egyptian”' about it. Nothing at all. Why then did they call it 'Egyptian'?"

And he never answered it either.

He answers this question thus: "Simply put, the evidence strongly suggests that these documents were never designed as a tool to translate the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith did that by revelation. Rather, the Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting documents appear to have been intended to render the English text of the Prophet’s revelations into some kind of cipher that these men apparently believed to be typical of language as practiced by 'the ancients."

That doesn't even begin to explain why he called the document Egyptian. All he did here was reiterate the conclusion he never did manage to prove, and apparently it tricked some folks into thinking it was a direct answer to the question he posed. Besides, you're essentially admitting that I was right from the beginning when I said William Schryver argued that the document was called "Egyptian" even though according to him, no one involved with the document actually believed they were Egyptian. First you said I was misunderstanding him, and now your trying to prove he had good reason for believing what i said he believed.

[Xander]

What connection would that be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're going to have to read the paper. I'm not going to steal Clinton's thunder.

[wenglund]

Yes. Schryver failed to do his homework when it came to Masonry.

Can you give a specific example of the alleged failure?

Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe drew his attention to the similarities between the Phelps letter and the Egyptian Counting document...

As a participant in that discussion, I can attest to Will's familiarity with the Phelps letter prior to Chris and Brent's mentioning it--not that it matters who may or may not have discovered it first or how they may have discovered it.

...and he ran with it in the wrong direction.

What was wrong with the direction Will went with it--assuming you correctly understand the direction he went?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anijen]

I am grateful for Wills pioneering a new theory. I am also grateful for Wenglund for his patience and astute study and responses. It appears to me that Wills theory is starting to get recognition but his critics which are many still cant stomach that it came from him. I would bet if Chris or Kevin or insert another KEP expert here if they would have thought of it there reception would have been different. It is true the pioneers are the one who gets all the arrows. I will keep following the KEP from a safe distance. Kudos to Chris, Kevin and George for your contributions as well!

[George Miller]

It is important to remember that prior to becoming involved in anti-Masonry, Phelps was for some time an active member of Freemasonry, and thus he would have had considerably greater exposure to the ins-and-outs of Freemasonry than what Joseph may have incidentally had via some of his family members.

As a Freemason and someone who has spent near a decade studying Joseph Smith's usage of Freemasonry, I will simply say the data I have seen argues against your rhetorical defense.

Now, I don't know whether Phelps was numbered among those who denied the ancient origins of Masonry, but he certainly had a keen interest in the Adamic language--by my count, he published more on the subject than Joseph.

We do know what his newspaper had to say on the subject and that he was still acting like an anti-Mason in Nauvoo. As far as the Adamic language goes, Joseph Smith was interested in the subject before Phelps was arrived on the scene. So what evidence is there that Phelps was interested in the Adamic language before he met Joseph?

What reason do you have to suppose that Phelps was unlikely to have access to the un-named text?

I'll bet you are REALLY wishing you had attended the MHA conference now.

Edited June 27, 2011 by George Miller

[Xander]

Can you give a specific example of the alleged failure?

I just did. Any expert on Masonry who reads the Egyptian counting document, would never come to the conclusion Will has. They'd see it as Joseph Smith assumption that these Masonic symbols related to the Egyptian language. Besides, we already know from Smith's 1832 "pure language" document that he believed the Adamic language was very similar to modern English. So why is it so hard to see that he believed Masonic and Egyptian characters related to the pure language too? Clinton's paper explains the themes in Freemasonry regarding the pure language of Adam and their relations to Egyptian and Masonic ciphers.

All Will did was notice that a few characters that claimed to be Egyptian were also symbols from the Masonic Cipher, and then went "Ah ha, this whole thing must be some kind of cipher as well!" He then proceeded to force feed carefully selected data to fit that conclusion. A rather premature and unsophisticated approach to say the least.

As a participant in that discussion, I can attest to Will's familiarity with the Phelps letter prior to Chris and Brent's mentioning it--not that it matters who may or may not have discovered it first or how they may have discovered it.

Well Andrew Cook did a great job documenting the evolution of his cognition.

In any event, Will has been trying to put all this on Phelps. But as I explained to you last year, the pure language in Phelps' handwriting actually derives from a much earlier project by Joseph Smith.

[wenglund]

Yes, of course that was his argument. This doesn't change the fact that he thought Joseph Smith called the counting document "Egyptian" for reasons other than the obvious; that he believed they were actually Egyptian.

Forgive me, but your interactive style bears a striking resemblance to that of Kevin Graham.

Whatever the case, the reason I mentioned Will's argument is because it often gets lost in the discussion, and the reader may get the false impression that the point you are harping on is key to Will's presentation. It wasn't. At best it was incidental or an aside to his thsis.

Now, contrary to what you suggest, it is not a fact, but rather your mistaken opinion, that Will "thought Joseph Smith called the Counting document 'Egyptian.'" Nowhere in his presentation did Will attribute the title of that document to Joseph. If anyone, he may have implied that it was attributable to Phelps.

He explained this as an attempt at a cipher, with no evidence other than his say-so. Just like I said. When pressed on this matter he started backtracking, saying the cipher theory wasn't really a crucial part of his presentation and that we should all focus on his primary argument about the preexisting narrative.

I have just read through his presentation again, and in no reasonable sense could one conclude that the word "Egyptian", or even the "cipher theory" is a "crucial part of his presentation." He clearly spelled out his thesis and the "essential elements of understanding," as follows: "The explanations contained in the Alphabet documents are dependent on a pre-existing text of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham. This dates the reception of the translation of these chapters to the period between July 4 and July 17, 1835, which is when the Alphabet project was commenced. The greatly expanded character explanations contained in the Grammar documents are manifestly dependent not only on the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham, but also on the remainder of the revealed Book of Abraham, as well as the explanations to Facsimile #2. This roughly dates the reception of the translation of these things to a period between late 1835 and early 1836."

Note the absence of the word "cipher" as well as concern with the use of the word "Egyptian."

So, contrary to your assertion, Will didn't "backtrack." The so-called "cipher theory" was never crucial to his presentation, nor was the issue of word "Egyptian" in the title of the document. (See below)

This methodology was one of his own creation. His "substantial word study" as he called it. But this is beside the point. In order to argue that these documents didn't represent a "translation" from Egyptian to English, he had to resolve the problem of the Egyptian counting document which explicitly refers to these characters as being "Egyptian" and the explanation "English."

It is not beside the point that Will was making in his presentation. And, no, it was not necessary for him to explain the word "Egyptian" in the title of the document in order to substantiate his contention that the documents were not the modus operandi for translating the BoA, nor for that matter, that the documents represented a translation of the Egyptian papyri. All that was necessary to substantiate his thesis was to rationally demonstrate that the English explanations were dependent upon pre-existing English texts, and that the characters were not from the Egyptian papyri. To the reasonably minded, he did that.

His explaining the word "Egyptian" found in the titles of the documents wasn't necessary, but he did so anyway perhaps as a way of answering beforehand certain anticipated follow-up questions.

This is a ridiculous argument to make. Of course they weren't Egyptian, but that is beside the point that Joseph Smith believed they were. Nobody said this document was used to translate the Book of Abraham.

It is a perfectly rational argument in support of Will's thesis (at least to those who correctly understand it)--which was remarkably silent about what Joseph may or may not have believed was Egyptian. However, as an aside to his thesis, Will did explain regarding Phelps: "Egyptian was apparently believed to have somehow avoided the confounding of the languages at the Tower of Babel. 'Egyptian' therefore became a term that, for them, was synonymous with 'pure language.'”

That doesn't even begin to explain why he called the document Egyptian.

It may not be a satisfactory explanation to you, but clearly others, such as myself, found it adequate for what it was intended, trusting that additional arguments and support for this side issue would be dealt with in follow-up articles that lend themselves to closer examination of such side issues.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As a Freemason and someone who has spent near a decade studying Joseph Smith's usage of Freemasonry, I will simply say the data I have seen argues against your rhetorical defense.

For it to argue against my so-called rhetorical defense would necessitate your having sufficient familiarity with Phelp's background in Freemasonry. To this point I haven't seen much to indicate that you do.

We do know what his newspaper had to say on the subject and that he was still acting like an anti-Mason in Nauvoo.

Whether Phelps was acting like an anti-Mason or not (whatever that means) is insufficient in making the point that he held the view of many anti-Masons that masonry was not ancient. Sorry.

As far as the Adamic language goes, Joseph Smith was interested in the subject before Phelps was arrived on the scene. So what evidence is there that Phelps was interested in the Adamic language before he met Joseph?

I am not sure why you are asking me for evidence that is not pertinent to my contention. I am not arguing who first may have been interested in the Adamic language, but rather who, by my count, spoke publicly more frequently on the topic prior to 1835 and perhaps thereafter.

I'll bet you are REALLY wishing you had attended the MHA conference now.

You would win that bet.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

Clinton. It is a real bummer that you won't be presenting with Clair and I again at Sunstone. But I sure do look forward to seeing your paper in print. Not just this paper, but the many more papers to come.

Folks, there is so, so much more. Stay tuned...

[wenglund]

I just did. Any expert on Masonry who reads the Egyptian counting document, would never come to the conclusion Will has.

I am uncertain who you are and I have serious doubts whether you are in a position to speak authoritatively for experts on Masonry, but whatever the case, it doesn't matter. Will's conclusion (i.e the characters are not Egyptian and do not come from the papyri) wasn't spoken on behalf of Masons or Masonic experts, nor was it intended to present the Masonic point of view (19th century or otherwise). Rather, it was Will's personal conclusion as someone who is somewhat familiar with what is accepted by Egyptologists as Egyptian characters, particularly those that may be found on the Egyptian papyri in Joseph's possession in 1835. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone reasonably acquainted with Egyptology that would disagree with Will's conclusion.

They'd see it as Joseph Smith assumption that these Masonic symbols related to the Egyptian language.

I don't know that experts on Masonry would necessarily be experts, or even reasonably informed, about Joseph Smith, specifically his perception of the characters found in the document written by Phelps. But, again, it doesn't matter. Will wasn't arguing whether Joseph or Phelps may or may not have thought the characters were Egyptian, but instead whether the characters actually were Egyptian or not.

Besides, we already know from Smith's 1832 "pure language" document that he believed the Adamic language was very similar to modern English.

WE don't "know" that. Such is YOUR debatable perception.

So why is it so hard to see that he believed Masonic and Egyptian characters related to the pure language too?

It isn't hard to see that. What is hard is to see how this somehow substantiates your accusation that Will failed. It doesn't. So, you failed.

Clinton's paper explains the themes in Freemasonry regarding the pure language of Adam and their relations to Egyptian and Masonic ciphers.

I will have to see what he has to say.

All Will did was notice that a few characters that claimed to be Egyptian were also symbols from the Masonic Cipher, and then went "Ah ha, this whole thing must be some kind of cipher as well!" He then proceeded to force feed carefully selected data to fit that conclusion. A rather premature and unsophisticated approach to say the least.

That isn't at all how I read his presentation.

Well Andrew Cook did a great job documenting the evolution of his cognition.

Andrews documentation did not mention the private emails between Will and I, which undermine his hypothesized "evolution"--again, not that it really matters.

In any event, Will has been trying to put all this on Phelps. But as I explained to you last year, the pure language in Phelps' handwriting actually derives from a much earlier project by Joseph Smith.

I don't recall having a discussion a year ago with someone using the screen name of Xander, but the undisputed fact that Joseph was working on a so-called "project" prior to Phelp's letter and prior to creation of the KEP, is not, in itself, evidence against the hypothesis that Phelps may have played a predominate role in what was contained in his letter and/or the KEP. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

I would bet if Chris or Kevin or insert another KEP expert here if they would have thought of it there reception would have been different.

The problem is not the identity of the presenter, but the weakness of the argument. William argued that a document with the title "Egyptian Alphabet" was actually an effort to construct a cipher for encoding English text. While this was a creative idea, he failed to provide a good reason for preferring his non-obvious interpretation to the more obvious, prevailing view.

[Xander]

I am uncertain who you are and I have serious doubts whether you are in a position to speak authoritatively for experts on Masonry, but whatever the case, it doesn't matter.

The difference is I've read Clinton's paper. He's the expert on Masonry.

Will's conclusion (i.e the characters are not Egyptian and do not come from the papyri) wasn't spoken on behalf of Masons or Masonic experts, nor was it intended to present the Masonic point of view

He discovered a few masonic symbols and didn't bother to do the necessary research to determine plausible explanations as to why Joseph Smith would think Masonic symbols had a relation to Egyptian or Adamic languages. He probably never thought to do this, but it would have been the scholarly way to go.

Rather, it was Will's personal conclusion as someone who is somewhat familiar with what is accepted by Egyptologists as Egyptian characters, particularly those that may be found on the Egyptian papyri in Joseph's possession in 1835. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone reasonably acquainted with Egyptology that would disagree with Will's conclusion.

Did you really just write 70 words to tell me the obvious? It doesn't take an Egyptologist to know that Arabic numerals and Masonic ciphers that were included in the "Egyptian Counting" are not Egyptian symbols. But William's problem is that he assumes what he is trying to prove. He wants to prove that there is simply no way in the world that Joseph Smith believed these symbols meant something to the Ancient Egyptians. And yet, Joseph Smith explicitly referred to these symbols as Egyptian. Will comes along and says that since we know they aren't really Egyptian, then Joseph Smith couldn't have possibly believed they were. Why? Apparently his only evidence is his testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and would never be wrong about something like this. So he has to explain the Egyptian counting in some other way: enter the convoluted cipher theory.

I don't know that experts on Masonry would necessarily be experts, or even reasonably informed, about Joseph Smith, specifically his perception of the characters found in the document written by Phelps.

OK, you're still have trouble understanding the basic fact that you're way behind on this. You need to just wait until Clinton publishes his paper.

Will wasn't arguing whether Joseph or Phelps may or may not have thought the characters were Egyptian, but instead whether the characters actually were Egyptian or not.

Sigh... When he says the characters described as "Egyptian" were never intended to refer to real Egyptian, he is effectively arguing that those responsible for this document didn't believe they were Egyptian, because according to Will, this was all just an attempt to encipher a translation.

WE don't "know" that. Such is YOUR debatable perception.

OK, so maybe you don't, but the rest of us who are familiar with this document, we do know. According to Joseph Smith, the Adamic word for son is... (drum roll)...... "Son." According to Joseph Smith, the Adamic word for angels is...... (drum roll).... "Angls-men". Call me crazy, but this is "very similar" to Modern English.

It isn't hard to see that. What is hard is to see how this somehow substantiates your accusation that Will failed. It doesn't. So, you failed.

No, I showed what I needed to show. We both know that there is no amount of evidence that's going to convince you otherwise. We've been through all of this before. I dismantled Will's presentation shortly after he released it. We all took turns punching holes in it, and his only response was to back away from his cipher nonsense, saying it wasn't crucial to his thesis and then insisted that most of the evidence for his theory he didn't even bother to present at the conference... we'd have to "wait" again for him to get around to publishing something.

That isn't at all how I read his presentation

But you're the same guy who just accused me of misreading his argument, just before you essentially proved I understood it perfectly. So...

I don't recall having a discussion a year ago with someone using the screen name of Xander, but the undisputed fact that Joseph was working on a so-called "project" prior to Phelp's letter and prior to creation of the KEP, is not, in itself, evidence against the hypothesis that Phelps may have played a predominate role in what was contained in his letter and/or the KEP. Sorry.

In fact, it blows a huge hole in Will's argument, which is probably why he failed to inform his readers of the 1832 sample. His entire thesis hangs on the assumption that William Phelps was the mastermind behind the KEP. Pinning the cipher nonsense on Phelps was a huge piece to his puzzle.

HINT: I'm the guy who brought the 1832 document of the "pure language" sample to your attention last year. Here it is again: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/sample-of-pure-language-circa-march-1832

[Xander]

Whatever the case, the reason I mentioned Will's argument is because it often gets lost in the discussion, and the reader may get the false impression that the point you are harping on is key to Will's presentation. It wasn't. At best it was incidental or an aside to his thsis.

Then you need to go watch his video again. Of course he is backing away from it now, claiming it wasn't all that important, etc.

Now, contrary to what you suggest, it is not a fact, but rather your mistaken opinion, that Will "thought Joseph Smith called the Counting document 'Egyptian.'" Nowhere in his presentation did Will attribute the title of that document to Joseph. If anyone, he may have implied that it was attributable to Phelps.

Yes I made the mistake of confusing facts with Will's delusions. Meaning, his delusion that William Phelps was the man behind the madness that was the KEP.

I have just read through his presentation again, and in no reasonable sense could one conclude that the word "Egyptian", or even the "cipher theory" is a "crucial part of his presentation."

So your only defense is to say "it wasn't that important anyway"? WIll tried pulling this stunt on the other forum, but then I went through the hassle of watching both videoa again and taking notes of the time he spent on each theory. He spent most of it on his cipher argument whether you find the exact phrase "cipher theory" or not.

He clearly spelled out his thesis and the "essential elements of understanding," as follows: "The explanations contained in the Alphabet documents are dependent on a pre-existing text of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham. This dates the reception of the translation of these chapters to the period between July 4 and July 17, 1835, which is when the Alphabet project was commenced. The greatly expanded character explanations contained in the Grammar documents are manifestly dependent not only on the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham, but also on the remainder of the revealed Book of Abraham, as well as the explanations to Facsimile #2. This roughly dates the reception of the translation of these things to a period between late 1835 and early 1836."

Yes, and he also had the audacity to call his presentation "Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers." The meaning behind them was that they were an effort to encipher the translations. That is what got everyone at FAIR excited, and that is what most of his supporters felt he proved after the presentation. This "Preexisting text" nonsense was more of a side issue that would have gone over the heads of anyone not deeply involved in the KEP debate. Everyone by far was more impressed with the implications the cipher theory brought to the table. The quotation above is just one excerpt of a presentation that lasted 40 minutes. What you failed to mention is where he says:

"The Key to understanding the meaning and purpose of the KEP is found within the documents entitled Egyptian Alphabet, Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, and Egyptian Counting."

You see he spent a grand total of 13 minutes discussing his preexisting text argument while saving the bulk of his presentation for the grand finale, which involved focusing the entire second video of 27 minutes to push his cipher theory. This is what everyone came to see. This is what proposed to explain the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP.

It is not beside the point that Will was making in his presentation. And, no, it was not necessary for him to explain the word "Egyptian" in the title of the document in order to substantiate his contention that the documents were not the modus operandi for translating the BoA, nor for that matter, that the documents represented a translation of the Egyptian papyri.

So after telling me he answered the question about why they called the counting "Egyptian", now you're saying it wasn't necessary to do so? You're all over the place in contradiction land tonight.

All that was necessary to substantiate his thesis was to rationally demonstrate that the English explanations were dependent upon pre-existing English texts, and that the characters were not from the Egyptian papyri. To the reasonably minded, he did that.

So explain how the existence of a preexistent text provides us with the "Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers"? Will knows as well as we do that his thunder was about the cipher. From the Mormon Times article to the numerous posts gushing over his amazing "discovery," it was all about the cipher. That is, until it was shown to be a very weak argument, and then suddenly she started leaning on his other argument as if it were all that really mattered.

[George Miller]

Clinton. It is a real bummer that you won't be presenting with Clair and I again at Sunstone. But I sure do look forward to seeing your paper in print. Not just this paper, but the many more papers to come.

It is indeed a bummer as I would love to see both you guys again. I enjoyed the productive and non productive conversations in which I had the pleasure of participating. Of course you are right that there are MANY more fascinating things we need to write on the Mormon-Masonic connection.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Forgive me, but your interactive style bears a striking resemblance to that of Kevin Graham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is indeed Kevin. Nemesis confirmed this in a recent thread and said he is their guest here by invitation. Thought you should know.

[cdowis]

OK, so maybe you don't, but the rest of us who are familiar with this document, we do know. According to Joseph Smith, the Adamic word for son is... (drum roll)...... "Son." According to Joseph Smith, the Adamic word for angels is...... (drum roll).... "Angls-men". Call me crazy, but this is "very similar" to Modern English.

Can we assume that you are speaking as an expert on linguistics, and the development of Proto-Indo-European.

While JS may have spelled the work in English, he was an native English speaker and transcribing the word in English. What was written by an English speaker with no linguistic training may have been somewhat different from the actual sound. For example, sūnú is the Sanskrit for "son". You can see the chart for the different pronunciations at wiki, and note that many are indeed very similar to the english word.

The crazy person thinks that sunu is "very similar" to son. Perhaps the "U" was added later from the Adamic, and the original was "son" or a close derivation. If JS had written "hsun", it does not look like english, but the pronunciation is the same (the h is silent).

I am not an expert, but I did do some checking, which apparently you did not bother to do. We will keep that in mind as you share with us your uninformed opinions.

Please continue with those drum rolls. They are very entertaining. You might add a couple of rim shots as well.

Edited June 27, 2011 by cdowis

[George Miller]

While JS may have spelled the work in English, he was an native English speaker and transcribing the word in English. What was written by an English speaker with no linguistic training may have been somewhat different from the actual sound. For example, sūnú is the Sanskrit for "son". You can see the chart for the different pronunciations at wiki, and note that many are indeed very similar to the english word.

The crazy person thinks that sunu is "very similar" to son. Perhaps the "U" was added later from the Adamic, and the original was "son" or a close derivation.

While not a linguistics expert, I am aware that Hebrew and Egyptian are languages which belong to the Afro-Asiatic language group not the Proto-Indo-European. Languages which share the same language groups have words which often share pronunciations. Since Sanskrit is a member of the Proto-Indo-European language group, as is English, the similarities between son and sūnú are to be expected. All the speculations I have read with regards to Adamic are that it was most closely related to Hebrew, though a minority view has suggested Chinese as another option. So are you instead arguing contra both the majority and minority view that Adamic is related to the Proto-Indo-European language group? If so then what is you non-circular reasoning to back up this claim?

Edited June 27, 2011 by George Miller

[Xander]

Can we assume that you are speaking as an expert on linguistics, and the development of Proto-Indo-European.

Can we assume you're writing this with tongue in cheek? I am a language teacher, but one doesn't need to be an expert in linguistics to know that "Son" and "Son" are very similar.

While JS may have spelled the work in English, he was an native English speaker and transcribing the word in English. What was written by an English speaker with no linguistic training may have been somewhat different from the actual sound. For example, sūnú is the Sanskrit for "son".

Joseph Smith didn't write sūnú, nor was he translating Sanskrit. Unlike you, I'm dealing with what he actually said.

You can see the chart for the different pronunciations at wiki, and note that many are indeed very similar to the english word.

Irrelevant. How many ways can one pronounce "Son"? There were a couple of instances where the word was possibly written "San" instead of Son, but that is hardly a huge difference in pronunciation. I suspect that when he dictated the translation, he said something along the lines of "Sohn" and it was written as Son and San. Either way, the point stands. Remember I never said he believed Adamic and English were identical. I only said that he believed some words were "very similar." I suggest you pay closer attention next time, as it will help you avoid the straw man.

The crazy person thinks that sunu is "very similar" to son. Perhaps the "U" was added later from the Adamic, and the original was "son" or a close derivation.

Is this really the best you can do? Joseph Smith believed the Adamic word for Son was very similar, if not identical, to modern English. You've done nothing to change this fact.

I am not an expert, but I did do some checking, which apparently you did not bother to do.

Checked what exactly? Your tangent about Sanskrit is irrelevant. You're trying to complicate something that is really quite simple and has nothing to do with your bunny trail.

We will keep that in mind as you share with us your uninformed opinions.

So you presume to speak for the collective "we" or was this just your subtle way of poisoning the well?

As for being uninformed, this is a convenient assertion without basis. Remember, I was the one who had to educate your friend on this matter many months ago. He had no clue that this document even existed, which is hardly surprising since his education on this subject was limited to what Schryver knows. Other apologists like Ben McGuire didn't know of its existence either, whichled him to the same conclusion Schryver intended: to get people to think this was strictly a Phelps endeavor. However, as Metcalfe illustrated last year, the significance of this document is that it undermines Schryver's baseless contention that Phelps was coming up with all this stuff on his own. Even LDS Historian Sam Brown admits that Joseph Smith was the one supervising the project.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xander