My Take On The Kep

[Joseph Antley]

The KEP aren't something that I've worked with much, and I'm not sure what the current consensus is regarding Will Schryver's theory presented last year that the KEP were intended as a cipher. I assume Schryver's paper has never been published since I haven't heard anything, and I've heard rumors about some drama but am apparently out of the loop.

But anyway, I attended Don's presentation yesterday and it got me thinking again about the KEP. I think that Schryver was essentially wrong when he hypothesized that the EA&G was intended as a cipher (that was his theory, right? I can't find the presentation online anymore, and it's been a year since I last saw it). I think that Nibley was on the money when he said that it was probably intended as a reconstruction of an ancient Egyptian language. The practice of creating artificial or constructed languages is still a frequent phenomenon. The most famous examples, I think, are Esperanto and Tolkein's Quenya.

My reason for thinking that the KEP falls into this category is that because as a kid I tried to create an artificial language, and my results looked a lot like what's on the KEP. And almost inevitably, unless you're a trained linguist, your first attempt at creating an artificial language will essentially turn out to be a cipher.

Concerning the problem of a cipher vs. a language, a friend (non-Mormon and completely oblivious to KEP issue) recently sent me this blurb about the movement to construct an international auxiliary language:

The first schemes [to create a language] were not really languages but mechanical translation schemes called polygraphies. The 17th century was a time rife with political and religious discord which reached its gory climax in the Thirty Years' War. In this atmosphere, cryptography flourished. Some thinkers, inattentive to the difference between a cipher and a language, devised schemes that - so they thought - could reduce the problem of translation to the mechanical application of a "key". This was bolstered by the discovery (by European scholars) of the Chinese writing, which was thought to represent ideas directly, rather than words in a particular language. The polygraphists thought they could tackle the universal language problem in a similar way.

In other words, Phelps et. al. would have thought that they were reconstructing an ancient language, not a modern code or cipher, but it would have inevitably turned out as such. This is bolstered if Don Bradley is correct that the KEP were used in a preliminary attempt to "decipher" the Kinderhook Plates.

Maybe this is redundant and/or irrelevant considering what others have already said on the topic, but I thought I'd get some thoughts.

[Nomad]

I think you have seriously misunderstood Schryver's argument. But his presentation is still online if you would like to refresh your memory of it. Here is the link: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

[Nathair/|\]

The KEP aren't something that I've worked with much, and I'm not sure what the current consensus is regarding Will Schryver's theory presented last year that the KEP were intended as a cipher. I assume Schryver's paper has never been published since I haven't heard anything, and I've heard rumors about some drama but am apparently out of the loop.

But anyway, I attended Don's presentation yesterday and it got me thinking again about the KEP. I think that Schryver was essentially wrong when he hypothesized that the EA&G was intended as a cipher (that was his theory, right? I can't find the presentation online anymore, and it's been a year since I last saw it). I think that Nibley was on the money when he said that it was probably intended as a reconstruction of an ancient Egyptian language. The practice of creating artificial or constructed languages is still a frequent phenomenon. The most famous examples, I think, are Esperanto and Tolkein's Quenya.

My reason for thinking that the KEP falls into this category is that because as a kid I tried to create an artificial language, and my results looked a lot like what's on the KEP. And almost inevitably, unless you're a trained linguist, your first attempt at creating an artificial language will essentially turn out to be a cipher.

Concerning the problem of a cipher vs. a language, a friend (non-Mormon and completely oblivious to KEP issue) recently sent me this blurb about the movement to construct an international auxiliary language:

In other words, Phelps et. al. would have thought that they were reconstructing an ancient language, not a modern code or cipher, but it would have inevitably turned out as such. This is bolstered if Don Bradley is correct that the KEP were used in a preliminary attempt to "decipher" the Kinderhook Plates.

Maybe this is redundant and/or irrelevant considering what others have already said on the topic, but I thought I'd get some thoughts.

If you are correct, is there any connection with the Deseret Alphabet? And has any work been done with either in esoteric applications the way the runes, ogham, Hebrew and Japanese are used?

Edited August 6, 2011 by Nathair

[Robert F. Smith]

You can find a transcript of Schryver's FAIR paper on Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B03QD7Z2zHZJMWY3NGZmZjQtZTAxNi00OTgzLWE0MzAtYzYyNGY3ZjNhZDA0&hl=en or here.

Also, Xander (Kevin Graham) has also just started a discussion of KEP on this Board. So you may want to take a look at that.

[Joseph Antley]

I think you have seriously misunderstood Schryver's argument. But his presentation is still online if you would like to refresh your memory of it. Here is the link: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Very possible. I will look over it again. Thanks.

[volgadon]

The KEP aren't something that I've worked with much, and I'm not sure what the current consensus is regarding Will Schryver's theory presented last year that the KEP were intended as a cipher. I assume Schryver's paper has never been published since I haven't heard anything, and I've heard rumors about some drama but am apparently out of the loop.

But anyway, I attended Don's presentation yesterday and it got me thinking again about the KEP. I think that Schryver was essentially wrong when he hypothesized that the EA&G was intended as a cipher (that was his theory, right? I can't find the presentation online anymore, and it's been a year since I last saw it). I think that Nibley was on the money when he said that it was probably intended as a reconstruction of an ancient Egyptian language. The practice of creating artificial or constructed languages is still a frequent phenomenon. The most famous examples, I think, are Esperanto and Tolkein's Quenya.

My reason for thinking that the KEP falls into this category is that because as a kid I tried to create an artificial language, and my results looked a lot like what's on the KEP. And almost inevitably, unless you're a trained linguist, your first attempt at creating an artificial language will essentially turn out to be a cipher.

Concerning the problem of a cipher vs. a language, a friend (non-Mormon and completely oblivious to KEP issue) recently sent me this blurb about the movement to construct an international auxiliary language:

In other words, Phelps et. al. would have thought that they were reconstructing an ancient language, not a modern code or cipher, but it would have inevitably turned out as such. This is bolstered if Don Bradley is correct that the KEP were used in a preliminary attempt to "decipher" the Kinderhook Plates.

Maybe this is redundant and/or irrelevant considering what others have already said on the topic, but I thought I'd get some thoughts.

I think you are on the right track! This would account for all the evidence, including what the KEP itself purports to be.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Joseph,

I mostly agree, but I think you give Nibley too much credit. He makes the entire GAEL endeavor basically an activity undertaken by the scribes independently of Smith, which clearly isn't accurate.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited August 7, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Pahoran]

Hi Joseph,

I mostly agree, but I think you give Nibley too much credit. He makes the entire GAEL endeavor basically an activity undertaken by the scribes independently of Smith, which clearly isn't accurate.

Peace,

-Chris

I agree that something isn't accurate.

For example, I have a clear memory of reading Nibley claiming that Joseph worked on it together with the others; it was a group project and everyone contributed their own ideas. So it appears that one of us is not accurately remembering what Nibley wrote.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Duplicate post

Edited August 8, 2011 by Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

For example, I have a clear memory of reading Nibley claiming that Joseph worked on it together with the others; it was a group project and everyone contributed their own ideas. So it appears that one of us is not accurately remembering what Nibley wrote.

Well, you're right, in part. He has Joseph participating in the (strictly speculative) project at the outset (at the start of the EA), but implies that Joseph's involvement was short-lived, and the better part of the KEP (especially the GAEL) represent the ambitious, independent efforts of Smith's jealous scribes to "do a better job than he could in turning out inspired writings."

Edited August 8, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Pahoran]

Well, you're right, in part. He has Joseph participating in the (strictly speculative) project at the outset (at the start of the EA), but implies that Joseph's involvement was short-lived, and the better part of the KEP (especially the GAEL) represent the ambitious, independent efforts of Smith's jealous scribes to "do a better job than he could in turning out inspired writings."

I note in passing that, in common with your fellow "critics," you insist in describing Phelps, Parrish et al by the question-begging label of "scribes," thus pre-empting any discussion of whether they might actually have any original thoughts in their own heads.

After all, "The scribes did it theory" sounds a lot more facially absurd than "The other guys had their own ideas theory," doesn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

They were Joseph's scribes, whether they were serving in that capacity for this project or not. (Which, frankly, they were.)

Edited August 8, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Pahoran]

They were Joseph's scribes, whether they were serving in that capacity for this project or not. (Which, frankly, they were.)

You forgot to add, "IMHO."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

I note in passing that, in common with your fellow "critics," you insist in describing Phelps, Parrish et al by the question-begging label of "scribes," thus pre-empting any discussion of whether they might actually have any original thoughts in their own heads.

After all, "The scribes did it theory" sounds a lot more facially absurd than "The other guys had their own ideas theory," doesn't it?

Oct. 29, 1835: "Br Parish commenced writing for me, at fifteen dollars p[e]r month. I paid him $16.00 in advance out of the committees store." -- Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, 1:76.

It doesn't appear that Warren Parrish was being paid to have original ideas.

[Pahoran]

Oct. 29, 1835: "Br Parish commenced writing for me, at fifteen dollars p[e]r month. I paid him $16.00 in advance out of the committees store." -- Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, 1:76.

It doesn't appear that Warren Parrish was being paid to have original ideas.

So that's enough to settle the question: any time thereafter that Parrish put pen to paper, it was for no other purpose than to write down Joseph's ideas.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Joseph Antley]

Since no one wanted to tackle this in the other thread, I'll repost it here:

Has anyone yet addressed that if Don is correct, doesn't it follow that Joseph Smith was likely the definite author of the character glosses in the GAEL? What are the apologetic implications of that?

[Pahoran]

Since no one wanted to tackle this in the other thread, I'll repost it here:

Has anyone yet addressed that if Don is correct, doesn't it follow that Joseph Smith was likely the definite author of the character glosses in the GAEL? What are the apologetic implications of that?

No actually, it doesn't follow.

As I pointed out to MM on one of the other threads: when one of my teenage sons has a question about the meaning of a word, I encourage them to look it up in a dictionary. That doesn't mean that they authored that dictionary.

The only safe conclusion from his use of the GAEL was that he thought it might be useful.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Joseph Antley]

No actually, it doesn't follow.

I know we don't want it to follow, but doesn't it objectively look like the most likely scenario? Joseph was the Translator, after all. Why would he have trusted character glosses strewn together by his assistants when he was the only one who had translated the language?

As I pointed out to MM on one of the other threads: when one of my teenage sons has a question about the meaning of a word, I encourage them to look it up in a dictionary. That doesn't mean that they authored that dictionary.

But that begs the question of why would Joseph have trusted a "dictionary" that Phelps or someone else had authored on a language that only Joseph had had experience in translating?

[Xander]

I know we don't want it to follow, but doesn't it objectively look like the most likely scenario? Joseph was the Translator, after all. Why would he have trusted character glosses strewn together by his assistants when he was the only one who had translated the language?

But that begs the question of why would Joseph have trusted a "dictionary" that Phelps or someone else had authored on a language that only Joseph had had experience in translating?

Bingo.

And there is absolutely no reason to believe the GAEL was a creation of Joseph Smith's scribes. This is an old apologetic chestnut started by Nibley but has no evidence to support it. Joseph Smith is the one who initiated this project, and the reason everyone else involved was a hired scribe, pretty much tells us their purpose and function.

[David T]

I find it fascinating that several different fascinating papers - those already presented and forthcoming - all have the KEP as an essential part of new emerging interpertations of Joseph's development and intentions. Is there an ETA on the publication of the KEP? Is it planned for the Studies In The Book of Abraham series from MI, to follow Hauglid's Text of the BoA volume?

I think we're seeing the beginning of a massive KEP explosion. Frankly, I think it's exciting. The KEP really appear to be the Missing Link in many important aspects.

[Joseph Antley]

I find it fascinating that several different fascinating papers - those already presented and forthcoming - all have the KEP as an essential part of new emerging interpertations of Joseph's development and intentions. Is there an ETA on the publication of the KEP? Is it planned for the Studies In The Book of Abraham series from MI, to follow Hauglid's Text of the BoA volume?

I was told several months ago that the KEP would be published in the series following Hauglid's volume. I have no idea whether that's still the plan or not. Hopefully someone else here might have more info.

[DonBradley]

I think you have seriously misunderstood Schryver's argument. But his presentation is still online if you would like to refresh your memory of it. Here is the link: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Hi Nomad,

I have no doubt, since I've seen you repeat this frequently, that you understand how Will's paper is to be understood in ways that clash with how it is most often taken. But although I've seen you state that it has been misinterpreted, I don't recall seeing where you've explained how it should be interpreted. (And here the problem actually is probably just my memory. It seems like you've made at least some specific statements in this regard, but I have no idea how much you've explained and on which threads.)

Could you please point me to the best posts or threads in which you, Will, or others have clarified his meaning? I'd like to be sure to cite his views correctly.

Don

[DonBradley]

Joseph,

It was nice meeting you at FAIR.

Are you saying above that they were trying to create a universal language but ended up creating only a cipher for English?

Don

[wenglund]

I know we don't want it to follow, but doesn't it objectively look like the most likely scenario? Joseph was the Translator, after all. Why would he have trusted character glosses strewn together by his assistants when he was the only one who had translated the language?

Let's ask this another way to see if it answers your question. Why would the uneducated Joseph Smith rely academically on an academic instrament created by someone far more educated in ancient languages?

Be aware, too, that from the faithful LDS perspective, Joseph's translations were divinely assisted. At the time, he lacked the capacity to translate on his own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph,

It was nice meeting you at FAIR.

Are you saying above that they were trying to create a universal language but ended up creating only a cipher for English?

Don

Hi Don, it was nice to meet you as well. No, that's not what I mean -- I wasn't very clear in my original post. My take is that the "Egyptian" that appears on the KEP resembles other modern constructed languages (whether universal or not) where preliminary attempts at creating them end up turning into a cipher.

There are groups of people whose hobby is to construct artificial languages, whether for secret communication, use in novels (like Tolkein's Elvish), or just for fun as a linguistic challenge. Some of these are pretty sophisticated; but first-attempts virtually always look very similar, and the "Egyptian" language of the KEP strongly resembles these.

In other words, any first-attempt at creating (or perhaps in the minds of Joseph et al., reconstructing) a language almost always results in an English cipher. Therefore there is nothing consequential in that the "Egyptian" of the KEP appears as a cipher. It's actually exactly what you would expect from an individual or a group attempting to create a language. It does not mean that the "Egyptian" language was meant for encoding or "translating" anything into it.