Schryver, Masonry, And Mha

[wenglund]

So does this mean that you *are* willing, or are you just posturing "as usual"?

Shall the games begin?

It means that I am quite willing. Obviously.

I am glad I could spell this out for you "as usual."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

You think it means you get to ask 101 questions while everyone else must answer you. These exchanges (a better word) usually went on forever mainly because you never know when to quit. In the end, it can be safely said that you didn't raise one significant point....

Tis thread is just another classic example of Wade not getting it while pretending to have everyone feeding out of his palms because we're just not smart enough to avoid your clever traps. Isn't that about right? You'll drive this thread to 80 pages before you let anyone else have the last word, and in the end, you will have contributed not a single thing except to cheerlead for Will.

My thoughts exactly.

When is the last time you've contributed ANYTHING substantial to Mormon Studies, Wade? Providing substnace isn't your forte, is it, Wade? Rather, you specialize in clouding the waters, retrojection, posturing, and exhausting your opponent. Really nothing that would help move a "debate" forward.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Mike Reed

[wenglund]

[edit premature post]

Edited June 30, 2011 by wenglund

[Mike Reed]

Wade responds: ...

I stand corrected.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Mike Reed

[wenglund]

When is the last time you've contributed ANYTHING substantial to Mormon Studies, Wade? Substantial contributions isn't your forte, is it, Wade? Rather, your specializations are limited to clouding the waters, retrojection, posturing, and exhausting your opponent. Really nothing that would help move a "debate" forward.

I accept that is how certain irony-challenged critics view me. LOL

At the risk of being accused of posturing, if you are looking for substantial contributions, I doubt you will find but a handful of people, if that, who have generated more online discussion of things LDS than me. In fact, I am so important to many of the LDS critics that they will often derail threads by making them about me--as you just did.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Skylla]

My thoughts exactly.

When is the last time you've contributed ANYTHING substantial to Mormon Studies, Wade? Providing substnace isn't your forte, is it, Wade? Rather, you specialize in clouding the waters, retrojection, posturing, and exhausting your opponent. Really nothing that would help move a "debate" forward.

If this thread doesn't get back on topic, people will be banned from it. Stop the personal attacks.

Skylla

[Minos]

You're one of the few people I know who can have his own logic thrown in his face like a mud pie, and then walk away wiping your eyes while telling everyone you were the one making the point about a double-standard. Case in point, and pay close attention: I brought up Will's failure to produce his evidence not because it upset me, but because his number one fan is here complaining about Clinton's refusal to do so. The only difference is that Clinton has professional obligations to keep certain things confidential, whereas William does not. This flies right over your head of course. As I said, I never expected Will to present his evidence because I don't believe he has any. I never once got upset because he wasn't sharing his "reasearch" with us.

But Will was never involved in it. As I said, the only person who ever made an attempt at debate was you, and this really wasn't much of a debate mainly because, well, you don't understand how debates are suppose to work. You think it means you get to ask 101 questions while everyone else must answer you. These exchanges (a better word) usually went on forever mainly because you never know when to quit. In the end, it can be safely said that you didn't raise one significant point, and revealed your unfamiliarity with the subject matter, the relevant documents, and yes, the reality of what Will was arguing. Remember, you're the same guy who told me the facsimiles had nothing to do with the KEP. You might as well tell me the moon is made of cheese, and then propose to speak informatively on astronomy.

Tis thread is just another classic example of Wade not getting it while pretending to have everyone feeding out of his palms because we're just not smart enough to avoid your clever traps. Isn't that about right? You'll drive this thread to 80 pages before you let anyone else have the last word, and in the end, you will have contributed not a single thing except to cheerlead for Will.

You tried to get me to debate rationally? That's a laugher. All you have done since I've walked in the door is try to poison the well, psychoanalyze everything I say, while refusing to answer simple questions. There is really no point in even trying to have a productive conversation with someone who automatically assumes you have a mischievous agenda behind every breath.

What it looks like is that Wade is the only one willing to subject himself to endless empty insults. There will be posters on this board who do not agree with you and you need to accept that and respond with civility or move on to another topic if you can't. Mods are trying our best to make this work but we can't keep up with the reports generated by downright meanness.

[Xander]

What it looks like is that Wade is the only one willing to subject himself to endless empty insults. There will be posters on this board who do not agree with you and you need to accept that and respond with civility or move on to another topic if you can't. Mods are trying our best to make this work but we can't keep up with the reports generated by downright meanness.

So you're responding to reports instead of the actual insults? I'm still learning how it works here.

This means you're letting the mob dictate how and when rules are enforced. They were reporting me from day one, before I ever said anything remotely offensive to anyone.By contrast, I haven't reported anyone, and don't intend to, despite the fact that someone has broken a rule by attacking or psychoanalyzing me in virtually every thread I've been in.

The only thing that I would ask is that you carefully read every post I am responding to when these reports are sent. Because I don't start fights.

[George Miller]

Ok lets take a careful look at exactly what I said.

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.

You read my statement and made the following statement.

Logically, in order for the unnamed Masonic book to show me what Joseph thought, particularly about the six characters I specifically asked about and their supposedly being found in both the Phelps letter and the Hor BoB, it would either need to have been written by Joseph and contained his thoughts on the matter, or be written about Joseph and what Joseph thought on the matter, and if the later, it would need to have been written after Joseph supposedly thought what you claim the Masonic book said he did. Hence, points 1-4 above, and contra your asserting that my "version of what the sources should look like in NO WAY follows logically from [yor] statement." (Emphasis Added)

I very clearly stated what Joseph Smith thought, based on the evidence I have gathered from Joseph Smith's own writings and dictations. I then continued and said that to understand why Joseph Smith thought this, you were going to have to actually do some Masonic research. I then followed this up to say "with that information in hand one can fairly easily figure out exactly" first "what Joseph Smith was doing" and second "why the same glyphs show up in both documents." Nowhere in this statement is it explicitly or implicitly implied that the Masonic documents would dictate what Joseph smith was doing or his thoughts, only why, i.e the logic behind Joseph Smith's thoughts and actions. You are mangling what I said beyond recognition. My statement is immanently logical, despite your accusations to the contrary. (BTW is this something about which I should complain to the moderators?)

I have to say this interchange with you and a few others here has been quite amusing. I imagine that Mike Reed and the others who have paid their admission to gain access to my material are having a grand guffaw since they likely realize I am being surprisingly frank and forthright about what I have found. [Note: I am being VERY forthright about the conclusions, just not my sources.] You are talking to a Mason, and after all the "secret of Masonry is to keep a secret."

Edited June 30, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

I very clearly stated what Joseph Smith thought, based on the evidence I have gathered from Joseph Smith's own writings and dictations. I then continued and said that to understand why Joseph Smith thought this, you were going to have to actually do some Masonic research. I then followed this up to say "with that information in hand one can fairly easily figure out exactly" first "what Joseph Smith was doing" and second "why the same glyphs show up in both documents." Nowhere in this statement is it explicitly or implicitly implied that the Masonic documents would dictate what Joseph smith was doing or his thoughts, only why, i.e the logic behind Joseph Smith's thoughts and actions. You are mangling what I said beyond recognition. My statement is immanently logical, despite your accusations to the contrary.

I see better now what you are saying. It just doesn't directly answer the specific question that I asked. My mistake was in assuming that it did. Your answer may be logical in terms of the information you wished to convey. It just wasn't logical as a direct answer to my specific question. Now that this has been straightened out, I hope we can move on.

Would it be a violation of your agreement with MHA or future prospects for you to point out where in the Hor BoB one may see the six "glyphs" contained also in the Phelps letter? If it is not a voilation, would you do so here?

(BTW is this something about which I should complain to the moderators?)

I am not sure why you are asking me? This is a personal choice you get to make as an adult participant here. For my part, I have chosen not to ever bother the mods with such reports. Certainly, I wouldn't consider reporting someone else for doing the very things I just did to them myself. But, you may think differently. To each their own.

I have to say this interchange with you and a few others here has been quite amusing. I imagine that Mike Reed and the others who have paid their admission to gain access to my material are having a grand guffaw since they likely realize I am being surprisingly frank and forthright about what I have found. [Note: I am being VERY forthright about the conclusions, just not my sources.] You are talking to a Mason, and after all the "secret of Masonry is to keep a secret."

I will have to take your word for it. Smug amusement aside, I can only speak to and be held accountable for what I have seen from you, and not what I haven't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 30, 2011 by wenglund

[George Miller]

I see better now what you are saying. It just doesn't directly answer the specific question that I asked. My mistake was in assuming that it did. Your answer may be logical in terms of the information you wished to convey. It just wasn't logical as a direct answer to my specific question. Now that this has been straightened out, I hope we can move on.

Wait a second. Before we move on lets review the facts. You asked the following.

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?

I then responded to you the following.

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.

You then responded with the following.

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?

I then responded with the following message.

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.

My answer underlined above is a completely direct and logical answer to your question. Joseph Smith did indeed think that the same six Adamic characters contained in Joseph Smith's revision of his "Sample of Pure Language" revelation, which W. W. Phelps copied into a letter to his wife in May of 1835, were contained on what he very clearly believed was the Book of Abraham which arrived in Kirtland in July of 1835. That is why Joseph Smith wrote, and instructed his scribes to write, these characters into the Egyptian Alphabet. After this he dictated the pronunciations and explanations for these hieroglyphs which both he and his scribes copied into the EAJS, EAOC and EAWP.

Would it be a violation of your agreement with MHA or future prospects for you to point out where in the Hor BoB one may see the six "glyphs" contained also in the Phelps letter? If it is not a voilation, would you do so here?

No. I will not spoil the surprise I plan to reveal at next years MHA to you and the others viewers on MDDB a year in advance of my presentation. Man that was a very funny joke you asking a question like that.

I will make you a deal, if you come to next years MHA I will definitely present my findings here on MDDB immediately after that conference. I'll even buy you lunch after the session.

Edited June 30, 2011 by George Miller

[Calm]

So you're responding to reports instead of the actual insults? I'm still learning how it works here.

The report button sends the mods a message that includes a link to a particular post which the mods then read from what I've seen of their comments in the posts, but they may not read more if you don't ask them to. I have been surprised a few times at their calls because I was not specific enough about everyone I thought involved.

You don't even have to quote the alleged violation in the post when you report it, I generally state something along the lines of "political" or "personal" and leave it at that if it's just one person not wanting to focus on what I see as breaking the board's guidelines in order to allow the mods to come to the post 'fresh'.

I would assume that there are many times that mods don't have the time to review the history of the post and thus will only read the one post unless the reporter suggests otherwise. If I feel that the history of the post is important---especially if I think there are multiple posters violating board rules---I will say something along the lines of "personal starting about ten posts prior to this one" to point out that I am reporting more than one poster or mention the specific names if there are more than just those involved in the alleged violation posting.

Edited June 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

No. I will not spoil the surprise I plan to reveal at next years MHA to you and the others viewers on MDDB a year in advance of my presentation. Man that was a very funny joke you asking a question like that.

Fine. I guess that puts an end to this fruitless line of discussion. I will see if anyone else has points to make on this topic that they can actually discuss.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 30, 2011 by wenglund

[Minos]

So you're responding to reports instead of the actual insults? I'm still learning how it works here.

Doesn't matter how it works. It matters how posters talk to each other.

This means you're letting the mob dictate how and when rules are enforced. They were reporting me from day one, before I ever said anything remotely offensive to anyone.By contrast, I haven't reported anyone, and don't intend to, despite the fact that someone has broken a rule by attacking or psychoanalyzing me in virtually every thread I've been in.

You are assuming only participants make reports. Using inflammatory words like "mob" and "dictate" is confrontive and if you can't see that you will have problems on this board.

The only thing that I would ask is that you carefully read every post I am responding to when these reports are sent. Because I don't start fights.

See above.

[Mike Reed]

Fine. I guess that puts an end to this fruitless line of discussion.

Fruitless? That's what happens when you try to pick before time of harvest.

While waiting for George's published scholarship... maybe you should produce some of your own.

Another unnecessary slam.

[wenglund]

While waiting for George's published scholarship... maybe you should produce some of your own.

My interest isn't so much with scholarship but with practical matters of daily living and faith. I left the ivory towers of academia some time ago to labor in the soil of everyday human existence. I may not have the honors of having my little-known pontifications collecting dust on a library shelf, but there is much joy that comes from oft lending a hand to neighbors and chance enlarging the minds of individuals I personally engage in frequent discussions on boards such as this. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 1, 2011 by wenglund

[Nomad]

Why do the "specimen of pure language" and the Egyptian Alphabet give different explanations for the same characters?

I am also curious to find out where those characters are found on the papyri.

[George Miller]

Why do the "specimen of pure language" and the Egyptian Alphabet give different explanations for the same characters?

Here is a very brief response. What is going on with the final character is very complex and complicates the discussion, so I am going to set it aside for the moment, just as I did in my MHA talk. With regards to the first five Adamic/Egyptian hieroglyphs, the short answer is that the explanations in the Specimen and EA are consistent with each other. They describe sequentially the residents of each of the three degrees of the Celestial kingdom followed by the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms. The content, particularly the Masonic content, of the explanations is one of multiple factors which help us identify Joseph Smith as the originator of the ideas and eliminates Phelps as a candidate. The Masonic content of these descriptions is diametrically opposed to what an anti-Mason would articulate.

I am also curious to find out where those characters are found on the papyri.

I'll be happy to buy you lunch next year as well.

Edited July 1, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

With regards to the first five Adamic/Egyptian hieroglyphs, the short answer is that the explanations in the Specimen and EA are consistent with each other.

I may not have access to your MHA presentation, George, but I do have access to the Phelps letter (Specimen), the various EAs, and the GAEL. From what I can tell, and contrary to what you suggest, there is very little consistency between the Specimen and the EA's. Let's look at the sounds/names and explanations for each character.

Char. #1

Specimen: Ah/Ahman - God

EA WWP: Alkabeth - Angels in an unattainable immortal state

Char. #2:

Specimen: Auz/Son Ahmen - Son of God

EA WWP: Alchebeth - Ministers of God, high priests, kings

Char. #3:

Specimen: Ainlz/Sons Ahmen - Sons of God ordained

EA WWP: Alchibeth - Ministers of God, [less] than high priests

Char. #4

Specimen: Aine/Anglo - Angels

EA WWP: Alkobeth - Ministers not ordained of God, sinful

Char. #5

Specimen: Ainzes/Sons Ahmeaos - Children of men

EA WWP: Alkubeth - Ministers who are less sinful for want of power

Char. #6:

Specimen: Oh/Ohah - The Earth

EA WWP: Baeth - The name of all mankind--man or men

I don't know if Mike Reed will consider this as "scholarship," but there it is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Since several of our friends here believe that Joseph Smith is entirely the author of both the "Pure Language Sample" written by Johnson, and the "Specimen of some of the 'Pure Language'" written by Phelps, it might be wise to compare and contrast the two documents so as to see what conclusions may or may not be drawn therefrom.

First, the "Sample" is in a Q/A format, whereas the "Specimen" is in a table format.

Second, the "Specimen" contains "glyphs", and the "Somple" does not.

Third, the "Specimen" contains what may be presumed to be sounds, and the "Sample" does not.

Fourth, the "Sample" provides names and explanations for four items, whereas the "Specimen" provides the same for six items. The names and explanation for the four items are fairly similar between the two documents, except: 1) The "Sample" spells the first name "Awman," and the "Specimen" spells it "Ahman" (this spelling difference is consistent for some of the other items); 2) The name for the fourth item in the "Sample" is "Angls-men", whereas in the "Specimen" it is "Anglo;" 3) The explanation for the third item in the "SAmple" is "Man," and for the "Specimen" it is "Sons of God"; and the explanation in the fourth item in the "Sample" is "Ministering servants," and in the "Specimen" it is "Angels."

Fifth, the "Sample" provides meanings for the four items, and the "Specimen" does not.

This suggests to me that while the documents may have been produced at different times (with the "Sample" predating the "Specimen"), at least the names and explanations for four out of the six items may have a common source--likely Joseph Smith.

However, the explanations for the last two items, and the "glyphs" and sounds for all six items, may have a different provenance (likely Phelps, since he is the only one that can be empirically tied to these things), though Joseph Smith cant necessarily be ruled out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 4, 2011 by wenglund

[George Miller]

With regards to the first five Adamic/Egyptian hieroglyphs, the short answer is that the explanations in the Specimen and EA are consistent with each other. They describe sequentially the residents of each of the three degrees of the Celestial kingdom followed by the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms. The content, particularly the Masonic content, of the explanations is one of multiple factors which help us identify Joseph Smith as the originator of the ideas and eliminates Phelps as a candidate. The Masonic content of these descriptions is diametrically opposed to what an anti-Mason would articulate.

I may not have access to your MHA presentation, George, but I do have access to the Phelps letter (Specimen), the various EAs, and the GAEL. From what I can tell, and contrary to what you suggest, there is very little consistency between the Specimen and the EA's. Let's look at the sounds/names and explanations for each character.

Thanks for copying this up to the page Wade. If you read my explanation again and analyze the text, I think you will find that what I have said is accurate. The first glyph is a bit difficult, but the second and third glyph are pretty straightforward. The fourth hieroglyph is the easiest to understand. It would probably help if you read Don Bradley excellent paper The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism. After that go ahead and read D&C 76 again and note Joseph Smith's use of the word ministers and angels and his descriptions of the different kingdoms. The fifth hieroglyph is hard to figure out because their is a punctuation mistake, but FWIW it also has a Masonic allusion.

Edited July 4, 2011 by George Miller

[wenglund]

Thanks for copying this up to the page Wade. If you read my explanation again and analyze the text, I think you will find that what I have said is accurate. The first glyph is a bit difficult, but the second and third glyph are pretty straightforward. The fourth hieroglyph is the easiest to understand. It would probably help if you read Don Bradley excellent paper The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism. After that go ahead and read D&C 76 again and note Joseph Smith's use of the word ministers and angels and his descriptions of the different kingdoms. The fifth hieroglyph is hard to figure out because their is a punctuation mistake, but FWIW it also has a Masonic allusion.

Hi George,

I read the material you suggested and not only enjoyed it, but I really tried hard to see what you are here suggesting because it may have some interesting implications regarding the EA being dependent upon pre-existing revelations received by Joseph (a key point in Will's presentation).

However, aside from the countervailing points I made earlier, there are several other reasons why I can't quite buy what you are saying regarding consistency between the Phelps "Specimen" and the EA's.

First, the term "angel" in D&C 76 refers to dis-embodied spirits awaiting the judgement (vs 21), un-embodied spirits (Satan in particular) who will be cast into Outer Darkness (vs 25, 33, 44), and Celestial beings (vs 67, 88). It does not refer to "angels" as Terrestrial beings, as you imply (see the explanation for the 4th character in the Phelps "Specimen," which you attribute to the Terrestrial Kingdom).

Second, the term "children of man," which you attribute to the Tellestial kingdom (see explanation for character #5, Phelps "Specimenn") is not mentioned in D&C 76.

Third, if you read the "meanings" in the Johnson "SAmple," from which the explanations for Phelps' "Specimen" were likely derived, you will see that the explanation for the "Sample" and "Specimen" aren't about kingdoms of the resurrection, but rather kingdoms of heaven and earth (hence the tie-in with the 6th character) and the residence thereof. Here are the meanings per character:

Char. 1: being which made all things in all its parts

Char. 2: the greatest of all the parts of Awmen which is the Godhead the first born.

Char. 3: the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awmen Sons the Son Awmen

Char. 4: Ministerring servants Sanctified who are sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons Awmen the greatest part of Awmen Son. Sons Awmen Son Awmen Awmen.

Fourth, the 1st of the 6 characters in the EA has this explanation: "Angels in an unattainable state, men after they are raise [raised from] dead." According to D&C 76, his applies to resurrected beings in Terrestrial and Tellestial as well as the Celestial kingdom, and not just the latter, as you implied.

Fifth, the 4th of the 6 character in the EA has this explanation: "Ministers not ordained of God, sinful." According to D&C 76, his applies to both the Terrestrial and Tellestial kingdoms, and not just the Terrestrial, as you implied. Whereas the 5th character in the EA reads: "Ministers who are less sinfull for want of power." Here we have ministers supposedly representing the Tellestial kingdom who are "less sinful" than those supposedly representing the Terrestrial kingdom. This is backwards from how D&C 76 represents things.

As much as I would like to see the explanations shoe-horned into representing the kindoms of the resurrection as you say, it doesn't quite fit, and thus my contention about inconsistency between the Phelps "Specimen" and the EA's stands. Sorry.

I wonder if this is scholarly enough for Mike Reed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

To further underscore my reticence to embrace George's proposition (that 5 of the 6 characters pertain to the kingdoms of the resurrection), it is important to realize that the explanations in the EA's for the 5 characters entail pronouns that mean different things depending upon the context in which they may be written. This isn't so clear when looking at Phelps' early draft of the EA, but it becomes more evident with Cowdery's later draft.

For example, the third of the six characters (Alchibeth) in EA WWP reads "Ministers of God, [less] than high priests." In EA OC it reads: "Ministers of God, less, or under or the high priest."

So, we can tell from EA OC that depending upon the context, the character "Alchibeth" can mean "minister of God" (this can apply to pre-mortal spirits, mortal men, dis-embodied spirits, and resurrected beings), or it can refer to someone or something that is "less" (which can apply to most any ordinal situation), or someone or something that is "under" (again this can apply to most any ordinal rankings or relational positioning), or it may mean "high priest" (which may refer to pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal office holders).

Then, if you look at the 5 characters and explanations within the whole context of Part 2 of the EA's, it is clear that the pronouns cover the gamete of existence (pre-mortality, mortality, post-mortality, spirit realm/heaven and physical realm/earth, sky and earth), and not just the resurrection.

Also, in conjunction with what is stated above, if one looks closely at the sounds for the 5 EA characters in question, one may see that they are variations of the sound "Albeth," which is the sound of the character that precedes the 5 characters. In EA OC "Albeth" is explained as: "Angels or disembodied spirits, or saints." This suggests to me that when the cha or che or chi or cho or chu are added to the compound word "Albeth," to form each of the 5 sounds for the five EA characters, the meanings of those five sounds/characters may be understood as an expansion of the "A;beth" character.

For example, the character with the sound of "Alchibeth" may refer to angels who are ministers of God or disembodied spirits who are ministers of God, or saints who are ministers of God. It may also mean lesser angels, or lesser disembodied spirits, or lesser saints. Or, it may refer to angels who are high priests, or disembodied spirits who are high priests, or saints who are high priests.

In short, while the 5 EA characters may be viewed as having some loose relationship with the kingdoms of the resurrection, it is clear that their meaning or explanations were intended to be much more broad-based, and apply to various aspects of all the phases of existence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

In short, while the 5 EA characters may be viewed as having some loose relationship with the kingdoms of the resurrection, it is clear that their meaning or explanations were intended to be much more broad-based, and apply to various aspects of all the phases of existence.

Of course you are correct my friend that the meanings are more expansive than just the resurrected state, which is of course is reflected in my paper for submission. I have to say I have enjoyed your commentary, and I think you will greatly enjoy the published paper. It seems like you are beginning to grasp the intricacies of Joseph Smith's beautiful conception of the divine hierarchy. Perhaps instead of treating our discussions as a chance to rail against anything I have to say, a more moderated approach might be more enlightening. While I would love to continue our chat here, I am afraid I will have to bow out at this point, at least for the time being. I am afraid that my time is limited, I am after all preparing a paper for submission to the journal Science right now, and I have previously promised to spend my sparse online time fulfilling another online commitment this week and probably next week. Best wishes on you further study of my hints of what is to come.

Edited July 5, 2011 by George Miller