Schryver, Masonry, And Mha

[LeSellers]

are you instead arguing contra both the majority and minority view that Adamic is related to the Proto-Indo-European language group?

I have never heard anyone make any sort of believable argument that Adamic is related to any extant language today. On what would one base this judgment?

We have virutally no knowledge of what Adamic sounds like aside from the unlikely connection between Jaredite and Adamic. Except, that is, for the fact that Joseph did reveal that "Ahmen" is God's name, and so on as given above.

Lehi

[Xander]

I have never heard anyone make any sort of believable argument that Adamic is related to any extant language today. On what would one base this judgment?

The basis that languages aren't created in vacuums. Beyond the obvious problems of trying to find plausible connections between English and the first human language, is the problem posed by Babel.

[cdowis]

del

Edited June 27, 2011 by cdowis

[George Miller]

I have never heard anyone make any sort of believable argument that Adamic is related to any extant language today. On what would one base this judgment?

We have virutally no knowledge of what Adamic sounds like aside from the unlikely connection between Jaredite and Adamic. Except, that is, for the fact that Joseph did reveal that "Ahmen" is God's name, and so on as given above.

Sam Brown discusses this in part in Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden. (2009). For a non-Mormon source I would suggest reading Umberto Eco's The Search for the Perfect Language or any scholarly text on the subject on the tradition of the pure language. Of course my presentation discusses this from a Masonic perspective and the Masonic and quasi-Masonic sources Joseph Smith used to form his thoughts on the Adamic language.

Edited June 27, 2011 by George Miller

[Xander]

Yes, they are very similar, but I guess you did not read my post. Your drum roll made your view very clear.

Yes, my view was clear, and yet you seem to be intentionally missing it. My view is that they are "very similar". What is so hard about this?

If you are a language teacher, you ought to be embarrassed to have an amateur teach you your craft.

Excuse me? Sigh... you're still upset that you still cannot refute anything I said. I get it.

You should be embarrassed by this statement.

But unfortunately for you, you're not in a position to explain why I should be.

What was the point of the drum rolls?

To bring focus to what Joseph Smith actually said. Seriously, if this is what you're so upset about then I suggest you lighten up.

You were either making out like Jay Leno, this is a joke, or you were trying to make a point.

Yes, my point is, contrary to wade's insinuation, I wasn't wrong to say these two were "very similar." He asked for me to present the evidence and I did.

You did not bother to show that son could have come from the indo=european

Why would I need to make such a ludicrous argument? I don't believe for a second that the first human language "could have come from the indo=european" because, there is no reason to believe it did. You don't know much about linguistics or else you never would have made such a spectacularly misinformed comment.

you clearly had an agenda

Yes, the truth is my agenda. I know this irks you to no end, but please just bear with it for now. The more you struggle the more you infect the wound. The truth of the matter is that Joseph Smith believed the Adamic languages was in some cases very similar to modern English. This is a fact supported by his own translations.

, and, since you did not use that expertise to make that point, you were making a "true lie."

So by pointing out the obvious fact that "son" is very similar to "son", I'm engaged in "true" lying? Yes, you haven't changed.

It sounds like english but... DRUM ROLL..... you KNEW that it sounds like other languages as well. You just forgot to mention that.

What other languages? How is that relevant to my point? You yourself said only a crazy person would think the Sanskrit for son sounds like modern English, and yet that is the only example you provided. Now you want to pretend... what? That I am engaged in "true lying" simply because I didn't take the bait and follow you down a silly Sanskrit bunny trail? It is irrelevant to the point I made.

True lies are the worst kind of antimormon techniques. I suggest next time that you tell the whole truth, and not attempt to deceive.

When all you're left with is "liar liar" then the debate is over. You have no argument; all you have is desperation.

BTW, where exactly do you get what JS believed? Is mind-reading part of your discipline. You are sinking into the depths of antimormonism-- true lies and now mind reading. What's next?

The source comes from the anti-Mormon website.... (drum roll)..... www.josephsmithpapers.org which describes itself as a project "staffed by scholars, archivists, and editors employed by the Church History Library of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I thought I was going to be able to get away with using such an overtly anti-Mormon source, but you're just too smart for me. So a round of applause for Cdowis!

[wenglund]

Xander,

You are free to believe whatever you wish about Will's presentation, but here are the indisputable facts:

1. Will's two-part thesis, and the "essential elements of understanding" he intended to make in his presentation, were explicitly stated as follows: A) "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." and B) "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."

2. Will's thesis is presented as a counter to what had for several decades been presumed by certain critics to be the meaning and purpose of the KEP (hence the title of his presentation)--i.e. that the KEP were the "modus operandi" for translating or creating the BoA from the Egyptian papyri. Will's thesis counters the belief that the BoA was derived from the KEP.

3. Evidence in support of his thesis (or counter argument) consisted of a database analysis using a "substantial word study" of the Alphabet, which indicated that "we are quite obviously dealing with a very limited set of unique words, with very specific applications. As opposed to a more non-contextual selection of wide-focus building block words that one would reasonably expect to encounter in a document intended as a tool to decipher an unknown text, instead we encounter words and phrases focused on a narrow subject matter." This means that the Alphabet "was being driven by an already known text, rather than being a means by which to produce an as yet unknown text." Or, in other words, "what we find are references to a story that’s already been written." "Analysis by substantial words strongly suggests a dependency of the Alphabet on a pre-existing text of much of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham."

4. Evidenced in support of his thesis (or counter argument) consisted of a similar database analysis of the Grammar. "expanded explanations in the Grammar serve to confirm the dependency of the earlier Alphabet documents on a pre-existing text of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham....In addition, the expansions contained in the Grammar attest a dependency on significant portions of both chapters four and five of the Book of Abraham, as well as the explanations to Facsimile 2." This means that "The Alphabet and Grammar is dependent on a story that has already been written. We are able to discern within the Alphabet and Grammar the complex contextual elements of the Book of Abraham only because we already know the story. And the complex, interrelated aspects of the references we find simply could not have been achieved unless the whole story had already been produced....In short, there is too little of the story of the Book of Abraham in the Alphabet and Grammar for it to have been used to produce the story, yet too much of the story for it not to be dependent on the rest of the story."

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

-continued-

5. After presenting evidence in support of his thesis/counter argument, Will briefly explored several side issues related to the meaning and purpose of the KEP. First, he presented a counter argument to the proposition that the authors of the KEP "reverse engineered' the Egyptian scrolls by using the pre-existing English text of the Book of Abraham as a 'primer.'” He explained that: A) his data analysis revealed "that several of the explanations in the Alphabet and Grammar documents were dependent not on text from the Book of Abraham....but rather on very recognizable passages from others of Joseph Smith’s prior revelations, most prominently sections 76 and 88 of the Doctrine & Covenants." Since this was a side issue, Will only provided a single example to support this counter-argument.

6. Will also pointed out that the counter-argument above could also be viewed as an argument in support of his thesis (or a counter-argument to the "modus operandi" proposition). He said: "To the extent this lexicon was built partially on texts that have no relationship to the Egyptian papyri; texts that were written not in Egyptian at all, but in English, then the Alphabet and Grammar simply could not have been intended as a tool to decipher the papyri."

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

-coninued-

7. Additionally, as a counter-argument to both the "reverse engineered" and "modus operandi" propositions, he iterated and reiterated that "Most of the characters explained in the Egyptian alphabet documents are not Egyptian, and do not appear on the Egyptian papyri in question. A few of the characters are Egyptian and can be found on the papyri, but not in any one place, and not in any order, and not with any discernible relationships. They appear to have been selected arbitrarily. Of the 69 characters given explanations, some of them are clearly invented; some are composites—in other words they are formed by combining two or more previously used characters and, much to my surprise, I discovered that several of the characters can be traced to ciphers used by the Knights Templar and the Freemasons." Since, again, this is a side issue to his thesis, Will only gave it a cursory examination, which consisted of a brief look at the Counting document ("the characters in the Egyptian Counting document are very obviously not Egyptian! They have no relationship whatsoever to the papyri") as well as the correlation between several characters in the Alphabet/Grammar and a Masonic cipher.

8. Second, in regards to the meaning and purpose of the KEP in general, and the Counting document in particular, Will offered as a side issue the hypothesis that; "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. It constitutes a specimen of what is known in cryptography as a “cipher key.” The characters, which are not Egyptian and which do not come from the papyri, are intended to be a cipher representing the English words in the “explanations” column." Once again, since this is a side issue to his thesis, Will only provided superficial support for his hypothesis, presumably with the intent of exploring it more in-depth in future papers.

7. Finally, presumably in anticipation of follow-up questions prompted by the aside above, Will asked: "So why is this document entitled 'gyptian Counting'? There is absolutely nothing “Egyptian” about it. Nothing at all. Why then did they call it 'Egyptian'?" and briefly answered: "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.' Not that they would have called it a cipher. No, I believe the term they would have used to describe what they were doing is 'translation'—not of Egyptian papyri, mind you, but of already written English texts—into a set of characters of their own selection and invention. Nevertheless, these tables they produced in the process of their translation project have the effective function of a 'cipher key.'” Again. since this is a follow-up to a side issue to Will's thesis, Will only gave it a superficial examination, perhaps with the intent of exploring it more in-depth in future papers. His brief examination consisted of describing the nature of ciphers, correlating them with various aspects of the KEP documents, and pointing out the creation of these documents coincided with the development and publishing of the D&C, which contained instances of encrypted names (for purposes of protecting sensitive information).

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Now, regarding the follow-up to the side issue to Will's thesis, specifically his explanation for the word "Egyptian" in the title of various KEP documents, Will does appear to presuppose that the author(s) of the relevant KEP documents ("Phelps and others") figured "that most of the characters they 'translate' are not Egyptian, nor are the source texts."

Does Will provide support for this presupposition? Not really.

Is it problematic for his thesis that he doesn't? Not at all.

Is it problematic for his hypothesized aside that he doesn't? Not really. It simply leaves the presupposition unaddressed and open to counter-argument. The author(s) of the relevant KEP documents may have believed the characters to be "Egyptian," and yet still intended the KEP to be a cipher.

Again, I hope this helps, and will suffice in enabling us to return to the topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Speaking of the topic of this thread, I would be interested to learn if the MHA presentations, or pending papers, go beyond what Will mentioned in his FAIR presentation, and point out other characters in the Phelps "Specimen", the Phelps Counting document, the Phelps Alphabet, and the Phelps Grammar, which may be of Masonic origin (particularly Masonic ciphers)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

Speaking of the topic of this thread, I would be interested to learn if the MHA presentations, or pending papers, go beyond what Will mentioned in his FAIR presentation, and point out other characters in the Phelps "Specimen", the Phelps Counting document, the Phelps Alphabet, and the Phelps Grammar, which may be of Masonic origin (particularly Masonic ciphers)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

At least one of the presentations not only identifies the characters in the Specimen, but also confidently and convincingly shows you what they mean, and why they were chosen.

Edited June 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

duplicate

Edited June 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[George Miller]

At least one of the presentations not only identifies the characters in the Specimen, but also confidently and convincingly shows you what they mean, and why they were chosen.

Wow thanks for the appraisal of my argument. :acute:

I am thrilled to hear that the argument was convincing to those who have perused its pages. I find that reassuring given that you haven't even seen all of the data. Woo Hooo!!!!

You might be interested to hear that as an offshoot of the Masonic project has emerged my own analysis of the KEP, which pretty nicely shows that Joseph Smith derived each and every one of the Egyptian hieroglyphs in Part 2 of the KEP from the Hor Book of Breathing. Perhaps this will be next years MHA conference talk. :rolleyes:

Edited June 28, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

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.

Since the "argument" you refer to above was an extension of an aside to Will's thesis, I am not sure it is fair to expect it to be anything but "weak" in terms of substantiation. One may reasonably expect that the "strong arguments" would be reserved for substantiating the thesis of the presentation, which is what Will did.

However, as I have pointed out, Will did provide "good reason" to reject several of the "prevailing views."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wow thanks for the appraisal of my argument. :acute:

I am thrilled to hear that the argument was convincing to those who have perused its pages. I find that reassuring given that you haven't even seen all of the data. Woo Hooo!!!!

Is that argument, or portions thereof, available online? If so, could you provide a link? (Sorry to ask again if it was already posted)

You might be interested to hear that as an offshoot of the Masonic project has emerged my own analysis of the KEP, which pretty nicely shows that Joseph Smith derived each and every one of the Egyptian hieroglyphs in Part 2 of the KEP from the Hor Book of Breathing. Perhaps this will be next years MHA conference talk. :rolleyes:

When you speak of "Part 2" of the KEP, to what specifically are you referring?

And, will you be providing evidence that it was Joseph Smith, and not Phelps, who "derived each and every one of the Egyptian hieroglyphs" from the "Hor Book of Breathing"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

Is that argument, or portions thereof, available online? If so, could you provide a link? (Sorry to ask again if it was already posted)

No they are not available online at present. You were given the opportunity to hear my results at the MHA.

When you speak of "Part 2" of the KEP, to what specifically are you referring?

I am speaking of the second part of the first degree as contained in the EA. BTW can you see why such a finding would call into question Schyver's conclusions? As to who was at the head of the project, I have seen NO evidence whatsoever that implicates Phelps; and the available evidence presented so far, and discussed in public, clearly points to Joseph Smith. That being said, my analysis does provide additional evidence that IMHO rules out Phelps as the guiding force in the project. In fact my MHA presentation as it currently stands provide ample evidence to make this conclusion. [Note: I am well aware that Schyver claims his analysis provides compelling text critical evidence that implicates Phelps, but in the absence of the evidence, I must follow where the current evidence leads.] Edited June 28, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

I am speaking of second part of the first degree as contained in the EA.

Really? You contend that each and every character in Part 2 of the first degree of the Egyptian Alphabet (which includes the characters in the Phelps "Specimen") are from the Hor Book of Breathing? If so, that should prove interesting to see you explain how some of the character supposedly from the Hor BoB ended up in a Phelps letter written and sent several months prior to the Egyptian papyri arriving in Kirtland.

BTW do you can see why such a finding would call into question Schyver's conclusions?

I can see how, if correct, it might negatively impact Will's non-thesis conclusion that, "of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned [in the EA], most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri!"

However, I don't see how it can in any rational way negatively impact the conclusions in Will's thesis (which addresses the dependency of the explanations in the EA and GAEL, and doesn't speak to the characters).

As to who was at the head of the project, I have seen NO evidence whatsoever that implicates Phelps...

Let's see, there is the Phelps "Specimen," the Phelps notebook (Manuscript #7), the Phelps Counting document, the Phelps Alphabet, the Phelps Grammar, and the Phelps BoA Mss. Do you see NO pattern here?

...and the available evidence presented so far, and discussed in public, clearly points to Joseph Smith.

I have seen no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in creating the "Specimen" (though some of the content of the Specimen was taken from what Kevin calls an "earlier project' in which Joseph played a dominate role). I have seen no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in producing the Egyptian Counting document. There is no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in producing manuscript #7. There is some evidence that Joseph was involved in producing the EA's, though it appears that his EA may have been somewhat dependent upon the Phelps EA, which could reasonably be viewed as suggesting Joseph had a minority role. There is some evidence Joseph was involved in the GAEL, though not necessarily in a dominate role. There is no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in creating the Phelps BoA Mss.--except for his providing the BoA text, which may have pre-dated the production of the Phelps BoA Mss.

So, I am not sure of what evidence you speak of.

That being said, my analysis does provide additional evidence that IMHO rules out Phelps as the guiding force in the project. In fact my MHA presentation as it currently stands provide ample evidence to make this conclusion. [Note: I am well aware that Schyver claims his analysis provides compelling text critical evidence that implicates Phelps, but in the absence of the evidence, I must follow where the current evidence leads.]

Not unlike you, I will have to wait to see what you have to offer before making up my mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

Really? You contend that each and every character in Part 2 of the first degree of the Egyptian Alphabet (which includes the characters in the Phelps "Specimen") are from the Hor Book of Breathing? If so, that should prove interesting to see you explain how some of the character supposedly from the Hor BoB ended up in a Phelps letter written and sent several months prior to the Egyptian papyri arriving in Kirtland.

I think your analysis is being misled by a failure to differentiate between the Adamic in the Sample and Specimen as opposed to the Egyptian in the EA. Joseph Smith viewed Adamic and Egyptian as two different languages. The reason why the same symbols appear in both has previously been explained to you in other forums.

Let's see, there is the Phelps "Specimen," the Phelps notebook (Manuscript #7), the Phelps Counting document, the Phelps Alphabet, the Phelps Grammar, and the Phelps BoA Mss. Do you see NO pattern here?

Oh I see the pattern; and despite having the pattern repeatedly pointed out to you by multiple people, the pattern still seems to evade you. ;)

I have seen no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in creating the "Specimen" (though some of the content of the Specimen was taken from what Kevin calls an "earlier project' in which Joseph played a dominate role). I have seen no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in producing the Egyptian Counting document. There is no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in producing manuscript #7. There is some evidence that Joseph was involved in producing the EA's, though it appears that his EA may have been somewhat dependent upon the Phelps EA, which could reasonably be viewed as suggesting Joseph had a minority role. There is some evidence Joseph was involved in the GAEL, though not necessarily in a dominate role. There is no empirical evidence that Joseph was involved in creating the Phelps BoA Mss.--except for his providing the BoA text, which may have pre-dated the production of the Phelps BoA Mss.

My heavens, much of the evidence is contained in the data you present above. I am perplexed as to why you don't see what the data is clearly indicating. Perhaps it is because you are not considering Cowdery's role in the project.

Edited June 28, 2011 by George Miller

[Xander]

My heavens, much of the evidence is contained in the data you present above. I am perplexed as to why you don't see what the data is clearly indicating.

Indeed.

[wenglund]

I think your analysis is being misled by a failure to differentiate between the Adamic in the Sample and Specimen as opposed to the Egyptian in the EA. Joseph Smith viewed Adamic and Egyptian as two different languages.

Huh? I am not sure how you got all of this from my asking you a clarifying question.

The reason why the same symbols appear in both has previously been explained to you in other forums.

I don't recall any explanation that addressed the specific question I just asked you? So, let me be a little more precise. Are you claiming that the same six character found in the Phelps letter sent the end of May of 1835, were also contained in the Hor BoB that arrived in Kirtland a month or so later?

Oh I see the pattern; and despite having the pattern repeatedly pointed out to you by multiple people, the pattern still seems to evade you.

My heavens, much of the evidence is contained in the data you present above. I am perplexed as to why you don't see what the data is clearly indicating. Perhaps it is because you are not considering Cowdery's role in the project.

I have considered the limited empirical evidence of Cowdery's and Joseph's involvement in the secular project. I am also aware that Cowdery and Phelps were scribes for Joseph at the time. I can even charitably see how, based on these two factors, that one may reasonably craft a circumstantial case that Joseph may have played a dominate role in the secular project. I just don't view such a case to be compelling, and I even see a preponderance of evidence to suggest otherwise. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

Huh? I am not sure how you got all of this from my asking you a clarifying question.

Wade this has not been our only conversation. FWIW I was actually pointing you in the right direction.

I don't recall any explanation that addressed the specific question I just asked you? So, let me be a little more precise. Are you claiming that the same six character found in the Phelps letter sent the end of May of 1835, were also contained in the Hor BoB that arrived in Kirtland a month or so later?

That is exactly what Joseph Smith thought. But to understand why, you have to understand the information in the Masonic books from which Joseph Smith drew his conceptions of the Adamic, Hebrew and Egyptian language. With that information in hand one can fairly easily figure out exactly what Joseph Smith was doing with the EA, and why the same glyphs show up in both documents. Sorry that is ALL I am willing to say right now. Perhaps I will see you at next years MHA!!! BTW it is in Canada so you better pack your hockey stick.

Edited June 28, 2011 by George Miller

[Pahoran]

That is exactly what Joseph Smith thought.

And that's where you lose us, George, or is it Clinton. If Joseph had said it, that would be one thing; but in the absence of such a statement, when you presume to read the mind of someone dead for 167 years, you are not only going beyond the evidence you have deigned to offer us, but you are going beyond the evidence that could exist.

I have no doubt that you and your little claque of "superior" intellects will all continue to congratulate each other for being so much smarter than those ignorant Mormons, but for a substantive discussion, you will need to do better.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

And we see the overweening Kevin Graham malice remains unabated.

Regards,

Pahoran

[George Miller]

And that's where you lose us, George, or is it Clinton. If Joseph had said it, that would be one thing; but in the absence of such a statement, when you presume to read the mind of someone dead for 167 years, you are not only going beyond the evidence you have deigned to offer us, but you are going beyond the evidence that could exist.

Pahoran, it sounds like what I have said has offended you. I meant no offense nor high minded lauding in my comments. As an academician my ideas are my commodity, and one doesn't just give them away, especially before they are ready to be published. Please be civil and assume the best about me as I assume the best about you (and Joseph Smith and the other Mormons for that matter) my friend. Assuming you are an active member, and given the close knit family that is the church, you and I may be sitting next to each other someday in the pews.

I am in no way claiming to have recordings of Joseph Smith's voice or to be reading his mind. Joseph Smith himself explains what he is doing in ink in the EAJS and the other related documents. Evidence is amply provided by the extant writing and dictation of Joseph Smith.

I have no doubt that you and your little claque of "superior" intellects will all continue to congratulate each other for being so much smarter than those ignorant Mormons, but for a substantive discussion, you will need to do better.

I most definitely do not think of Mormons as ignorant. When I look around my ward every Sunday, all I see are is a ward full of brilliant men and women, many of which are getting advanced degrees. FWIW I go by the name George Miller on the boards.

Edited June 28, 2011 by George Miller

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

or to be reading his mind. Joseph Smith himself explains what he is doing in ink in the EAJS and the other related documents. Evidence is amply provided by the extant writing and dictation of Joseph Smith.

I take it then you can back up this "That is exactly what Joseph Smith thought." with regard to "the same six character found in the Phelps letter sent the end of May of 1835, were also contained in the Hor BoB that arrived in Kirtland a month or so later".

Something seems to be a miss here.

Did JS write his ideas down some were regrading this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.